Cold War 2.0

[TsarSamuil]

America tuned out as Congress bangs war drum against Russia.

Robert Bridge has worked as a journalist in Russia since 1998. Formerly the editor-in-chief of The Moscow News, Bridge is the author of the book, “Midnight in the American Empire.”

RT.com
December 07, 2014 20:32

On December 4, as America was tuned into Thursday night football, or staring into the cold depths of the refrigerator at commercial time, House members brought the nation one step closer to all-out war with Russia.

Future historians - that is, assuming there are humans still around to contemplate history - may one day point to House Resolution 758 as the single piece of legislation that sparked a global conflagration between two leading nuclear powers.

This is not hyperbole. US rhetoric against Russia is quickly overstepping reality, causing US politicians to endorse policies that severely inflate the perceived threat. When political veteran Ron Paul says the House passed what he ranked as “one of the worst pieces of legislation ever,” well, we had better sit up and switch off CNN, especially when that legislation happens to involve a historical heavyweight like Russia.

Resolution 758 was forged in a political furnace of unbalanced, one-sided debate, where American politicians regularly attempt to outdo each other in a lame contest called ‘Russian fear mongering.’ This popular game, which is never out of season, is played among intellectually challenged officials looking for quick political advantage; a bit like Special Olympics for American politicians where everybody goes home a winner.

However, these Russian games are no longer a laughing matter as they were during the feel-good Yeltsin era. Putin has shown himself to be a highly competent statesman and whether this fact is responsible for America’s bad mood is difficult to say. Whatever the case may be, judging by the wording of HR 758, America seems to be sliding towards a ‘war footing’ with Russia.

The opening paragraph of HR 758 accuses Russia of conducting an " invasion of Ukraine" and violating its territorial sovereignty. Like so much else in this resolution, the statement is delivered into American living rooms like a dry, cold pizza without the toppings. Yet nobody, except Ron Paul and a few others, seems to be complaining.

“Surely with our sophisticated satellites that can read a license plate from space we should have video and pictures of this Russian invasion,” Paul argued. “None have been offered. As to Russia’s ‘violation of Ukrainian sovereignty,’ why isn’t it a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty for the US to participate in the overthrow of that country’s elected government as it did in February?”

Indeed, as Ukraine was approaching open rebellion, US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine were overheard in taped conversations bragging that the US spent $5 billion on regime change in Ukraine. They even mentioned the names of the individuals the US wants to see in leadership positions, and while we’re at it: ‘F*ck the EU!’

Paragraph 13 of the document demands the “withdrawal of Russia forces from Ukraine” even though not a shred of evidence has been produced to prove that the Russian army ever set foot in Ukraine. Further on, HR 758 urges Kiev to resume military operations against the eastern regions seeking independence, a move that will certainly exasperate East-West relations if it goes forward.

Paragraph 14 states that Malaysia Airlines flight 17, which went down in murky circumstances in eastern Ukraine, was brought down by a missile “fired by Russian-backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine.”

How can the House make such a reckless conclusion when the final report on the investigation of this tragedy is not scheduled to be released until next year? Moreover, the preliminary report never says that a missile was responsible for bringing down MH17.

Paragraph 22 states that Russia invaded the Republic of Georgia in 2008. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the historical record since it is well known that Georgian forces launched a crack-of-dawn military offensive against South Ossetia, killing hundreds of civilians, as well as a dozen Russian peacekeepers. Yes, Russia chased the Georgian army back to the outskirts of Tbilisi before turning back, but what country would have done differently under similar circumstances?

HR 758 also calls on Russia “to reverse its illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula, to end its support of the separatist forces in Crimea, and to remove its military forces from that region other than those operating in strict accordance with its 1997 agreement on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet Stationing on the Territory of Ukraine.”


A woman stands by her smoldering home in the Lidievka district, after it was hit and destroyed by shelling in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk on December 6, 2014. (AFP Photo/Eric Feferberg)A woman stands by her smoldering home in the Lidievka district, after it was hit and destroyed by shelling in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk on December 6, 2014. (AFP Photo/Eric Feferberg)

This statement represents the falsification of history in an effort to pursue a political agenda. The people of the Crimean peninsula, under the threat of violence from government forces, independently called for a referendum to decide their sovereign status. Only after Crimea voted – overwhelmingly - to join the Russian Federation did the Russian Duma hold a vote on the issue. The entire process was done according to international law.

There are many more such preposterous claims and dangerous demands in HR 758, yet the document has been greeted with a deafening silence in the United States by the corporate-owned media.

“Global security is at stake,” writes Michel Chossudovsky in Veteran News. “This historic vote – which potentially could affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people worldwide– has received virtually no media coverage. A total media blackout prevails.”

It is the opinion here that the recent upsurge in anti-Russian rhetoric, which is quickly transforming into concrete actions, is not a new phenomenon. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States never really shook off its cold war hangover, and moreover, never really wanted to.

A holier-than-thou attitude has permeated the great majority of US think-tank papers over the years, creating a palpable sense of fear towards Russia while sowing the seeds for immense defense sector profits. Newspaper articles since the time of Boris Yeltsin have dripped with condescending, disparaging remarks about Russia, which have worked to create a particular mindset in many Americans towards a country they have most likely never experienced firsthand.

Meanwhile, inside the world of America’s hermetically sealed cauldron of ‘academic Russian studies’ (READ: Sovietology) a veritable echo chamber where anti-Russian mantras are recited like unthinking prayers, an atmosphere of hostility against Russia has been carefully cultivated. There are only a handful of honest US academicians as far as Russia is concerned.

Given this overtly hostile attitude towards all things Russian, it was quite easy for the United States to sell the idea of a dangerous enemy “on the doorstep of NATO” that has some kind of wild desire to recreate an empire.

Yet what country has been steadily encroaching on Russia’s doorstep like a wolf in sheep’s clothing since the end of the Cold War? What country has refused to cooperate with Russia in its missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, thus bringing the continent to the brink of another arms race? What country has over 800 military franchises spanning the globe, yet accuses Russia of yearning for empire? What country has launched military offensives against seven countries in the last six years, yet calls Russia an “aggressive state” because it dares defends itself when attacked by a foreign power? What country has been playing geopolitical games in Ukraine since the collapse of the Soviet Union – even sending high-ranking political figures into central Kiev to spew venomous rhetoric against Russia when it appeared that Ukraine was going to join an economic bloc with Russia, as opposed to the EU?

Before the US Senate votes on HR758, it should ask itself these simple questions, otherwise it risks stirring up a hornet’s nest of problems the world does not need.

