WWIII Would Provide a Great Distraction from the Trump/Russia Investigation


Top Marine general: 'There's a war coming'
It’s hard to imagine that any person would intentionally provoke WWIII for personal reasons.  It’s equally hard to imagine the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States.  However Trump was elected President.  There are definite signs that WWIII may quickly be approaching.
Image result for ww iii
This isn’t the opinion of some ignorant blogger.   The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Robert Neller, told troops Thursday that “there’s a war coming” and urged them to be prepared.

“I hope I’m wrong, but there’s a war coming,” Neller told Marines stationed in Norway, according to Military.com. “You’re in a fight here, an informational fight, a political fight, by your presence,” he added.

The commandant pointed to Russia and the Pacific theater as the next major areas of conflict, predicting a “big-ass fight” in the future.

“Just remember why you’re here,” Neller said. “They’re watching. Just like you watch them, they watch you. We’ve got 300 Marines up here; we could go from 300 to 3,000 overnight. We could raise the bar.”

Neller’s visit comes amid tensions between Russia and NATO allies. Russia warned neighboring Norway that the presence of American troops could hurt relations, after Norway decision to host a new unit of U.S. soldiers through the end of 2018.

Professor Emeritus of Politics and Russian Studies (at Princeton and NYU) Stephen F. Cohen aMnd John Batchelor agree there is a real threat of war.

The most central, ramifying, and dangerous allegation of Russiagate is that “Russian attacked American democracy” during the 2016 presidential election. Many Russians—in the policy elite, the educated middle class, and ordinary citizens—believe that “the United States has been at war with Russia” for 25 years, a perception regularly expressed in the Russian media. They believe this for understandable reasons.

American commentators attribute such views to “Kremlin propaganda.” It is true, Cohen points out, that Russians, like Americans, are strongly influenced by what appears in the media, especially on television, and that Russian television news reporting and commentary are no less politicized than their US counterparts. But elite and middle-class Russians are no less informed and critical-minded than American ones. Indeed, they have more access to daily American news and opinions—from cable and satellite TV, US-funded Russian-language broadcasts and Internet sites, and from Russian sites, such as inosmi.ru, that translate scores of American media articles into Russian daily—than most Americans have to Russian media. (The recent censoring steps taken by the Department of Justice against RT and Sputnik might be viewed in this context.) Generally, Cohen argues, many more Russians are much better informed about Washington politics than Americans are about Moscow politics.

Above all, Russians consider the history of US policy toward post-Soviet Russia since the early 1990s, enacted by both Democrats and Republicans, particularly major episodes that they perceive as warlike and as including acts of “betrayal and deceit” in the form of promises and assurances made to Moscow by Washington and subsequently violated. Cohen briefly itemizes the main examples:

  1.  Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush negotiated with the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, what they thought was the end of the Cold War on the shared and often expressed premise that it would end “with no losers, only winners.”  But in 1992, during his reelection campaign against Bill Clinton, Bush suddenly declared, “We won the Cold War,” paving the way to the triumphalism of the Clinton administration and the implication that post-Soviet Russia should be treated as a defeated adversary, as were Germany and Japan after World War II. For many knowledgeable Russians, certainly for Gorbachev himself, this was the first American betrayal.

2.  For the next eight years, in the 1990s, the Clinton administration based its Russia policy on that triumphalist premise, with wanton disregard for how it was perceived in Russia or what it may portend. The catastrophic “shock therapy” economics imposed on Russia by President Boris Yeltsin was primarily his responsibility, but that draconian policy was emphatically insisted on and (meagerly) funded by Washington. The result was the near ruination of Russia—the worst economic depression in peacetime, the disintegration of the highly professionalized Soviet middle classes, mass poverty, plunging life expectancy, the fostering of an oligarchic financial elite, the plundering of Russia’s wealth, and more. There was also flagrant American “collusion” in Russian politics, particularly in Yeltsin’s 1996 reelection campaign. The Clinton administration bankrolled Yeltsin’s campaign with billions of dollars in loans through international agencies and sent a team of American experts to Moscow to advise and oversee Yeltsin’s initially failing reelection bid. That is, Washington “colluded” with Yeltsin against his presidential rivals.

