Is the US and its NATO "allies" planning to attack Russia and start World War III?

Tue, 2016-10-25 16:59

6079_Smith_W

Quote:

Kissinger is the leader in the background of american politics for the last 30 years.

Um. Okay. If Stanley Kubrick says so I guess is must be true.

Quote:

Russia must accept that to try to force Ukraine into a satellite status, and thereby move Russia’s borders again, would doom Moscow to repeat its history of self-fulfilling cycles of reciprocal pressures with Europe and the United States.

The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country.

For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.

1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.

2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.

3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people.

4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-uk...

(edit)

Though if you watch the footage from the Al Smith dinner (and I highly recommend it) there was Strangelove, in the background eating supper:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnRVAzFa6Og

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA2m4jrZJeY

Tue, 2016-10-25 19:59

#553

Cody87

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Given the title, I think I'll just ignore the whole thing.

Not because it "offends" me. But because if you want me to sit through an ad, there better be a TV show wrapped around it.

Given your superb ability to pick apart an argument, I was rather hoping you would be able to rebut the piece. However, I understand. It can be very uncomfortable to entertain contrary viewpoints, especially when they are persuasive. Best not to watch and avoid any potential feelings of self-doubt.

Well, this comment finally convinced me to waste 5 minutes of my life and watch the video. If Trump were not a pathological liar, and if Rev Pesky were not right about the non-partisan nature of American foreign policy, it might be slightly persuasive. In reality, Trump's words are worthless, whatever they may be, and no president really changes foreign policy very much.

The first part, about how warlike HRC has proven herself to be is, in my opinion, quite true, but not in any sense news. I suspect that almost all babblers have known about this aspect of her record for a long time. If they, like me, have come to the reluctant conclusion that Clinton is still a better choice than Trump, it is certainly not because they imagine her to be anything but a neo-con warmonger. The real mistake is to imagine that Trump, or any Republican (especially Mike Pence), would be better than Clinton, in this or any other way.

Fair points. I'd like to point out that the context of the video was in response to Clinton's foreign policy, which I why I commented in my original post to skip the second half.

That said, you may very well be right that Trump will be just as aggressive in foreign policy. He could also be more or less aggressive, we really don't know because we have no history to go by and we can't trust what he says one way or the other.

Sun, 2016-10-30 13:46

#554

bekayne

So, according to Paul Craig Roberts, this is how the US will start World War III:

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/10/29/the-director-of-the-fbi-reope...

I beleve that Hillary in the Oval Office would convince the Russians and the Chinese that their national survival requires a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the crazed, insane government of the United States

Sun, 2016-10-30 13:52

#555

ikosmos

‘Action vs. reaction,’ Russia responding to threats from the West, says Dr. Marcus Papadopoulos

Too bad Canada doesn't have some decent "sober second thought" in that shithole of a Parliament in Ottawa.

Quote:

“Good Evening Ladies and Gentlemen and can I first of all say thank you to Uniting for Peace for having organised and for having invited me to speak at this event – an event whose subject matter cannot be emphasised enough as it is of paramount importance to every single person in this world today. Indeed, the deterioration in relations between the United States and Russia is, in my estimation, the most dangerous reality facing the world at this moment in time. However, that deterioration is not a surprise – at least not a surprise for any objective and enlightened individual with empathy.

Now, the hook of my talk is “action, reaction”. Action on behalf of the West, reaction on behalf of Russia. When a country is sidelined, has its views and concerns discarded, has its national security threatened, and observes its allies in the world being undermined and/or militarily attacked, sooner or later that country is going to respond.

Short and to the point. clap clap.

Sun, 2016-10-30 14:40

#556

Cody87

bekayne wrote:

So, according to Paul Craig Roberts, this is how the US will start World War III:

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/10/29/the-director-of-the-fbi-reope...

I beleve that Hillary in the Oval Office would convince the Russians and the Chinese that their national survival requires a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the crazed, insane government of the United States

Many Hillary supporters believe Trump in the Oval Office would convince the Russians and Chinese that their national survival requires a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the crazed, insane government of the United States.

Sun, 2016-10-30 14:52

#557

6079_Smith_W

Cody87 wrote:

Many Hillary supporters believe Trump in the Oval Office would convince the Russians and Chinese that their national survival requires a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the crazed, insane government of the United States.

OFFS.

