Thursday, September 22, 2016

The Third World War Has Never Been So Close… “US Preparing to Wage War on Russia. How will Russia Respond?”

To be truthful, I didn't want to put this out, I found it too difficult to read, but the more people who know the better if we are to avert this.


The globalist US leadership obviously cannot rule the whole world and, what’s more, the threat posed by Trump puts their control over America itself into question. Now, while the puppet Barack Obama is still in office and the globalist candidate Hillary Clinton is falling apart in front of American voters’ very eyes, is the last chance to start a war. This would allow them to postpone elections or force Trump, if he were to win, to begin his presidency in catastrophic conditions. Thus, the US neoconservatives and globalists need war. And fast, before it’s too late. If Trump gets into the White House when there will be peace, then there will be no such war, at least for the foreseeable future. And this would spell the end of the omnipotence of the maniacal globalist elites.
The point of no return has not been crossed yet. 
It is completely obvious that the US is preparing to start a war against Russia. Border incidents represent reconnaissance operations. But how will Moscow, Putin, and the Kremlin react? The point of no return has not yet been crossed, but did Moscow’s reaction not show just how many Russians are ready for a direct, frontal confrontation with the US and NATO? This was why the airstrike was launched against Syrian army positions.

 http://www.globalresearch.ca/video-the-third-world-war-has-never-been-so-close-us-preparing-to-wage-war-on-russia-how-will-russia-respond/5546914

24 comments:

Gary Hart said...

We will know how Russia will respond in about 30 minutes after the US attacks. As my old drill sergeant used to say, "Put one hand on one knee and one hand on the other and then bend over and kiss your behind good bye."

Tom Hickey said...

The US foreign and limitary establishments, in fact, the entire deep state, is terrified at the arms race they have provoked with Russia and China. The window is closing quickly unless the US invests much more in arms development and can twist the arms of its allies to buy a new stock of weapons.

Russia is already a fearsome opponent, but as China (Godzilla) catches up technologically and it is closing the gap quickly, the prospect of Western dominance is fading fast.

Consequently, there is a powerful cohort in the US deep state that is urging now or never.

Six said...

US can't occupy Afghanistan or Iraq ... So how could it occupy Russia and China? Western dominance is a silly fantasy.

Tom Hickey said...

America's strength geostrategically is it is not part of the world island (Eurasia/Africa) but dominates the island of the Americas. IN the long run, engaging on the terrain of the world island is a huge strategic blunder.

Another strategic blunder is ignoring the potential of the island of the Americas.

The focus is short-sighted, warped and unsustainable. The US is overreaching and getting burned for the trouble.

The goal was a lasting peace after WWII but that got sidetracked toward inheriting the British empire and expanding it through control of land, sea and air militarily.

Bob said...

Russia can avoid direct confrontation if they want to. Syrian soldiers on the front lines will not have as much choice. Focus the war on Aleppo and leave the other regions aside until November. If Syria ends up partitioned, that is a better outcome than risking WWIII.

Seve141 said...

Should Syria become partitioned, it will simply be one more step towards WW3. On the other hand, should Syria survive, it may well go a long way to staving off WW3.

TPTB will not stop at the destruction of Syria, it will only be less thing left on the to-do list.

Russia, Iran, China and others see the current attempt to destroy Syria as an existential threat and they should.

“We’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran..”

https://youtu.be/bSL3JqorkdU?list=PLBzzaQKAsgNOJYpr92FqqUnuK_BhpDAET


There seems to be this unquestioned belief in the US (not Europe) that in the event of war with Russia / China that no one can reach out an touch the homeland. That possibility is never raised in the MSM to my knowledge?

Tom Hickey said...

Partitioning Syria and ousting Assad would be comparable politically and strategically to allowing Hitler to annex Czechoslovakia. Russia, China and Iran know this. They realize that they are the eventual targets for regime change and partitioning so that they can never again create problems for the hegemon. This is just Empire 101.

Tom Hickey said...

There seems to be this unquestioned belief in the US (not Europe) that in the event of war with Russia / China that no one can reach out an touch the homeland. That possibility is never raised in the MSM to my knowledge?

Putin has warned that this will not be the case and even questioned Western reporters for not reporting that not only will European NATO countries be in the cross hairs but also NATO allies and the continental US as well. He has also more or less stated that Russia will not allow the US to mount a first strike capability and will be forced to respond militarily to destroy it.

China is also sending clear signals that the US is approaching red lines and China will strike if they are crossed.

The US response is that US carrier groups are invincible unless nuked and "neither Russia nor China are crazy enough to do that."

Stay tuned.

Bob said...

I didn't say anything about ousting Assad. Partition is a possible means to bringing peace to the region. It's not in Russia's interest to get drawn into another quagmire, or to risk WW3 over the fate of one country in a region that is in turmoil.

They can do what is militarily feasible in a given period of time. Subduing the Turks and the Kurds and ISIS by November is impractical. It may never be practical in the longer term either. But they can keep Assad in power in western Syria.

