I wish I could say things were improving between the US and Russia but
they aren't. They're rapidly worsening.
There’s so much happening right now, I can only provide a summary of a few
of the more interesting and worrying developments.
This report builds on those I've released over the past two years and
begins with a chilling editorial put out by the NY Times on September 29th,
2016, which further demonized Putin specifically, Russia generally, and
openly advocates for military confrontation.
Hey, we’ve been down this path before. The deeply conflicted NY
Times has never met a war in the Middle East it didn’t support, and has never
had any trouble repeating war plan talking points (that always neatly align
with those put out by neocon think tanks) or even printing obviously fake
“intelligence” from unnamed sources such as that used to justify the illegal
US attack and invasion of Iraq.
As a reminder for my US readers who many only have read US press sources
on the matter, prior to being attacked Iraq had never threatened the US, had
no role in 9/11, and had allowed extensive UN access to its country’s
military bases none of which ever showed the slightest trace of manufacturing
weapons of mass destruction. And, even if they had been producing these
so-called weapons of mass destruction (weapons which are also owned and
maintained in the US, for the record), there was still no legal case for an
attack by the US because pre-emptive attacks are not justifiable, ever.
What the NY Times has done, again, I fear, is seved as a conduit for
neocon talking points and therefore has become a propaganda arm readying the
US population for another war, this one with Russia. This is a very
disturbing development.
Here’s the editorial, into which I have inserted comments where
appropriate [in brackets]. Remember, propaganda is
designed to elicit core emotional responses such as fear, anger, moral
indignation, and a sense of threat to one’s very survival:
Vladimir Putin’s Outlaw State
Sept 29, 2016
President Vladimir Putin is fast turning Russia into
an outlaw nation. As one of five permanent members of the United Nations
Security Council, his country shares a special responsibility to uphold
international law. Yet, his behavior in Ukraine and
Syria violates not only the rules intended to promote peace instead of
conflict, but also common human decency.
[Which “rules intended to promote peace” is the NY Times referring to
here? The same sorts of rules that led NATO to bomb Libya back into the
stone age? Or are these the “rules” that allow a country to manufacture
fake evidence on Iraq and then attack that country unleashing a decade of bitter
sectarian violence? Also, how does “common human decency fit into that
schema? I’m truly curious.]
This bitter truth was driven home twice on Wednesday. An investigative
team led by the Netherlands concluded that the surface-to-air
missile system that shot down a Malaysia Airlines plane over
Ukraine in July 2014, killing 298 on board, was sent from Russia to
Russian-backed separatists and returned to Russia the same night.
[The MH-17 disaster is anything but clear-cut and the JIT
investigation was heavily compromised from the start. Nothing like the
claim being made here is supported by the actual investigation evidence
presented. This is pure, unsupported speculation at this stage.
More on this at a later date.]
Meanwhile, in Syria, Russian and Syrian warplanes knocked out two
hospitals in the rebel-held sector of Aleppo as part of an assault that
threatens the lives of 250,000 more people in a war that has already claimed
some 500,000 Syrian lives.
[Meanwhile, in Afghanistan the US bombed a MSF hospital and has
killed ~90% innocents with its drone program. Also, not to pick nits,
but the US and European interests funded and started the war in Syria.
It seems a bit short-sighted to now claim that Russia bears some special
responsibility for the lives at stake. You have to forget everything
that happened prior to this moment.]
Russia has tried hard to pin the blame for the airline crash on Ukraine.
But the new report, produced by prosecutors from the Netherlands, Australia,
Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine, confirms earlier findings. It uses strict
standards of evidence and meticulously documents not only the deployment of
the Russian missile system that caused the disaster but also Moscow’s
continuing cover-up.
[Nope. Just nope. I’ll detail why in a future report, but
the MH-17 investigation was bogus from the get go. Short version: there
were only two suspects, the Ukrainian military and rebels. The
Ukrainian secret service (SBU) was inside the investigation from the
beginning and supplied all of the ‘evidence’ against Russia and the
rebels. What investigation ever has one of the prime suspects supplying
the evidence? As I said, completely rigged and bogus.]
Some Western officials have accused Russia of war crimes, charges that
could be pursued through international channels, even if Moscow blocks a
formal referral to the International Criminal Court. New sanctions against
Russia also should be considered. Mr. Putin will undoubtedly fight any such
action, using his veto on the Security Council, but whatever his response,
the United States should lend its support to Ukraine’s quest for
accountability.
