Guest Post: NATO Is Building Up For War

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brian Cloughley via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity,

undefined

The German city of Frankfurt is continental Europe’s largest financial center and host to the country’s Stock Exchange, countless other financial institutions, and the headquarters of the European Central Bank (ECB) which is responsible for administering the monetary policy of the 18-nation Eurozone. The place is awash with money, as demonstrated by the plush new ECB office building which is costing a fortune.

The original price of the bank’s enormous palace was supposed to be 500 million euros, about 550 million dollars, but the bill has now been admitted as €1.3 billion (£930 m; $1.4 bn). This absurdly over-expensive fiasco was directed by the people who are supposed to steer the financial courses of 18 nations and their half billion unfortunate citizens. If the ECB displays similar skill sets in looking after Europe’s money as it has in controlling the cost of constructing its huge twin-tower headquarters, then Europe is in for a rocky time.

Intriguingly, the Bank isn’t alone in contributing to Europe’s bureaucratic building boom. There is another Europe-based organization of equal ambition, pomposity and incompetence which is building a majestically expensive and luxurious headquarters with a mammoth cost overrun about which it is keeping very quiet indeed.

The perpetrator of this embarrassing farce is NATO, the US-Canada-European North Atlantic Treaty Organization which is limping out of Afghanistan licking its wounds, having been fighting a bunch of sandal-wearing rag-clad amateur irregulars who gave the hi-tech forces of the West a very hard time in a war whose outcome was predictable. But the debacle hasn’t dimmed the vision of the zealous leaders of NATO who are confronting Russia in order to justify the existence of their creaking, leaking, defeated dinosaur. Their problem is not only do they lose wars, but they then look for another one to fight — to be directed from a glittery new and vastly expensive building whose cost has soared above all estimates.

Just like NATO’s wars.

NATO’s operation "Unified Protector" to overthrow Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi involved a massive aerial blitz of 9,658 airstrikes which ended with the gruesome murder of Gadhafi — and caused collapse of Libya into an omnishambles where fanatics of the barbarous Islamic State are now establishing themselves.

In spite of the horror of NATO’s Libyan catastrophe one does have to have a quiet smile about Ivo H. Daalder and James G Stavridis whose deeply researched analysis in the journal Foreign Affairs in 2012 was titled "NATO’s Victory in Libya." These sages declared that “NATO’s operation in Libya has rightly been hailed as a model intervention . . . NATO’s involvement in Libya demonstrated that the alliance remains an essential source of stability . . . NATO may not be able to replicate its success in Libya in another decade. NATO members must therefore use the Chicago summit to strengthen the alliance by ensuring that the burden sharing that worked so well in Libya — and continues in Afghanistan today — becomes the rule, not the exception.”

Not much is working well in either Libya or Afghanistan two years after the Daalder-Stavridis advocacy of “burden sharing” and it is obvious that NATO has been the opposite of a “source of stability” in both unfortunate countries.

In October 2005 I wrote that “NATO is to increase its troop numbers in Afghanistan to 15,000 and its secretary-general states that instead of acting as a peacekeeping force it will assume the combat role of US troops, which is insane . . .  The insurgency in Afghanistan will continue until foreign troops leave, whenever that might be. After a while, the government in Kabul will collapse and there will be anarchy until a brutal, ruthless, drug-rich warlord achieves power. He will rule the country as it has always been ruled by Afghans: by threats, religious ferocity, deceit, bribery, and outright savagery when the latter can be practiced without retribution. And the latest foreign occupation will become just another memory.”

The number of US-NATO troops in Afghanistan has been reduced from a high of 130,000 to 13,000, of which some 10,000 are US, but NATO’s new headquarters building in Brussels is expanding in both size and cost. The budget for the immense complex was approved at 460 million Euros (500 million US dollars) in 2010 but has now surged to over 1.25 billion Euros, about 1.4 billion dollars.

Germany’s Der Spiegel reported in January that the scandal of the cost overrun was being kept secret by all governments contributing to this redundant organization. A leaked cable from Germany’s ambassador explained that at a meeting of NATO representatives last December they “pointed to the disastrous effect on the image of the alliance if construction were to stop and if NATO appeared to be incapable of punctually completing a construction project that was decided at the NATO summit of government leaders in April 1999 in Washington. The risk of a further cost increase is already palpable.”

