Russland-Spezialist Stephen Cohen über die Gefahr des Neuen Kalten Krieges

Russland-Spezialist Stephen Cohen über die Gefahr des Neuen Kalten Krieges, die 2018 nur noch abstruser wird.

UK Vergiftung eies Ex Geheimdienstmitarbeiters in Salisbury.

Schweden Mobilisierung der gesellschaft gegen Russland:  https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-20/sweden-unveils-plans-total-societal-mobilization-against-russia

The New Cold War Is Already More Dangerous Than Was Its Predecessor

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-new-cold-war-is-already-more-dangerous-than-was-its-predecessor/

Today’s American-Russian confrontation is developing in unprecedented ways—and the US political-media establishment seems not to care.

Nation Contributing Editor Stephen F. Cohen and John Batchelor continue their weekly discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War. (Previous installments, now in their fourth year, are at TheNation.com.)

For several years, Cohen has argued that the new Cold War is more dangerous than its 45-year predecessor, which, it is often said, “we barely survived.” Here he updates and aggregates evidence for that argument. Meanwhile, many American participants and commentators continue to deny—for personal and political reasons—that there is a new Cold War. Anyone doubting its existence needs only read leading US newspapers or watch television “news” broadcasts; or consult the growing number of declarations of Cold War against Russia, as, for example, a particularly extremist one produced recently by a professed bipartisan organization and co-authored by a former Obama Defense Department official, Evelyn Farkas.

Cohen identifies six specific factors that make the new Cold War more perilous than the preceding one:

1. Its confrontational epicenter is not in faraway Berlin or what was then called the “Third World” but directly on Russia’s borders, from the Baltic states and Eastern Europe to Ukraine and the Black Sea, where NATO’s military buildup is ever-growing in the form of more troops, weapons, war planes, ships, and, not to be overlooked, missile-defense installations. NATO now characterizes this vast Eastern front as its “territory.” No such foreign military power has appeared so close to Russia—and to its second city, St. Petersburg—since the Nazi German invasion in 1941. The perception in Moscow is understandable and predictable. Increasingly it is said—in the mass media and privately by high officials—that this constitutes “American aggression against Russia,” and even that “America is at war against Russia.” Compare this alarm, Cohen suggests, with the “Russiagate” allegation that the Kremlin “attacked America” during the 2016 presidential election, for which there is as of yet no empirical evidence, with the tangible evidence Russian officials plainly see for Washington’s current “aggression.” And imagine the potential for hot war—accidental or intentional—in this widespread and growing Russian perception. The ongoing push in Washington to send more weapons to Kiev, which has vowed to use them against the Russian-backed rebels in Donbass, can only escalate those Russian concerns and the danger they represent. (Meanwhile, Kiev is shredding the Minsk peace accords by adopting incompatible legislation.)

2. The possibility of a ramifying US-Russian military conflict may be even more acute in Syria, where Russian-backed Syrian forces are close to decisively defeating anti-Assad fighters, several of them affiliated with terrorist organizations. Russia’s Ministry of Defense has made clear that it believes US forces in Syria are actively aiding and abetting anti-Assad fighters, while putting Russian troops there at grave risk, and has openly declared its willingness to strike against those American units in Syria. What, Cohen asks, will be the reaction in Washington if Russia kills any Americans in Syria?

3. Meanwhile, unlike during the preceding Cold War, when cooperative US-Soviet relations grew steadily after the Cuban-missile crisis of 1962, those ameliorating relations built up over decades are being shredded. Even more are now gravely endangered. Congress and the Trump Administration seem determined to shut down two Russian news agencies in the United States, RT and Sputnik. If so, the Kremlin may well adopt reciprocal measures in Russia, reducing public communication relations, however “propagandistic” on both sides. A veteran CNN correspondent reports from Moscow that “arms control is hanging by a thread.” And the unprecedented seizure and search of the Russian consultant in San Francisco last month has convinced some Russian officials, not unreasonably, that influential forces in Washington want a complete rupture of diplomatic relations with Moscow.

