Some Europeans Have Never Been Outside The EU

When it comes to holidays and travelling in general, Europe has a lot to offer.

Cosmopolitan cities jam packed with culture, pristine beaches, excellent ski resorts, you name it. Given all of that, it comes as little surprise that many Europeans never travel outside the EU.

As Statista"s Niall McCarthy notes, the most recent Eurobarometer data showing the share of people who have travelled at least once outside the EU was published in 2014.

You will find more statistics at Statista

The above infographic shows the results of the research, with Swedes most likely to have been outside the EU. That is more than likely due to the long and open border with neighbouring Norway which is not part of the EU.

The same story is likely true for Austria due to its proximity to Switzerland.

People in newer member states in Eastern Europe are least likely to have been outside the EU with Bulgaria, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary and Romania all towards the bottom of the ranking.

Interestingly, Portugal comes second last, possibly due to the fact that it only shares a land border with Spain. Only 18 percent of all Portuguese residents have travelled outside the EU.

The Split Personality Of The Russian Soul: Moscow And Kiev

Via GEFIRA,

All nations can be made to suffer from disturbed or split personality, becoming "unhappy after their own fashion"... toys in the hands of the powers that be.

All healthy nations are alike, but an unhealthy nation is unhealthy after its own fashion. This paraphrase of the opening sentence from Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina neatly serves the purpose of analyzing the Ukrainian soul, a soul that has dissociative identity disorder. A transgender man has an identity disturbance in that he thinks or feels he was born a woman and other females are not his sexual partners. The same is true of peoples. A Ukrainian thinks or feels he is not Russian and, consequently, that Russians are not his brothers. A transgender man physically looks like a man and still thinks he is not a male; a Ukrainian speaks Russian, professes Orthodox Christianity, writes Cyrillic and still says he is anything but.

We from such European countries as Poland, France or Germany may ask ourselves, what is the origin of the Ukrainian state? What is the origin of the Russian state?

Ukrainian and Russian children learn about the same beginnings of their respective countries, read stories about Rurik, Oleg and Olga, Vladimir the Great and Yaroslav the Wise. Polish and Czech, French and Spanish, British and Norwegian children do not learn that their respective nations share the same origin whereas Ukrainian and Russian children do. Kiev is regarded as the mother of Russian cities. True, there was a time when the Russian vast lands were split into a number of principalities, but then Italian, Polish, and German were too.

The land east of the Bug River and west of the Urals is historically, ethnographically, culturally and emotionally referred to russkiy mir (Russian world, Russian civilization). In the Middle Ages it was known as Rus’ or Ruthenia and was comprised of Great Russia with its centre in Moscow, Little Russia with its centre in Kiev and White Russia with its present-day centre in Minsk. They all three share one and the same founding legend.

Parts of Rus’ (or Ruthenia) were once conquered and held by the Tartars (Mongols), Lithuania and Poland, which might have contributed to the split in the collective psyche of the people inhabiting these areas. Yet, Poland too, was partitioned by three foreign powers and kept in subjugation for more than a hundred years. The occupying forces made various attempts to either Germanize or Russify its population, and still Poland emerged as one nation.

True, some Ukrainians, especially in the western parts of the country speak a variety of Russian, which they call a separate language. Yet the Ukrainian language is not more different from Russian than the Bavarian or Liverpudlian dialects are different from German or English. Surely, nobody says we have the Bavarian or Liverpudlian languages? In the 19th century the Ukrainian dialect of the Russian tongue was forcibly turned into a language by deleting some of the Russian and taking on some of the Polish vocabulary and affirming the local west-Ukrainian pronunciation. The Russian Cyrillic alphabet used for Ukrainian has as many as… three ‘new’ characters. Well, the American variety of English, too, has some spelling and pronunciation peculiarities that make it a tiny bit different from its British counterpart, yet American children are taught English at school, not American.

Of course, such differences are skilfully exploited by the powers that be just as it was done in the case of Yugoslavia, where Westerners could be easily duped into believing that Croats and Serbs speak two entirely different languages because… the former use the Latin whereas the latter the Cyrillic script, while in point of fact they speak the same language. The Turkish language has not changed simply because Kemal Atatürk had the Arabic script done away with and decreed the use of Latin characters, or did it?

What’s the matter with Ukrainian identity disturbance? The whole can be traced back to the times of Peter the Great and then again to 19th century when among the Russian intelligentsia the movement of Westernizers (?????????????) came into being, which reflected the split Russian soul. Part of it wants to stay Russian, Slavophile, the other part is ashamed of being Russian. A split personality syndrome. Ukrainians for the most part represent the pro-Western inclination of the Russian soul. In a similar case of the Southern Slavs, Croats have been westernized since the dawn of their history as they accepted Christianity from Rome; Serbs became easterners as they accepted Christianity from Byzantium. A Ukrainian is a Russian desperately in need of westernizing himself and his country. The tighter is the leash on which Moscow holds him, the more disruptive tendencies a Ukrainian will show. This pro-Western strand in the Russian soul is being skilfully exploited by the West for its own purposes. Nations, as we know, can be created when it suits someone’s purposes. At present Germans in Austria are Austrians, not Germans, but there was a time when they were Germans; Catalans are Spaniards or they are not Spaniards, as the case may be; not long ago citizens of the German Democratic Republic would have fought against their historical compatriots from the Federal German Republic. Did we have two German nations?

Ukrainians cutting themselves off from Moscow are like the British colonists across the Atlantic cutting themselves off from the British crown. The difference is, however, that the thirteen colonies at least comprised a significant number of nations other than English, Welsh or Scottish and they were mostly religious rebels from the Church of England. Ukrainians, on the other hand, are like their Russian compatriots Orthodox Christians and have no significant national or religious minorities. Furthermore, throughout history Ukrainians have hardly ever rebelled against Moscow. They willingly declared their allegiance to the Great Russian capital in 1654 (Treaty of Pereyaslav) at the climax of the largest revolt against the Polish Crown. Prior to that event Kiev was part of the the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Thus Little Russians broke away from a culturally western country to happily let themselves be embraced by their eastern brothers. The Russian soul subconsciously knew where it belonged. In Poland Ukrainians were called Cossacks and later Rusini (which in Polish is as close to the word denoting Russians as in English Germanic is to German).

Ukraine’s territory after World War One and the Russian Civil War was carved out of Russia by the Bolsheviks, who happily joined to Ukraine vast eastern areas, without the Crimea, though. The Bolsheviks themselves were mostly of non-Russian nationality or indifferent to national questions, so they didn’t care about such things as delineating territories. In 1956 Nikita Khrushchev, Secretary General of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (for all practical purposes the Soviet Union’s president), himself a Ukrainian, carved the Crimea out of Russia (then a Soviet Socialist Republic) and had it joined to Ukraine (then, too, a Soviet Socialist Republic). Thus the peninsula was not Russian only for a few decades (1956-2014) and only formally because it was and is inhabited by Russians. When it was incorporated back into Russia, not a shot was fired on the Ukrainian side.

Now the West-prone Russians (centred around Kiev) are being played off against the West-averse Russians (centered around Moscow) and both are presented to the world as two separate nations. Were the Americans two separate nations when they fought the Civil War of 1861-1865? The resentment in the southern states against the North has persisted ever since. If Russia were the world’s superpower rather than the United States, she might as well choose to play the southern American states off against Washington. Then, conversely, rather than having Ukrainians jumping in the city squares and shouting “??? ?? ??????, ??? ???????!” (Who is not jumping [with us] is Moscow’s [lackey (useful idiot)]), we would have Southerners jump and shout “Who’s not jumping with us, is Washington’s lackey”. And surely, in due time we would learn that Southerners speak a language other than the Northerners and have every right to be recognized as a separate nation.

Who Feels EU Membership Has Paid Off? (Spoiler Alert: Not Italy)

Amid the UK"s Brexit vote and rising right-wing populism across Europe, euroscepticism has never posed a greater threat to the EU.

Despite the turmoil, majorities in most countries feel they have benefited from EU membership. According to the European Parliament, 90 percent of people in Ireland feel their country"s decision to join the EU has paid off.

Back in 1973 before joining, Ireland was struggling to find its feet internationally amid strong economic dependence on the United Kingdom. However, as Statista"s Martin Armstrong notes, in the years since it became an EU member, Ireland transformed its old antiquated and agriculture-centered economy into a modern one thriving on hi-tech industry. The European Commission has estimated that Ireland’s net gain from EU budgets has amounted to an impressive €44.6 billion since 1976.

You will find more statistics at Statista

Malta and Lithuania are close behind Ireland with 89 and 88 percent of people agreeing that EU membership has paid off for their countries.

In Greece and Cyprus, people are far more pessimistic. 48 percent of Greeks and 45 percent of Cypriots feel they have not benefited from EU membership. Italy had the lowest level of agreement with only 39 percent feeling EU membership has paid off.

Massive Russian, NATO Wargames Set To Begin Amid Mutual Accusations Of Provocation

As the two old, cold war adversaries, Russia and NATO, prepare to begin massive war games to show off their respective military strengths, it was the UK"s turn to accuse Russia first of "testing the West" by conducting war games on NATO’s eastern flank in its biggest military exercise in four years. Speaking on BBC"s “The Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday, U.K. Defense Secretary Michael Fallon said that Russia"s exercise "is designed to provoke us, it’s designed to test our defenses, and that’s why we have to be strong. Russia is testing us and testing us now at every opportunity. We’re seeing a more aggressive Russia. We have to deal with that."

In a testament to our hyperbolic times, Fallon"s statement also contained just a "little bit" of fake news: while Fallon said that more than 100,000 Russian and Belorussian troops are at the borders of North Atlantic Treaty Organization members, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin said last month that the so-called Zapad 2017 exercise Sept. 14-20 involves 13,000 troops, and that the drills are “purely of a defensive nature" according to Bloomberg.

Zapad 2017 preparations

To this end, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg also told BBC today that Russia should allow western monitors to access the proceedings, in line with rules that require international observation of all exercises involving more than 13,000 troops. “We have seen before that Russia has used big military exercises as a disguise or a precursor for aggressive military actions against their neighbors,” Stoltenberg said. “That happened in Georgia in 2008 when they invaded Georgia, and it happened in Crimea in 2014 when they illegally annexed Crimea. So we call on Russia to be fully transparent.”

Stoltenberg also said that Russia has a history of “under-reporting” the number of troops in its exercises and “using loopholes in international agreements to avoid international observation,” although it was not clear just which country Putin had an intention of invading next.

Meanwhile, what the NATO commander forgot to mention is that just days before the dreaded Russian "Zapad 2017" exercise is set to begin, NATO"s own Steadfast Pyramid 2017 military exercise kicked off in Latvia on Sunday, with 40 senior commanders from NATO states, as well as Finland and Sweden. They are expected to train how to “plan and conduct operations” amid the bloc’s buildup in the region.

Steadfast Pyramid 2017 and Steadfast Pinnacle 2017, involving more than 40 senior officers from NATO member states, plus Finland and Sweden, will take place at the Riga-based Latvian Defense Academy, the country’s national news agency LETA reported on Sunday.

Covering the duration of Russia"s drills, Steadfast Pyramid, the first part of the exercise, will last until September 15. It is reportedly “to improve the ability of top-level officers and commanders to plan and lead joint operations,” according to LETA. Steadfast Pinnacle, the next stage of the drill, will last from September 17 until September 22. Steadfast Pyramid and Steadfast Pinnacle were first held in Latvia in 2011.  British General James Everard, the NATO Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, is expected to arrive in Latvia to oversee both stages of the exercise, Latvia’s Defense Ministry said, according to LETA.

NATO soldiers participating in East European war games.

Meanwhile, not much is known so far about NATO"s war games. A NATO fact sheet says Steadfast Pyramid and Steadfast Pinnacle are focused on “further developing the abilities of commanders and senior staff to plan and conduct operations through the application of operational art in decision making.”

Latvia, a former Soviet republic, has seen a major NATO buildup over the past months. Recently, NATO deployed four multinational battlegroups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland as part of Enhanced Forward Presence (EFP). These combat-ready battlegroups, led by the UK, Canada, Germany, and the US respectively, are meant to demonstrate “the strength of the transatlantic bond.” A 1,100-strong battlegroup led by Canada is stationed in Latvia, comprising a number of mechanized infantry units as well as a tank company and some support elements, according to NATO.

While NATO has denied it, Moscow has repeatedly accused NATO of offensive behavior, and justifies its own defensive buildup and posture on NATO"s encroachment on Russian borders.

Meanwhile, blissfully unconcerned about the Russian response, Poland and the Baltics have been calling for a stronger military presence in their countries, claiming it is necessary to deter “assertive” Russia. Lithuania has gone so far as suggesting developing a “military Schengen project that would facilitate the movement of troops in Europe.” Earlier this week, Lithuanian Defense Minister Raimundas Karoblis said the Benelux countries – Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg – as well as Finland and Estonia, support the plan, which includes “simplifying procedures and investing in infrastructure.”

At the same time, Moscow has consistently said the ongoing buildup threatens Russian and European security. In mid-July, Russian envoy to NATO Alexander Grushko said the alliance is pushing forward for “an intensive mastering of the potential theater of military operations, accompanied by the development of the necessary infrastructure.”

To underscore his point, Grushko added that from July to November, NATO will hold 15 drills complementing each other, “which are held in the same operative field and aimed at providing a vast range of support measures.”

Finally, Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier said that Moscow will not remain silent facing emerging threats on its western borders. NATO’s saber-rattling leaves Russia no other choice than to “give a suitable response to all of these actions,” he said, noting that Moscow’s countermeasures will be “much cheaper,” if not quite as technologically advanced, Putin told award-winning filmmaker Oliver Stone.

Russia, Belarus Joint Drills Used As Pretext For NATO War Preparations

Authored by Peter Korzun via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

«Zapad-2017» is a joint strategic military exercise of Russia and Belarus scheduled for September 14-20, 2017. NATO, the United Nations, the OSCE and other countries have been invited to send their observers. In compliance with provisions of the Vienna Document, Russia presented detailed information about the exercise on July, 13. A special briefing is planned for the OSCE. Before the exercise starts there will be an extended briefing held in Moscow. NATO officials want Russia to abide by the Vienna Document. That is exactly what Moscow and Minsk are doing. But…the alliance believes that problems remain.

Despite the policy of transparency adopted by the organizers of the exercise, NATO officials express concern and make hostile statements to instigate tensions. Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite views the upcoming event as «demonstrative preparations for the war with the West». Russia’s ambassador to Lithuania, Aleksandr Udaltsov, said that the hullaballoo raised about the upcoming drills was nothing else but fearmongering. According to him, «The hysteria which is being whipped up in Lithuania is meant to score political points and justify the militaristic psychosis».

Concocted stories are going round to say that Russia wants to grab a part of Polish and Lithuanian territories in the Suwalki gap region. Baltic officials have warned  that Russia may leave troops in Belarus after the exercise. Estonian Defense Minister Margus Tsahkna strongly believes that’s what will happen. According to him, Estonia and other NATO countries possess intelligence to confirm this statement. The Russian ambassador in Minsk, Aleksandr Surikov, called the stories «unhealthy speculation».

According to official data, around 13,000 personnel will take part in the exercise at most. About 10,200 troops will be involved on the territory of Belarus, including 7,200 Belarusian military and about 3,000 Russia’s servicemen. 680 pieces of military hardware, including armored vehicles, would take part in the exercise at six different training grounds scattered across the two countries. Evidently, these forces pose no threat to the North Atlantic alliance, but NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is skeptical, saying, «From previous experiences related to previous exercises, we have every reason to believe that it may be substantially more troops participating than the official reported numbers».

Some NATO members believe the true number of participating troops will be 100,000. US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis finds such a large buildup «simply destabilizing».

The Center for European Policy Analysis states that «Russian military exercises have become a dangerous tool, politically and militarily. The «train as you fights» approach—especially when nuclear attacks are an option—poses a serious threat to the West». According to it, «We must also be able to send clear unambiguous messages of unity, cohesion and readiness». That’s the rub. The messages are really sent. The exercise is used to justify war preparations by the NATO alliance.

The recent steps taken to militarize North Europe are just another example. There are many more.

It’s no coincidence that Estonia, a small Baltic country with the government expressing special concern over the upcoming exercise, has become a special destination for US Vice President Mike Pence on his European trip (July 30-August 2, 2017). He said that plans to boost military presence are underway in addition to some 4,000 troops and military hardware in the three Baltic states and Poland to counter Russia"s presence in the Baltic Sea region. According to the vice president, the US is considering deploying Patriot surface-to-air missiles to Estonia. The issue was discussed with Estonian Prime Minister Juri Ratas on July 30.

Lithuania and Poland have also said that they want American air defense systems deployed on their soil. Patriot is not Aegis; it has rather limited capability against ballistic missiles. The system is not a threat to Russian strategic systems. But it will be evolved. Patriot modifications may acquire ballistic missile capability. What matters is that infrastructure will be in place. Other systems, like ballistic missile capable Aegis, could be deployed there, too.

Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite said on July 31 that the United States will increase its military presence on the territory of Lithuania at the time of Zapad-2017 will be held. US Air Force aircraft will arrive at the Siauliai base to carry out an air policing mission in the Baltic region. «During the West-2017 exercises, the US will double the usual number of fighter aircraft stationed in Lithuania», she said, noting that also «there will be more military, hardware and ships». A rotating contingent of Lithuania’s NATO allies involving 100 personnel and four fighter jets is stationed at the Lithuanian Zokniai air base. Four more fighter jets are stationed at Estonia’s Amari facility. In June, a 1,000-member NATO force of troops from Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Norway came to be stationed in Lithuania as a «rotational» force. Battle groups from the UK and Canada moved to Poland, Latvia, and Estonia. Estonia hosts troops from Britain, France and the United States.

The more US forces and weapon systems are stationed in the Baltic states, the more politically dependent on Washington they become. For instance, a Lithuanian state-owned gas trading company will receive the first delivery of US imported LNG in August. The LNG costs more than pipeline-supplied gas but that’s what military and political dependence does, making one pay for it. Military exercises come and go but increased US military presence remains to bolster political influence.

In June, NATO held a large-scale exercise in the region called Saber Strike. Three US strategic bombers supported BALTOPS and Saber Strike large-scale training events.

So, large-scale military exercises conducted by NATO are routine events not to worry about but a Russian-Belorussian training event is something extraordinary to raise hue and cry and use it as a pretext for military expansion. That’s how Zapad-2017 serves as a spook used for propaganda purposes.

Militarization Of Scandinavian Peninsula: Time To Ring Alarm Bells

Authored by Alex Gorka via The Stratgeic Culture Foundation,

Much has been said about NATO reinforcements in the Baltic States and Poland perceived in Moscow as provocative actions undermining security in Europe, while very little has been said about gradual but steady militarization of Scandinavia. The theme does not hit headlines and it is not in focus of public discourse but one step is taken after another to turn the region into a springboard for staging offensive actions against Russia.

Ørland in southern Norway is being expanded to become Norway’s main air force base hosting US-made F-35 Lightnings – the stealth aircraft to become the backbone of Norwegian air power. Norway has purchased 56 of such aircraft. F-35 is an offensive, not defensive, weapon. The nuclear capable platforms can strike deep into Russia’s territory.

Providing training to Norwegian pilots operating the planes carrying nuclear weapons, such as B61-12 glider warheads, constitutes a violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968. Article I of the NPT prohibits the transfer of nuclear weapons from NWS (nuclear weapons states) to other states: «Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices». Article II requires NNWS (non-nuclear weapons states) not to receive nuclear weapons: «Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transfer or whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices». How can Russia be sure that these aircraft don’t carry nuclear weapons when there is no agreement of any kind in place to verify compliance with the NPT?

Ørland is located near Værnes - the base that hosts 330 US Marines. In May, the base hosted the biennial NATO military exercise «Arctic Challenge Exercise 2017» to involve over 100 planes from 12 nations. It was the first time a US strategic bomber (B-52H) took part in the training event.

The choice of the base was carefully calculated to keep the planes away from the reach of Russian Iskander missiles (500 kilometres) but no location in Norway is beyond the operational range of Kalibr ship-based sea-to-shore missiles and aircraft armed with long-range air-to-surface missiles.

In June, Norway’s government announced that the decision was taken to extend the rotational US Marine Corps force stationed at Værnes through 2018. The move contradicts the tried-and-true Norwegian policy of not deploying foreign military bases in the country in times of peace.

Also in June, the United States, United Kingdom and Norway agreed in principle to create a trilateral coalition built around the P-8 maritime aircraft to include joint operations in the North Atlantic near the Russian Northern Fleet bases.

Norway is to contribute into NATO ballistic missile defense (BMD) system by integrating its Globus II/III radar in the Vardøya Island located near the Russian border just a few kilometers from the home base of strategic submarines and 5 Aegis-equipped Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates. The radar construction is underway. The Vardøya radar can distinguish real warheads from dummies. Another radar located in Svalbard (the Arctic) can also be used by US military for missile defense purposes.