[TsarSamuil]

Stratfor founder: ‘US fears a resurgent Russia’

RT.com
December 19, 2014 16:07

Washington “fears” a resurgent Russia, which harps back to the Cold War says George Friedman, the CEO and founder of forecasters Stratfor. He also believes the US started to meddle in Ukraine in retaliation for Russia outfoxing Obama over Syria.

Friedman says the United States has been intervening around the globe for over a century with the goal of making sure it keeps potential rivals in check. For the United States, any rising power in Europe represents a threat, and despite the end of the Cold War, Washington is still “hypersensitive” to the possible reemergence of Russia as a super power.

“The United States intervened in World War I in 1917 to block German hegemony, and again in World War II. In the Cold War the goal was to prevent Russian hegemony. US strategic policy has been consistent for a century,” he stated in an article on Stratfor’s website.

Startfor is a geopolitical intelligence firm that provides strategic analysis and forecasting to individuals and organizations around the world. It first came to prominence in 1999 with the release of its Kosovo Crisis Center, during NATO airstrikes over Serbia. It has often tried to predict various paths that governments and political leaders may take.

The Ukraine question

Now the US has its sights set on Ukraine. Firstly Washington has a fear of Russia regaining control in the region. Throughout the crisis, America has accused Russia of regional aggression, however, on the contrary, Russians feel they have been far from being on the offensive and have been on the defense.

“If Russia manages to reassert its power in Ukraine, then what will come next? Russia has military and political power that could begin to impinge on Europe. Therefore, it is not irrational for the United States, and at least some European countries, to want to assert their power in Ukraine,” Friedman said.

Secondly, Washington’s presence in Ukraine is also seen as a way to punish Russia for “embarrassing”’ Barack Obama over Syria. Friedman believes the US President did not want to invade Syria, even when Assad's forces were accused of having used poison gas.

Stratfor Global Intelligence CEO George Friedman.(AFP Photo / Ronaldo Schemidt)Stratfor Global Intelligence CEO George Friedman.(AFP Photo / Ronaldo Schemidt)

This would have given Obama the perfect excuse to launch a military attack, but he decided against intervention due to fears that it could have led to the creation of another Sunni jihadist movement in the region. “The Russian attempt to embarrass the president by making it appear that Putin had forced him to back down triggered the U.S. response in Ukraine.”

Friedman is a political scientist, who founded Stratfor in 1996. He accepts that “Ukraine is of fundamental importance to Russia,” and will continue to be alarmed about further Western encroachment.

“As difficult as this is for Westerners to fathom, Russian history is a tale of buffers. Buffer states save Russia from Western invaders. Russia wants an arrangement that leaves Ukraine at least neutral.”

Sanctions not working

Friedman, who was born in Hungary before emigrating with his parents to the US, says Russia has the ability to emerge from US led sanctions and the recent drop in the ruble due to falling oil prices.

“Russians' strength is that they can endure things that would break other nations. It was also pointed out that they tend to support the government regardless of its competence when Russia feels threatened.”

Friedman believes that the implementation of sanctions will not have the desired effect the US and EU hope. He points to the fact that President Vladimir Putin is “still enormously popular.” Also he has learned that the Russian mindset is different to that of those in the West, partly because the population has become accustomed to political and economic upheaval over the last century.

“The most important lesson I might have learned in Russia — ‘might’ being the operative term — is that Russians don't respond to economic pressure as Westerners do, and that the idea made famous in a presidential campaign slogan, ‘It's the economy, stupid,’ may not apply the same way in Russia.”

Overall Friedman believes there is a lot of mistrust between Russia and America, with neither side acknowledging the other’s fears.

“All of the good will in the world — and there is precious little of that — cannot solve the problem of two major countries that are compelled to protect their interests and in doing so must make the other feel.”

[TsarSamuil]

Attempts to isolate Russia have been thwarted – senator.

RT.com
December 31, 2014 11:56

The head of Russia’s Upper House Foreign Relations Committee has said that coordinated efforts of all branches of power prevented attempts to isolate the country and exercise “political and economic blackmail” over Moscow.

“It is due to the efforts in foreign policy that thwarted the plans on international isolation of our country – and the authors of these plans wanted to make such isolation an independent means of political and economic blackmail against Russia,” Konstantin Kosachev said in a message posted on the Federation Council’s official website on Wednesday.

The senator emphasized the importance of the 2014 agreements with Turkey and China for maintaining Russia’s presence on the international economic and political arena. He noted that the Turkey deal has completely overturned the situation with the South Stream pipeline project, frozen under pressure from the EU.

Another definite success was the launching of the Eurasian Economic Union – the economic and political bloc uniting about 171 million people in Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Armenia – Kosachev said in his message.

Because of Russian diplomats’ success in 2014, the public internationally have even started to forget about their achievement in 2013 – the agreement on decommissioning Syrian chemical weapons that paved the way for the peaceful settlement of the crisis in that country and the Mideast as a whole.

“The effect is felt to this day because we prevented a ‘Libyan’ or ‘Iraqi’ scenario for Libya that would bring another bloody drama and a new destabilization of the troubled region,” Kosachev said.

The senator also expressed his regret that the UN Security Council had failed to pass the resolution on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, Kosachev said there was no Russian fault in this.

Another regret in 2014 was the massive return of terrorism to the international arena that demanded urgent and coordinated actions of the international community, the Russian official said in the address. Regretfully, instead of coordinating their actions against the common enemy, the Western nations were busying themselves with the escalation of the internal conflict in Ukraine and “useless” sanctions against Russia, he noted.

President Vladimir Putin (center, background) attending the CSTO Collective Security Council's extended meeting, December 23, 2014 (RIA Novosti / Alexey Druzhinin)President Vladimir Putin (center, background) attending the CSTO Collective Security Council's extended meeting, December 23, 2014 (RIA Novosti / Alexey Druzhinin)

The head of the Upper House Foreign Relations Committee urged all sides to contribute to peace talks in Ukraine, which he described as the most important task currently. “Kiev and the West should stop fighting against imaginary ‘Russian aggression’ and start looking for opportunities for a dialogue in Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk – there is no other way out,” Kosachev said.

[TsarSamuil]

2014: The year Russia-bashing got ugly - and dangerous.

Robert Bridge has worked as a journalist in Russia since 1998. Formerly the editor-in-chief of The Moscow News, Bridge is the author of the book, “Midnight in the American Empire.”

RT.com
December 31, 2014 14:02

The western media narrative blames Russia’s “aggressive” foreign policy for triggering the collapse of US-Russian relations. Nothing could be further from the truth, and two major events of the last year prove it.

The Sochi Games we somehow survived

In the weeks and months prior to the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, Western mainstream media shifted into hysterical gear, spooking the public with every possible thing that could go wrong in Sochi (but didn’t) scenario.