4. During the preceding Cold War, no Soviet leader was demonized by the US political-media establishment as Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin, has been for nearly a decade. Russia and relations with Moscow have been so Putinized that Russia no longer seems to have any legitimate national interests at home or abroad, whose acknowledgment is the first premise of negotiations. For a fresh example of this unprecedented factor, Cohen cites the relevant passages in Hillary Clinton’s recent memoir, What Happened.

5. “Russiagate” is also unprecedented. The ways it exacerbates the new Cold War are various and growing. Its multiple “investigations” increasingly imply that once customary relations with Russia may be “collusion with the Kremlin,” including financial ones. Similarly, anti–Cold War opinions are casually labeled “weaponized Russian disinformation” and pro-Kremlin “propaganda.” Not surprisingly, very few such opinions appear in mainstream American newspapers or on network broadcasts. (More dissenting views on official foreign policy appear in mainstream Russian media than can be found in their American counterparts.) Above all, perhaps, “Russiagate” has effectively paralyzed President Trump in any crisis negotiations he may have to conduct with Putin, no matter how existential. Imagine, for example, President John F. Kennedy so assailed as a “Kremlin puppet” during the Cuban-missile crisis. He would have been unable politically to make the compromises both he and the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev did in order to end the crisis without nuclear war. However much US politicians and media loathe Trump, Cohen adds, they should fear the possibility of war with Russia more.

6. And, also in sharp contrast to policymaking in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, there are virtually no anti–Cold War media, politicians, or politics in mainstream America today. Without effective opposition, including robust public debate, bad policy outcomes are more likely, even in democracies.

To these largely unprecedented Cold War factors, Cohen adds three other new circumstances:

One is the myth that post-Soviet Russia is too weak to wage a prolonged Cold War and will eventually capitulate to Washington and Brussels. This is, of course, the logic behind the tsunami of sanctions leveled against Moscow since 2014. Leave aside that several international financial monitoring institutions have recorded Russia’s significant economic recovery in the last two years or so. It is, for example, posed to become the world’s largest exporter of wheat. Leave aside Russia’s vast natural, human, and territorial resources. Recall instead that there is no such instance of capitulation in modern Russian history, no matter how devastating and costly the circumstances. Contrary to marginally representative Russian voices promoted to say otherwise, neither the nation’s elites nor its people will fundamentally change the country’s leadership or policies under Western pressure. Indeed, many mainstream Russian policy intellectuals and other commentators have already accepted that the new Cold War, for which they hold the West responsible, may be as long as the preceding one.

Second is the lingering view in the US establishment, fostered by an aspiration of former President Obama, that Russia is “isolated” in world affairs. The number of foreign meetings and agreements conducted by Putin in recent years refutes this notion, but there is something else novel and important. The “Soviet Bloc” in Eastern Europe during the preceding Cold War was an alliance of the unwilling, crisis-ridden, and economically burdensome. Russia’s emerging allies and partners today are voluntary and profitable, from the smaller BRICS states to China. Indeed, it is the US “sphere of influence” that seems to be splintering today, as evidenced by Brexit and Catalonia (whose referendum additionally may put the 2014 Russian-backed succession referendum in Crimea in a somewhat different light). And how else can we interpret the growing rapprochement between NATO member Turkey and Russia or the historic recent visit by the Saudi king to Moscow, which resulted in agreements involving billions of dollars of purchases and investment in weapons and energy? Whose trajectory, historians may ask, was toward isolation in world affairs?

Third, of course, is the role of China, a great rising power. During the preceding Cold War, it was a rival of the Soviet Union and thus a “card” to be played against Moscow. Today, it is Russia’s political, economic, and potentially military partner—a joint Russian-Chinese naval exercise is scheduled to begin next week—a new circumstance that is likely to have a profound effect elsewhere, including in India, Pakistan, Japan, and even Afghanistan.