[“Some western officials?” There the NYT goes again with the
unnamed sources. How about you name names this time NY Times?
Well, in truth, a whole host of named individuals and organizations have
accused the US of war crimes, as well as Israel, which the US has routinely
blocked. Glass houses and all of that.]
Over recent days, Mr. Putin has again shown his true colors with air
attacks that have included powerful bunker-busting bombs that can destroy
underground hospitals and safety zones where civilians seek shelter.
[Note the slippery use of the word ‘can’ in this sentence. Have
they been used to target and destroy hospitals and civilian safety zones, or
not?]
On Sept. 19, Russia bombed an aid convoy, which like hospitals and
civilians are not supposed to be targeted under international law.
[Russia denies this, and has also released radar evidence showing that
the only planes in the region at the time were two US drones, plus the sort
of damage seen on the fire-destroyed trucks is consistent with the damage
caused by the US drone based Hellfire missile. If the US wants to
release some radar data showing Russian planes in the area or other compelling
evidence, then we can all be more confident in that claim. For now the
NY Times is repeating an unproven assertion made by the US State Department.]
President Obama has long refused to approve direct military intervention
in Syria. And Mr. Putin may be assuming that Mr. Obama is unlikely to
confront Russia in his final months and with an American election season in
full swing. But with the rebel stronghold in Aleppo under threat of falling
to the government, administration officials said that such a response is
again under consideration.
[The “rebel stronghold in Aleppo under threat” is interesting use of
evocative language. However the nature of war is that the sides attempt
to take key positions form each other. The “rebels’ in question are
some of the most dodgy humans to ever walk the planet. The rebels
backed by the US include nasty elements of Al-Nusra, Al-Qaida, ISIS and
a host of really vile outfits. If you are not aware, these groups have
executed thousands of civilians, taken sex slaves, and conducted other
horrible crimes against the innocent. ]
Mr. Putin fancies himself a man on a mission to restore Russia to
greatness. Russia could indeed be a great force for good. Yet his
unconscionable behavior — butchering civilians in Syria and Ukraine, annexing
Crimea, computer-hacking American government agencies, crushing dissent at
home — suggests that the furthest thing from his mind is becoming a
constructive partner in the search for peace.
[Pay close attention to that word “unconscionable.”
It really stood out for me here and I knew something was up when I heard it
used again by a US official. It will soon appear again in media quotes
below. For now, let’s just note that every act declared as
'unconscionable' has also recently been done by the US: civilians have been
‘butchered’ (again a strongly evocative word very different from the
‘collateral damage and targeting mistakes’ that the US reserves for its own
actions), computers have been hacked (even Angela Merkel’s cell phone as you
may recall), and peaceful protests have been crushed in the US, most recently
a peaceful prayer circle of Native Americans at Standing Rock by heavily
armed LEO’s who brought armored personnel carriers for the task)]
(Source)
Okay, that editorial was yet another in a long line from the NY Times
which has never met a neocon-proposed war it didn’t blindly support. Supposedly
the bastion of the east coast liberal elites, the NY Times is actually acting
once again more like the personal propaganda arm of the US necons and Israeli
likuds who have been dragging the US into one war after another.
As I’ve written about extensively in the past, a war this time could mean
anything from a shooting (kinetic) war, to a cyberwar, financial or trade
war, or even a hacking attack that takes out the grid or other critical
infrastructure. If you want to go deeper into the details of what that
might mean and how you should prepare, we have a more extensive Part 2 of this report prepared.
Now, lets continue on with our thesis that a propaganda effort is underway
to drag the US into yet another useless war. This one with the potential to
literally end the US as a going concern.
I’m going to skip over a few events here so we can connect this propaganda
dot. Then we’ll get back to the other worrying events that show how the
situation with Russia is deteriorating badly.
Fast forward just five days from that NY Times editorial and we read this:
White House Warns of 'Actions' If Russia Won't Negotiate
Oct 4, 2016
President Obama faces an increasingly stark choice in Syria — he can order
American military action or watch thousands of women and children die
as the rebel stronghold of Aleppo falls.
So far, he has shown no willingness to launch a U.S. military response,
but White House officials told NBC News Monday they are now considering
escalating the U.S. involvement in Syria's civil war, including
unspecified "actions…that would further underscore the consequences of
not coming back to the negotiating table."
