Paul Craig Roberts – Why World War III is on the Horizon

via Global Research:

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 gave birth to a dangerous American ideology called neoconservativism. The Soviet Union had served as a constraint on US unilateral action. With the removal of this constraint on Washington, neoconservatives declared their agenda of US world hegemony.  America was now the “sole superpower,” the “unipower,” that could act without restraint anywhere in the world.

The Washington Post neoconservative journalist Charles Krauthammer summed up the “new reality” as follows:

“We have overwhelming global power. We are history’s designated custodians of the international system. When the Soviet Union fell, something new was born, something utterly new–a unipolar world dominated by a single superpower unchecked by any rival and with decisive reach in every corner of the globe. This is a stagering new development in history, not seen since the fall of Rome. Even Rome was no model for what America is today.”

The staggering unipolar power that history has given to Washington has to be protected at all costs.  In 1992 top Pentagon official Undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz penned the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which became the basis for Washington’s foreign policy.

Paul Wolfowitz

The Wolfowitz Doctrine states that the “first objective” of American foreign and military policy is “to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat [to US unilateral action] on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.” (A “hostile power” is a country sufficiently strong to have a foreign policy independent from Washington’s.)

The unilateral assertion of American power begin in ernest during the Clinton regime with the interventions in Yugoslavia, Serbia, Kosovo, and the no-fly zone imposed on Iraq.  In 1997 the neoconservatives penned their “Project for a New American Century.”  In 1998, three years prior to 9/11, the neoconservatives sent a letter to President Clinton calling for regime change in Iraq and “the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.”  Neoconservatives set out their program for removing seven governments in five years.

[. . .]

To avoid war, Putin is non-provocative and low-key in his responses to Western provocations. Putin’s responsible behavior, however, is misinterpreted by neoconservatives as a sign of weakness and fear.  The neoconservatives tell President Obama to keep the pressure on Russia, and Russia will give in.  However, Putin has made it clear that Russia will not give in. Putin has sent this message on many occasions.  For example, on September 28, 2015, at the 70th anniversary of the United Nations, Putin said that Russia can no longer tolerate the state of affairs in the world. Two days later Putin took command of the war against ISIS in Syria.

The European governments, especially Germany and the UK, are complicit in the move toward nuclear war. These two American vassal states enable Washington’s reckless aggression toward Russia by repeating Washington’s propaganda and supporting Washington’s sanctions and interventions against other countries.  As long as Europe remains nothing but an extension of Washington, the prospect of Armegeddon will continue to rise.

At this point in time, nuclear war can only be avoided in two ways.

One way is for Russia and China to surrender and accept Washington’s hegemony.

The other way is for an independent leader in Germany, the UK, or France to rise to office and withdraw from NATO.

That would begin a stampede to leave NATO, which is Washington’s prime tool for causing conflict with Russia and, thereby,  is the most dangerous force on earth to every European country and to the entire world.  If NATO continues to exist, NATO together with the neoconservative ideology of American hegemony will make nuclear war inevitable.

Read more at Global Research. . . .


Andrew Anglin – Is Feminized West Really Going to War with Russia?

NATO's defense ministers: From left, defense ministers, Albania's Mimi Kodheli, Netherland's Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Germany's Ursula von der Leyen, Norway's Ine Marie Eriksen Soreide and Italy's Roberta Pinotti

via the Daily Stormer:

[. . .]

It’s difficult to think about what a World War would look like. Even while betting odds would presumably be on the side of the West, I just cannot see as though they have the will necessary for such a fight. Russia obviously does have the will. They also have capable leadership.

The West is run by women and colored people.

Even the top Jews themselves appear to be unhinged, incapable of properly assessing reality. We have passed peak Jew. Kissinger and Soros are nearly dead. The new generation of Jew is a much lesser being.

Obviously, Russia could appeal to the disaffected native populations in Europe. And a war with Russia would also mean a race war in Europe, with all of these Moslems they’ve brought in. It would be very difficult to get people to fight Russia in the name of Islamic immigrants who would then be killing them on the streets at the same time as they were going to fight Russia.

Interesting times.

Pat Buchanan – Is Erdogan’s Turkey a Worthwhile Ally?

[. . .]