The solution to NATO’s self-imposed image problem was simple : the people responsible for managing the affairs of a military alliance involving 28 countries, 3.5 million combatants and 5,000 nuclear weapons decided, as asked by the staff of its Secretary General, to deal with the matter “confidentially.” In other words, the cost overruns and delays in construction are being deliberately concealed from the public in the hope that NATO’s executives will not appear incompetent.

Meantime, while trying to conceal their flaws, faults and failings in management of basic administrative affairs, NATO’s chiefs are squaring up to Russia in an attempt to persuade the world that President Putin is about to mount an invasion from the east. The focal point of NATO’s contrived alarm is the corrupt and chaotic regime in power in Ukraine, which has serious disagreements with Russia and is therefore energetically supported by the United States to the point of distortion, menace, and mendacity.

As reported in the UK’s Daily Telegraph on March 4, the commander of US troops in Europe, General Frederick “Ben” Hodges, has accused Russia of having 12,000 troops inside eastern Ukraine, which was irresponsible nonsense.

Hodges was formerly the army’s Congressional Liaison Officer in Washington where he obviously acquired a taste for political grandstanding, as in a political speech of the sort that generals have no right to make he declared that “We have to raise the cost for Putin. Right now he has 85 per cent domestic support. But when mothers start seeing their sons come home dead, when the price goes up, domestic support goes down,” which was as offensive as it was hostile.

In February the Wall Street Journal reported Hodges as saying “I believe the Russians are mobilizing right now for a war that they think is going to happen in five or six years—not that they’re going to start a war in five or six years, but I think they are anticipating that things are going to happen, and that they will be in a war of some sort, of some scale, with somebody within the next five or six years.” Just what President Putin was supposed to make of that is anyone’s guess — but it is certain that Hodges’ bellicose meanderings did nothing to persuade Moscow that there would be any attempt by the US-NATO coalition to modify its policy of uncompromising enmity.

Other pronouncements by NATO leaders have been equally threatening and intended to convince the public of western Europe that Russia attacked Ukraine.

But even if Russia had indeed invaded Ukraine, it would have had nothing whatever to do with anyone else.

The US-NATO coalition willfully ignores the fact that Ukraine is not a member of either the European Union or NATO and has no treaty of any sort with any nation in the world that would require provision of political, economic or military support in the event of a bilateral dispute with any other country. Yet NATO has seized upon the Ukraine-Russia discord to justify its policy of unrelenting hostility to Moscow.

NATO should have been disbanded at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union because that threat was the sole reason for its existence; but it decided to multiply membership and extend its military presence closer and closer to Russia’s borders. There is little wonder that Russia is apprehensive about NATO’s intentions, as the muscle-flexing coalition lurches towards conflict.

NATO’S Supreme Commander, US General Breedlove, has also contributed greatly to tension and fear in Europe by issuing dire warnings about Russia’s supposed maneuvers. On March 5 he indulged in fantasy by claiming, without a shred of evidence and no subsequent proof, that Russia had deployed “well over a thousand combat vehicles” along with “combat forces, some of their most sophisticated air defense, battalions of artillery” within Ukraine. This pronouncement was similar to his downright lie of November 18, 2014, when he told the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that there were “regular Russian army units in eastern Ukraine.”

The swell of anti-Russian propaganda, confrontation and attempted intimidation by NATO has increased, and if it continues to do so it is likely that Moscow will take action, thereby upping the stakes and the danger even more. It is time that NATO’s nations came to terms with the reality that Russia is a major international power with legitimate interests in its own region. Moscow is not going to bow the knee in the face of immature threats by sabre-rattling US generals and their swaggering acolytes. It is time for NATO to forge ties rather than destroy them — and to build bridges rather than glitzy office blocks.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
IridiumRebel's picture

Duh....they're not building up for peace. NATO is obsolete so they're moving to war for validation and our demise. FUCK THE NEOCONS.

TeamDepends's picture

NEOCONS = Progressives = Common barnyard dung.

johngaltfla's picture

Uh, after purging everyone with experience in the US military and replacing them with Pretorian Guards, plus buying a bunch of crap weapons systems the last decade, this will not end well.

BraveSirRobin's picture

The article was all anti-NATO bluster without facts to support the headline at all. If you look at the NATO country defense budgets, you cannot say they are preparing for war. In fact the only country in NATO to have increased its military budget as a percentage of GDP since 2010 is Estonia, and then from only 1.7% to 1.9%. Every other NATO member country has seen a stable or decreasing defense budget. All the large countries have seen decreases, to include France, UK, Germany, Spain, Italy and the US.

Meanwhile, Russia has increased its expenditures on its military forces from 3.7% in 2011 to 4.2% today, and therefore is devoting more GDP to its military than any NATO country, including the US, and at a rate over twice the average across NATO.

So, if anyone is preparing for war, it's Russia, though I think they will need quite a bit more than 4.2% to get a real party started.

 

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS 

BraveSirRobin's picture

I love how people down arrow facts on this site. But if I post an insane conspiracy with nothing to substantiate it except wild speculation, then let the up arrows fly.

Another way to get up arrows on this site is say something nasty about Jews. That's the most popular of all. Look at HonyShogun's post below.

farmerbraun's picture

" if anyone is preparing for war, it's Russia, "

It might have been that line . It's not entirely factual.
Just a thought.

Latina Lover's picture

Hey Stupid (BraveSirRobot),  the US spends more on the Military than the next 8 ranked countries combined:

"We currently spend more on defense than the next 8 countries combined. Defense spending accounts for about 20 percent of all federal spending — nearly as much as Social Security, or the combined spending for Medicare and Medicaid. The sheer size of the defense budget suggests that it should be part of any serious effort to address America's long-term fiscal challenges. National security threats have evolved over the past 50 years, changing the nature of U.S. commitments around the world. We need a defense budget that matches these new security challenges, not the threats of the last century. We should also recognize that a strong economy is essential for providing the resources to meet future threats, and addressing our long-term structural debts will keep our economy strong. Indeed, as Admiral Mike Mullen, the past Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said: "The single greatest threat to our national security is our debt."

http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison

So who is preparing for war, USSA or Russia?

BraveSirRobin's picture

I'm sorry, but if a nation is preparing for war, it would stand to reason it would be increasing its military expenditures. In the whole NATO / Russia mix, the ONLY countries increasing their military expenditures are Russian and Estonia, and Russia is by far the one increasing it's military expenditures to the greatest extent. 

If the US were preparing for war with Russia, you would probably see a near doubling of current military expenditures. That the US spends far more than anyone else is rather irrelevant. If you plan to go to war, you increase spending. Please see what happened to the US military budget going into war with Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. 

Again NATO copuntries, with the exception of Estonia are decreasing military expenditures, so the article and its headline are simply anti-NATO garbage. If you want to make an argument, please at least try and use facts that have relevance to your point. The author of this article does not, so he complains about cost over runs at a ghastly expensive palace for military industrial complex bureacrats. 

Latina Lover's picture

The USSA is already at war with multiple nations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

The only reason why the USSA is bothering the NATO countries to spend more is because we are going broke.

gold-is-not-dead's picture

BraveSirRobin - Queen, is that you on ZH? What an honor madam, how's that child groins I've sent you, tasty?

Headbanger's picture

A major global war will start soon whether you mooks like it or not!

Because the fucking elite ALWAYS start a war when they get backed into a political corner as they are now.

And they will always find or create a villain for the sheeple to hate for their troubles instead of them

Putin is the Bad Guy now cause he's got the most nukes in the world but the elites will create another Evil One if he keeps avoiding the role.

NidStyles's picture

You should state it clearly. The Zionists that wish to rule the world always start a war when their serf's start thinking for themselves too much for their desires.

gold-is-not-dead's picture

The Zionist's children will be eaten when shtf! Just like they eat regular children.

Arnold's picture

Sick post.

 

 There is less chance of subsequent Trichinosis infestation however.

Squid-puppets a-go-go's picture

Bravesirrobin, i am in the process of copying your posts and pasting them over the entries in online dictionaries under the word 'fatuous'.

XuscitizenSweden's picture

@ B____S_____robin, meaning Bullshitter-robin

fat·u·ous (f?ch?o?o-?s) adj. Foolish or silly, especially in a smug or self-satisfied way: "an era of delicious, fatuous optimism shaped by the belief that enough good will on the part of people like ourselves could repair anything" (Shirley Abbott). thefreedictionary.com/fatuous
Anusocracy's picture

You are confusing pushing for war with preparing for war and your comments are nonsense. The US couldn't nearly double current military expenditures without blowing up the world economy.

The West's neocons believe they are ready for war and that they will prevail. Granted, most of it is just bluster, but that is how wars start.

BraveSirRobin's picture

I do not get your logic. "The US couldn't nearly double current military expenditures without blowing up the world economy." Yet, the US is preparing a war that will actually and literally blow up the world economy, so in your view, the US is preparing to blow up the world economy no matter what. 

