There are early disruptions against Trump’s peaceful engagement with Russia, aside from the protracted protests of virtually non-issue subjects.
Recently, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), an alliance of Arab and Kurdish forces in northern Syria, has also received armored vehicles from the US, indicating increased support from Washington under the administration of President Donald Trump.
Trump administration sends armored vehicles to Syrian rebels
The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), an alliance of Arab and Kurdish forces in northern Syria, has received armored vehicles from the US, indicating increased support from Washington under the administration of President Donald Trump.
A small number of vehicles arrived four or five days ago, SDF spokesman Talal Silo told Reuters.
“Previously we didn’t get support in this form, we would get light weapons and ammunition,” he added. “There are signs of full support from the new American leadership – more than before – for our forces.”
Why would the Pentagon do that under his administration?
The only logical answer is to continue milking the American taxpayers of their billions.
By now, most of you may have read about the recent DF-41 ICBMs deployment of the Chinese, in response to Trump lieutenant’s attempt to “fix Southeast Asia”.
Say Hello to China’s ICBMs
China’s alleged deployment of a DF-41 strategic ballistic missile brigade to Heilongjiang province, bordering Russia, triggered a fascinating spectacle; how to spin – or not to spin – what necessarily represents a milestone in Russia-China’s strategic partnership.
The Global Times stressed Hong Kong and Taiwan media interpreted pictures of the DF-41 were taken in Heilongjiang, admitting there was no official confirmation from Beijing while hoping the “strategic edge” would soon be confirmed.
Russian media was way more explicit, with military analyst Konstantin Sivkov stressing that the DF-41, as positioned, would not be able to target Russia’s Far East and most of Eastern Siberia; and Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov noting that “if the reports prove correct, the military build-up in China is not perceived as a threat to our country.”
Of course not. The Russia-China strategic partnership, which, as I argued, needs to be broken according to Trump’s shadow foreign policy adviser Henry Kissinger’s strategy, is a very serious business. If there were indeed a deployment, Russian intelligence would have been fully aware. Peskov’s response also pre-empted the notion this might represent a Chinese response to potential US-Russia negotiations over nuclear disarmament.
Still, all of the above did not prevent the Chinese Foreign Ministry to issue an attempt at a non-denial denial, describing the alleged deployment as “speculation and crude guesses”.
Go West, young missile
The timing of the alleged deployment, with Team Trump doubling down on anti-Chinese rhetoric on their war of positioning geared to extract further trade concessions, may indeed betray a very graphic Beijing message.
The DF-41, a three-stage solid-propellant missile, with a range of up to 15,000 km and capable of delivering up to 10 MIRVed nuclear warheads, is one of the most sophisticated – and secret — ICBMS on earth. Virtually everything about it is classified. Positioning in Heilongjiang, near the city of Daqing, close to the Russian border, implies a huge “dead zone” around it. So call it a mix of nuclear deterrence and a “message” to the ultimate target — the West Coast of the United States.
This propels the matter to an even more serious sphere than a possible upcoming crisis in the South China Sea, where the Pentagon, under the pretext of “freedom of navigation”, is obsessed in maintaining “access”, Trump or no Trump.
It is our opinion that even the Pentagon will never wish to go to war with either Russia or China, but the monkey on its back, i.e. the military industrial complex, needs to have its periodic fix in order to sustain itself. There simply is big, unaccountable money in war, or even just a shadow of it.
US Spent $11B To Bomb Daesh – Pentagon
Sputnik 22:03 23.01.2017(updated 00:59 24.01.2017)
Operation Inherent Resolve costs American taxpayers about $12.5 million per day, according to the latest Pentagon data. Considering the US has led a coalition of mostly NATO allies in the fight since June 2014, the most recent estimate of US spending on the fight against ISIS comes out to be about $10.7 billion. At the end of 2015 the US had shelled out $5.5 billion for its war effort.
Air support consumed a plurality of taxpayer money. The Air Force spent more than other defense services, chipping in $6 billion to initiate at least 17,000 strikes to date, according to DoDBuzz, an arm of Military.com. During the US-led November 2016 barrage of Mosul, aircraft rained bombs and Hellfire missiles onto the city approximately every 8 minutes, a military official said. “It’s a really high rate to be concentrated over a one city over a prolonged period of time,” Col. Daniel Manning said at the time in an interview with Military.com.
While the Pentagon has touted F-35s stealth capabilities for years, for fighter jets and support aircraft in the Middle East theater, where Manning serves, “being seen is actually a pretty good thing,” he said. “Frankly, we want our partners and the enemy to see the airpower [the B-52 Stratofortress] has overhead” since the Boeing-made heavy bomber “encourages our partner force that we have their back.”
US military estimates have reported that Daesh’s territory has been halved since the start of Operation Inherent Resolve. Recent airstrikes in Palmyra, Syria, destroyed 168 enemy oil tankers and over 20 enemy oil cargo ships, DoD officials said. Oil holdings are thought to be one of Daesh’s key sources of funding for its war operations.
As it looks today, war is not only a racket, but a psychopathic addiction, and the only cure is a surgical sniper bullet.
Is Trump Being Sabotaged By The Pentagon?
by Paul Craig Roberts
President Trump says he wants the US to have better relations with Russia and to halt military operations against Muslim countries. But he is being undermined by the Pentagon.
The commander of US forces in Europe, General Ben Hodges, has lined up tanks on Poland’s border with Russia and fired salvos that the general says are a message to Russia, not a training exercise.
How is Trump going to normalize relations with Russia when the commander of US forces in Europe is threatening Russia with words and deeds?
