Connect with us

Red Pill

News

Not one western media outlet has asked the question; Why is the US pushing for war with Russia? Some answers to this basic question…

Chris Martenson from the Peak Prosperity blog asks readers on zerohedge, “Why is the US waging economic, financial, trade, political and even kinetic war-by-proxy against Russia?” Lots of zerohedge users answered the question with logical, fact based explanations.

Published

on

0 Views

Zerohedge recently ran an article called, “The Road To War With Russia”, which was submitted by Chris Martenson from the Peak Prosperity blog.

Its a fantastic read, that fully exposes the US’s proxy war against Russia currently taking place, and challenges readers to understand why the war with Russia is being waged in the first place.

In his post, Chris Martenson asks the question no main stream media outlet dares to touch…

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?

Martenson continues…

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).

Zerohedge commentators jumped at the chance to tackle the question head on.

One commentator, with the handle ‘Urban Roman’, gave six reasons why war with Russia is part of America’s empire mentality.

The only question is why?

The answer has several parts:

  1. To justify the existence of NATO, which has really had nothing to do for about 20 years. Likewise the Pentagon, which hasnt won anything since 1945, is getting anxious to look relevant.
  2. Natural resources. Resources, really. Russia still has ’em, and the ‘West’ has reached peak for its own.
  3. Growth. The entire ‘Capitalist’ economy depends on growth, and it has run out of people and real estate to exploit.
  4. The pillage which was started under Yeltsin in the 90s, has stopped for some mysterious reason in the 00s. In fact, Putin has repatriated the assets of some of the oligarchs to Russia.
  5. The stupid, wrong notion that “war is good for the economy”. This is only true if a) you win the war; b) there was something worth winning. Russia is a pretty big prize, but there’s no guarantee of winning.
  6. Finally, if they lose the war, the shitty economy can be blamed on Russia, not the domestic failure of central planning.

There are probably some others, but that’s a start.

Another zerohedge commentator, with the handle ‘Jack Burton’, provides this insightful explanation as to why America is hell bent on war with Russia:

The question Why is interesting. The reason the US has taken up an alliance with now open Nazis from West Ukraine is one I can’t answer with certainty. It looks, from events, that the US move to fund and foment a fascist coup in Kiev, using open Nazis from Lvov in Galitica, is aimed at making Ukraine a NATO forward operating base to crush Russia from. Does that sound harsh? Does anyone think democracy and freedom are on the US agenda, when the Nazis were called in. Just a few days ago, in Kiev, thousands of Naziz marched, chanting for a war of destruction against Russia. Research the march, that is the only conclusion you can draw, it was a Hitler ralley in all but name. So take freedom and deomcracy out of any arguments for WHY the USA is deeply involved in Kiev.

Black Water is sending 500 trainers to Kiev, to train an experimental battlion of elite Ukrainian troops, drawing heavily from the nazi guard battlions already on the battle field. Kiev announced the call up of 200,000 men this spring.

Today a small scale assualt trying to break the rebel defense line north of Luhansk was beaten back. Leaving a burned out Ukrainian tank and ten dead Ukrainian soldiers, while Donetsk was under heavy artillery and rocket fire all day, 2 civilians dead at one site, and entire family blown away in another site. This is typical of any day of this cease fire.

This spring the US will have to decide if they are going to fund the sprig offensive to destroy Donetsk. Kiev is bankrupt, and needs America to fund this war, which it is doing already. Putin will not let the Donbass fall, he will aid the rebels with arms. But he will not allow the Donbass to leave the Ukraine either. Russia will NOT expand into Donbass, as Kiev claims. It is better policy to avoid getting into this war. But make no mistake, Russians are now openly accepting the idea that they will be at war with the USA very soon. No, Putin is not saying this, the rest of the establishment in Russia is saying it. War they think is being forced on them for if they surrender in Donbass, they believe the US will find another place to attack Russia. Hint! The Baltics.

References:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-09/road-war-russia

http://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/91007/road-war-russia

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
9 Comments

9
Leave a Reply

avatar
9 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
LiljuwaDeviatepressgengh60SmithDeaf Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
gengh60
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: Not one western media outlet has asked question; Why is US pushing for war w/Russia? Here are some answers.. http://t.co/…

SmithDeaf
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: Not one western media outlet has asked question; Why is US pushing for war w/Russia? Here are some answers.. http://t.co/…

Deviatepress
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: Not one western media outlet has asked question; Why is US pushing for war w/Russia? Here are some answers.. http://t.co/…

Liljuwa
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: Not one western media outlet has asked question; Why is US pushing for war w/Russia? Here are some answers.. http://t.co/…

trackback

xcmwnv54ec8tnv5cev5jfdcnv5

[…]Here is a great Weblog You may Uncover Fascinating that we Encourage You[…]

trackback

Title

[…]here are some links to web pages that we link to for the reason that we consider they are worth visiting[…]

trackback

Title

[…]here are some links to websites that we link to because we assume they are really worth visiting[…]

trackback

Title

[…]usually posts some really intriguing stuff like this. If you are new to this site[…]

trackback

Title

[…]one of our guests a short while ago proposed the following website[…]

Latest

Trump’s wish to take the US out of NATO leaves NeoCons seething

The US President has seen the truth of the irrelevance of NATO, but there is enormous resistance to change.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Tucker Carlson, Fox News and Russian and American news outlets alike have picked up the story that US President Donald Trump has on numerous occasions, opined that the United States would do well to depart from the North Atlantic Military Organization, or NATO.

This wish caused enormous fury and backlash from those opposed, which, oddly enough include both Democrats and Republicans. Their anger and alarm over this idea is such that the media networks through much of the US are alive with the idea of impeaching the President or bringing 25th Amendment proceedings against him for insanity!

Take a look:

Tucker Carlson, as usual, nailed it.

NATO was formed to make Western Europe secure in the face of a perceived Soviet threat. In 1991, the USSR collapsed and the threat of Ivan the Communist bad guy collapsed with it.

But 28 years later, NATO is still here. And, why?

Well, many “experts” continue to point at Russia as a threat, though after that statement no one seems honestly able to elucidate precisely how Russia would, in fact, threaten any nation, take over it, or conquer the world. Indeed, if anyone seems to understand the perversity of being in charge of the whole world, it seems to be Russia, as expressed by politician and LDPR leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky (see how this is so here).

Zhironovsky observed that China is the other nation that is running at full force, but viewing the problems the US is having with being the leader of the world, China stops short of trying to attain this position itself. The question becomes “What does a nation that rules the world actually do then?”

President Trump appears to be seeing the same question, or some similar variant based on the same theme. NATO serves no constructive purpose anymore. Despite the conflicts in Ukraine and Saudi Arabia and Yemen, Israel and Syria, there simply are no great threats in the world as it stands today. While there are certainly still wars, none of these wars represents an existential threat to the United States.

Why wouldn’t a US leader want out? In fact, there is further no existential threat to Europe from any present war, nor is there a threat from Russia itself. In fact, Russia has been entering into business relations with many European countries who wish to buy cheap and easily available Russian natural gas. Turkey purchased an S-400 antimissile system in addition to its US made Patriot battery.

There would seem to be very little in the way of concrete and reliable reasoning for the alliance to continue.

But the American Deep State and liberal establishment have come together to resist the US President in a truly furious manner, and it is revelatory of the hypocrisy of anti-Trump politics that American liberals, typically the “sing Kum-ba-yah peacenik” crowd, displays paroxysms of outrage and horror that NATO might be disbanded.

As the result of that, the American media is determined to choke off any possibility of one thinking, “well, what if we were to disband NATO?”

Why is this?

Simple. A lot of people make their living by preparing for the Russian “threat”, and it would mean the end of their work, the end of their money, and a great disruption in life. It does not matter that while this is true, these same people could conceivably apply their considerable skill sets to deal with real problems that face a world that no longer has a dipolar alignment, or to help prevent a real problem from arising from real situations, such as the recent and current Islamization of many European cities.

One of the great afflictions of American politics and policy has been that so much of it appears to be focused on “short term” or “no term” matters. We see this with the problems related to border security, the coming advent of AI-based automated processes that may furlough low-skilled workers in tremendous amounts in a short period of time. Rather than solve real problems, the elected representatives and media seem more content to oppose Donald Trump when he, as a businessman ought to do, makes a federal case out of what he sees on the horizon.

The Border Wall, for example, is a highly logical part of a properly handled set of immigration policies. But the very direct behavior of President Trump helped amplify the resentment the Democrats still hold against him for defeating Hillary Clinton in 2016, and so, the Democrats have effectively said “nuts!” to the needs of the nation and they take out their resentment on the nation by refusing to negotiate with the President about how to close the border.

NATO is another example. The alliance served its purpose. It is time for the alliance to end, or to be radically restructured in terms of new goals based in real, and not just flimsy rhetorical, needs.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

A dispassionate case for the American border wall

All the arguing on both sides is a rhetorical war that prevents action from happening. Here are simple reasons the border wall should go up.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

One of the hottest news stories in the American press has been that over the border wall, proposed by President Trump during his campaign, and now resting at the center of a debate that has about one-quarter of the US governmental services in a state of shutdown. We have observed fiery, passionate, and even disgusting levels of rancor and bitterness in the political rhetoric concerning the wall. This debate goes on in the news media, and many of the Americans who watch and listen to this take on the fire of these arguments to even more passionate levels.

However, the passion has largely obscured the actual issue of border security, perhaps by design. As long as people keep fighting over it, it still is not getting done. And while thankfully the American government is designed to work very slowly in determining important matters, here, that trait is being exploited, mostly by Democrats, but also by Republicans and even possibly, President Trump himself.

The motives each side has vary.

President Trump wants Congress to pass wall funding because then it is a legislative act that the Legislative and Executive branches of government agree on. It is unlikely that the Supreme Court will be called upon to test such a resolution for its legality. This is one very significant reason why the President is trying every way possible to get this through Congress.

If he goes the route of declaring a “National Emergency” then, according to a number of sources, the first thing that is likely to happen after the build order is a lawsuit that stops the process in its tracks – probably a land-use lawsuit regarding eminent domain and damage to the properties of private citizens, who for various reasons do not want a barrier built through their lands. This is a problem that the American government has sadly created for itself with a very poor reputation of proper reparations for the invocation of Eminent Domain land claims.

This is the simplest way to explain the raison d’être behind the President’s hesitation to invoke executive emergency powers.

For the Democrats, the motive is interesting. The rhetoric from conservatives, including the President, is that the Dems do not want the wall simply because the “imposter” President wants one. 

For anyone who thinks that this is an utterly insane, and indeed, childish, argument, well, you would be exactly right. It is.

It also appears to be true. Evidence for this is shown by the fact that almost every critic quoted by the mainstream press is a Democrat. How is it possible that Democrats have a unique hold on facts that other people just don’t? Even when a Republican expresses a concern about the wall, there is still actual logistical information backing the claim:

Republican and Democratic lawmakers raised immediate concerns over shifting funds that have already been approved by Congress for projects in states across the nation.

Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho, a top Republican on the Appropriations Committee, said he has been hearing from lawmakers in recent days concerned that Army Corps projects in their states could be canceled or postponed.

(This is a concrete situation that is based on normal concerns about money and not about ideological political views.)

“If they drag the money out of here,” Simpson said in an interview late Thursday, “a lot of members will have problem with it.”

(But now in come the Democrats, and observe as logic leaves and is replaced by fiery language.)

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., the incoming chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said in an interview that rebuilding the disaster areas is “a way higher priority benefiting the American people than a wasteful wall.”

He said the Army Corps works on dams, levees and other projects across the nation and has an enormous backlog of unfunded needs. “It would be an incredible disservice to the American people and the economy” to divert the money to the border wall, he said.

And Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., said in a statement that it would be “beyond appalling for the president to take money from places like Puerto Rico that have suffered enormous catastrophes, costing thousands of American citizens’ lives, in order to pay for Donald Trump’s foolish, offensive and hateful wall.

“Siphoning funding from real disasters to pay for a crisis manufactured by the president is wholly unacceptable and the American people won’t fall for it,” she said.

The Republican here spoke without passion, simply saying there is concern about shifting funds for the wall. But the Democrats used incendiary language like “wasteful” and “foolish, offensive and hateful” as adjectives to describe the border wall. Very passionate expressions, which are being repeated ad nauseam by the mainstream press and all of the Democrat party.

The bias most notably and publicly showed in the accusatory language of the Democrat kingpins themselves, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.

There is little true “debate” about the border wall. Most discussion on the news media or social media is verbal rock-throwing rather than respectful, honest and fair discussion. As noted before, this may be part of the design to prevent action on the wall.

However there are dispassionate and reasonable arguments that support the construction of this project. Here are some of those reasons:

  •  A 30-35 foot tall wall running the entire length of the border is probably the cheapest and most cost effective single deterrent to illegal border crossings. Whoever wants to cross the border has to make some provision for dealing with the wall. If that provision is rather difficult, it will dissuade most people from trying it.
  • A wall reduces the need for manpower along the border. While it is absurd to assume that the wall alone would keep every illegal immigrant out, it also facilitates efficient deployment of manpower and other means for active border control.
  • Even if the wall is not continuous along the entire length of the border (which is likely to wind up as the case), where it isn’t is easier to monitor. This is another aspect of the manpower issue. There are likely to be gaps and open spaces for a variety of reasons. But right now, there are about over 1,200 miles of the 1,954 mile long border that have no barrier present. That is a lot of space to monitor actively.

These three reasons are really so close as to be almost the same exact reason. But the arguments for and against the border wall are being conducted in an apparent context that in order to secure a border, this is all anyone needs to do. This is an absurd idea and is being used to try to deflect action.

  • The best border security systems in the world are systems of walls, fences and monitoring facilities. Even the Great Wall of China did not stop all invaders. It deterred a lot of probable attempts though. The wall was also manned so that active attempts to get through it could be stopped in active manners.
  • The North – South Korean DMZ and the Berlin Wall are also particularly effective as parts of an overall border crossing deterrent system. The fences, trenches and watchtowers along the length of these two borders create an extremely effective measure to deter illegal crossings. For example, the Berlin Wall stood from 1961 to 1989, a total of 28 years. During that period, only five thousand people crossed that border. The US Border Patrol conducted over 300,000 apprehensions of illegal immigrants crossing the border in 2018 alone.

The imagery of walls like North Korea’s and East Berlin’s are part of the reason why the border wall comes across as an unsavory idea. There is probably no American that does not know this image, and no one in the country like the idea of such a barrier being associated with the United States.

However, that is simply not the issue. The US is not a police state trying to keep people inside. It is dealing with a decades-long stretch of bad policy regarding immigration which will not be stopped except by radical means.

Many families made a very long journey this year in the migrant caravans to try to game the American system. It is understandable that many of these people are trying to get away from bad conditions in the countries they left. But taking advantage of the United States is wrong, and the wrong is shared equally by the actions of the illegals and by the weak posture of the United States herself.

The simplest fact is that only strength assures freedom. A strong border reinforces safe immigration. A strong and effective immigration policy relies on having a tightly controlled border AND an asylum and entry facilitation process that is thorough, lawful and dispassionate. The USA has had this in place in other points of entry, such as Ellis Island. Leaving the Mexican frontier open now is just stupid policy. An integrated, careful process to process would be immigrants as quickly and carefully as possible needs to become part of the new American way of doing things. There is no swifter way to guarantee overall immigration policy change than the construction of the physical barrier along the US-Mexican border.

It does not matter how anyone feels or thinks. Walls work when used rightly. President Trump’s plan satisfies all the required needs for a good US immigration policy as regards the Mexican border.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

US Women’s March implodes upon itself [Video]

This year’s Women’s March collapses due to not being politically woke enough, in a truly astounding fashion.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

If this doesn’t make your head spin, perhaps you are either dead, or sufficiently “woke.” The Humboldt County Annual Women’s March, set for January 19th of this year got canceled because it was “too white.”

Yes. Too white. This is a county in Northern California, 270 miles north of San Francisco. According to the Wikipedia entry, on this locale, the 2016 census gave this demographic result.

In other words, the county’s own demographics are very white.

So, does this make sense? No? Well, maybe the interview will clear it up.

Still no?

It seems that Jesse Watters was just as stunned as anyone else. The expression on his face is priceless. Should I laugh now, or later? How does this woman actually believe her own rhetoric?

But the woman, Kelsey Reedy, seems to have the logic worked out in her mind.

Maybe that is because she is a woman. A liberal woman. Fantasy turned inside out. But wait! She also even included expletive language on a televised interview, which is indecent in of itself.

It would appear that being “woke” can truly turn in on itself.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending