Washington (CNN)It’s not a new Cold War. It’s not even a deep chill. It’s an outright conflict.
US-Russia relations have deteriorated sharply amid a barrage of accusations and disagreements, raising the stakes on issues ranging from the countries’ competing military operations in Syria, disputes over Eastern European independence and escalating cyber breaches.
“This is a conflict, there should be no doubt,” said Matthew Rojansky, director of the Kennan Institute at the Wilson Center, on the US-Russia confrontation.
Yes, our situation is far beyond anything seen in the Cold War. Apparently, the United States and NATO actually want global thermonuclear war. There really isn’t any other possible explanation for what the West is forcing. It can’t be explained by mere stupidity, unless humans have devolved to point of species-wide organic brain damage without realizing it, and so it must intentional.
The likelihood of nuclear armageddon has never been this high.
I’ve posted this a few times, but probably no one has actually read it:
We will continue to have continued escalating opportunities for conflict as long as NATO and the U.S. park themselves on Russia’s doorstep. The same can be said for the U.S. obsession with China’s man made islands in the South China Sea. We have tons of problems back home without going halfway around the world to get in a pushing match. We now find ourselves 15 years deep in the War in Afghanistan with the Taliban controlling more territory than they have since 2001. If we can’t win or control that war, can you imagine the results of an open conflict with Russia or China or their turf.
Why do we have to be the self-nominated Policeman of the World?
There is a lot to being first in a conflict scene.
For years, Russia did nothing in the Middle East. Obama did nothing despite the mounting crisis, and pulled out of the region, leaving a vacuum. Initially, Iran moved to fill it. Then, Russia seeing that the U.S. was not going to do anything, ramped up its presence in Syria and became a full combatant.
Had Obama acted decisively, or not even left, Russia would have probably been satisfied with its base at Tartus. But now that Russia has committed itself and its prestige to saving Assad and expanding its sphere of influence, it’s really dangerous to go in there and risk conflict in an area we abandoned.
A couple of years ago, Turkey offered to send ground troops to clean out ISIS if the U.S. would provide a “no fly zone” to keep Assad from bombing and strafing Turkish troops. Obama turned Turkey down, preferring to provide air cover for Iranian-led militias in Iraq. Russia knew all of that, waited, waited, waited. The U.S. did nothing, so Russia moved in.
We only have ourselves to blame for all of that, and going in now and trying to elbow Russia aside would be extremely foolish. It’s too late for that.
How can anyone perceive the US as the aggressor in this situation?
“On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the US was considering a “range” of “proportional” responses to alleged Russian hacking of US political groups. Washington publicly accused the Kremlin of cyberattacks on election systems and the democracy itself last Friday. That came after talks on a Syria ceasefire broke down as US officials suggested Russia be investigated for war crimes in the besieged city of Aleppo.
Moscow has steadfastly denied that it’s meddling in the US presidential election. In an interview this week with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said it was a baseless accusation.”
Can you doubt that Russia is not hacking our systems and trying to destabilize the country? That kind of thinking is delusional. Of course they are, and always have been. This is part of doing business in the superpower competition. And yes, they are supporting Asad and bombing the opposition in Syria our of existance. This is Russian aggression. Why fault the US?
We in the United States are the one’s with a military presence in 150 countries. We are on everyone’s doorstep. The U.S. spends as much on military as the next 14 countries of the world combined. That includes Russia and China. It is a two way street. To believe that we always wear the white hat is not realistic. To believe the Russians are always bad guys is wrong, It is a two way street. We are competitors, The U,S, is not in these multiple locations because we are comic book super heros. It is mostly about economics. Those economics are controlled not necessarily by someone with a particular allegiance to a particular country. Most of the people at the top usually don’t have an allegiance to a country. They don’t care if a widget is made in Vietnam, Mexico, or the United States if that is the cheapest place to make them and yields the most return to the investor. That;s the deal with these various trade agreements that ae so dear to the Clintons and the neo-con republicans. They stand to personally profit from them and why they protect them so much, and that is why the United States is spread around the world with it’s military.
Are the Russians good guys? Of course not, They are not always the bad guys either, They are often usually cast that way, though, Nor is the U.S. always a good guy. It is not as simple as we are good, they are bad.
Because you have no evidence that it was Russia who hacked, it could have been anyone, anywhere.
If someone is hacking, you would improve your security, not put a gun to the rest of the worlds head and say ‘Don’t hack me’ let alone accuse people of it with no proof and demand repercussions.
