Read below and understand what other leaders say about our actions... they are not fooled and they are prepared to fight... they say so in a very direct manner.
Asked in December 1966 if he would fight to final victory, Minh stated, "If by 'final victory' you mean the departure of the Americans, then we will fight to final victory. Everything depends on the Americans. If they want to make war for 20 years then we shall make war for 20 years. If they want to make peace, we shall make peace and invite them to tea afterwards."
And it took us all of those extra years and
all of those extra deaths to recognize the truth...
perhaps the human species is not capable of learning...
We May Be at a Greater Risk of Nuclear Catastrophe than During the Cold War
from the 4th Media by Conn Hallinan
Astounding increases in the danger of nuclear weapons have paralleled provocative foreign policy decisions that needlessly incite tensions between Washington and Moscow.
“Today, the danger of some sort of a nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War,” warns William Perry, “and most people are blissfully unaware of this danger.”
A former U.S. defense secretary from 1994 to 1997, Perry has been an inside player in the business of nuclear weapons for over 60 years. And his book, My Journey at the Nuclear Brink, is a sober read.
It’s also a powerful counterpoint to NATO’s current European strategy, which envisions nuclear weapons as a deterrent to war: The purpose of nukes “is to prevent major war, not to wage wars,” argues the Alliance’s magazine, NATO Review.
But as Perry points out, it’s only by chance that the world has avoided a nuclear war — sometimes by nothing more than dumb luck — and, rather than enhancing our security, nukes “now endanger it.”
The 1962 Cuban missile crisis is generally represented as a dangerous standoff resolved by sober diplomacy. In fact, it was a single man — Russian submarine commander Vasili Arkhipov — who countermanded orders to launch a nuclear torpedo at an American destroyer that could have set off a full-scale nuclear exchange between the Soviet Union and the United States.
There were numerous other incidents that brought the world to the brink. On a quiet morning in November 1979, a NORAD computer reported a full-scale Russian sneak attack with land and sea-based missiles, which led to scrambling U.S. bombers and alerting U.S. missile silos to prepare to launch. But it turned out there was no Soviet attack — just an errant test tape.
Lest anyone think the incident was an anomaly, a little more than six months later NORAD computers erroneously announced that Soviet submarines had launched 220 missiles at the United States. This time the cause was a defective chip that cost 49 cents — again resulting in scrambling interceptors and putting the silos on alert.
But don’t these examples prove that accidental nuclear war is unlikely? That conclusion is a dangerous illusion, argues Perry, because the price of being mistaken is so high — and because the world is a more dangerous place than it was in 1980.
A Worsening Climate
It’s been 71 years since atomic bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and humanity’s memory of those events has dimmed. But even were the entire world to read John Hersey’s Hiroshima, it would have little idea of what we face today.
The bombs that obliterated those cities were tiny by today’s standards, and comparing “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” — the incongruous names of the weapons that leveled both cities — to modern weapons stretches any analogy beyond the breaking point. If the Hiroshima bomb represented approximately 27 freight cars filled with TNT, a one-megaton warhead would require a train 300 miles long.
Each Russian RS-20V Voevoda intercontinental ballistic missile packs 10 megatons.
What’s made today’s world more dangerous, however, aren’t just advances in the destructive power of nuclear weapons, but a series of actions by the last three U.S. administrations.
First was the decision by President Bill Clinton to abrogate a 1990 agreement with the Soviet Union not to push NATO further east after the reunification of Germany or to recruit former members of the defunct Warsaw Pact.
NATO has also reneged on a 1997 pledge not to install “permanent” and “significant” military forces in former Warsaw Pact countries. This month NATO decided to deploy four battalions on or near the Russian border, arguing that since the units will be rotated, they’re not “permanent” or large enough to be “significant.” It’s a linguistic slight of hand that doesn’t amuse Moscow.
Second was the 1999 U.S.-NATO intervention in the Yugoslav civil war and the forcible dismemberment of Serbia. It’s somewhat ironic that Russia has been accused of using force to “redraw borders in Europe” by annexing Crimea, which is exactly what NATO did to create Kosovo. The U.S. subsequently built Camp Bond Steel, Washington’s largest base in the Balkans.
Third was President George W. Bush’s unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the decision by the Obama administration to deploy anti-missile systems in Romania and Poland, as well as Japan and South Korea.
