If you aren’t frightened yet, then you haven’t been paying attention

The U.S. and NATO have decided to embark on a massive military buildup along Russia’s western borders. Professor Stephan F. Cohen, expert and teacher of Russian studies at Princeton University and at New York University, states that this buildup has no precedent even during the hottest moments of the 40 years of the Cold War.

Russia has not experienced this kind of amassing of foreign and, without question, hostile military forces along its borders since 1941 when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. Professor Cohen did not hesitate to say that this kind of massive mobilization gives the impression that NATO is preparing for actual war. Of course, Russia has responded by amassing their own military forces on their side of the border.

The last time we had this potential collision between the nuclear powers was the Cuban missile crisis with the Soviet Union where we were on the threshold of a nuclear confrontation between the U.S. and the Soviets.

The question remains, why would the U.S. and NATO provoke these hostilities and potential confrontation with Russia? It appears that Ashton Carter, U.S. secretary of defense, is the man who formulated this “creative” plan. He, and most of the upper echelon of military strategy, claim that these actions are a response to Putin’s aggression.

What aggression are they referring to? The “aggression” they refer to is the “annexation” of Crimea over two years ago and Russia’s support of the rebels in the Ukraine.

Let’s look at the specifics of each accusation. The United States has failed to uphold a promise that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe, a deal made during the 1990 negotiations between the West and the Soviet Union over German unification. The Soviets agreed to withdraw from Germany while the U.S. promised to not expand NATO any further into Eastern Europe.

It’s therefore not surprising that Russia was incensed when Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states and others were ushered into NATO membership starting in the mid-1990s. NATO began looking even further eastward, to Ukraine and Georgia.

It is important to note that Putin’s decision to annex Crimea was not done against the will of the Crimean people. They were clearly against joining NATO and assuming an anti-Russia stance and voted for annexation.

NATO’s move eastward can be demonstrated further when the U.S. State Department played a vital role in the overthrow of President Viktor Yanuyovch and the democratically elected government. President Yanuyovch made clear his desire to reject NATO’s offer of membership and to remain a partner with Russia. That was his downfall. The fact that this coup opened the door for fascists and neo-Nazis to dominate the Ukraine government was of no consequence or concern to the U.S. and NATO.

Renee Parsons, a staffer in the U.S. House of Representatives and a lobbyist on nuclear energy issues with Friends of the Earth, in an article dealing with the coup, identifies exactly what the stakes are for Russia. “There would be NATO missiles on the adjacent Ukraine border aimed directly at Russia that would make that country extremely vulnerable to Western goals and destabilization efforts while threatening Russia’s only water access to its naval fleet in the Crimean peninsula, the Balkans, the Mediterranean Sea and the Middle East—and not the least of which would allow world economic dominance by the US, the European Union, the IMF, World Bank and international financiers all of whom had already brought staggering suffering to millions around the globe.”

It is interesting that while hostilities are escalating, there is virtual silence from the mainstream media and very little opposition being expressed by the so-called “progressive” community. Although the MSM’s non-coverage of the U.S., NATO provocations is consistent with their mission of providing forums that verify government and corporate interests, it is troubling that Amy Goodman, seen as a member of “progressive” royalty, as well as other “progressive” notables have also remained silent. We are on the verge of WW3 and no one is paying attention.

Professor Cohen states, “Our political class, all across the spectrum is down with this, there is no opposition. When there is no opposition, where will they stop? And increasingly it looks like it may not stop there, but it is going to end in war with Russia.”

Our military and political leaders have been quick to label Russia’s military buildup “aggression.” It leads me to wonder what the U.S. response would be if Russia were to place thousand of their troops, weapons, and missiles along the borders of Mexico and Canada, thus surrounding the U.S.

NATO has moved its influence eastward co-opting most of the countries that were formally members of the Warsaw Pact. The thrust of the U.S. and NATO effort has been to isolate and neutralize Russia. We are reaching a point in history when Russia will be forced to respond to the provocations. And, then what . . . the beginning of WW3, a war that will definitely include the use of nuclear weapons.

And still there is silence. So far, Putin has shown exceptional restraint and patience and has informed the eastern European states, who have recently joined NATO, Poland and Romania, that by allowing elements of the U.S. missile shield systems to be installed in their countries, systems that Russia considers a threat to their security, they are forcing Russia to put them in its crosshairs and target them should fighting begin. The people of these countries will become the human shields for the U.S. and western Europe.

What will it take for the American and European people to wake up and recognize that their countries are pursuing a doomsday policy?

The goals of the U.S. are clearly stated in the Project For a New American Century (PNAC), which appeared in 1998. With the neutralization of the Soviet Union, the U.S. was the only remaining superpower, having the military means to assert its control around the globe. The theme of the PNAC was, in fact, a statement of intent to do just that, assert U.S. will around the globe.

The provocation of Russia is consistent with those goals. Russia is one of only two countries, China being the other, able to interfere with U.S. hegemony. The U.S. appears to be gambling that they have the means to defeat Russia in a military confrontation. But, at what cost? What will be left?

The U.S. is also showing signs of turning their attention to the East and Asia, where several incidents have already occurred close to China. It is evident that if the U.S. is successful against Russia, it will open the door for further adventures to isolate and neutralize China, leaving the U.S. in complete global domination.

I am not exaggerating nor am I an hysterical person. If we don’t stop the U.S. from pursuing this agenda, we might not want to live in the world that remains.

Dave Alpert has masters degrees in social work, educational administration, and psychology. He spent his career working with troubled inner city adolescents.