The country’s ground forces are stationed in Lithuania as part of a NATO multinational force under German command.

Sweden, a close NATO ally, has been upgrading its military with a sharp hike in spending. Last December, the Swedish government told municipal authorities to prepare civil defense infrastructure and procedures for a possible war. The move was prompted by the country’s return to the Cold War-era ‘Total Defense Strategy’. In September, 2016, 150 troops were put on permanent service on the island of Gotland to «defend it from Russia». Sweden maintained a permanent military garrison on Gotland for hundreds of years until 2005.The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) has ordered a review of 350 civilian bunkers on the island. The shelters are designed to protect people against the shock wave and radiation from a nuclear detonation, as well as chemical and biological weapons.

In March, Stockholm announced plans to reintroduce compulsory military service abandoned in 2010. The conscription will come into force on January 1, 2018.

Sweden said in June it wishes to join a British-led «Joint Expeditionary Force», making Swedish participation in a general European war all but inevitable.

This month, the Swedish military announced plans to conduct its largest joint military exercise with NATO in 20 years. Called Aurora 17, the training event is scheduled for September. The drills will take place across the entire country but focusing on the Mälardalen Valley, the areas around cities of Stockholm and Gothenberg and on the strategic island of Gotland. More than 19,000 Swedish troops will take part along with 1,435 soldiers from the US, 270 from Finland, 120 from France and between 40-60 each from Denmark, Norway, Lithuania and Estonia.

In June, Russian President Putin warned «If Sweden joins NATO this will affect our relations in a negative way because we will consider that the infrastructure of the military bloc now approaches us from the Swedish side».

In June, 2016, Finland took part in NATO BALTOPS naval exercise. It was the first time NATO forces trained on Finnish territory (The coastal area at Syndale). Back then, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told his Finnish counterpart, Timo Soini, that the Kremlin would take unspecified measures to respond to increased NATO activity in the Baltic region. According to Lavrov, «We do not hide our negative attitude to the movement of NATO"s military infrastructure towards our borders, to dragging new states into the military activity of the bloc».

All these facts and events summed together demonstrate that militarization of Scandinavia is progressing by leaps and bounds to undermine the security in Europe. No hue and cry is raised in the Russian media but the developments are closely watched by Moscow. Visiting Finland on July 27, President Putin said Russia was «keeping an eye on certain intensification in the movement of military aircraft, ships and troops. In order for us to avoid negative consequences, situations that no one wants, we need to maintain dialogue». He also stressed readiness for dialogue with neutral countries that border the Baltic Sea like Finland which is not part of the NATO military alliance.

The facts listed above show the situation is grave enough to top the agenda of the NATO-Russia Council. But it’s not the case as yet. Last year, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the current President of Germany who was Foreign Minister at the time, slammed NATO for «saber-rattling and war cries» and provocative military activities in the proximity of Russia’s borders. He called for an arms control deal between the West and Russia. Fifteen other members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) joined Steinmeier"s initiative: France, Italy, Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Spain, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Portugal.

Actually, the initiative to relaunch the negotiation process does not belong to Germany. Russia’s proposal to discuss a new European security treaty was rejected by the West. The draft document was published in 2009. In March 2015, Russia expressed its readiness for negotiations concerning a new agreement regarding the control of conventional weapons in Europe.

Moscow has never rejected the idea of launching talks to address the problem. It does not reject it now. The NATO-Russia Council could make a contribution into launching discussions on the matter. It has not done so as yet. Actually, nothing is done to ease the tensions in Europe and the Scandinavian Peninsula in particular. Meanwhile, the situation is aggravating misunderstandings and whipping up tensions.

US Approves $3.9 Billion Patriot Missile System For Romania; Putin: "We Will Be Forced To Respond"

On Tuesday the State Department approved the sale of $3.9 billion in patriot missile systems to NATO-member Romania after prior Russia warnings that such actions could be met with severe reprisals.

Photo source: Darkone/Wikimedia Commons.

The announcement, issued through the Pentagon"s Defense Security Cooperation Agency, is sure to be a huge shot across the bow following on the heels of Russian President Vladimir Putin"s earlier unambiguous words (issued in May) regarding further NATO build-up in the large Balkan country:

If yesterday in those areas of Romania people simply did not know what it means to be in the cross-hairs, then today we will be forced to carry out certain measures to ensure our security. We won"t take any action until we see rockets in areas that neighbor us. We"ve been repeating like a mantra that we will be forced to respond... Nobody wants to hear us. Nobody wants to conduct negotiations with us.

Romania"s US-built $800 million ballistic missile defense shield came online for the first time in May, just prior to Trump"s meeting with Romanian President Klaus Iohannis early the following month, where the two discussed defense spending and other economic concerns. Romania has been a NATO member only since 2004, but has steadily attracted the attention of Western defense companies – it has increased its defense budget to equal 2% of its GDP this year (approximately 4 billion US dollars) – one of only 5 NATO members to hit that target.

The Pentagon agency"s press release cast Romania as the potential victim of aggression in the region:

Romania will use the Patriot missile system to strengthen its homeland defense and deter regional threats. The proposed sale will increase the defensive capabilities of the Romanian military to guard against aggression and shield the NATO allies who often train and operate within Romania’s borders.

NATO build up encroaching Russian defenses. Photo source: The Risk Advisory Group.

The proposal now moves forward for Congressional as well as Romanian parliamentary approval, and will be delivered by Raytheon Corporation and Lockheed-Martin. Other US defense contractors are increasingly in talks with Romania to modernize its army, including General Dynamics, Bell Helicopter, and The Boeing Company. News of the Patriot missile deal was released the same day a massive Patriot missile deployment drill kicked off in Lithuania involving troops from the US, UK, Latvia, and Poland.

Europeans Are Dying For A Drink...Especially The Lithuanians

"Everything in moderation" appears to be a phrase the Europeans are willing to ignore. A new report shows the average European puts away between one and four drinks a day, enough to notably increase the risk of colorectal and esophageal cancers. Americans drink 20 percent less alcohol each year than Europeans.

“The majority of people aren’t aware that alcohol is a risk factor in these cancers,” said Professor Helena Cortez-Pinto, a gastroenterologist at Hospital Universitário de Santa Maria in Lisbon. “This epidemiological evidence is clear about the association.”

As Bloomberg reports, United European Gastroenterology, a nonprofit coalition of specialists, analyzed data collated by the World Health Organization, which shows that Europeans drink more than people on any other continent, an average of 11.2 liters of alcohol per year—the equivalent of just under two drinks a day.

Americans drink 20 percent less alcohol each year than Europeans, while the average African drinks half the amount. One in every five Europeans over the age of 15 drinks “heavily”—more than four alcoholic drinks—at least once a week.

The American Cancer Society supported the report’s findings, pointing to comments on its website that note “limiting alcohol use to no more than two drinks a day for men and one drink a day for women could have many health benefits, including a lower risk of colorectal cancer.”

And while the risks are now clear, one nation stands out in Europe... Lithuania holds the unenviable crown of Europe’s heaviest drinkers, downing 3.2 alcoholic drinks per day, or 18.2 liters of pure alcohol per person per year. By comparison, drinkers in the U.S. are practically teetotaling, drinking the equivalent of 1.6 drinks a day.

Lithuania’s government recently passed sweeping reforms of its alcohol laws, which will take effect Jan. 1. The country will ban alcohol advertising, raise the drinking age to 20 from 18, and outlaw alcohol sales between 8 p.m. and 10 a.m.

Egle Leskauskaite, 17, will now have to wait until July 2020 to drink legally, and she said that making alcohol illegal could perversely make it more attractive.

“It’s annoying because it’s not going to help Lithuanian people stop drinking,” she said.

“If people want to drink they’ll find a way to buy it.”

What Makes America Different?

Authored by Bill Bonner via InternationalMan.com,

“Elizabeth,” I asked this morning as my wife climbed out of the pool. “How would you describe that sea turtle we saw on the beach?”

Pausing for a moment, she replied, “Rotating its slow and majestic flippers, it ground its way slowly and inexorably toward China…”

The sea turtle was headed east. Whether China was its destination or not, I don’t know. I only know that it was about to leave the Latin America isthmus, from the west coast of Nicaragua, and put out to sea when a muscular, brown young man picked it up and carried it back up on the beach. He and his friends had dug a big hole in the sand where the turtle was placed.

At night, we often see the dim light of flashlights along the beach. “It’s the locals looking for turtle eggs,” Manuel explained. “It’s illegal to take them, but…” Manuel shrugged his shoulders.

Sea turtles are protected by international convention. But here in the wilds of Nicaragua, they still end up in the soup from time to time.

Not the Same America

This is America, too… but it is not the same America. It is the New World… but not as new as the world north of the Rio Grande. Here, the Old World has not yet been snuffed out. It survives in a semitropical paradise.

But the object of our attention today is neither the Old World nor the new one – but the ever-changing, never fully explored idea of America.

“Proud to be an American,” says one bumper sticker. “One nation – indivisible,” says another. America was, of course, founded on the opposite principle… the idea that people were free to separate themselves from a parent government whenever they felt they had come of age. But no fraud, no matter how stupendous, is so obvious as to be detected by the average American. That is America’s great strength… or its most serious weakness.

After September 11, so many people bought flags that the shops ran short. Old Glory festooned nearly every porch and bridge. Patriotism swelled in every heart.

Europeans, coming back to the Old Country, reported that they had never seen anything like it. A Frenchman takes his country for granted. He is born into it, just as he is born into his religion. He may be proud of La Belle France the way he is proud of his cheese. But he is not fool enough to claim credit for either one. He just feels lucky to have them for his own.

What Makes America Different?

America, by contrast, is a nation of people who chose to become Americans. Even the oldest family tree in the New World has immigrants at its roots. And where did its government, its courts, its businesses, and its saloons come from?

They were all invented by us. Having chosen the country… and made it what it is… Americans feel more responsibility for what it has become than the citizens of most other nations. And they take more pride in it, too.

But what is it? What has it become? What makes America different from any other nation? Why should we care more about it than about, say, Lithuania or Chad?

Pressed for an answer, most Americans would reply, “Because America is a free country.” What else can be said of the place? Its land mass is as varied as the earth itself. Inhabiting the sands of Tucson as well as the steppes of Alaska, Americans could as well be called a desert race as an arctic one.

Its religions are equally diverse – from moss-backed Episcopalians of the Virginia tidewater to the Holy Rollers of East Texas to the Muslims of East Harlem.

Nor does blood itself give the country any mark of distinction. The individual American has more in common genetically with the people his people come from than with his fellow Americans. In a DNA test, your correspondent is more likely to be mistaken for an IRA hitman than a Baltimore drug dealer.

America never was a nation in the usual sense of the word. Though there are plenty of exceptions – especially among the made-up nations of former European colonies – nations are usually composed of groups of people who share common blood, culture, and language.

Americans mostly speak English. But they might just as well speak Spanish. And at the debut of the republic, the Founding Fathers narrowly avoided declaring German the official language… at least that is the legend.

A Frenchman has to speak French. A German has to speak the language of the Vaterland. But an American could speak anything. And often does.

Be What You Want to Be

Nor is there even a common history. The average immigrant didn’t arrive until the early 20th century. By then, America’s history was already three centuries old. The average citizen missed the whole thing.

Neither blood, history, religion, language – what else is left? Only an idea: that you could come to America and be whatever you wanted to be. You might have been a bogtrotter in Ireland or a baron in Silesia; in America, you were free to become whatever you could make of yourself.

“Give me liberty or give me death,” said Patrick Henry, raising the rhetorical stakes and praying no one would call him on it. Yet the average man at the time lived in near-perfect freedom.

There were few books and few laws on them. And fewer people to enforce them. Henry, if he wanted to do so, could have merely crossed the Blue Ridge west of Charlottesville and never seen another government agent again.

Taxation With Representation

Thomas Jefferson complained, in the Declaration of Independence, that Britain had “erected a multitude of New Offices, and set hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”

Yet the swarms of officers sent by King George III would have barely filled a midsize regional office of the IRS or city zoning department today.

Likewise, the Founding Fathers kvetched about taxation without representation. But history has shown that representation only makes taxation worse. Kings, emperors, and tyrants must keep tax rates low… Otherwise, the people rise in rebellion.

It is Democrats that really eat out the substance of the people: The illusion of self-government lets them get away with it. Tax rates were only an average of 3% under the tyranny of King George III. One of the blessings of democracy is average tax rates that are 10 times as high.

“Americans today,” wrote Rose Wilder Lane in 1936, after the Lincoln administration had annihilated the principle of self-government… but before the Roosevelt team had finished its work, “are the most reckless and lawless of peoples… We are also the most imaginative, the most temperamental, the most infinitely varied.”

But by the end of the 20th century, Americans were required to wear seat belts and ate low-fat yogurt without a gun to their heads. The recklessness seems to have been bred out of them. And the variety, too. North, south, east, and west, people all wear the same clothes and cherish the same decrepit ideas as if they were religious relics.

And why not? It’s a free country.

Russian Lawmaker Issues Sobering Threat: We're Willing To Use Nukes To Defend Crimea

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

As of late, the media has forgotten about tensions between Ukraine, NATO, and Russia. Crimea and the conflict in Eastern Ukraine have largely left the public’s awareness. However, that shouldn’t be the case, because this region is still a powder keg that could blow at any time. And if it does, it could easily result in another world war.

If you don’t think the situation in Ukraine could still explode into a wider conflict, take a look at what this member of Russia’s parliament recently said at an international security conference.

“On the issue of NATO expansion on our borders, at some point I heard from the Russian military — and I think they are right — If U.S. forces, NATO forces, are, were, in the Crimea, in eastern Ukraine, Russia is undefendable militarily in case of conflict without using nuclear weapons in the early stage of the conflict,” Russian parliamentarian Vyacheslav Alekseyevich Nikonov told attendees at the GLOBSEC 2017 forum in Bratislava, Slovakia.

Russian military leaders have discussed Moscow’s willingness to use nuclear weapons in a conflict with military leaders in NATO, as part of broader and increasingly contentious conversations about the alliance’s expansion, Nikonov later told Defense One.

