Tuesday, October 25, 2016

U.S. vs Russia: War Preparations Continue As Rhetoric Increases, Putin: The West Does Not Hear His Warnings





Russian Lt. General: "We're Teetering on the Brink of War" with the United States



If American media is being tight-lipped about the threat of potential nuclear war with Russia over the West’s insistence of regime change in and illegal occupation of Syria, Russian and international media is all over it.




The Russian Federation has won the fifteen-year geopolitical chess match with the west. However, Moscow could be described as an unwilling victor because it never envisaged a situation in which it would be forced to outsmart its “partners” just to survive. The idea at the turn of the century was something totally different.


That Russia is preparing for war is no secret.
They’ve deployed a fleet toward Syria that, ironically enough, is set to arrive just before the US election. The Russian government held a massive civil defense drill just over a week ago that involved 40 million civilianspreparing for biological, chemical, and nuclear attacks.
Now, Lt. Gen Evgeny Buzhinsky, former head of the Russian ministry of defence’s international treaties department, said that Russia and the US are on the brink of full-on war:


“If we talk about the last Cold War, we are currently somewhere between the erection of the Berlin Wall and the Cuban Missile crisisIn other words, teetering on the brink of war, but without the mechanisms to manage the confrontation.”


Russia has reportedly cut diplomatic ties with the US at this point. Russian state officials and government workers were ordered to immediately bring back any of their children studying abroad, regardless of whether or not it meant cutting their education short.

Considering everything that’s happening, the statements above aren’t really that shocking at all.
What’s shocking is how the US media continues to ignore them and the fact that our country could be so close to World War III.







Russia deployed nuclear-capable missiles this month to its territory in the Baltic Sea, its latest aggressive move with nuclear weapons that alarms the West. Worrisome signs include increased talk about using nuclear weapons, more military maneuvers with nuclear arms, development of advanced nuclear munitions and public discussion of a new war doctrine that accelerates the use of such weapons.
“Russia is exercising its military forces and its nuclear force more offensively than it used to do,” said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington. How to respond “is hotly debated in NATO,” he said. 
Though the United States and Russia have comparable arsenals of long-range nuclear weapons, the United States has eliminated all but 500 low-yield warheads in its short-range arsenal. By contrast, Russia has modernized its short-range weapons in recent years and accumulated about 2,000 low-yield warheads, according to a study by Kristensen. 
Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite called the deployment an “open demonstration of power and aggression against not the Baltic States but against European capitals.” 
Analyst Peter Doran of the Center for European Policy Analysis in Washington said Russia’s foreign policy and war-fighting strategy are “evolving faster than our responses can keep up.” Steven Pifer, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, said NATO officials and other observers disagree on whether the rhetoric and surge in nuclear activity is a bluff to counter superior NATO forces, or part of a new Russian strategy that combines nuclear threats, conventional warfare and low-yield nuclear weapons in the battlefield against NATO forces that are more numerous and technologically advanced. “If you’re Vladimir Putin, you’re making an effort to portray Russia as a superpower,” Pifer said. “The only asset Russia has as a superpower is lots of nuclear weapons.”  





Against a backdrop of increasing tension with the US, the Russian fleet passed through the English Channel on Friday en route to Syria in the country’s largest surface deployment since the end of the Cold War. The British Royal Navy is “man marking” the Russian fleet as it passes their shores, keeping a distance of about five miles in order to monitor it.
According to Western intelligence reports, Russian is sending its entire Northern Fleet and part of its Baltic Fleet, a total of eight warships including one aircraft carrier. The armada is sailing to the Mediterranean to reinforce the Russian military presence in Syria.
A senior NATO diplomat told the Telegraph, a major British news service, that the deployment was part of a renewed Russian attack in Aleppo.
“They are deploying all of the Northern Fleet and much of the Baltic Fleet in the largest surface deployment since the end of the Cold War,” the diplomat said.
“This is not a friendly port call. In two weeks, we will see a crescendo of air attacks on Aleppo as part of Russia’s strategy to declare victory there.”
Friction between the two super-powers is growing on the home-front as well. Last Friday, Vice President Joe Biden US Vice President Joe Biden threatened Russia with a cyber-attack in a Meet the Press televised interview.


