By Stephen Lendman
No likely future US leader ever represented a greater threat to world peace and humanity’s survival than she does – an unparalleled menace, a chilling red alert to where things seem heading, a possible doomsday scenario unfolding in plain sight while no one’s paying attention.
UK politician Simon Parkes lays out a possible WW III scenario, believing Germany’s Angela Merkel may be used as a modern-day Archduke Ferdinand to provoke conflict with Russia. Days earlier, a possible assassination attempt on her was foiled during her visit to Prague, an armed man in a vehicle trying to join her motorcade stopped and detained.
According to Parkes, Western monied interests believe the solution to precarious world economic conditions adversely affecting business is global war for its profit potential. He envisions a scheme to provoke belligerence against Russia, launching WW III. Whether he’s right or wrong remains to be seen.
Clearly, US hostility toward Russia risks the unthinkable. Possible East/West confrontation is too great a risk to ignore – especially if Hillary succeeds Obama, a war goddess, a neocon Russophobe. In Cincinnati on Wednesday, she addressed the American Legion’s national convention, a militant right-wing federally chartered veterans’ organization founded post-WW I in 1919.
Touting American exceptionalism along with calling the US an indispensable nation, she called for military strength to counter nonexistent “threats from…Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.” She wants more spent on US militarism and belligerence than already on the pretext of unsafe world conditions, solely because of US imperial adventurism.
She blamed Russia irresponsibly for hacking DNC emails, saying “(a)s president, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses.” She barely stopped short of announcing plans for war on Russia, China, Iran and North Korea with her as commander-in-chief of America’s military – a WW III scenario if launched, likely with nuclear weapons risking humanity’s survival.
She’ll “make sure America’s (nuclear) arsenal is prepared to meet future threats.” None exist except ones lunatics in Washington invent. She blasted Trump for not being as militantly hardline as she is, irresponsibly claiming he’s too soft on Russia, accusing him of political ties to Putin.
Endless wars will continue on her watch as president, including possible nuclear confrontation with Russia and other sovereign independent nations challenging America’s quest for unchallenged global dominance. Trump addressed legionnaires on Thursday, following Clinton the previous day. Not to be overshadowed, he hyped a policy of “peace through strength,” saying “(n)obody will be able to compete with us” militarily.
He pledged to “be uncompromising in the defense of the United States and our friends and our good allies.”
“We are going to end the era of nation-building, and create a new foreign policy – joined by our partners in the Middle East – that is focused on destroying ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism.”
He failed to explain the way to do it by cutting off military and other support from Washington and its rogue allies. These groups can’t exist without foreign backing.
No matter who succeeds Obama, US imperial madness will remain the world’s greatest existential threat – nuclear war less likely under Trump along with perhaps a better chance for more normal relations with Russia than currently or with Hillary as US leader.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
—See more here: http://rense.com/general96/WW3hill.htm#sthash.myMmqC9Z.dpuf
‘Hillary wants war, but Putin is smarter’
The main question which those following the Ukrainian crisis can ask themselves boils down to one word: “Why?” Why have they done this? Answering this question is easy if we take for granted that the decision to send saboteurs to Crimea was taken not in Kiev, and didn’t even factor in the interests of Ukraine or the Kiev regime. One can easily see the greasy fingerprints of Hillary Clinton and her supporters in this provocation who are largely found among the American intelligence services and diplomatic corps. They have very recognizable handwriting.
The goal of the Crimea operation was clear: achieving what didn’t happen in 2014, i.e., a full-fledged war. This would have allowed one of the main goals of American policy to be realized: completely and once and for all cutting off Europe from Russia and stuffing the EU with expensive American liquified gas and striking at the Russian economy with an oil embargo and possible exclusion from SWIFT, thereby turning Russia into some kind of bigger Iran.
I quite easily noticed the recognizable style of our overseas opponents, who now very much need a good real war in Europe. They already made a similar attempt using a Turkish fighter as the tool, but this failed. The Americans are famous for using their favorite methods to infinity regardless of the outcome.
Recently, Putin completely outplayed the Americans in the Syrian and Turkish crises. The whole story of Erdogan’s transformation from an enemy into one compelled to seek an ally in Russia looks like an especially painful one for the Americans. Their emotions are understandable, so they decided to strike where they had big chances of success. This time, however, their efforts failed, for which we have to thank our heroes from the special services and other security structures.
The Russian government had three days to think over the situation and make a decision. Did you all notice how this subject actively emerged in the information field only three days after the incident? It would have been easy to hush up the incident and not make it public, but the country’s leadership decided to do otherwise. You can be absolutely sure that all the consequences of this step, and any consequential moves, were well calculated.
In the case of Turkey, it is clear that Vladimir Putin is a true master of asymmetrical and very effective pressure. It is clear that pressure will be put on Ukraine, but gently and creatively. Ukraine is not Turkey, and there is only one plus for Ukraine in comparing the two countries: we can’t just turn off the gas as long as we need their pipe to continue our shipments to Europe.
But Ukraine does have many more minuses.
Let’s begin with the fact that even now, economic ties with Russia are more important for Ukraine than they ever have been for Turkey. Turkey is still more focused on European and Asian markets, albeit that Russia’s measures of economic influence were very painful. A similar situation would be even more painful for Ukraine. The Turkish economy is way more stable than Ukraine’s, which has long since been plunged into crisis and can’t get out. There are more than enough points to painfully pressure the Kiev regime.
Another important thing needs to be considered which many people know of, but which almost no one is talking about. One of the means of punishing and pressuring Erdogan was supporting Turkish Kurds, which created a huge headache for Turkish authorities. If Erdogan had not made a sharp geopolitical turn, the situation could have ended with an independent Kurdistan, albeit small and not recognized by the international community.
Sure, someone can say that there are no Kurds in Ukraine. But there are the DPR and LPR. Amidst the freezing over of the Normandy Format which Putin already announced, a sharp increase in tacit support for the DPR and LPR in itself could lead to rather sad consequences for the Kiev regime. In the shoes of Ukrainian politicians, I would be very worried by such a possible turn of events. Even they have the hunch that the Kiev regime will be beaten. Quietly, without fanfare and emotion, but effectively. Poroshenko has reason to be jealous of Erdogan. The Turkish leader had the opportunity to apologize and correct things, which he is now trying to do. But Poroshenko doesn’t have such an opportunity, but this is already solely his problem.