U.S. Now Overtly at War Against Russia

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced on February 2nd that he approves of U.S. ‘Defense’ Secretary Ash Carter’s proposal to quadruple U.S. armaments and troops in Europe, against ‘Russian aggression.’

Secretary Carter said earlier that same day, in his announcement of America’s arming for war against Russia:

We are reinforcing our posture in Europe to support our NATO allies in the face of Russia’s aggression. In Pentagon parlance, this is called the European Reassurance Initiative and after requesting about $800 million for last year, this year we’re more than quadrupling it for a total of $3.4 billion in 2017.

That will fund a lot of things: more rotational U.S. forces in Europe, more training and exercising with our allies, more preposition and war-fighting gear and infrastructure improvements to support all this.

And when combined with U.S. forces already in and assigned to Europe — which are also substantial — all of this together by the end of 2017 will let us rapidly form a highly capable combined arms ground force that can respond across that theater, if necessary. 

However, the truth is: Russia is not expanding to NATO’s borders; NATO is expanding to Russia’s borders. The baldness of the Western lie to the contrary is an insult to Westerners’ intelligence.

The U.S. is preparing for an invasion of Russia.

“By the end of 2017,” the U.S. will be prepared to invade Russia.

Secretary Carter went on to say:

Russia and China are our most stressing competitors. They have developed and are continuing to advance military system[s] that seek to threaten our advantages in specific areas. And in some case[s], they are developing weapons and ways of wars that seek to achieve their objectives rapidly, before they hope, we can respond.

Because of this and because of their actions to date, from Ukraine to the South China Sea, DOD has elevated their importance in our defense planning and budgeting.

Since he is a Secretary of ‘Defense’ instead of a Secretary of Offense, he immediately added:

While we do not desire conflict of any kind with either of these nations — and let me be clear.

That’s all there was to the assertion there; he didn’t finish the sentence, nor even the thought. He often makes grammatical errors, of which that’s an example (and his leaving the “s”s off the words in the quoted passage there are others). But in this offhanded way, he did at least try to give the impression that the U.S. is never an aggressor — for example: that, though the U.S. is expanding NATO right up to Russia’s borders, Russia is being the ‘aggressor’ to move troops and weapons up to those borders — up to Russia’s own borders (to counter the U.S. & NATO invasion-threat, of course; but, no: it’s to threaten NATO, if you believe the West). In the statements by Ash Carter, Barack Obama, and Jens Stoltenberg, that’s ‘Russian aggression.’ In the allegory by George Orwell, 1984, America’s rhetoric is called simply “Newspeak.”

It’s as if during the Soviet Union (i.e., before 1991), when Nikita Khrushchev was the aggressor in 1962 and John Kennedy was the defender (against Soviet missiles in Cuba), Khrushchev had refused to yield and said that Soviet nuclear missiles near the U.S. had only a defensive, no offensive, purpose (no purpose for a blitz nuclear attack against the U.S. too fast for the U.S. to be able to get its missiles launched in retaliation). Kennedy said no to that idea then, and Putin says no to that idea (right on Russia’s very borders) now. The U.S., in post-Soviet, post communist, Russia, has turned around and become the aggressor — against the now democratic nation of Russia. (And Putin’s approval-rating from the Russian people is at least 80%, whereas Obama’s approval-rating from the American people is near 50%.) We’ve switched roles. The U.S. has turned to dictatorship, while Russia has turned to democracy. It’s a super-switcheroo. ‘Democracy’ in the U.S has become, during recent decades, the election of Presidents and congresspersons who were campaigning on lies, and who then actually delivered more like the opposite, as their actual governmental policies.

A good example of this is that when Mr. Obama was campaigning for re-election to the Presidency in 2012, he outright mocked his opponent Mitt Romney’s asserting (2:22 on the video) that, “Russia, this is without question our number one geopolitical foe.” But the moment that Obama became re-elected, Obama activated a 1957 CIA plan to overthrow Russia’s ally Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and a more-recent CIA and State Department plan to overthrow the actually neutralist Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine and replace him with a rabidly anti-Russian government. The head of Stratfor called it “the most blatant coup in history,” and it was an extremely bloody coup, followed by a civil war — and economic collapse, and even more corruption there. In addition, Obama carried out a French plan to overthrow Russia’s ally Muammar Gaddafi in Syria. All of these plans were strongly welcomed by Russia’s main oil-market competitors, all of them fundamentalist Sunni Arab financial backers of jihadists: the Saud royal family of Saudi Arabia, and the Thani royal family of Qatar, as well as the Sabah royal family of Kuwait, and the six royal families of UAE. Those royals own most of the world’s oil, and only Russia and its ally Iran are even in that league. All of those Sunni Arab royal families (especially the Sauds) are the main financial backers of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other jihadist groups, all of which are fundamentalist Sunni terrorist groups, which especially aim to exterminate all Shiites — and Shiites just happen to be supported by Russia. (The U.S. overthrew the democratically elected progressive President of Iran and installed the tyrannous Shah, back in 1953, and Iranians have loathed the U.S. government ever since.)

President Obama, in his second Administration, ceased his previous focus against the Sunni group Al Qaeda, and refocused U.S. policy to be against Russia, even to the extent of his now supporting Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other rabidly anti-Russian Sunni groups, who are driving millions of refugees from Syria, Libya, etc., into Europe. (Of course, Obama’s rhetoric remains against those Sunni extremists — just as his rhetoric was against Romney’s policies that Obama ended up imposing in his second term.) All of those terrorist groups are allied with the Sunni Arab royal families against Shiite-led Iran, and Shiite-allied Syria. 

The fundamentalist Sunni beliefs of the Arab royal families have, since at least 1744, been committed to exterminating all Shiites. Now that Shiite and Shiite-allied nations are supported by Russia, the United States is more overtly than ever preparing to conquer Russia, for the benefit of the aristocracies of America, and of Arabia.

And there are many other examples of President Obama’s policies exposing him to be an example of “the election of Presidents and congresspersons who were campaigning on lies, and who then actually delivered more like the opposite, as policies,” such as his claiming to champion democracy in Syria when his actual demand regarding Syria is to block democracy there because all the evidence shows that it would result in an overwhelming electoral victory for Bashar al-Assad. And another example is Obama’s supporting the right of self-determination of peoples regarding Scotland and Catalonia, but not in Crimea nor in Donbass nor in Abkhazia. The United Nations supports the right of self-determination of peoples everywhere, and Ban ki-Moon has clearly stated that America’s demand for the removal of Bashar al-Assad from power is alien to the principles upon which the United Nations was founded.

So: the U.S. regime is moving toward a nuclear confrontation against Russia, as a ‘defensive’ measure against ‘Russian aggression.’

Obama had previously used ‘The Iran Threat’ as his basis for placing anti-ballistic missiles in European countries near and bordering Russia, but he can’t do that anymore and so he’s now doing it with what had been his actual motive all along: to ‘protect’ Europe from ‘Russian aggression.’

What had led up to Romney’s assertion that Russia “is without question our number one geopolitical foe” was his having been baited by CNN to comment upon a private statement that Obama had made to Vladimir Putin’s representative saying that, “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” CNN didn’t say what that matter was about, but simply baited Romney with it for Romney to play the Red-scare Joseph R. McCarthy role, which Romney did (McCarthy, of the anti-communist witch-hunts, being a Republican hero). Reuters explained what the context was, what Obama had been replying to there: Putin’s concern was that placing anti-ballistic missiles (ABMs) in Europe to strip Russia of its ability to retaliate against a first-strike from NATO forces in Europe, by those ABMs eliminating Russia’s ability to retaliate, was unacceptable. Obama was telling Putin’s representative that Obama would “have more flexibility” against Republican hate-mongerers against Russia, after he’d win re-election. It was just another lie from him. He won re-election and turned out to be actually a black Mitt Romney. In fact, Obama had spent his entire first term deceiving the entire world to think that he rejected Republicans being “stuck in a Cold War mind warp,” as he put it. It was all merely an act for him. He should be in Hollywood, not in the White House.