Russia is taking the cyber-threat seriously. Sergei Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the US, told SCMagazineUK an online news service for computer security professionals, that the US government has not yet provided proof that the cyber-attacks on the Democratic National Convention was perpetrated by Russia. Yuri Ushakov, the Russian presidential aide, told SCMagazineUK that Russia has already begun designing protective measures.








A UN report orchestrated by Washington has accused Syria and Russia of war crimes in Aleppo.  According to the report, "indiscriminate airstrikes across the eastern part of the city by Government forces and their allies [Russia] are responsible for the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties. These violations constitute war crimes. And if knowingly committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against civilians, they constitute crimes against humanity." 


The UN Human Rights Council has now voted to start an "independent" investigation.  The purpose of the investigation is to indict Russia and Putin as war criminals and to "bring to justice those responsible for the alleged abuses." 

Obviously, neither Washington nor the UN will be able to drag Putin into the International Criminal Court.  The purpose of this orchestrated exercise is its propaganda value.  Among Washington's many concerns is that some Eastern European countries, alarmed by the conflict that Washington is leading them into with Russia, will threaten NATO with a non-participation statement.  If Russia is branded a war criminal, it becomes even more difficult for countries that foolishly and thoughtlessly joined NATO to extricate themselves from the consequences.


As the anointed spokesperson for the neoconservative warmongers, Hillary wants Washington to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria.  A no-fly zone would require Washington to attemp to prevent Syrian and Russian air strikes against ISIS positions.  It seems clear enough that Syria and Russia would not accept any attempt to deny Syria the use of the country's own airspace in the conflict against forces sent by Washington to overthrow the Syrian government, as happened to Gaddafi in Libya.  Hillary's no-fly zone would result in military conflict between Russia and the US.

Hillary intends regime change for Russia and will use the presidency for that purpose. 


It is impossible to imagine a purpose more reckless and irresponsible. Many members of the Russian government have stated that Washington's provocation and demonization of Russia have brought trust between the nuclear powers close to zero and that Russia will never again fight a war on her own territory.  Sergey Karaganov told the German news magazine, Der Spiegal, that if Washington and NATO move from provocations to encroachments  against Russia, a nuclear power, they will be punished.


Many foolish people believe that nuclear war cannot happen, because there can be no winner.  However, the American war planners, who elevated US nuclear weapons from a retaliatory role to a pre-emptive first strike function, obviously do not agree that nuclear war cannot be won.  If nuclear war is believed to be unwinable, there is no point in a war doctrine that assigns the weapons the role of surprise attack.



The Russians are aware and disturbed that Washington has made the situation between the US and Russia more dangerous than during the Cold War. Vladimir Putin himself has stated that the West does not hear his warnings. 



In an effort to avoid war, Putin wrings everything possible out of diplomacy. He enters into agreements with Washington that he must know will not be kept.So much has happened to teach him this lesson- the Washington instigated invasion of South Ossetia by Georgia while he was at the Beijing Olympics, Washington's coup in Ukraine while he was at the Sochi Olympics, Washington's abandonment of the Minsk Agreement, the advantage Washington took of the Syrian ceasefire agreements, the violation of Washington's promise not to move NATO to Russia's border, Washington's sacking of the Anti-ABM Treaty, the orchestrated blame of Russia for MH-17, Hillary's hacked emails, etc.
Washington clearly intends to use Russia's military and diplomatic assistance to Syria to convict Russia in world public opinion of war crimes. It was Russia's hesitancy in Syria that enabled Washington to recover from the defeat of its ISIS mercenaries and substitute control of the explanation for defeat on the ground. 
This is the huge cost that Putin paid for listening to the unrealistic, American-worshipping Atlanticist Integrationists who are determined that Russia be accepted by the West even if it means being a semi-vassal.  If there is nuclear war, the Russian Atlanticist Integrationists will share the blame with the American neoconservatives.  And all of us will pay the price for the disaster produced by these few, the neoconservatives demanding war and the Atlanticist Integrationists demanding appeasement of Washington.



























No comments: