The Road To War With Russia – We’re not only on it; we’ve already arrivedPosted on January 11, 2015 by Chris Martenson

For several weeks now the anti-Russian stance in the US press has

quieted down. Presumably because the political leadership has moved

its attention on to other things, and the media flock has followed suit.

Have you read much about Ukraine and Russia recently?

I thought not, despite the fact that there’s plenty of serious action —

both there as well as related activity in the US — going on that

deserves our careful attention.

As I recently wrote, the plunging oil price is a potential catalyst for

stock market turmoil and sovereign instability. Venezuela is already

circling the drain, and numerous other oil exporters are in deep trouble

as they foolishly expanded their national budgets and social programs

to match the price of oil; something that is easy to do on the way up and

devilishly tricky on the way down.

But consider the impact on Russia. From the Russian point of view,

everything from their plunging ruble to bitter sanctions to the falling

price of oil are the fault of the US, either directly or indirectly. Whether

that is fair or not is irrelevant; that’s the view of the Russians right

now. So no surprise,  it doesn’t dispose them towards much in the way

of good-will towards the West generally, and the US specifically.

The fall in the price of oil is creating serious difficulties economically

and financially for Russia. We’ll get to those facets in a minute. But

right now, I want to focus on the continued belligerence of the US

towards Russia — some of which is overt and some of which, you can be

certain, is covert — which could very well end up provoking a more

kinetic and dangerous response than the West is prepared for.

Russia Forced To Act

Before anyone jumps in to say “Why are you defending Putin? He’s a

bad man”, let me just say that I have been closely analyzing each move

by Russia and the West since then President of Ukraine Yanukovych

declined to sign the European Association Agreement back in

November of 2013.

Based on the preponderance of evidence, its’ clear to me that the

West/US deserve the lion’s share of the blame for the conflict that now

rages with Ukraine and between Russia and the western world.

It was the West that supported the unsavory assortment of thugs, neo-

Nazis, and ultra-nationalists that seized power in a coup from the

democratically-elected Yanukovych.  We can argue all we want about

whether he was a good boy or not, but that’s irrelevant and plays into

the hands of those at the US State Department who would like to

deflect attention away from the very non-democratic events (shaped

behind the scenes by our influence) that led to his overthrow.

The US did the same thing with Saddam, if you recall. It’s a simple

deflection: away from the actions of the US, and towards the character

of the person standing in the line of fire from those actions.

In my view, if Yanukovych had not been violently deposed, Ukraine

would be peaceful right now, Russia would not have had to intervene,

and there would be no civil war in Ukraine and far reduced tensions

between the West and Russia.

So ham-handed were those efforts to intervene in Ukraine on the part of

the Obama State department that no less an historically loathsome

creature than Henry Kissinger even called the US’s actions a ‘fatal

mistake':

Kissinger warns of West’s ‘fatal mistake’ that may lead to new

Cold War

Nov 10, 2014

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has given a

chilling assessment of a new geopolitical situation taking shape amid

the Ukrainian crisis, warning of a possible new Cold War and calling

the West’s approach to the crisis a “fatal mistake.”

The 91-year-old diplomat characterized the tense relations as exhibiting

the danger of “another Cold War.”

“This danger does exist and we can’t ignore it,” Kissinger said. He

warned that ignoring this danger any further may result in

a “tragedy,” he told Germany’s Der Spiegel.

(Source)

When even Henry Kissinger thinks you’ve been too reckless in the

application of raw power, you’ve over done it.

So given the timeline of the events that have led to the frostiest US-

Russian relations since the depths of the cold war, I am of the view that

Russia has been actually quite restrained and has not over reacted to

any of the numerous provocations.

Despite the lull in front page reporting of the Russian situation, there

remains a careful program of steady anti-Russian propaganda running

through the western press.

It Takes Two To Tango

prop·a·gan·da

ˌpräpəˈɡandə/

Noun  – derogatory

Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to

promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

For propaganda to work well, there needs to be tight coordination

between the State and the press.  The role of the press is to first

publish the propaganda, and second, to neglect to look into it or report

on anything that might call it into question. Sins of omission and

commission are both required.