Last is the decision by the current White House to spend upwards of $1 trillion upgrading its nuclear weapons arsenal, which includes building bombs with smaller yields, a move that many critics argue blurs the line between conventional and nuclear weapons.
The Yugoslav War and NATO’s move east convinced Moscow that the U.S.-led alliance was surrounding Russia with potential adversaries, and the deployment of anti-missile systems, or ABMs — supposedly aimed at Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons — was seen as a threat to Russia’s nuclear deterrent.
One immediate effect of ABMs was to chill the possibility of further cuts in the number of nuclear weapons. When Obama proposed another round of warhead reductions, the Russians turned it down cold, citing the anti-missile systems as the reason. “How can we take seriously this idea about cuts in strategic nuclear potential while the United States is developing its capabilities to intercept Russian missiles?” asked Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin.
When the U.S. endorsed the 2014 coup against the pro-Russian government in Ukraine, it ignited the current crisis that has led to several dangerous incidents between Russian and NATO forces — at last count, according to the European Leadership Network, more than 60.
Several large war games were also held on Moscow’s borders. Former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev went so far as to accuse NATO of making “preparations for switching from a cold war to a hot war.”
In response, the Russians have also held war games involving up to 80,000 troops.
It is unlikely that NATO intends to attack Russia, but the power differential between the U.S. and Russia is so great — a “colossal asymmetry,” Dmitri Trenin, head of the Carnegie Moscow Center, told the Financial Times — that the Russians have abandoned their “no first use” of nuclear weapons pledge.
It’s the lack of clear lines that makes the current situation so fraught with danger. While the Russians have said they would consider using small tactical nukes if “the very existence of the state” was threatened by an attack, NATO is being deliberately opaque about its possible tripwires.
According to NATO Review, nuclear “exercises should involve not only nuclear weapons states… but other non-nuclear allies,” and “to put the burden of the doubt on potential adversaries, exercises should not point at any specific nuclear thresholds.”
In short, keep the Russians guessing. The immediate problem with such a strategy is: What if Moscow guesses wrong?
That won’t be hard to do. The U.S. is developing a long-range cruise missile — as are the Russians — that can be armed with conventional or nuclear warheads. But how will an adversary know which is which? And given the old rule in nuclear warfare — use ‘em or lose ‘em — uncertainty is the last thing one wants to engender in a nuclear-armed foe.
Indeed, the idea of no “specific nuclear thresholds” is one of the most extraordinarily dangerous and destabilizing concepts to come along since the invention of nuclear weapons.
Cold Wars of Choice
There is currently no evidence that Russia contemplates an attack on the Baltic states or countries like Poland. Given the enormous power of the United States, which offers a security guarantee to NATO members, such an undertaking would court national suicide.
Nor do Russia’s recent border conflicts suggest otherwise. Moscow’s “aggression” against Georgia and Ukraine was provoked. Georgia attacked Russia, not vice versa, and the Ukraine coup torpedoed a peace deal negotiated by the European Union, the United States, and Russia. Imagine Washington’s view of a Moscow-supported coup in Mexico, followed by an influx of Russian weapons and trainers.
In a memorandum to the recent NATO meetings in Warsaw, the group Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity argued as much. “There is not one scintilla of evidence of any Russian plan to annex Crimea before the coup in Kiev and coup leaders began talking about joining NATO,” the members insisted. “If senior NATO leaders continue to be unable or unwilling to distinguish between cause and effect, increasing tension is inevitable with potentially disastrous results.”
The organization of former intelligence analysts also sharply condemned the NATO war games that followed. “We shake our heads in disbelief when we see Western leaders seemingly oblivious to what it means to the Russians to witness exercises on a scale not seen since Hitler’s army launched ‘Unternehmen Barbarossa’ 75 years ago, leaving 25 million Soviet citizens dead.”
While the NATO meetings in Warsaw agreed to continue economic sanctions aimed at Russia for another six months and to station four battalions of troops in Poland and the Baltic states — along with separate U.S. forces in Bulgaria and Poland — there was an undercurrent of dissent.
Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras called for deescalating the tensions with Russia and for considering Russian President Vladimir Putin a partner rather than an enemy.
Greece was not alone. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier called NATO maneuvers on the Russian border “warmongering” and “saber rattling.” French President Francois Hollande said Putin should be considered a “partner,” not a “threat,” and France tried to reduce the number of troops being deployed in the Baltic and Poland. Italy has been increasingly critical of the sanctions as well.