3. In 1999, Clinton made clear that the crusade was also a military one, beginning the still-ongoing eastward expansion of NATO, now directly on Russia’s borders in the three Baltic states, and today knocking on the doors of two other former Soviet republics, Georgia and Ukraine. Russians see NATO’s unrelenting creep from Berlin to within artillery range of St. Petersburg as “war on Russia, ” especially given the living memory of the 27.5 million Soviet deaths in the war against the Nazi German invasion in 1941. But herein lies yet another “betrayal and deceit,” one that has never been forgotten. In 1990, in return for Gorbachev’s agreement that a reunited Germany would be a NATO member, all of the major powers involved, particularly the first Bush administration, promised that NATO “would not expand one inch to the east.” Many US participants later denied that such a promise had been made, or claimed that Gorbachev misunderstood. But documents recently published by the National Security Archive in Washington prove that the assurance was given on many occasions by many Western leaders, including the Americans. The only answer they can now give is that “Gorbachev should have gotten it in writing,” implying that American promises to Russia are nothing more than deceit in pursuit of domination.  Later in 1999, Clinton made clear that NATO expansion was not the non-military policy it was proposed to be.

5. President Obama came to office promising a “new era of American diplomacy,” but his approach to Russia was no different, and was arguably even more militarized and intrusive than his predecessors’. During the short-lived “reset” of relations with the Kremlin, then under President Dmitry Medvedev, Obama’s vice president, Joseph Biden, told a Moscow public audience, and then Putin himself, that Putin should not return to the presidency. (In effect, Obama and Biden were trying to “collude”—however ineptly—with their imagined partner Medvedev against Putin.) In addition to other US “meddling” under way, the administration, particularly Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, stepped up “democracy promotion” by commenting critically on the Russian parliamentary and presidential elections that followed. By 2011, the administration felt free to betray its own chosen Russian partner, Medvedev, breaking its promise not to use a UN Security Council resolution in order to depose Libyan leader Gaddafi, who was tracked by US-NATO war planes and murdered in the streets. Meanwhile, Obama, like his predecessors, pushed NATO expansion ever closer to Russia, eventually to its borders.

6.  Given this history, the fateful events in Kiev in 2014 seem almost inevitable. For the anti-Russian NATO expansionists in Washington, Ukraine had always been “the biggest prize” in the march from Berlin to Russia, as Carl Gershman, head of the official US regime-change institution, the National Endowment for Democracy, candidly stated, and indeed as was clear from American involvement in Ukraine’s earlier “Orange Revolution” in 2004–05. Though the European Union partnership agreement offered to Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2013 is unfailingly presented as a purely economic and “civilizational” choice, it determinedly excluded Russia as a mutual trading partner while including “military and security” provisions binding Kiev to NATO policy. Yanukovych’s overthrow by what was essentially a planned street coup in February 2014, accompanied by a demonstrative US presence on Maidan Square, led to the highly militarized new Cold War that now so endangers American and international security. Here too there was a broken US promise. Obama assured Putin that he supported the truce between Yanukovych and the street protesters brokered by three EU foreign ministers. Within hours, the protesters headed toward Yanukovych’s official residence, and he fled, yielding to the US-backed ferociously anti-Russian regime now in power and to the US-Russian proxy war in Eastern Ukraine.

7.  It’s through this 25-year history that so many Russians perceive the meaning of Russiagate, which is reported obsessively in their media. For them, an American presidential candidate, and then president, Donald Trump, suddenly appeared proposing to end the US war against Russia for the sake of “cooperation with Russia.” The fictions of Russiagate—Russians have seen multitudes of American “contacts” with their officials, oligarchs, politicians, wheeler-dealers, and ordinary citizens ever since the Soviet Union ended—are designed to prevent Trump from ending the long “war against Russia.” When influential American media outlets denounce as “treasonous” Trump’s diplomacy with Putin regarding Syria and terrorism, for example, Russians see confirmation of their perceptions.