Show me one example of anyone saying that a Trump win would convince the Russians and Chinese to attack the U.S.

Sun, 2016-10-30 15:23

#558

ikosmos

An interesting different note from Escobar.

Why Hillary won't unleash WWIII

But, as Escobar notes, she may not [politically] survive EmailGate.

Sun, 2016-10-30 16:35

#559

NDPP

Why is Canada Sending Soldiers To Latvia?

https://youtu.be/5y9UfCTVGA0

Sun, 2016-10-30 17:05

#560

Mr. Magoo

[whispering]Keep this on the down low, but when those 450 troops get there, we and Latvia are going to invade Russia as part of "Operation NeverGonnaHappen"[/whispering]

Sun, 2016-10-30 17:31

#561

NDPP

ikosmos wrote:

An interesting different note from Escobar.

Why Hillary won't unleash WWIII

But, as Escobar notes, she may not [politically] survive EmailGate.

An expanded version of this article here:

http://sptnkne.ws/c6A6

Sun, 2016-10-30 18:22

#562

Mr. Magoo

I actually read this -- OK, skimmed this -- because I wondered whether RT.com saying that Clinton isn't going to bring nuclear winter upon the Earth meant that we live in End Times or something.

Anyway, the tl;dr for this is "Clinton won't start WWIII because Putin has outsmarted her at every turn, and she lacks both the will and the ability anyway.

So, sleep tight tonight, everyone. Seems the world will still be there when you wake up.

Sat, 2016-12-03 16:09

#563

bekayne

Is Donald Trump going to attack China (accidentally or not) and start World War III?

Sat, 2016-12-03 17:56

#564

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Is Donald Trump going to attack China (accidentally or not) and start World War III?

"Sorry! Those cruise missiles were meant for Chyna! We have the best missiles! Better than the Chynese!!!"

[IMG]http://i67.tinypic.com/3fwn8.jpg[/IMG]

Sat, 2016-12-03 19:09

#565

bekayne

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Is Donald Trump going to attack China (accidentally or not) and start World War III?

"Sorry! Those cruise missiles were meant for Chyna! We have the best missiles! Better than the Chynese!!!"

[IMG]http://i67.tinypic.com/3fwn8.jpg[/IMG]

Shows how much he knows. She's dead.

Sat, 2016-12-03 20:09

#566

6079_Smith_W

On a more serious note:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/us/politics/donald-trump-taiwan-china....

Quote:

Now, though, in a single protocol-shattering phone call with the president of Taiwan, President-elect Donald J. Trump has thrust it back on the table. Not since President Richard M. Nixon met with Mao Zedong in 1972 — when the two issued the Shanghai Communiqué clarifying the status of Taiwan — has an American leader so shaken up the diplomatic status quo on the issue.

...

Among hard-line Republicans, there has always been a push to confront China by reaching out to Taiwan. In a statement on Friday, Senator Tom Cotton, the Arkansas Republican who was briefly believed to be a candidate for Mr. Trump’s defense secretary, praised him for taking the call, saying it “reaffirms our commitment to the only democracy on Chinese soil.”

That's two this week after his phone call to Pakistan.

Good thing that war monger Hillary isn't running the show.

Sat, 2016-12-03 20:58

#567

swallow

Why is it is crazy and irresponsible to answer the phone when the elected leader of Taiwan calls?

Honestly, Tsai Ing-wen leads a democratic, progressive government. There is no reason she should be treated as a pariah.

Sat, 2016-12-03 22:13

#568

ikosmos

John Pilger is in the process of releasing his latest film - The Coming War on China - and the film notes as follows ...

Quote:
The Coming War on China is John Pilger's 60th film for ITV. Pilger reveals what the news doesn't - that the world's greatest military power, the United States, and the world's second economic power, China, both nuclear-armed, are on the road to war. Pilger's film is a warning and an inspiring story of resistance.

See http://thecomingwarmovie.com/

Sun, 2016-12-04 00:50

#569

6079_Smith_W

x

Sun, 2016-12-04 00:56

#570

bekayne

swallow wrote:

Why is it is crazy and irresponsible to answer the phone when the elected leader of Taiwan calls?

It was Trump's team that called. Then lied about it.

Sun, 2016-12-04 01:05

#571

6079_Smith_W

swallow wrote:

Why is it is crazy and irresponsible to answer the phone when the elected leader of Taiwan calls?

