[dissident]

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/07 ... roberts-3/

The Pentagon report is sufficiently audacious in its hypocrisy, as all statements from Washington are, to declare that Washington and its vassals “support the established institutions and processes dedicated to preventing conflict, respecting sovereignty, and furthering human rights.” This from the military of a government that has invaded, bombed, and overthrown 11 governments since the Clinton regime and is currently working to overthrow governments in Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, and Argentina.

In the Pentagon document, Russia is under fire for not acting “in accordance with international norms,” which means Russia is not following Washington’s leadership.

In other words, this is a bullshit report written by neocons in order to foment war with Russia.

Bring it! See how far you get you dick stroking self absorbed retards.

[sparky]

.
........War is good for business !
........more war , more business !

anyway , there are way too many foreigners in the world today

[americandream]

Russia was an exemplary stronghold in the understanding of reaction and thus still invokes fear unlike the Chinese who go whichever way the wind blows.

[Sixstrings]

More interesting than the news item in this OP, was the new joint chief's testimony in the senate. He's in stark disagreement with John Kerry at state.

Kerry doesn't view Russia as existential threat: State Department

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry does not agree with the Marine Corps general nominated to be America's next top uniformed commander that Russia poses an existential threat to the United States, a spokesman said on Friday.

On Thursday, Marine General Joseph Dunford told lawmakers weighing his nomination to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that Russia presented the greatest threat to U.S. national security.
http://news.yahoo.com/secretary-kerry-does-not-believe-russia-existential-threat-182701739.html

There was a fair amount of coverage of this on CNN, other news channels.

It's surprising, very strange, that kerry just says Russia is not a threat. And for good measure, he said the Chinese aren't either.

What's been going on with Kerry is his head is just in the clouds -- he gets totally played and fooled by Lavrov. Kerry is pushing this Iran nuke deal thing.. Russia is playing chess on that, so Kerry thinks we're all on the same side or something, meanwhile Russia is selling Iran nuclear equipment and missile systems, and will sell them even MORE if the sanctions are lifted and Iran suddenly has more money to buy stuff.

So there's a major split, between the pentagon and the entire us military and the sec def, versus John Kerry.

The general is right, we don't want conflict with Russia but obviously Russia is the primary national security threat. Even I can see that, and I've already been saying this for a darn year now -- they are more of a threat than China. Putin is unpredictable, he makes decisions based on emotions and pride and grandstanding. China is FAR more cautious, rational and pragmatic. The Chinese are more global players, than Russia is. China is a threat too, but at the end of the day they have a great interest in pacific region and global stability, and most of all they've always got to be watching stability at home with their one billion people that can't even tolerate a rise in pork prices.

Russia is totally different, Russia is often reckless.

So yeah, Russia's the #1 threat. John Kerry is wrong, the entire US military and sec def and joint chiefs chairman is right.

And Russia, too, sees us as their #1 threat. Nobody wants war but it just is what it is -- Pentagon isn't calling for war with darn Russia, they're just saying it's the #1 threat is all, so we have to take deterrent / defense posture measures.

It is what it is, and John Kerry's head is totally in the clouds.

My own opinion: it's better to err on the side of caution, anyway. If Russia is the #1 threat, then Russia will make that apparent all by itself. It will be Russia that crosses the line, they will eventually start doing things that not even John Kerry can deny and be blind to.

Between now and then, we'll just have to watch the farce of these nukes-for-Iran negotiations. And Obama and Kerry will walk away from it, hand in hand with Putin, calling it "peace in our time" and then the NEXT president will have the mess on his lap of Iran having nukes and Iran doing a massive military buildup with a REAL and serious business military -- thanks to all the new money they will have, John Kerry's signing bonus plus all the sanctions dropped. Iran will then push out into the whole region, doing hybrid war all over the place.

John Kerry is making a massive mess for the next president to deal with.

Putin will wind up with a well armed Iran in the Russian alliance bloc, and interestingly Russia may actually wind up with Saudi Arabia too (they've been talking lately). Russia could become the new superpower in the middle east, and hegemon of that region. And therefore control all the oil -- and Putin will have achieved what the Soviets could not.

[davep]

Russia isn't a threat, except to the military industrial gravy train if they keep themselves to themselves. We've got to keep needling them to keep up the spending.

