Shock Poll: Is Russia Friend Or Foe?

According to a recent NBC News poll, two-thirds of Americans are worried about a major war breaking out, and while among all respondents Russia is considered a foe, young people by a near three-fourth’s majority do not believe Russia to be a foe. The propaganda of the mainstream media has less of an effect on younger Americans, who have tuned out network news. What does this mean for the pro-peace movement? It’s good news, as we discuss in the Ron Paul Liberty Report:

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

  • Don

    First of all what has to be understood is that it was generated by Trump to begin with and it became a campaign difference between him and Hillary. They escalated the rhetoric until it became something far from what it was. And it hasn’t stopped yet because Trump can’t get out of his position on Russia. Which incidentally, was never a position to begin with. It was a campaign promise that was supposed to be forgotten after it’s job was done of getting a few antiwar votes.
    About 5:15 Ron Paul gets on the gameplan, sort of. He’s beginning to suggest that Trump wasn’t good to his word.

    With Trump’s recent remarks of making America’s nuclear force the biggest in the world, everything changes for those who even try to remain supportive to Trump and also be antiwar. And all the polls will change dratically when the people realize that Trump is making Russia out to be the enemy.

    And then the idiot Daniel goes and reads the bloody chart wrong! And it doesn’t fizz on Ron!

    However, their hearts are in the right place at least. It would just be nice if they would drop the partisan politics and start appealing to ALL the people.

    • Harriet Logan

      Both the Democratic Party and Republican Party big shots are war mongers. Most everybody knows that, too. It’s just that Trump seems to want to target China and Iran first while the Clintons and Obama wanted to target Russia first. It’s a tactical difference amongst killers.

      • Per Einar Svendsen

        Trump is a negotiation and tradition warrior. Not a warmonger like Clinton. Long time ago Obama was a peace activist, but he belived that pulling of us force wasthe rigth way to do it.

        • Harriet Logan

          Both Trump and Obama are leaders of what is often referred to as the Deep State in the US. Trump though is really less popular within that MIC than the Democratic Party Establishment war mongers are. But he is a part of that crowd just as much as the Clinton and Obama are. It is dangerous to actually believe that he isn’t.

          • Don

            Explain yourself. All indications so far are that Trump will be the most popular president ever to the MIC. He’s surrounded himself with people who ‘are’ the MIC. His whole bloody demeanour screams support of the MIC!

            The ‘deep state’ as such works on behalf of the president. The only exception would be when the president is not smart enough to be trusted with state secrets.

            Trump’s mistakes and stupidity is being corrected slowly now and there will be far less examples of it exposed to the people and the rest of the world. And Trump’s position on US relations with Russia that was only for campaign purposes is slowly being put to bed. Although it’s doubtful it will be completely put to bed because the Dems are destroying Trump over it. Trump just wants it all forgotten of course

          • “The ‘deep state’ as such works on behalf of the president.”

            Nope. The Deep State works on behalf of the Deep State — that is, on behalf of ongoing and expanding discretionary power for the state itself.

          • Don

            Could be but in most cases the president is complicit in the actions of the deep state. And in fact the deep state is directed by the president to act on his wishes. I get your point if you’re trying to say that the deep state has turned renegade against the president, and in my opinion that is now happening. Actually, it’s openly happening because it’s been said that some secrets are being kept from Trump.

            Causes me to think of the Kennedy assassination and how it’s speculated that the deep state was involved and how Johnson himself was directing the deep state.

            Just how renegade the deep state really is, is food for thought, and I encourage you to pursue the idea.

            I would suggest that the deep state acted in collusion with Obama’s wishes. I welcome an argument that would explain how that idea is wrong.

          • I’m not sure you understand what the Deep State is.

            The Deep State is an aggregate of people and organizations not constrained by the horizon of election/re-election. It’s not some kind of organization with a chart of who’s in charge. It’s a sort of brainless quasi-organism whose parts tend to act to preserve its existence and expand its discretionary power. Any particular act is obviously carried out, planned, authorized, etc. by specific people, but there’s no master plan. It’s almost the definition of “reactionary.”

