ELDER PARIOT – Donald Trump has come under fire by Neocons for wanting to work with Russia instead of going to war with them. This immediately raises the question, what is to be gained from hostilities between nuclear powers and what price would be paid?
In a series of tweets yesterday the President-elect let those calling for a military strike against Russia, in response to the ginned up narrative that Russia hacked our election,” know that he would be taking a more responsible approach. A more charitable media would say he was pursuing détente but not our mainstream establishment media. Keep in mind fourteen intelligence agencies refused to lend their names to the report because the report relied exclusively on suppositions and offered little evidence.
Fred Feltz, who held U.S. government national security positions for 25 years with the CIA, DIA, and the House Intelligence Committee staff and also served as Chief of Staff to John R. Bolton when he was Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security in the George W. Bush administration, analyzed the report and came to this conclusion:
“The new intelligence report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election broke so radically with the way objective and authoritative intelligence community assessments are supposed to be produced that it appears to have been rigged to support a pre-ordained set of conclusions to undermine President-elect Trump.”
“The Office of Director of National Intelligence, which co-authored the October memo, did not draft or clear Friday’s report, nor did other members of the U.S Intelligence Community with important equities in this issue such as DIA and the State Department’s Intelligence and Research Bureau (INR).
“The declassified Russian report also lacks standard boilerplate language that it was coordinated within the U.S. Intelligence Community. This language usually reads: “This memorandum was prepared by the National Intelligence Council and was coordinated with the US Intelligence Community” or “this is an IC-coordinated assessment.”
Fortunately Donald Trump is prepared to take the heat that the Neocon warmongers are going to generate with the help of their megaphone in the mainstream establishment media (MSEM).
Instead, Mr. Trump plans on doing what he does best negotiate a good deal for both sides. Politicians need bogeymen to perpetually campaign against so they can position themselves as saviors and heroes. Businessmen look for common ground upon which to structure a productive relationship so that all parties win from coming together in agreement. No one is better at this than Mr. Trump.
So yesterday Mr. Trump avoided the filter of the MSEM, as he has successfully done since announcing his candidacy, and made these points directly to the American people.
As Pat Buchanan notes, “A soft answer turneth away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger,” reads Proverbs 15:1. “
After 13 years of endless wars Americans do not appear anxious to engage in any further military adventurism, especially one of this magnitude.
Putin clearly views President-elect Trump as offering the more hopeful future for relations between the two nations than sabre rattling Hillary Clinton did.
Since Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev embraced each other freeing Eastern Europe from Soviet oppression our relationship with Russia has gone downhill.
There is blame and distrust to go around on both sides but we have given at least as well as we have received. A reasoned observer would conclude we instigated every Russian response under cover provided by the compliant MSEM.
The Russian location of nuclear-capable missiles in Kaliningrad was only undertaken after George W. Bush violated a forty-year old ABM treaty and Obama stationed anti-missile missiles in Poland.
W. previously violated the commitment his father made to Gorbachev to not move NATO into Eastern Europe if the Red Army was withdrawn from the Baltic States.
John McCain’s accusation in 2008 that Russia invaded Georgia is technically correct but it came only after Georgia had invaded South Ossetia. Russian peacekeepers were killed during the invasion but Putin withdrew from Georgia after the conflict was settled.
Most recently the conflict in Syria has stoked animosities between our countries but it was Obama and Clinton who were responsible for starting the war and for arming the rebels who attacked the longtime Russian ally. Do we not reserve the same position in defense of our allies?
The list of hotspots and who bears the most blame extends to Crimea and Donetsk and Luhansk.
A look at the map of NATO positions surrounding Russia and the entirety of the Asian continent reveals a situation we would never tolerate in our own hemisphere.
With such strategic military advantages why are we so quick to dismiss negotiating with Putin? Perhaps the Neocons can explain how their desire to bring Russia to heel isn’t related to their globalist aspirations of a single government new world order.
It’s against this backdrop that Putin welcomes a Trump presidency in spite of Trump’s promises to increase our defense budget, to accelerate the modernization of our nuclear arsenal, to accelerate development and deployment of ballistic missile defenses, and to expand and accelerate oil and gas production inside the U.S. that would cause serious harm to the Russian economy.
What more proof does one need that Putin is prepared to work with Trump?