Reprinted from Paul Craig Roberts Website
A Reuters news report under the names of presstitutes Robin Emmott and Sabine Siebold shows how devoid the West is of honest, intelligent and responsible journalists and government officials. First we will examine the dishonesty or incompetence of the reporters and then that of Western government officials.
Emmott and Siebold describe NATO as a "Western defense alliance." Since the Clinton regime NATO has been an alliance for waging offensive war, a war crime under the Nuremberg rules established by the United States. Under the NATO banner a number of countries have been bombed, invaded, and had their governments overthrown by Washington acting under the cover of NATO.
These destroyed countries posed no threat whatsoever to the countries of the NATO alliance and undertook no aggressive actions against NATO members. How is it possible that Reuters' reporters and editors are not aware of this? Why do they call an instrument of Washington's aggression a "defense alliance"?
Emmott and Siebold report that "Russian aggression" is the reason NATO is deploying 3,000 to 4,000 troops in the Baltic states and Poland. In other words, something that does not exist -- Russian aggression toward the Baltics and Poland -- is assumed to be a fact that must be countered with military deployments.
The reporters do not question whether this insignificant number of NATO troops constitutes a defense or a provocation. The number of troops would have to be 100 times greater before the force even begins to approach a defensive force. What then is the purpose of the 3,000 or 4,000 NATO troops?
Every informed person knows that there is no need of a defense force against Russia in the Baltics and Poland. Aside from this fact, only an absolute idiot could think that three or four thousand troops constitutes a defense against the Russian Army. In June 1941 Operation Barbarossa hit Russia with an invasion of four million troops, the majority German component of which were probably the most highly trained and disciplined troops in military history, excepting only the Spartans. By the time that the Americans and British got around to the Normandy invasion, the Russian Army had chewed up the Wehrmacht. There were only a few divisions at 40% strength to resist the Normandy invasion. By the time the Russian Army got to Berlin, the German resistance consisted of armed children.
The Reuters reporters raise no question about President Obama's statement that 1,000 of this insignificant force will be Americans in order "to enhance our forward presence in central and eastern Europe." Why does the United States need a "forward presence" in central and eastern Europe? What does a US "forward presence" in central and eastern Europe represent except an insane recklessness? One thousand US troops are good for nothing except a provocation.
Emmott and Siebold report with a straight face without laughter or question unverifiable accusations of Russian aggression by White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski, President Obama, and head of NATO's military committee, Czech General Petr Pavel.
Gen. Pavel "said Russia was attempting to restore its status as a world power, an effort that included using its military."
Obama said it is necessary to "keep sanctions on Moscow in place until it fully complies with the ceasefire agreement in Ukraine."
Waszczykowski said: "We have to reject any type of wishful thinking with regard to pragmatic cooperation with Russia as long as Russia keeps on invading its neighbors."
Rhodes threatened Russia with a NATO response to Russia's "continued aggression."
These statements are propagandistic. If those who made the statements actually believe them, they are too imbecilic to be trusted with public offices.
Is it possible that the Czech general does not know that Russia has used its military only to repel a Washington-inspired Georgian invasion of South Ossetia and against ISIS in Syria, which the US, UK, and France also claim to be doing? After repelling the Georgian invasion, Russia withdrew its forces. After dealing ISIS a setback in Syria, Russia withdrew and was forced to return by Washington's resupply of ISIS.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
3
3
