Does Russia Have Reason to Fear?

Exclusive: NATO is putting an anti-missile base in Romania and brushing aside Russia’s fears, but – over the decades – the U.S. has reacted furiously to the possibility of nearby foreign military bases, recalls James W Carden.

By James W Carden

In April 1970, at what was roughly the halfway point in the 40-year Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, Richard Nixon’s Nation Security Adviser Henry Kissinger thought he smelled a rat. Kissinger told an incredulous Nixon that the Soviets were stirring up trouble in the Middle East, attempting to provoke a war between the Israelis, Syrians and Jordanians in order to distract the United States from what it was really up to: building a naval base at Cienfuegos Bay in Cuba.

Nixon’s Chief of Staff, H.R. “Bob” Haldeman, recounts in his diaries that: “On September 18 we had received word that the Soviets were building a submarine base in Cienfuegos Bay, Cuba.” By Sept. 24 word had leaked to the press and that same day Nixon and Kissinger, according to Haldeman, “gave [Soviet Ambassador Anatoly] Dobrynin an ultimatum and over the next few weeks…the Soviets backed down and abandoned the base.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

Well, not quite. As NYU historian and Nation contributor Greg Grandin expertly lays out in his groundbreaking account of Kissinger’s legacy, Kissinger’s Shadow, the Cienfuegos affair was little more than a figment of Kissinger’s fevered imagination. According to Grandin, “The Soviets didn’t back down because there was nothing to back down from.” Indeed, “Reconnaissance flights photographed every inch of Cienfuegos and couldn’t find one piece of heavy equipment that could be put to building such a port.”

If various accounts of the Nixon era – by among others, Haldeman, Grandin, Robert Dallek and Richard Reeves – are anything to go by, Kissinger was more than a touch unsound. But the basic premise behind his imaginary Cienfuegos threat was not altogether baseless (even if there never was to be a Soviet base): the U.S. did have definable security interests in preventing the Soviets from developing a military base 90 miles from U.S. shores.

Today, as NATO places troops and missile defense installations in Eastern Europe, we might ask ourselves if the Russian Federation has similar definable security interests in its own backyard. Since the end of the Cold War, the American foreign policy establishment seems to have done a complete 180-degree turn and now, of late, has decided that countries, above all Russia (and as regards the South China Sea, China), do not.

American officials now commonly express their belief that “spheres of influence” are passé, and that the rest of the world best get with the (revised) program. We see this all too clearly in the row that has been unfolding these past weeks over the new NATO missile defense installation in Romania.

Does the U.S. have a clear and definable national security interest in placing a missile-defense shield in Romania? This would be news to most Americans who – unless their grasp of geography has miraculously improved since a 2014 poll revealed that only 16 percent of them could find Ukraine on a map –  would be hard pressed to place Romania on the right continent, much less is exact location.

The Generals and Pentagon policy wonks, of course, realize this and so they cling to the old chestnut that the missile-defense installations are meant to prevent an attack by Iran, with whom the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (plus Germany) just signed a far-reaching agreement on nuclear proliferation. According to Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work, “As long as Iran continues to develop and deploy ballistic missiles, the United States will work with its allies to defend NATO.”

What would Iran’s interest in firing ballistic missiles into Europe be? What exactly is America’s interest in setting these installations up? On these points the wonks are silent.

Oh, but never mind. Having abandoned any pretense that other great powers have definable (and eminently defensible) security interests of their own, American-led NATO is blithely plunging the Western world into fighting Cold War 2.0.

Yet, given the wide support candidates Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have been receiving this election cycle, it is just possible that the heretofore somnolent American public may be waking up to the long post-Cold War con perpetuated by the country’s governing elites over the need for global American hegemony.

But I wouldn’t count on it.

James W Carden is a contributing writer for The Nation and editor of The American Committee for East-West Accord’s He previously served as an advisor on Russia to the Special Representative for Global Inter-governmental Affairs at the US State Department. 

40 comments for “Does Russia Have Reason to Fear?

  1. Bob
    May 29, 2016 at 00:33

    If you are a country with key natural resources, your territory could be used for transport of key resources, your economic policies are aimed at helping your own population, and you say no to US government “requests”, you should be worried.

  2. Anna Ohanoglu
    May 26, 2016 at 09:34

    About a geopolitical situation around Nagorno-Karabakh.

    Expert assessment of Academy of Geopolitics.