But the world that made Turkey such a strategic asset has vanished. Armenia and Georgia are no longer Soviet republics but free nations. The Soviet Empire, Warsaw Pact, and Soviet Union no longer exist, and Balkan nations as well as the Baltic States are members of the EU and NATO.

Turkey is no longer the secular nation-state of Kemal Ataturk, but increasingly hearkens to the Islamic Awakening. In Syria’s civil war, her behavior has not been what one might expect of an ally.

The Turks left the door open for jihadists to join ISIS. They are accused by two Turkish journalists, now facing life in prison, of shipping arms to ISIS. The Turks are charged with permitting ISIS to move oil from the Islamic State into and across Turkey.

Russia, which joined the U.S. in bombing the tanker trucks that move the oil, charges Erdogan’s son with being involved in the black market trade with the caliphate.

Instead of battling ISIS, Erdogan is fighting Kurds in Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan and is threatening to attack Syria’s Kurds if they cross to the west bank of the Euphrates.

Ankara is also becoming dictatorial and repressive.

Erdogan has dismal relations with Egypt and Israel and appears hell-bent on bringing down Bashar Assad in Syria. Yet, Assad’s army remains the sole force standing between ISIS and Damascus.

Erdogan’s Turkey has its own separate national agenda. While understandable, what is of concern is that Erdogan could escalate his clash with Assad’s regime into a clash with Putin’s Russia, which is backing the Syrian regime — and drag us into his war.

And the longer this war goes on, the greater the likelihood of something like this happening.

[. . .]


Pat Buchanan – Stumbling to War With Russia

As it is impossible to believe Turkish F-16 pilots would fire missiles at a Russian plane without authorization from President Tayyip Recep Erdogan, we must ask: Why did the Turkish autocrat do it?

Why is he risking a clash with Russia?

Answer: Erdogan is probably less outraged by intrusions into his air space than by Putin’s success in securing the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad, whom Erdogan detests, and by relentless Russian air strikes on Turkmen rebels seeking to overthrow Assad.

Imperiled strategic goals and ethnicity may explain Erdogan. But what does the Turkish president see down at the end of this road?

And what about us? Was the U.S. government aware Turkey might attack Russian planes? Did we give Erdogan a green light to shoot them down?

These are not insignificant questions.

For Turkey is a NATO ally. And if Russia strikes back, there is a possibility Ankara will invoke Article V of NATO and demand that we come in on their side in any fight with Russia.

And Putin was not at all cowed. Twenty-four hours after that plane went down, his planes, ships and artillery were firing on those same Turkmen rebels and their jihadist allies.

Politically, the Turkish attack on the Sukhoi Su-24 has probably aborted plans to have Russia join France and the U.S. in targeting ISIS, a diplomatic reversal of the first order.


Why Did Turks Shoot Down Russian Plane? To Prevent Russian Troops From Passing the Bosphorus Strait

Unidentified aircraft goes down in Kizildag region of Turkey's Hatay province, close to the Syrian border

Ah, the actions of Turkey now make sense. The incident with the Russian plane, shot down without warning after a mere 17 second incursion, provides some pretext for NATO locking the Russians out of the Bosphorus, bottling up their ground troops in the Black Sea to prevent them from reaching Syria.

Will Obama and the Turks have the fortitude to really uphold this policy in order to protect ISIS oil revenues, depose Assad, and humiliate Putin? If they do, I imagine that Putin will prefer to use a limited ground force that can be transported by air rather than start a nuclear war. He could also transport troops through much longer routes from Russia’s Baltic and Northern naval bases.

It’s funny that the side of NATO, in our support for ISIS and Erdogan’s Muslim Brotherhood, now represents an “evil empire” while Russia is acting as a force for international good and stability.  The slobbering idiots in America, however, only see a revanchist USSR acting aggressively to prop up a dictator, if they even see that much.

Of course, the globalists have planned a third world war for some time, one that would force at least a large portion of the globe to accept international government and a loss of their individual rights. It doesn’t seem like Russia and China are quite ready for such a war, but then neither is Europe or the United States.  There is some chance that this could escalate very quickly.

Pavel Felgengauer said Ankara is seeking to protect a zone in northern Syria controlled by its allies, the Turkmens.