If this cat gets much farther out of the bag, it’s not just the cat but the whole world that will be lost.

The first priority for a President Bernie Sanders, or for a President Donald Trump, must be to undo the Bush-Obama foreign policy, because it certainly won’t be undone by a President Hillary Clinton, nor by a President Ted Cruz, nor by a President Marco Rubio — and this is the main thing that’s at stake in the current U.S. Presidential contest. What’s at stake here is nothing less than whether civilization even survives another few decades. That’s now seriously at question, and trillions are being spent right now to bring it to an end.

This isn’t kids’ stuff. And it’s not really rocket science, either. It’s instead a fundamental and stark moral issue, that’s staring the entire world in the face right now. And it hasn’t got a thing to do with religion (which is always morally irrelevant except for stirring up hatreds, which are immoral — religion is just a tool the aristocracy use to control the public to think that the aristocrats ‘deserve’ to control the government), but it has a lot to do with restoring democracy where it has been eroded down to virtually nothing.

Democracy requires a truthfully informed public. And that’s the truth. Let’s get with it, before it’s too late to do so.

The likelihood of a nuclear war has never been higher than it now is, except perhaps for the Cuban Missile Crisis, but the entire world was being informed about that then, and what about the situation now, after democracy’s having been eroded away so much in the West? This time around, the situation is perhaps even more serious. The urgency of the situation is critical.

Is this the type of ‘news’ coverage we’ll continue to get on the world’s top matter — that Russia is invading our territory, when we’re actually constantly invading (and perpetrating coups) in theirs, and they’re actually doing what they must  do in order to defend the Russian people themselves from NATO?

End NATO now. Or else it (and its cooperative ‘news’ media in the West) will end us all. The whole expansion of NATO up to Russia’s borders has been based upon U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush’s lie to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990, which lie from Bush and his agents induced Gorbachev to end not just the Soviet Union but their equivalent of NATO, the Warsaw Pact — all of which Russia did do in 1991. Russia has consistently fulfilled its part of the bargain, but GHWB’s vicious violation of his promise has been consistently followed, adhered to, by American Presidents ever since. The deceit goes on, and the U.S. is now heading towards culminating the most dangerous lie in world history.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Business / Economics, Energy / Environment, General, Media, Politics / World News, propaganda and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Nexusfast123

    These dickless mental midgets are going to miscalculate and Russia will respond with overwhelming force as per their military strategic doctrine. NATO is a bully that is going to get thumped.

  • Don Robertson

    Eric Zuesse- “The likelihood of a nuclear war has never been higher than it now is […]

    This sort of hyperbolic, alarmist statement intimating clairvoyance and omniscience is par for the course on the Internet. Just par, not a birdie, not an eagle, just par. LoL

    It’s like all the scores gold experts who have been proclaiming gold to be headed to $5000 an ounce and up, anytime now, for many years on end. Gold is the only thing that will be worth anything real soon now! LoL

    It’s like all the armpit tuba economists that have predicted the dollar’s demise and the apocalyptic fourth turning when up becomes down and inside becomes outside. Take your money out of the bank and buy canned goods and ammo! LoL

    It’s like all the self-erupting alternative medicine experts proclaiming the Swine Flu, Ebola and Zika will depopulate the planet. Immediately STOP eating any food that begins with a “W” a “B” or an “S”! LoL

    It’s like all the Ron Paul Libertarians, who think the decisions necessary to straighten out the Republic come from a jerky turning of the hank crank of Libertarian ideology. Dope, tanks, hand grenades, machine guns and pit bulls should be legal and prostitution too. LoL

    It’s like the potheads who scream, “Fascist pigs!” when the cops pull them over for driving down the road smoking a joint. It’s fucking medical marijuana!!! LoL

    It’s like those who for years pointed to North Dakota as the key to solving the world’s banking problems, but who now no longer can find North Dakota on the map since the fallen price of oil has crushed the North Dakotan tar sand oil economy.

