The above video, courtesy of PFT, explains how the elites have lied to the public to create a false war atmosphere in the West. The concept of "Russian aggression" is a construct of the dark forces that control the US, as listed here.
Following are two translations from Ria Novosti relating to the hollow US and NATO response to the furious development of Russian arms, arms against which there is no possible defence. Commentary by Vince Dhimos.
Ever since the ignominious US performance in the Vietnam war, the US military has been shrinking back further and further from confronting peers like China and Russia, and either attacking adversaries like Iran that could not fight back against US air strikes, or resorting to empty threats and toothless menacing gestures like that of a cat hissing or a dog baring its fangs and growling menacingly. This is the stage we are at today, though the public still believes Russia can be successfully defeated militarily. CFR president Richard Haass, arguably the most influential foreign policy voice in the US, let the cat out of the bag when he admitted in a recent article that Russia cannot be defeated. Reasonably well informed Westerners already knew this back in March 2018 when Putin introduced to the Russian government and the world his new wonder weapons against which there can be no known defence. It was check mate at the time and the Western powers, almost a year later, have started to wake up. But as Haass warned in his article, the elites heading the US bureaucracies are not ready to admit this. So the menacing gestures continue and the public is still buying it.
Prior to Haass’ disclosure, the military periodical We Are the Mighty had warned that Russia has the capability to wipe out every US military base except perhaps NORAD, although the Russians assure us that their hypersonic missile Kinzhal could no doubt penetrate even that base buried deep under a mountain. Certainly a strike with the Kinzhal at 27 Mach followed by a nuclear strike at the initial strike point would do the job. It would all be over in a matter of hours or even minutes. We covered this story here.
But the main story is that there never has been such a thing as “Russian aggression.” See the video at the top of the page for details on this myth.
Unfortunately, as USAToday reports, the elites, notably the msm and Democrat pols, still have the clueless public eating out of their hands.
“The NBC News|SurveyMonkey online poll found that only 23% see Russia as friendly and only 5% say the nation is ‘an ally to our country.’ More than two-thirds polled said Russia was either unfriendly (43%) or a U.S. enemy (25%).”
This is a dismal reality in view of what I wrote yesterday, namely:
The only possible solution to the Arab-Israel conflict would be for the US (once it becomes enlightened) and Russia to encourage and lead the dialogue between the Arabs and the Jews in the Middle East. … but the Neocons, Neoliberals and Zionists are busy creating the false impression that Russia is an enemy, precisely because they actually fear a possible solution to the conflict. This is one of the main reasons for the Russophobia that pervades the Western political culture.
If we recognize this reality, then the 5% of poll respondents who said that Russia is a US ally are correct. So only 5% of Americans think with their own minds and reject the lies of the msm and pols? Is this true or is there some skulduggery going on in the background?
There is almost certainly no hope that the US elites and their captive public can ever spontaneously change their attitude toward Russia. The only hope, and it is real, is that the US elites will run up against the wall of military and economic reality created by Russia and be forced to admit, as Richard Haass and other have done already, that there is no going forward in this belligerent vein.
The following is our first translation from Ria Novosti.
National Interest ridiculed the military "signal" of Western countries for Russia in the Black Sea
December 28, 2018
MOSCOW, Dec 28 - RIA News. The military "signals" of the West in response to Russia's "aggressive actions" in the Black Sea turned out to be dubious, writes the National Interest.
This was the periodical’s assessment of the arrival of the British Naval ship Echo at the port of Odessa. This happened a few weeks after the incident in the Kerch Strait, where three Ukrainian ships violated the Russian border and were detained.
[Previously, National Interest had analyzed what would happen if a US Naval aircraft carrier was sunk in battle. The loss, occurring in a matter of minutes, would be devastating – and unstoppable.—Vince]
British Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson called the presence of a British ship in the Black Sea a warning to Russia and a sign that Ukraine "can count on a reliable partner in Britain."
However, as the newspaper notes, "Echo" is a multi-purpose hydrographic ship. It can perform only scientific tasks, and specifically, compiling and refining the maps of the seabed. Its only weapons are two 20-mm cannon and several machine guns. That is, the ship is even more lightly armed than the Ukrainian boats detained by the Russian border patrol, and its ability to withstand a massive attack seems doubtful, the publication emphasizes.
National Interest adds that this is not the only example of "support" for Ukraine. The discrepancy between the political determination of the West and the growing “Russian threat” often leads to “gaps” instead of a genuine show of force, the author argues.
In particular, he cites as an example the flight of the US Air Force OC-135 reconnaissance aircraft over Ukraine in early December at the request of Kiev. As stated in the Pentagon, the flight was designed to "confirm the US allegiance to Ukraine and other partner countries." In fact, the plane flew through the deep rear of Ukraine far from the Donbass and the Crimea.
“They didn’t fly over the disputed areas. I believe that it was a training flight that was highly inflated and embellished so that the public would take it as a “signal” to Russia,” the periodical quotes Steffan Watkins, an independent expert on security and visual information analytics.
National Interest emphasizes that the arrival of the ship "Echo" in Ukraine looks about as "intimidating." However, the British Ministry of Defence intends to support Ukraine further and send the military there in 2019 to assist in the training of Ukrainian troops.
Our second translation from Ria Novosti follows. Just a further comment if I may be permitted. A landing ship’s primary mission is to land troops and materiel onto a territory on which a war is taking place or is expected to take place. How realistic is it that such a scenario could exist between a nuclear-armed US and nuclear-armed Russia? So why a landing ship, unless it is to be used as window dressing to satisfy the mythological expectations of a hopelessly benighted Western populace that would throw itself off a cliff if ordered to do so by “experts”?
The landing ship of the US Navy is sent to the Black Sea
MOSCOW, January 6 - RIA News. The US Navy’s landing ship USS Fort McHenry as part of the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Group passes through the Dardanelles into the Black Sea, the press service of the US Sixth Fleet reports on Twitter.
Earlier, US special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker said that Washington should consider the possibility of increasing its presence in the Black Sea. In addition, he said that he did not exclude additional supplies of lethal weapons to Ukraine.
Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that such statements are "non-conciliatory in nature and are not aimed at bringing positions closer within Ukrainian society."
According to the press secretary of the Russian president, Dmitry Peskov, relations between Moscow and Washington have become a victim of a provocation that the Ukrainian authorities have staged in the Kerch Strait.
Shipping in the Bosporus and Dardanelles is regulated by the 1936 Montreux Convention. In peacetime, the Black Sea powers have the right to sail warships through the straits, after notifying the Turkish authorities. For non-Black Sea countries there are a number of restrictions. Turkey can close the straits only in the event of war, and for all the warring parties.