After the downing of the the Russian warplane on Tuesday, Moscow must either accept this zone “or start a war with Turkey” which it could only win by going nuclear, he said.

“It is most likely that it will be war,” said Felgenhauer, an analyst for liberal Novaya Gazeta.

“In other words, more fights will follow when Russian planes attack Turkish aircraft in order to protect our bombers.

” It is possible that there will be fights between the Russian and Turkish navies at sea.”

He warned: “Probably the Turks will shut down the Bosphorus – and other NATO countries will join this conflict.

“And in such a conflict Russia has very little chance unless it uses its nuclear weapons.”

The Bosphorus is the only channel by which Russia’s Black Sea fleet can reach the Mediterranean.

Read more at The Mirror.

DC Whispers – The Real Reason Turkey Shot Down Russian Fighter

DC Whispers claims that the Turks are making money from ISIS oil and that Obama is unduly influenced by Turkey’s Erdogan. He believes that Putin’s humiliation of Obama coupled with the Russian leader’s grave threat to ISIS oil exportation led to the downing of the Russian jet. I would guess that the US and Turkey are trying to provoke a Russian over-reaction? It makes little sense.

Here is an excerpt from that above report regarding the much-publicized 40-minute sit down that took place between Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama at the G20 Summit which was hosted by Turkey:

“…After several tense seconds, President Obama looked away and then began speaking. Putin awaited his own interpreter and with each word from Mr Obama, his smirk became more pronounced. Barack Obama spoke of the need for cooperation, of dealing with Assad, of an international approach to ensure fairness to everyone involved.

Mr. Putin jabbed a finger at the ISIS oil fields photographs and declared them gone. He then rose up from his chair, smiled warmly for the media cameras watching the exchange, and then later gave the now infamous comments that made clear his feelings toward the American president:

Putin Laughs Off Obama At G20 Summit: “He’s A Child…He’s A Child.”

It was Putin who demanded that ISIS oil production be destroyed and it was Putin who set out to do just that as described by this excerpt:

“…Within hours of that meeting, U.S. forces began bombing ISIS oil transport trucks. The Obama White House moved quickly to push the American media to detail those attacks as a show of Barack Obama’s determination to defeat ISIS in an attempt to minimize Putin’s growing influence as the dominant world leader in the war on ISIS. What the White House didn’t disclose (but disgruntled military operatives then leaked) was that it ordered leaflets to be dropped prior to the bombing campaign to allow “innocents” time to escape.

The Obama administration proudly claimed it destroyed 116 ISIS oil transport vehicles.

Russian military then proceeded to decimate over 500 hundred ISIS transport trucks – and did so without prior warning.

Statistically, the Putin-directed response to ISIS is 500% greater than that overseen by Barack Obama which would appear to only reinforce Mr. Putin’s claims of Barack Obama’s childlike approach to dealing with Muslim terrorists.”

Now with the above information in hand, add to it this very important fact:

ISIS has been using Turkey to bring its oil to market and in doing so, has developed a mutually beneficial financial arrangement with the Turkish government – namely Recep Tayyip Erdogan who is potentially making millions of dollars on the side via that arrangement.  Erdogan, perhaps the single most powerful Muslim Brotherhood leader in the world, is of course also very close to Barack Obama. . .

Read more at DC Whispers.

William S. Lind – Russia is Learning While the U.S. is Languishing


Russia under Vladimir Putin has learned from 100 years of defeats and setbacks while the modern American military has learned the wonders of social experimentation.

Mr. Putin . . . began a military modernization program that focused not only on high-profile procurement of new weapons . . . but also on a less-noticed overhaul of training and organization that included reduction in the bloated officer corps and the development of a professional corps of noncommissioned officers.

As any visitor to an American headquarters quickly sees, Russia was not alone in having a bloated officer corps. But ours keeps growing.

We here witness an old military phenomenon: the loser learns while the victor goes to sleep on his pile of trophies. Russia was one of the twentieth century’s big losers, along with Austria and Germany. The defeat in World War I, the Red Revolution, Stalin, Communism’s murder of 60 million Russians, the immense destruction inflicted by World War II, and, with the fall of Communism, Russia’s retreat to roughly the borders she had when Peter the Great came to the throne, add up to a catastrophe Americans cannot grasp.