Most of these new and substantially unprecedented Cold War factors go undiscussed in Washington, not only because of “Russiagate” hysteria. American triumphalism since the end of the Soviet Union in 1991 plays an important role, as does a lingering American provincialism sometimes termed “exceptionalism.” Meanwhile, the three gravest threats to American national security—international terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and cyber attacks that could inadvertently trigger nuclear war—go largely unattended. As does the essential truth that none of these can be diminished without a partnership with Russia. Even those kinds of realities were recognized during the 45-year Cold War and sometimes acted upon.

You’re reading 1 OF 6 Free articles AVAILABLE FOR THE NEXT 30 days

Click here for more information.

Close Meerkat

Advertisements

Austin Bomber auf Überwachsungskamera gut sichtbar innerhalb einiger Tage veröffentlicht

Im Vergleich zu etwas Las Vegas Mandala Bay Shooting, wo noch nie Überwachsungsbilder aufgetaucht sind.

=> Hinweis, wo die Polizei und die Untersuchungsbehörden abklemmen und der Verdacht aufkommt, dass etwas nicht stimmt. vgl. Debbie Lusignans Auswertungen.

 

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-21/austin-serial-bomber-dead-blows-himself-after-shootout-police

 

Update: President Donald Trump has tweeted his congratulations to law enforcement and all involved in stopping the bomber.

 

* * *

The Austin serial bomber suspected of delivering six homemade bombs to locations around Austin this month, killing two people, has died after blowing himself up. Less than an hour after CBS Austin  released photographs of the suspect at a Fed-X facility, media reported of an officer-involved shooting on I-35 in Round Rock.

Police have identified the dead suspected bomber as a 24-year-old white male, according to the Associated Press.

As CBS Austin reported, police were closing in on the suspect when he killed himself by detonating some sort of explosive device in his car, according to CBS Austin’s source. People in the area reported hearing the explosion, the New York Times reported.

According to KVUE, the FBI and police tracked the bomber to a hotel in the Round Rock area using cell phone technology, security video, store receipts before ‚engaging him‘ around 3 am on Wednesday. Then, as officers pursued the suspect a device was detonated, before a volley of gunfire.

CBS Austin reported that police pursued the bomber until he drove his car into a ditch off I-35. As officers approached, the bomber detonated a bomb in his car, killing himself and injuring an officer. CBS added that an 11-year veteran SWAT officer fired on the suspect. He has since been placed on administrative leave.

Austin Police Chief Brian Manley says the incident that led to the suspect’s death will be investigated by the Austin Police Monitor and the Texas Rangers.

The confrontation came just hours after CBS published CCTV showing images from a surveillance video from the FedEx Office store on Brodie Lane in South Austin which helped investigators zero in on the suspect.

According to the Daily Mail, the images show a man – possibly wearing a wig and gloves – delivering two packages around 7.30pm on Sunday. One of the packages subsequently exploded on a conveyor belt at a FedEx sorting facility outside of San Antonio in Schertz.

Bombing

The other was intercepted at a facility near Austin airport and was later confirmed to contain a bomb.

 

 

Authorities believe the same person is connected to the two packages that surfaced Tuesday is also responsible for the four other explosions that began on March 2nd, killing two people and injuring six.

Austin Police Department tweeted that they were working on an officer-involved shooting near the highway, but gave no further details.

I-35 is closed while a massive presence of law enforcement – including Austin Police, FBI and ATF investigators – processes the scene, which involved officers firing at the suspect. Several helicopters were seen hovering overhead.

While reports surfaced last night that police had discovered surveillance footage of what could be the bombing suspect, CNN added that police had been tracking the man for between 24-36 hours.

Police warn that, though the bomber is dead, there might be more bombs out there. Police don’t know what the bomber has been up to over the past 24 hours, and have warned the community to be vigilant.

The bomber’s motive is still unclear

Als Info: Konservative nutzen Anschlag auf russischen Ex Geheimdienstler

British Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May’s dramatic escalation of hostility towards Russia this week has had one benefit closer to home. Labour’s erstwhile popular leader Jeremy Corbyn has fallen casualty to renewed Cold War politics.

