The ink isn’t even dry on the latest moves by the alliance’s foreign ministers to finalize the current anti-Russia military build-up, the largest since the Cold War ended, and officials are already openly talking about doing “more” to target Russia along their frontier.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters today that discussions are ongoing on how NATO can “project stability” around its borders, language which in the last few years has always boiled down to putting more troops on the Russian borders, and issuing more statements predicting an imminent Russian attack on Europe.
US Ambassador Douglas Lute said the plan is for a “very sober discussion on dealing with Russia,” insisting Russia has “thrown out the rulebook” and NATO has to respond. Lute is seen as loudly advocating more military buildups around Europe to target Russia.
And while there was some talk among European members about targeting ISIS in Libya at the ongoing NATO meetings, materially everything that was agreed to, including future talks in Warsaw, were about targeting Russia more aggressively. Even the decision to invite tiny Montenegro to the alliance was seen primarily as being about thumbing their nose at Russia for criticizing the continued expansion of NATO deeper into Warsaw Pact territory.
Jens Stoltenberg is a Quisling for the USA.
Candidates Clinton and Sanders agree. So much for “peacenik” Sanders. When it come to Putin Russia he is a wolf in sheep’s clothes.
Sanders is clearly fighting against the establishment and everything Clinton represents. If Americans were more receptive to antiwar rhetoric then Sanders would bring it to you. The country is not and therefore Sanders would be treading water or actually losing support if he tried.
That’s the situation you people have been snookered into accepting and you’re squandering your only chance of breaking the grip of the establishment, you will see for 4 more years. And then, the movement will probably be too hard to revive. That just keeps on happening doesn’t it!
Don, Bernie Sanders is no peacenik; he voted for the Iraq war in 2003. He’s also a far-left Socialist – a Marxist even. The only Presidential candidate that’s calling for peace is Donald Trump. He’s the only one calling for negotiations and trade with all nations, including Russia and China. Neither Sanders nor Hillary Clinton (the worst) support negotiations and trade with the Russia-China bloc.
Now, what separates Sanders from Hillary is mainly in domestic policy. While Hillary supports a tyrannical police state and Obamacare, Sanders supports Medicare for all and the elimination of the police state. He also opposes military and financial aid to Israel.
You criticize him for being left-wing, but then you praise him for wanting to protect “Medicare for all” – in other words, introduce Canadian-style healthcare (which I as a Canadian like)? I conclude that you want the Canadian system, but you want to cut welfare as much as possible.
Also, isn’t the fact that Sanders opposes the TTP with China a good thing? Donald Trump also opposes another free-trade agreement, NAFTA, and free trade in general, which he’s actually right about. What’s wrong with that?
And Sanders voted against the Iraq War – he just voted for a bill to continue financing the war, or something like that, which was a reasonable thing to do. True, if it didn’t pass, the troops would have gotten out of Iraq immediately, but he might have thought that was risky (although I certainly wouldn’t have voted for it).
Sanders also said he’s willing to work with Russia against the Islamic State. That could open the door for negotiation with Russia, s bad relations stand in the way of good co-operation. True, Trump wants to negotiate with Russia, but Sanders also de facto wants to.
Trump may want peace and good relations with Russia, but he still wants to continue the war against the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, even though neither fight is our business. For that matter, Sanders does too. but he wants to decrease airstrikes, while Trump’s rhetoric on being tougher on the Islamic State and saying we should kill the families of suspected terrorists implies he will increase them – how else will he be tougher?
Also, while Sanders criticizes Israel’s policy – more precisely what happened in Gaza – he still supports Israel. It’s just that he will criticize them when their policies result in the multiple deaths of innocent people. I don’t know where you got he “opposes military and financial aid” from. We can presume he will support Israel when Israel goes to war, but not in situations like Gaza, since it is certain that the deaths of civilians will be great.
He is a bit like Trump when you compare the two on Israel, but they differ. Trump will presumably support Israel in war, as he has not criticized Israeli policy, but he stated he will be neutral in negotiations, the latter of which is a good thing. Of course the ideal presidential candidate would be who is neutral in all wars Israel has, will criticize Israeli policy, and will be neutral in negotiations.
Oh, I forgot. Calling him tough on Russia is inaccurate because of what I said, and he is not “a wolf in sheep’s clothes” therefore – I believe he already said he supports the sanctions. It’s just that I believe he will ease them in order to co-operate with Russia better.
Another thing. NATO has said in the last few years a military attack on Europe is imminent? Are you sure you’re not exaggerating?
Never mind Sanders then. You support Trump? What an uneducated schmuck! Ha Trump come out with some position on something that he hasn’t reverse or contradicted?
Nothing is going to change in your country Eileen. Trump has split the anti-establishment movement right down the middle. Some in other countries are probably now contemplating the possibility of him being a plant for the system. It’s just too close to reality to not be true!