American intelligence officials on Monday pointedly accused
Russian and Syrian forces of mass atrocities during their advance on
the city, describing a horrific bombing campaign in recent days that has
killed women and children at an increasing rate.
"The regime and Russia's use of incendiary weapons have contributed
to the unconscionable civilian deaths and suffering,"
a U.S. intelligence official said.
(Source)
How much more obvious can all that be? First there’s a NY Times
editorial that literally lays to a series of talking points ranging from
women and children to a rebel stronghold to unconscionable civilian deaths
and suffering.
It’s all there and, just for a bonus, it’s all attributed to unnamed White
House and intelligence “officials.” Exactly the same pattern we saw in
the run up to the Iraq war. I would put a lot of money on the bet that
these scripted talking points were developed by a small team of neocons
operating in the shadows. A lot of money.
As in the past, when these folks pull the levers to try and goad the US
into a(nother) war, they never come out in the open. They always hide behind
anonymity. Your tip-off is the number of times you read the words “US
officials” or “a highly placed source” or some other phrase that hides
the individual while evoking authority.
If they weren't so secretive, we’d certainly see the pattern more easily
for what it actually is – the same small cadre of people who are always
agitating for the use of military force to “solve” whatever objectives they
are seeking.
Now, of course it’s horrible when civilians get trapped or die in a war.
But here we might note that if a nation truly cannot abide innocent deaths,
then it also shouldn't go about starting wars, or supplying military
armaments.
I mean, let’s wander a few miles south of Syria and take a peek at what’s
happening in Yemen where the US is supplying both weapons and targeting data
to the Saudis:
Civilian casualties in Yemen bring charges of U.S. responsibility
for Saudi actions
Civilian casualties have spiked in Yemen since the collapse of
peace talks in August, the United Nations reported recently,
bringing the total number of civilians killed since March 2015, when a
coalition led by Saudi Arabia launched its operation against Houthi
rebels there, to more than 4,000.
Despite repeated strikes on schools and hospitals,
officials see little choice for now but continued support, given the
intense desire to shore up a bilateral relationship rocked by President
Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran and new legislation linked to the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
(Source)
Where are the ‘unnamed officials’ wringing their hands at thousand of
innocent deaths in Yemen? Where’s our sense of responsibility for being
the primary arms dealer to the Saudis, and direct supplying them with
targeting data? These morals are nowhere to be found when it comes to Yemen.
In fact, according to ‘officials’ in the above article, when it comes to
Yemen, the desire to make nice with the Saudis (after the Iran deal) is the
driving US objective at the moment.
In other words, in Yemen, political realities are more important than
innocent lives. Ah, do you see it now? Innocent deaths don’t
matter as much as the political realities.
How can it be a moral imperative in Syria but a political one when it
comes to Yemen?
Would it be out of line for us to wonder if perhaps these same ‘officials’
are merely using the innocent deaths in Syria as cover for some deeper
political purposes that are really the main drivers?
To me, morality is not conditional. Either innocent deaths are always
unconscionable, or they aren't. They cannot be morally unacceptable in
one place and subservient to political realities in another. Obama
cannot cry for the children of Sandy Hook one day, but continue the drone
program (which kills lots of children) with steely determination the
next.
Which is why I am especially on alert when I read such things as the NY
Times editorial above, which screams out a moral argument when a quick scan
of the news reveals a profound lack of moral consistency. As ever,
that’s a red flag that propaganda is being deployed. Morals are for the
populace…when you need something from them, like their consent.
In psychological terms, what’s happening here is called projection.
This is what happens when an individual, or a nation, accuses an external
party of the exact same traits that they secretly dislike about themselves.
An example being a parent who procrastinates at work but then yells
harshly at their child for not doing their very best at school. Or the
explosive anger that an aggressive driver displays when someone cuts them
off.
This very human habit of projecting our shadows onto others is very, very
dangerous when it gets to the explosive blame stage.
Deep, dark and highly emotional and irrational outbursts are what
follows. Insults are slung, sometimes objects are thrown, that forever
change the relationship. Real damage can be inflicted in such moments
that sometimes cannot be undone. Do we really want that kind of breakdown
with nuclear-armed Russia?
A No Fly Zone
So, when it comes to Russia, what are the military options that an angry
US might pursue?
This too is easy to track because the neocons write about their plans
openly and prolifically, and they are especially fond of imposing no-fly
zones. What this always means to them, however, is not the absence of
aircraft from a given area, but rather that no planes besides US/NATO planes
are flying over the area. No-fly only applies to the other side,
naturally.