May, who up to now was beleaguered from the Brexit debacle with the European Union, has suddenly rallied support for her Cold War agenda towards Russian within her own Conservative party – and from opposition lawmakers on the Labour side of the parliament.

While May was roundly cheered for her rhetorical attacks on Russia, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was subjected to vicious heckling from all sides in the House of Commons, including from many MPs within his own party.

May’s announcement that her government was going to expel 23 Russian diplomats for the “attempted murder” of a former Kremlin spy living in exile in Britain was widely exalted in the House of Commons.

The expulsions mark the biggest diplomatic sanction by Britain against Moscow in 30 years. Moscow has vowed to carry out reciprocal measures in the coming weeks, as bilateral relations tumble in a downward spiral.

The British move was denounced by Russia as “unprecedented hostility” and a violation of normal inter-state relations.

Arguably, the Russian response is reasonable, given that the alleged attack on 66-year-old Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury on March 4 is far from evidenced. The entire official British position of directly blaming Moscow for attempted murder rests on unverified claims about a Soviet-era nerve toxin, as well as on wild supposition.

But such is the hysterical Cold War climate being generated by British politicians and dutiful news media impugning Russia that anyone who merely questions the lack of due process is immediately pilloried as a “Russian stooge”.

That’s what happened when Jeremy Corbyn stood up in the House of Commons this week and dared to ask the prime minister for “evidence” that the alleged Soviet-era toxin was indeed linked to Russian state actions.

Corbyn also enquired if the British authorities would be providing the alleged toxin samples to Russian investigators so that they could carry out their own independent assessment – a procedure that is mandated by the 1997 international treaty known as the Chemical Weapons Convention.

In short, what the Labour leader is simply requesting was for due process to prevail. That is, a rational, evidence-based approach to the furore. Which, one would think, is a reasonable, cautionary minimum especially owing to the present danger of a catastrophic military conflict breaking out at a time from already sharp geopolitical tensions between US-led NATO states and Russia.

“Our response must be decisive and proportionate and based on clear evidence,” said Corbyn, who also refused to condemn Russia as guilty, given the lack of incriminating proof at this stage – less than two weeks after the apparent poisoning attack on the Skripals.

The Labour leader could hardly make himself heard amid boorish taunts of “shame, shame” from the Conservative (Tory) benches.

“You’re a disgrace to your party,” shouted out one Tory minister, Claire Perry, inciting the mob around her.

British news media followed suit, going on full-out Cold War offensive against Corbyn. The rabidly rightwing Sun, which last week was calling for military action against Russia, blasted its front page with the headline: “Putin’s Puppet”.

The Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid “explained” to its readers with outraged tone that “Corbyn refused to condemn Russia” and that he had “questioned proof” of a Russian link to the attack on Sergei Skripal.

Another rightwing tabloid, the Daily Mail, also ran a front page vilification with the headline: “Corbyn, The Kremlin Stooge”.

The newspaper elaborated with the subheading that “Mutinous Labour MPs accuse [Corbyn] of appeasement for not condemning Putin”.

Meanwhile, the BBC was reporting that senior lawmakers within Corbyn’s cabinet team are mounting a rebellion against their leader precisely because of his “refusal to blame Russia” over the poisoning incident in Salisbury.

The return to Cold War politics in Britain is not just marked by knee-jerk hostility towards Russia – based on Russophobia and irrational innuendo – it is also characterized by the British establishment shutting down any dissent by smearing critics as “enemies within”.

British politics are this week hurtling back in time to the old days of Cold War witch-hunting against “Commies” and “Reds”. In the same way that the United States is still poisoned with the J Edgar Hoover and McCarthyite era of the 1950s and 60s.

Due process and rational, critical thinking are being banished again.

The poisoning incident of Sergei Skripal and his 33-year-old daughter Yulia should be a matter of criminal investigation to establish facts, motive and perpetrator.

Instead, the incident was immediately turned into a propaganda opportunity to assail Russia. The alleged logic that the Kremlin carried out a “revenge” attack on a traitor-spy who had been living for eight years in England, openly and undisturbed as part of an exchange deal with Britain’s MI6, does not make any sense. Indeed, it’s absurd, given the timing of Russian presidential elections this month and the forthcoming football World Cup to be held in Russia.