Honestly, Tsai Ing-wen leads a democratic, progressive government. There is no reason she should be treated as a pariah.

You know, in and of itself, nothing. Even for the president of the United States.

But as the latest in a string of such international blunders, some less serious, like him not being aware that the British prime minister wouldn't just drop in to the U.S. if she felt like it, but would have to be invited, and some more serious, like his position on the Iran deal, and his statement of support for Pakistan.

And now this, with him not having a clue of the history of the situation, it really is irresponsible, and very troubling. Again, it is not that he dared to do it; it was that he was not even aware of what he was doing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/world/asia/trump-taiwan-and-china-the-...

Sure it seems silly. But the end result is that China has filed a complaint over the call.

Some good perspective on what this might mean:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/04/donald-trump-taiwan-call-e...

Sun, 2016-12-04 09:21

#572

swallow

If so,they knew what they were doing, rather than Trump acting buffoonishly, as portrayed by others.

And isn't such a terrible thing to do, speaking to the progressive president of a significant country who the government of a big regional bully is trying to isolate.

Sun, 2016-12-04 09:56

#573

6079_Smith_W

This is what it is about. Money.

http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3031091

Again, no problem on the face of it, as conflict of interest law doesn't apply to the president, so he is free to carry on with using his office this way. But he had no idea what he was doing, and what might go sideways because of it.

Sun, 2016-12-04 10:55

#574

swallow

Do we know he had no idea what he was doing? If his staff set up the call, they did - so he did.

Sun, 2016-12-04 11:09

#575

6079_Smith_W

Given his track record on similar issues - like Iran, like Britain, like Scotland, like Pakistan and India - and given what it was about this which actually offended Beijing - not the communication, but the reference to "president" - do you think this was a calculated move?

And if you do it was actually his plan to piss off Beijing, that is fine. I put it down to his being not only completely ignorant, but resistant to any attempt to inform him of what might be the most prudent course.

Though if you are right, and this is according to plan, but just a step further than the move Reagan made, I don't think it is any less dangerous or any more productive. And I can think of better and smarter ways for him to demonstrate a harder line than this.

But really I think it beggars belief, as he has shown himself to be an arrogant, ignorant fool in so many other things.

Sun, 2016-12-04 17:22

#576

swallow

I don't know. Someone posted above that Trump made the phone call. Well, maybe so. Or maybe the president of Taiwan called him. It makes a difference, and we don't know which of those two possibilities is the case.

I do think a lot of people go overboard and say that Trump's foreign policy is at the same time naive and insane. I'm not convinced of that. And I'm definitely not convinced that the US president talking to the president of Taiwan is a monstrous thing. More American presidents should speak with the president of Taiwan - and especially this one. And they should be willing to call her the president of Taiwan, since she is.

Sun, 2016-12-04 17:40

#577

Unionist

swallow wrote:

More American presidents should speak with the president of Taiwan - and especially this one. And they should be willing to call her the president of Taiwan, since she is.

Very strange comment. Taiwan is part of China, in case you skipped that international law course.

Sun, 2016-12-04 18:28

#578

swallow

You can check the babble archives for discussion on that point, including my own views - which are consistent on this point even though I know you disagree. Taiwan is part of China under international law in the same way that Mongolia is part of China, and Eritrea is part of Ethiopia, and Western Sahara is part of Morocco, and Estonia is part of the USSR, and Quebec is part of Canada, and Canada is part of the British Empire.

Sun, 2016-12-04 19:18

#579

Mr. Magoo

We need to support people's right to self-determination some times.

Not all the time, mind you, but some times.

Sun, 2016-12-04 19:58

#580

Rev Pesky

Courtesy Wikipedia:

Quote:
...the ROC continued to claim to be the legitimate government of "all of China" until 1991...

Which clearly shows that Taiwan considered themselves a part of China until 1991. In fact, not just a part of China, but the leading part of China.

To claim now they are an independent nation is a bit disingenuous.

And for Magoo, up until declaring themselves an independent nation, Taiwan didn't believe China should have the right to 'self-determination'. Again, a bit disingenuous for them now to proclaim their own right to self-determination.

Sun, 2016-12-04 20:04

#581

swallow

If relying on Wikipedia, I would suggest reading the entries on the Democratic Progressive Party and on Tsai Ing-wen.