A no-fly zone means you have air supremacy and therefore control over a
country.
There are two ways to create this. The first is a low level no-fly zone
where you supply shoulder-fired antiaircraft rockets (“manpads”) to the rebel
forces. These have limited range so they basically keep low-level
aircraft out of the picture; helicopters, low and slow flying support/attack
aircraft and the like.
The second level is to bring your own aircraft into the theater to enforce
a complete no-fly zone at all altitudes.
Unsurprisingly, I came across this from the Brookings Institution, a key
neocon ‘think tank,’ in August. So I knew where all this was heading:
We must also be clever about employing various options for no-fly
zones: We cannot shoot down an airplane without knowing if it’s
Russian or Syrian, but we can identify those aircraft after the fact and
destroy Syrian planes on the ground if they were found to have barrel-bombed
a neighborhood, for example.
These kinds of operations are complicated, no doubt, and
especially with Russian aircraft in the area—but I think we have
made a mistake in tying ourselves in knots over the issue, since there
are options we can pursue.
(Source – Brookings – O’Hanlon)
Yes, “these operations are complicated, no doubt…” is another breezy
dismissal, similar to how all Iraqis were going to greet the American forces
as "libertators" after Desert Sheild. As if engaging a major
nuclear superpower with advanced hardware were no different from the
complexities involved in taking out Gadhafi.
The “various options” mentioned are code-speak for supplying manpads to
the rebels. It might be helpful to recall that the Russians have not (yet)
supplied similar hardware to any of the various forces the US and NATO are
fighting in Libya, Iraq, or Afghanistan, and they’ve not yet decided to start
shooting US and NATO planes out of the sky either. One could see that
as an act of restraint that could be lifted at some point, enormously
complicating US ambitions in a variety of military theaters.
How these Brookings neocons have any voice left at all after the massive
screwups in all the prior conflicts they cheered on an supported is beyond
me. Anybody making the case that it is simply “complicated” to take on
Russia should lose their job, be laughed off the stage, and have to find
other employment.
But they’d have lots of company in that unemployment line, including at
least one US Senator. Speaking about making life more difficult for the
Russians, on September 30th, 2016 John McCain said:
MCCAIN: No, but I might do what we did in Afghanistan many years ago, to
give those guys the ability to shoot down those planes. That equipment is
available.
CAVUTO: Who would be shooting them down?
MCCAIN: The Free Syrian Army, just like the Afghans shot down the
Russian...
CAVUTO: Not us?
MCCAIN: No. Just like the Russians -- the Afghans shot down Russian planes
after Russia invaded Afghanistan.
(Source)
McCain is calling for arming the rebels with manpads, again a dangerous
escalation that really needs to be debated vigorously at the highest levels
because anything that begins a hot (kinetic) war with Russia in Syria stands
little chance of remaining safely contained there. Further,
it would greatly increase the risk of Russia returning the favor to the US
elsewhere.
It’s also worth remembering here that in
mid-September the US, using two F16s and two A-10 “low and slow” attack
aircraft bombed a Syrian government position killing anywhere from 60 to 100
government troops that where garrisoning a surrounded position whose borders
were well known to all parties.
While the US pentagon dismissed the incident as a ‘targeting error’
implying a few bombs errantly fell in the wrong place, everybody in the
business knows better. Those bombs fell exactly where there were meant
to fall, and Russia’s view is that the US did this on purpose, especially
since a coordinated ISIS attack followed minutes later on the same position
allowing ISIS to make a key advance.
The fact the A-10’s were involved only hardens my view that this was not
an accident on the part of the US. Those aircraft are meant to fly low
and be used for close in support. Who got bombed and who advanced with
close in support? Answering those questions leads to the conclusion
that the US has already militarily attacked the Syrian government, and by
extension Russia and, once again, “inadvertently” provided military support
to ISIS (done previously when “errant” drops of pallets loaded with military
gear that landed on ISIS positions).
Russia Responds
So, what’s been Russia’s response to all this?
Well, they terminated diplomatic communications on Oct 3rd:
Contacts between Russian and US military on Syria suspended
MOSCOW, October 3./TASS/. Exchange of information between Russian and US
military over Syria has stopped of late, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister
Gennady Gatilov said on Monday.
"All contacts between the military have been stopped of late, there
has been no exchange of information," he said.
