Chemical weapons, anyone? American military might ready to pounce on Syria, only the final pretext is still missing (or is being manufactured as we write these lines).
Trust the American media (and its Western accomplices) to march in lockstep when the signal is given.

RUSSIA TODAY DISPATCH

The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier steams in Mediterranean waters south of Italy during recent NATO maneuvers.  People forget that aircraft carriers are assault vessels, designed to project power in remote locations, not defend the homeland where they are not needed. They are a classical weapon if imperialists and neocolonialists. [RT-(Reuters / Paul Hanna)]

The USS Eisenhower, an American aircraft carrier that holds eight fighter bomber squadrons and 8,000 men, arrived at the Syrian coast yesterday in the midst of a heavy storm, indicating US preparation for a potential ground intervention.

While the Obama administration has not announced any sort of American-led military intervention in the war-torn country, the US is now ready to launch such action “within days” if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad decides to use chemical weapons against the opposition, the Times reports.

Some have suggested that the Assad regime may use chemical weapons against the opposition fighters in the coming days or weeks.

The arrival of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, one of the 11 US Navy aircraft carriers that has the capacity to hold thousands of men, is now stationed at the coast of Syria, DEBKAfile reports. The aircraft carrier joined the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group, which holds about 2,500 Marines.

“We have (US) special operations forces at the right posture, they don’t have to be sent,” an unnamed US official told The Australian, which suggested that US military troops are already near Syria and ready to intervene in the conflict, if necessary.

If the US decides to intervene militarily in Syria, it now has at its disposal 10,000 fighting men, 17 warships, 70 fighter-bombers, 10 destroyers and frigates and a guided military cruises. Some of the vessels are also equipped with Aegis missile interceptors to shoot down any missiles Syria might have at hand, according to DEBKAfile.

“The muscle is already there to be flexed,” a US official told the London Times about the US military’s presence outside of Syria. “It’s premature to say what could happen if a decision is made to intervene. That hasn’t taken shape, we’ve not reached that kind of decision. There are a lot of options, but it [military action] could be launched rapidly, within days.”

The move comes after NATO made a significant strategic decision Tuesday to deploy Patriot Air and Missile Defense Systems in Turkey on the border of Syria where opposition groups have the stronghold. The defense would be able to protect Turkey from potential Syrian missiles that could contain chemical weapons, as well as intimidate Syrian Air Force pilots from bombing the northern Syria border towns, which the armed rebels control. Syria is thought to have about 700 missiles.

“The protection from NATO will be three dimensional; one is the short-range Patriots, the second is the middle-range Terminal High Altitude Air Defense [THAD] system and the last is the AEGIS system, which counters missiles that can reach outside the atmosphere,” Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said.

DEBKAfile’s anonymous military sources claim the THAD and Aegis arrived at the Syrian coast aboard the USS Eisenhower.

“The United States now stands ready for direct military intervention in the Syrian conflict when the weather permits,” the news source wrote.

By Pepe Escobar, RT.com 

AFP Photo / US Navy / MC2 Tony D. Curtis

US President Barack Obama now pledges to transfer the responsibility of the shadow ‘Drone Wars’ from the CIA to the Pentagon – so the US Congress is able to monitor it. 

Until virtually yesterday the Obama administration did not even recognize in public the existence of the shadow ‘Drone Wars’.

The Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) at the Pentagon – which would then be in charge of the‘Drone Wars’ – is bound to remain secret.

And the Pentagon is not exactly yearning to retouch its definition of a “militant”, a prime candidate to be‘target-assassinated’; “any military-aged male in a strike zone”. “Muslim” male, it goes without saying.

Obama’s rhetoric is one thing. His administration’s ‘Drone Wars’ are another thing entirely.

The President now insists GWOT is no longer a “boundless global war”.

That’s rhetoric. For the Pentagon, the “entire globe is a battlefield”.

That is the operative concept since the beginning of GWOT, and inbuilt in the Pentagon’s Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine.

And if the entire globe is a battlefield, all its causes and consequences are interconnected.

The rules of the game

What’s the difference between a British soldier (the UK is attached to GWOT via the “special relationship”), stationed at an army barracks, gruesomely hacked to death with a meat cleaver in a London street and a Syrian soldier beheaded/disemboweled/cannibalized in “rebel”-held territory by a mercenary Sunni jihadi?

The difference is that the Nigerian-British killer in London is a terrorist, and the jihadi in Syria is a freedom fighter.

What’s the difference between an alleged – never conclusively – proven Chechen-American principally responsible for the Boston bombing and a little Pashtun girl killed by a US drone in Waziristan?

The difference is that the Chechen-American is a terrorist, and the Pashtun girl is not even acknowledged by the Pentagon (and even if she was, she’d go down as “collateral damage”.)

And what if the “collateral damage” is a US citizen, as in Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, the 16-year-old son of Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, ‘target-assassinated‘ by a US drone in Yemen in October 2011?

It will take 19 months for the administration to admit he was “terminated” – but still with no justification attached.

GWOT’s rules of the game won’t change – no matter how soaring Obama’s rhetoric.

When the US – or “the West” – kills or ‘target-assassinates’ Muslim civilians, that’s never terrorism.

When Muslims supported by “the West” kill other Muslim civilians – as in Syria – they are not terrorists; they are Reaganesque “freedom fighters”.

When Muslims kill Western soldiers – as in London – they’re terrorists.

When Muslims happen to come from regime-changeable Iran and Syria’s government, not to mention Hezbollah, they are by definition terrorists.

And when Muslims are lingering in Guantanamo just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time when the US invaded a Muslim country, they remain terrorists – the umpteenth Obama promise to close Guantanamo notwithstanding.

U.S. President Barack Obama listens as Medea Benjamin, an activist from the organization called Code Pink, shouts at him while he speaks at the National Defense University May 23, 2013 in Washington, DC (Win McNamee / Getty Images / AFP)

Pick your favorite blowback

Take a look at the trailer of Dirty Warsfeaturing Jeremy Scahill’s investigation of Washington’s shadow war. Pay attention to what a Pashtun peasant says: “If the Americans do this again, we are ready to shed our blood fighting them”.

That’s blowback. And not only Pashtuns are ready – but pan-Arabs and Muslims born and bred in “the West”.
The new “lone wolf” catchphrase/hysteria barely identifies the future proliferation of Muslim individuals whose anger finally explodes.

They may not be affiliated with any al-Qaeda-style franchise or copycat. What they do embody is the notion that if “the West” can get away with killing Muslim civilians, there will be a price to pay.

That’s 1, 2, 3, one thousand blowbacks.

And reasons for a thousand blowbacks are piling up.

The Bush administration’s ‘Shock and Awe’ over Baghdad 10 years ago was Western terrorism inflicted on Iraq’s civilian population.

The ‘Drone Wars’ are Western terrorism inflicted on civilian populations from Yemen to Pakistan’s tribal areas.
The sanctions packages imposed for years on Iraq and later on Iran are slow-motion Western terrorism inflicted on civilian populations to “prepare” them for regime change.

Meanwhile “the West” simply won’t quit its ability to fabricate more blowbacks.

NATO’s war “liberated” Libya and turned it into a failed state. The result is Sahelistan; northern and western Africa on fire.

Suicide bombers in Niger have just attacked a military camp and a uranium mine operated by French company Areva.

Responsibility was claimed by Mokhtar Belmokhtar, a former leader of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) who late last year formed the splinter group Signatories in Blood, then led the attack on a natural gas plant in Ain Amenas in Algeria last January, and later may – or rather may not – have been killed.

The bottom line is that the entire globe will remain a battlefield – a self-fulfilling Pentagon prophecy.

So many Belmokhtars to fight, so many Syrian jihadis to support, so many “al-Qaeda” to target-assassinate, so many Muslim lone wolves to track.

Obama’s rhetoric is just a show. GWOT is bound to remain a serpent biting its own tail, eagerly feeding itself till the end of time.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

We have said it many times, there’s a robotic, inhuman, unrelenting and obsessional quality to the actions of the American capitalist government. The US ruling cliques decided long ago that the time had come to get rid of Assad and an independent Syria. To that end, they will lie, manufacture false flag incidents, and resort to whatever is necessary to accomplish the task. 

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, in Moscow, September 9, 2014. (Reuters/Sergei Karpukhin)

If the West bombs Islamic State militants in Syria without consulting Damascus, the anti-ISIS alliance may use the occasion to launch airstrikes against President Bashar Assad’s forces, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.

“There are reasons to suspect that air strikes on Syrian territory may target not only areas controlled by Islamic State militants, but the government troops may also be attacked on the quiet to weaken the positions of Bashar Assad’s army,” Lavrov said Tuesday.

Such a development would lead to a huge escalation of conflict in the Middle East and North Africa, Lavrov told reporters in Moscow after a meeting with the foreign minister of Mali.

Moscow is urging the West to respect international law and undertake such acts only with the approval of the legitimate government of a state, Lavrov said.

“Not a single country should have its own plans on such issues. There can be only combined, collective, univocal actions. Only this way can a result be achieved,” he said.

His comments came shortly after Washington announced plans to go on the offensive against the Islamic State jihadist group. The US military has already launched over 100 airstrikes against militant targets in Iraq, including a new series that the military said killed an unusually large number of Islamic State fighters, AP reported.

US military launches airstrikes near Iraq’s Haditha Dam

Following the beheading of two American journalists, President Barack Obama is considering a military strike against Islamic State in Syria. The plans are expected to be announced in a speech Wednesday.

Moscow has repeatedly voiced its readiness to cooperate with Washington in countering terrorism, Lavrov said. Secretary of State John Kerry, in response, has proposed that the US, Russia and countries in the region cooperate to work out “a balance of interests so that they could eliminate terrorism threat,” he added.

“However, this hasn’t got beyond words,” Lavrov said.

Russia has long warned its western partners about the threat posed by Islamic State, al-Qaeda and other groups that later merged into the Islamic Front, Lavrov said.

“We have repeatedly suggested to the US, the EU and leading European states to realize the extent of this threat. We have called on the UN to resolutely condemn terrorist attacks staged by Islamists in Syria. But we were told that it was Bashar Assad’s politics that gave rise to terrorism, and that denouncing such acts was possible only alongside with the demand for his resignation,” Lavrov said.

In Moscow’s view, this represents “a double standard” and an attempt to justify terrorism.

Up until the Syrian conflict, Russia and the West were unanimous that terrorism cannot be justified “no matter what motive was behind them,” Lavrov said. But in case with Syria the West had a “different, two-faced stance.” It was only when the terrorism threat which originated in Libya crept to Lebanon and then Iraq that Western countries realized it was time to deal with that, Lavrov said.

“Having admitted it with a huge delay, western partners for some reason think that this threat should be eliminated on the territory of Iraq, while on the territory of Syria it might be left to the consideration of those who conduct the operation,” Lavrov said.

The US agreed its airstrikes against Islamic State militants on Iraqi territory with Baghdad, Lavrov said. However, “it was rumored… no such permission was required from the government of Syria because they claim ‘Assad should resign and his regime should be overthrown’.”

Lavrov said that there could be no different interpretation when it comes to the common interests of the West, Russia and other states: “Terrorist threats must be eliminated and terrorists liquidated,” he said.

Obama vows to ‘hunt down’ Islamic State militants

Earlier in August, when the US State Department’s spokeswoman Jen Psaki was asked to comment on whether it would be possible for the US to launch airstrikes inside Syria without coordinating it with the government, she said: “I think when American lives are at stake, when we’re talking about defending our own interests, we’re not looking for the approval of the Syrian regime.” She added, though, that it was for the US president to make such a decision.

U.S. President Barack Obama (RIA Novosti / Sergey Guneev)

Russia-NATO relations

Robert Bridge

On December 4 as America was tuned into Thursday night football, or staring into the cold depths of the refrigerator at commercial time, House members brought the nation one step closer to all-out war with Russia.

Future historians – that is, assuming there are humans still around to contemplate history – may one day point to House Resolution 758 (a full critique of this vile act of Congress is included in our Appendix, written by none other than a card-carrying Libertarian, and originally published on LewRockewell.com) as the single piece of legislation that sparked a global conflagration between two leading nuclear powers.

This is not hyperbole. US rhetoric against Russia is quickly overstepping reality, causing US politicians to endorse policies that severely inflate the perceived threat. When political veteran Ron Paul says the House passed what he ranked as “one of the worst pieces of legislation ever,” well, we had better sit up and switch off CNN, especially when that legislation happens to involve a historical heavyweight like Russia.

Resolution 758 was forged in a political furnace of unbalanced, one-sided debate, where American politicians regularly attempt to outdo each other in a lame contest called ‘Russian fear mongering.’ This popular game, which is never out of season, is played among intellectually challenged officials looking for quick political advantage; a bit like Special Olympics for American politicians where everybody goes home a winner.

However, these Russian games are no longer a laughing matter as they were during the feel-good Yeltsin era. Vladimir Putin has shown himself to be a highly competent statesman and whether this fact is responsible for America’s bad mood is difficult to say. Whatever the case may be, judging by the wording of HR 758, America seems to be sliding inexorably towards a ‘war footing’ with Russia.

The opening paragraph of HR 758 accuses Russia of conducting an “invasion of Ukraine” and violating its territorial sovereignty. Like so much else in this resolution, the statement is delivered into American living rooms like a dry, cold pizza without the toppings. Yet nobody, except Ron Paul and a few others, seems to be complaining.

A joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol (Mark Wilson/Getty Images/AFP)

“Surely with our sophisticated satellites that can read a license plate from space we should have video and pictures of this Russian invasion,” Paul argued. “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?”

Indeed, as Ukraine was approaching open rebellion, US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine were overheard in taped conversations bragging that the US spent $5 billion on regime change in Ukraine. They even mentioned the names of the individuals the US wants to see in leadership positions, and while we’re at it: ‘F*ck the EU!’

Paragraph 13 of the document demands the “withdrawal of Russia forces from Ukraine” even though not a shred of evidence has been produced to prove that the Russian army ever set foot in Ukraine. Further on, HR 758 urges Kiev to resume military operations against the eastern regions seeking independence, a move that will certainly exasperate East-West relations if it goes forward.

Paragraph 14 states that Malaysia Airlines flight 17, which went down in murky circumstances in eastern Ukraine, was brought down by a missile “fired by Russian-backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine.”

How can the House make such a reckless conclusion when the final report on the investigation of this tragedy is not scheduled to be released until next year? Moreover, the preliminary report never says that a missile was responsible for bringing down MH17.

Paragraph 22 states that Russia invaded the Republic of Georgia in 2008. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the historical record since it is well known that Georgian forces launched a crack-of-dawn military offensive against South Ossetia, killing hundreds of civilians, as well as a dozen Russian peacekeepers. Yes, Russia chased the Georgian army back to the outskirts of Tbilisi before turning back, but what country would have done differently under similar circumstances?

A woman stands by her smoldering home in the Lidievka district, after it was hit and destroyed by shelling in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk on December 6, 2014. (AFP Photo/Eric Feferberg)

HR 758 also calls on Russia “to reverse its illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula, to end its support of the separatist forces in Crimea, and to remove its military forces from that region other than those operating in strict accordance with its 1997 agreement on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet Stationing on the Territory of Ukraine.”

This statement represents the falsification of history in an effort to pursue a political agenda. The people of the Crimean peninsula, under the threat of violence from government forces, independently called for a referendum to decide their sovereign status. Only after Crimea voted – overwhelmingly – to join the Russian Federation did the Russian Duma hold a vote on the issue. The entire process was done according to the dictates of international law.

There are many more such preposterous claims and dangerous demands in HR 758, yet the document has been greeted with a deafening silence in the United States by the corporate-owned media.

“Global security is at stake,” writes Michel Chossudovsky in Veteran News. “This historic vote – which potentially could affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people worldwide– has received virtually no media coverage. A total media blackout prevails.”

PLEASE EXAMINE THE APPENDIX FOR THE ROLL CALL VOTE on H R 758 and identify the criminals and traitors (Democrats voting with the GOP, and proving the “alternative” party is no such thing in anything of importance) that passed this vile piece of legislation. 

REGULAR ARTICLE RESUMES HERE

It is the opinion here that the recent upsurge in anti-Russian rhetoric, which is quickly transforming into concrete actions, is not a new phenomenon. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States never really shook off its cold war hangover, and moreover, never really wanted to.

A holier-than-thou attitude has permeated the great majority of US think-tank papers over the years, creating a palpable sense of fear towards Russia while sowing the seeds for immense defense sector profits. Newspaper articles since the time of Boris Yeltsin have dripped with condescending, disparaging remarks about Russia, which have worked to create a particular mindset in many Americans towards a country they have most likely never experienced firsthand.

Meanwhile, inside the world of America’s hermetically sealed cauldron of ‘academic Russian studies’ (READ: Sovietology) – a veritable echo chamber where anti-Russian mantras are recited like unthinking prayers – an atmosphere of hostility against Russia has been carefully cultivated for years. There are only a handful of honest US academicians as far as Russia is concerned.

Sevastopol residents at a celebratory show held after the referendum on Crimea’s status. (RIA Novosti/Valeriy Melnikov)

Sevastopol residents at a celebratory show held after the referendum on Crimea’s status. (RIA Novosti/Valeriy Melnikov)

Given this overtly hostile attitude towards all things Russian, it was quite easy for the United States to sell the idea of a dangerous enemy “on the doorstep of NATO” that has some kind of wild desire to recreate an empire.

Yet what country has been steadily encroaching on Russia’s doorstep like a wolf in sheep’s clothing since the end of the Cold War? What country has refused to cooperate with Russia in its missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, thus bringing the continent to the brink of another arms race? What country has over 800 military franchises spanning the globe, yet accuses Russia of yearning for empire? What country has launched military offensives against seven countries in the last six years, yet calls Russia an “aggressive state” because it dares defends itself when attacked by a foreign power? What country has been playing geopolitical games in Ukraine since the collapse of the Soviet Union – even sending high-ranking political figures into central Kiev to spew venomous rhetoric against Russia when it appeared that Ukraine was going to join an economic bloc with Russia, as opposed to the EU?

Before the US Senate votes on HR758, it should ask itself these simple questions, otherwise it risks stirring up a hornet’s nest of problems the world does not need.

Robert Bridge has worked as a journalist in Russia since 1998. Formerly the editor-in-chief of The Moscow News, Bridge is the author of the book, Midnight in the American Empire, which discusses the dangerous consequences of extreme corporate power in the United States.

Editor’s Note—
We borrow here from a source we would usually not use, a Libertarian source. As our readers know, as socialists we are totally opposed to the rule of the “free market,” the Libertarian ideal. But, having said that, we are not dogmatists, nor idiots. We regularly publish the voice of Paul Craig Roberts—a libertarian-leaning thinker  whose foreign analyses are often as brave as they are accurate. And, as the case of Ron Paul and Resolution 758, it is libertarians that are still heard (even in Congress), standing up against war, as the few lights of sanity and decency get drowned out in the filthy muck of American politics.  

Yes, we are thankful for the libertarians’ determined opposition to war. For what we face now is nothing short of the most disgustingly criminal, horrendous and entirely unnecessary conflagration in the long and painful history of our stupid species, promoted by the cynical instruments of a plutocracy gone well beyond common sanity or even self-preservation. What makes these arch-criminals and unredeemable bastards think they will survive an all-out nuclear exchange with a major nuclear power? I, for one, if I’m going to be vaporized, would want to be assured they will not. No punishment is too great for those who manufacture wars, as the Nuremberg trial reminds us to this day.  Unfortunately, the US government is crawling with such vile slime, and the corporate media, as usual, are not helping.—PG

§

APPENDIX

H RES 758      2/3 YEA-AND-NAY      4-Dec-2014      11:10 AM
QUESTION:  On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended
BILL TITLE: 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

Other details, including a summary, may be found here.

If you took the time to read this article, and found it worth SHARING, then why not sign up with our special bulletin to be included in our future distributions? 

YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS (SIGNUPS TO THE GREANVILLE POST BULLETIN) ARE COMPLETELY FREE, ALWAYS. AND WE DO NOT SELL OR RENT OUR EMAIL ADDRESS DATABASES—EVER. That’s a guarantee.

A DISPATCH FROM RT.COM

US forces in southern Afghanistan Operations Director General Frederick ‘Ben’ Hodges.(AFP Photo / Ed Jones)

US army commander in Europe says Russia is a “real threat” urging NATO to stay united. The alliance is not interested in a “fair fight with anyone” and wants to have “overmatch in all systems,” Lieutenant-General Frederick “Ben” Hodges believes.

“There is a Russian threat,” Hodges told the Telegraph, maintaining that Russia is involved in ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine. A key objective for NATO is not to let Russia outreach it in terms of capabilities, the general said.

“We’re not interested in a fair fight with anyone,” General Hodges stated. “We want to have overmatch in all systems. I don’t think that we’ve fallen behind but Russia has closed the gap in certain capabilities. We don’t want them to close that gap,” he revealed.

“The best insurance we have against a showdown is that NATO stands together,” he said, pointing to recent moves by traditionally neutral Sweden and Finland to cooperate more closely on defense with NATO.

[pullquote]The US military doesn’t like an even playing field. They prefer overwhelming power or nothing. Sometimes they are irritated that the enemy should even have the audacity to shoot back. This attitude was seen frequently among pilots flying over Vietnam. Gen. Hodges is at least honest about it. [/pullquote]

Moscow has expressed “special concern” over Finnish and Swedish moves towards the alliance viewing it as a threat aimed against Russia.

“Contrary to past years, Northern European military cooperation is now positioning itself against Russia. This can undermine positive constructive cooperation,” Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Laugh if you like, but Gen Hodges‘ beliefs mirror perfectly the utmost untruths peddled by the official US propaganda playbook, including the idea that it is the Russians, and not the Americans, who specialize in the Big Lie.

Hodges also said US expects its allies to contribute financially to the security umbrella provided by the NATO alliance, as its member states have been failing to allocate 2 percent of every member nation’s GDP to NATO budget.

“I think the question for each country to ask is: are they security consumers or security providers?” the general demanded. “Do they bring capabilities the alliance needs?”

However, the general does not believe that the world is on the brink of another Cold War, saying that “the only thing that is similar now is that Russia and NATO have different views about what the security environment in Europe should be.”

“I don’t think it’s the same as the Cold War,” he said, recalling “gigantic forces” and “large numbers of nuclear weapons” implemented in Europe a quarter of a century ago. “That [Cold War] was a different situation.”

“We did very specific things then that are no longer relevant. We don’t need 300,000 soldiers in Europe. Nobody can afford that anymore,” General Hodges acknowledged.

However, there was a sharp increase in the intensity of the training of NATO troops near the borders of Russia last year, Russian General Staff reported.

“In 2014, the intensity of NATO’s operational and combat training activities has grown by 80 percent,”said Lieutenant General Andrey Kartapolov, head of the Main Operation Directorate of General Staff.

PATRICK L. SMITH, SALON

RESPECTABLE VOICES IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ARE BEGINNING TO DEFECT—A GREAT SIGN, EVEN IF IT MAY COME MUCH TOO LATE TO AVOID THE CATASTROPHE AHEAD
“Our leaders and media push time-worn nonsense about American innocence, while taking aggressive moves. Look out…”

Vladimir Putin, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter (Credit: Reuters/RIA Novosti/Jonathan Ernst/Photo montage by Salon)

Have you picked up on the new trope du jour? We are all encouraged to bask in our innocence as we lament the advent of a new Cold War. The thought has been in the wind for more than a year, of course, at least among some of us. But we witness a significant turn, and I hope this same some of us are paying attention.

As of this week, leaders who know nothing about leading, thinkers who do not think and opinion-shaping poseurs such as Tom Friedman are confident enough in their case to sally forth with it: The Cold War returns, the Russians have restarted it and we must do the right thing—the right thing being to bring NATO troops and materiel up to Russia’s borders, pandering to the paranoia of the former Soviet satellites as if they alone have access to some truth not available to the rest of us.

James Stavridis, the former admiral and NATO commander, quoted in Wednesday’s New York Times: “I don’t think we’re in the Cold War again—yet. I can kind of see it from here.”

I can kind of see it, too, Admiral, and cannot be surprised: NATO has missed the Cold War since the Wall came down and the Pentagon’s creature in Europe commenced a quarter-century of wandering in search of useful enemies. At last, the very best of them is back.

The inimitable (thank goodness) Tom Friedman on the same day’s opinion page: “This time it seems like the Cold War without the fun—that is, without James Bond, Smersh, ‘Get Smart’ Agent 86’s shoe phone,” and so on.

Leave it to Tom to recall the single most consequentially corrosive period in American history by way of its infantile frivolities. He is paid, after all, to make sure Americans understand events cartoonishly rather than as historical phenomena with chronology, causality and responsibility attaching to them.

You have here a classic one-two. Stavridis’ successors in the military get on with the business of aggressing abroad and trapping Russia in a frame-up J. Edgar Hoover would admire, while Friedman buries us in marshmallow fluff sandwiches.

A couple of columns back I wondered aloud as to what all the talk of renewed Russian aggression, begun in mid-April, was all about. It certainly had nothing to do with Russian aggression for the simple reason there was none. If you saw any, please tell us all about it in the comment box.

A couple of columns earlier I questioned why John Kerry met Vladimir Putin and Sergei Lavrov, his foreign minister, in Sochi. Altogether weirdly, the secretary of state suddenly appeared to make common cause with the Russian president.

My worst predictions are now realities. We have just been subjected to a tried-and-sometimes-true campaign preparing us for a Cold War reprise—begun, like the original, by spooks and Pentagon planners ever eager to escalate unnecessary tensions in the direction of unnecessary conflict.

Think with history, readers. We are now back in the mid-1950s by my reckoning, when the template at work today was perfected in places such as Guatemala. The Dulles brothers double-handedly transformed Jacobo Árbenz, offspring of a Swiss druggist and Guatemala’s second properly elected president, into an agent of “Communist aggression,” as the Times helpfully described him at the time. Árbenz was deposed in 1954, of course, and most Americans were obediently relieved that another “threat” had been countered. (I have always loved the purely American thought of an aggressive Guatemala.)

On through the decades, from Ho to Lumumba to Allende to the Sandinistas—every single case falsely cast as a Moscow-inspired challenge to the “free world,” every case in truth reflecting America’s ambition to global dominance. There is a golden rule at work here, so do not miss it: Americans never act but in response to a threat to human freedom originating among the mal-intended elsewhere.

Any good historian—and stop being so negative, you find good ones here and there—will tell you that the golden rule has applied without exception since the 18th century. It applied to the Mexicans in the 1840s, the Spanish in the 1890s, and countless times during the century we call American.

Even now, the golden rule is inscribed in any American history text you may pick up. It is integral to Americans’ consciousness of themselves. And in consequence it is near to impossible for most of us to grasp our role in events as they unfold before our eyes, never mind our true place in history.

“There is a golden rule at work here, so do not miss it: Americans never act but in response to a threat to human freedom originating among the mal-intended elsewhere…”

So long as the rule applies, all notions of causality and responsibility are erased from the story. This reality is very close to the root of the American crisis, if you accept the thought that we are amid one.

I view the marked deterioration of the West’s relations with Russia since April in precisely this historically informed light. We have entered upon a new Cold War, all right, and its similarity to the last one lies in one aspect more important than any other: Washington instigated this one just as Truman set the first in motion when he armed the Greek monarchy—fascist by his own ambassador’s description—against a popular revolt in 1947.

You would think it something close to a magician’s trickery to conduct a century and more’s worth of coups, political subterfuge and military interventions and keep Americans convinced that all done in their names is done in the name of good. But we live through a case in point. We now witness an aggressive military advance toward Russia’s borders on a nearly astonishing scale, yet very few Americans are able to see it for what it is.

Such is the power of our golden rule. [Faithfully implemented by the empire’s Ministry of Truth, the “free press.” —Eds.]

The theme of new Russian aggression sounded over the past couple of months reeked of orchestration from the first, as suggested in this space when it was first sounded. It was too consistent in language, tone and implication, whether it came from the Pentagon, NATO or Times news reports—which are, naturally, based on Pentagon and NATO sources.

Anything counted: Russia’s military exercises within its own borders were aggressive. Russian air defense systems on its borders were aggressive. Russia’s military presence in Kaliningrad, Russian territory lying between Lithuania and Poland, was an aggressive threat.

The caker came 10 days ago, when Putin promised his generals 40 new intercontinental ballistic missiles. Aggressive times 10, we heard over and over. “Loose rhetoric” was the incessantly repeated phrase.

In this connection I loved Ashton Carter in an exclusive interview on CBS Tuesday morning. Announcing NATO’s new plans for deployments in Eastern Europe and the Baltics, the defense secretary cited Putin’s “loose rhetoric.” The correspondent must have lost the playbook and had the temerity to ask him to explain. Whereupon the wrong-footed Carter mumbled, “Well, it’s… it’s… it’s loose rhetoric, that’s what it is.”

Got it, Ash. Loose rhetoric.

Does the secretary mind if we spend a few minutes in the forbidden kingdom known as historical reality?

Putin has not uttered a syllable of rhetoric—no need of it—since the Bush II White House floored him with its 2002 announcement that it would unilaterally abandon Nixon’s 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. “This, in fact, pushes us to a new round of the arms race, because it changes the global security system,” the Russian leader said subsequently. Whereupon Russia set about rebuilding its greatly reduced nuclear arsenal, of which the 40 new ICBMs are an exceedingly small addition.

There are no secrets here—only chronology and causality. In the context, I view the 40 new missiles as a very measured message—and of little consequence in themselves—in reply to the immodest lunge into frontline nations Carter disclosed in Estonia this week.

Where did President Obama get the idea to name this guy to head Defense? He outdoes Rumsfeld in certain respects. Not only is he deploying weapons and rotating troops in and out of six of NATO’s easterly members—the three Baltics, Poland, Bulgaria and Romania. He now advances a number of bluntly escalating nuclear “options.”

Putin’s 40 warheads are squirrel guns next to Carter’s proposals. The new sec def is talking about an offensive nuclear curtain across Europe, a “counterforce” capable of hitting Russian military installations and “countervailing strike capabilities”—pre-emptively deployed nuclear missiles that include Russian cities among their targets. (Thanks to Pepe Escobar of Asia Times for his analysis of Carter’s “Pentagonese.”)

I should remind readers at this point, lest you forget, that we American are the aggressed upon, not the aggressors.

One news report can be singled out here as the celebratory herald of the newly unveiled stance. This is the previously quoted piece in Wednesday’s Times, which appeared under the headline, “NATO refocuses on the Kremlin, Its Original Foe.” Read it here, a real lab specimen, no breach of the golden rule anywhere in its several thousand words.

I needed a minute to get past the “refocuses” in the headline, with its thought that after many years away NATO must now unexpectedly return to the Cold War scene. Preposterous. How many members have been recruited eastward since the Wall came down? I count 12, 10 of which were Warsaw Pact nations. (Slovenia and Croatia, the other two, emerged from the destruction of Yugoslavia.)

Busy time advancing in the direction of the “original foe,” one has to say.

What follows the head is an account of new training exercises and dummy B-52 bombing runs—“all just 180 miles from the Russian border,” our correspondents report effervescently. This is wound around an exceedingly well-carved account of European views of this new turn backward. The latter is meant to veil ambiguity and reluctance that run wide and deep among many NATO members while making the enthusiasm found in former Soviet satellites appear to speak for the majority.

Fraudulent, top to bottom. One, European resistance to this latest NATO advance is now a matter of record. Recent surveys by organizations such as Pew indicate that among West European members the thought of coming to the aid of any newer member may be rejected by a majority.

Yes, we read, there are divisions within the European camp. But these are put down as the consequence of Russia’s campaign to sow disunity in NATO. I had to read that bit twice—and not only because it was reported twice in the same piece. I imagine a lot of Europeans are thinking this assertion over carefully, and not with smiling faces.

Two, East European army officers and civilian officials simply cannot be taken as authoritative judges of Russia and its intentions. This is flatly illogical, and as the Times habitually makes use of them as such I take it to be purposeful trickery to skew Americans’ understanding of European views of NATO.

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Polish aristocrat, russophobe and visceral anticommunist, he’s easily one of the most malignant figures in recent world history.

As earlier noted, I ascribe a certain paranoia to the Poles, the Balts and others formerly in the Soviet orbit. For obvious reasons this sentiment is understandable. But that does not make the argument that they are rational analysts. It makes the opposite argument: They may be understandably paranoid, and have a lot of bad history behind them, but paranoids are not to be taken as sound sources of analysis. Zbigniew Brzezinski is our up-close Exhibit A.

There is craft and there is wile, and these correspondents are well on the wily side in their use of sources. To represent the American view they resort to the usual Times scam: a single-source story dressed up as a multi-source story. Everyone quoted is either Pentagon, NATO or formerly one or the other. These people all get dressed in the same locker room every morning, let’s say, given they all say exactly the same thing.

(Memo to the Times: A multi-source story means a story representing multiple perspectives.)

On the European side, the mirror image: No one from Western Europe is quoted. Everyone cited is from one or another of the newly accessed member states, most being either military officers with fingers on triggers or defense ministry officials.

It skews the analysis to the point of implausibility. These people are all preparing for a Russian invasion of the Baltics or Poland, but there is no shred of evidence Moscow is within a million miles of any such planning. Evidence of Russia’s desire to calm this circus down is mountainous—and for precisely this reason ignored.

A couple of loose ends remain to be tied up at this juncture. The E.U. just renewed its sanctions regime against Russia for an additional six months. Why? There had been considerable resistance to this only a matter of weeks ago.

That visit Kerry paid to Sochi. Why did he make it, if all we see unfolding now was already on the story board, as surely it was at the time of Kerry’s curious travels?

These questions are best answered together, to the extent we have comprehensive answers. In my view a certain bargain has in all likelihood been struck.

Prior to Sochi, it was well known that Washington’s overplayed hand in Ukraine, especially its efforts to undermine the Minsk II ceasefire, had begun to threaten a trans-Atlantic breach. I have since had it from good sources in Europe and Washington that the Obama administration is disappointed, if not worse, with the Poroshenko government in Kiev. It does not take much to be a puppet, but they do not seem capable of managing even that.

Kerry went to Sochi not to launch any new initiative with Putin and Lavrov, as I had too hopefully suggested, but simply to assuage Chancellor Merkel and other disgusted Europeans. Hence Victoria Nuland’s clumsily calculated assertions, noted in this space at the time, that Minsk II was the key to a solution in Ukraine.

Kerry’s bargain, in my view, was that if things did not improve post-Sochi, the American option would go forward. And since Sochi we have had inertia in Kiev and the drum beating night and day as to Russian aggression. In effect, NATO and Washington conspired to make sure there would be no post-Sochi progress.

The American option, to finish the thought, now lies before us.

So does the curtain rise on the Cold War revival much of Washington has spoiled for since Putin proved other than the Yeltsin-like client American strategists had initially taken him to be.

Ashton Carter: If he’s lying through his teeth (which is likely) he’s a cold-blooded criminal that should be tried before an international tribunal with the greatest urgency. If he does NOT realize he’s using the Big Lie, he’s a moron, and scarcely the person to put at the helm of US defense. So which one is it? In both cases, as usual, the American people and the world, lose.

“We didn’t want to have this new challenge,” Defense Secretary Carter told Marines aboard a destroyer floating in the Baltic Sea. “But then all of the sudden here you have behavior by Russia, which is an effort to take the world backward in time. And we can’t allow that to happen.”

Sure thing, Ash. Taking the world backward. Thrust upon us. Got it. Golden rule always.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s).