Home | About | Donate

Scoffing at NATO-Russia Agreement, US Building Up Europe's Eastern Flank


Scoffing at NATO-Russia Agreement, US Building Up Europe's Eastern Flank

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

In response to what one White House official described as "a new situation, where Russia has become a more difficult actor," the United States is ramping up the deployment of heavy weapons and armored vehicles to NATO member countries in Central and Eastern Europe, the New York Times reported Tuesday.


The USA better watch out because Europeans don't have much animosity toward Russia because they have been witnessing the US provocation of Russia since the fall of the Berlin wall. The US might find itself isolated because Europeans will not fight under a US dominated NATO. The US has been consistently breaking promises by expanding further and further into Eastern Europe. The US against the persistent Russian protestations has placed radar stations and offensive missile systems closer and closer to the Russian borders. The US claim for the reason for the deployment used to be to provide a shield against Iranian missiles, however that rhetoric has changed now to blaming Russia itself for merely trying to defend from an overt US military aggression.


The international/US war machine must have a boogeyman, an enemy, to justify their existence, expansion, arms trade, and obscene costs/waste, diverting trillions from civilian societies to military "needs" & systems. Enormous profits for the connected from endless war play no small role in this premeditated calculation.

At the self-inflicted demise/break-up of the Soviet Union a new boogeyman was desperately needed, fast, and viola, the War On Terror was created via 911 and the knee-jerk Bush invasion of Iraq, a perfect amorphous "enemy" of tribal people wedded to religion, used to justify continued military domination and expansion of Earth. The fact is that the west created Daesh/IS by their premeditated or incompetent invasion and decimation of Iraq's security and civilian mechanisms. The assassination of Gaddafi and destabilization of Libya and the rest of North Africa followed - with no small input/complicity by Secretary Clinton who openly serves Israel and threatens nuclear war - genocide - against Iran.

NATO and the US allegedly made commitments when the USSR disbanded to not enlarge their area of control or surround Russia with arms or confrontational regimes, which some claim they broke, leading, in part at least, to the dangerous Ukraine situation, repatriation/annexation of the Crimea to Russia, and Russia defending their position and territorial integrity - none of this intended to defend Putin per se.

The rekindling of confrontation with the old boogeyman may be evidence of the end of usefulness of the new boogeyman, Daesh/IS international terrorism. The war-machine created a monster that has moved beyond their control and represents a threat to regimes in many areas and to societies and individuals - a growing intolerable result of manipulation/enhancement of conflict by those who profit from war and death that may see a return to a Cold War as preferable to the very hot result of for-profit warmongers overreaching to build wealth from death and destruction.





This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


I would think that the annexation of the Crimea is the underlying cause of worsening relations between the US and Russia.


" A new situation, where Russia has become a more difficult actor".

We, the US military and its warmongering profiteers, have a window of opportunity to request another 3.4 billion $$$$$$$$$$.

The average US citizen has a lot more to fear from its rogue, fascist government, which is now much more dangerous than the Russian bear.


Engineering that coup in Ukraine gave the US and NATO just the excuse they wanted to pour more arms near Russia's border. Then, when Russia reacts defensively, the West seems surprised and threatened by Russia's "aggression." What's in the water they drink in D.C.? Why are American politicians so hyper-aggressive? It seems they are constantly looking for a target.


Crimea voted to join Russia -- it was not annexed. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/16/crimea-referendum-ukraine-russia/6484251/


Russian troops were already in Crimea and the idea that ethnic Russians in Crimea decided to secede while foreign military forces (Russian) prevented access by the original country (Ukraine) is not voting as much as it is annexing.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


" Why are American politicians so hyper-aggressive?"



If you read some analysis of why Russia responded to perceived provocations by NATO and the West and re-annexed The Crimea you might revise that point of view.

The Crimea was part of Russia since its annexation in 1783, with Sevastopol the base of Soviet/Russia's Black Sea fleet. The territory was transferred to Ukraine in 1954 under Khrushchev. Predominately a Russian-speaking ethnic population with Tatar and Ukrainian minorities tensions began to rise after the breakup of the USSR. After deterioration of relations under a pro-western Ukraine president, a referendum was held resulting in annexation of Crimea back to Russia; a year after annexation "poll after poll shows that the locals there — be they Ukrainians, ethnic Russians or Tatars are mostly all in agreement: life with Russia is better than life with Ukraine." "a June 2014 Gallup poll asked Crimeans if the results in the March 16, 2014 referendum to secede reflected the views of the people. A total of 82.8% of Crimeans said yes."

