Home | About | Donate

Russia-Baiting and Risks of Nuclear War


#1

Russia-Baiting and Risks of Nuclear War

Ray McGovern

As U.S. and Russian officials trade barbed threats and as diplomacy on Syria is “on the verge” of extinction, it is tempting to view the ongoing propaganda exchange over who shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in July 2014 as a side-show. That would be a huge mistake – easily made by President Obama’s wet-behind-the-ears sophomoric advisers who seem to know very little of the history of U.S.-Russia relations and appear smug in their ignorance.


#2

Let's also remember that MH 17 on that day was routed over the battle zone, while on other days it was routed well to the south. The plane was set up via air traffic control, with which it is very doubtful that the eastern Ukrainian rebels had any participation. The personnel records of the air traffic control system need to be scrutinized and publicized for more perspective on this event. The lies fomented by M$M are quite transparent to those who have followed this crime from the get go.


#3

If either the US or Russia launched a nuclear strike against the other it would probably mean both countries would be completely destroyed. So who would be foolish enough to do that? The article seems to be another example of fear mongering. North Korea seems to be the only country with nuclear weapons where there are serious concerns about rationality. Pakistan seems to be the most unstable country with nuclear weapons and also there is a lot of support for jihadists. With India and Pakistan both having nuclear weapons the disagreement over Kashmir remains a big concern. It is probably a good thing that Ukraine turned over nuclear weapons in the Ukraine to Russia when the Soviet Union fell or we would be looking at a very scary situation right now with a nuclear-armed Ukraine next to Russia.


#4

The ulterior motives of the US in Syria and the Ukraine are being exposed so it's a good time to ramp up the finger pointing and suspicions of Russia. How can the US unseat Assad with Russia in the way?
We know the US is funding the rebels and ISIS so I expect to counter that information we will hear a lot more of the same. Clinton's generals are getting ready for her new wars already. So sick.


#6

John Kerry has been our Secretary of State for almost 4 years.
Can anyone name a single positive accomplishment that he can be credited with in all that time?
Like Hillary before him, Kerry has made matters much, much worse everywhere across the globe.
With people like Samantha Powers, our UN Ambassador, leading our foreign policy effort the neocons have remained firmly in control of our war policy for 16 years now.
And everything is worse now then it was before 2001.
Every old war is still being fought and new wars have been started.

As president Hillary will be a foreign policy disaster.


#7

This kind of foreign policy is called, "A March to Folly"....prior to WW1...."Those who refuse to acknowledge the past...etc., etc."


#9

OK, that was a very funny comment, but quite tragic when viewed in context.
"Woopie, we're all gonna die."


#11

A third world nuclear, war with Russia is irrelevant to the war profiteers. Looking at it from their perspective, that would be like me or you hitting the power ball lotto!

These people are so sick and insane with greed that one wonders how long before they manage to kill us all!


#12

"The shocking reality about the JIT is that one of the major suspects for having shot down MH-17, Ukraine, was pretty much running the inquiry."

Remind you of anything?

Since Clinton, in 2014, said Russian backed rebels were responsible for shooting down MH17, I wonder if she'll use this latest bit of propaganda from one of the suspects to up the ante on her attacks on Putin and Trump.


#13

One of the most shameful aspects of this march to war is that people like Kerry, Powers, Clinton, etc. have become so unhinged that they care not one bit about their own legacies. Future historians will remember them as traitors who openly supported the worst terrorists of our time and they show no remorse whatsoever. So sad.

Peace
Po


#14

Vanessa Beeley:

Peace
Po


#15

The Ukraine and The Netherlands are not our vassal states and defending Russia, given its treatment of gays and the fact that Putin is an evil little shit, is akin to defending ISIL/Daesh.


#16

No. It was the Netherlands.


#17

Did you follow Russia's lies as well?


#18

Do you think something called the "Ron Paul Liberty Report" is something a US leftist should regard as a credible source?


#19

Basically, what appears to have developed over the past year or two is is that a majority of what passes for "the left" in the USA now regards anyone who can be perceived to be anti-USA is to be regarded as an ally of the left - no matter how vile and thuggish - even when they are blood soaked fascist-capitalist gangsters!. And no dissent is allowed! Even someone suggesting that one consider holding two ideas in ones mind at the same time (i.e: 1. US foreign policy = very bad; 2. Putin and Assad = very bad too) is to be attacked and condemned!


#20

Yes! Everything is spooky conspiracy - controlled by a dark secret bunker of conspiracy planners with god-like powers to control everything!


#21

It really doesn't seem like long since their Red Queen is going to likely become president. :fearful:

And yes I still support Jill/Baraka 2016


#23

What would suggest that the rulers of any country are sane? National policies pretty much everywhere involve practices for which it would be difficult to mount any defence other than insanity--without bothering to itemize, the entire recent history of murder and fraud that emenates from the eminent.

To cite a very specific case, and the one that I find most like current events, let's look to John F. Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis. A lot of us might be more inclined to trust Kennedy than a number of people who have come later, and yet his quite popular handling of the Cuban missile crisis came only a lucky stroke from blowing up most of the planet.

As a condition to remove nuclear missiles from Cuba, Kruschev demanded that Kennedy remove similar missiles poised near Russia's southwestern borders. As it happened, Kennedy had intended to do so anyway because the missiles had become obsolete, in large part because of the new missiles that could be launched more surreptitiously from submarines, making them more difficult to parry.

However, once Kruschev demanded that they be removed, Kennedy refused to do so to save face: he did not want to back down to communists.

During this process, a Russian submarine armed with nuclear warheads was subjected to "signalling" depth charge fire (presmably a safe distance away). It's radio was out, so it had no communication either with the Americans at the surface or with Moscow. Thinking that the war had begun, two of three officers wanted to fire their arsenal. Only officer Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov refused to authorize the launch, and eventually convinced his fellow officers to bring the sub to the surface.

Apparently Westerners did not know this until records emerged from the Kremlin a few years after the fall of the Soviets.

And the reason to put the entire world at risk was that Kennedy or the US or someone like that might otherwise look bad.

If there is any reason to consider the current leading candidates saner or less warlike, it might be interesting to hear it.


#24

So you are saying gays are bettor off in Russia than in the US. I kinda stopped reading right there, comrade.