But FACTS do not support you. US AND NATO military spending is decreasing and military readiness is also decreasing. Again, look what happened after 9/11. Military spending ballooned, and the US was only at war with Iraq and Afghanistan. What do you think would happen with a war with Russia. The stuff you need to fight them is a lot more expensie than the stuff used to fight insurgents.

So you think the US leadership is so stupid it would plan a war against a nuclear power after reducing troop strength, numbers of combat aircraft, combat vessels, etc? Not even Obama is that stupid, maybe.

Abitdodgie's picture

The differance is that Russia is spending more on it's military because they know they are going to be attacked by the biggest threat to world peace , you know that country that has invaded , Iraq ,Lybia , Afganistan , Somalia , Yemen, Syria, et al .

BraveSirRobin's picture

The difference which like all the others here fail to address is US and NATO military spending is decreasing, along with force levels and readiness, while Russian military spending is increasing. Russia may legitimatly dislike US and NATO, but there is no evidence they are preparing for war against Russia which is the basis of the article. And just because the US has "invaded" Yemen, which it has not (military presence does not equate to invansion which is a hostile movement of forces) does not mean they should be afraid of invasion by NATO.

In addition, the US has not invaded Lybia, Somalia, Yemen, or Syria. Lybia was bombed for undescernable reasons, Somolia has been attacked because of terrorist and pirate activity, but not invaded, Yemen was until recently, a cooperative ally taking US help to fight an internal insurgency, and Syria, perhaps some arms transfer to God knows who, but niether invasion or bombing. Facts are facts. Stop making them up.

Icelandicsaga...............................................'s picture

Anti NATO .. sorry that ship has sailed.. NATO is a dead duck .. irrelevant .. lived past it time .. now is nothing but a shit stirer . from the Balkans to Ukraine with a few stops in between .. Doubling US expenditures.. . spare me .. the US has the biggest military budget in the world doubling it would bankrupt us more than we already are .. they are sendin in resources to stir up the borders countries around Russia . even Gen. Wesley Clark who does not know a war he has not liked. admits that .. the US and NATO has been trying to topple Russia since the end of the Cold War . .in a thousand ways .. the Baltic states and Poland are the last 'allies' in this mess . and do not count on them for squat . any American still demanding we keep poking the RUssia bear is either delusional or suicidal. You bring up Est4onia... poor little Estonia . .the Russians do not want it . why should they . the only reason WE want it is to hem Russia in . and anyone with two functioning brain cells understands Russia is not going to put up with it ; . NOR SHOULD THEY . this coutnry AND NATO are run by lunatics..

TheReplacement's picture

Count me out of this "we".  I want a trade deal with Russia that brings their oil/gas here in exchange for whatver.  They can have Califorinia, Detroit, and Chicago and a couple dozen other stains on the flag.   At least that gets us away from the middle east.  I'd rather have Russia as a partner than Saudi Arabia, Israel, or Turkey.

USA and Russia would be the most dynamic duo ever conceived.

Urtica ferox's picture

I beg to disagree. Russia and GERMANY would be the most dynamic duo ever conceived ... and the overlords of the USSA are abso-fucking-lutely terrified of it happening. That's without even adding China to the mix. Hence the current situations in the Ukraine et al.

If a single peaceful market on the Eurasian landmass eventuates (I believe the quote is "from Lisbon to Vladivostok") then the USSA will be left out in the cold. End of story.

Volkodav's picture

No

Germany and Russia is natural

many Germans in Russia

 

 

 

cnmcdee's picture

The elite need someone to watch YOU when global UN martial law is brought in and the nation states dissolved in exchange for a metric 10 region FEMA system we will see by 2019.. NATO as a label will go I believe but it will be worse than it is now...

Fun Facts's picture

Suggested new labels:

ZATO Zionist Atlantic Terrorist Organization

TKC The Khazar Club

USB Untouchable Satanic Bastards

Slogan:

"We borrowed some folks armies for our NWO holocaust project"

angel_of_joy's picture

...NATO is a dead duck .. irrelevant

Sorry, but I have to disagree. NATO might hold little relevance as a military organisation, but it is a very relevant welfare institution. Just check how many people work as NATO bureaucrats (in various countries) and what salaries are they making (all budgetary expenses). They might be incapable of fighting a real war against Russia, but they are more than capable of scaring their own civilians into paying for their fat checks...

In other news (for your entertainment), please see below:

http://graphics.latimes.com/missile-defense/

or

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/04/06/from-students-to-lawmakers-easte...

Omen IV's picture

NATO=USA ...............everyone else is a Beard and Showtime!

roadlust's picture

Don't confuse Zero Hedge's Putin propaganda for serious "arguments."   Mere facts don't exist in the universe of silly love letters to Fearless Leader V. Putin. 

Of course the truth is Putin has invaded neighboring countries repeatedly over the last decade and murdered thousands of poor innocent people valiantly trying to defend their small nations from this regional bully.  

But in ZHLand, it is NATO that is "planning" war.  (Technically true, since Putin has been actually fighting wars for years). 

While NATO "plans," Putin will have already put thousands into the ground who dared to stand up to his megalomaniac vision of a "new" Soviet Union.  

Don't forget "what fits into Russia!"  (Hint:  Lots of Fascists). 

Anusocracy's picture

Judging by your comment, I see that your dementing process is complete.

And apparently irreversible.

Icelandicsaga...............................................'s picture

At least he keeps it to his borders . we go and invade countries 10,000 miles away. You must not read the military blogs . .or have a clue . .this administration is slowly but surely heading towards WAR .. go look up Wesley Clark's speech at Atlantic Council . they are spelling it out for you . if you are not to fucking stupid to understand it.

ebworthen's picture

What does that Ron Paul and his Institute know about anything anyways!

It was vital that the U.S. support a neo-Nazi putsch in Kiev, Ukraine.

That Putin attends mass at church, and defends Christians!

Never-mind that the U.S. is rolling tanks on Russia's borders!

We have too!  If we don't, who will!?!?  Germany!?!?

cnmcdee's picture

The real 'biggie fear of the day' is McCain's speech to Israel telling them they need to go 'rogue' and attack Iran.  Of course the goyim despising Israel's might take the interpretation of 'rogue' to mean detonating a nuke on US soil so the US does the heavy nuking for them thinking those pesky Iranians did it..

People might not notice but Bibi and Obama hate each other with a meet at the bicycle rack mentality. Bibi would get a two for one deal out of it destroying conman Obama's legacy...

On a long enough time scale a World War is like a built up sex release - the world just has to do it and get it out of their system..

anonymice's picture

Russia has been invaded in the past; whether it's the Poles (1612), Napoleon (1812) or Hitler (1941). Each time the invasion began in Ukraine.

In 1918 the US sent  5000 soldiers to Arkangelsk, Russia,  and 8000 soldiers to Vladivostok, Russia.  If a century later we're sending "instructors" to Ukraine, we're not fooling anyone. Our motives are clear now as they were clear then.

Volkodav's picture

you imply aggression...

please back your claim and

list the neighboring countries invaded "repeatedly"

first the "countries" and then how many repeats each...

 

maybe "invaded" is too big word for your understanding...

will ling's picture
will ling (not verified) farmerbraun Apr 6, 2015 8:52 AM

it is prepared, and it 'll be over so quick it won't constitute a war per se.

TheMeatTrapper's picture

Are you that fucking stupid? 

NATO isn't preparing for war - it is waging war. That is a fact. A fact that small minded people such as yourself wish to ignore. 

The United States had no business invading Iraq, no business killing Gadhaffi and no business overthrowing the government of Ukraine. 

We have no business defending Europe and South Korea. We had no business fighting in Vietnam, bombing Cambodia or anything else. 

We do have business defending our own borders - which the criminals in Washington refuse to do and the syncophantic FedGov bootlickers like yourself remain curiously silent about, so take your small minded, flag waving bullshit and shove it up your ass.

acetinker's picture

Not sure about syncophantic- other than that, carry on soldier, with all the blessings I can bestow.

Yes, this is a war.  The Russians know it.  Glazyev calls it WW4.  I believe he is right.

Acton's issue that has swept down the centuries is being fought, but most don't realize it.

As an American, born in Mogodbile Aladamnbama, the hard part is realizing that Russia just now, are the good guys.

Man!  My heart bleeds!

Anusocracy's picture

The Soviets were the sane ones, relatively speaking.

The Evil Empire has been evil for quite a while.

Freddie's picture

I do not watch Obola TV and avoid NeoCon/Obala radio.  Tonight I tuned in because I was stuck in the car. John Batchelor was on.  He does book reviews with authors and they are always fantastic.

