These days it is en vogue in Washington DC to be itching for conflict with Russia. Politicians and pundits alike are outdoing each other for how they can describe the supposed threat Putin now poses to the west. To his credit, Barack Obama seems to be the only politician not playing into the cold war 2.0 hysteria.
Conspiracy theories are almost universally mocked in the US
It's probably more accurate to say that conspiracy theories aren't universally taken seriously in the US - the only time when they're universally mocked are in times when conspiracies are abundant (conspiracies tend to be an immediate byproduct of a surveillance state)
My observation during the past half century concludes that (irrespective of abundance or lack of conspiracy theories) the Democratic Party and GOP have trained their partisans (those who never vote for any other party) to label anybody who questions Party dogma as a conspiracy theorist.
Our local partisans are adverse to change, want one sentence answers to all of their questions, and silver bullets to solve all their problems. Labeling an issue a conspiracy theory or labeling a person a conspiracy theorist is a perfect fit for partisans' pigeon hole approach to life.
By the way, maybe Reuters, like the rest of western media is lying through it's teeth.
Successful Syria gamble
Russia’s military intervention in Syria on behalf of the Syrian government has been limited and calculated. Moscow achieved a number of its major aims fairly quickly: The intervention provided the impetus for a massive diplomatic shakeup and allowed Russia to demonstrate that it is a modern military power capable of turning the tide in a complex conflict which affects its national interests.
In a matter of months, Russia’s military campaign shifted the balance in favor of Bashar al Assad’s government forces and Moscow became an indispensable player in the conflict. In doing so, particularly with the liberation of Palmyra from ISIS forces, Moscow also made gains in the so-called information war. While Russian policy has remained consistent, Washington has been left scrambling to clarify its own support for anti-Assad opposition rebel forces. When Russia’s bombing campaign revealed US-supported forces to be fighting in many instances alongside terror groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, even many Western observers suggested that Washington needed to reevaluate its strategy and called on the US to work with Moscow to focus on destroying ISIS, the common and most pressing threat.
Though there has been no major diplomatic breakthrough yet, overall, the Russian intervention which came as a shock to many, is now widely regarded as a game-changer in not only the Syrian conflict, but in the dynamics of Middle Eastern power relations.
RT has proven to be one of the most credible media outlets on the planet.
Has RT addressed the military industrial complex's strategy to restart the US cold war with Russia ?
"Sanctity of our elections"!!!!????
How much democracy can you afford ?
That is the more applicable question..
Barack Obama seems to be the only politician not playing into the cold war 2.0 hysteria
And yet, those who work for him are challenging and demonizing Russia every day. More proof (as if any is needed) that Obama was never in charge.
The parallels with Iraq are depressing and scary. Once again the US is vastly inflating the threat from a country that's in bad shape and demonizing its leader. The one big difference is that Russia really does have weapons of mass destruction -- a whole hell of a lot of them. If our leaders in Washington were sane, they'd be doing everything in their power to come to an agreement with Putin to dramatically reduce the number of such weapons on both sides. But it seems like the Washington consensus, including Clinton, is to play Russian roulette.
Obama has it wrong, too. So does Timm.
Sure, Russia is desperate. That's not unreasonable. The US continues to encircle it, has the greater military force and energy and force of habit, and a history of foolish and irrational violence. Russia's desperation has little to do with Putin's capacity or incapacity.
It borders on insanity to imagine that desperation has so much to do with weakness, let alone with safety of any sort. There are many sorts of strength and weakness. Westerners should pack away the obsession with this sort of ego-measuring nonsense and ask ourselves just what the phrase "desperate nuclear power" means to us.
Clinton publicity folk are having fun painting Trump as associated with Putin in preparation for further military adventurism in Western Asia and to detract from the despotic manipulations of the DNC and the president on Clinton's behalf during the nomination process. Timm may imagine that Obama has left the cold war behind, but casual quips in a campaign against Romney have not stopped him from moving NATO east, provoking a coup d'etat in the Ukraine, or destabilizing and bombing Syria in preparations to seal off the Bosporus against Russia.
Presidential policy has become almost completely unlinked from rhetoric, yet Timm seems not to notice the difference. If you put the quips and rhetorical filips aside and pay attention to the moves, Obama's policies are right in line with those of Reagan and Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger and Allen Dulles.
That does mean that "security" is regarded as allied with "global dominance," and that does mean that most of us are regarded as dispensable.
Well said Merasmus and Bardamu both. I find this article by Tim to be awful stuff.
If the USA had produced any sane leaders after Kennedy, that leader and his staff would have worked with the Russians to abolish nuclear weapons and would have given humanity what would now be a working access to the Moon and Mars rather than spending 53 years attempting to bomb harmless countries back to the Stone Age whilst failing to provide universal taxpayer-funded heath-care for its citizens.
That's like Voice of America for the US.
Look at how Putin got Syria to give up its chemical weapons---look at John Kerry's face in a news conference when he gets the news-
The Russians want to end the Syrian conflict---the US military and weapons industry have no desire to end conflict!
That was prearranged between Obama and Putin at the G20 summit.
US is threatening massive air strikes
Kerry, off the cuff remarks that strikes will not take place if Syria relinquishes control of its chemical weapons
At a meeting (it just happened to be the next day) between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem, Lavrov proposes just that
Syria agrees, airstrikes called off
I say it was the best joint US-Russian op of this decade (that we know of).
Indeed. George Orwell said it best "In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act" or dismissed as a conspiracy theory these days.