A non-stop, mass-produced litany of tales of wild dogs, strange toilets, and the looming threat of terrorism had the rather predictable effect of prompting many spectators and even athletes to take a pass on one of the most successful Games of modern times.

Although every city that plays host to the Olympics is expected to endure some level of hostile media coverage - invariably over the sheer cost of hosting the international event - the type of criticism aimed at the organizers of the Sochi Games was exceptional for the political edge of the attack, including Russia’s decision to ban gay propaganda in the months prior to the event.

There was a deliberate effort to conflate Russian legislation to protect minors from being exposed to inappropriate sexual messages with some sort of government-sponsored attack on homosexuals. Even Human Rights Watch painted a hugely inaccurate picture of the law, turning it into some sort of state-sanctioned hit parade.

“Russian authorities are sending a dangerous message as the world is about to arrive on its doorstep for the Olympics that there is nothing wrong with attacks on gay people,” said Tanya Copper, a researcher with HRW.

President Vladimir Putin explained in an interview to the BBC that everybody “can feel free” in their relationships, that Russia has only banned the promotion of “homosexuality and pedophilia among minors.”

“We don't have a ban on non-traditional sexual relations," he said. "We have a ban on promoting homosexuality and pedophilia among minors.”

"You can feel free in your relationships but leave children in peace.”

That seems like pretty sound advice for children, who will have plenty of time later in life to consider such issues.

Despite the West’s best efforts to portray Russia as the perennial villain on the global stage, it actually remains one of the last bastions of family-oriented values in a world that is being swept away by a tidal wave of godless liberalism.

Indeed, the Sochi Olympic Games, judging by its opening and closing ceremonies, was exceptional for the quality of the presentation, much of it aimed at the promotion of families and children. By comparison, such a concept has become totally foreign at many US events, including the 2014 Grammy Awards, which left many critics wondering if the event actually promoted Satanism.

Yet the Western media latched on to Russia’s supposed “gay ban,” turning it into an anti-Russian hammer to bash the Games.

So what was the real reason behind this assault on Sochi? Putin said such efforts were part of an ongoing attempt to hinder positive developments inside of Russia.

"Whenever Russia demonstrates any positive development, the appearance of a new strong player, of competition, is bound to cause concern in the economy, in politics and in the security sphere. We see attempts to deter Russia here and there. Unfortunately, this had to do with the Olympic project" as well, he told members of the Public Council for the Preparation of the 2014 Winter Olympics.

Fortunately, in a sign that not everybody in the Western media writes about Russia with blinders on, there was this rare gem courtesy of Esquire magazine: “These Olympics were supposed to be many things. They were supposed to be a giant soft target for terrorists. They were supposed to be an anti-gay goosestep. They were supposed to be shoddy, unfinished, poor, and corrupt, with zero customer service, and rabid dogs chewing on baby arms. And they are not. They are fun, and they are beautiful.”

The Sochi Games would prove to be just the first episode of disastrous reporting on Russia in a very tumultuous year.

MH17 Malaysia Airlines crash over Ukraine

Not only was the July 17 crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 a tragedy of human dimensions, it was also a tragedy of epic proportions as far as journalism is concerned. One day after the Malaysia-bound aircraft went down over eastern Ukraine, killing all 298 passengers and crew, Western media was already convinced it knew the identity of the perpetrator.

Yet every aircraft catastrophe requires painstaking investigation before any conclusions can be made: The black box must be found and examined; the pieces of the aircraft must be collected and fitted together to understand how and what damaged the aircraft; witness testimony is heard; satellite imagery is reviewed. In the case of Malaysia Airlines MH17, however, which should have received even more scrutiny given that it went down in a war zone, none of these details seemd to be of consequence for the Western media. Instead, like cheap propagandists, the Western mainstream media committed the cardinal sin of pointing the finger of blame without performing a single thread of investigative research.

Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid The Sun, with over 2 million readers, screamed in large-font print from its front page: “Putin’s missile,” while the UK’s most popular tabloid, The Daily Mail, said America warned there’d be “hell to pay” if Russia (i.e. Putin) was involved in the downing of the aircraft. In the best case scenarios, Russia remained conspicuously between the lines in the sloppily crafted narrative.

Once again, a little ingredient known as basic facts was glaringly overlooked simply because the subject at hand was Russia. Usually such an oversight does nothing more bothersome than elicit a few chuckles at Russia’s expense. This time, however, the stakes were far greater, happening as it did in the middle of a Ukrainian civil war, the outcome of which had no small bearing on international relations and the geopolitical chessboard - which, we should add, is littered with nuclear weapons.

There were numerous questions posed by the Russian side that were blatantly ignored in the Western media, including: Why did the MH17 plane leave the international corridor; why did Kiev deploy BUK missile systems on the edge of militia-controlled zones directly before the tragedy (especially considering the rebels have no planes); what was a Ukrainian fighter jet, detected by Russian radar, doing on the route intended for civilian flights; why haven’t European investigators released transcripts from the black box, or provided the public with a full report on the crash?

These are questions that not only Russia is asking, but also Malaysia, which was actually excluded from the criminal investigation team. Was that because it was prepared to view the details of the crash with an objective, open mind, not obsessed with blaming Russia?

"When the crash happened, we did not blame any parties, neither Russia nor Ukraine, as we would like to take a look at the concrete evidence," Dr. Mohamed Harridon, associate professor in research and aviation at Kuala Lumpur University, told RT. He noted that unlike "western counterparts," Malaysia has taken a “neutral role," and not "pointed fingers at Russia," which could be the reason for the country's exclusion from the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) that is permitted to apportion blame.

Once again, the Western world has been led astray by a media that is not remotely interested in engaging in any sort of investigative journalism – even when the stakes involve nothing less than global security. Instead, as the pathetic reporting of Sochi underscored, the Western media would rather throw out misleading stories on Russia in order to achieve some kind of warped agenda.

Finally, as far as US-Russia relations go, the only time in recent history that Washington has actually leveled with Moscow and told the truth was due to a wrongly translated word that turned out to be surprisingly accurate judging by the “overloaded” realities.

In March 2009, during the early moments of the Obama administration, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov a symbolic "reset" button, which the two diplomats jokingly pressed for the photographers, signaling their intention of renewing bilateral relations between their respective countries.

The State Department, however, as Lavrov himself explained, wrongly fixed on the button the Russian word for "overload" instead of "reset," thereby providing Moscow – albeit thanks to a technical glitch - a much clearer picture of Washington and the West’s true intentions regarding its relationship with Russia than anything else to date.