            The Deep State per se doesn’t act in collusion with or accordance with or at the direction of or in obedience to a president’s wishes. Or anyone else’s wishes, for that matter. But it will tend to crush any politician, president or otherwise, whose actions tend to threaten its existence or health.

          • Don

            Thanks. I know what the ‘deep state’ is by definition but it’s also helpful to get your take on it. It can be many things of course but the conversations that were going on seemed to me to center on the spook agencies.
            I’d just like to mention that we need to be careful to not allow the president, for example, to use the excuse that the deep state is in control in some way and he can transfer the blame to it/them.
            At the present, Trump and his cronies are in control and the deep state are trying to wrestle some control away from him because of the great danger he represents. Hence, not letting Trump in on top secret stuff to some degree.

          • Yes, a lot of the shallow rhetoric on the Deep State focuses exclusively or nearly so on the intelligence community.

            Here’s the thing: The ELECTED federal government consists of 435 US Representatives, 100 US Senators, a vice-president and a president — 537 employees.

            The Deep State consists of ~2 million civilian federal employees, ~1 million military government employees, and a crap ton of contractors, state/local government employees who depend on federal funding, etc. One estimate I’ve seen of the number of DE FACTO federal employees is closer to 15 million than to the 3 million de jure.

            While many of the congresscritters manage to get themselves effectively elected for life, they at least HAVE to get themselves elected and re-elected. All those non-elected people have one, and only one, common interest, and that is to make sure their paychecks keep arriving and getting bigger. That common interest tends to keep them pulling together in the same direction not because they sit down and agree to but because they all independently know what side their bread is buttered on and act accordingly.

            That’s not to say there aren’t actual collaborations, conspiracies, etc. WITHIN the Deep State. But there’s not some Office of the Deep State Comptroller running shit. There’s just a large body of people with a specific shared reactionary tendency toward anything that threatens to derail the gravy train. They don’t work for the president. He works for them — if he wants to keep his job and, in extremis, if he wants to live, that is.

          • Don

            O.k. then, you’re on about the elected reps being bought and paid for when you think of the deep state. No doubt true to some extent but probably somewhat less than you’re imagining.

      • Don

        You’re getting close to the truth Harriet. Now, all you have to do is rise above the domestic politics and come to understand that it’s not your presidents but your country.

        With one difference concerning Trump. He’s much more dangerous than any other president in the past. If your country is struck again by terrorists then Trump is liable to strike out without abandon at an enemy of choice, regardless of what country could be responsible. Indeed, if any country was responsible.

        That maneuver was employed for war on Iraq. I can envision it being used once again for war on Iran. And the consequences would very likely be too horrible to even imagine.

        That is why there needs to be great urgency put on the situation by antiwar people. If indeed antiwar people could influcence the situation? Raimondo is standing in the way of that happening.

        • charlesjannuzi

          Well that is what Bush did in attacking Afghanistan so quickly after 9-11. He used many of the covert assets he had been accumulating for a war on Iraq to attack Afghanistan immediately. One, it was a nice test run to show that another Bay of Goats op vs. Iraq wouldn’t work anyway. Two, it basically made any real talk about his government’s responsibility for 9-11 unpatriotic real talk. Shhh there is a war on. Sure, it slowed down his plans to attack Iraq, but by then he could get most of the US and UK behind his evil.

          • Don

            You do understand that Bush2 preferred to attack Iraq following 911?
            I agree with you if you’re suggesting that destroying Afghanistan and then establishing US control over it had nothing to do with the 911 attacks. The only problem is that’s a very unpopular minority opinion which will be argued against by both political parties.

            I completely get your suggestion on any resistance to Bush2’s war plans as being unpatriotic. It’s probably common to all US led wars and that makes it a big part of manufacturing consent. Although in the case of Afghanistan, it was a cakewalk with the consent and false justificatioin already in place!