It appears to many the West and NATO over-played their hand pushing and attempting unwisely to isolate Russia violating what many see as prior commitments to not do so, and that was the genesis of "worsening relations".

Obama is now increasing tensions and continues to display his poor judgment and catering to the war machine - a pathetic performance and lack of integrity and wisdom. It is astonishing he allowed the Iran "deal" to move forward, even though he distorted the Iranian position and fact they never had any nuclear weapons program; Hillary continues this ignorance (and aggression) stating Iran has "no right to enrich uranium" even though the NPT specifically gives that right to signatories Iran is one of, unlike Hillary's master, Israel. Hillary threatens Iran with nuclear war rather than better relations, again being lap-dog to Israeli extremism.


You are rewriting history not speaking facts. I am surprised by this behavior and respectfully suggest you read a Wikipedia entry or two on the Crimea, the deportation of the Crimean Tartars, the Crimean Referendum and the presence of armed Russian troops occupying the peninsula during the referendum and facilitating it.

Moreover repatriated Tartars were also displaced internally by the Russians (who wanted the 'hotel coast' strip for future development) and the Tartar's own organization boycotted the referendum and claimed only 34% participated. Also the EU and the UN also refused to legitimize a referendum held under the gun (occupying Russian troops) and so forth.

It isn't just the USA who had empires. The Cold War had two major participants - the USA and the USSR. I don't get the knee jerk support for Russia as if everything was nice and fair and a democratic freedom loving country if only the USA weren't so bad. Well bullshit!

Putin is no Martin Luther King okay? He is rough stuff and has been active as quasi tsar for quite some time. How do progressives excuse he self appointments to positions of power? Say what? Crimea was annexed in the clearest sense of the word just short of military conquest. If in a few more decades that China holds a referendum in Tibet in which ethnic Chinese outnumber ethnic Tibetans and the vote is held (boycotted by many Tibetans ) in which 70% of voters are ethnic Chinese and they vote to maintain China occupation of Tibet permanently... will you also complain about people not agreeing with its validity?


Easy.....This a complex situation and I agree we should not misstate history or facts. First of all what Stalin did to ethnic minorities in Crimea has no real place in today's situation unless you want to include the Native American genocide, Latin American coups, dictators and wars for United Fruit, etc, etc. The Cold-War was not an equal opportunity enterprise, it was the MICC building itself into the threat it is today!
I don't think my position is one of "knee-jerk support for Russia" but a statement of the West, NATO and the US pushing/provoking Crimea and Russia as the primary cause of the episode. I in no way suggested "Putin is a Martin Luther King", clearly that's rubbish, he is a thug, but US politicians and military establishment are also thugs and our military adventurism/wars so far-exceed anything Russia does, equating the two is laughable. The comparison between the Crimean referendum and eventual Russian annexation of Crimea with a similar Chinese hypothetical action and annexation of Tibet is not even remotely similar for numerous reasons.

Putin did according to the Wikipedia history "signed a decree formally rehabilitating the Crimean Tatars, who were ousted from their lands in 1944, and the Armenian, German, Greek, and Bulgarian minority communities in the region that Stalin also ordered removed in the 1940s." I hope they all actually received their rights.

So, Jeeze-Louise ease-up a bit.......we have bigger fish to fry.


An artificial excuse for planning to partition Russia itself


Why is in your view Putin a "thug"? When he's actually a nationalist dedicated to advancing the lot of his people. He has shown great courage to stand up and challenge the US military machine in the ME because actually our leadership are mostly made up of criminals and thugs urinating all over the US constitution.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Any reason to pump $$$$$$$$$$$$ into the Defense budget. Obama is a lame duck at this point and is acting like one too soon. His so-called military advisors (JSOC) unanimously push for perpetual war so their retirement funds will be filled substantially (during "times of combat"). Besides, all they know is kill and kill more, spend and spend more on the latest warmongering gadgets/planes/missiles/vehicles/ships/munitions and the like.

Stupid move, Obama...STUPID! Play right into Putin's hands, why dontcha. Why not take the diplomatic route? Oh, that's right...the "experts" (:grimacing:) are right and to hell with what the American people think (not all of us are ignorant contrary to what the high level know-it-alls may think). More lives thrown away (on both sides), billion$$$$ more wasted on arms. Poking the sleeping bear is not advisable.


Can you possibly post a link to the document which promises this?