(Source)
That’s probably not a good sign.
As another reminder, we’d like to point out that Russia already has their
S-400 anti-aircraft missile system in place, which has an enormous range and
can take out US and NATO aircraft from a ridiculous distance:
This is one of the most, if not the most sophisticated anti-aircraft
systems in the world. Note to armchair warriors in the neocon central:
this system is more than a ‘complication.’ It is a game changing
system, which will end lives and destroy the hardware of any country that
goes up against it.
This ‘complication’ is why this 4-star general visibly freezes when a
dreadfully uninformed (or ignorant, or possibly unintelligent)
Senator on the armed service committee asks why the US hasn't already
enforced a no fly zone in Syria:
Now, such a system is vulnerable to being taken out, of course. Not by
a bombing run by aircraft, but by a missile attack, perhaps a cruise missile.
Which explains this next bit of news, also from Oct 4:
Russia deploys advanced anti-missile system to Syria for first
time, US officials say
Oct 4, 2016
Russia has deployed an advanced anti-missile system to Syria for
the first time, three US officials tell Fox News, the latest
indication that Moscow continues to ramp up its military operations in Syria
in support of President Bashar al-Assad.
It comes after Russia's actions led to the collapse of a cease-fire
and the cut-off of direct talks with the U.S.
While Moscow’s motives are not certain, officials say the new weapon
system could potentially counter any American cruise missile attack
in Syria.
Components of the SA-23 Gladiator anti-missile and anti-aircraft
system, which has a range of roughly 150 miles, arrived over the weekend “on
the docks” of a Russian naval base along Syria’s Mediterranean
coastal city of Tartus, two US officials said.
It is the first time Russia has deployed the SA-23 system outside
its borders, according to one Western official citing a recent
intelligence assessment. The missiles and associated components are still in
their crates and are not yet operational, according to the officials.
The U.S. intelligence community has been observing the shipment of the
SA-23 inside Russia in recent weeks, according to one official.
While the purpose is not clear, one US official asked
sarcastically, “Nusra doesn’t have an air force do they?” speaking
about the Al Qaeda-linked group in Syria. The Islamic State also does
not fly any manned aircraft or possess cruise missiles, in a sign that Russia
is directing its actions to protect itself against any potential attack from
the United States or its allies.
(Source)
Heh heh. “While the purpose is not clear…” That’s funny.
The purpose could note be any clearer if it were written in neon on a
billboard outside the bedroom window of this “US official.” The purpose
is to protect its other military hardware from a US attack,.
It’s there because the US is ramping up its 'no fly' talk and preparing
its citizens via propaganda pieces in the NY Times, et al., for a major
conflict with Russia.
It’s there because all trust is gone and the time for talking has come to
a close.
It’s there because the US is pushing for a war with Russia that cannot be
sold on its own merits and so its being sold as a humanitarian mission to
prevent more unconscionable acts from being carried out (and pay no mind to
similar such acts being carried out by Israel against Palestinians, or Saudis
against Yemenis).
Prepping for War
Now, what would a responsible government do if hostilities were increasing
between major superpowers and the possibility, if not the inevitability, of
an armed conflict were on the horizon?
Well, they’d do more than prepare their citizens to accept the moves via
propaganda, they get their citizens to physically prepare as well.
In Germany we see this sort of view:
German Politician to Sputnik: 'US Pulling Us Into Abyss of War in
Middle East'
Oct 1, 2016
How has the situation on the ground in Syria changed after a year of
Russian military involvement? Speaking to Sputnik, veteran German
politician Willy Wimmer suggested that it has demonstrated that Russia is the
only major power ready to seriously fight terrorism, and to call for
an end to a war which risks spreading across the region.
The US and its allies, meanwhile, have only managed to throw
a wrench in the peace process, and have been unable to reach any
of their own goals due to the Russian intervention, the
politician argues.
Wimmer is a veteran member of the Christian Democratic Union
with over thirty years of experience in the Bundestag. The
politician has served as State Secretary of the German Defense
Ministry, and as a vice president of the OSCE; he is a
close friend of former Chancellor Helmut Kohl.
