The US-NATO military alliance is preparing for war, and the western media are playing its game.
In straight reporting of news, the UK’s Guardian newspaper is one of the really few in the western media that preserves balance and objectivity. Its century-old motto, after all, is “Remark is complimentary, however realities are sacred” which “suggests honesty, cleanness, nerve, fairness, a sense of duty to the reader and the neighborhood” and by and big it follows and abides by this admirable maxim.
This made it surprising and disturbing to check out a heading on December 29 notifying us that “Biden to speak to Putin in the middle of Russia’s increased existence near Ukraine” because three days previously France 24, for instance, had noted that 10,000 Russian troops had actually finished winter military exercises and were going back to their bases. Even Fox News brought an item pointing out the troop movement, albeit highlighting a look by former Secretary of State Pompeo when he cautioned that “Vladimir Putin will continue to push the U.S. as a result of weak management.”
There was no mention in the Washington Post of the regular troop deployment, although on December 28 The New York City Times report of impending US-Russia talks acknowledged that “the statement came shortly after Russia declared that 10,000 fight and unique forces troops performing workouts were going back to their barracks. However that move occurred at some distance from Ukraine …” On the exact same day, the UK’s Daily Mail reported that “the Pentagon has ordered the USS Harry S. Truman and its carrier group to stay in the Mediterranean Sea amidst increasing stress in the Ukraine as Russian soldiers stay on its border … The schedule change, authorized by Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, is to reassure European allies of United States dedication to regional security, an official told the new outlet, without discussing the continuous Russian military build-up on the eastern border of Ukraine.”
It was not unexpected that the Mail expanded on the “ongoing military accumulation” by among other things informing its readers that “Russia has actually put together 100,000 soldiers along the Ukrainian border, prompting fears of an invasion”– then adding the throwaway line that “Although, ahead of the revealed talks, Putin drew back 10,000 soldiers.”
It is disappointing that the western mainstream media hesitates to mention anything favourable about Russia. Certainly, the redeployment of 10,000 soldiers was planned well ahead of time and would have been popular to western intelligence firms whose activities around Russia’s borders are extreme (with the United States installing missions by E-8 electronic warfare aircraft on December 27 and 29), but it is still a news product of significance that must be made known to the general public. Rather of keeping in mind positive advancements, however, such outlets as the Post concentrate on matters that will lessen or perhaps destroy western views that Russia desires peace and things justifiably to the motion towards its borders of combat soldiers of the US-NATO military alliance.
The US journal Stars and Stripes reported NATO’s supreme commander and head of U.S. European Command, General Tod Wolters, as stating on December 18 that he “wishes to enhance NATO’s eastern flank with international battlegroups in Romania and Bulgaria since of issues about Russia’s walk around Ukraine”. NATO’s HQ in Brussels “didn’t directly deal with Wolters’ proposition” when questioned about it, and it seems the strategy is still under conversation, although, as Stripes explained, “adding battlegroups in Romania and Bulgaria would be in line with more recent efforts by NATO to boost its position around the Black Sea, a tactical waterway where Russia has been progressively assertive … The majority of NATO’s efforts since 2014 have focused on supporting defences around the Baltics and Poland, where U.S. troops lead a battlegroup simply 50 miles from the Russian military exclave of Kaliningrad.”
It appears that the United States considers itself entitled, certainly obliged to deploy hot-for-war battlegroups fifty miles from Russia’s border, while publicly condemning the Moscow government for performing military exercises in its own area. HQ NATO describes the battle groups in its “forward existence in the eastern part of the Alliance” as “robust and combat-ready forces” which “can be rapidly reinforced by additional forces and abilities” in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.
NATO’s “improved forward presence” around Russia’s borders is at variation with the Standard Army in Europe Treaty which was planned, as noted by the independent and objective Arms Control Association, to prevent Russia and NATO “from amassing forces for a blitzkrieg-type offensive …” and included constraints on irreversible positioning of outdoors forces. US-NATO has actually overcome this problem by turning its battlegroups and hence abiding by the letter although certainly not the spirit of the Treaty, which sums up the policy of fight that has been the frequent style of the Pentagon-Brussels alliance for so long.
In its cover of the Putin-Biden talks on December 30 The New York City Times mentioned that “Mr. Putin consistently implicated the United States and NATO nations of positioning offensive weapons near Russia’s borders, threatening the country’s security” which had actually apparently “puzzled” United States authorities who– said the Times— believed he might have been referring to Javelin anti-tank weapons “and other small munitions” offered to Ukraine by United States manufacturers. However the NYT declared it had actually “ended up being progressively clear” that Moscow indicates nuclear missiles “restricted by a treaty that Moscow broke for numerous years, and President Trump deserted.” Then the Times tried to make matters a little clearer by referring to Washington’s policy as explained by Jake Sullivan, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.
Mr Sullivan offered a talk to the Council on Foreign relations on December 17 in which he was asked a concern about United States offensive weapons near Russia’s borders. His answer was intended to be eminently intelligible, keeping in mind that “as we speak [we are] continuing to provide defensive support to Ukraine. Just last week, another plan of that support gotten here. More will be arriving. We have a pipeline. There is an absorptive capacity concern. But we are constantly examining extra requirements that Ukraine has, putting together prospective plans. And those packages are actively under consideration.” On the other hand, Mr Sullivan appeared diffident about defining the difference between protective and offending weapons, as he appears to think of that the previous are invariably utilized by the US and its military allies whereas the latter are the unique provenance of those against whom the defensive category are intended.
He then described that “this is not a problem of stating yes or no to one piece of equipment or one plan. We are moving a pipeline. As we do so, we take a look at more things we can move, and after that more, and so forth. Therefore that is the nature of the way that we are taking a look at defensive help. And we don’t move into our calculus a specific perspective on Russia’s attitude or not. It has to do with our evaluation of needs and the pipeline and the actions that are being taken to presently provide support. That’s how we’re approaching that question.”
That rather opaque statement is yet another arrow in the quiver of western disinformation regarding the US-NATO military build-up, the “improved forward existence” along Russia’s borders in NATO nations and especially in Ukraine that does not yet have a formal alliance with the US, although as CNN notified us on December 8, “in November, about 150 members of the Florida National Guard’s Job Force Gator deployed to Ukraine as part of the Joint Multinational Training Group-Ukraine … The Pentagon did not disclose how many unique forces were in Ukraine because of functional security issues.”
Offending preparation is frequently camouflaged in the media by the every-ready “operational security” refrain, just as offensive weapons are all of a sudden developed into protective “systems” when their apparent function can not conveniently be otherwise concealed. These are simply parts of the general propaganda project. The US-NATO military alliance is preparing for war, and the western media are playing its game.