Are American Threats Against Russia a Sign of WEAKNESS, Instead of Strength?

Teddy Roosevelt famously said America’s foreign policy was to “speak softly, and carry a big stick.”

During the heyday of American power, the U.S. quietly pulled off numerous coups around the world, without the American public even know that we were involved.

And mission creep was stealthy. For example, the U.S., UK and France didn’t announce that they were going to bump off Libya’s leader. They pretended that they were “protecting civilians” … and then the mission quietly changed to killing Gaddafi.

So what should we make of America’s overt threats against Russia, a country with nuclear weapons?

Federico Pieraccini argues that America is blustering because it is actually weak. Specifically, he says that America has lost it’s attempt to implement regime change in Syria.

In other words, Pieraccini believes that the U.S. is barking so loudly – threatening war against Russia – because it has lost it’s bite.

After all, America has long been the world’s sole superpower … and yet Russia has so far been able to stop America and its allies’ military moves in Syria.

So are American leaders really thinking of launching cyber or military warfare against Russia?

Or are these the impotent wailings of a paper tiger, in the process of losing its hegemony?

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Nexusfast123

    They are dumb leaders of a collapsing and putrid empire.

  • Charlie Primero

    All wars are Banker Wars.

    Tell us which bankers support Russia/Syria control of selling natural gas to cold Europe, and which bankers support the US/Qatar pipeline through Syria to Europe.

  • WillDippel

    Here is an article that compares the military of Russia and NATO in the North Atlantic:

    The recent ramping up of rhetoric between Russia and the U.S. is, at the very least, pushing us back in time to a much less militarily secure era.

    • bogart1

      Yes, it is a big game of “Lets pray that Putin does not try to blow up large sections of the world no matter how much we irritate him and cause mayhem with his friends.”

  • cstahnke

    The nature of the National Security State has changed over time such that the interests of the country are not really considered to be important. The whole point of US foreign policy since 9/11 seems to consist of two interlocking concerns. The first is to bludgeon the world into submission to the global Empire that represents the international ruling class; the second is to enrich the world of security contractors; and third create a playing field for ambitious Washington non-elected political playas to work out pecking orders for fun and profit. There is no central authority like the POTUS governing any of this–the most Obama can do is drag his feet or broker agreements between powerful people.

    Therefore the National Security State is always going to appear to be “weak” because it is divided most of the time. One side wants to agree with Russia and another side shows that it can upend any agreement with Russia or anyone else. This is why there is chaos in the ME there are probably at least a half dozen USG and contractor factions playing somewhat different roles. If you followed some of the details of the US occupation of Iraq you could see often contrary agendas playing out–the same goes for Afghanistan. We have to learn to think in a new way about the nature of Washington.

  • wehaveseenthisb4

    From the get-go former ME military intel experts said Assad would not be disposed by SA and Qatar’s head chopper armies, and if came to that Russia would step in to defend what it considers its national security interests in Syria. Same experts are now saying US is blowing it’s mouth off at peace talks and cease fires to attempt to gain from Assad and Russia what it can’t win on the battle field.

    Banker wars is correct. End game is to get Assad and Russia out of Syria and build an oil and gas pipeline into Europe, carrrying SA oil and Qatar NG, thereby kicking the Rooskies out of European energy markets.

    • bahmi

      And the stupid US taxpayer can pay for this that benefits the energy industry. As it stands now, US forces and the hireling jihadis are paid for by the US taxpayer and the energy industry gets essentially free protection and we pay through the nose. Why do we need to pay for Euiropean countries’ oil and gas supplies anyway?

  • Rusty Shackleford

    I hope so. As an American, I’m sick of US war and bloodshed. To hell with it.

    • David Schultz

      Another war will bankrupt America. The stock market bubble will burst and people will lose their jobs and their homes. The people on fat government payrolls will also lose their jobs too when non-essential services are cut.

  • bogart1

    Not weakness but panic. One loss in South West Asia and all of the parts of the empire will instantly be under attack. So goes the life of an empire.

  • Mr Boompi

    Even a cornered rabbit is dangerous. America is not used to losing and is acting irrationally and illegally at every turn. We used to be that “light on the hill”. We’ve turned into a dark dungeon instead.

    • Libertymike

      When were “we” ever that “light on the hill”?

  • ICFubar

    The US-Central bankers may be stymied in Syria and Ukraine, coming up against the Resistance Bloc.[R.B.] Elsewhere they are largely unopposed and in full operational mode. The R.B. does not have the ability to project power aboard like the Empire on Lies is capable of. If the Empire needs $5 billion to conduct a color revolution regime change or bribe officials in the E.U. or Canada they just print up the cash and have at ‘er. The Empire can set many a bush fires that the R.B. will have to run around and try to put out as a matter of course keeping the R.B. on the defensive. The R.B. can scarcely match such action with their own efforts to undermine the Empire but may do so eventually if what actions they do proceed with are strategically planned for the greatest effect. This is largely a fight between elites vying for position, influence and control within the ‘New Universal Agenda’, as re branded from the old ‘NWO’, as it comes into being.

  • Pete Mangum

    My God, let us HOPE this is the case! To even hint that one thinks a nuclear war can be fought and won is patently insane, yet this appears to be the thought processes of Hillary Clinton and her Neocon support.

    • JCMR

      I hope so too.

  • Beverly Larkwood

    As the adage says, “cornered rats come out fighting”. This is what I fear. The deep state knows not only is it losing influence and power in the world, but is aware the system (economic and financial) reached a point where it no longer can be sustained. The ‘Limits to Growths’ and the ‘Law of Diminishing Returns’ are already at work and plainly visible. Thus, starting a World War would be an ideal diversion and way to reset the failing systems. One should also look at Clinton’s cabinet lineup to get a feeling for what might happen. Not to forget that the DoD, State Dept., Nat. Sec. Advisor, UN Ambassador will all be women. A perfect lineup for starting a war…. after all, who would suspect women to start a World War?

    • Libertymike


      Women are every bit as malevolent and violent as men.


      • Taras77

        e.g. Samantha Power

      • Beverly Larkwood

        Indeed, there are many women in that category of people. To mind come Margaret Thatcher who started a war with Argentina over a tiny island; Victoria (Fuck the E.U.) Nuland who was the instrumental force behind regime change in Ukraine; Mme Madeleine Albright stating that killing 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it (the sanctions) and last but not least Killary Clinton with her “regime” change missions and pathetic outburst over the murder of Gaddafi.

  • bahmi

    All wars of imperialism and money are the reasons we are trying to take care of bidness in Israel’s behalf, of course. Screw the American taxpayer so the Israeli’s get all they want out of us.