The Myth of a Russian 'Threat'
Not a week goes by without the Pentagon carping about an ominous
By Pepe Escobar
August 27, 2015 "Information
Clearing House" - "Sputnik"
- Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin
Dempsey entered certified Donald “known unknown” Rumsfeld territory
when he recently tried to conceptualize the “threat”; “Threats are
the combination, or the aggregate, of capabilities and intentions.
Let me set aside for the moment, intentions, because I don’t know
what Russia intends.”
So Dempsey admits he does not know what he’s talking about. What he
seems to know is that Russia is a “threat” anyway — in space, cyber
space, ground-based cruise missiles, submarines.
And most of all, a threat to NATO; “One of the
things that Russia does seem to do is either discredit, or even more
ominously, create the conditions for the failure of NATO.”
So Russia “does seem” to discredit an already
self-discredited NATO. That’s not much of a “threat”.
All these rhetorical games take place while NATO
“does seem” to get ready for a direct confrontation with Russia. And
make no mistake; Moscow does view NATO’s belligerence as a real
It’s PGS vs. S-500
The “threat” surge happens just as US Think Tankland
recharges the notion of containment of Russia. Notorious CIA front
Stratfor has peddled a propaganda piece praising Cold War mastermind
as the author of the “containment of Russia” policy.
The US intel apparatus don’t do irony; before he
died, Kennan said it was now the US that had to be contained, not
Containment of Russia – via the expansion of the
EU and NATO — has always been a work in progress because the
geopolitical imperative has always been the same; as Dr. Zbigniew
“The Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski never tired of stressing, it was
always about preventing the – threatening — emergence of a Eurasian
power capable of challenging the US.
Ultimately, the notion of “containment” can be
stretched out towards the dismantling of Russia itself. It also
carries the inbuilt paradox that NATO’s infinite expansion eastwards
has made Eastern Europe less, not more, safe.
Assuming there would even be a lethal Russia-NATO
confrontation, Russian tactical nuclear weapons would knock out all
NATO airports in less than twenty minutes. Dempsey – cryptically –
admits as much.
What he cannot possibly admit is if a decision had
been made in Washington, a long time ago, preventing NATO’s infinite
expansion, Russia’s concerted move to upgrade its nuclear weapon
arsenal would have been unnecessary.
Geopolitically, the Pentagon
has finally seen which way the – strategic partnership – wind is
blowing; towards Russia-China. This major game-changing shift in the
global balance of power also translates as the combined military
assets of China and Russia exceeding NATO’s.
In terms of military power Russia has superior
offensive and defensive missiles over the US, with the new
generation surface-to-air missile system, the S-500, capable
of intercepting supersonic targets and totally sealing Russian
Moreover, despite short-term financial turbulence,
the Sino-Russian combined strategy for Eurasia – an interpenetration
of the New Silk Road(s) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) – is
bound to develop their economies and the region at large to an
extent that may surpass the EU and the US combined by 2030.
What’s left for NATO is to stage military strength
made-for-TV shows such as “Atlantic Resolve” to “reassure the
region”, especially hysteria-prone Poland and the Baltics.
Moscow, meanwhile, has made it clear that nations
deploying US-owned anti-ballistic missile systems in their territory
will face missile early-warning systems deployed in Kaliningrad.
And Major General Kirill Makarov, Russia’s
Aerospace Defense Forces’ deputy chief, has already made it clear
Moscow is upgrading its air and missile defense capabilities
to smash any – real — threat by the US Prompt Global Strike (PGS).
In the December 2014 Russian military doctrine,
NATO’s military build-up and PGS are listed as Russia’s top security
threats. Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov has stressed, “Russia
is capable of and will have to develop a system like PGS.”
Where’s our loot?
The Pentagon’s rhetorical games also serve to mask
a real high-stakes process; essentially an energy war – centering
on the control of oil, natural gas and mineral resources of Russia
and Central Asia. Will this wealth be controlled by oligarch
frontmen “supervised” by their masters in New York and London, or
by Russia and its Central Asian partners? Thus the relentless
A case can be made that the Masters of the
Universe have resurrected the same old containment/threat
geopolitical alibis – peddled by what we could dub the Brzezinski/Stratfor
connection — to cover, or conceal, another stark fact.
And the fact is that the
real reason for Cold War 2.0 is New York/London financial power
suffering a trillion dollar-plus loss when President Putin extracted
Russia from their looting schemes.
And the same applies to the entire Kiev coup —
forced through by the same New York/London financial powers to block
Putin from destroying their looting operations in Ukraine (which,
by the way, proceed unabated, at least in the agricultural domain).
Containment/threat is also deployed on overdrive
to prevent by all means a strategic partnership between Russia and
Germany – which the Brzezinski/Stratfor connection sees as an
existential threat to the US.
The connection’s wet dreams – shared,
incidentally, by the neo-cons – would be a glorious return to the
looting phase of Russia in the 1990s, when the Russian
industrial-military complex had collapsed and the West was
plundering natural resources to Kingdom Come.
It’s not going to happen ever again. So what’s the
Pentagon Plan B? To create the conditions of turning Europe into a
potential theater of nuclear war. Now that’s a real threat – if
there ever was one.