[Withnail]

More interesting than the news item in this OP, was the new joint chief's testimony in the senate. He's in stark disagreement with John Kerry at state.

On Thursday, Marine General Joseph Dunford told lawmakers weighing his nomination to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that Russia presented the greatest threat to U.S. national security.
http://news.yahoo.com/secretary-kerry-does-not-believe-russia-existential-threat-182701739.html

The man is either a lunatic or a liar. Neither possibility is reassuring.

[Sixstrings]

Russia isn't a threat, except to the military industrial gravy train if they keep themselves to themselves. We've got to keep needling them to keep up the spending.

He's just doing his job. Objectively, professionally, without an axe to grind. The british minister of defense said the same exact thing. Dunford was asked what the top possible threats to the US are:

Russia is greatest threat to the U.S., says Joint Chiefs chairman nominee Gen. Joseph Dunford

The general advocated updating the way the Pentagon plans for hybrid warfare, in which conventional military actions are combined with secretive operations such as arming separatists from another country. Russia’s nuclear weapons, combined with its recent actions, make it a threat to take seriously, Dunford said.

“If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I’d have to point to Russia,” Dunford said. “If you look at their behavior, it’s nothing short of alarming.”

Dunford listed China, North Korea and the Islamic State militant group as the next most significant security threats to the United States, in that order.

U.S. officials have said there is a steady flow of Russian troops and military equipment into Ukraine since Russia annexed Crimea in early 2014 and backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. In recent days, some Russian lawmakers also have called for Moscow to investigate whether the independence of former Soviet states Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania has any legal standing, drawing a wary eye from NATO nations.

Dunford, the current Marine Corps commandant, said that if he is confirmed as the Pentagon’s new top general, he will try to maintain a relationship in which the U.S. and Russian militaries are capable of preventing a “miscalculation” that could lead to greater conflict between the two countries. He is expected to be confirmed easily.

Under questioning from Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.), the committee chairman, Dunford said he believes it is reasonable for the Pentagon to supply heavy weapons like Javelin or TOW missiles that are capable of taking out Russian tanks and counter-battery weapons that can stop rocket or artillery strikes. That mirrors the current Joint Chiefs chairman, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, who called in March for the United States to consider providing lethal aid to Ukraine.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/07/09/russia-is-greatest-threat-to-the-u-s-says-joint-chiefs-chairman-nominee-gen-joseph-dunford/

(I'm not looking for an argument with anyone folks, this is just the news, the general is right it's just the objective professional assessment.

If you want me to say something to cheer you up -- because obviously none of us want war -- I honestly think Putin will never push it to actual WWIII. You have to remember that world war three is obviously NOT in Russia's interest.

The Russians aren't suicidal. The West really is on the defense, and so we will continue to have that advantage. We actually want peace and no problems, and that's a weakness that can be exploited but overall it's the greatest advantage.

Putin will ride the line CLOSE, but it won't ever be world war armageddon.

He'll keep doing what he has been.. escalation management.. a slow chess game.. using force, then diplomacy.. escalating then backing off. Putin doesn't want to go to war with the whole West, but rather, he just wants to wear us all down.

And then the ultimate trump card, for the West, is that Vladimir Putin is a human being and can't be president forever -- we can just wait him out, 20 years 30 years, however long it takes. Odds are, whatever president comes after Putin, won't be anything like him. There's only ONE Putin, just as there was only one Napoleon. Like Napoleon, it will end after Putin.

So anyway -- if anyone is worried by this stuff, honestly don't worry too much. Putin is doing "escalation management." He will always tack back to diplomatic moves, as it gets too close to going too far. In this way, he is certainly different than Hitler.)

[Withnail]

Russia isn't a threat, except to the military industrial gravy train if they keep themselves to themselves. We've got to keep needling them to keep up the spending.

He's just doing his job. Objectively, professionally, without an axe to grind. The british minister of defense said the same exact thing. Dunford was asked what the top possible threats to the US are:

Russia is greatest threat to the U.S., says Joint Chiefs chairman nominee Gen. Joseph Dunford

In what specific ways is Russia threatening the US?

The West really is on the defense, and so we will continue to have that advantage.

Remember that you don't speak for me. There is no 'we' between me and you.

[Sixstrings]

Remember that you don't speak for me. There is no 'we' between me and you.