    Pull your head out of your ass for just one second a day. You’ll be amazed to see, the blue sky and the sunshine are pretty breathtaking compared to the view inside that hole between your cheeks.

    LoL

    • cstahnke

      Ok, I get the feeling but this is a little hyperbolic. First of all you have to be pretty stupid to scream “fascist pigs” to cops in the USA unless you’re rich that completely ruined your point. I agree with your assessment that as to the subject of this essay, that nuclear war is not that much more likely than before. Zuesse tends to see things sometimes in a simplistic way.

      • jadan

        The Doomsday Clock is 11:57 and the hair trigger alert is policy. US aggression, not Russian aggression, threatens to provoke accidents, if nothing else. Nuclear weapons are “friendlier” than ever….Zeusse is supremely rational. The irrationality is with the US government and governments of all nuclear states that believe they’ve got their shit under control…we need more hyperbole, not less…there is no defense against nuclear weapons and it is madness to believe there is…..

        • cettel

          Thank you Jadan. You succinctly demolished Don Robertson’s poorly-thought-out statement of what the present danger is, and especially (this time around) of where it’s coming from (which is exactly the opposite side from the one that the Western ‘news’ media blame).

          I was, frankly, even more shocked than I was disappointed that Robertson seems either not to care, or else not to know, that, this time around, the aggressor is certainly — and only — the U.S. and its allies. The outrageous immorality of what Obama is doing, isn’t even being noticed by some people — including not only some people whose sole sources of ‘news’ are outfits such as The Atlantic and The New York Times, but even by some people who read washingtonsblog, one of fewer than only a dozen honest news-sites on the Web. Even at a site like this, there are people who either don’t know or don’t care how far off the cliff Obama (George W. Bush II) has already led this country. And that’s without eve so much as mentioning: TTIP, TPP, & TISA. (If any of those passes into law, then Obama will have been an even worse President than Bush was.) Some people just don’t notice what’s happening, or else don’t care. Even some people who read this site don’t. That is extremely depressing.

          • jadan

            It’s difficult to find one’s way in the fog of propaganda. Our government simply does not tell the truth as Paul Craig Roberts reminds us. Your efforts to cut through the bs are a touchstone. If there is a hard landing you certainly won’t have contributed to it!

          • Don Robertson

            Jadan- “It’s difficult to find one’s way in the fog of propaganda.”

            Just look at the body language. Does the body language say anything about nuclear war? I didn’t think so.

            http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user92183/imageroot/2016/02/02/Potatoes_0.png

          • cstahnke

            Excellent!

          • Don Robertson

            “[…] washingtonsblog, one of fewer than only a dozen honest news-sites on the Web […]

            Name three. LoL

            Singing the doomsday song is as old as dirt.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYsKt-eAjXk

            Eric Zuesse is just another moaning singer singing the trite and tired song of false prophets gone past. Like the old adage says, misery loves company. The misery loved by such company, seems the best reason in the world to idle one’s time away in a fit of hound dog depression…

      • wunsacon

        >> nuclear war is not that much more likely than before

        In the news today, Sec Carter said he “supports” KSA if it decides to attack Syria. He’s publicly encouraging (the worst POS’s in the ME, IMO) to enter territory of a country that has a defense pact with Russia (who so far has been doing a great job defeating ISIS). And given the relationship between KSA and the US, it’s a clear proxy relationship. That makes it an official US alliance attacking an official Russian alliance. How does that not increase the risk?

        I guess it was much, much, much higher during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But, I suspect it’s also much higher now than anytime *since*. (I just looked up and see that’s exactly what Eric said. So, my suggestion is to consider Don Johnson a hyperbolic troll and simply ignore him.)

        You might reply by saying “we’re coming off such a low baseline probability, that percentage-wise it looks like a big jump in probability but it isn’t in absolute terms”. If that’s why you say “not that much more likely than before”, I get it.

        • Don Robertson

          This is the moment of the deal that has struck the current US/Russia paradigm, Yeltsin’s heralded address to the US Congress..

