U.S. re-igniting Cold War in Ukraine and this time Russia may respond with force
For the most part, Russia has remained neutral in America’s covert overthrow and occupation of the Eurasian state’s closest ally in Ukraine. But the days of diplomacy and rhetoric from Russian leadership may quickly be coming to an end as the U.S. Congress voted recently to allow arms sales to flow into Ukraine, and potentially lead to a build-up of missile sites just across from the Russian border.
In response to this vote and potential re-igniting of the once dead Cold War, Russia has warned that any further sanctions or acts of aggression will merit of swift response from their government.
While the market, and America’s media, was focusing over the passage of the Cromnibus, and whether Wall Street would dump a few hundred trillion in derivatives on the laps of US taxpayers once again (it did), quietly and unanimously both houses passed The Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014, which authorizes “providing lethal assistance to Ukraine’s military” as well as sweeping sanctions on Russia’s energy sector.
The measure mandates sanctions against Rosoboronexport, the state agency that promotes Russia’s defense exports and arms trade. It also would require sanctions on OAO Gazprom (GAZP), the world’s largest extractor of natural gas, if the state-controlled company withholds supplies to other European nations (yes, the US is now in the pre-emptive punishment business, and is enforcing sanctions on a “what if” basis).
And as has happened for the entire duration of the second Cold War, any action by the US was promptly met with a just as provocative reaction by Russia. In this case, a leftist member of the Russian Duma said the US Senate’s decision to arm the Kiev regime should prompt ‘adequate measures’ from Russia, such as deploying military force on Ukrainian territory before the threat becomes too high. – Zerohedge
Since 2008, and even leading back to the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003, the United States has desperately attempted to create a major war to help boost their recessionary economy, and strike down growing opposition to its reserve currency hegemony under the petro-dollar. However, in late 2013 Russia entered the game and forced Washington to capitulate in both Syria and Iran, and their reaction to this was the covert overthrow of Russia’s former ally Ukraine in late December.
America is a spent empire, no longer offering the world peace and economic freedom that were the foundations of the once ‘great experiment’. And now, like the dying Roman Empire of centuries prior, the U.S. is left only with wars of aggression to sustain itself and its place in the world, and appears to be willing now to escalate tensions with Russia once again to the point where the Cold War that was once put to rest, is again rising up from the grave.
Ron Paul Says Republican Control Of Senate Means More Wars Are Coming
Former US Congressman Ron Paul, father of Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) celebrated the victory of Republicans taking control of the senate by tweeting a dire prediction. Some are already saying he’s going to be a big liability to his son if the younger Paul decides to run for president.
From Ezra Klein’s Vox.com:
Here’s the big issue. Both Ron and Rand Paul share a commitment to downsizing America’s involvement in foreign wars. But while Ron is an absolutist more interested in speaking his mind than building allies in the Republican party, Rand is a strategist who’s built a version of foreign policy non-interventionism designed to succeed in the actual Republican party.
This isn’t to say that Rand agrees with Ron on everything and is lying to voters. That doesn’t appear to be true: Rand has long had a different vision of the world than Ron. But not everyone believes that. A number of media reports have already linked Rand and his ideas to Ron’s ideas, each time providing grist for the anti-Rand Paul mill among more hawkish Republicans.
And Rand Paul is already facing an uphill battle on that front. The Republican consensus on foreign policy is considerably more aggressive than Rand’s views are. He’s trying to gently nudge them in a different direction — but the more he’s linked to father’s extreme — and sometimes outright crankish — views, the harder that’s going to be. Ron Paul is toxic among Republican elites, exactly the kind of people Rand needs to win over in his presidential bid.
Which is why things like this tweet are so problematic. For one thing, Ron’s prediction here is kind of crankish: the president, not Congress, will determine whether US soldiers go to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Moreover, he’s implicitly saying that Democrats (as the somewhat less interventionist party) are better if you hold views like his — or Rand’s. When Ron says things like this in a high profile way — say, on election night — it raises questions about Rand-Ron links among exactly the wrong people.
Paul the elder seems to have gotten even crankier in recent years (grumpy, not crazy), what with his very controversial tweets he has made such as when he tweeted “live by the sword, die by the sword,” after famous American sniper Chris Kyle was killed. Paul didn’t sound optimistic about much of anything last night when he started his election coverage by tweeting.