[TsarSamuil]

Lavrov on Obama speech: Efforts to isolate Russia will fail.

RT.com
January 21, 2015 08:17

Attempts at isolating Russia will not work, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said at a press conference on the outcome of 2014.

“We hear from our Western partners that Russia has to be isolated,” Lavrov said. “Specifically, Barack Obama has just repeated that. These attempts won’t be effective. Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Russia will never resort to self-isolation.”

The minister said Moscow is calling on Washington to resume cooperation that was thwarted last year. “Relations between Moscow and Washington significantly deteriorated in 2014. We call for resuming effective cooperation at a bilateral and international level. But dialogue is only possible if based on equality and respect for each other’s interests,” he said.

Cutting ties with NATO was not Russia’s choice, according to Lavrov.

“NATO followed the US in its drive for confrontation. NATO made an absolutely politicized decision to halt civil and military cooperation. Almost all projects have been frozen,” Lavrov said. Moscow “will not allow a new Cold War,” he added.

Commenting on US President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Speech, Lavrov said it showed Washington wanted to dominate the world and required all the rest to acknowledge their superiority.

“Americans are absolutely non-critical in assessing their own steps, and yesterday’s speech by Obama shows that the core of their philosophy is: ‘we are number one’. And all the rest should accept that.”

Lavrov described US “aggressive” foreign policy as “outdated.”

No proof of Russian military in southeastern Ukraine

Lavrov has denied allegations of a Russian military presence in southeastern Ukraine, calling on those who believe the opposite to prove their point. “I say it every time: if you are so sure in stating that, confirm it with facts. But no one can or wants to provide them,” he said.

Lavrov said he would try to negotiate an immediate ceasefire in eastern Ukraine at talks in Berlin due to take place later in the day. The foreign ministers of Ukraine, Germany and France are expected to be present.

He said it was now vital to withdraw heavy artillery from the line separating militia-held territories from those under Kiev’s control. The move would prevent civilian casualties. “Russia has already persuaded the self-defense fighters to withdraw heavy artillery,” he said. “Now the Ukrainian authorities should do their bit.”

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is, according to Lavrov, ready to discuss the peace plan offered by President Putin on January 15, despite earlier reports of its rejection.

“Judging by the reaction of President Poroshenko, we feel he’s ready to discuss it, but raises certain questions, some of those quite technical. They can all be agreed upon equitably.”

In response, Poroshenko says that Kiev is committed to adhering to the Minsk agreement. The Ukrainian president also says that his country wants to see an end to the conflict in eastern Ukraine by “removing heavy artillery” and “starting a political process.”

“We will do everything possible to turn the situation around to follow the Minsk agreement. This is very simple. The Minsk agreement is a peaceful option,” the Ukrainian president said, as reported by RIA Novosti.

Recent days have seen an escalation of violence in eastern Ukraine. Government troops launched a massive assault on militia-held areas, in accordance with a presidential order.

Residential areas have come under fire with reports of several civilian casualties.

A hospital in Donetsk was severely damaged on Monday, when at least two shells struck it.

Human rights groups have called on both sides to protect civilians in conflict zones.

Amnesty International called on militias not launch operations from populated areas, and demanded that Kiev stops its indiscriminate shelling of residential blocks.

37:05 - "We must isolate Russia"
38:20 - "We must stop isolating Cuba, such policies are part of the past" and after he says basically something similar about Iran
41:23 - "No foreign nation, no hacker, should be able to shut down our networks, steal our trade secrets, or invade the privacy of American families" NSA??...
"some folks" "folks this" "folks that" what a fucking peasant imbecile! Just an uncle Tom salesman.

[TsarSamuil]

Matter of deadly legacies: War on terror and new Cold War.

Dr. Can Erimtan is an independent scholar residing in İstanbul, with a wide interest in the politics, history and culture of the Balkans and the Greater Middle East. He tweets at @theerimtanangle

RT.com
January 28, 2015 16:40

Today the West, and the rest of the world, is faced with a whole host of deadly threats affecting many people in many regions close by, as well as wide and far removed.

Jihadi terrorism and the ongoing armed strife in Ukraine represent the two seemingly very different faces of these dangers. But looking at President Obama's recent State of the Union (SOTU) speech and its ramifications, it becomes quite rapidly clear that underlying these current dangers is the ghost of a conflict that ended in the last century's final decade.

Back to the Cold War

The recent Paris attacks have very much galvanized public opinion. As a result, the world's attention is currently focused on the rise of Islamic extremism across the wider world. Jihadi terrorists now apparently also pose a viable threat to the ordinary citizens living and breathing in ‘Fortress Europe’ (aka, the EU). In other words, Europeans have now been promoted to join Americans shoulder by shoulder as favored targets for crazy, gun-wielding and/or bomb-throwing Muslim terrorists.

President Obama in this year's SOTU speech made it a point to call upon the Republican-held "Congress to show the world that we are united in this mission [to keep the world safe] by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against ISIL,” as he likes to call the terrorist organization formerly known as ISIS but now sufficing with the moniker Islamic State (or IS). As such, the16 January announcement that the Pentagon will deploy "400 troops and hundreds of support personnel to train moderate Syrian rebels" in such locations as Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia already showed Obama's willingness to maintain an active military footprint in the Middle East.

These American boots on the ground will train "more than 5,000 recruits in the first year,” with the Pentagon adding insightfully that up to 15,000 men will be needed to get the job done -- the job being to "degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL" or the Islamic State. And the time frame would thus be three years; meaning that the Caliph should be undone by early 2018 or well into the next U.S. President's first term in office, if all's well that ends well.

Obama killed Osama

By means of this section in his SOTU speech, Barrack Obama showed the US public at home as well as the wider world audience out there that the United States are not afraid to take up its responsibility in tackling the fallout of America's policy decisions of yesteryear. In fact, the U.S. President spelled out America's commitment in great detail: "first, we stand united with people around the world who've been targeted by terrorists — from a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris. We will continue to hunt down terrorists and dismantle their networks, and we reserve the right to act unilaterally, as we've done relentlessly since I took office to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to us and our allies.” In this way, Obama presented his one-sided arc of action to rival the erstwhile global "arc of crisis" transformed into Zbigniew Brzezinski’s "arc of Islam,” while reminding everyone that Osama bin Laden was taken out under his watch.

The al-Qaeda leader's execution was in itself a splendid display of the American "right to act unilaterally.” As a result, last week's SOTU speech made plain that "fifteen years into this new century" the Bush Doctrine is still alive and kicking. Though Obama boasts at having ended the "long and costly wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, the not-so veiled campaign against "Islamic militancy" euphemistically called the War on Terror-renamed-the Overseas Contingency Operation continues unabated. But rather than out in the open and in the full glare of media attention, the Obama administration likes to do things a bit more discreetly, as illustrated by the spectacular SEAL Team Six action in the improbably-named Abbottabad at the beginning of May 2011.

Lurking in the Shadows: Kill list and JSOC

Jo Becker and Scott Shane of the New York Times described how President Obama personally oversees a “secret kill list,” a directory of names and photos of individuals targeted for assassination in the US drone war or deadly strike campaign carried out by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). Becker and Shane show that President Obama's ambitions are not just limited to high value targets per sé. Far from it, in his 2013 book Dirty Wars, the investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill convincingly shows how the Obama administration carefully continues the Bush-proclaimed war against terrorists all around. Reviewing the book, the freelance journalist and researcher Dawn Paley states that "Scahill’s investigation leads him to unravel the secret maneuvers of the shadowy and powerful Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) as he is drawn into a world of covert operations unknown to the public and carried out across the globe by men who do not exist on paper and may never appear before Congress. In military jargon, JSOC teams 'find, fix, and finish' their targets, who are selected through a secret process . . . From Afghanistan to Yemen and Somalia". Paley then concludes that the "carefully gathered evidence, [presented in] Dirty Wars makes it clear that American military campaigns do little more than exacerbate existing situations . . . Scahill carefully documents how the militaristic approach taken by the US government towards perceived terror threats in Somalia, Yemen and elsewhere has served to drive up the influence of local armed groups," and foment terrorist activities across the globe. In other words, Obama's hidden yet relentless continuation of the Bush wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in other places and locales by covert and arguably immoral means does nothing but pour oil on the flames of discontent.

The new Cold War

But Obama does more than just carry on his predecessor's dirty work. In fact, as I wrote some time ago, the US President basically promotes a "proxy-war pitting the West, as represented by the US and its NATO and other allies, against the new unholy trinity of Russia-China-Iran.” [http://rt.com/op-edge/157704-new-cold-war-victims/] From Libya, which was left in a shambles, and has now become the new Afghanistan, over Syria, where the much maligned Bashar Assad has managed to resist all manners of "assisted rebels-with-a-cause,” to the apparently endless quagmire filled with death and suffering for the civilian population in eastern Ukraine. The Obama administration persistently blames Putin's Russia for the unrest next door. Literally, Obama stated in his SOTU speech that the United States are "upholding the principle that bigger nations can’t bully the small — by opposing Russian aggression, supporting Ukraine’s democracy, and reassuring our NATO allies. Last year, as we were doing the hard work of imposing sanctions along with our allies, some suggested that Mr. Putin’s aggression was a masterful display of strategy and strength. Well, today, it is America that stands strong and united with our allies, while Russia is isolated, with its economy in tatters.”

Even though it would seem a bit premature or even counter-factual to call Russia either "isolated" or "in tatters,” the fact remains that there has always been an American hand pulling the Ukrainian puppet's strings.

In the video clip of this year's SOTU speech provided by the White House on its dedicated YouTube channel, listening viewers could read on the screen's right side that the U.S. has now also committed nearly $340 million in economic assistance to President Petro Poroshenko (aka Chocolashenko), in addition to having provided a $1 billion loan guarantee.

At the same time, the internet-spread propaganda message proudly proclaimed that the US is leading a coalition of 31 counties in coordinating sanctions against Russia for its aggression against Ukraine.

A day after US President Barack Obama’s SOTU speech, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told a press conference in Moscow that the American leader’s address “proves that the [US] philosophy has only one central piece - we are No.1 and everyone else has to admit it . . . This [attitude] is a bit old-fashioned, it fails to meet present-day realities and demonstrates that the United States actually wants to dominate the world rather than be the first amongst equals.” In an afterthought, the Russian added that "this too shall pass.” But, on the ground in Ukraine the fighting continues, as described in the Washington Post, "tensions in Ukraine have escalated since the start of the new year to levels that NATO’s top commander said he has not seen since the summer, before government troops and pro-Russian rebels signed a ceasefire agreement — an accord rendered ineffective by the recent surge in violence.”

Cold War theology in the 21st century

In the end, far from living in a world without ideological strife, as erroneously predicted by Francis Fukuyama at the end of last century, geopolitical competition and economic rivalry today are as dominant and dangerous as ever before. The US continues in its desire to be the global top dog, leading the West into battle with "Islamic militants" or "Muslim extremists.”

In fact, Obama condemned the Caliph and his henchmen as perpetrators of "act(s) of pure evil.” As an American politician, it is easy for the US President to use words and phrases redolent of piety and a belief in higher forces (such as, good and/or evil). In spite of the fact that many of his detractors describe the Hawaii-born politician as a "Nazi-Socialist-Communist-Muslim,” Obama is a deeply pious Christian with a personal commitment to serve good and fight evil in the world. About three years ago, I wrote that "Obama is much attached to the work of the American Protestant exponent of 'Christian realism', Reinhold Niebuhr. Back in April 2007, then-candidate Obama told The New York Times columnist David Brooks: 'I take away [from Niebuhr’s work] the compelling idea that there’s serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn’t use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. I take away . . .the sense we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naïve idealism to bitter realism’.”

In other words, the Cold War and its binary rhetoric are still very much with us today, be it as the hidden reasoning behind the never-ending War on Terror-renamed-the Overseas Contingency Operation or as the economic power-struggle between Free World (the United State and the NATO alliance) and the new unholy trinity of Russia-China-Iran. This year's State of the Union speech eloquent yet veiled messages relayed this truth quite plainly.

[TsarSamuil]

Gorbachev: US dragging Russia into new Cold War, which might grow into armed conflict.

RT.com
January 29, 2015 13:37

Mikhail Gorbachev has accused the US of dragging Russia into a new Cold War. The former Soviet president fears the chill in relations could eventually spur an armed conflict.

“Plainly speaking, the US has already dragged us into a new Cold War, trying to openly implement its idea of triumphalism,” Gorbachev said in an interview with Interfax.

The former USSR leader, whose name is associated with the end of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, is worried about the possible consequences.

“What’s next? Unfortunately, I cannot be sure that the Cold War will not bring about a ‘hot’ one. I’m afraid they might take the risk,” he said.

Gorbachev’s criticism of Washington comes as the West is pondering new sanctions against Russia, blaming it for the ongoing military conflict in eastern Ukraine, and alleging Moscow is sending troops to the restive areas. Russia has denied the allegations.

“All we hear from the US and the EU now is sanctions against Russia,” Gorbachev said. “Are they completely out of their minds? The US has been totally ‘lost in the jungle’ and is dragging us there as well.”