          • charlesjannuzi

            Bush’s plan was to attack Iraq in 2002 probably. It was supposed to be Bay of Goats Pt. 2, heavy on special forces, heavy on CIA, heavy on proxies, Kurdistan as base, with armed rebellions among religious Sunni and religious Shia. He basically then shifted the assets to attack Afghanistan so as to appear to be doing something bold in answer to 9-11 and to squelch any discussion about, well, wait a minute here, you are in office, you are responsible, we need an open inquiry, we need trials, we need real findings about 9-11.

            Afghanistan fit because it had OBL. It only later morphed into part of a grand scheme to contain the export of Iranian and C. Asian (Russian-controlled) oil and gas to populous S. Asia, which would love to have it. The destruction of Syria is largely about that too.

          • Don

            I wasn’t aware of any specific plan to attack Iraq in 2002. But I have always been aware of the US plan to finish the job in Iraq and asserting complete control over Iraq and it’s oil resources.
            Fwiw, I would think that was considered to have been accomplished with the Gulf war but it wasn’t. Any opinion on that?
            I’m assuming we can both lay aside any bullshit on saving Kuwait?

          • charlesjannuzi

            Goes back to the Iraq Regime Change Act signed under Clinton. That empowered and actually ordered the US government to begin planning an attack to remove Saddam and his government from power.

            The reason why such plans got so much backing was such an attack would take Iraqi oil off the market, thereby helping to raise the price–so plenty of people like the idea, including W. Texas oilmen, N. Sea, etc. The problem was, it even helped Russia, Venezuela and Iran. So although it did largely sequester Iraqi oil for a decade, remove a big oil dumper from the world markets, and help raise the price, it also helped other candidates for regime change.

            PGW I was more about protecting Saudi Arabia (the place had huge caches of US military equipment, and any attack on the country would indeed disrupts oil supplies and rock the world economy.

            Back in the 80s, the US military identified military organizations in the ME and elsewhere that could operate in a cohesive fashion at a divsion level. Well, very few militaries qualify–Yugoslavia did, as did Iraq.

            These were seen as a threat to US power in the post-Cold War era.

          • Don

            “The reason why such plans got so much backing was such an attack would take Iraqi oil off the market, thereby helping to raise the price–so plenty of people like the idea, including W. Texas oilmen,……..”

            I can accept that lots of people liked the idea of raising the price of oil in the short term but I don’t accept that the Clinton admin laid plans for invading Iraq on that basis. Exactly the opposite would be true; invading Iraq to free up Iraq’s oil supply to the market and hence lowering the price per barrel.

            But maybe that’s what you were saying

            PGW1 meaning what? Post GW1? And then if so, protecting Saudi from who?

          • charlesjannuzi

            Never said that was what motivated Clinton. Clinton was a cheap oil president–it hit 12dollars/ barrel. What I thought I was saying was that Bush got backing from various factions for an all-out war and invasion in part based on various interest groups wanting a higher price for oil and they knew that any invasion would immediately remove Iraq as a player. That being said, you have to remember that under Clinton, Iraq was subjected to frequent bombing campaigns and a trade embargo. Saddam regime used various middlemen to move oil and sell it way below market prices because that is the only way they could move it.

            Clinton was for all out regime change, he wasn’t for a unilateral or narrow coalition invading and occupying Iraq. I don’t believe Bush was either, not in 2001-2002. But what Afghanistan showed was that a Bay of Goat type operation wouldn’t work and a larger force was required.

            Invasion and war don’t free up oil–they destroy production, which is what the US did. They destroyed Iraq’s ability to produce, refine, move and store oil. And the US military is totally incapable of drilling for oil and refining it. That would take total service companies , billions of capital and years of rebuilding. So any invasion was of course an immediate move to remove Iraqi oil from the world markets.

            PGW–Persian Gulf War. 1–the first one.

