\n
![\"world-war-3-95758180\"](\"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/world-war-3-95758180.png\")
<\/a>\nby Chris Martenson
\nPeakProsperity.com<\/p>\n
I wish I could say things were improving between the US and Russia but they aren’t. They’re rapidly worsening.<\/strong><\/p>\n There\u2019s so much happening right now, I can only provide a summary of a few of the more interesting and worrying developments.<\/p>\n This report builds on those I’ve released over the past two years and begins with a chilling editorial put out by the NY Times on September 29th<\/sup>, 2016, which further demonized Putin specifically, Russia generally, and openly advocates for military confrontation.<\/p>\n Hey, we\u2019ve been down this path before.\u00a0 The deeply conflicted NY Times has never met a war in the Middle East it didn\u2019t support, and has never had any trouble repeating war plan talking points (that always neatly align with those put out by neocon think tanks) or even printing obviously fake \u201cintelligence\u201d from unnamed sources such as that used to justify the illegal US attack and invasion of Iraq.<\/p>\n As a reminder for my US readers who many only have read US press sources on the matter, prior to being attacked Iraq had never threatened the US, had no role in 9\/11, and had allowed extensive UN access to its country\u2019s military bases none of which ever showed the slightest trace of manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. And, even if they had been producing these so-called weapons of mass destruction (weapons which are also owned and maintained in the US, for the record), there was still no legal case for an attack by the US because pre-emptive attacks are not justifiable, ever.<\/p>\n What the NY Times has done, again, I fear, is served as a conduit for neocon talking points and therefore has become a propaganda arm readying the US population for another war, this one with Russia.\u00a0 This is a very disturbing development.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s the editorial, into which I have inserted comments where appropriate\u00a0[in brackets]<\/em>.\u00a0 Remember, propaganda is designed to elicit core emotional responses such as fear, anger, moral indignation, and a sense of threat to one\u2019s very survival:<\/p>\n Vladimir Putin\u2019s Outlaw State<\/strong><\/p>\n Sept 29, 2016<\/p>\n <\/p>\n President\u00a0Vladimir Putin\u00a0is fast turning\u00a0Russia\u00a0into an outlaw nation. As one of five permanent members of the\u00a0United Nations Security Council, his country shares a special responsibility to uphold international law. Yet, his behavior in\u00a0Ukraine\u00a0and Syria\u00a0violates not only the rules intended to promote peace instead of conflict, but also common human decency.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [Which \u201crules intended to promote peace\u201d is the NY Times referring to here?\u00a0 The same sorts of rules that led NATO to bomb Libya back into the stone age?\u00a0 Or are these the \u201crules\u201d that allow a country to manufacture fake evidence on Iraq and then attack that country unleashing a decade of bitter sectarian violence?\u00a0 Also, how does \u201ccommon human decency fit into that schema?\u00a0 I\u2019m truly curious.]<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n This bitter truth was driven home twice on Wednesday. An investigative team led by the Netherlands\u00a0concluded\u00a0that the surface-to-air missile system that\u00a0shot down a Malaysia Airlines plane\u00a0over Ukraine in July 2014, killing 298 on board, was sent from Russia to Russian-backed separatists and returned to Russia the same night.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [The MH-17 disaster is anything but clear-cut and the JIT investigation was heavily compromised from the start.\u00a0 Nothing like the claim being made here is supported by the actual investigation evidence presented.\u00a0 This is pure, unsupported speculation at this stage.\u00a0 More on this at a later date.<\/em>]<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Meanwhile, in Syria, Russian and Syrian warplanes knocked out two hospitals in the rebel-held sector of Aleppo as part of an assault that threatens the lives of 250,000 more people in a war that has already claimed some 500,000 Syrian lives.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [Meanwhile, in Afghanistan the US bombed a\u00a0MSF hospital and has killed ~90% innocents with its drone program.\u00a0 Also, not to pick nits, but the US and European interests funded and started the war in Syria.\u00a0 It seems a bit short-sighted to now claim that Russia bears some special responsibility for the lives at stake.\u00a0 You have to forget everything that happened prior to this moment.<\/em>]<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Russia has tried hard to pin the blame for the airline crash on Ukraine. But the new report, produced by prosecutors from the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine, confirms earlier findings. It uses strict standards of evidence and meticulously documents not only the deployment of the Russian missile system that caused the disaster but also Moscow\u2019s continuing cover-up.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [Nope.\u00a0 Just nope.\u00a0 I\u2019ll detail why in a future report, but the MH-17 investigation was bogus from the get go.\u00a0 Short version: there were only two suspects, the Ukrainian military and rebels.\u00a0 The Ukrainian secret service (SBU) was inside the investigation from the beginning and supplied all of the \u2018evidence\u2019 against Russia and the rebels.\u00a0 What investigation ever has one of the prime suspects supplying the evidence?\u00a0 As I said, completely rigged and bogus.<\/em>]<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Some Western officials have accused Russia of war crimes, charges that could be pursued through international channels, even if Moscow blocks a formal referral to the International Criminal Court. New sanctions against Russia also should be considered. Mr. Putin will undoubtedly fight any such action, using his veto on the Security Council, but whatever his response, the United States should lend its support to Ukraine\u2019s quest for accountability.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [\u201cSome western officials?\u201d\u00a0 There the NYT goes again with the unnamed sources.\u00a0 How about you name names this time NY Times?\u00a0 Well, in truth, a whole host of named individuals and organizations have accused the US of war crimes, as well as Israel, which the US has routinely blocked.\u00a0 Glass houses and all of that<\/em>.]<\/p>\n Over recent days, Mr. Putin has again shown his true colors with air attacks that have included powerful bunker-busting bombs that can destroy underground hospitals and safety zones where civilians seek shelter.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [Note the slippery use of the word \u2018can\u2019 in this sentence.\u00a0 Have they been used to target and destroy hospitals and civilian safety zones, or not?]<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n On Sept. 19, Russia bombed an aid convoy, which like hospitals and civilians are not supposed to be targeted under international law.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [Russia denies this, and has also released radar evidence showing that the only planes in the region at the time were two US drones, plus the sort of damage seen on the fire-destroyed trucks is consistent with the damage caused by the US drone based Hellfire missile.\u00a0\u00a0 If the US wants to release some radar data showing Russian planes in the area or other compelling evidence, then we can all be more confident in that claim.\u00a0 For now the NY Times is repeating an unproven assertion made by the US State Department.<\/em>]<\/p>\n <\/p>\n President Obama has long refused to approve direct military intervention in Syria. And Mr. Putin may be assuming that Mr. Obama is unlikely to confront Russia in his final months and with an American election season in full swing. But with the rebel stronghold in Aleppo under threat of falling to the government, administration officials said that such a response is again under consideration.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [The \u201crebel stronghold in Aleppo under threat\u201d is interesting use of evocative language.\u00a0 However the nature of war is that the sides attempt to take key positions form each other.\u00a0 The \u201crebels\u2019 in question are some of the most dodgy humans to ever walk the planet.\u00a0 The rebels backed by the US include nasty elements of Al-Nusra, Al-Qaida,\u00a0 ISIS and a host of really vile outfits.\u00a0 If you are not aware, these groups have executed thousands of civilians, taken sex slaves, and conducted other horrible crimes against the innocent. <\/em>]<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Mr. Putin fancies himself a man on a mission to restore Russia to greatness. Russia could indeed be a great force for good. Yet his unconscionable behavior \u2014 butchering civilians in Syria and Ukraine, annexing Crimea, computer-hacking American government agencies, crushing dissent at home \u2014 suggests that the furthest thing from his mind is becoming a constructive partner in the search for peace.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [Pay close attention to that word \u201cunconscionable<\/strong>.\u201d\u00a0 It really stood out for me here and I knew something was up when I heard it used again by a US official. \u00a0It will soon appear again in media quotes below.\u00a0 For now, let\u2019s just note that every act declared as ‘unconscionable’ has also recently been done by the US: civilians have been \u2018butchered\u2019 (again a strongly evocative word very different from the \u2018collateral damage and targeting mistakes\u2019 that the US reserves for its own actions), computers have been hacked (even Angela Merkel\u2019s cell phone as you may recall), and peaceful protests have been crushed in the US, most recently a peaceful prayer circle of Native Americans at Standing Rock by heavily armed LEO\u2019s who brought armored personnel carriers for the task)<\/em>]<\/p>\n (Source<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Okay, that editorial was yet another in a long line from the NY Times which has never met a neocon-proposed war it didn\u2019t blindly support.\u00a0 Supposedly the bastion of the east coast liberal elites, the NY Times is actually acting once again more like the personal propaganda arm of the US necons and Israeli likuds who have been dragging the US into one war after another.<\/p>\n As I\u2019ve written about extensively in the past, a war this time could mean anything from a shooting (kinetic) war, to a cyberwar, financial or trade war, or even a hacking attack that takes out the grid or other critical infrastructure.\u00a0 If you want to go deeper into the details of what that might mean and how you should prepare, we have a more extensive Part 2 of this report<\/a> prepared.<\/p>\n Now, lets continue on with our thesis that a propaganda effort is underway to drag the US into yet another useless war. This one with the potential to literally end the US as a going concern.<\/p>\n I\u2019m going to skip over a few events here so we can connect this propaganda dot.\u00a0 Then we\u2019ll get back to the other worrying events that show how the situation with Russia is deteriorating badly.<\/p>\n Fast forward just five days from that NY Times editorial and we read this:<\/p>\n White House Warns of ‘Actions’ If Russia Won’t Negotiate<\/strong><\/p>\n Oct 4, 2016<\/p>\n <\/p>\n President Obama faces an increasingly stark choice in Syria \u2014 he can order American military action or watch thousands ofwomen and children die as the rebel stronghold<\/strong> of Aleppo falls.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n So far, he has shown no willingness to launch a U.S. military response, but White House officials<\/strong> told NBC News Monday they are now considering escalating the U.S. involvement in Syria’s civil war,<\/strong> including unspecified “actions\u2026that would further underscore the consequences of not coming back to the negotiating table.”<\/p>\n <\/p>\n American intelligence officials on Monday pointedly accused Russian and Syrian forces of mass atrocities<\/strong> during their advance on the city, describing a horrific bombing campaign in recent days that has killed women and children at an increasing rate.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n “The regime and Russia’s use of incendiary weapons have contributed to the unconscionable<\/strong> civilian deaths and suffering,” a U.S. intelligence official<\/strong> said.<\/p>\n (Source<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n How much more obvious can all that be?\u00a0 First there\u2019s a NY Times editorial that literally lays to a series of talking points ranging from women and children being at risk to a rebel stronghold to unconscionable<\/em> civilian deaths and suffering.<\/p>\n It\u2019s all there in this second article and, just for a bonus, it\u2019s all attributed to unnamed White House and intelligence \u201cofficials.\u201d\u00a0 Exactly the same pattern we saw in the run up to the Iraq war.\u00a0 I would put a lot of money on the bet that these scripted talking points were developed by a small team of neocons operating in the shadows.\u00a0 A lot<\/strong> of money.<\/p>\n As in the past, when these folks pull the levers to try and goad the US into a(nother) war, they never come out in the open. They always hide behind anonymity. Your tip-off is the number of times you read the words \u201cUS officials\u201d or \u00a0\u201ca highly placed source\u201d or some other phrase that hides the individual while evoking authority.<\/p>\n If they weren’t so secretive, we\u2019d certainly see the pattern more easily for what it actually is \u2013 the same small cadre of people who are always agitating for the use of military force to \u201csolve\u201d whatever objectives they are seeking.<\/p>\n Now, of course it\u2019s horrible when civilians get trapped or die in a war. But here we might note that if a nation truly cannot abide innocent deaths, then it also shouldn’t go about starting wars, or supplying military armaments.<\/p>\n I mean, let\u2019s wander a few miles south of Syria and take a peek at what\u2019s happening in Yemen where the US is supplying both weapons and targeting data to the Saudis:<\/p>\n Civilian casualties in Yemen bring charges of U.S. responsibility for Saudi actions<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Civilian casualties have spiked in Yemen since the collapse of peace talks in August,<\/strong> the United Nations reported recently, bringing the total number of civilians killed since March 2015, when a coalition led by Saudi Arabia\u00a0launched its operation\u00a0against Houthi rebels there, to more than 4,000.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Despite repeated strikes on\u00a0<\/strong>schools\u00a0and\u00a0hospitals, officials see little choice for now but continued support<\/strong>, given the intense desire to shore up a bilateral relationship rocked by President Obama\u2019s nuclear deal with Iran and new legislation linked to the Sept.\u00a011, 2001, attacks.<\/p>\n (Source<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Where are the \u2018unnamed officials\u2019 wringing their hands at thousand of innocent deaths in Yemen?\u00a0 Where\u2019s our sense of responsibility for being the primary arms dealer to the Saudis, and direct supplying them with targeting data? These morals are nowhere to be found when it comes to Yemen.<\/p>\n In fact, according to \u2018officials\u2019 in the above article, when it comes to Yemen, the desire to make nice with the Saudis (after the Iran deal) is the driving US objective at the moment.<\/p>\n In other words, in Yemen, political realities are more important than innocent lives.\u00a0 Ah, do you see it now?\u00a0 Innocent deaths don\u2019t matter as much as the political realities.<\/p>\n How can it be a moral imperative in Syria but a political one when it comes to Yemen?<\/p>\n Would it be out of line for us to wonder if perhaps these same \u2018officials\u2019 are merely using the innocent deaths in Syria as cover for some deeper political purposes that are really the main drivers?<\/p>\n To me, morality is not conditional.\u00a0 Either innocent deaths are always<\/em> unconscionable, or they aren’t.\u00a0 They cannot be morally unacceptable in one place and subservient to political realities in another.\u00a0 Obama cannot cry for the children of Sandy Hook one day, but continue the drone program (which kills lots of children) with steely determination the next.<\/p>\n Which is why I am especially on alert when I read such things as the NY Times editorial above, which screams out a moral argument when a quick scan of the news reveals a profound lack of moral consistency.\u00a0 As ever, that\u2019s a red flag that propaganda is being deployed.\u00a0 Morals are for the populace\u2026when you need something from them, like their consent.<\/p>\n In psychological terms, what\u2019s happening here is called projection<\/em>.\u00a0 This is what happens when an individual, or a nation, accuses an external party of the exact same traits that they secretly dislike about\u00a0themselves.<\/em><\/p>\n An example being a parent who procrastinates at work but then yells harshly at their child for not doing their very best at school.\u00a0 Or the explosive anger that an aggressive driver displays when someone cuts them<\/em> off.<\/p>\n This very human habit of projecting our shadows onto others is very, very dangerous when it gets to the explosive blame stage.<\/p>\n Deep, dark and highly emotional and irrational outbursts are what follows.\u00a0 Insults are slung, sometimes objects are thrown, that forever change the relationship.\u00a0 Real damage can be inflicted in such moments that sometimes cannot be undone. Do we really want that kind of breakdown with nuclear-armed Russia?<\/p>\n So, when it comes to Russia, what are the military options that an angry US might pursue?<\/p>\n This too is easy to track because the neocons write about their plans openly and prolifically, and they are especially fond of imposing no-fly zones.\u00a0 What this always means to them, however, is not the absence of aircraft from a given area, but rather that no planes besides US\/NATO planes are flying over the area.\u00a0 No-fly only applies to the other side, naturally.<\/p>\n A no-fly zone means you have air supremacy and therefore control over a country.<\/p>\n There are two ways to create this. The first is a low level no-fly zone where you supply shoulder-fired antiaircraft rockets (\u201cmanpads\u201d) to the rebel forces.\u00a0 These have limited range so they basically keep low-level aircraft out of the picture; helicopters, low and slow flying support\/attack aircraft and the like.<\/p>\n The second level is to bring your own aircraft into the theater to enforce a complete no-fly zone at all altitudes.<\/p>\n Unsurprisingly, I came across this from the Brookings Institution, a key neocon \u2018think tank,\u2019 in August. So I knew where all this was heading:<\/p>\n We must also be clever about employing various options for no-fly zones:<\/strong> We cannot shoot down an airplane without knowing if it\u2019s Russian or Syrian, but we can identify those aircraft after the fact and destroy Syrian planes on the ground if they were found to have barrel-bombed a neighborhood, for example.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n These kinds of operations are complicated, no doubt, and especially with Russian aircraft in the area<\/strong>\u2014but I think we have made a mistake in tying ourselves in knots over the issue, since there are options we can pursue.<\/strong><\/p>\n (Source \u2013 Brookings \u2013 O\u2019Hanlon<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yes, \u201cthese operations are complicated, no doubt\u2026\u201d is another breezy dismissal, similar to how all Iraqis were going to greet the American forces as “libertators” after Desert Sheild. As if engaging a major nuclear superpower with advanced hardware were no different from the complexities involved in taking out Gadhafi.<\/p>\n The \u201cvarious options\u201d mentioned are code-speak for supplying manpads to the rebels. It might be helpful to recall that the Russians have not (yet) supplied similar hardware to any of the various forces the US and NATO are fighting in Libya, Iraq, or Afghanistan, and they\u2019ve not yet decided to start shooting US and NATO planes out of the sky either. \u00a0One could see that as an act of restraint that could be lifted at some point, enormously complicating US ambitions in a variety of military theaters.<\/p>\n How these Brookings neocons have any voice left at all after the massive screwups in all the prior conflicts they cheered on an supported is beyond me.\u00a0 Anybody making the case that it is simply \u201ccomplicated\u201d to take on Russia should lose their job, be laughed off the stage, and have to find other employment.<\/p>\n But they\u2019d have lots of company in that unemployment line, including at least one US Senator.\u00a0 Speaking about making life more difficult for the Russians, on September 30th<\/sup>, 2016 John McCain said:<\/p>\n MCCAIN: No, but I might do what we did in Afghanistan many years ago, to give those guys the ability to shoot down those planes. That equipment is available.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n CAVUTO: Who would be shooting them down?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n MCCAIN: The Free Syrian Army, just like the Afghans shot down the Russian…<\/p>\n <\/p>\n CAVUTO: Not us?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n MCCAIN: No. Just like the Russians — the Afghans shot down Russian planes after Russia invaded Afghanistan.<\/p>\n (Source<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n McCain is calling for arming the rebels with manpads, again a dangerous escalation that really needs to be debated vigorously at the highest levels because anything that begins a hot (kinetic) war with Russia in Syria stands little chance of remaining safely contained there.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Further, it would greatly increase the risk of Russia returning the favor to the US elsewhere.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
A No Fly Zone<\/u><\/h2>\n
\n
\n