Gorbachev suggests the situation in the EU is “acute” with significant differences among politicians and different levels of prosperity among member nations.

“Part of the countries are alright, others – not so well, and many, including Germany, are excessively dependent on the US.”

In the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev served as General Secretary of the Communist Party's Central Committee from 1985 until 1991, and as the Soviet Union's only president from 1990. He led controversial perestroika reforms that are believed to have accelerated the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev’s rule was marked by considerable warming in relations with the West.

Meanwhile, international relations experts in America are quite alarmed over the new Cold War possibility – although not as much as the general public. While over 48 percent of scholars answered "no" when asked whether the US and Russia are headed towards such a conflict, the scenario was deemed likely by 38 percent.

The data comes from an American snap poll conducted at the end of January by the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) project at the College of William and Mary, in collaboration with Foreign Policy magazine.

The research compared its results to a Gallup poll from March 2014, when 50 percent of the public believed a new Cold War was indeed possible when asked the same question.

In Russia, one-third of the population believes their country and the US are on a collision course.

According to a poll conducted by the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center VCIOM in November 2014, the possibility of a new Cold War was considered likely by over 30 percent of Russians, being the highest number in the past seven years. Every fourth Russian (25 percent of respondents) believed such a conflict was already ongoing.

[TsarSamuil]

Wars and foes: White House lists key threats in NSS.

RT.com
February 07, 2015 03:55

The White House has released a new National Security Strategy (NSS), after five years of no updates, which outlines Obama’s perceived threats against the US, such as rising terrorism, cybersecurity issues, Russia’s influence and dangers posed by Ebola.

The document lists US President Barack Obama’s strategy for his final two years in office.

Even though the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, maintained that there were no broad changes to the strategy during her Friday’s speech, some substantial difference can easily be spotted from the 2010 version of the document.

War without end?

The 2015 NSS focuses on the rising wave of terrorism in the face of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) and the increased risks of spillover, while the 2010 version concentrated on ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the new NSS, the US toots its own horn, stressing that it is “better able to guard against terrorism” because of the nation’s “improved information sharing, aviation and border security, and international cooperation.”

It also highlights the problem of homegrown terrorism, as it notes “community-based efforts and local law enforcement programs” that must work to prevent domestic terrorist attacks. Moreover, the NSS points to the tragic Boston Marathon bombings as proof of the government’s improved responsiveness and resilience, rather than as a point of failure in their security strategy.

Cybersecurity and surveillance

Another key part of the document deals with cybersecurity issues: “The danger of disruptive and even destructive cyber-attack is growing …we will take necessary actions to protect our businesses and defend our networks against cyber-theft of trade secrets for commercial gain whether by private actors or the Chinese government.”

However, Rice largely ignored the surveillance aspect during her speech, which is what the US has been most criticized for following the NSA scandal.

Rice skimmed over the growing US surveillance techniques: “We’ll keep working to make our own laws more inclusive, to sustain our prohibitions against torture, to protect civil liberties and privacy, and to improve transparency on issues like electronic surveillance.”

However, the majority of unwarranted US surveillance looks like it is here to stay, as many of the programs, which are at the heart of the NSA controversy, will remain in place.

Earlier this week, the Obama administration announced a new set of guidelines regarding how US agencies, like the NSA, could conduct surveillance on American citizens. But, most of the so-called changes were largely skin-deep and hardly make a dent in the US hawkish surveillance practices.

Nearly two years after surveillance revelations came to light, following former NSA-contractor Edward Snowden’s disclosure of top-secret documents to the media, critics labeled the changes as too weak.

“Obama's latest NSA 'Reform' is predictably weak,” Gizmodo declared in a Tuesday morning headline. “Proposed changes to US data collection fall short of NSA reformers' goals,” boasted an article published by the Guardian.

Russia, China

One of the other notable changes in the new NSS document was a strategy shift against Russia. In 2010, the document called for the strengthening of ties with Russia, while the 2015 version is urging for additional pressure on Russia in order to reverse its course of action with regards to Ukraine.

NSS uses words like “aggression,” “coercion,” or “belligerence” when talking about Moscow and the Ukrainian crisis. “Russia's aggression in Ukraine makes clear that European security and the international rules and norms against territorial aggression cannot be taken for granted,” the document states.

A Director of National Intelligence report, published simultaneously, was also concerned with Russia’s influence, but used milder language. “Russia is likely to continue to reassert power and influence in ways that undermine US interests, but may be willing to work with the United States on important high priority security issues, when interests converge,” it said.

Obama has been reiterating his stance on fighting Russia's aggression, and he admitted that America had been “a power broker” in the Ukrainian power-transition during his interview with CNN last week.

Washington has been a vocal supporter of the regime in Kiev, which took power after an armed coup in February. It has blamed Russia for the country’s slide into a civil war, which has already claimed more than 5,000 civilian lives and is taking a heavy toll on the Ukrainian economy.

However, Moscow sees Washington as the prime instigator of the mass public protests in Ukraine, which slid into street violence and the downfall of its elected government.

China was also identified as a threat, especially when it comes to cybersecurity issues. The concern was mirrored in the Director of National Intelligence report, which said: “China has an interest in a stable East Asia, but remains opaque about its strategic intentions and is of concern due to its military modernization.”

North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, as well as Iran’s, are also singled out as key concerns, as is ongoing instability in the Middle East and North Africa, especially with regards to the violent extremist and terrorist groups that the region has gave way to in recent years.

The term “leadership” or “America leading” is used over 100 times in the NSS. On top of that, the strategy of using America’s economic advantage to set global policy is stressed, specifically though the promotion and advancement of trade policy, like TransAtlantic partnership and TransPacific partnership.

Meanwhile, environmental and health risks also remained a priority, including the potential reemergence of Ebola.

[TsarSamuil]

Anti-West sentiment in Russia hits all-time high.

RT.com
February 09, 2015 12:55

The number of Russians with negative attitude towards the US and EU has hit its highest in modern history, with 36 percent wanting their country to further distance itself from the West, according to the latest poll.

The research was conducted by the major independent pollster Levada Center in late January and its results were released on Monday.

The number of Russians who claimed their negative attitude to the United States rose to 81 percent compared to 44 percent one year ago. The number of those who perceived the current relations between the two nations as hostile rose from 4 percent to 42 percent in a year.

Some 71 percent of those polled claimed negative attitude to the European Union (up from 34 percent a year ago) and 24 percent said that the EU and Russian Federation were in hostile relations, compared to just 1 percent in January 2014.

Forty percent of citizens want the Russian authorities to improve the relations with Western nations, but 36 percent hold that Russia must further distance itself from the West.

