There is a marked unease in US military and defence industry circles regarding advances in high-precision hypersonic weapons that they believe are being actively developed in Russia and the People’s Republic of China. The debates at various US forums in the second half of the 20th century and the beginning […]
The US must fully comply with the INF and New START treaties without any preconditions and ultimatums on the basis of a fundamental principle that has existed since time immemorial: pacta sunt servanda (“agreements must be kept”). What it must not do is wriggle out of them using flimsy pretexts and blame others for their own “non-compliance”.
To quote Field Marshal Montgomery, who had more experience in big wars and standing on the victory podium than any US general since MacArthur: “Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: ‘Do not march on Moscow’”. His second rule, by the way, was: “Do not go fighting with your land armies in China.”
What are the options available with Paris and Berlin over Ukraine vis-à-vis Russia? The faultlines in their relations with Trump seriously weaken their capacity to cope with Russian resurgence.
President Macron is often presented as a Rothschild Boy. This is true, but secondary. He owes his electoral campaign mostly to Henry Kravis, the boss of one of the world’s largest financial companies, and to NATO – a considerable debt which weighs heavily today on the solution to the Yellow Vests crisis.
Accusing one’s adversaries of the exact same thing that you yourself are doing is a classic method of deflecting attention from one’s own actions by pretending that you’re being victimized by the selfsame, which therefore “justifies” escalating tensions.
No doubt, the steady build-up of NATO on Russia’s western border provides the backdrop to the demise of the INF Treaty. The US seeks a shift in the strategic balance in its favor. And it is shaking off all constraints limiting its arms build-up.
By taking to the streets, the French have become the first Western population to take personal risks to oppose financial globalisation. Although they do not realise it, and still imagine that their problems are exclusively national, their enemy is the same force that crushed the region of the African Great Lakes and a part of the Greater Middle East.
Russia and Europe do not need any kind of arms race or any type of war – be it limited or all-out one. So, why not to reach arms control agreements between Russia and Europe separately from the USA in order to maintain stable European security on completely different footing? Only political will is required.
Ironically, Trump’s evident hatred for Europe and calls by his neocon Praetorian Guard for the US to dominate the entire globe have made Europe turn away from its old subservience to Washington and talk about real independence. But building true Euro-armed forces will be frightfully expensive and politically fraught.
Unfortunately, Heiko Maas’ plan to strengthen arms control is poorly thought out and does not take adequate account of the true state of affairs in this area. His proposal puts the diametrically opposed military and political policies of the United States and Russia on an equal footing internationally and is also unbalanced with regard to China.
Canada’s very lenient immigration regime that practically amounts to a policy of “open borders” made the country an ideal destination for these terrorist-linked forces to flee to, where the government could always try to justify its decision under any future pressure on the grounds of guilting the populace into accepting what the Mainstream Media portrays as “innocent victims of the Assad regime”.