That’s like putting my password on the internet and demanding no one log in as me, someone from somewhere is going to do it, I would need to change my password, and let alone if they did log in as me, me pointing the finger and demanding repercussions.
And quite frankly, concerning some of what we have read from WikiLeaks, I would like to say ‘Thank you’ to whoever the hackers were.
I just hope that the current Obama administration and Clinton, don’t do something stupid before the US gets a chance to vote them out.
People can question the authenticity of the WikiLeaks, but actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the Obama administration and Clinton back these up.
The United States has attempted to be isolationist several times.
We intervened by attacking the Barbary Pirates in Libya after years of the Muslims seizing our ships and taking our citizens. That was 1805. The birth of the U.S. Marine Corps … “The Halls of Tripoli”. The pirates had been predating on the Europeans since 1492.
We got attacked by Britain in 1812 … they had seized our ships and kidnapped our citizens. They burned our national capital. Our soldiers kept our flag flying despite an all night naval bombardment … which is where we got our National Anthem. Star Spangled Banner.
We fought a bloody Civil War and lost 600,000 citizens while abolishing slavery. 1865. Britain attempted to intervene on the side of the Confederacy.
We entered World War I … probably that led to WWII and resulted in the establishment of Communism in Russia. 1917.
Read John Stormer … None Dare Call It Treason
Hawaii was attacked in 1941. Alaska was also attacked by Japan. It was probably an attempt to divert us so they could attack our fleet at Midway.
Read Diana West … American Betrayal … and John Koster … Operation Snow
We landed our troops in France in 1944 which resulted in the defeat of Germany. [And in North Africa and in Italy.]
A huge Russian spy ring stole our nuclear weapons secrets … and our airborne detection equipment picked up the radiation signature of their test explosions. 1949.
We ran the Berlin Blockade to stalemate the Russians. 1948. With the Berlin Airlift. 1948-49.
As a result of World War II and the so-called Cold War to block the Russians, we inherited and established military bases in Europe under NATO and in Asia under SEATO.
France asked us to leave and we did.
The Philippines asked us to leave and we did.
Now, China is building island bases and The Philippines are worried. Well, yeah.
President Jefferson wanted to be isolationist as did President Washington.
It didn’t work out so well.
Read: Twelve American Wars: Nine of Them Avoidable … by Eugene G. Windchy
I am not proposing isolationism. We can trade with who we want without a trade alliance. We can involve our military on as need basis at our own discretion without obligation to military alliances that intensity our potential for unnecessary military action. These alliances and military installations are incredibly expensive both in terms of money and human life.
The world IS a dangerous place, and to a large part because we are a major contributor to that dilemma. There is not a need for us to be world police. We continually find ourselves in locations where we needn’t be and involving ourselves in the internal affairs of other countries. This will only be more of a problem with a War hawk like Hillary in the presidency,
If I sit on the street in front of my neighbors house with a shotgun I will soon find myself in an encounter with that neighbor and the police. Even though I haven’t done anything, the fact that I am on their doorstep with a weapon and pose a threat increases the likelihood of a conflict out of fear of my neighbor, They feel a need to strike first before I would cause them harm. The same thing is happening on a larger scale as NATO sits on the doorstep of Russia. We are challenging them. We would feel the same way of Russia had their military sitting in Toronto or Vancouver.
In regard to the Japanese in WWII, also had an economic basis. the Japanese were interested in controlling the trade in the South Pacific and the U.S. was trying to do the same thing(i.e.- the Philippines).
I am afraid that simplifies it too much and also fails to address other issues. Prior to the Russian and Japanese agreement, the United States had placed an embargo on Japan. This embargo prohibited the export of steel, iron, and aviation fuel because Japan had taken over part of French Indochina.
The Russian agreement with Japan did simplify matters, in that Japan was somewhat assured they would not have to fight on multiple fronts. I don’t dispute an agreement with the Russians. Basically it freed each of them up to not have to contend with potential military confrontation on multiple fronts. They were each covering their behinds.
The U.S. in an agreement with Great Britain and the Netherlands froze Japanese assets, So Japan could not buy oil, posing a major impediment to their expansion goals and limiting their military. You can’t run ships, tanks and trucks without fuel. Their backs were thus against the wall so to speak and left them without an oar in the water.
The Japanese tried to forcibly take the resources by taking and controlling the South Pacific and SE Asia to gain these resources but were met with further resistance and threats by the United States. This eventually led to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
With that said I stand on my original comment that it was about economics and resources and who would control them. This is the case in a large majority of conflicts. Economics and power. Largely the same story to day in the world.