Interviewed by Sputnik Deutschland and asked to comment on the
evolution of the Syrian crisis, Wimmer began by noting that
virtually from the beginning, that conflict was a product
of foreign meddling. "What we are witnessing today is part
of a longer development," the politician said. "The
civil war which broke out five years ago resulted in a tragic
struggle right at the moment when the Syrian-Israeli conflict
over the Golan Heights seemed to have already been settled. All
that was left to do was sign the agreement which could have resulted
in peace in the Middle East. And if not for certain forces who
were not interested in peace, this agreement would have been
signed." "We know that at the very beginning of the
Syrian tragedy, British, French and US special forces became involved, giving
this war, at the moment looking more like a civil conflict, a
global significance," the politician emphasized
Now, Wimmer suggested, the central question comes down to "whether
we can put an end to this disaster and prevent the spread of the
Syrian inferno to other countries, which would signify the start
of a great war."
"The intervention by the Americans and Europeans
in Syria is a clear violation of international law," Wimmer
emphasized. "This is a military operation on the territory
of another state, one that's not authorized by the UN or
under international law."
(Source)
Okay, so a German politician with 30 years experience and who served at
the highest levels in the Defense Ministry thinks that the entire Syrian
conflict is the result of meddling by US/NATO forces that had no interest in
a budding peace agreement in 2011, that only Russia has a legal mandate to be
in Syria, and that the whole thing could boil over into a wider and far more
dangerous greater war.
I concur with all of that, by the way.
Here’s what a responsible government who saw things that way would
respond:
Germany to tell people to stockpile food and water in case of
attacks
Aug 21, 2016
For the first time since the end of the Cold War, the German government plans
to tell citizens to stockpile food and water in case of an attack or
catastrophe, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung newspaper reported on
Sunday.
"The population will be obliged to hold an individual supply of food
for ten days," the newspaper quoted the government's "Concept for
Civil Defence" - which has been prepared by the Interior Ministry - as
saying.
(Source)
That’s what the US government should be advising its own citizens
but is not, either because of hubris deceit, or the mistaken belief that
because the last two great wars did not reach US shores this one won’t
either. But having some self-reliance is always a good idea, and one shouldn’t
need their government to tell them so, but however people become more
prepared is okay by me.
Russia too is not only advising its citizen to prepare, but going one step
further by telling them to specifically prepare for a nuclear war
Russia tells citizens to ‘prepare for nuclear war with West’
Oct 4, 2016
Russia has warned citizens that a nuclear war with the West could be
imminent - sparked by clashes in the Middle East.
Zvezda, a nationwide TV service run by the country’s Ministry of Defence,
said last week, ‘Schizophrenics from America are sharpening nuclear weapons
for Moscow.’
Officials said on Friday that underground shelters had been built which
could house 12 milion people - enough for the entire population of Moscow.
(Source)
That’s how badly trust in the West has been damaged for Russia – it now
thinks such madmen and madwomen are in charge in the West that it’s now
saying nuclear war is a distinct possibility. How this is not front
page news and being actively debated in the US is simply fascinating. And
scary.
If war is a possibility, then a responsible party will prepare. The
Russians and the Germans are being responsible in that sense.
The Russians have gone further and are actively preparing their citizens
not just for war, but nuclear war. This may seem extreme and
certainly nobody wants anything to go that far, but Russia’s background has
taught her that when it comes to war, nothing is ever certain.
And that war comes to her lands regularly. Every invading force has
paid a bitter price for trying to occupy Russia and that informs her
mindset. Shit happens. Best to be ready for it.
The US is on the opposite side of that spectrum having been in the bully
position for so long, and not having ever been invaded and occupied, that it
seems delightfully unaware that suffering from the effects of war is a
distinct possibility.
Perhaps not by an invading force, but certainly by one that possesses
nuclear weapons and superior cyber skills.
The Russian Mindset
Far be it from me to claim that I have any particular insight into the
Russian mindset. I’ll leave that to such experts as Dmitry Orlov.
But I can read the tea leaves and I don’t think it takes a Russian or
military expert to divine the meaning behind this:
Russia's Putin suspends plutonium cleanup accord with U.S. because
of 'unfriendly' acts
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday suspended an agreement
with the United States for disposal of weapons-grade plutonium because of
"unfriendly" acts by Washington, the Kremlin said.
A Kremlin spokesman said Putin had signed a decree suspending the
2010 agreement under which each side committed to destroy tonnes of
weapons-grade material because Washington had not been implementing
it and because of current tensions in relations.
The deal, signed in 2000 but which did not come into force until 2010, was
being suspended due to "the emergence of a threat to strategic
stability and as a result of unfriendly actions by the United States of
America towards the Russian Federation", the preamble to the
decree said.