Rather than recognizing the growing discomfort of a number of NATO allies and that beefing up forces on Russia’s borders might be destabilizing, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry recently inked defense agreements with Georgia and Ukraine.
After disappearing from the radar for several decades, nukes are back, and the decision to modernize the U.S. arsenal will almost certainly kick off a nuclear arms race with Russia and China. Russia is already replacing its current ICBM force with the more powerful and long range “Sarmat” ICBM, and China is loading its own missiles with multiple warheads.
Add to this volatile mixture military maneuvers and a deliberately opaque policy in regards to the use of nuclear weapons, and it’s no wonder that Perry thinks that the chances of some catastrophe is a growing possibility.
Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com and middleempireseries.wordpress.com
NATO War Games Near Russia ‘Pushing Humanity Towards World War III’
By Sputnik, Daniel McAdams, and Brian Becker
from Global Research,
NATO has begun its Anaconda-16 war game, calling for the largest assembly of foreign forces in Poland since World War II.
On Monday, NATO launched its largest war game in decades, near the Russian border, as part of what analysts call the “summer of provocation,” a bid to reignite the Cold War intended to force Moscow to starve its domestic economy to ramp up its military to meet a growing external threat.
The war game, titled Anaconda-16, will take place in Poland ahead of next month’s NATO summit in Warsaw, where officials are expected to approve permanent troops to be stationed in the country and throughout eastern Europe, to combat what they consistently refer to ‘Russian aggression.’
Are You Planning Your Retirement?
Forget About It. You Won’t Survive To Experience It.
by Paul Craig Roberts
The Israeli agents who comprise the Neoconservatives, a collection of war criminals that control US foreign policy, have already handed you your death certificate. The neoconservatives have far more power than they have intelligence or humanity.
At the recent St. Petersburg International Economic Conference, President Putin excoriated Western Journalists for endlessly repeating Washington’s lies that are driving the world to nuclear war. He asked Washington’s bought-and-paid-for-whores, the scum who comprise the Western news media:
"How do you not understand that the world is being pulled in an irreversible direction toward nuclear war?”
Yes, indeed, how is it possible for the Western media to be totally blind? The answer to this question is that Americans live in the system of lies that comprise The Matrix, and media are paid to support the system of lies.
The determining questions are: Can Americans escape their captivity in time to save life on earth? Do Americans have what it takes, or are Americans already a proven failed people who cower in ignorance under the threat of implausible “foreign threats”?
How much confidence can we place on the intelligence and judgment of the American people? That remains to be seen. Life on Earth depends on the American people’s ability to perceive their government as the greatest threat to their existence.
To make the crisis clear for my readers and for all peoples, Washington is surrounding Russia with nuclear missile sites that can be silently converted from ABMs to first strike nuclear missiles that can reach Russian targets in a mere few minutes. Washington attempted to disguise this first strike capability with the explanation that the missiles were there to protect against an Iranian ICBM attack on Europe. This explanation was given by the US government despite the fact that everyone knows that Iran has neither ICBMs nor nuclear weapons.
As Putin asked the Western presstitutes, we know and you don’t?
It is dangerous for any writer to assume that intelligence any longer exists among Western peoples. But assuming that somewhere in the West, under a rock perhaps or on Tatooine with Obi-Wan Kanobi, a bit of intelligence and a speck of humanity still exists, the important question is: Do you believe the Russians will sit there awaiting a nuclear strike, or will they pre-empt it with a strike of their own?
The fact that the entirely of the US government lacks the intelligence to have asked this question tells us why we are doomed.
As I have previously written, the government in Washington is the concentration of the entire evil of the universe. No greater danger to life has ever existed than the government of the United States.
After squandering many of Russia’s opportunities in hopes of diplomacy, Vladimir Putin now sees the West for what it is: An immoral, power-crazed entity that will destroy the planet before it gives up its goal of hegemony over the entirety of the Earth. Why should the “indispensable, exceptional people” settle for anything less than hegemony over the world?
The crazed American government drowning in its own hubris has set us on a course to nuclear war. Can America produce a leader who can reverse course?
The Western public doesn't know it,
but Washington and its European vassals are convincing Russia that they are preparing to attack.
more from Paul Craig Roberts...
Eric Zuesse reports on a German newspaper leak of a Bundeswehr decision to declare Russia to be an enemy nation of Germany.
This is the interpretation that some Russian politicians themselves have put on the NATO military bases that Washington is establishing on Russia's borders.
