On 9 September 2016, the disreputable site YourNewsWire.com posted an article with the alarm-sounding headline, “Thousands of Russian Troops Surround US Border”:

The Kremlin has confirmed that around 50,000 Russian troops are to be deployed to the the US borders in preparation for “asymmetric warfare”…

While these massive Federations military forces are being redeployed against the American northern border, this report continues, up to 1,500 Spetsnaz (special forces/commandos) have been ordered to immediately embark to the South American nation of Bolivia too—and as authorized under the military cooperation agreement signed by the Federation and Bolivia last week.

After scaring readers into believing that 50,000 Russian troops had suddenly materialized at the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada, the article statec the troops in the north were actually in a region near Alaska but still within Russian territory, and the ones in the south were in Bolivia — a country that is roughly in the center of Latin America and not remotely close to the southern border of the U.S.

We could find no credible news agencies reporting that Russia had sent troops to Bolivia. A 9 September 2016 report from Cuba’s state news agency Prensa Latina said that Russia and Bolivia were cooperating to bolster Bolivia’s own military and the dealings would involve the “sale of equipment and transfer of technology,” but it made no mention of hundreds of Russian troops landing in Bolivia.

 

Read more:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russia-troops-us-borders/

 

Meanwhile:

 

The downturn in relations between Russia and the West in the aftermath of the collapse of the Ukrainian government of Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 and the Crimean referendum to join the Russian Federation has resulted in the worst crisis in East-West relations since before the end of the Cold War. The West has accused Russia of illegally occupying a part of Ukraine and launching an undeclared war in its eastern provinces. Russia has countered with charges that the West was not willing to recognize the legitimate will of the people of Crimea and had been pursuing regime change in Kyiv. Amid mutual accusations, both sides have moved beyond the post–Cold War security framework in Europe, which they have realized is now a thing of the past.

In an atmosphere of crisis permeated by mutual recriminations and suspicions, both sides—NATO and Russia—have engaged in a series of military activities along the line of contact. These maneuvers in turn have triggered multiple warnings from both sides of a sharp deterioration in European security, a growing threat of a military confrontation between Russia and NATO, and an urgent need to deescalate the situation in order to avoid a catastrophic war with disastrous consequences for all. An emerging conventional wisdom maintains that the new Cold War in Europe, if allowed to continue unchecked, runs the risk of escalating into a hot war unless steps to reduce tensions are taken swiftly.

But conventional wisdom is often wrong, and so it is this time. The hysteria that has engulfed public commentary throughout Europe about this ostensibly dire military situation on the brink of getting out of hand has little, if any, basis in fact. Both sides in the standoff exaggerate the tensions and the danger of escalation, and the risks of the military moves—their own and their adversary’s—supposedly driving these tensions.

In reality, the military balance between Russia and NATO is stable, the danger of escalation is hardly approaching critical levels, and little needs to be done militarily to defuse the current tensions. The true cause of the tensions is not military, but political and diplomatic. Until those causes are resolved, tensions between Russia and the West will remain high. The likelihood of a military confrontation will remain low, however, because neither side’s posture points to a heightened state of readiness or intention to go on the offensive. Until that changes, political and diplomatic tensions will remain mere tensions.

 

Read more:

http://carnegieendowment.org/2018/01/25/rethinking-danger-of-escalation-russia-nato-military-balance-pub-75346

 

 

Gus: the onus is on the West to show some good will...

 

Read from top.

As the Forever AUMF 2018 (SJRes 59) (Authority for the Use of Military Force) continues to await action by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, one can only imagine the extent of the behind-the-scene efforts underway to sway those few wavering Senators who may be reluctant to go down in American history as voting to eliminate Congress’ sole, inviolate Constitutional authority ‘to declare war’. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11. 

The law would remove Congress from its statutory authority as it transfers “uninterrupted” authority on “the use of all necessary and appropriate force” to one individual, allowing the President of the United States to pursue the Taliban, al Qaeda, ISIS and other ‘associated forces” including a proverbial too little-too late report to Congress 48 hours after the use of military force in a “new foreign country,” presumably in the Middle East (other than Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen or Libya).

In addition to pressure within the Committee itself, it can be expected that those who will benefit most from a Forever State of War are currently pounding the Senate’s marble halls, perhaps even stalking members of the Committee as lobbyists from the MIC, AIPAC and other enthusiasts for war, will do whatever it takes to bring adoption of the AUMF to a favorable committee vote.

Since more than half the Committee, fourteen of its twenty one members received a grand total of $3,397,755 from pro-Israel PAC’s as identified by the Center for Responsive Politics, whenever and if ever the final vote comes, it will be positively titillating to compare the vote and the money.

In an interesting reversal of common legislative procedure, the House of Representatives has, as yet, no pending AUMF comparable to the Foreign Relations Committee version while the Senate Committee appears eager to act; perhaps at the behest of one of those aforementioned aficionados of war. If we assume that the Senate Committee adopts the AUMF with the next logical step being a vote by the full Senate, will the Senate create an awkward legislative conundrum without a comparable Forever AUMF 2018 being on a legislative track in the House?

 

Read more:

https://off-guardian.org/2018/06/07/forever-aumf-stalls-at-senate-foreig...

In an article named "North Korea summit: To decode Kim Jong-un's intentions, you need to understand theatre" Euan Graham, the director of the International Security Program at the Lowy Institute, with expertise in Asian strategy and geopolitics, the Korean Peninsula, and the South and East China Seas, tells us that:

Such belligerence jars with the clinical lexicon of deterrence, developed during the Cold War in order to remove emotionality from the nuclear strategic equation and to facilitate arms control. As suggested by the strategic doctrine of mutually assured destruction (or MAD, a term coined to reflect the perverse logic behind it), nuclear weapons represent war without limits.

