• Military encirclement of Russians increases risk of nuclear showdown.
By Ronald L. Ray —
President Ronald Wilson Reagan successfully negotiated arms limitation treaties with the Soviet Union, which Russia still honors. But beginning with President George H.W. Bush, America’s policy toward the world’s largest country has been one of betrayal, encirclement, and military escalation. Barack Hussein Obama, amid poorly concocted propaganda excuses, has continued the insane provocation of the Russian bear and, most recently, contributed further to world instability by determining to station up to 4,000 more North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) troops near Russia’s western border, while completing and activating an apparently prohibited ballistic missile shield in the same region.
Ever since Russians and Eastern Europeans threw off the communist yoke at the end of the 1980s, their ideological cousins, the Zio-capitalists and Trotskyite neoconservatives, have sought to reconquer those nations in their quest for world empire. From economic exploitation to regional conflicts and military brinkmanship, the elites of the New World Order have endeavored to bring an independent Russia and its former satellite nations to heel. While the smaller states largely have capitulated, Russia is still free and sovereign.
Thus, the United States and NATO continue to increase their military presence in Eastern Europe, while staging multiple military exercises as close as 50 miles from Russian soil. This is the equivalent of Russia and the other BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) nations holding military exercises in Canada, Mexico, and near California’s Long Beach Naval Shipyard, while stationing troops and missiles in Cuba and throughout the Caribbean. Were such to happen, the U.S. would not respond merely with its own military exercises in Texas and Michigan. Yet, in the reverse situation, we label Russia as the “aggressor.”
The U.S. and NATO, counting on Americans’ 15-minute political memory, want us to believe they are reacting defensively to Russian provocations against Eastern European states. But while America sends soldiers and sailors halfway across the world for “defensive purposes,” Russia has not crossed its borders in search of empire.
U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Orton Work claimed duplicitously, “The Russians have been doing a lot of snap exercises right up against the borders, with a lot of troops. . . . From our perspective, we could argue this is extraordinarily provocative behavior.”
Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .
The four battalions—2,800 to 4,000 men—which NATO, as of May 2016, wants to send to Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, are actually part of a 40,000-troop build-up announced last summer and fall. In reaction, Russia has staged a number of military readiness exercises near its border. The U.S. and NATO, in Orwellian fashion, then used this mild defensive response as “justification” for their own previously announced aggression.
While the U.S. appears set to send two of the battalions, it is demanding a multi-national force, including a significant contingent from Germany, no doubt as an attempt to sour German trade ties with Russia, a main energy supplier. However, 69% of Germans oppose sending troops. Even the United Kingdom seems reluctant to supply military units. Perhaps those countries have a little more sense than U.S. warmongers.
Still, the mere announcements of troop deployments have a destabilizing effect. Worse, the U.S. and its NATO lackeys use dangerous word games to flout the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act, which prohibits permanent stationing of “significant” NATO forces near Russia’s borders. Western officials claim placements are not “permanent,” so long as individual units are rotated periodically.
With such “logic,” one could argue that a prisoner is not under permanent guard, because the jail personnel change every eight hours. Russia rightly has seen through this cheap sophistry and warned that continued provocations by the West constitute “the start of a new arms race,” risking nuclear war—an observation termed a “threat” by American political hacks.
Recent activation of NATO’s U.S.-built Aegis Ashore ballistic missile “defense” site in Romania, along with Aegis systems on Mediterranean warships and elsewhere in Europe, is a violation of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, says Russia, and will force the latter to increase military spending to counter the threat. The U.S. is due to complete a similar site in Poland in 18 months.
Russian officials sharply rebuked Deputy Secretary Work’s unbelievable claim that the moves are not against Russia, but a defense against Iran, which has no nuclear weapons or long-range ballistic missile capabilities to attack Europe.
Additionally, the U.S. promised $68 million to build NATO bases in Estonia, Latvia demanded additional NATO troops and tanks, and the U.S. may share a Polish military base, while the Polish foreign minister claimed Russia is an “existential threat,” although the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria supposedly is not. Two weeks of war games also began in the country of Georgia this month, involving U.S. and British troops.
NATO plans new headquarters in Hungary and Slovakia, perhaps as a threat to keep those countries from tilting toward Russia. And there is the ongoing problem of the terroristic, U.S.-installed, Jewish-run puppet government in Ukraine.
We agree with Russian President Vladimir Putin that the U.S. must “act respectfully toward all its partners, including Russia,” and renounce American “exceptionalism” and “imperial ambitions” of world domination. Peaceful cooperation must replace the militaristic madness driving the U.S. foreign policy of perpetual war, slaughter, and annihilation.
Ronald L. Ray is a freelance author and an assistant editor of THE BARNES REVIEW. He is a descendant of several patriots of the American War for Independence.
Published articles state that the U.S. military evaluates the Chinese VT-4 as competitive with the Abrams tank, also there ARE instances of Abrams tanks being put out of commission in combat, a tank that can’t fight is a casualty, the definition of “completely killed” is ridiculous.
All data on the number of combat vehicles available to different countries is an issue of intelligence gathering. China does not make their numbers public and constantly lies about their military capability, it took them years to admit that they purchased that carrier for retrofit and study, they lied about it for quite some time. The idea that you somehow know what their numbers are is insane. It also does not take into account production capability, as both countries would start rapidly pumping out their most advanced models if war was likely.
Economic power determines true military strength and the USA could NOT stand up to multiple strong countries push come to shove. China and Europe together would win against America, for example, although they would have one hell of a time with the U.S. Navy, which is America’s real advantage, that distance is a big deal when you have a huge naval fleet guarding it. On the other hand, Chinese stealth tech has proven capable of slipping by the Chinese Navy, with a Chinese submarine following a U.S. fleet and only being spotted because it surfaced within eyesight (I suspect that was them showing off).
Many countries have GPS satellites in the air, China is still launching satellites from its 2nd generation system getting the numbers ramped up to 35 and they have already started their third generation system as well. In addition, much of cyber and electronic warfare is completely unknown, no country has much of a way of testing another’s capabilities outside of the field. We can judge from China’s success at cyber spying, however, that their capabilities are much higher than the U.S. gives them credit for. Is the USA much stronger than any other nation on Earth militarily? Yes it absolutely is. 1,000 times stronger? Not even close, more like 2-3 times stronger at BEST, and that’s ONLY if it strikes fast to disable its opponents’ manufacturing capabilities. Many countries have tech that is slightly inferior to but competitive with U.S. military tech, they just haven’t developed large quantities of the vehicles. In terms of production and economy, the European Union isn’t far behind and China is at around 3/5 of American capability.
It would take many other countries combined to match that, though, those two are the only real competitors. Russia isn’t even in the same ballpark, they are fielding a military roughly equal to China’s, but they are practically in full military production mode, their economy can’t sustain a big increase and it isn’t anywhere near strong enough to compete.