That’s a startling admission when you think about it. It seems the Russian’s believe that if there is a war between Russia and the West, their conventional forces won’t be capable of defending Russian soil from NATO. They’re basically warning us that “if you bring a knife to this fight, we know we can’t win, so we’ll be bringing a gun.”

And there’s a good reason for them to believe that NATO poses a dire threat to their territory and interests.

“For us, [NATO] is a military alliance spanning three-quarters of the global defense money, now planning to expand that figure,” said Nikonov.

In the two years since Russia annexed Crimea, NATO’s Baltic members have doubled their defense budgets. In 2018, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are projected to spend nearly $670 million, up from $210 million in 2014. “This growth is faster than any other region globally,” Craig Caffrey, principal analyst at IHS Jane’s, remarked last October. “In 2005, the region’s total defence budget was $930 million. By 2020, the region’s defence budget will be $2.1 billion.”

NATO has been expanding its troop presence in Eastern Europe as well. In April 2016, during the Warsaw summit, NATO agreed to increase the size of the NATO force deployed to Baltics, a posture move sometimes called enhanced forward presence. In January, the U.S. deployed some 4,000 troops to Poland. The following month, Germany, announced that it will send some 1,000 troops to  Lithuania.

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has slowly but surely encircled Russia. Just last month NATO admitted another Eastern European nation into their alliance, and the current antagonism between West and Russia is being driven by NATO’s attempts to absorb Ukraine.

The West needs a reality check. The further we encroach into Russia’s traditional sphere of influence, the closer we come to World War Three. And if Russia really is such a serious threat to us, as our government has claimed many times in recent years, is expanding NATO really going to guarantee our safety?

We were perfectly capable of protecting ourselves from the much more powerful Soviet Union, and we did so with a much smaller alliance. We’re expanding NATO to Russia’s doorstep, and all we’re receiving in return is the heightened risk of nuclear war.

NATO Builds Infrastructure For Permanent Military Presence Near Russia's Borders

Authored by Alex Gorka via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

A group of about 50 combat engineers based at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown were deployed to Latvia on April 29 as part of Operation Reassurance. The mission is to build a town for 500 soldiers. According to commanding officer Lt.-Col. Chris Cotton, the installation will have «everything you would expect in a small town, from its kitchen to its quarters, its electrical distribution system, water distribution system, internet, gym facilities that would allow people to survive over the long term in Latvia». Obviously, this is an element of vast infrastructure to provide for a long-term commitment.

In early April, a US-led battle group of 1,350 soldiers for NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence in Eastern Europe arrived at its base near Orzysz in northeastern Poland. It took place just a few days after a NATO-Russia Council meeting took place on March 30. Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg called the talks with Moscow «frank» and «constructive». Then the usual song and dance followed under the slogan of Russian threat.

British RAF fighters are scheduled to be stationed to Romania this May. In March the first of 800 UK troops arrived in Estonia supported by around 300 armed vehicles. Along with French and Danish forces they’ll be stationed there on what NATO leadership calls «rotational basis». In January, German and Belgian forces arrived in Lithuania near the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad.

The UK leads the Estonia Battlegroup while other NATO members are deploying forces to Latvia, Lithuania and Poland as part of the bloc’s Enhanced Forward Presence battalion. All in all, 4,000 NATO troops with tanks, armored vehicles, air support, and high-tech intelligence centers deployed to Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

In accordance with the fiscal year 2017 European Reassurance Initiative budget proposal, the US Army is reopening or creating five equipment-storage sites in the Netherlands, Poland, Belgium and two locations in Germany.

Last September, the service began to assemble more Army Prepositioned Stocks (APS) for permanent storage in Europe. Those stocks will be sufficient for another armored brigade to fall in on. The rotating brigade will bring its own equipment. The move will add hundreds of the Army’s most advanced weapons systems to beef up the US European Command’s combat capability. It will also free up an entire brigade’s worth of weapons currently being used by US forces training on the continent to enable more American troops to be rushed in on short notice.

An armored brigade combat team comprises about 4,200 troops and includes approximately 250 tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Paladin self-propelled howitzers, plus 1,750 wheeled vehicles. The proposed budget increase includes a $1.8bn outlay on 45,000 GPS-guided smart bombs and laser-guided rockets to boost the precision strike capability.

Also last month, more than 1,200 troops from 12 countries, including the non-bloc participant Sweden, took part in two-week NATO military drills in Latvia dubbed Summer Shield. «This deployment is, of course, a threat to us», Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksey Meshkov said, arguing that the large-scale drills at Russia’s doorstep are bound to «gravely increase the risk of incidents». He vowed a proportionate response. «They always have one thing on their mind: the ‘Russian threat’ myth, ‘Russian aggression’ slander and endless mantras about the need to confront it collectively», the Russian Foreign Ministry said in March following a NATO foreign ministers’ meeting.

The Baltic States and Poland will have to shoulder the financial burden of maintaining the military facilities. The Baltic States incurred significant expenses in rebuilding Ämari and Zokniai airbases. For instance, Estonia has spent 70 million euros in three years to modernize and maintain Ämari airbase. The new base in Latvia built by Canadian engineers is also not a free lunch.

The buildup is viewed by Russia as a provocation and a threat to the entire region’s security and peace. The alliance is trying to whip up tensions in Europe to reinforce its relevance in the ever changing world. It needs a fictional enemy to keep it together.

The deployment breaches the Russia-NATO Founding Act (1997). By signing the document NATO pledged not to seek «additional permanent stationing of substantial ground combat forces» in the nations closer to Russia «in the current and foreseeable security environment». The argument that the forces are being deployed on temporary basis doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Each army combat unit has an operational cycle, including training events. It will inevitably hold exercises somewhere. The forces are training nowhere else but in the proximity of Russia’s borders.

The Canadian engineers are constructing nothing else but a town. The official used the term «town» in his statement. Towns are not built to enable army units to hold exercises and then go. A town for the military is an element of permanent infrastructure. Once the expenditure is approved, it means the living quarters and facilities are to remain in Latvia for many years.

The announced plans are nothing else but a permanent military presence of substantial forces. With the Founding Act invalid, the Russia-NATO military relationship will be left without a legal basis to go upon. The document has played a very important role in the relationship for 20 years. Now this fundamental document appears to be dead as a result of NATO’s provocative activities near the Russia’s territory. The war preparations greatly reduce European security and the chances for revival of constructive dialogue between Russia and NATO. It leads to the conclusion that the alliance is preparing for a new Cold War with unpredictable results.

EU Deletes UK from Official Map... Two Years Before Brexit

This could be the first official map produced by the European Union to exclude the UK. But it is also an inaccurate one: the UK is still a member state of the EU.

As BigThink.com"s Frank Jacobs writes, the map shows the unemployment rates of the member states – and the stark differences for those rates between member states in the north and south of the Union. But the eye is immediately drawn to the land mass of the United Kingdom: coloured not in the blues or oranges that indicate unemployment rates in the EU, but the grey of the non-member states that dot the map. 

Those non-members include the usual suspects: Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Andorra, Albania and five of the seven post-Yugoslav states (Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo and Macedonia; Slovenia and Croatia have acceded to the EU). Squeezed between Poland and Lithuania is the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. Russia proper and other countries in eastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa are whited out.

The UK now joins the grey countries on the map. But this is not a map produced to satisfy the wishful thinking of those hardline Brexiteers who can"t wait for 2019. This is an official publication of the European Commission, one of the highest institutions of the European Union. Despite the fact that, for almost two more years, the EU still includes Britain.

US, UK Both Drop In Latest 'World Press Freedom Index' Rankings

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

Reporters without Borders just published its annual World Press Freedom Index rankings, and the results for both the U.S. and UK are not impressive. Both countries declined two spots from last year, with the UK at 41, and the greatest and most free nation on earth, America, down to 43.

Here’s The Guardian reporting on the UK’s decline:

Journalists in the UK are less free to hold power to account than those working in South Africa, Chile or Lithuania, according to an index of press freedom around the world.

Laws permitting generalised surveillance, as well as a proposal for a new espionage act that could criminalise journalists and whistleblowers as spies, were cited by Reporters Without Borders as it knocked the UK down two places from last year, to 40th out of 180 countries in its World Press Freedom Index.

In the past five years, the UK has slipped 12 places down the index. Rebecca Vincent, RSF’s UK bureau director, said this year’s ranking would have been worse were it not for a general decline in press freedom around the world, making journalists in Britain comparatively better off than those in countries such as Turkey and Syria.

RSF, which campaigns for free speech, warned of a general erosion of media freedom in English-speaking, democratic countries. The US, long considered a bastion of freedom of speech thanks to the first amendment of its constitution, also dropped two places, to 43rd. Canada fell four places, to 22nd, and New Zealand slipped eight places, to 13th.

Among the concerns raised by RSF was the passage of the UK’s “menacing” Investigatory Powers Act last November, which met only token resistance within parliament, despite giving UK intelligence agencies and police the most sweeping surveillance powers in the western world.

RSF said the act was a possible “death sentence” for investigative journalism in Britain, owing to its lack of protections for whistleblowers, journalists and their sources, and that it set a damaging precedent for other countries to follow.

Moving along, what about the shining city on a hill? Land of the free, home of the brave, the world’s indispensable nation!

Here’s what Reporters without Borders had to say about the U.S. as it dropped two spots to 43.

US press freedom, enshrined in the First Amendment to the 1787 constitution, has encountered several major obstacles over the past few years, most recently with the election of President Donald Trump. He has declared the press an “enemy of the American people” in a series of verbal attacks toward journalists, while attempting to block White House access to multiple media outlets in retaliation for critical reporting. Despite the bleak outlook under Trump, it bears repeating that his predecessor left behind a flimsy legacy for press freedom and access to information. Journalists continue to be arrested for covering various protests around the country, with several currently facing criminal charges. The Obama administration waged a war on whistleblowers who leaked information about its activities, leading to the prosecution of more leakers than any previous administration combined. To this day, American journalists are still not protected by a federal “shield law” guaranteeing their right to protect their sources and other confidential work-related information. And over the past few years, there has been an increase in prolonged searches of journalists and their devices at the US border, with some foreign journalists being prevented from any travel to the US after they covered sensitive topics such as Colombia’s FARC or Kurdistan.

If you think that’s bad, imagine where the U.S. will end up if the DOJ actually goes forward with charges against Julian Assange?

I discussed that troubling scenario in last week’s post, The American Empire Under Donald Trump Has Become Increasingly Desperate, Dangerous & Insecure.

Things are not headed in the right direction.

The Reason Behind The Sales-Surge For Nuclear-Proof Bunkers

Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

On April 15^th, Zero Hedge bannered «Doomsday Bunker Sales Soar After Trump"s Military Strikes», but this growth in the market for nuclear-proof bunkers is hardly new; it started during the Obama Administration, in Obama’s second term, specifically after the Russia-friendly government of Ukraine, next-door to Russia, got taken over in 2014 by a rabidly anti-Russian government that’s backed by the U.S. government.

This boom in nuclear-bunker sales is only increasing now, as the new U.S. President, Donald Trump, tries to out-do his predecessor in demonstrating his hostility toward the other nuclear superpower, Russia, and displaying his determination to overthrow the leader of any nation (such as Syria and Iran) that is at all friendly toward Russia. For earlier examples of feature-articles on this booming market for homes that allegedly would enable buyers to survive the first blast effects, and the most immediate nuclear contaminations, of a Third World War, see here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here. 

This surging demand for nuclear bunkers started right after the U.S. government arranged a coup in Ukraine that replaced the existing Moscow-friendly democratically elected President by installing a rabidly anti-Russian Prime Minister and national-security appointees from Ukraine’s two nazi Parties, the Right Sector Party, and the former Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine (which the CIA renamed «Svoboda» meaning «Freedom» so as to enable it to be acceptable to the American public). Then, the intensifying U.S. effort to replace the secular pro-Russian Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad by a sectarian jihadist government that would be dependent upon the Saudi-Qatari-UAE-Turkish-U.S. alliance, has only intensified further the demand for these types of «second homes». 

Whereas all of the purchasers of these bunkers are being kept secret, the U.S. federal government provides, free-of-charge, to top officials, nuclear bunkers, so as to allow the then-dictatorship (continuation of America’s current dictatorship) to function, in order, supposedly, to serve their country, which they’d already have destroyed (along with destroying the rest of the world) by their determination to conquer Russia. No one knows what the reality would actually be in such a post-WW-III world, except that there would be no functioning electrical grid, nights would be totally dark for anyone whose sole reliance is on the grid, and all rivers and other water-sources would be intensely radioactive from the fallout, so that groundwater soon would also be unusable — and, of course, the air itself would also be toxic; so, lifespans would be enormously shortened, and excruciating, not to say extremely depressing.

No one has published a computer-model of a U.S.-Russia nuclear war, because doing that would be unacceptable to the «military-industrial complex» including the U.S. government, but in 2014 a «limited, regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan» was computer-modeled and projected to produce global ozone-depletion and «the coldest average surface temperatures in the last 1000 years», which «could trigger a global nuclear famine». But such a war would be only 50 bombs instead of the 10,000+ that would be used in a WW III scenario; and, so, everyone who is paying money in order to survive WW III is simply wasting money.

But, somehow, there are people who either want a Russia-U.S. war, or else whose preparations for it are directed at surviving in such a world, instead of at ending the current grip on political power in the United States, on the part of the people who are working to bring about this type of (end to the) world. At least the owners of the major U.S. armaments-firms, such as Raytheon Corporation, would have an explosive financial boost during the build-up toward that war, but buying bunkers in order to survive it, would seem to be a dubious follow-up to such an investment-plan. On the other hand, it might appeal to some thrill-seekers who don’t even feel the need for a good computer-simulation of a post-WW-III world; maybe they’ve got money to burn and a craving to experience ‘the ultimate thrill’, and don’t want unpleasant knowledge to spoil the thrill.

After President Trump threw out his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and replaced him with the rabidly anti-Russian H.R. McMaster, and then lobbed 59 cruise missiles against the Syrian government (which is protected by the Russian government), the cacophony of press that had been calling for President Trump to be impeached and replaced by his rabidly anti-Russian Vice President Mike Pence, considerably quieted down; and, so, the Obama-Trump market for nuclear bunkers seems now to be established on very sound foundations, for the foreseeable immediate future. And, if anyone in the U.S. federal government has been planning to prepare the U.S. for a post-WW-III world, that has not been publicly announced, and no newsmedia have even been inquiring about it — so, nothing can yet be said about it.

The general message, thus far, is that, after World War III, everyone will be on his or her own, but that the dictators will (supposedly) be in a far better position than will anyone outside that ruling group. However, if the survivors end up merely envying the dead, it will be no laughing matter, regardless of how silly those nuclear bunkers are. It would be nothing funny at all.

On April 17^th, Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site «The Saker,» headlined «Trump has lost control over the Pentagon», and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations:

March 14^th, the US National Nuclear Security Administration field tested the modernized B61-12  gravity nuclear bomb in Nevada.

April 7, Liberty Passion, loaded with US military vehicles, moored at Aqaba Main Port, Jordan

On April 7^th the Pentagon US bombed Syria’s main command center in fight against terrorists

April 10, United States Deploying Forces At Syrian-Jordanian Border

April 11, The US Air Force might start forcing pilots to stay in the service against their will, according to the chief of the military unit’s Air Mobility Command.

April 12, President Donald Trump has signed the US approval for Montenegro to join NATO

April 13, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg announced the alliance’s increased deployment in Eastern Europe

On April 13^th, the Pentagon bombed Afghanistan. The US military has bombed Afghanistan with its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB)

April 13, the US-led coalition bombed the IS munitions and chemical weapons depot in Deir ez-Zor killing hundreds of people

April 14, The Arleigh Burke-class, guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63) has been deployed to the South China Sea

April 14, the US sent F-35 jets to Europe

April 14, Washington failed to attend the latest international conference hosted by Moscow, where 11 nations discussed ways of bringing peace to Afghanistan. The US branded it a «unilateral Russian attempt to assert influence in the region».

April14, the US has positioned two destroyers armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles close enough to the North Korean nuclear test site to act preemptively

On April 16^th, the US army makes largest deployment of troops to Somalia since the 90s.

Mr. Humor drew attention to an article that had been published in «The Daily Beast» a year ago, on 8 April 2016, «CALL OF DUTY: The Secret Movement to Draft General James Mattis for President. Gen. James Mattis doesn’t necessarily want to be president—but that’s not stopping a group of billionaire donors from hatching a plan to get him there». Though none of the alleged «billionaires» were named there, one prominent voice backing Mattis for the Presidency, in that article, was Bill Kristol, the Rupert Murdoch agent who co-founded the Project for a New American Century, which was the first influential group pushing the «regime-change in Iraq» idea during the late 1990s, and which also advocated for the foreign policies that George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump, have since been pursuing, each in his own way. It seems that whomever those «billionaires» were, they’ve now gotten their wish, with a figurehead Donald Trump as President, and James Mattis actually running foreign policy. Humor also noted that Mattis wants to boost the budget of the Pentagon by far more than the 9% that Trump has proposed. Perhaps Trump knew that even to get a 9% Pentagon increase passed this year would be almost impossible to achieve. First, the unleashed Pentagon needs to place the military into an ‘emergency’ situation, so as to persuade the public to clamor for a major invasion. That ‘emergency’ might be the immediate goal, toward which the March-April timeline of events that Humor documented is aiming.

As regards the military comparisons of the personnel and equipment on both sides of a U.S.-Russia war, the key consideration would actually be not the 7,000 nuclear warheads that Russia has versus the 6,800 nuclear warheads that the U.S. has, but the chief motivation on each of the respective sides: conquest on the part of the U.S. aristocracy, defense on the part of the Russian aristocracy. (Obviously, the U.S. having continued its NATO military alliance after the Soviet Union’s Warsaw Pact military alliance ended in 1991, indicates America’s aggressive intent against Russia. That became a hyper-aggressive intent when NATO absorbed Russia’s former Warsaw Pact allies. NATO even brought in some parts of the former USSR itself, when in 2004, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, entered NATO, and in 2014 U.S. President Obama tried to get Ukraine into NATO, and these five countries hadn’t even been Warsaw Pacters, but had instead been parts of the USSR itself. It was as if Russia had grabbed not only America’s allies, but some states in the U.S. itself. This constituted extreme aggression, and shows the U.S. aristocracy’s obsessive intent for global empire — to include Russia.) 

Any limited war between the two powers would become a nuclear war once the side that’s losing this limited war becomes faced with the choice of either surrendering that limited territory (now likely Syria) or else going nuclear. On Russia’s side, allowing such military conquest of an ally would be unacceptable; the war would then expand with the U.S. and its allies invading Russian territory for Russia’s continuing refusal to accept the U.S.-Saudi and other allies’ grabbing of Syria (on ‘humanitarian grounds’, of course — as if, for example, the Sauds aren’t far more brutal than Assad). After the traditional-forces’ invasion of Russia, Russia’s yielding its sovereignty over its own land has never been part of Russia’s culture: If Russia were to be invaded by allies of the U.S., then launching all of Russia’s nuclear weapons against the U.S. and America’s invasion-allies, would be a reasonably expected result. Here’s how it would develop: On America’s side, which (very unlike Russia) has no record of any foreign invasion against its own mainland (other than the Sauds’ own 9/11 ‘false flag’ attacks), the likely response in the event of Russia’s crushing its invaders would be for the U.S. President to seek to negotiate a face-saving end to that limited war, just as the American President Richard Nixon did regarding America’s invasion and occupation of Vietnam.

However, a reasonable question can be raised as to whether, in such a situation, Russia would accept anything less than America’s total surrender, much as Franklin Delano Roosevelt in WW II was determined to accept nothing less than Germany’s total surrender, at the end of that war. If Trump wants to play Hitler, then Putin (acting in accord with Russian tradition) would probably play both FDR and Stalin, even if it meant the end of the world. For Russia to be conquered, especially by such intense evil as those invaders would be representing, would probably be viewed by Russians as being even worse than ending everything, and this would probably be Putin’s view as well. If America did not simply capitulate, Putin would probably nuclear-blitz-attack the U.S. and its allies, rather than give Trump (or Pence) the opportunity to blitz-attack Russia and to sacrifice all of the U.S. side’s invading troops in Russia so as to ‘win’ the overall war and finally conquer Russia. It would be like WW II, except with nuclear weapons — and thus an entirely different type of historical outcome after the war. 

Consequently, either the U.S. will cease its designs on Russia, or there will be WW III. Russia’s sovereignty will never be yielded, especially not to the thuggish gang who have come to rule the U.S. (both as «Republicans» and as «Democrats»). The bipartisan neoconservative dream of America’s aristocrats (world-conquest) will never be achieved. Russia will never accept it. If America’s rulers continue to press it, the result will be even worse than when the Nazis tried. It’s just an ugly pipe-dream, but any attempt to make it real would be even uglier. And nobody who buys a ‘nuclear-proof bunker’ will get what he or she thinks is being bought — safety in such a world as that. It won’t exist.