Washington is in a position where they are causing instability without having to "own" the consequences. If Russia, China, Iran want to resolve this in their favour they will have to step up to the plate and force the outcome. By comparison, this situation is easier politically and militarily for Washington. They calculate that they can call a bluff without consequences domestically. I wouldn't rule out another "mistake" either.

Maybe I'm wrong and the Bible is correct, but I'm more worried about provocations in Ukraine and in the Baltic puppet states. The Russians are not bluffing when it comes to their own backyard.

Bob said...

Canada does not have any nukes. Would the Russians destroy Canadian cities just the same?

Matt Franko said...

Bob,

If Trump wins he can simply offer to install SM-3 in Crimea for them.... all of this should then go away...

Tom Hickey said...

All Russia, China and Iran have to do is hold off Al Qaeda in Syria and ISIS, which they are handling pretty well. The would have to get involved on the ground rather than just supply the terrorists, and there is so far no indication that the US political leadership has any appetite to do that yet. Afghanistan and Iraq turned to another Vietnam for the US and the US public doesn't seem ready for another war of choice that risks blood and treasure. The CIA even lost the Bay of Pigs. The record is pretty abysmal.

And the last time that the US confronted a major power directly, it did not turn out so well either. China fought the US to a stalemate in Korea, resulting in the portion of the country.

Canada does not have any nukes. Would the Russians destroy Canadian cities just the same?

There is no strategic value in doing so that as far as I can see. Just hope the wind isn't blowing north.

Andrew Anderson said...

"If he fires one, I'll fire one." "Fire one!"

Bob said...

The would have to get involved on the ground rather than just supply the terrorists, and there is so far no indication that the US political leadership has any appetite to do that yet.

Their appetite is to call for a no-fly zone. This gives an idea of what sort of confrontation they are looking for.

I'm not suggesting they've learned from the debacle in Iraq and Afghanistan, but their involvement in Syria avoids having to occupy any territory. A Trump victory suggests an end to these interventionist tactics.

Tom Hickey said...

Their appetite is to call for a no-fly zone. This gives an idea of what sort of confrontation they are looking for.

A no-fly zone must be enforced. The US idea of a no-fly zone is that only the US gets to fly. Good luck in getting Russia agree to that, and trying to impose it unilaterally risks war.

Lavrov already explained that a no-fly zone in Syria is tantamount to giving terrorists a free hand to overthrow Assad, which is the US goal.

So not the US has to decide if it want to confront Russia militarily in Syria by itself rather than just through proxies.

HRC has strongly suggested that she is ready for it. We'll soon see whether Obama is before he leaves office.

Bob said...

John Kerry called for a no-fly zone, by grounding all flights. Presumably Obama concurs with this "lite" proposal.

Tom Hickey said...

Russia would have to be ready to surrender Syria and Assad to buy it. It's a proposal to hand Aleppo and therefore Syria to Al Qaeda. About what to expect from Obama.

Bob said...

Obama: The Nobel Peace Laureate

Tom Hickey said...

If serious about ending the carnage, then the US could just stop funding and supply, and reinforcing the terrorists, I mean "freedom fighters" that the US is using as proxies. This is going on indirectly through Turkey, facilitated by the CIA, and funded by Wahhabi-Salafi states, KSA and Qatar.

Why negotiate with a partner that has proven it doesn't negotiate in good faith? In addition, it is doubtful that Obama has control over the US deep state, including the military. Even if he wished to negotiate in good faith, there would be guarantee that the US would stand by it owing to rogue behavior.

Fortunately, Obama's term is expiring and HRC is stumbling.

Bob said...

What evidence is there that Obama and Kerry have acted in good faith? They come up with one ploy after to delay the offensive in and around Aleppo.

What do you make of Erdogan's decision to occupy the north central area? It seemed as if there would be a change in policy that might favour Assad and his allies. But it seems that Erdogan is mainly interested in playing to domestic Turkish sentiment. He may turn out to be another double-crosser.

Tom Hickey said...

What do you make of Erdogan's decision to occupy the north central area? It seemed as if there would be a change in policy that might favour Assad and his allies. But it seems that Erdogan is mainly interested in playing to domestic Turkish sentiment. He may turn out to be another double-crosser.

It's necessary to distinguish needs from wants.

Erdogan's bottom line is no emerging Kurdish state since it would pose an existential threat to Turkey's territorial integrity and even its political structure. He may want other things, but this is what he needs to have.

The essence of negotiation is understanding the different counterparties needs and distinguishing them from wants. Wants can be sacrificed but countries go to war over needs. They are the basis for red lines.

One way of determining red lines is probing militarily. It's dangerous.

Bob said...

What does Washington need from Syria that they are willing to go to war for it?

Tom Hickey said...

Depends on what "need" means.

If one thinks that national security requires global hegemony because only world order depends on one political system being dominant, then the US "needs" to control the whole world and whacking anyone that doesn't do what the US says is a matter of "national security." Because otherwise, "someone like China [or Russia] will make the rules."

On the other hand, if one conceives national security in terms of national defense, then the US has no vital interests in Syria.

Bob said...

But the US cannot control the whole world, let alone Syria.
Similarly, Turkey may not be able to prevent the creation of a Kurdish state.

Two examples where Needs = Fantasy