Reprinted from RT
Global Robocop NATO predictably discussed Afghanistan (a war NATO ignominiously lost); Iraq (a war the Pentagon ignominiously lost); Libya (a nation NATO turned into a failed state devastated by militia hell); Syria (a nation NATO, via Turkey, would love to invade, and is already a militia hell).
Afghans must now rest assured that NATO's Resolute Support mission -- plus "financial support for Afghan forces" -- will finally assure the success of Operation Enduring Freedom forever.
Libyans must be reassured, in the words of NATO figurehead secretary Jens Stoltenberg, that we "should stand ready to support the new Government of National Accord in Libya."
Stoltenberg duly confirmed, "We have already decided to enhance our forward presence in the eastern part of our alliance. Our military planners have put forward proposals of several battalions in different countries in the region. No decision has been taken on the numbers and locations."
These puny "several battalions" won't cause any Russian planner to lose sleep. The real "measure" is the deployment of the Aegis Ashore system in Romania last week -- plus a further one in Poland in 2018. This has been vehemently opposed by Moscow since the early 2000s. NATO's argument that the Aegis represents protection against the "threat" of ballistic missiles from Iran does not even qualify as kindergarten play.
Every Russian military planner knows the Aegis is not defensive. This is a serious game-changer -- as in de-localizing US nuclear capability to Eastern Europe. No wonder Russian President Vladimir Putin had to make it clear Russia would respond "adequately" to any threat to its security.
Predictably all Cold War 2.0 hell broke loose, all over again.
A case can be made that the Beltway -- neocons and neoliberalcons alike -- do not want a hot war with Russia. What they want, apart from racking in more cash for the Pentagon, is to raise the ante to such a high level that Moscow will back down -- based on a rational cost analysis. Yet oil prices will inevitably rise later in 2016 -- and under this scenario Washington is a loser. So we may see a raise of interest rates by the Fed (with all the money continuing to go to Wall Street) trying to reverse the scenario.
Comparisons of the current NATO buildup to pre-WWII buildups, or to NATO when opposed to the Warsaw Pact, are amateurish. The THAAD and Patriot missiles are worthless -- according to the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) themselves; that's why they tried to improve them with Iron Dome.
Meanwhile, those new NATO army "battalions" are inconsequential. The basic thrust behind the Pentagon's moves under neocon Ash Carter continues to be to draw Russia ever further into Syria and Ukraine (as if Moscow actually was involved in, or wanted, a Ukrainian quagmire); trap Russia in proxy wars; and economically bleed Russia to death while crippling the bulk of oil and natural gas income to the Russian state.
Russia does not want -- and does not need -- war. Yet the "Russian aggression" narrative never stops. Thus it's always enlightening to come back to this
RAND corporation study, which examined what would happen if a war actually took place. RAND reached an "unambiguous" conclusion after a series of war games in 2015-2015; Russia could overrun NATO in a mere 60 hours -- if not less -- if it ever amounted to a hot war on European soil.
The Aegis changes the game in the sense that it qualifies as a launch area for US missile defense. Think US missiles with minimum flying time -- around 30 minutes -- from Moscow; that's a certified threat to the Russian nation. The Russian military has also been "unambiguous"; if it is ascertained that NATO -- via the Pentagon -- is about to try something funny, there are grounds for a preventive strike by Iskander-M systems out of Transnistria -- as in the destruction of the US missiles by conveniently armed precision weapons.
Meanwhile, Moscow has pulled a stunning success -- of course, it's far from over -- in Syria. So what's left for the Pentagon -- via NATO -- is essentially to play the scare tactics card. They know Russia is prepared for war -- certainly much better prepared than NATO. They know neither Putin nor the Russian military will back down because of kindergarten scaremongering. As for a too conciliatory tone by the Kremlin towards Washington, things may be about to change soon.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).