It also said that Washington had failed "to ensure the
implementation of its obligations to utilize surplus weapons-grade
plutonium".
(Source)
Trust is broken; the US has not been living up to its end of the agreement
and is being antagonistic towards Russia. Russia thinks it may need its
weapons grade plutonium after all. Two very bad signs.
With trust broken and diplomacy cut off, all we can do is note that Russia
is now acting as if it has to defend itself and be prepared for war.
Here’s one editorial from inside Russia that lays out some of the thinking
going on, much of which we’ve already covered and which echoes the German
politician’s views:
The United States is, once again, the aggressor nation calling foul when
things don't go according to plan.
Washington has no international mandate to be in Syria — neither in its
skies, nor as "advisors" to "moderate rebels" on the
ground. Washington (along with its freedom-loving allies — Turkey, Saudi
Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, all bastions of democracy) has simply invited
itself to the party. And by "party" we mean "a proxy war
dressed up as a democratic uprising that has killed hundreds of thousands and
further destabilized the entire region, while creating a massive refugee
crisis in the process."
A week ago, Washington murdered (with bombs) more than 60 uniformed
soldiers of a country that they aren't even officially at war with, inside
their own borders. Putin strikes again! according to the New York
Times.
Of course, the editorial is eager to point out all the heinous war crimes
that Russia has committed in Syria — none of which have been verified by
anyone aside from the Pentagon. Should we really be surprised, though? In a
recent article in The Nation, Adam Johnson reminds his
readers that:
“The New York Times‘s editorial board has
supported every single US war—Persian Gulf, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Libya—for
the past 30 years. While its reporting and op-eds on
these wars has often been critical, much of it’s coverage has also helped to
sell war-weary liberals on the current military mission—the most notable
example being Judith Miller and Michael Gordon’s hyping Iraq’s
nonexistent nuclear program in the buildup to the March 2003 invasion.
Indeed, the image of The New York Times as an objective,
unbiased news outlet is precisely how it was able to sell the war in the
first place.”
(Source)
The summary: The US started the Syrian conflict with the intention
of toppling yet another Middle Eastern government (“regime” in the parlance
of the spin masters), things have not gone exactly as it wanted, and now it’s
acting illegally and dangerously because it did not get its way.
Also, the NY Times is not an unbiased news source, especially when it
comes to supporting wars general and in the Middle East specifically.
I would also remind everyone here that a letter was written earlier in the
spring of 2016 and signed
by 51 State Department workers urging Obama to bomb Assad’s forces, which
would have meant, by proxy, bombing Russia. When your alleged
“diplomats” are the ones calling for bombing it tells you just how far off
the rails your entire apparatus of state has gone.
The main conclusion here is that the US is the most war like country on
the planet, and it has somehow defaulted into using force early and often to
get its way.
The difference this time? It’s picked a fight with a smaller kid in
the school yard who happens to be a black belt in judo.
This time, the fight won’t be as easy as in times past. Things are
very different now, and Russia has spent the past few decades improving its
missile technology which I predict will turn out to be a real game changer
with a very high ROI.
The thinking seems to be, you build a $100 million ship and I will sink it
from very far away with a $100,000 missile.
It took me a while to confirm this, but I believe this next video to be
true and showing the Yemeni ‘rebels’ sinking a very modern and expensive
HSV-2 navy catamaran that had been sold to the UAE from a very long distance
away.
While the claim of having struck this ship cannot be completely verified
at this time, the missile launch and resulting explosion at sea in the video
above are consistent with the claim.
This should be a big wake-up call to everyone, and I’m sure it is in the
military, but your chance of reading about this and its implications n the
western press are very low indeed. Did you hear of this? I doubt
it.
Conclusion
Russia and the US are edging ever closer to armed conflict in Syria.
We can hope and pray for our own selfish purposes that the conflict remains
confined to Syria but it may not.
I cannot find any particularly good reason to be demonizing Russia at this
point. From my perspective all Russia has done is react to the
circumstances presented to it by the west. Russia did not destabilize
Ukraine, the US and the EU did. By reacting to that and protecting the
Russian speaking people on it’s own borders, Russia has committed some sort
of sin to the power players in the US.
Similarly, by legally responding to a request to help by the government of
Syria, Russia has done something unconscionable…namely, resisted the wishes
of the necons and likuds.