          • charlesjannuzi

            Also note how the US destroyed the pipeline between Iraq and Syria. If they were interested in moving lots of oil to world markets why would they destroy it?

          • Don

            And once again you are talking on the short term consequences of US led war on Iraq. It’s a little surreal because you are asking me to ignore the obvious reason the Gulf War was waged against Iraq. Are you proposing the Kuwait excuse or something else? Are you somehow prepared to dispute the fact that US led wars in the ME are meant to assert and maintain US control over the ME? That being to free up the flow of oil and thus bring the price down to today’s levels?

          • Don

            Invasion and war free up oil in the longer term but you would be correct about the short term driving up the price. On that basis I would say that you are wrong that interest groups (referring to oil interests) were a part of the US march to war on Iraq. I’m not sure what kind of scenario you are trying to construct here but so far you haven’t been convincing.

          • charlesjannuzi

            Poppy Bush and PGW1–basically to protect Saudi Arabia, for all its oil and for the fact that it had mostly secret US military bases with huge stores of US weapons–such as Abrams tanks. If Saddam had moved his armored forces into Saudi Arabia and taken one of those bases, imagine the shock and outrage of images of a US military base captured.

          • Don

            You’ve now raised the issue of one of the big US lies to justify war on Iraq. That is, the lie about Saddam amassing thousands of troops, tanks, and artillery along the Saudi border with Kuwait, in preparation for a coming invasion.
            I view that as progress because our conversation gives others the chance to read and become more aware of the facts.
            And it’s essential that lie live on in infamy because to prove the evidence presented by Russia would finally expose the US as the illegitimate aggressor that it clearly is. Most antiwar people don’t try to deny the truth.

          • Well, on the one hand, that was a lie. But not exactly of the type you seem to think.

            The Iraqis didn’t prepare to invade Saudi Arabia, they invaded Saudi Arabia. They were met a few miles into Saudi Arabia by US Rapid Deployment Force troops and told to turn around unless they wanted war with the US (which they eventually got anyway). I was not there at the time, but not long after I stood in the forward US positions from that moment, and also saw the damage along the Saudi/Kuwait border that had been done in the Iraqi advance.

          • Don

            Your story is promoted to some small degree because it’s just necessary to keep up the facade. It can never be revealed to the world that the truth was discovered by Russian civilian satellite photos. If that truth was allowed to come out, and also that the truth was accepted by the American people, the US credibility would become zero.
            Your evidence is anecdotal compared to the evidence that was presented by the St. Petersburg Times.
            I don’t think you would be capable of accepting the truth because it would be un-american to do so.
            I wonder if we can continue to pursue the final truth? I’ll begin with asserting that the evidence you saw wasn’t anywhere representative of the scale of the fabricated story of Iraqi troops and tanks.
            Do you contend that the St. Petersburg Times story and the satellite photos were fabricated evidence?

            Another question: Why has the US always refused to present it’s own satellite photos to dispute the Russian evidence? The US claims to have that evidence.

          • Don

            I was hoping to pursue this issue further but I can understand your reluctance to do that. It’s sort of a nasty position for you to be coerced into because it’s in lockstep with all the other lies that were promoted for that war. When I mentioned ‘to some degree’ in my previous post, I meant that signs of Iraq’s presense over the border into Saudi was something that had to be seen by some in order to preserve the illusion of an invasion. The trouble is, it wasn’t an invasion with 1000 or 2000 tanks (US claim discrepancy) and over 250,000 men. I don’t know what you’re saying you saw evidence of/heard of, but I suspect it was something like a small recon force for some purpose. Admittedly, for the purpose of a coming invasion in great force. But the fact that it didn’t happen is more important. And the fact that the US refused to provide their satellite photos just seals the case for the Russian photos being legit. Revealing higher US technology and the need to protect that is obviously just baloney.
            I’m assuming you are aware of the whole story? If not then I apologize for the confusion.