The Pentagon has also sent armored vehicles to “moderate rebels” in Syria, according to Penagon spokesman Col. John Dorrian. Unable to prevent Russia and Syria from winning the war against ISIS, the Pentagon is busy at work derailing the peace negotiations.
The military/security complex is using its puppets-on-a-string in the House and Senate to generate renewed conflict with Iran and to continue threats against China.
Clearly, Trump is not in control of the most important part of his agenda—peace with the thermo-nuclear powers and cessation of interference in the affairs of other countries.
Trump cannot simultaneously make peace with Russia and make war on Iran and China. The Russian government is not stupid. It will not sell out China and Iran for a deal with the West. Iran is a buffer against jihadism spilling into Muslim populations in the Russian Federation. China is Russia’s most important military and economic strategic ally against a renewal of US hostility toward Russia by Trump’s successor, assuming Trump succeeds in reducing US/Russian tensions. The neoconservatives with their agenda of US world hegemony and their alliance with the military-security complex will outlast the Trump administration.
Moreover, China is rising, while the corrupt and dehumanized West is failing. A deal with the West is worth nothing. Countries that make deals with the West are exposed to financial and political exploitation. They become vassals. There are no exceptions.
Russia’s desire to be part of the West is perplexing. Russia should build its security on relations with China and Asia, and let the West, desirous of participating in this success, come to Russia to ask for a deal.
Why be a supplicant when you can be the decider?
Remember, the last two world wars were fought outside of the United States mainland which created the illusion of American invincibility – that same invincibility which led them to fully support the “war on terror,” and the Vietnam War before that, until the body bags started coming in.
Imagined those who experienced it first hand, and how they refused to experience it again.
What we are trying to say is that it’s too convenient for anybody to applaud the planned revitalization of the US military sector, just because they haven’t experienced a nuclear war at home. Unemployment reduction can never justify the needless deaths in the aftermath of its use.
When a real war erupts with either of the undefeated giants or both, we don’t think that the United States will ever survive, and the Pentagon knows that. All this talk of war is only to create an atmosphere of animosity, so that the respective military arms industry within each country will continue on with their production. The only difference is: the Western arms companies are doing it solely to make profits. Hence, the expensive development of new equipment that don’t work as designed.
Whatever the US government spends on its military, in NATO, or any amount of aid to Israel, or even the Philippines, all go to the military industrial complex, because before anything is approved, it carries with it a provision that it has to be spent only in military hardware acquisition and intelligence.
Anything spent on intelligence is much harder to audit, of course, but it doesn’t mean that arms and ammunition deliveries cannot be faked, too. Remember the $500 million US defense budget to train five moderate rebels in Syria?
In order to sell their hardware, the military industrial complex needs only to create the atmosphere of war, at its barest minimum. This should include bloated data of the enemy’s military capability and deployment, or an actual deployment of troops and war materiel along Russia’s border through a military exercise. Missile tests also provide the same results.
The mainstream media will then take care of the rest. Now, the airwaves are in a state of war. The population tries to verify and look at the imaginary doomsday clock, and it’s closer than ever to midnight.
Doomsday Clock Closest To Midnight Since 1954
The Doomsday Clock has inched closer to and farther from nuclear Armageddon since the Manhattan Project in 1947. On Thursday, the clock moved closer to Midnight — the closest it has been since 1954.
MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:
We try to present the sweet with the bitter, which is another way of saying the news is not all doom and gloom. But we’re going to really lay into the doom part for the next few minutes because on Thursday, the world ticked half a step closer to Armageddon – that at least according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the Doomsday Clock. Every year since 1947, a board of scientists has considered the year’s developments in politics, energy, weapons, diplomacy and climate science. They determine how imminent the end of civilization appears to be with the end visualized as midnight on a clock. For the last two years, the clock has been set at three minutes to midnight. But this week, the clock moved to two and a half minutes to midnight.
Here to talk about that decision and all that goes into it is Lawrence Krauss. He’s a theoretical physicist at Arizona State University. He’s a prolific science writer, who often weighs in on public policy issues. And he is chairman of the board of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which decides the Doomsday Clock. And he’s with us now. Thank you so much for joining us.
LAWRENCE KRAUSS: It’s great to be with you virtually.
MARTIN: So what are the factors that went into deciding to move the clock this year?
KRAUSS: Well, as usual, we look at many different factors from the likelihood of nuclear war, the tensions around the world through climate change and even looking at new emerging technologies. When it comes to nuclear weapons, in the last year, there’s been a lot of saber-rattling, in particular a lot of irresponsible statements from the new president of the United States, but equally vitriolic statements, in some sense, by the president of Russia as well.
There is the fact that we haven’t moved towards reduction of nuclear weapons and there, in fact, has been discussion of the possible increase in nuclear weapons, at a time when, in fact, we signed a treaty many years ago called the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which not only required other nations not to obtain nuclear weapons but the nuclear nations to try and disarm. And we’re essentially violating that treaty.
MARTIN: When was the last time the Doomsday Clock was this close to midnight?
KRAUSS: It’s been 64 years. The last time the clock was closer than this was in 1953 when the then-Soviet Union exploded its huge hydrogen bomb for the first time. And that really began the modern arms race. And so in the lifetime of many of the people listening to you and me today, the clock has never been closer. And that certainly is a cause for concern.
Fear that is sold by an expert, or an authority, makes the whole narrative more credible in the eyes of the Goyim, who happens to diligently pay his dues to the government — that’s the barest minimum that is required in order to sell the solution that the system can only provide.