Jeremy Corbyn Accused of Being Russian Collaborator for Questioning NATO Buildup

Horhey · Jan 17, 2017

Jeremy Corbyn Accused of Being Russian “Collaborator” for Questioning NATO Troop Build-Up on Border, The Intercept

Few behaviors are more dangerous than escalating tensions between these two nuclear-armed powers.
Click to expand...

[video=youtube_share;ge_DuOy-CUM]https://youtu.be/ge_DuOy-CUM[/video]

The U.S. and NATO likely intend to destroy Russia's ICBM's with a tactical nuclear first strike, believing that U.S. missile defenses will intercept what they miss. Of course, the political and economic elites will be in their fallout shelters before they strike. The rest of us will just have to hope it works. I didn't just come to this conclusion from thinking too much. Everything regarding U.S. policy in the Middle East and Eastern Europe was planned back in 1992.

"Prevent the Reemergence of a New Rival," The National Security Archive

Declassified Studies from Cheney Pentagon Show Push for U.S. Military Predominance and a Strategy to "Prevent the Reemergence of a New Rival"

The United States should use its power to "prevent the reemergence of a new rival" either on former Soviet territory or elsewhere, declared a controversial draft of the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) prepared by then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney's Pentagon and leaked to The New York Times in March 1992. The authors of the Guidance argued that the United States had to:

Find ways to integrate the "new democracies" of the former Soviet bloc into the U.S.-led system
Click to expand...

The word "preempt" does not appear in the declassified language, but Document 10 includes wording about "disarming capabilities to destroy" which is followed by several excised words. This suggests that some of the heavily excised pages in the still-classified DPG drafts may include some discussion of preventive action against threatening nuclear and other WMD programs. The excisions are currently under appeal at the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP).

High-Tech Strategy Guides Pentagon Plan, LA Times, July 13, 2002

The "Defense Planning Guidance" for 2004 to 2009 puts into action the Pentagon's plan to replace a Cold War-era strategy of being able to fight two major-theater wars at the same time with a more complex approach aimed at dominating air and space on several fronts. It places emphasis on capabilities such as surprise "high-volume precision strikes," and calls for laser- and microwave-powered weapons and nuclear-tipped "bunker buster" bombs.

The new emphasis is on a far more interventionist, proactive strategy in which the United States would stand ready to strike militarily around the world wherever and whenever it thought its security might be threatened. The new strategic watchword is called "forward deterrence," and the tactical instrument of choice would be what the Defense Planning Guidance calls "unwarned attacks." The United States would adopt a strategy for preempting, rather than deterring, potential adversaries.

Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, "The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy," Foreign Affairs, March/April 2006 Issue

Washington's continued refusal to eschew a first strike and the country's development of a limited missile-defense capability take on a new, and possibly more menacing, look… A nuclear war-fighting capability remains a key component of the United States' military doctrine and nuclear primacy remains a goal of the United States.

The sort of missile defenses that the United States might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one—as an adjunct to a US First Strike capability, not as a stand-alone shield. If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with only a tiny surviving arsenal — if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes.

Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy. It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike. This dramatic shift in the nuclear balance of power stems from a series of improvements in the United States' nuclear systems, the precipitous decline of Russia's arsenal, and the glacial pace of modernization of China's nuclear forces.

Jeremy Corbyn Accused of Being Russian “Collaborator” for Questioning NATO Troop Build-Up on Border, The Intercept

For the crucial context on NATO/Russia tension that is very rarely heard in the Western press, I highly recommend these two items:

(1) This Foreign Affairs article by University of Chicago political scientist John J. Mearsheimer on the West’s relentless, aggressive march eastward up to Russian borders and its consequences.

(2) The passage of this interview with Noam Chomsky by German journalist Tilo Jung — beginning at 40:30 — that explains the crucial historical context of NATO’s march eastward toward Russia, how that is perceived in Moscow, and, most important of all, why the dangers this behavior creates are incomparable:

[video=youtube_share;h0qdbsE3Jqo]https://youtu.be/h0qdbsE3Jqo[/video]
Click to expand...

Media complicity with power, even when it threatens the survival of all life on the planet:

WaPo Spreading Own Falsehoods Shows Real Power of Fake News, FAIR, Jan 4, 2017

[video=youtube_share;gvEaFUaQjuE]https://youtu.be/gvEaFUaQjuE[/video]

WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived, The Intercept, January 4, 2017

In the past six weeks, the Washington Post published two blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral: one on how Russia is behind a massive explosion of “fake news,” the other on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid. Both articles were fundamentally false. Each now bears a humiliating editor’s note grudgingly acknowledging that the core claims of the story were fiction: The first note was posted a full two weeks later to the top of the original article; the other was buried the following day at the bottom.

The second story on the electric grid turned out to be far worse than I realized when I wrote about it on Saturday, when it became clear that there was no “penetration of the U.S. electricity grid” as the Post had claimed. In addition to the editor’s note, the Russia-hacked-our-electric-grid story now has a full-scale retraction in the form of a separate article admitting that “the incident is not linked to any Russian government effort to target or hack the utility” and there may not even have been malware at all on this laptop.

But while these debacles are embarrassing for the paper, they are also richly rewarding. That’s because journalists — including those at the Post — aggressively hype and promote the original, sensationalistic false stories, ensuring that they go viral, generating massive traffic for the Post (the paper’s executive editor, Marty Baron, recently boasted about how profitable the paper has become).

After spreading the falsehoods far and wide, raising fear levels and manipulating U.S. political discourse in the process (both Russia stories were widely hyped on cable news), journalists who spread the false claims subsequently note the retraction or corrections only in the most muted way possible, and often not at all. As a result, only a tiny fraction of people who were exposed to the original false story end up learning of the retractions.

Washington Post story (12/31/16) with revised headline and a never-mind editor’s note. Is this “fake news”?
Click to expand...

Horhey · Jan 18, 2017

The media pretends to be ignorant of US imperialism.

Log in or Sign up

Jeremy Corbyn Accused of Being Russian Collaborator for Questioning NATO Buildup

Horhey Well-Known Member

Horhey Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Jeremy Corbyn Accused of Being Russian Collaborator for Questioning NATO Buildup

Horhey Well-Known Member

Horhey Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches

Jeremy Corbyn Accused of Being Russian Collaborator for Questioning NATO Buildup