[edit: I was talking generally, to everyone reading, I did not mean to include YOU in the "we" of the "west." I realize you misudnerstood me, when I write a reply to someone it's like writing an article or a debate -- there's an audience, like 50 people are reading this right now. I apologize to you. And let me say something else, nobody has a right to call me some big warmonger awful American -- the truth is that I'm one of the swing vote that decided to try another way, and we all voted Obama, and we went with LESS assertive foreign policy. Can't win for losing, get blamed no matter what is done, apparently.]

Ultimately you do live in the "West," that is your tribe. If it ever did come to WWIII, then an incoming ballistic missile does not somehow ignore those that sympathized with the side that launched it.

It's all tribal at some point, and that goes for Russians as well.

If China ever does a massive hack attack that shuts down our electrical grid, banking, stock exchanges, and everything -- then "Noam Chomsky" types will lose their electricity too.

I don't want to argue with you man, I'm just saying the reality to you that the foreign policy you have seen in the Obama years is as left and pacifist and pro Russia as it is ever gonna get, out of the US. That is just the objective truth, time after time Obama has gone along with Putin on everything.

If you're worried about war, then relax don't worry too much -- Putin's a smart guy, he's in the driver's seat on this thing, he's doing "escalation management." He won't in fact drive Russia off the cliff. That's my hunch, and I've got good hunches, so chill.

And withnail -- if you want someone to get mad at, don't get mad at me, get involved with your own country's politics and protest your own foreign secretary:

UK's Hammond says Russia could pose greatest threat to British security
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-IaCNs0nL4

[Withnail]

Remember that you don't speak for me. There is no 'we' between me and you.

Well ultimately you do live in the "West," that is your tribe. If it ever did come to WWIII, then an incoming ballistic missile does not somehow ignore those that sympathized with the side that launched it.

Why would a ballistic missile be coming my way if the UK hadn't actually launched any?

Oh wait, I know, it would be aiming at the US military bases we have here. Let's get them closed down immediately and send the Yanks back home.

And withnail -- if you want someone to get mad at, don't get mad at me, get involved with your own country's politics and protest your own foreign secretary:

UK's Hammond says Russia could pose greatest threat to British security
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-IaCNs0nL4

Why would I waste energy being angry at a US puppet? Their statements and policies are dictated from Washington.

[Sixstrings]

Will General Joseph Dunford Stand up to Obama?

On Friday, the Obama White House was denying the concerns of General Dunford regarding Russia and China. Reuters reported that John Kerry does not consider Russia or China to pose a current “existential threat” to the United States.

Kerry and the White House also disagreed with General Dunford that the United States should be providing military assistance and arms to Ukraine. Secretary of State Kerry seems to think economic sanctions against Russia will suffice.

Josh Earnest stated during a White House press conference on Thursday that General Dunford was stating his own opinion and Dunford’s comments gave "his own view and doesn't necessarily reflect the ... consensus analysis of the president's national security team." One must ask if it is Obama’s national security team or General Joseph Dunford who presently has the best grasp on the realities of the military dangers we face.

Hopeful General Joseph Dunford will put our country ahead of the ideologies of President Obama and will stand up to Obama’s ongoing destruction of our military capabilities and the integrity of our national security.
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2015-07-11/will-general-joseph-dunford-stand-obama#.VaJuPPlVhBc

My view on all this:

I'm still on the side of erring for caution. Putin actually has not damaged relations / pushed around the USA directly, too much or over the line, as yet.

So I would not actually get onto a "Russia threat" bandwagon, unless that becomes the case.

Things like:

* If something happened to an American airline flight, let's say a Russian fighter or bomber collided with one, that's a fear out there right now because the Russian air force does not have transponders on and they do not report to air traffic control.

* If the US was massively cyberattcked, and that was linked to Moscow.

* If Russia started actually crossing OUR borders, with bombers and fighter jets, the way they have been in Europe.

So those are over the line kind of things, where one could say "ok now, Russia has pushed it too far, we're Americans we aren't Dutch or Belgians or Norwegians and we're not gonna let someone roll over OUR borders like this."

In fairness -- Putin HAS NOT done any of the above things. I suspect that he fully well knows that would be a mistake, he knows he can cross scandinavian and Dutch and even British borders, but he knows better that he's picking a big fight if he did that with the US directly. And -- the USA does not do this with Russia, either, our fighters and bombers don't cross Russia's borders.