Meanwhile, here is the president of Taiwan with her cats:

[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a7/Tsai_Ing-wen_with_Think_T...

Sun, 2016-12-04 20:13

#582

6079_Smith_W

This is not about who is the legitimate government of China or Taiwan.

(and yes, I know that in practical terms they are two separate states, even though both insist they are the real government of one, and that virtually everyone has decided to recognize the government in Beijing.)

It is about Cheeto boy.

I seriously doubt this was a calculated move on his part.

Sun, 2016-12-04 22:38

#583

Rev Pesky

swallow wrote:
If relying on Wikipedia,..

Well. either they considered themselves to be the official 'China', and leader of 'all China', or they didn't. I don't think we have to rely on Wikipedia.

The point is, if they did declare themselves to be the only official China, including mainland China (which they did), it's pretty tough later to argue that they are distinct from, and independent of, mainland China.

And lovely cats aside, the USA has provided roughly US $240 billion dollars worth of military hardware to the progressive government of Taiwan over the years since Jimmy Carter. A pittance, I'll grant you, but still something...

Mon, 2016-12-05 08:23

#584

swallow

And i said, it's silly to sell them millions in weapons and refuse to speak to them.

If you read the entry on the Democratic Progressive Party, Rev, you'll see that it's never accepted the idea of "one China."

Regardless of anything else, Taiwan has the same right to self-determination as Quebec.

And yes, as Smith says, this is thread drift. Trump has doubled down, by the way, tweeting angry words at China. Looks like there's no coming war with Russia, since he and Putin are buds, but China may be the new "public enemy number one." (Eurasia is in, Eastasia is out.)

Mon, 2016-12-05 10:15

#585

6079_Smith_W

And of course there are the people who are currently responsible for the executive branch:

Quote:

“‘We have not been contacted before any of these conversations [with foreign leaders],’ Kerry told a think tank conference. ‘I do think there is a value, obviously, on having at least the recommendations, whether you choose to follow them or not is a different issue, but I think it’s valuable to ask people who work the desk...their input on what’s the current state, is there some particular issue at the moment, I think that’s valuable, and I would certainly recommend it but, obviously, that hasn’t happened.’”

http://jezebel.com/john-kerry-itd-be-cool-if-trump-told-us-before-callin...

Mon, 2016-12-05 13:14

#586

ikosmos

lol. John Kerry talks about cooler heads, meanwhile every time he talks peace with Russian FM Lavrov, some Syrian soldiers (or Russian doctors) get "accidently" bombed with precision munitions by the US military or his terrorist pals in Syria.

Who's the warmonger? I'm hoping that President-elect Trump will simply want to do business with all players. And that will be leaps and bounds ahead of the war hawks and chicken hawks of the current Obama regime or the incinerated Hilary Clinton regime.

Mon, 2016-12-05 18:10

#587

Rev Pesky

swallow wrote:
And i said, it's silly to sell them millions in weapons and refuse to speak to them.

That was billions, not millions. US $240 billion to be exact (well, slightly rounded).

swallow wrote:
... If you read the entry on the Democratic Progressive Party, Rev, you'll see that it's never accepted the idea of "one China."

In fact I did read it, and that's not what is says. What it says is:

Quote:
...The party did not at the outset give open support to an independent Taiwanese national identity...

later:

Quote:
...The DPP supported reform of the Constitution that would make it official that Taiwan's national government represented only the people of Taiwan and made no claims to territory in mainland China or Mongolia.

Which I think you'll agree is not exactly the same thing as declaring Taiwan as a separate country. What it's more like is declaring that the mainland had to right to govern themselves.

Further in the same article:

Quote:
...On September 30, 2007, Taiwan's ruling Democratic Progressive Party approved a resolution asserting a separate identity from China and called for the enactment of a new constitution for a "normal nation". It struck an accommodating tone by advocating general use of "Taiwan" as the country's name without calling for abandonment of the name Republic of China.

So the official declaration of 'independence' didn't arrive until 2007.

swallow wrote:
...Regardless of anything else, Taiwan has the same right to self-determination as Quebec...

Do you think Canada would accept Quebec being armed by Iran, say, as a prelude to their self-determination?

Somehow i suspect the Canadian government would take a rather dim view of that sort of cooperation.

Mon, 2016-12-05 18:49

#588

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Do you think Canada would accept Quebec being armed by Iran, say, as a prelude to their self-determination?

I guess Canada hasn't pushed it that far.

Tue, 2016-12-06 00:29

#589

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Do you think Canada would accept Quebec being armed by Iran, say, as a prelude to their self-determination?

I guess Canada hasn't pushed it that far.

Jeez, Magoo, did you forget the War Measures Act, imposing the Canadian military on Quebec? Allowing the federal cabinet to rule Quebec by decree. Suspension of civil rights. Arbitrary arrest of hundreds.

China hasn't gone that far with Taiwan. One could also compare the response of the USA to the Russian arming of Cuba. If I remember correctly, the USA threatened nuclear war when Russia tried to place missiles in Cuba. Frankly, compared to the above cases, China's response to the USA arming Taiwan could only be characterized as 'restrained'.

Tue, 2016-12-06 09:15

#590

6079_Smith_W

The relationships - historical and political- between China and Taiwan are completely different than Canada and Quebec.

Tue, 2016-12-06 12:18

#591

Mobo2000

China's response to the USA arming Taiwan is "restrained" by their relative power(lessness) compared to the US. I think swallow is right that this signals a shift in focus for the US -- perhaps improving relations with Russia will allow them to more effectively contain China. Trump does seem to have the support of a significant portion of the US military high command, and within the narrow logic of the empire, teaming up with Russia to wipe out "terrorists" and freeing up time/resources to harass China makes sense.

Wed, 2016-12-07 04:27

#592

Rev Pesky

Mobo2000 wrote:

China's response to the USA arming Taiwan is "restrained" by their relative power(lessness) compared to the US. I think swallow is right that this signals a shift in focus for the US -- perhaps improving relations with Russia will allow them to more effectively contain China. Trump does seem to have the support of a significant portion of the US military high command, and within the narrow logic of the empire, teaming up with Russia to wipe out "terrorists" and freeing up time/resources to harass China makes sense.

China has nuclear weapons, and the means to use them. That is the ultimate equalizer. Add to that the fact that the USA is rapidly arriving at the point where they can no longer afford the military they have and you see the situation is not quite as asymmetrical as it seems.

Wed, 2016-12-07 09:51

#593

Mobo2000

Rev Pesky: Yes, agree the situation is not as asymmetrical as it has been. China is growing in influence and power, but the US is still the global power and has a lot of options beyond direct war. A nuclear deterrent hasn't stopped them in the past.

Wed, 2016-12-07 17:21

#594

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:

The relationships - historical and political- between China and Taiwan are completely different than Canada and Quebec.

Quite right. Quebec has always felt like a nation apart. Taiwan, up until a few years ago, insisted there were not only of a piece with mainland China, but that in fact they were the 'real' government of China.

Edited to add this:

I wasn't the one who originally made the comparison. In fact it was swallow who offered that comparison.

Wed, 2016-12-07 17:21

#595

Rev Pesky

Mobo2000 wrote:

Rev Pesky: Yes, agree the situation is not as asymmetrical as it has been. China is growing in influence and power, but the US is still the global power and has a lot of options beyond direct war. A nuclear deterrent hasn't stopped them in the past.

Oh? Which nuclear powers has the USA gone to war against?

Thu, 2016-12-08 09:34

#596

Mobo2000

I consider the current situation in Syria to be (partly) a proxy war between the US and Russia. That would be one example. As I said above, the US won't go to war directly with nuclear powers, but they have other options.

Sat, 2016-12-10 15:16

#597

ikosmos

The Obama regime's petulant announcement of opening the flood gates of usually controlled weapons to all and sundry fighting the government in Syria is a kind of spiteful, last ditch attempt to influence events in that country. The United States of Spiteful Losers.

I see, as well, Ashton Carter announcing hundreds more US military "advisors" in Syria. You know, like in Viet Nam.

What a revolting legacy of this lame duck Obama regime. Still, give him credit. He didn't start World War III (or IV, depending how you count).

Wed, 2016-12-28 16:50

#598

ikosmos

William Dunkerly: Here's What Trump Needs to do to prevent Obama from starting a more serious conflict with Russia

Obama has:

- threatened unspecified "actions" against Russia for the unsubstantiated claim of cyber-interference with the US election;

- suddenly discovered that Israeli settlements violate international law and pointedly snubbed the Israeli Apartheid regime by looking the other way as a UNSC Resolution passes, perhaps only of symbolic importance but important nevertheless, denouncing such settlements;

- gone on a tear to sabotage the incoming Trump regime;

So, Dunkerly suggests ...

Quote:
Here's a five step strategy for how he might intervene:

First: Make a deal with Putin. Tell him that he believes Obama is likely to take unjustified aggressive actions against Russia, which, he Trump would consider to be totally uncalled for and possibly in violation of international law.

Second: Explain to Putin that Obama's aggression will not likely do permanent damage to Russia and will be only transitory. As president, Trump could reverse course.

Third: Promise Putin if he simply "grins and bears" Obama's attack, that after the inauguration the US will pay reparations to Russia for damages resulting from Obama's unwise actions.

Fourth: Tell Putin if Obama is ultimately found guilty by a recognized international court after his illegal aggression against Russia, that Trump would support a call for extradition.

Fifth. Do all of this very publically.

Hyperbola or necessary unorthodoxy?

comments ...

Daniel Martin wrote:
I think the coming thirty day's will be the most dangerous in Russian-U.S relations, since the Cuban missile crisis. The neocons in Washington are totally humiliated, and shocked by Trumps win of the presidential elections. They saw Hillarie's win as an walk in the park against Trump after they stole Bernie Sanders nomination, and placed all their eggs in one basket. They never even considered the possibility that she could loose against someone they deemed as "intellectually inferior" to the Queen of war aka Hillary. After the devastating defeat of the U.S and Gulf monarchies sponsored jihhadist's in Aleppo and the collapsing Ukranian Nazi project, and the coming disintegration of the EU social experiment, the neocons are hell bent on revenge of their failed policies around the world and the only country that threatens their world hegemony and which they se as the main perpetrator for their failures in all this mess, is namely the Russian federation and it's president Vladimir Putin. This is the reason why the next thirty day's will be one of the most dangerous periods in U.S - Russian relations. We have a very vindictive and humiliated U.S deep state with the worst lame duck president in the history of the USA, and to straw some salt on the wound, they have an incoming president that they hate almost as much as Russia's president Putin, which Trump has a positive attitude towards, and clearly sees as a man he could work with. Now the only thing left for them to do in this situation is to hand over a last desperate attempt of "fait accompli" an incident or provocation that could spark a WW3 that neither Trump nor Putin could back down from, whiteout face loosing. This is why it is extremely important to stay calm the next thirty days as the risks for serious false flags are very high (Russian ambassadors assassination in Ankara) and not fall for their provocations.

Wed, 2016-12-28 21:04

#599

NDPP

I agree. The gullibility of Western liberals to this fabricated propaganda and nonsense is particularly alarming given the resulting lack of push-back against these extremely dangerous and provocative moves.

Senate Gets in Way of US-Russia Rapprochement: Analyst (and vid)

http://presstv.ir/Detail/2016/12/28/503888/US-Russia-Elections-Sanctions...

"US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has said almost the entire Senate is of the opinion that Russia interfered in the November presidential election. Graham told CNN on Tuesday that the Senate is going to put sanctions that his Russian President Vladimir Putin as an individual and his inner circle.

Mark Sleboda, international relations and security analyst from Moscow, told Press TV that US senators are seeking to prevent President-elect Trump from mending strained ties with Russia. Lindsey Graham and John McCain, Republican Senators from Arizona, 'have made it their declared mission to destroy any attempt by the President-elect Trump administration to seek detente with Russia,' Sleboda said on Wednesday."

Russia Vows Retaliation in Case of New US Sanctions

http://presstv.ir/Detail/2016/12/28/503902/russia-us-zakharova-sanctions

"Moscow has vowed retaliation if Washington issues further economic sanctions over Russian cyber-attacks during the US presidential elections. 'To be honest, we are tired of the lie about the 'Russian hackers', which is being poured down in the US from the very top,' said Russia's FM spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on Wednesday.

She warned that her country would respond to any manner of 'hostile steps' the US decides to undertake."

Wed, 2016-12-28 21:39

#600

josh

The objectively pro-Trump Russian propagandists have reached a near hysterical state.

Wed, 2016-12-28 21:59

#601

6079_Smith_W

josh wrote:
The objectively pro-Trump Russian propagandists have reached a near hysterical state.

Can't wait to hear how they are going to work the wonderful New arms race into the narrative.

Is the US and its NATO "allies" planning to attack Russia and start World War III?

Pages