The good news is that the internet is a great equalizing force and we

can readily unearth inconvenient facts with a little digging that blunt

the propaganda. The bad news is that a lot of people still get all their

news from so-called ‘official’ sources.

At any rate, here’s a first-rate piece of unadulterated propaganda

courtesy of Bloomberg.  Note that it was printed on Dec 31, one of

several very quiet news days where little debate is likely to happen:

Inside Obama’s Secret Outreach to Russia

Dec 31, 2014

President Barack Obama’s administration has been working behind

the scenes for months to forge a new working relationship with

Russia, despite the fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin has

shown little interest in repairing relations with Washington or

halting his aggression in neighboring Ukraine.

In several conversations with Lavrov, Kerry has floated an offer to

Russia that would pave the way for a partial release of some of the most

onerous economic sanctions. Kerry’s conditions included Russia

adhering to September’s Minsk agreement and ceasing direct

military support for the Ukrainian separatists. 

(Source)

The tenor of this piece is set. It’s the US that is trying to be reasonable,

but Russia has shown little interest in repairing relations. That’s one

assertion.

Another is that Russia has been providing direct military support for the

separatists in neighboring Ukraine. And yet another that Putin himself

has shown little interest in halting his aggression.

That’s the main narrative that the US wants to put forward. Putin is a

bad guy. Like Saddam…remember him?  The US is the one being

reasonable here, according to this piece, and it’s Russia that has been

fomenting the troubles.

The US narrative goes further, repeatedly claiming that Russia has

been supplying major arms to the separatists, as we see here from early

December 2014:

U.S. Says Russia Arms Ukraine Rebels, OSCE Wary on Truce

Dec 2, 2014

North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Jens

Stoltenberg accused Russia of sending tanks, advanced air-

defense systems and other heavy weapons across the border to

Ukrainian rebels.

Russia denies involvement in the conflict.

“Since the Sept. 5 Minsk cease-fire agreement, Russia has

funneled several hundred” tanks, armed personnel carriers, and

other military vehicles directly to pro-Russian separatists in

Ukraine, Kerry said.

Russian military forces still operate inside eastern Ukraine

where they provide “command and control” for the separatists

they back, he added.

(Source)

The charge from the Secretary General of NATO and from John Kerry of

the US State department is that Russia has military forces inside

Ukraine, and that they’ve funneled hundreds of tanks, APCs, and other

military vehicles numbering in the hundreds.

As with the MH-17 disaster, we have to call this another case of the dog

that did not bark.

Where are the pictures?

The sorts of weaponry being claimed here are impossible to conceal

from the air.

Snapping high resolution photos of such things is child’s play for

today’s military satellites, and even civilian ones, too.

Accusing a major world power of action this brash should require at

least some demonstration of proof. Especially after the WMD warning

fiasco that played out at the UN leading up to the Bush II Iraq invasion.

The least you could do is provide a few pictures of said military vehicles

and heavy weaponry.

But there are none.  And the reason none have been offered is because

none exist.  If they did, you can be 100% certain they’d be released and

replayed over and over again on CNN until everybody and their uncle

could distinguish a T-72 tank outline from a Russian made APC.

About Those ‘Unwilling’ Russians

Let’s look more closely at the reasons why Russia may not exactly be in

a conciliatory mood towards the US at this moment in time.

With just our short-term memories, we can recall that the US Congress

passed a serious piece of anti-Russian resolution last month that can

easily be seen as a declaration of war by a reasonable person.

This unfortunate piece of legislation, H.Res. 758, was passed on

December 4, 2014 and is titled “Strongly condemning the actions of the

Russian Federation, under President Vladimir Putin, which has carried

out a policy of aggression against neighboring countries aimed at

political and economic domination.”

Ron Paul expressed the problems with this resolution very well:

Reckless Congress ‘Declares War’ on Russia

Dec 4, 2014

These are the kinds of resolutions I have always watched closely in

Congress, as what are billed as “harmless” statements of opinion often

lead to sanctions and war. I remember in 1998 arguing strongly against

the Iraq Liberation Act because, as I said at the time, I knew it would

lead to war. I did not oppose the Act because I was an admirer of

Saddam Hussein – just as now I am not an admirer of Putin or any

foreign political leader – but rather because I knew then that another

war against Iraq would not solve the problems and would probably

make things worse. We all know what happened next.