But Russia is now recovering under President Putin, and her defeats and failures have taught her some things. Among those learning are the Russian military. Several decades ago, the Soviet Army historian John Erickson said to me, “Do you want to understand the Russian army today? Ask yourself what it was like under Nicholas I.” I think that is no longer true.

The laggard now is the U.S. military, happily vegetating in the Second  Generation of modern war, content to lose wars so long as the money keeps flowing, led largely by generals and admirals who are interchangeable in their skills and attitudes with Soviet industrial managers. The quality of the product is not important; what matters is acquiring and justifying resources.

Read more at Traditional Right.

Turkish Prime Minister: I Gave Order to Shoot Down Russia’s Plane Myself

17 seconds in Turkish territory. Apparently downed without warning. Is this deliberately provocative?

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu today revealed that he personally gave the order to down the Russian Su-24 fighter jet that lead to the death of one pilot.

“Despite all the warnings, we had had to destroy the aircraft” Davutoğlu told a meeting of his AK party. “The Turkish Armed Forces carried out orders given by me personally”

Meanwhile, the Russian Defense Minister told reporters today that the Russian and Syrian special forces have successfully completed a rescue operation to rescue the navigator who ejected from the Su-24.

“The Captain has been delivered to our base alive and well,” General Sergei Shoigu said. “I would like to thank all of you for working all night at great risk. They completed the job at 03:40 Moscow time.”

Russia has begun deploying S-400 “Triumph” anti-aircraft batteries near the Hmeimim airbase in Syria, the Defence Ministry announced in a release.

Both Davutoğlu and Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who is the commander in chief of the nation’s armed forces, continued to defend the decision to shoot down the Russian plane saying that his country had the right to defend its national airspace and insisting that the Su-24 had made an incursion into Turkish territory and was downed while still inside Turkey’s airspace.

A letter sent to the UN Security Council by Turkey’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations alleges that the Russian Su-24 spent 17 seconds inside Turkish territory before it was shot down.

NATO announced that the organization agreed with Turkey’s claim and pledged to stand in solidarity with Ankara.

“The Allied assessments we have got from several Allies during the day are consistent with information we have been provided with from Turkey,” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told reporter at press conference. “So the information we have from other Allies is consistent with what we have got from Turkey.”

The United States, however, seems to be privately disagreeing with Ankara’s assessment believing that the Russian jet shot down by Turkey on Tuesday was hit inside Syrian airspace after a brief incursion into Turkish airspace, according to top US official who spoke to Reuters on the condition of anonymity.

Read more at ThinkPol.

Dugin Breaks Year of Silence: Russians are at a New Impass

After nearly a year of silence, Alexander Gelyevich discussed the current results of the Russian Spring, the war in Syria, and the inevitability of a final battle in Donbass in an exclusive interview with “Novorossiya.” [. . .]

[. . .] I’ll repeat once more: the Russian Spring is a requirement of our Russian historical existence. Russia will either be great, or will not be at all. Great Russia – this is not only a territory or expansion, as we do don’t need anything else. And I’m not against the existence of a sovereign Ukraine, if only it would be our ally or partner or, in the least, a neutral, intermediate space. We would like to be together in one state, but on this the citizens of Ukraine must decide. But what exactly shouldn’t be allowed is an Atlanticist occupation of Ukraine. This is a geopolitical axiom. Our enemies perfectly understand that Russia can become great again only together with Ukraine, either unified or having built some kind of balanced alliance. There is no other way. The Russian Spring is impossible without a Eurasian pivot in Ukraine, no matter what form, peaceful or not, that it takes. [. . .]

[. . .] It’s necessary to recognize a simple truth: they won’t leave us alone, and it its best to recognize this immediately. History is always a choice, often a choice in the face of death. The average person runs away from this and tries to barricade himself from problems, but if a government behaves like a layman, then this government is transitory. History begins when the top of the vertical power takes an existential – historic – decision, and this means looking death straight in the face.
It’s possible to try and run away, but history catches up to us no matter what and there are signs that she’s catching up with us. We at least cannot leave Syria without victory. And if they challenge us and rip up the Minsk Agreements in Donbass, then we will need not one victory but two. And I am sure that we are quite ready for this and we can do it. But we need to give up the politics of half a glass. 