Resurgence of Cold War mania, however, suits the British establishment very nicely. Suddenly, the much derided Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May and her party are being portrayed as the noble defenders of national security against a “malicious” Russian enemy.

Even better is that the opposition Labour party which had been rejuvenated by Jeremy Corbyn with a bold, progressive and socialist policy is now being cast as a useless Russian “stooge”. Corbyn’s political enemies within his own party – rightwingers who detested his successful rise as leader – are now empowered by the Cold War climate to tear him down.

Ironically, the toxic nerve agent that was used to paralyze former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter is having several invigorating political effects for certain British state interests. The Cold War Russophobia appears to be re-energizing the formerly feeble Tory leader and her party, while numbing the once promising rise of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and his socialist program.

Still, it remains to be seen whether the wider British public buy into the latest Cold War debacle. If it turns out to be a cynical stunt by the British state – as seems to be the case – then the popular backlash against the Tories and the establishment will be horrendous.

Nukleare Abschreckung aus russischer Sicht

 

Putin: If Attacked, Russia Will Respond With New „Unstoppable“ Nukes

A day after his foreign minister accused the US of violating the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, Russian President Vladimir Putin shocked his audience during his annual state of the union address to his country’s political elite by claiming Russia had developed new nuclear weapons that cannot be shot down by US anti-ballistic missile defenses, according to the Sun.

The missiles, Putin said, are capable of striking almost any point on Earth.

Russia is testing the new line of strategic, nuclear-capable weapons, the president said, as he showed video and animation of Russian ICBMs, cruise missiles and other weapons that he said have been developed by Russia as a result of the US pulling out of the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty, the Guardian reported.

Putin

In what sounded like an implicit threat, Putin said Russia has repeatedly warned Washington not to go ahead with anti-missile systems that Moscow fears could erode its nuclear deterrent. However „nobody listened to us. Listen now,“ he said, to a loud ovation from the crowd of legislators, officials and dignitaries.

While he stressed that Russia isn’t „threatening anyone,“ he asserted that, if attacked, Russia wouldn’t hesitate to respond with a nuclear strike. Per the Guardian, the Russian president’s remarks risk sparking an arms race between the Russian Federation and the US reminiscent of the US-Soviet arms race during the Cold War, according to RT.

„Our nuclear doctrine says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons only in response to a nuclear attack or an attack with other weapons of mass destruction against her or her allies, or a conventional attack against us that threatens the very existence of the state.“

„It is my duty to state this: Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, be it small-scale, medium-scale or any other scale, will be treated as a nuclear attack on our country. The response will be instant and with all the relevant consequences,“ Putin warned.

Describing the missiles abilities in explicit detail, Putin said they barrel toward their target „like a meteorite“ adding that Western efforts to contain Russia have largely failed, according to Bloomberg. 

„Efforts to contain Russia have failed, face it,“ Putin said in a nearly two-hour address he illustrated with video clips of the new arms, which included underwater drones, intercontinental missiles and a hypersonic system he said „heads for its target like a meteorite.“

The speech is one of Putin’s first of the campaign season. He’s widely expected to win a fourth term as Russian president on March 18.

The balance of the address was spent discussing economic promises and problems. For example, Putin warned that a shrinking Russian labor force could constrain economic growth for years, Reuters reported.

Russia

„This trend will stay for the coming years and will become a serious limit to economic growth,“ Putin told lawmakers. He added that Russia would spent 3.4 trillion rubles (about $60 billion) supporting families and demographic growth over the next six years as Putin pushes to establish Russia as one of the world’s top-five economies. For that to happen, Putin said, Russian growth domestic product should grow by 1.5 times during the next decade, per Reuters.

He added that Russia needs to expand „freedom in all spheres“ while also establishing a breakthrough in standards of living.

In another bout of saber-rattling, Putin said Russia would deploy five destroyers and