            Suffice to say Thomas, the whole bloody war was a con job at iraq’s expense. Maybe that’s where we should begin? And just ‘what’ evidence were you told about that indicated an Iraqi invasion of Saudi? Do you think it was false info?

          • “I don’t think you would be capable of accepting the truth because it would be un-american to do so.”

            On the contrary. I happen to believe the American troops who claim they were sent in to start the oil well fires and blame it on Saddam. I saw those up close and personal, too — lived within site of them for a couple of months and got a first degree burn down the whole right side of my body from passing within maybe 30 feet of one. And I was pissed when I got back and found out the “Iraqis threw babies out of incubators” crap we were sold was BS.

            I don’t know how big the Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia was, but it certainly wasn’t a recon mission. I saw the effects of artillery, and in one discrete location the fins from hundreds of Russian 82mm mortar rounds, along the border where the old-fashioned fort-style Saudi border post had been reduced and overrun. The condition on the ground indicated that the Iraqis advanced with at least some armor on a front a kilometer wide or so — at least in that area, I don’t know if there were other forces involved elsewhere. The RDF positions that they stopped before overrunning to get their talking to were a few hundred meters across in a flank-refusing arc. Those positions were mostly infantry and crew-served weapons positions, but at least a few were vehicle revetments of some kind.

            It certainly wasn’t an invasion on the scale of the defensive operation they set up on the Kuwaiti side of the border once they turned back.

          • Don

            Well, I guess I don’t dispute your facts of the Iraqis destoying an old border post and maybe it looked like Iraqi armor was there too. But in any case, it wasn’t enough armour to show up on the satellite photos supplied by the Russians. They simply pointed out that a quarter of a million Iraqi troops and a couple of thousand tanks were missing. And fwiw, the US planes showed up in the photos and so it pretty well had to be within the time period claimed. And the US has always refused to show photo evidence that says they were there.

            Sounds to me like it’s got a lot in common with the incubator babies and the US lit oil well fires. Why would you say that was that the photos proved it was bullshit and the US wouldn’t prove it real? Seems to be so consistent with everything else about that war.

        • Harriet Logan

          ‘Great urgency’ needed to take place in antiwar circles during the 8 years of Obummer, yet it didn’t happen…. and it’s not happening neither as they try to find a way to put the DLC war mongers back into the WH. The Truth be, is that the donkeys are just about as utterly reactionary and militaristic as the Republican crowd is.

          • Don

            He stopped the progress of the PNAC agenda Harriet. Or at least, it was stopped by some force unknown. How about presenting us your version of the story?

            I say that Obama acted in treason to his own country by presenting his ‘red line’ speech which was an open invitation for Russia along with Assad to fulfill the demands. And even yesterday, the US (blame Nikki Haley) is maneuvering to revive the lies on Assad using chem/bio weapons on it’s ISIS enemies. It’s not likely to work Harriet because it’s only a repeat of the Iraq lies on the WMD’s but Russia is on the scene to disprove the lies and stop a war on Syria.

            Then when you’re finished with your explanation on Syria, I have a story for you on how Obama succeeded in preventing his country from going to war with Iran. And I’ll present lots of evidence that the Trump regime is attempting to revive that effort too!

          • Harriet Logan

            Huh?

          • Harriet,

            Don has a lot of … novel … theories about Obama. Including that the reason he was elected president twice is that Americans hate black people.

          • Don

            That’s not fair Thomas. You know my position on Americans hating black people because I’ve stated it. It’s my position that you have a good 25% of whites who are racists and they are mostly in the US south. Obama won so convincingly that he didn’t need the racists. That’s all. And of course he won twice on the same terms.

          • Harriet Logan

            Yes, he seems to be rather lost in his own inner space.

      • thesafesurfer

        The fact that China completely ignores international court rulings against its illegal buildup in the South China Sea is ominously absent from your fantasy.

        • Harriet Logan

          The simple reality is that the US and Israel are by far the world’s biggest violators of international law, and not China. It is you who is in fantasy land with your anti China rhetoric in support of US war planning in the region.

  • oceancrossing@sbcglobal.net

    Nothing is more in our national interest in foreign affairs than to develop real peace, commerce, and trade with Russia. This is what Putin wants, but we have incessant warmongers in our government, especially in our stupid Congress, who prefer to drama of war to the security of peace. Almost all of this problem is American made, and borders on high treason.

    • Michex

      Neo-cons are anti-Russia too.

      • Mikronos

        The New American Century has no room at ‘the top’ for anything but the USA.

        Just two things wrong with that: first they seem to think that 100 years is going to make the change permanent and, second, the rest of the world is going to help keep America on top.

        • Don

          Your first statement said it exactly.

          Your second paragraph failed to mention that Russia and China possess the nuclear deterrent and they won’t fail to make use of it as a negotiating lever against the US. And in the end analysis, they won’t fail to protect their interests with a defensive attack if it’s required.

          US foreign policy must be contained to proxy wars. But not careless proxy wars as with Iraq. Much more nuanced as we are seeing now with Syria, and Iran.

          Obama kept the lid on it. Trump will likely prove incapable of doing the same. That is the present danger the world faces with Trump.

          • charlesjannuzi

            Libya? Syria? He kept the lid on it? ON what?

          • Don

            Obama was simply a part of destroying the possibility of the US going to war on Syria. And don’t try to tell me that the US is already at war with Syria because it’s not. The US is only opposing Assad by using the pretense of fighting terrorism and even that is falling apart now.

            I’m suggesting that Syria is a necessary stepping stone to war on Iran. But even besides that, there’s little doubt that Obama could have made it impossible for the 5+1 to come to a peace agreement with Iran on it’s nuclear ambitions. That agreement is scorned by both political parties in US congress and attempts are being made to destroy it. Obama is responsible for the roadblock which is going to prevent US led war on Iran.

            I’m confident on that because Russia is a signatory to the agreement. So let’s hear your counterspin on the facts? That requires a counterspin on Obama being accused of making a bad deal with Iran.

          • charlesjannuzi

            Completely wrong. US and its allies have armed and backed terrorist forces to fight in Syria. Russia wanted to move oil and gas from Caspian basin out through Syria. Look online for Assad’s Four Seas plan (sometimes called Five Seas plan, etc.).

            US policy towards Iran is also about containing their ability to export oil and gas.

            The so-called deal is more about appeasing Israel and keeping them from getting involved in some major ME blow-up. Because they have threatened repeatedly to carry out pre-emptive strikes against Iran.

            Obama’s policy was always low-level conflict with Iran–and by proxy in Syria and Yemen. It always was still based on regime change. That there are elements in Iran who would support it only encourages the US–they smell blood. Unfortunately, their allies in Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia have proven inept in helping them to pull it all off.

          • Don

            US led war on Syria was prevented and it can’t be revived now because of Russia’s and China’s interests. And also because of the Russian presence in Syria.

            To suggest that the US is intent on continuing low level conflict in Syria is completely surreal. It’s a cause that Russia threatens to win on behalf of the Assad regime. It’s become unwinnable for the US.

            And I would suggest that the prospects for Trump on Iran aren’t any better.

            It is not a certainty that Syria and Iran will become Russian proxy states but it is a certainty that they won’t become US proxies. Somebody fu–ed up and it was during Obama’s 8 years.

          • Don

            And yes Libya too if you think in terms of Iraq and the US endgame of complete control over the victim country.

          • Mikronos

            it simply shows to go that alternative astories aren’t restricted to any group of Americans. We all have our own reality.

          • Mikronos

            Syria is a nuanced proxy war? Hardly.

            Iran might not be anything as successful as Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria. It is, historically, one of those places that angels and westerners should fear to tread. Besides which proxies would we get to ‘do’ iran for us – the Saudis? They can’t handle Yemen. Israel?