Washington might intend the military buildup as pressure on President Putin to reduce Russian opposition to Washington's unilateralism. However, it reminds some outspoken Russians such as Vladimir Zhirinovsky of Hitler's troops on Russia's border in 1941.
Zhirinovsky is the founder and leader of Russia's Liberal Democratic Party and a vice chairman of the Russian parliament. In a confrontation with the editor of a German newspaper, Zhirinovsky tells him that German troops again on Russia's border will provoke a preventive strike after which nothing will remain of German and NATO troops. "The more NATO soldiers in your territory, the faster you are going to die. To the last man. Remove NATO from your territory!"
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has expressed his frustration with Washington's reliance on force and coercion instead of diplomacy. It is reckless for Washington to convince Russia that diplomacy is a dead end without promise. When the Russians reach that conclusion, force will confront force.
Indeed Zhirinovsky has already reached that point and perhaps Vladimir Putin also. As I reported, Putin recently dressed down Western presstitutes for their role in fomenting nuclear war. See also this.
Putin has made it clear that Russia will not accept US missile bases in Poland and Romania. He has informed Washington and the imbecilic Polish and Romanian governments. However, as Putin observed, "they don't hear."
The inability to hear means that Washington's arrogance has made Washington too stupid to take seriously Putin's warning. If Washington persists, it will provoke the preventive strike that Zhirinovsky told the German editor the Merkel regime was inviting.
Americans need to wake up to the dangerous situation that Washington has created, but I doubt they will. Most wars happen without the public's knowledge until they happen. The main function of the American left-wing is to serve as a bogyman with which to scare conservatives about the country's loss of morals, and the main function of conservatives is to create fear and hysteria about immigrants, Muslims, and Russians. There is no sign that Congress is aware of approaching Armageddon, and the media consists of propaganda.
I and a few others try to alert people to the real threats that they face, but our voices are not loud enough. Not even Vladimir Putin's voice is loud enough. It looks like the West won't hear until "there remains nothing at all of the German and NATO troops," and of Poland and Romania and the rest of us.
The Russian president was meeting with foreign journalists at the conclusion of the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum on June 17th, when he left no one in any doubt that the world is headed down a course which could lead to nuclear war.
Putin railed against the journalists for their "tall tales" in blindly repeating lies and misinformation provided to them by the United States on its anti-ballistic missile systems being constructed in Eastern Europe. He pointed out that since the Iran nuclear deal, the claim the system is to protect against Iranian missiles has been exposed as a lie.
The journalists were informed that within a few years, Russia predicted the US would be able to extend the range of the system to 1000 km. At that point, Russia's nuclear potential, and thus the nuclear balance between the US and Russia, would be placed in jeopardy.
Putin completely lost patience with the journalists, berating them for lazily helping to accelerate a nuclear confrontation by repeating US propaganda. He virtually pleaded with the western media, for the sake of the world, to change their line:
We know year by year what's going to happen, and they know that we know. It's only you that they tell tall tales to, and you buy it, and spread it to the citizens of your countries. You people in turn do not feel a sense of the impending danger - this is what worries me. How do you not understand that the world is being pulled in an irreversible direction? While they pretend that nothing is going on. I don't know how to get through to you anymore.
Does anyone in the reeking garbage heap that is mainstream western media have a conscience? Do they even have enough intellect to get what Putin is saying - that they are helping to push the planet towards World War III?
Here are excerpts of Putin’s recent speech delivered at the Valdai conference in Sochi. The speech was directed at Western elites.