    On May 20, the Vice President of the United States Joe Biden called the president of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan and the president of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and discussed with them results Vienna (on May 16, Vienna, the capital of Austria) meetings, having noted importance of the arrangement on a meeting of both presidents planned in June.

    That was discussed on April 7 and proceeded on May 20, it isn’t known! It is known that on April 7 D. Medvedev went from Yerevan to Baku then hearings about the Russian project and peacekeepers for input of the Russian troops in Nagorno-Karabakh became more active. There were data that Russia tries on a wave of Karabakh – the Azerbaijani 4-day April war to enter into the region of the peacekeepers. Then it is a question D. Medvedev in Yerevan discussed also. Experts of our Academy of geopolitics then too gave the assessment: “Blitzkrieg of Azerbaijan against Karabakh failed” – http://clubvi .ru/news/2016/04/11/12/ .

    In couple of days after Vienna, “The Karabakh question” was discussed among others at a meeting of Security council of Russia that means – Russia felt change, notable for itself, about it you can listen also to opinion of the president of Academy of Geopolitics – during interview of radio station Ekho Moskvy: http://echo

    Today consultations between the chairman of OSCE with the Foreign Minister of Iran began.

    Especially, when “danger” to Russia and Azerbaijan process of the international recognition of the Mountain Karabakh Republic what declared in diplomatic circles of Uruguay, Macedonia and Chile (see increases: , http://www , ,
    , v=IzRfpPQVEC0 …)
    And after that, on May 20 to Yerevan there arrives D. Medvedev to continue the conversation interrupted on April 7th on “The Karabakh question”. Probably, I. Aliyev “threatened” D. Rogozin with that Baku won’t begin to buy the Russian arms. Today consultations between the chairman of OSCE with the Foreign Minister of Iran began.

    Arayik SARGSYAN, academician, Honourable Consul of Macedonia in Armenia, President of Academy of Geopolitics, the Representative of AIC in Iran.

  3. Baldurdasche
    May 25, 2016 at 16:23

    The only thing that is missing is an event that would move Europe into the heady spheres of ‘doing it again’. There is no Nazi threat – if anything the Russians have been highly pragmatic and far less hysterical than the noisemakers Washington has stationed at NATO. Those Europeans who have signed on to an ABM base for freedom have done it under duress – for the plan has been ‘in the oven’ as long as Iran was waiting for its Russian systems. And they all know they will be subject to the ‘knockout punch’ before the Russian ICBM fleet is launched at its ‘traditional’ targets – in fact all of Europe knows it will get hit for America’s paranoia. It takes a real European bonehead to not want to tell the cowboys to get off the horse and holster the shootin’ iron. Europe and NATO are not cloned, thank goodness.

    The Europeans and the Russians both know that America’s ‘interest’, and America’s willingness to ‘get into it’ is based on the underlying premise that, “What’s yours is mine and what’s mine’s my own.” And that there’s a strong streak of malevolent stupidity ‘running the show’ in Washington.

  4. delia ruhe
    May 25, 2016 at 05:41

    The “need for global American hegemony” is almost exclusively Washington’s, and the plan to fulfill that need is called the “Pacific Pivot,” Washington’s fantasy about “containing” China in order to perpetuate American hegemony over what would otherrwise be defined as (heaven forfend!) China’s “legitimate sphere of influence.”

    As Alfred McCoy wrote in September last year:

    “With the impending approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Washington hopes to redirect much of the vast trade in the Asian half of Eurasia toward North America.

    “Should another set of parallel negotiations prove successful by their target date of 2016, Washington will reorient the European Union’s portion of Eurasia, which still has the world’s largest single economy and another 16% of world trade, toward the U.S. through the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).” (“Grandmaster of the Great Game: Obama’s Geopolitical Strategy for Containing China.” Tom Dispatch, 15 Sept 2015)

    Only problem is, both these deals are having no end of difficulty getting approved — It wasn’t for nothing that Grand Master Obama insisted upon the negotiation of these deals in secrecy. But really bad deals have their way of springing leaks, and leaked material of both deals struck fear in the hearts of that group of people within the West’s 99 percent that actually pays attention. Thanks to Bernie, even Hillary has gone from calling the TTP “the gold standard” of trade agreements to feeling constrained to say she’s against it. As for the TTIP, practically every activist organization in the EU is up in arms about it and is determined it will never be approved (see “The TTIPing Point: Protests Threaten Trans-Atlantic Trade Deal” Der Spiegl Online, 6 June).