That is why I can hardly believe they are getting away with it again, and

this time with even higher stakes: provoking a war with Russia that

could result in total destruction!

If anyone thinks I am exaggerating about how bad this resolution really

is, let me just offer a few examples from the legislation itself:

The resolution (paragraph 3) accuses Russia of an invasion of Ukraine

and condemns Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. The

statement is offered without any proof of such a thing. Surely

with our sophisticated satellites that can read a license plate

from space we should have video and pictures of this Russian

invasion. None have been offered.

As to Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, why isn’t it a

violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty for the US to participate in the

overthrow of that country’s elected government as it did in

February? We have all heard the tapes of State Department officials

plotting with the US Ambassador in Ukraine to overthrow the

government. We heard US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland

bragging that the US spent $5 billion on regime change in Ukraine.

Why is that OK?

The resolution (paragraph 11) accuses the people in east Ukraine of

holding “fraudulent and illegal elections” in November. Why is it that

every time elections do not produce the results desired by the US

government they are called “illegal” and “fraudulent”? Aren’t the

people of eastern Ukraine allowed self-determination? Isn’t that a basic

human right?

The resolution (paragraph 13) demands a withdrawal of Russia

forces from Ukraine even though the US government has

provided no evidence the Russian army was ever in Ukraine. This

paragraph also urges the government in Kiev to resume military

operations against the eastern regions seeking independence.

(Source)

If the tables were turned, and it was the Russian lawmakers passing a

resolution condemning the US for a variety of illegal activities for which

exactly zero proof was offered, I think we all know just how ablaze with

indignity the US political leadership would be.

Think of this from Russia’s perspective.  They know perfectly well all of

the things the Honorable Ron Paul speaks of are true.  There was an

illegal coup followed by legal elections.  The US recognizes the former

as legitimate but the latter as illegal, and then speaks loudly about the

importance of spreading democracy.

Worse, the US keeps mandating that a key condition of lifting its anti-

Russian sanctions is for Russia to leave Ukraine militarily and to stop

shipping lots of heavy armaments there. But it has, as of today,

provided exactly zero pieces of hard evidence to support those

accusations.

As bad as this legislation was, the US Senate upped the ante just one

week later on Dec 11, 2014 with Act, S.2828 The Ukraine Freedom

Support Act of 2014:

US-NATO Delivering Arms to Ukraine. The Planning of

Aggression against Russia

Dec 15, 2014

The Ukraine Freedom Support Act (UFSA) of 2014 authorizes lethal

and non-lethal aid. Besides what’s already being supplied.

Including communications equipment. Body armor. Night vision

goggles. Humvees. Radar. Counter-mortar detection units.

Binoculars. Small boats. Various other gear.

Sniper and assault rifles. Hand grenade launchers. Mortars and

shells. Stingers. Anti-tank missiles. What’s known may be the tip

of the iceberg.

UFSA legislation “authoriz(ing) (Obama) to provide defense articles,

defense services, and training to the Government of Ukraine for

the purpose of countering offensive weapons and reestablishing

the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine…”

“(I)ncluding anti-tank and anti-armor weapons, crew weapons

and ammunition, counter-artillery radars to identify and target

artillery batteries, fire control, range finder, and optical and

guidance and control equipment, tactical troop-operated

surveillance drones, and secure command and communications

equipment.”

(Source)

After chiding Russia for supplying military aid, for which the US has

provided no solid evidence in support of that claim, the US has passed

an Act designed to funnel all sorts of military aid to the ruling powers in

Kiev.

This could just as easily have been labeled the “Do As We Say, Not As

We Do” Act.  For some reason, the Russians are not too impressed with

that approach.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in

response:

“Both houses of the US Congress have approved the Ukraine

Freedom Support Act bypassing debates and proper voting. The

overtly confrontational message of the new law cannot but evoke

profound regret.”

“Once again Washington is leveling baseless sweeping

accusations against Russia and threatening more sanctions. At

the same time it is muddling together the Ukrainian and Syrian

conflicts, which the United States has been instrumental in

inflating. It even refers to the INF Treaty although American

compliance with it is questionable, to put it mildly.

At the same time, it promises to Kiev to arm its military

operation in Donbass and openly admits that it intends to use

NGOs for an impact on Russia’s domestic processes.”

“Though it appears that major challenges to international security

demand pooled Russian and American efforts, US legislators follow

President Obama’s administration destroying the very foundation of

partnership. Bilateral relations are being torpedoed no less powerfully

than by the notorious Jackson-Vanik amendment, endorsed in 1974 to

obstruct cooperation for several decades. We cannot but conclude

that, blinded by outdated phobias, the United States is anxious

to reverse time. As the US Congress instigates anti-Russian

sanctions, it should part with the illusion of their effect. Russia

will not be intimidated into giving up its interests and tolerating

interference in its internal affairs.”

(Source)

The really bizarre part of this story is that I cannot yet find any credible

analysis or commentary explaining exactly what the US’s compelling

interests are in Ukraine, nor what the end goal might be. It’s all

something of a mystery, compounded substantially by the fact that

Russia can be a very powerful ally or enemy to have.  Why not choose

ally? Why choose enemy?

On the flip side, we have lots of compelling evidence that the US has a

serious plan in place to weaken and destabilize Russia. The tactics

we’re using would certainly be considered acts of war by the US were

the circumstances reversed.

As one Russian observer put it:

Both US Assistant-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland — the wife of the

Project for the New American Century (PNAC) co-founder and neo-

conservative advocate for empire Robert Kagan — and US Assistant-

Secretary of the Treasury Daniel Glaser told the Foreign Affairs

Committee of the US House of Representatives in May 2014 that

the objectives of the US economic sanctions strategy against the

Russian Federation was not only to damage the trade ties and

business between Russia and the EU, but to also bring about

economic instability in Russia and to create currency instability

and inflation. [5] In other words, the US government was targeting the

Russian ruble for devaluation and the Russian economy for inflation

since at least May 2014.

The United States is waging a fully fledged economic war against

the Russian Federations and its national economy. Ultimately, all

Russians are collectively the target. The economic sanctions are

nothing more than economic warfare. If the crisis in Ukraine did

not happen, another pretext would have been found for assaulting

Russia.

Both US Assistant-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Assistant-

Secretary of the Treasury Daniel Glaser even told the Foreign Affairs

Committee of the US House of Representatives in May 2014 that the

ultimate objectives of the US economic sanctions against Russia

are to make the Russian population so miserable and desperate

that they would eventually demand that the Kremlin surrender to

the US and bring about “political change”. “Political change” can

mean many things, but what it most probably implies here is regime

change in Moscow.

In fact, the aims of the US do not even appear to be geared at

coercing the Russian government to change its foreign policy,

but to incite regime change in Moscow and to cripple the

Russian Federation entirely through the instigation of internal

divisions.

This is why maps of a divided Russia are being circulated by

Radio Free Europe. [17]

(Source)

We Not On A Road To War, We’ve Already Arrived

If it looks like a war, acts like a war and smells like a war, it may just be

a war.  The US has been waging economic, financial, trade, political and

even kinetic war-by-proxy against Russia.  The only question is why?

From the perspective of Russians it seems clear that neocons are

driving the US ship of state, and that they are simply not the sort of

people with whom you negotiate in good faith or whom you trust.  The

neocons believe they have the upper hand, they are part of the most

powerful country on earth, and they never negotiate preferring to

dictate.

The only problem is, the US is rapidly losing allies and friends the world

over and it’s not nearly as powerful as it used to be, thanks to a

profound failure to invest in itself (education, infrastructure, etc)

In Part 2: Why No One Should Want This To Devolve Further, we

analyze the most likely responses the West’s bear-baiting will generate

from Russia. The short story is this: in none of the outcomes will there

be clear victors.

There is simply no good rationale for the geo-political risks being taken

right now. Leaving us with the critical question: Why are we willing to

let our leaders play nuclear “Russian roulette”, for stakes we don’t

agree with?