Levada Center’s deputy director, Aleksey Grazhdankin, told reporters that the poll had revealed that the public attitude to Western nations in Russia is now at its worst over the past 25 years. He blamed the situation on the ongoing crisis in Ukraine and on the Western sanctions campaign against Russia. He added that most Russians saw sanctions only as leverage in economic competition.

The two countries claiming the most positive attitudes from Russians were Belarus and China with 81 percent and 80 percent respectively. These figures compared to 83 percent and 77 percent respectively in January last year.

[Deleted]

Feb 9, 2015 16:07:08 GMT -5 TsarSamuil said:

The two countries claiming the most positive attitudes from Russians were Belarus and China with 81 percent and 80 percent respectively. These figures compared to 83 percent and 77 percent respectively in January last year.

I noticed that the average Russian seems not to think much of Serbia, they rarely even mention it in such poles.

[TsarSamuil]

I suppose problem is Russians have big-country mentality, they'll only remember Serbia if it's in the news..I remember some other poll where they say they and Germany are similar, excuse me but wtf? I think it has got to do with they want to identify with some big country or rather they want to assert themselves against someone, so they see us as insignificant and will only remember us if we start another Balkan war..

[TsarSamuil]

Stephen Cohen on Politicking: “Our policy towards Russia is gravely damaging our national security”

RT America
Feb 11, 2015



As world leaders gather in Minsk in an attempt to negotiate a political solution to the turmoil in Ukraine, Larry King speaks with Stephen Cohen, contributing editor at The Nation, about US-Russia relations, which have soured since unrest began last April. In this preview to Tuesday’s episode of ‘Politicking’, Cohen defends his stance on the issue, which some condemn as “not very patriotic.”

[TsarSamuil]

UK think tank warning of ‘belligerent, revisionist’ Russia lambasted for bias, warmongering.

RT.com
February 14, 2015 15:03

A UK think tank’s annual report on global military capabilities has its first and biggest chapter devoted to Russia, “challenging the European security order”. Political analysts said the document was biased and could lead to a new Cold War arms race.

The ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine is what the bulk of the latest annual Military Balance report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) is focused on. The group describes itself as “a world-leading authority on global security, political risk and military conflict” and has former US and British government officials among its members.

“The Kremlin... appears to desire a fractured Ukraine, unable to move beyond Russia’s orbit and get closer to western institutions,” argue the authors of the Military Balance 2015 report.

“Western countries are now having to devise a strategy... to deal with an apparently revisionist Russia,” the report goes on to say, concluding that “Europe is facing a more belligerent Russia” and calling for “dissuasion of Russian adventurism on EU or NATO territory.”

The language of the report is something that betrays a non-impartial approach to some of the report’s readers.

“This is a Cold War document, wherein Russia is depicted as a force for bad in the world and the West a force for good,” political analyst John Wight told RT. “Words such as ‘revisionist’, ‘belligerent’, and ‘adventurism’ are liberally deployed in a negative depiction of Russia”.

Journalist Phil Butler says the report “reeks of hyperbole summoning terms like 'hybrid warfare' to describe the Ukraine civil war”. He finds the document to be "totally western-centric in that it’s an unbridled instigation for a new arms race”.

The report describes prospect for peaceful settlement as “unpromising,” while the US considerations over arming Kiev are said to be “a moral obligation and a strategic duty”, or at least an option that must be “‘kept on the table’ in support of the diplomatic process”.

Authors of the Military Balance 2015 note that while the EU spends about 1.5 percent of its GDP on defense, the same figure for Russia stands at 4.2 percent of GDP, though its budget is still far smaller than the EU total.

“Military modernisation in Russia is continuing, with investment in new ships, combat aircraft and guided weapons,” the report warns. “Russia continues to test the Sukhoi T-50 fifth generation fighter aircraft, and may be finalising designs of a new long-range bomber. Russia has nuclear weapons very much at the centre of its military strategy, and there is increased emphasis on its rapid-reaction forces, while its air and maritime capabilities are often being deployed provocatively,” claims the report, in reference to multiple Western allegations of sightings Russian planes and submarines in neutral territories just outside their border.

This enumeration of Russia’s military advantages is something that, according to political analyst Dan Glazebrook, makes transparent “the bias in the report”.

“The director-general’s opening remarks detail recent Russian military purchases, interpreting them as further evidence of “a more belligerent Russia”, Glazebrook told RT. “Britain’s commitment to a renewed Trident, however, or to £160billion military spending over the current decade – despite a total lack of the border provocations currently being endured by Russia - is not mentioned”.

ISIS and Russia on same list of threats again

The report’s second chapter, on the threat coming from the Islamic State militants, starts with a mention of Russia.

“While a revisionist Russia has challenged the European security order, the threat from extreme Islamic terrorists strengthened during the year,” the think tank says.

A Russia clause in an ISIS sentence has raised eyebrows.

“[The report] draws a distinct and preposterous parallel between Russia in Eastern Ukraine and ISIS in Syria and Iraq,” Wight told RT. “This is especially offensive when we consider that Russia has done more to combat ISIS and extremism in the region these past few years with its support for the Syrian government as it struggles to prevent Syria descending into the same abyss that both Libya and Iraq find themselves in, both as a direct consequence of Western intervention”.

It’s not the first time the West puts Russia on one list of threats with ISIS though. It was first done by President Obama last year. The latest incident was the National Security Strategy issued by the White House earlier in February.

Meanwhile, Glazebrook believes the West could have been more self-critical, when it comes to speaking of the Islamic State threat.

“Whilst we learn that “Military successes on the part of ISIS galvanised a US-led coalition into launching airstrikes against the jihadi movement”, there is no mention of the fact that it was precisely a Western-backed military insurgency that “galvanised” ISIS success in the first place,” he says.

China mentioned, Africa and Middle East left out

The choice of countries included in the report have raised questions. While Asia’s “militarisation” has been placed into spotlight, Africa and the Middle East, where the situation is far more tense, have not been mentioned.

“Yes, parts of Africa and of course Israel/Palestine are areas where the West has exacerbated rather than alleviated conflict and instability,” Wight said.

“The failure to arbitrate a viable peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians has been a particular failing of Western policy, adding to the region’s instability. For too long Israel has been allowed to flout international law and engage in human rights abuses against the Palestinians,” he added.

The report’s focusing on Russia’s and China’s “belligerence” can hardly contribute to dialogue with these countries.

“The picture painted by this report is a distorted one in which the West is under threat from Russia and China. The reality is that it is Russia and China that are under threat with the increasing belligerence of NATO, the West, and the EU,” Wight said. “Until the West and its ideologues in Europe view and treat Russia as an equal partner with the same rights and respect that they assert for themselves, the prospects for a lessening in tensions are likely to remain bleak”.

[TsarSamuil]

The wise men, please step forward.

RT.com
February 16, 2015 15:13

The guns in Ukraine have not cooled down yet but the Minsk 2 peace accord is already being predictably assailed in Washington by liberal and conservative hawks alike.

Headlines like “Vlad Putin Wins Again,” “The new Ukrainian peace deal may be worse than no deal at all,” or “Why Is Putin Smiling About Ukraine?” and the likes are all over the US media.

Never mind that the Minsk Agreement offers at least a brief, fragile window of opportunity for the world to step back from the brink of a nuclear confrontation that would destroy the entire northern hemisphere of the earth. If nothing else, at least it could save some Ukrainian lives. But who cares?

Such negative reactions from US policymakers and media are understandable since the whole Ukrainian mess was concocted to fulfill the ultimate goal of Russia’s geopolitical weakening and Putin’s regime change under the noble banner of spreading freedom and democracy. So far this goal is far from an achievement so why give peace a chance?

The saddest part of this story is that such a policy totally contradicts US long-term strategic security interests by turning a potential important ally into adversary.

It did not have to be that way. After the collapse of Communism and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, both Russian elites and the overwhelming majority of the Russian people were ready to join the family of the Western alliance. It was President George Herbert Walker Bush who talked in 1990 about a “Europe whole and free,” and the new “security arch from Vancouver to Vladivostok.”

Yes, there is no written document confirming his often-quoted pledge to Gorbachev not to expand NATO to the East but there are many credible and trustworthy witnesses who present compelling evidence testifying to Washington’s reneging on key oral commitments to Moscow.

According to then-US Ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock, who took part in both the Bush-Gorbachev early-December 1989 summit in Malta and the Shevardnadze-Baker discussions in early February 1990: “The language used was absolute, and the entire negotiation was in the framework of a general agreement that there would be no use of force by the Soviets and no ‘taking advantage’ by the US … I don’t see how anybody could view the subsequent expansion of NATO as anything but ‘taking advantage,’ particularly since, by then, Russia was hardly a credible threat.”

There are other reliable witnesses to these historical events. And there is no doubt that it was Bill Clinton and his administration that made the sharp turn from the movement, albeit slow, towards an US – Russia alliance, to deep division and the current dangerous state of affairs.

George Kennan, one of the most distinguished of American diplomats, later told the New York Times he believed the expansion of NATO was “the beginning of a new cold war…I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves.''

Some 19 US Senators, including John Ashcroft (R-MO), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), Harry Reid (D-NV), Arlen Specter (R-PA) and John Warner (R-VA) voted against the bill permitting the expansion of NATO. Some of them said the expansion would “dilute NATO's self-defense mission, antagonize Russia, jeopardize several Russian-American arms-control negotiations and draw a new dividing line - a new Iron Curtain - across Europe.”

''We'll be back on a hair-trigger,'' said Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a New York Democrat, warning that enlargement would threaten much worse than a new cold war. ''We're talking about nuclear war.''

This relentless record of broken promises continued when Russia was ravaged by economic crisis through the 1990s. This was a direct result of the catastrophic crash privatization urged on it by the Clinton team when Russia’s population shrank disastrously and the hardship of ordinary folks was comparable to what they had experienced during World War II.

Russia’s unexpected recovery in the 2000s from this total devastation caught its antagonists by surprise, but George W. Bush and Barack Obama followed the same failed Clinton policies by continuing NATO expansion, unleashing “color revolutions” on former Soviet republics from Ukraine and Georgia to Kyrgyzstan. Under their reckless leads, the United States pressed to break historical and economic ties between Russia and Ukraine going back many centuries using the same slogans of promoting Western values.

The Ukrainian people have not benefited from this policy which the February 2014 violent coup in Kiev and the openly manipulated sham of a democratic election then imposed upon them. The new rump government of President Petro Poroshenko first accepted an association agreement with the European Union under terms certain to impoverish scores of millions of Ukrainians. It has nothing to do with helping Ukraine's economic development but only dangles mythical carrots of unlimited Western aid that neither the US nor the EU in reality have the resources to provide.

Finally, some European leaders are slowly coming to their senses. Merkel and Hollande rightly want to retreat from the brink and such conservative-right leaders like former President Nicolas Sarkozy and National Front leader Marine Le Pen have both made clear their own determination to reestablish good ties with Moscow.

Yet in Washington, the only voices allowed to be heard in the mainstream media unanimously call for the rapid arming of Ukraine as quickly and recklessly as possible. Arch-hawk Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) is predictably in the forefront of this pack, yet incredibly President Obama has allowed senior figures in his own administration and the top US generals to encourage such madness too.

During the most dangerous periods of the Cold War, the dangers were fully realized by the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan administrations. However, there is not the slightest hint of such awareness and responsibility among US policymakers today, either among the incumbent Democrats or the opposition Republicans, who are trying to outdo each other by competing who is more hawkish on Russia. Needless to say that America needs a drastic change in its foreign policy.

There are a few wise men who can make a significant contribution to this cause; one is former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, the man who did more than any other single person to end the Cold War. He must come to Washington and meet with the surviving veterans of the Reagan and George Bush, Sr. administrations he worked so courageously and constructively with back in the 1980s. Together, their voices desperately need to be heard to revive the severed lines of communication between Washington and Moscow and start the process of bringing the world back from the brink of nuclear destruction.

The huge experience and unmatched diplomatic skills of such Americans as George Herbert Walker Bush, Henry Kissinger, James A. Baker III, Brent Scowcroft, Jack Matlock, Pat Buchanan, David Stockman, Dana Rohrabacher and some others make them the obvious partners to take seats at the round table with Gorby.

It is not too late for the voices of reason and sanity to be heard. But the alarms on the Doomsday Clock are already ringing.


Edward Lozansky and Martin Sieff for RT.

Edward Lozansky is President of the American University in Moscow and head of the US-Russia Forum. He is a former Soviet nuclear scientist

Martin Sieff is a senior fellow of the American University in Moscow. He is the former Chief Foreign Correspondent for The Washington Times.

[Deleted]

Feb 10, 2015 17:03:31 GMT -5 TsarSamuil said:

I suppose problem is Russians have big-country mentality, they'll only remember Serbia if it's in the news..I remember some other poll where they say they and Germany are similar, excuse me but wtf? I think it has got to do with they want to identify with some big country or rather they want to assert themselves against someone, so they see us as insignificant and will only remember us if we start another Balkan war..

Unfortunately.

But as we can see these days, many Russians move to Bulgaria, so they seem to consider Bulgars as close.