For a government $21 trillion in debt, US leaders appear pretty sanguine about provoking World War 3 with Russia. Case in point: the United States, via NATO, is sending 4,200 troops, 250 tanks, and tons of other expensive war gear to the borders of Russia, ostensibly to “deter Russian aggression”. The massive deployment is called the “European Reassurance Initiative“, the biggest since the end of the Cold War. Add to this the recent announcement that NATO is considering thousands of additional troops stationed in Poland and the Baltics, and an impartial observer has to ask: for God’s sake, why?
The US and NATO are encircling Russia with thousands of troops and taxpayer billions’ worth of war gear. How would US citizens respond of Russia did the same along our border with Mexico or Canada? Putin has an 83% approval rating in Russia, not because he’s such a great leader, but because the US and NATO continually threaten him, and he pushes back. Citizens adore this in a leader, which is why governments always exaggerate outside threats, it brings them greater power. Both Russia and the US need each other, in this sense, because both provide the excuse for a bloated, all-powerful government.
“Russian aggression” is a myth, a publicity campaign designed by the political class to pave the way for a new Cold War, and paint Russia as the aggressor as thousands of US and NATO soldiers are lined along Russia’s borders. The US is clearly the aggressor, intent on provoking a reaction from Russia that can be spun as a preemptive strike, whereupon the US war machine can unleash all those expensive tanks, bombs and other expensive war goodies.
As Pat Buchanan writes in his latest piece at The American Conservative:
“But how are Russian troops deploying inside Russia “provocative,” while U.S. troops on Russia’s front porch are not?”
It’s a task for D.C. spin doctors to sell Russian military exercises within their own borders as a provocation, while thousands of US and NATO troops along their border somehow aren’t.
American citizens only have to ask themselves this: how would we feel if Russia did this to us? If an outside threat from a nuclear-armed nation were this immediate, we’d put whatever domestic quibbles we had with the current administration on the back burner, and grant our government enormous power to deter that threat. This is why Castro could stay in power for decades, his power was built off real and perceived American aggression. The same applies to Putin, his power is only enhanced by US intervention along Russia’s border. But the US Warfare State needs Russia as an enemy to justify the out-of-control military spending spree, a Russia absent from the list of official Things To Be Afraid Of would leave an awkwardly large space. A space that wouldn’t be filled so easily by just milking the “terrorist” threat.
And so Russia is our enemy because that’s what we’re told, and our government surrounds Russia with the intent of provoking a first strike that will usher in a massive, bloody shoot-out. But how long can an Empire built on perpetual war last?