Deterrence lies in persuading your opponent that you are crazy enough to use weapons that have no purpose other than mass destruction. This calculated "irrationality" applies to all nuclear weapons states.

However, as a small state, nuclear weapons particularly suit North Korea's maximalist, belligerent strategic culture, which relies on convincing its neighbours, the United States, and as much of the world as possible that any attack against the regime would come at an unacceptable cost, incurring unrestrained retaliation."

 

Etc etc...

 

But who is the maddest of them all?...

 

Suddenly, some anti-Trump dudes agree with Trump:

"Now, I love our country. I have been Russia's worst nightmare ... But with that being said, Russia should be in this meeting," Trump said Friday as he left the White House. "It may not be politically correct, but we have a world to run ... They should let Russia back in."

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/trump-calls-for-russia-to-be-...

 

Yes, they should let Russia in... But what do these words means? 

I could be wrong, but what Donald is saying is several folds:

a) get the Russians on side

b) show that he "has been tough" on Russia

c) show that he is numero uno on the planet

 

The reality is:

a) Russia has moved on with other economic arrangements, but Putin is still happy to be part of the G8

b) Donald has been tough on Russia to make the media "happy" while exonerating himself of his perceived "Russian connections", though the Russians did not interfere with his victorious Presidential election.

c) Trump knows that he has to bring public/media opinion towards accepting "detente" with Russia after many years of sordid animosity. He does this by being "mad Trump"— the tough man giving heaps to Russia (or so he says). he is bombastic, gives himself kudos for having chastised the Russians more than the previous barrel of herring, Obama, but he wants dialogue — which the others did not want.

 

El Trumpo is using the same cowboy tactics with North Korea. Who knows... It might work despite all the loonies against him, loonies that he has appointed in his inner sanctum. This is where "his genius" might shine: make the final opinions by himself, for himself, disregarding the other loonies, and making sure they can't blab against him otherwise this would be the end of their careers. Should they be outside his grasp, they could do more damage. Devious? Sure. BOOM...

 

Donald Trump is the master of clowning in a theatre where the dust has seriously been too old, because the previous actors thought that only Shakespeare's soliloquies had to be played here.

Now, Bobo-the-Clown and Toto-the-Jester merged in one is playing for tricks on the venerable stage...

 

...

When you do what I do, you become like a doctor: you can only stand all those horrors and suffering, because you are here to help, to expose reality, and to shame the world. You have no right to decompose, to collapse, to fall and to cry.

But what you cannot stand is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is ‘bulletproof’. It cannot be illuminated by correct arguments, by logic and by examples. Hypocrisy in the West is often ignorant, but mostly it is just self-serving.

So, what is real peace for the people in Europe and North America? The answer is simple: It is a state of things in which as few Western people as possible are killed or injured. A state of things in which the flow of resources from the poor, plundered and colonized countries is pouring, uninterrupted, predominantly to Europe and North America.

The price for such peace? How many African, Latin American or Asian people die as a result of such arrangement of the world, is thoroughly irrelevant.

Peace is when the business interests of the West are not endangered, even if tens of millions of non-white human beings would vanish in the process.

Peace is when the West can, unopposed, control the world, politically, economically, ideologically and ‘culturally’.

“War” is when there is rebellion. War is when the people of plundered countries say “No!”. War is when they suddenly refuse to be raped, robbed, indoctrinated and murdered.

When such a scenario takes place the West’s immediate reaction ‘to restore peace’ is to overthrow the government in the country which is trying to take care of its people. To bomb schools and hospitals, to destroy supply of fresh water and electricity and to throw millions into total misery and agony.

As the West may soon do to North Korea (DPRK), to Cuba, Venezuela, Iran – some of the countries that are being, for now, ‘only’ tormented by sanctions and, foreign -sponsored, deadly “opposition”. In the Western lexicon, “peace” is synonymous to “submission”. To a total, unconditional submission. Anything else is war or could potentially lead to war.

For the oppressed, devastated countries, including those in Africa, to call for resistance, would be, at least in the Western lexicon, synonymous with the “call for violence”, therefore illegal. As ‘illegal’ as the calls were for resistance in the countries occupied by German Nazi forces during the WWII. It would be, therefore, logical to call the Western approach and state of mind, “fundamentalist”, and thoroughly aggressive.

A shorter version of this essay originally appeared on RT.com

 

 

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are his tribute to “The Great October Socialist Revolution” a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter.

https://off-guardian.org/2018/06/19/peace-is-a-cliche-when-the-west-cannot-control-the-world-unopposed-it-means-war/

 

 

In trying to deter Russian aggression, U.S. forces may stall on Europe’s roads
U.S. commanders worry that if they must head off a conflict in Eastern Europe, a mixture of bureaucracy, bad planning and decaying infrastructure could let Russia grab NATO territory while American planners are filling out the 17 forms needed to cross Germany into Poland.
By Michael Birnbaum
-------------------------------

What a lot of NATO codswallop. Did this writer mean that in order to invade Europe, the Yanks-in-Tanks have to fill-in forms in various countries, not just one single blue form in Brussels? The Russians on the other side ain't going to invade Europe. Why would they do this? To get some Camemberts in France and steal some olive oil in Italy? Because of sanctions?

741.4 million people live in Europe and 325.7 million in the USA. 

144.3 million people live in Russia, a country with vast amount of resources and big potential which the West wanted to rape by the end of the 1990s... Come on, Michael Birnbaum, do something with your brains...