Let’s be perfectly blunt, innocent civilian lives mean nothing to those
people. They never have and they never will.
What matters to people who regularly transgress other people’s boundaries
is that they are not resisted. Have you ever noticed this in your own
life? I have. When someone who violates my boundaries is met with
any sort of resistance at all, they experience it as me attacking them.
I remember well being yelled at by someone who did that a lot to people in
their life and when I’d had enough an exactly matched their intensity to
simply say “Stop! This is where I begin and you end!” they recoiled and
told everyone that I had attacked them.
Where we could analyze the Russian-US situation from a variety of
directions – political, historical, etc. – I am going to do it from the psychological
perspective.
I see the neocons and likuds as very damaged and traumatized
individuals. They carry a set of internal wounds that express on the
outside as a very belligerent and hostile set of postures and actions.
If I were to guess at their internal wound, it might be something along
the lines of “I was really hurt as a child and nobody will ever hurt me again
like that.”
The best way to not be hurt is to lash out as fiercely and as rapidly as
you can, in every circumstance. The motto is “Do one to others
before they do one to me.”
The mistake you and I could make would be to assume on any level that
these people share your world view and will not “go all the way” before
turning back. They are not built the same. The ends always
justify the means. They do not rationally calculate outcomes because
they are operating from a very wounded and highly irrational spot.
Have you ever tried using logic on someone who is in a full emotional
meltdown? How did that work out? Not well, right? In fact, it
might have made things worse.
Well even though the neocons who have inserted themselves into every
crevice of power in the US seem cold and rational, they are not. They
are driven by demons that came to them early in life, perhaps handed down as
a part of their culture, which taught them that the world was a very hostile
place always looking for a reason to kill them.
That’s the nature of all childhood wounds. Delivered early enough
they all come down to survival. If you are told directly or covertly over
and over again that you are defective, unloved and unlovable, then the early
innocent mind goes to insane lengths to warp itself around that harsh
reality.
Inner contracts are written, and they inform that person’s outlook and
actions for the rest of their lives or until they are healed, whichever comes
first.
The colossal mistake being made in the US is failing to recognize that
people so damaged are not trustworthy and cannot ever be trusted to at
rationally. In a healthy culture we’ be able to detect and usher these
people into either harmless yet worthy jobs or get them the treatment they
need.
Instead, they roam the halls undetected and they crave the power that they
lacked in childhood and so become over-represented in the halls of
power. Once they achieve critical mass they take over the entire
machinery.
That is where the US is now. This (next) rush to war is not a matter
of anything rational or explicable, it is a function of having too many
damaged and wounded people in charge operating from deeply unconscious
levels.
And here’s the thing; they will not stop, ever, unless stopped by
circumstances. They will never achieve enough power. The void
they seek to fill cannot be filled from the outside. Nothing will ever
‘be enough.’
There’s no end, but a violent one.
And this is why I am warning you to prepare for war. Whether it
happens now with Russia or alter with someone else, it will happen. The
only thing that will stop these neocons is if they are exposed and flushed
from the system or if their power is stripped away by losing a war.
By failing to understand the wound dynamics at play we are all being held
hostage to a drama being scripted by very old and unhealed wounds.
Nothing about this circumstance can ever be solved on the outside; only
inner healing can shift any of this.
It is deeply telling that the two main party candidates for the US
presidency are each poster-children for wound-driven egos run amuck.
Both are obviously fragile and unable to handle anything but fawning
admiration, neither seems capable of honest introspection or empathy.
They are, literally, the direct manifestations of a nation that has yet to
confront its own inner demons. And until it does there will always have
to be some sort of external bogey man that it can project its on worst traits
upon as it desperately avoids asking the most important question of them all;
“Hey, what if my troubles are because of me and my actions?”
In our report How To Prepare For War, we explain how conflict can take
many forms: trade wars, energy wars, financial wars, cyberwar, shooting
wars, and nuclear war. We lay out in great detail the steps we, as individuals,
can do to prepare for each.
And fortunately, this preparation comes with an upside: as many of these
precautions will be life-enhancing steps even if -- hopefully, if
-- tensions de-escalate from here.
So, sadly, please follow the actions of the German and Russian governments
and prepare yourself for war. While we can all hope this too blows over
and cooler heads prevail, hope alone is a terrible strategy.
Click here to read How To Prepare For War(free
executive summary, enrollment required for full access)
~ Chris Martenson