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwemQR59wbw

          Note how Yeltsin talks about one-thousand years. Things have not been better in Russia in a thousand years. No one in Russia wants to rock the boat now.

          Putin is continually strengthening US relations, not deconstructing them.

        • cstahnke

          Let me set this straight here. It is possible that we could wander into a nuclear war but unlikely because no one wants that and everyone “in the game” is watching out for it. What we have here is high voltage pro-wrestling moves meant to influence various publics. To be blunt, nuclear war is bad for business (bidness as we used to say in the old days) and so it is highly unlikely because the business of American is business folks. The game is rigged today far more than at any time in our history and the playas are playing a game here with clear boundaries. Just as I predicted that there would absolutely be no invasion of Iran when it “looked like it” there will be no growth in real tensions–just pro-wrestling levels. As far as I can tell things are going to settle down as long as Obama is in office.

  • cstahnke

    First we need to understand the prime directive of U.S. military strategy at this point in history and that is to make money for the military industrial complex by adopting a strategy of tension. In response Putin has called the bluff of the U.S. and seems to have out maneuvered those in the U.S. National Security Establishment to the extent it is interested in global strategy. The problem with the USG is that it lacks a coherent policy and that is because it is deeply divided among thieves, martinets, and realists to be blunt. There will be and cannot be any major war against Russia–first because Russia is too strong and united and thus can pursue fairly cohesive and clever strategies that the West has no chance to match. The Russian state, as someone wrote somewhere (maybe here) is a post-post-modern state. That is it has gone beyond the control of factions, corporations to create a return to nationalism for good or ill. The U.S. is still in the process of disintegrating. Corporations, various kinds of parasites, corporations and so on rule the U.S. not the Obama administration which mainly acts as a location where deals are made between powerful entities, gangs, and factions. That is the reality of Washington today. U.S. policy has disintegrated despite the fact “everyone” agrees on the basic narrative since not agreeing to that would create even more chaos in an already restive body politic. This is precisely why Sanders avoids talking about foreign policy–he doesn’t want to get into the cross-fire between factions in Washington. Let me be very blunt here to illustrate the problem–I don’t believe various parts of the military will follow orders it thinks will endanger the country. Senior military officers may be the last patriots in the National Security State.

    • wunsacon

      >> Senior military officers may be the last patriots in the National Security State.

      Probably only a “subset”, no? I have to imagine many of them are gung-ho and looking for a revolving door towards another income stream to add to their pension. After all, where do some of these TV pundits — the ones who appear in order to lend credibility to the politicians’ fear-mongering — come from? But, yes, hopefully, there are some seasoned “cooler heads” who are influential enough to prevail.

      Maybe I’m misunderstanding you on that point. (I understand and largely agree with the rest.)

      • Silverado

        A pension requires a stable currency and a stable monetary policy. We have neither. The biggest threat to pensions is the govt in Washington DC of which the generals are in…cahoots. This all changes as soon as their dollar fails. And make no mistake – the end of the petro-dollar is happening as we speak. And John Q. Public is waking up and boy is he going to be pissed once he sees what these criminals have done. Especially to his money AND his standard of living. I’m predicting Hell to pay especially if you had anything to do with…this. Good luck. You’ll need it…

  • http://www.alkhulaifi-it.com

    I do not thank so

  • tom

    “While we do not desire conflict of any kind with either of these nations…”

    “… we do expect them to obey our orders, accept our suggestions, and refrain from attempting to match our military power”.

  • Here is some insight. Dec 3, 2015 U.S. and Western Policy Towards Russia by Center for Strategic by International Studies

    The Russian annexation of Crimea has led to over two years of debate regarding Washington’s strategy towards Moscow. Today, with Ukraine somewhat quieter and seeming progress towards cooperation on Syria, are more cooperative approaches possible? What should be Washington’s goals in engaging with Russia, or responding to it on the global stage? Are there tools that have not yet been tried, and what can they attain where other efforts have failed?

    https://youtu.be/4X45jEXej20

  • Witold Piorun

    Utter sheit article.