“Russia will no longer play games with the United States and engage in back-room negotiations… Russia is prepared for serious agreements, but only if these agreements are conducive to collective security… All systems of global collective security now lie in ruins. There are no longer any international security guarantees at all and the party responsible for the destruction of global collective security is The United States of America…
…The builders of the New World Order have failed by having built a sand castle…Russia favors a conservative approach to introducing innovations into the social order, but is not opposed to investigating and discussing such innovations, to see if introducing any of them might be justified…
…Russia has no intention of building an empire of their own, but will not go fishing in the murky waters created by America’s ever-expanding “empire of chaos…
…Russia’s challenges lie in developing her already vast territory)…Russia will not attempt to reformat the world in her own image, but neither will she allow anyone to reformat her in their image. Russia will not close herself off from the world, but anyone who tries to close her off from the world will be sure to reap a whirlwind. Neither is Russia willing to act as a savior of the world, as she has in the past…
…RUSSIA DOES NOT WISH FOR THE CHAOS TO SPREAD, DOES NOT WANT WAR, AND HAS NO INTENTION OF STARTING ONE. HOWEVER, TODAY RUSSIA SEES THE OUTBREAK OF GLOBAL WAR AS ALMOST INEVITABLE, IS PREPARED FOR IT, AND IS CONTINUING TO PREPARE FOR IT. RUSSIA DOES NOT WAR, NOR DOES SHE FEAR IT……
Russia does not intend to take an active role in thwarting those who are still attempting to construct their New World Order, However, Russia will oppose their efforts if they begin to impinge on Russia’s key interests. Russia would prefer to stand by and watch them give themselves as many lumps as their poor heads can take. But those who manage to drag Russia into this process, through disregard for her interests, will be taught the true meaning of pain…
…Russia’s will rely not on the elites to set the tone for the future, and these decisions will result from the will of the people…”
In June 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to disarm the ‘Russian aggression’ talking point disseminated by neoconservative Beltway think tanks, pointing to the absurdity of Russia instigating a war against NATO member states.
“I think that only an insane person, and only in a dream, can imagine that Russia would suddenly attack NATO,” said Putin, adding, “I think some countries are simply taking advantage of people’s fears with regard to Russia.”
Regardless of the motives, the escalation of a NATO military presence close to Russian borders has reached a fever pitch, with the US establishing a missile-defense system in Romania and undertaking the development of a separate missile shield in neighboring Poland.
Beyond attempting to strangle Moscow’s nuclear deterrent, the Obama administration has also increased Pentagon spending in countries neighboring Russia by four-fold.
The Obama administration is not alone in its efforts to increase a rhetoric of threat. In recent months Poland has called for an influx of US troops and military aid, citing concerns that Russia may seek to invade.
Germany has agreed to dispatch troops into the country for the war game, marking the first time that German soldiers have entered Polish territory since the Nazis used it as a route to invade the Soviet Union.
On Monday, Loud & Clear’s Brian Becker sat down with security analysts Daniel McAdams and John Wight to discuss the latest round of provocations on Russia’s border, and whether NATO war hawks seek more violence.
What is the purpose of the Anaconda-16 War Game?“Well this is a series of so many NATO exercises on Russia’s borders during the summer, you can call it the summer of provocation,” said McAdams. “This is the largest of the military exercises, and is the largest movement of foreign forces within Poland since World War II, so that is very significant and it is all being sold to everyone else as a protection against Russian aggression.”
“In reality, it is NATO troops that are outside of Russia’s borders and it is absolutely a provocation, another step in trying to poke Russia in the eye,” explained the security analyst.
Is Poland important to the United States strategically?
“Poland is massively important because of the historical enmity between the Poles and Russia along with the location,” explained John Wight.
“Daniel is absolutely right in calling this the summer of provocation, what we are witnessing is the recrudescence of the policy of containment that was devised after the Second World War.”
“Containment, however, is a bit of a misnomer because it isn’t a policy of containment, it is a policy of aggression designed to surround Russia politically, economically, and ultimately militarily, in order to keep Russia’s government paranoid and to apply pressure on Russia to cause it to implode internally,” said Wight, explaining the existential threat that Moscow faces from US-led saber rattling.
Is Russia a counter-hegemonic force against the United States?
“I wouldn’t say that Russia set out to be counter-hegemonic, but certain events have taken place,” suggested McAdams. “You know the famous Putin speech where he essentially said ‘We’ve had it, we’ve had enough, and we’ve taken it for a number of years,’ and this was right before Russia accepted Syria’s invitation to put down the jihadists.”
“I believe Russia has been pushed into this position, but if you talk about the early dates of the Obama administration, there was still this idea of resetting relations,” said McAdams. “Instead, what happened in the Obama administration, and it happens in every administration, in which the neocons swoop in and take over foreign policy.”
“You have people like Victoria Nuland who served Dick Cheney prior to President Obama. What on earth were they thinking by allowing somebody like this to have control of power, somebody who is a member of the Kagan neocon crime family, as the wife to Robert Kagan. This is how the neocons do it and they swallowed the Obama administration like a cancer that keeps growing,” stated the security analyst.
“The neoconservatives now have control of Obama’s Russian policy and I think they are pushing us towards World War III,” asserted McAdams.