Tonight he had an Aussie prof from Western Australia who wrote a book about historical global demographics.  He said the major countries know the issues of population decline.  The global population has exploded since the 1950s but it is unsustainable.  He said 2008 was the first shot around the world.  Sort of like the Harry Dent demographics.  This Aussie fellow talked about Rome, Napoleon.  How these changes create undemocratic monsters. He talked about Obaola's decrees as well.

He said big cities will not be able support their populations.  I also wonder if this defense ship with huge radar that is useless is not a mobile HARP machine to destroy California and finish it off.

The Aussie author also pointed out that China, Russia and Germany will join together with the Silk Road to counteract these demographic changes. 

He said NATO is finished and Germany will pivot east.  It is a done deal.   He had names for each type of country.  Germany will be or is the leader of Europe.  Less desirable geograph areas like Spain, Italy, Grrece will fare poorly.  The USA and Australia will need to increase as naval powers to survive these demographic changes.  Obviously, the train system, silk road and high speed rail from Western Russia through China, Russia to Germany will not be as effected by seapower.   Russia will help power it all with their energy. 

It did not appear that Britan will fare well.

http://johnbatchelorshow.com/schedules

BraveSirRobin's picture

Too bad you have been decieved into thinking Russia are the good guys. What ever you think of the US, it does not necessarily follow that the Russians are the "good guys." Putin is corrupt fascist cleptocrat. Do they have those in the US? Yep, but that does not make Putin or the Russians the "good guys."

Your argument would be like Hitler sucks, so Stalin is the good guy. nope... ain't so.

Anusocracy's picture

I would never say Putin is a good guy. Under the current circumstances, he is definitely the much less bad guy.

If you can't see that then you are thinking emotionally and have little to offer any argumentation.

edotabin's picture

Fair enough.  I can go with that.

What I don't understand is why ZH and the vast majority here simply refuse to consider the fact that Putin may be another "excuse" to get things going over there. Again, it may not be true. I have no proof one way or the other but to flat out deny any possibility of this occurring and to view him as the "good guy" is a bit simplistic. I just say let's wait and see.

For me, the "nuclear alert" and installing nuclear missiles in Crimea announcements about a month ago by Putin really made me suspicious.

 

 

gonetogalt's picture

Putin blames the 70 year hell of communism on the western bankers, the same bunch we ZH'rs used to rail on regurlarly.

Putin hates zionist Russian oligarchs like I hate zionist Neocons...

Putin gets it...

Icelandicsaga...............................................'s picture

As oppoded to our fascist cleptocrats . WE have spread more horror worldwide the last 20 years than Russia in its wildest dreams . we have spent tirlllions of dollars to destablize countries leaving NOTHING behind but chaos death and destruction . IRAW is a case in pont .. NO one is saying PUTIN is a saint. but if he is playing games he is doing it in his sphere of influence while our plotocrats and oligarchs not only took down OUR country . they are taking down any country that gets in its way..

edotabin's picture

I believe the motto is: Order out of Chaos.

I called the war in the  Middle East quite a while back. I call complete bullshit on the Iran talks.  They are being hyped to suck people in. At this point I say Iran is "in on it".

 

Squid-puppets a-go-go's picture

Bravesirrobin, I love your idea of war. I mean, if you dont beleive NATO is provoking a war with russia, then i could punch you repeatedly in the face, slightly harder each time, and if you reacted in any way whatsoever i will call you an expansionist aggressor

Because i havent increased my budget on knuckledusters appreciably. So you are the aggressor, and you have no right to be upset.

Volkodav's picture

incoherent

repetitive

                    wrong

BraveSirRobin's picture

"Are you that fucking stupid?"

Hmmm. Can you read? The article states in its headline that NATO is preparing for war, but gives no evidence that this is the case. My contention is that if a country is preparing for war, it increases military spending. It does not decrease it. Please show me contrary evidence to that assumption. taking that assumption, it is clear NATO military expenditures are decreasing and Russian expenditures are going up, and pretty fast. So who is preparing for war? 

You, on the other hand are equally devoid of logical expression. Everything you state happend in the PAST, when the article and my argument are looking forward.

Then you throw in ad hominum attacks but do not address anything I said. Therefore, I won, since you have no logical or factual rebuttal.

This is the state of "argument" these days. And we wonder why we are so fucked up?

acetinker's picture

Yes, you are that stupid.  When an entity declares sanctions on another entity, it is war.  It cannot be anything else.

It is war, and the good guys will win.

Care to guess who the good guys are, Sir Robin?