Home | About | Donate

Russia, NATO, and the Hubris of the US Political Establishment


Russia, NATO, and the Hubris of the US Political Establishment

Ron Forthofer

There are dangerous provocations along Russia's western border that have received little or incredibly one-sided coverage by the U.S. media. Thus the U.S. public is not aware of the possibility of a major conflict between two nuclear-armed powers occurring due to an accident or misinterpretation. The genesis of this current situation goes back in ancient history to 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall.


Within the dark labyrinths of the Military Industrial Weapons-Making complex, there are decided interests that WANT war. Logic has nothing to do with it. Therefore, those analysts who ask WHY U.S. Neocons are pushing closer to Russia's border arguably to rouse the sleeping giant are incapable of wrapping their minds around the fact that some very sick individuals in some very powerful positions WANT war. Some are religious fanatics convinced that a Final War will establish "the one true god" as if THAT is the blueprint the rest of us are living by and for.

When people on the Internet show compelling evidence that makes the case for a New World Order with one cruel set of authoritarians at the apex of this pyramid of power, they are called conspiracy theorists. Nonetheless, the push for absolute control by this particular nefarious group--using NATO and the U.S. Military as its private concierge service and Crusades-like army--is well underway.


Pepe Escobar has great material on this subject.


Nothing short of all out war fuels defense contractor revenues like NATO expansion in the East.


As Gwynne Dyer put it, "“Standing up to Putin” is an invigorating moral exercise, but it is not strictly speaking necessary."


In the matter of Magnitsky, Agit-Prop:



Frankly, I missed this incident and the law that was passed in Magnitsky's behalf.


Even in an article that is not demonizing Russia, the propaganda of the U.S. government still seems to control the narrative.

Russia did not deploy its troops already in Crimea. It did not 'take control.' It did not conduct a vote. To have a plebiscite was voted on by the government of Crimea, which was a federated state in the Ukraine. It was entirely legal because at that point there was no legitimate federal government in Kiev, due to the coup and the Ukraine constitution was suspended. So the government in Crimea was the only legitimate government there. They put up a vote to the people to change their constitution.


I asked my cousin's wife in Sweden if this story were true; she never responded. It could have been because of this sentence in the last paragraph:

"And the same news-suppression that causes Western publics (such as in Sweden, where this article was even offered as an exclusive to Dagens Nyheter, and was turned down by them) not to know these facts, will now probably cause this news-report to be likewise rejected by virtually all Western ‘news’ media, to all of whom it has been submitted (after its having been declined there)."


More interesting news about Denmark whose politicians have been veering neoliberal (with payoffs of course); for quite some time now:



I really agree with DrewHunkins' post. I am from the vintage that we were studying "Cantical for Leibowitz", "1984", and Dylan songs about peace in the English high school classes in Canada and many movies were being made in those days about nuclear war and the results. It seems there is a kind of societal naive stupidity now about this. There seems to be a kind of celebration of perpetual male adolescence. Of course, when you are 15, you want to meet girls and be the strongest boy on the block, but sooner or later, it is time to grow up and get along with others who are different, including respect for women..