Fred Reed – China Sea Blues: A Thing Not to Do

Fred Reed justifiably questions whether the U.S. Navy is really capable of taking on the Chinese.

It appears that Washington, ever a seething cauldron of bright ideas, is looking for a shooting war with China, or perhaps trying to make the Chinese kowtow and back down, the pretext being some rocks in the Pacific in which the United States cannot possibly have a vital national interest. Or, really, any interest. And if the Chinese do not back down? [. . .]

[. . .] The Navy has not been in a war for seventy years. It has sat off various shores and launched aircraft, but the fleet has not been engaged. Over decades of inaction, complacency sets in. Unfortunately, wars regularly turn out to be otherwise than expected. Further, the American military’s standard approach to a war is to underestimate the enemy (there is probably a manual on this).

Yet further, great emotional and financial capital resides in a carrier-battle group, one of the most impressive achievements of the human race. (I mean this: the technology, organization, and competence involved in, say, night flight ops are…”astonishing” is too feeble a word.)

This assures reluctance to question the fleet’s effectiveness in the face of changing conditions. Such as high-Mach, stealthed, maneuvering, sea-skimming cruise missiles. Or terminally guided anti-ship ballistic missiles. America is accustomed to fighting enemies who can’t fight back. This may not include the Chínese.

Read more at The Unz Review

China Warns US Against ‘Minor’ Incidents That Could ‘Spark War’

China Warns US Against ‘Minor’ Incidents That Could ‘Spark War’


The Chinese sound like they are trying to explain a very simple concept to a willful but not particularly bright teenager.  Obama’s government, in other words, might accidentally start something that the U.S. isn’t prepared to finish.

Addressing the issue of US intrusion on Thursday in a video teleconference, Admiral Wu Shengli warned the chief of US naval operations Admiral John Richardson to refrain from further “provocative acts”.

“If the United States continues with these kinds of dangerous, provocative acts, there could well be a seriously pressing situation between frontline forces from both sides on the sea and in the air, or even a minor incident that sparks war,” Wu said, according to a Chinese naval statement.

“(I) hope the US side cherishes the good situation between the Chinese and US navies that has not come easily and avoids these kinds of incidents from happening again,” Wu added.

Commenting on the bilateral exchange during the teleconference, an American official told Reuters that both sides agreed to avoid clashes. The US and Chinese navies also decided to maintain dialogue and follow protocols stipulated under the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES).


Russian Warplanes Buzz USS Ronald Reagan

Testing the waters.

Two Russian warplanes flew within one mile of the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier, forcing the U.S. Navy to launch four fighter jets in response Tuesday, a Navy spokesman told Fox News.

The USS Reagan was sailing in international waters east of the Korean peninsula, Stars and Stripes reports. It adds that the U.S. is currently engaged in joint military exercises with South Korea.

The Russian “Bear Bombers” approached the aircraft carrier at an elevation of 500 feet Tuesday morning, according to Navy spokesman Commander William Marks. He said U.S. F/A-18 Super Hornets escorted the Russian planes as they transited out of the area.

“We would characterize this as still at a safe distance. This kind of interaction is not unprecedented,” Cmdr. Marks told Fox News.

The U.S. had tried to contact the Russian planes but received no radio response, Stars and Stripes adds.

Read more at Fox News

Pat Buchanan – Should We Fight For the Spratly Islands?

Pat Buchanan argues that it is foolish for the U.S. to push China over the South China Sea. If we’re going to stand up to them, why not raise tariffs on Chinese-made goods?

Besides freedom of the seas, what is our vital interest here?

If these islands are Chinese territory, Beijing has the same right to build air and naval bases on them as we do in the Aleutians, Hawaii, Wake and Guam. What do we hope to accomplish by sailing U.S. warships into what China claims to be her territorial waters?

While the ships of the U.S. Seventh Fleet are superior to those of the Chinese navy, China has more submarines, destroyers, frigates and missile boats, plus a vast inventory of ground-based missiles that can target warships at great distances.

In an increasingly nationalist China, Xi Jinping could not survive a climbdown of China’s claims, or dismantlement of what Beijing has built in the South China Sea. President Xi no more appears to be a man to back down than does President Putin.


  • July 2018
    S M T W T F S
    « Dec    
%d bloggers like this: