Posted on 05/22/2016 7:50:15 PM PDT by thoughtomator
It is not only American generals who are irresponsible and declare on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that “Russia is an existential threat to the United States” and also to the Baltic states, Poland, Georgia, Ukraine, and all of Europe. British generals also participate in the warmongering. UK retired general and former NATO commander Sir Richard Shirreff, Deputy Supreme Allied Commander in Europe until 2014, has just declared that nuclear war with Russia is “entirely possible” within the year. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3596977/The-outbreak-nuclear-war-year-West-Putin-entirely-plausible-says-former-NATO-chief-promoting-novel-2017-war-Russia.html
My loyal readers know that I, myself, have been warning for some time about the likelihood of nuclear war. However, there is a vast difference between me and the Western generals. I see the war as the consequence of the neoconservative drive for US world hegemony. The neoconservative drive for world hegemony is acknowledged by the neoconservatives themselves in their public position papers, and it has a 15 year record of being implemented in America’s many and ongoing wars in the Middle East and Africa. Although the Presstitute media does its best to keep our focus away from the known facts, the facts remain known.
The position of the Western generals is that “Russian aggression” is driving an innocent America/NATO to nuclear war.
Here is General Shirreff’s list of “Russian aggressions”: “He [Putin] has invaded Georgia, he has invaded the Crimea, he has invaded Ukraine. He has used force and got away with it. In a period of tension, an attack on the Baltic states… is entirely plausible.” Shirreff is talking about make-believe happenings that even if real would be taking place inside what were until recently Russia’s long-standing national boundaries.
(Excerpt) Read more at paulcraigroberts.org ...
Well written & cogent. Most people are not aware of the demographics of Crimea and half of the Ukraine.
>> This article is insane <<
Anything written these days by Paul Craig Roberts is insane. You can count on it. He makes Alex Jones seem like a paragon of rational thought.
Yep. The West, Bush Sr.-Clinton took the side of the Bosnian Muslims against the Christian Serbs. Russia was against intervention by the West in the break-up of the former Yugoslavia. That didn’t stop the West from helping bomb the Serbs, taking the side of the Kosovo Albanian-Muslims etc. So the West can’t shut the *&ll up when Russia took the side of the ethnic Russians in the Crimea.
True words
PCR alert
I don’t trust Trump to do anything.
But I do trust Clinton or Bernie to do everything.
..that is wrong.
Pretty much where I’m at.
I have no idea what Trump will do, and that makes him infinitely preferable to Clinton or Sanders.
The one thing about Trump I’m fairly confident in which distinguishes him from any Democrat and most of his defeated GOP opponents is that Trump is loyal to the United States and not to some international club that aims to erect a global government to rule over us.
Amazing that.he begins with an assertion that is demonstrably false, and the logic flows from there
This buzzing took place just miles from the Russian shore. How is that existential to the USA?
And why shouldn't Russia see a US fleet just miles off the Russian shore as an existential threat.
No fleet off Russia == no buzzing == no threat.
We'd do the same bit of buzzing if their fleet was doing exercises off the shore of New York.
We started this particular game of chicken.
This isn't to say Russia isn't bent on world domination, but all the evidence in this case points to the US.
You ignored that it was in middle eastern waters. We have an interest there. The U.K. Incidents were in the north sea
Western leaders are unable to interpret Russian signals correctly, hence the constant sense of surprise. A more sophisticated understanding of mobilization would help shape more effective policies for dealing with Russia. - https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/russian-state-mobilization-moving-country-war-footing
NATO’s Big New Russian Spy Scandal
A Russian mole has been uncovered inside NATO intelligence. What does this mean for Western security?
http://observer.com/2016/05/natos-big-new-russian-spy-scandal/
Just what we need on FR at this particular time in history: more mainstreaming of Jew-haters.[/sarcasm]
Oh well. He's in good company. Francis Parker Yockey supported Joseph Stalin.
Anyone or anything that kills Jews is a big hero to G-d-hating idolatrous "palaeos."
PCR is not a “Jew hater”. Something is not right with you if that’s your takeaway from this article. Are you some kind of bitter irredentist neocon or something?
We are talking about different incidents of the same type. Russian jets near Russian bases warning off US military.
U.S. Navy ship encounters aggressive Russian aircraft in Baltic Sea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-pLgvJULOM
The only thing I found about Russian planes and the British were in reference to Russian long range bombers flying near the English Channel. Not the same thing as buzzing. I didn't find any analysis on whether that was considered open sky, or was in controlled commercial flying space. I do wonder if the Russian media portrayed the British as 'buzzing Russian bombers in their legitimate travel.
But, even if the buzzing events were in the middle east, rather than the Baltic, the logic still holds.
Russia has ports on the Baltic Sea, we do not.
Russia has a border touching the Middle East, we do not.
We might have interests there, but Russia would be right to inform us that we are not the only ones who have interests there. The troubles there are a lot closer to home for the Russians than for the USA.
Considering how dense our current Sec-of-State is, buzzing might have been considered an appropriate wake up call.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The Brits warn Russians away from the British coast. The Russians warn the USA away from the Russian coast. Normal protective behavior.
Also note that the Russian plane in the Baltic flew by in a manner that made it clear he was 'wings clear', i.e. unarmed.
You and Paul Craig Roberts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.