    • Don

      You may be thinking the exact opposite of reality. Putin may want peaceful relations with the US but has almost assuredly given up on the idea. This is consistent with the views of Russians who have been led to believe by Putin that there is no hope of the West pursuing any kind of peaceful relations with Russia. And of course Putin is right. He and the Russian people know now that Trump isn’t real hope.

      The idea that it’s in the US’s best interests to trade and work peacefully with other nations is not correct. The Brics are going to challenge the US and the West and it’s already starting to happen. That competition, if allowed to continue and succeed will deprive the US (West) from vital world resources that are necessary for the US to continue it’s march to world hegemony.

      Listen to US politicians who make no secret that China and Russia especially are attempting to change the world order. They know it’s not a secret and they know that Trump’s promise to make America great again can only be accomplished at the expense of the Brics, whose countries are striving for a piece of the pie.

      All difficult concepts for Americans to accept because in doing so they would be equating themselves to any other powerful aggressor nation that thought it could take the entire globe.

      • Mikronos

        There does seem to be some kind of death spiral developing since Putin failed to roll over as expected.

        • Don

          I take that comment as being an interesting perspective of the situation. Tell us more on your perception that Putin has failed to roll over. That is, if you are thinking in relation to Trump’s maneuvering.
          If otherwise then I would say that it was determined during WW2 and perhaps before.

          • Mikronos

            Putin hasn’t budged an inch on anything important from Syria, to Ukraine to trade with Iran or any of the other massive faults he should be trying to redress for us. Aside from a ‘very nice’ phone call congratulating Trump (as many other world leaders seemed to do). If Trump was expecting an ‘inauguration gift’ of some kind, from Putin. that didn’t show up.

            Putin knows that until some of the more rapid NATOnuts are removed from the circles of US power, he had best look to his alliances and keep a spit shine on his deterrent.

            All that being said, they had a perfectly great ‘anti-government protest’ in Moscow to-day. Not a police goon in sight. Lots of yelling about “EUkrainia” – to impress the western media and ’embolden’ the dorks in Kyiv.

            Putin might be softening in human rights???

        • charlesjannuzi

          The US plan is to CONTAIN Russia’s ability to export oil and gas, since that money would be used, in part, to renew Russian military capabilities, many of which are superior to the US’s but lack quantity (like Armata tanks, 5th gen planes, etc. ).

          • Don

            Oil is a part of it. Russian military ability is no match for the US. Russia’s MAD threat is it’s only defense.

          • charlesjannuzi

            Wrong again. True, Russia not a global superpower, but the only one of those is over-extended. It lacks planes for one thing (which is why it called on NATO and EU so much to bomb Libya). In its region and near-abroad, Russia has shown it can surpass US power in its effects–as they have shown in Georgia, Ukraine, and now Syria. It wasn’t the US who turned the tide in Syria (and remember the US was goal was ousting the Assad regime). It was Russia. Of course being able to use air bases in Iran helped them. But Russia and Iran are not natural allies. They are rival exporters of oil and gas. And they are anathema over religion.

          • Don

            Saying so much while actually saying nothing, just leads me to believe that you’re acting as a propagandist for your country.
            And just as I was preparing to disute your point of Russia not being a superpower, you went and made the point yourself!
            And then your veiled assertion that Russia and Iran do’t have common interests was just plain laughable.

          • Mikronos

            Their annual military budget should look after, that without us jacking around.

  • Raconteur

    It’s good news that young people do not believe Russia to be a foe.

    • Don

      Young people have resisted the line of propaganda in the past too but always quickly fall into line when the preparations for more war are being made.
      In this case no war with Russia but US actions that will demand that the American people are onside with the war party and Trump.
      Yes Trump. The lies and bulls-it have been spun out now and only a few stubborn Trump supporters are denying it. Oh, and Raimondo.

      • Mikronos

        Wouldn’t it be great if, as the hippies used to say, “they gave a war and nobody came”?

        The warmongers of to-day were largely anti-war when they had more hair, teeth and less money.