In fairness -- if you look at all the news, Putin is doing careful escalation management. It's probably all some kind of Russian chess game, where Putin wins in the end, but anyhow he is careful to maintain some ties and relations with the US.

Okay, so other than Russia directly messing with us -- the only other thing we're doing here is protecting allies. Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and keeping Ukraine from ever getting totally run over. We will do less for allies, than we will do for ourselves -- and our allies have to be sure they do want us there and if they aren't sure then screw it, we don't need to be taking the risk anyway.

So there you go, that's my view of the escalation management matrix -- the most serious thing Russia could do, is if they started treating AMERICA like it's Latvia and just start flying over OUR border. And directly taking us on, here at home. I don't think Russia will ever do that.

BUT IF THEY DO -- then it's a bit like the cold war, whatever Russia does to the USA, then the US will do right back to them. And this thing will just go however far the Russians take it. It is honestly all up to them, they have been in the driver's seat on all this from the start.

The US military is a defensive force, and is reactionary to whatever problems there happen to be out there.

Russia will not be "the #1 threat" if Russia keeps its actions under the radar and doesn't push it too far. It's really that simple. US has plenty of problems all over the place, nobody just wants a problem with Russia because we're bored -- it's just triage, whatever the top problems happen to be, and that's all that General Dunford said.

[Sixstrings]

And I know a lot of people will yell at me for being an awful horrible "republican" neocon Dick Cheney or something.

So let me just throw an objective question out into this thread, and argue some devil's advocate:

Do you guys think that maybe we SHOULD just be really soft / offer very weak soft support for europe and east eruope?

Strategically.. who really cares.. the world actually can just figure things out on their own, without us. One thing I've noticed in the Obama years is that in America's absence, old allies in various regions just make other plans and make allies with each other, or they find a balance of their own with Russia / China.

So I'm agreeing with it here, it honestly is a tough issue. Do we risk trouble by being "Defender of the Free World" or would things work out okay if we just let China and Russia "rise" and if we aren't so quick to rush to the defense of the "bullied?"

It's actually a very tough question.

It was an easier question, with the Soviet Union, because early on Stalin made it abundantly clear that he was out to gobble up as much of the world as he could, pulling it all into the Soviet bloc. Stalin did a lot of things, that left no room for doubt.

Whereas actually, Putin is slower about it.. Putin is very smart.. he leaves room for doubt.. and he grows Russia and expands Russian power, gradually, in that little wiggle room space of doubt where the West never fully unites against him.

So, I'm being objective, everyone have whatever opinion you want to. I agree they're difficult questions. If we do the "do nothing" approach, it only really bites us bad if we wind up with a very strong Russia-China allied bloc in the world and then they if they did shut our economy down with a cyberattack, we'd be saying "well sh*t we should have handled this back then when we could have."

So I don't know, it's a tough question, I hoenstly don't know which way is best.

[Withnail]

Do you guys think that maybe we SHOULD just be really soft / offer very weak soft support for europe and east eruope?

I think you should cease stoking tensions and destabilising other countries and go home.

[ennui2]

Do you guys think that maybe we SHOULD just be really soft / offer very weak soft support for europe and east eruope?

I think you should cease stoking tensions and destabilising other countries and go home.

Who is "you"? Are you capable of forming a complete policy statement or are you only capable of expressing rage?

[davep]

Do you guys think that maybe we SHOULD just be really soft / offer very weak soft support for europe and east eruope?

I think you should cease stoking tensions and destabilising other countries and go home.

Who is "you"? Are you capable of forming a complete policy statement or are you only capable of expressing rage?

It appears to be the same "we" that Six was referring to.

[onlooker]

The rhetoric that comes out of Washington is really classic "double speak" ala George Orwell 1984. It is absurd what they say as opposed to what they do. The problem is also that we Americans can easily be swayed by the us vs. them dynamic. At no point after WWII, has the US had a legitimate reason to use force but it has. Yet of course the subtle geopolitical maneuvering is also very effective for the US. This involving special forces covert operations, CIA, some bribing, threats and other surreptitious and furtive methods. This has always been possible because of the vast resources of the US, mature and competent intelligence services and cooperative allies. Don't you remember operation rendition during the height of the aftermath of 911. We had cooperative allies for this operation. Of course subtle pressure has always been exerted via economic means as part of the Western economic framework related to banking, trade and economic assistance or isolation.