    In sum, under US hegemony, every country’s “sphere of influence” belongs to Washington, and Washington is trying its mightiest to keep it that way.

  5. inooc biriina
    May 24, 2016 at 16:30

    Dear mr. falcmartello keep doing the trumpeting ,the truth must be told to save the world.

  6. May 24, 2016 at 03:37

    Gee ignorance is bliss and america is full of it. Reading some of these blogs no wonder the USA have great pol;itical candidates like Trump ,Cruz, Clinton and Sanders. Wake america ur empire is dying and ur fiat money is dying do u want the 1% to take u to war over their dying political, social, and economic system. Morally and intellectually bankrupt plutocrats. I tell in some of the arguments here how morally and intellectually bankrupt the west has become.

  7. Andrew Nichols
    May 24, 2016 at 03:03

    “As long as Iran continues to develop and deploy ballistic missiles, the United States will work with its allies to defend NATO.”

    Nothing shows more clearly the msm as the propaganda arm of the Empire then the fact that not branch of it has treated this bit of disingenuous nonsense with the derision it deserves. Instead they just parrot the official Iran line as if we are ALL stupid.

  8. elmerfudzie
    May 23, 2016 at 22:08

    These days, the U.S.economy finds itself in quite a predicament. It’s true wealth, and not those fictitious GDP numbers, extrapolated from financial derivatives, is an outgrowth of long standing R&D monies devoted to guns-n-butter products; advanced armaments and corporate farm foods (GMO’s) all hopefully destined for foreign exchange markets. Oddly, the Russians find themselves in a similar rigid or inelastic situation, a national wealth based on cash/gold exchanges for oil and raw minerals (extraction economy). At this particular junction in history, the momentum of these two economies is such that, neither east nor west can stop the inevitable quagmire: the length of time required to pave a road towards universal peace. Time enough, where both sides begin to share in a highly diversified and global economy. As it stands now, Russia must defend and support faltering oil revenues and mineral sales in a global bear market. The pressures on Obama are enormous, that is, to threaten Putin and his Oligarchs and get them to kowtow to Western interests. Unfortunately these economic interests collide directly with Russia’s most important customers (EU) who must now choose, either to buy hydrocarbon products from the Western Occident allies (GCC and Israel) or the East, represented by APEC, SCO and the “-Stan’s countries” . Good luck world, S**t is about to hit- the fan!

    • dahoit
      May 24, 2016 at 10:15

      Israel has no energy supply at the moment to sell.They might after they steal Egypts,Lebanons Syrias or the Palestinians gas or oil fields.

      • elmerfudzie
        May 25, 2016 at 12:08

        dahoit, of course! stealing is what precedes all oil finds. Just a few examples, South Sudan ripping off their brothers to the north, the Israeli’s drooling at the prospect of Assad’s removal thus pocketing oil revenues from the Golan Heights and Genie Energy, not to mention whatever Israel can also siphon off from neighbors along the Mediterranean coast. The Saudis hammering it’s southern neighbors with bombs because the Saudi’s fields are pulling up 99% water meanwhile the Yemeni’s undeveloped oil fields don’t require wildcatters to tell their oil experts what is already widely known-that vast treasures lie below the impoverished feet of their southern brothers, so STEAL IT!

  9. George Glass
    May 23, 2016 at 20:45

    After watching this nonsense unfold for decades, I have come to the sad conclusion that the U.S. military-industrial-banking cartel is addicted to waging permanent Cold War for two reasons: 1) It is very profitable for themselves, and 2) America’s top 1 percent, which runs the MIBC and virtually everything else, simply doesn’t know how to relate to the world in any way except war and imperialism. And with our new, dumbed-down America — that is, America is even dumber collectively than it used to be in nearly every way — a Cold War 2.0 was inevitable. It’s a sad situation, and it will persist as long as the prominence of the petro-dollar allows the U.S. government to simply print all the money it needs regardless of deficits. Fortunately, Russia and China are moving slowly but surely to end that gravy train, and a day of reckoning is on the horizon. As that day approaches the U.S. MIBC will become increasingly dangerous to world peace and might well launch a new world war as a way of overturning the global chessboard.

    • Erik G
      May 24, 2016 at 07:25

      They are dumb enough to get themselves into a world war, but generally neither the military, MIC, nor oligarchy wants to ruin their businesses with a massive lose-lose war. I would suggest that they will continue to push confrontations to expand the military/MIC and to build the right wing in their declared “enemy” states so as to supply defensive incidents to claim as “offenses” to support their fearmongering. It is domestic fear that supplies their budgets.

    • Alex
      May 25, 2016 at 02:50

      Hello guys, I do not know where exactly are you all from, but thank you very much for your unprejudiced thinking.
      Good to know that people from the West not just repeating government’s propaganda slogans.
      Best regards from Russia!

  10. bob
    May 23, 2016 at 20:24

    True journalism. Great Article.

  11. Aaron saxton
    May 23, 2016 at 19:06

    Russia’s push into the baltics is inevitable. Now, a conventional war against Russia is a real possibility but I am guessing the United States does not want to take this route unless they can guarantee that only a small percentage of nuclear warheads could land in the USA should that war become nuclear.

    Having a defense system in Europe and the pacific is the first line of defense but insufficient to prevent blanketing of the USA.

    I suspect defense systems here within the United States are being built in preparation for the acceptable level of allowing only a few percent of the missiles through the defenses.

    I suspect given the stance China and Russia have assumed that the United States is now considering a first strike option and is building the weapons needed for it. Russia and China are both thoroughly aware that currently the nuclear deterrent is wasted when Russia knows it can launch land grabs with little more than minor scuffles to achieve it.

    even a conventional war is acceptable in this scenario however a nuclear war is still unlikely thus to prevent continued conventional war a preemptive strike is inevitably required by one side.

    • Helge
      May 24, 2016 at 03:51

      “Russia’s push into the baltics is inevitable” Why? Please give reasons or and indications why that is so? Have the Russians massively increased their military presence along the borders of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia? Why would Russia anyway want to invade and incorpaporate territory where the popualation understandibly would be very hostile to them if they would (do that again)? Is there any indication that the current government in Russia is going crazy? The Estonian government recently issued a statement that it is not considering strengthening their border to Russia because there is absolutely no indication that the RF is becoming a threat. However, as I wrote above, NATO, and here specifically the US, has significantly increased its miltary presence in the Baltics and Poland, that US Navy ships are approaching the Kaliningrad Oblast to less than 100 km’s and that NATO is pressuring Sweden to join. What kind of indication is that then?

      • Erik G
        May 24, 2016 at 07:08

        Exactly. He assumes his conclusion “Russia’s push into the baltics is inevitable” and states that first but fails to make any argument. He is soliciting others to support the assumption without argument. Standard right wing propaganda technique.

        • JackA
          May 24, 2016 at 19:03

          Very well said.

    • Zachary Smith
      May 25, 2016 at 12:30

      Russia’s push into the baltics is inevitable.

      That’s not obvious to all of us.

  12. Helge
    May 23, 2016 at 18:11

    When I add up that NATO, and here specifically ther US, has significantly increased its miltary presence in the Baltics and Poland, that US Navy ships are approaching the Kaliningrad Oblast to less than 100 km’s and that NATO is pressuring Sweden to join I am wondering what are the NATO plans considering the Kaliningrad Oblast, which forms a Russian exclave surrounded by NATO member countries. How are they going to start this? Blockade? Then “Liberation”? The Romanian shield as garant that no missiles will ever reach the US, just in case? I am fearing that some members of the military-industrial complex are eager of taking revenge on the Russians from snatching Crimea out of their hands at last minute when it was almost theirs. Hillary Clinton would be the perfect person to stumble us all into such a confrontation, she is probably already plotting for a Sender-Gleiwitz szenario…..

  13. Roger
    May 23, 2016 at 18:11

    Schnee Ubermann, you make a mistake. Russia did not invade Crimea. The Crimeans begged to be allowed to re-join the russian federation after the Western programmed and inspired coup in Kiev. A 97% vote to leave Ukraine on 88% turnout just has to be respected.
    You accuse President Putin of robbing the russian economy. He is not. It is the Western governments, EU and US who are robbing the people blind.

    • Aaron saxton
      May 23, 2016 at 19:09

      Would a vote by the entire Spanish community in the United States justify the expansion of Mexico into Texas to save their minorities?


      A country is a country, not a voted member of a community.

      Your figures and stats quoted are also thoroughly inaccurate but I will make the point again that an entire region doesn’t have that right.

      Next, you’ll support every Chinese citizen in the United States over night moving to Nebraska and thereby conclude China is within its rights to enter Nebraska to support its minotirties.

      • Erik G
        May 24, 2016 at 06:57

        Your analogy does not work; here’s why. You are arguing against secession of a minority, but Ukraine was not that.
        1. Ukraine was part of Russia until the (Ukrainian) USSR premier Kruschev gave it to Ukraine.
        2. Ukraine was not a working democracy at the time, it was fake democracy in which a military coup run by the US had left a government that represented only one faction, West Ukraine, that hated and militarily suppressed the East.
        3. The US right wing sought to steal Russia’s main naval base and main port on the Black Sea.

        So clearly your “secession” arguments do not apply. You should consider why the US seeks to make trouble on the borders of unoffending powers, sponsored a coup in Ukraine that suppressed minority rights (like most US sponsored coups), sponsored military attacks on the minority, and falsely claims that they have no rights. It is a fact of extremely vicious manipulation by the US.

        • Erik G
          May 25, 2016 at 06:34

          Correction: “1. Crimea was part of Russia…”

  14. schnee ubermann
    May 23, 2016 at 17:04

    The answer is no, Russia has nothing to fear. The NATO troops are purely defensive, nowhere near the numbers to mount an assault on Russia. Unfortunately, after Russia invaded Crimea it is a brave new world, and NATO has to be vigilant in defense of member countries. What can do-if Putin put some effort in improving the Russian economy as opposed to robbing and pillaging its assets for personal and crony gain-maybe now Russia would be a normal democracy.

    • May 24, 2016 at 00:02

      RRussia did not invade Crimea check ur facts its called democracy the Crimeans had a referendum that the vast majority like over 90 percent voted to join the russian federation. Defense of what Russia Syria Lybya Iran and China have never invaded anybody its the new third reich called the washington consensus and ther SS storm troopers called nato that do all thew invading Yugoslavia the coup d’etat in Kieve Brasilia Libya so maybe u should do some reading and not read propagandist rubish and regurgitate it onnthis blog. Yesterdays news gets wrapped in todays fish

      • Zachary Smith
        May 25, 2016 at 12:39

        From the wiki:

        According to a poll by Razumkov Center in March 2011 some 51% of the Crimean residents considered NATO a threat, while across Ukraine this rate was 20.6% on average.

        Crimea was never happy to be stuck with Ukraine, and positively welcomed the chance to rejoin Russia.

        Ukrainian independence referendum, 1991

        A referendum on the Act of Declaration of Independence was held in Ukraine on 1 December 1991.[1] An overwhelming majority of 92.3% of voters approved the declaration of independence made by the Verkhovna Rada on 24 August 1991.

        Only when the Empire got excessively greedy was Russia forced to act. Naturally Crimea snatched at the offer. For them that was a wise decision, for they’re not forced to rub elbows with the Good Nazis so beloved by the likes of Victoria Nuland. And Hillary. And Obama.

    • David Smith
      May 24, 2016 at 10:18

      Aaron Saxton and shnee uberman you are both seriously in error. Crimea was an “autonomous region”. It was not part of the Ukraine. Under international law an autonomous region can choose independance(or anything else). By referendum Crimea choose to join the Russian Federation.As recently as 2008 the Crimean Rada passed a resolution for independence, but that was insufficient. Yes, the fallback talking point is ” the referendum was fraudulent”, but that is a false statement. Everything was done under international law, and yes Russia was involved, but so what?

      • Bart
        May 24, 2016 at 16:27

        And if we needed a warm water port and access to the Mediterranean, we would grab it without apologies or a referendum.

    • N30rebel
      May 25, 2016 at 10:06

      as opposed to robbing and pillaging its assets for personal and crony gain-maybe now United States would be a normal democracy.

    • May 25, 2016 at 17:48

      Ah, and what might a ‘normal democracy’ look like pray tell? Let me guess, the American system yes? But hey, let’s be grown up shall we (or at least try). The world is run by deep-state elites plus well resourced oligarchies which frankly buy elections. The great American social theorist C Wright Mills saw this back in the 1950s and outlined the demise of ‘normal democracy’ and the rise of the ‘power elite’ as he called them. This power elite was in the control centres of the military, corporate and political directorates. He didn’t mention the media but we can add them to our list. These are the people – generally hidden from view – who decide the policies and priorities often in direct contradiction of what the mass of people want or actually vote for. In my own country – the UK – we have a non-elected Head of State, Queen Elizabeth, a non-elected Second Chamber, the House of Lords, no written constitution, and an electoral system – first past the post – which results in minority governments and this has been the case since 1935 when a government was voted in with an absolute majority. Democratic? I don’t think so.

      A related point, and more importantly. It might well be true that NATO numbers of troops would be insufficient to constitute a significant threat to Russia, although they do have a symbolic value. Namely we can come right up against your borders and encircle you but you can’t do the same to us.

      But the really significant development is the placement of ABM systems on Russia’s doorstep in Romania – and one scheduled for Poland soon after – which are clearly intended to make a first NATO preemptive strike a possibility. And let’s dispense with the bullshit about defending Europe from Iranian missile attack, no-one buys that, it’s an insult to the intelligence. So let’s get real. Does the US and its obedient vassal states in Europe expect Russia to back down if NATO increasingly pushes its luck with its aggressive militarization of Eastern Europe in particular? Does it think Russia is simply going to surrender to NATO threats. If the US thinks this it is treading on dangerously thin ice. Does the US public think that it is invulnerable and can safely watch the war in Europe on its TVs? Are there any grown up people in the US in positions of power and influence who can alert them to the extreme danger that the policies of their government are pursuing. In a ‘normal democracy. these things would not have come to the pass.

    • Obrzezany Pr??
      May 28, 2016 at 14:47

      “Charge of the light brigade” answered the question if the Brits can have Crimea. They lost and no longer can claim Crimea should be part of Turkey or Bulgaria

    • Thomas Matlock
      May 29, 2016 at 16:26

      No, Russia did NOT invade Crimea, so the rest of what you say is just more drivel.

  15. Tom Welsh
    May 23, 2016 at 16:56

    While there is plenty of evidence that intelligent individual human beings have lived (and some still do), there is no evidence at all that the human species as a whole is intelligent. The proof of this is that it exhibits absolutely no sense of danger or self-preservation.

  16. Ol' Hippy
    May 23, 2016 at 15:45

    I’ve been furiously reading history that led up to WW I&II, and things don’t look good at all. Do those idiots at the Pentagon actually think that a war between Russia or China could be won? I think these insane people that criminally run the military, gee I don’t know,how does one stop this nonsense. It matters not whose in the White House they think war is the ONLY option. I hope I’m wrong but as of late I don’t see it, at all.

    • Erik G
      May 23, 2016 at 16:26

      I think they prefer to have a threat of conflict with no actual risk. As Aristotle warned, that is the classical right wing tyrant’s way to demand domestic power as a false protector, and accuse his moral superiors of disloyalty. The old Cold War was perfect: mutually assured destruction with no one likely to strike first, so billions for “defense” flowed. It is the reason that the US has attacked a string of tiny socialist nations since WWII: they could be bombed if not beaten, and the right wing most certainly prides itself on millions of dead civilians.

      It is also the reason for AlQaeda and Afghanistan I (our tab), and PolPot phase II in Cambodia/Thailand (our tab again): the right wing needed to console itself for Vietnam and stir up more trouble. Same strategy for harassing N Korea: the bully boy must shove the easy victim and dare him to fight back.

      Now the bully boys need a new Cold War to rationalize hundreds of billions for weapons no one needs. They have to threaten other powers to create fears there, to build a corresponding right wing there, to push for “preparedness” for “defense” so that no future US government dares to back down.

      The right wing bully boys are the only threat here, and they have always been the only threat. They are traitors and should be thrown out of the military, government, think tanks, and universities,

    • Bill Bodden
      May 23, 2016 at 18:57

      I’ve been furiously reading history that led up to WW I…

      And the people are just as somnambulant as the loyal subjects of kings, kaisers, presidents, and emperors who marched mutely to their doom in the Great Folly of 1914-1918 along paths paved with lies. The only real difference is in the weaponry. Our presidents, prime ministers, generals, admirals and their supporting bureaucrats are as mad and as indifferent to the sacrifice of millions of people as their counterparts were a century ago..

    • bob
      May 23, 2016 at 20:25

      Spot on!

    • JackA
      May 24, 2016 at 19:00

      Do you really believe that the Pentagon really cares about the lives of people? War mongers, plain and simple.

  17. Bill Bodden
    May 23, 2016 at 15:06

    This is more evidence that the American Empire’s current march of folly has the potential to be another version of 20th Century Europe’s lunacy that culminated in World War One.

Comments are closed.