Image result for trump war russia

RUSSIA has moved gnarly defense systems onto the North Korea border as World War 3 fears reach boiling point on the Korean peninsula.

Russia has reacted to North Korea’s increased nuclear and ballistic missile testing and has moved to the border. Vladimir Putin has sent missile attack defences to its border with North Korea.

President Trump reached out to the Kremlin to do more to help put a stop to Kim Jong-un’s nuclear programme, but Russia accused the US of antagonizing the rogue state. Certainly Trump’s taunting of the “rocket man” could be accurately described as “antagonizing.”

The surface-to-air missile systems were activated simultaneously at four locations, in Vladivostok, Primorsky Krai, Zelenogorsk and Leningrad Region.

President Donald Trump used his Asia tour to try to improve relations with Vladimir Putin, but the pair are not united on solving the North Korea crisis.

As tensions grow over how to manage North Korea’s nuclear threat, it was announced that Russia would increase its number of ballistic missile testing next year.

Top Kremlin commander Sergei Karakayev said: “Five missile launches were carried out in 2017, with another one pending, and 12 launches have been planned for 2018.

Trump has said that he would “love” to have Putin’s help on helping to resolve the North Korea problem. “We would love to have his help on North Korea. China is helping. Russia is not helping. We would like to have Russia’s help, very important,” Trump said.

 

The most frightening part of this analysis is that Trump would gain a huge political advantage if war were declared on Russia.  If Russia had colluded to get

Image result for robert mueller

 

 

5 thoughts on “WWIII Would Provide a Great Distraction from the Trump/Russia Investigation

Add yours

  1. There is no salvation.

    And “god” “protects” no one “From” anything, but gets everyone “Through” everything.

    There is no final word, as monotheistic religion would have us believe in their fictional savior. Capturing transcendence relieves transcendence of transcendence.

    Which is why we know the stories of religion but the gods are dead – transcendence has been lost. Worse, the de-transcendentalized Symbols-Turned-Literal have been made Saviors, to which dogma and tradition demand and command obedience, leaving man erroneously impotent, and a passive “born sinner” requiring their savior. This vacuum of error prevents any right understanding of the nature self. It dislodges and short circuits a correct understanding of the luminous nature of man, leaving the “saved” alien and dissociated; add in guns to defend the fairy tale. “Know this and be god” has been mistaken for “do this and be good”.

    We are inherently self-saving. Because we ARE transcendence.

    ———

    Screw these wars. The problem is IGNORANCE.

    Like

    1. The symbols, like all art, express and animate the transcendent.

      How the FUCK did that turn into a savior?????

      No really, how the FUCK did that happen so long ago??????

      Put down the guns – the real war is a war against one’s own ignorance. Its a war within, requiring NO GUNS!!!!!

      Like

  2. We have a perfect storm brewing. The investigation of the White House for money laundering and being played by Russia, the increasing awareness of the GOP lies about the tax shift, the crumbling infrastructure and outdated systems holding our utilities and financial networks together, create the need for distraction.

    Don’t worry about Russia attacking. Putin is a businessman who knows that war will leave a lot of valuable real estate contaminated with radiation. The Russians know that they can grind up American military might in skirmishes like Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s easier to keep us in smaller wars, where our resources are significantly destroyed. Putin’s ideal conflict would be the US and Iran. Iran has speedboats and truck mounted missiles in the mountains that can wipe out our fleets. Iran has 2 million highly trained soldiers on active duty. They also have a lot of Russian attack and defense systems.

    So, yes, when puppet number 45 looks for a distraction, Puppeteer Putin will set it up and make American bleed again.

    Like

  3. If you remember President Obama wanted to improve internet infrastructure and security, The republicans prevented that. Republicans are pure evil today. There are no words to excuse them. Plain simple evil. And they don’t hide it now. As far as don? first off. he was not elected, so he is not a sitting president. We cannot go past that for any reason. America is without a president right now.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: