A Russian-friendly president is wise
The article “Putin’s Got A Friend in Trump” by Dave Anderson (Aug. 11, 2016) misses the most vital issue regarding Russia and Vladimir Putin: U.S. national security. The article echoes the U.S. media narrative criticizing Donald Trump’s friendly comments toward Putin. I don’t support Donald Trump, but he understands the importance of maintaining a strategic relationship with Russia for national security, fighting ISIS and avoiding World War III.
U.S. media has become state propaganda that demonizes Putin and blames Russia whenever it’s convenient (such as leaked DNC emails from WikiLeaks).
The Obama Administration managed to jump start the Cold War over the 2014 Crimea secession in the Ukraine. After Russian troops moved into Crimea, the U.S. called it an act of aggression. Economic sanctions were imposed on Russia and NATO troops have moved right up to the Russian border. In 2016, NATO forces have quadrupled in the Ukraine. Russia has nukes and has said they will use them if they are attacked. Russia feels threatened by NATO. Just imagine if we had Russian troops on our border.
Warning of the consequences of the Ukraine conflict is Stephen Cohen, Russian Studies Professor and writer for The Nation magazine. His Ed Schultz interview “We’re in A New Cold War — Stephen Cohen On Mounting US-Nato Military On Russian Border” (YouTube, Feb. 18, 2016) explains the current danger. Ukraine was in a state of political crisis in 2014. The eastern part of Ukraine relies on Russia as its main trading partner. They speak Russia. Is the Ukraine, worth the money our Federal Reserve is spending to create an EU-friendly/anti-Russian country?
Putting NATO troops on the Russia border is an act of aggression. During the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy toward the Soviet Union was about avoiding a military confrontation with the nuclear super power. There were red lines that neither side crossed. Today, those red lines seem to be forgotten by America. Between the civil war in Ukraine and the conflict in Syria, we could be dangerously close to crossing those red lines and ending up in World War III with Russia.
After Sept. 11, 2001, Putin helped the U.S. by allowing American Troops to supply and enter Afghanistan through Russia. The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan was part of an old Russia fighting force, that did much of the fighting against the Taliban, thus saving American soldier’s lives. Russia was a strategic ally. What did Bush do in return? Pull out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and move NATO troops closer to the Russian border. During the Obama Administration, both Russia and China were critical to imposing sanctions against Iran and negotiating the Iran Nuclear Deal. Still we view Russia as the enemy.
It is fair to criticize Putin on his human rights record, but let’s be objective. U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia have far worse human rights than Russia. Rather than focus on the faults of Russia, we should be focusing on the many injustices and atrocities our own government has committed, both at home and abroad. Our foreign policy of REGIME CHANGE has created failed states in the Middle East. Both the invasions of Iraq and Libya have destabilized the region with no end in sight to the chaos and human suffering. U.S. weapon sales to Saudi Arabia have led to their brutal war against Yemen and helped arm Islamic terrorists.
The war in Syria is the most dangerous of all conflicts. Russia is working with the Syrian army to defeat ISIS and other rebel groups. U.S.-NATO forces are bombing ISIS and calling for the removal of the Assad Regime of Syria, simultaneously. The U.S.-NATO coalition is in violation of international law being in Syria. Both our bombing campaign and support of rebel groups fighting the Syrian army, puts us in a dangerous position with Russia, that could lead to a world war. What is our real interest in Syria? The answer has something to do with the Trans-Arabia Pipeline and the Qatar-Turkey Pipeline.
Having a Russian-friendly president in the White House is wise. The hawkish, neoconservative foreign policy of Hillary Clinton will do more military interventions and increase tensions with Russia. Bernie Sanders said, “regime change has consequences.” History has proven him correct.
Mark Rolofson/Boulder
NATO threats and expansionism
I appreciated the article by Angela K. Evans, “Nobody Wins a Nuclear War,” from August 4.
What RMPJC is trying to tell us should be shouted from every street corner. I agree, we (the planet and its people) are being pushed right now to the brink, if not the actual outbreak, of Nuclear War. In this age of sound bite news, perhaps people are missing just how important and dangerous the current antagonism toward Russia is. Perhaps the problem is painting Russia in black and white terms, which is what the politicians and media are doing. And, NATO is creating a lot of tension, along with its American backers.
I mean what would you (as an American) think if Russia deployed forces along our border inside of Mexico. That is exactly what is happening in Europe now. Despite the fact that the U.S. and the NATO countries promised years ago not to do that.
Russia has to respond, it has been attacked by European powers several times over the last couple of centuries. While not instigating war in Europe, itself. So, Russia is wary and untrusting.
Anybody that has been paying attention to international news sources over the last couple of years would probably know that the people of Crimea did vote to stay with Russia. That the same people that are part of the attackers on Crimea, etc. were of the same political ideology as the those that sided with the Nazis during WW II. That Prince’s Xii or Blackwater, or whatever you want to call the World’s Largest Mercenary Army, has been reportedly involved in Ukraine since the coup that brought the current regime to power.
But, perhaps you wouldn’t know that with the current anti-Russian antagonism in the press.
And, Mr. Putin has said that he doesn’t want to live in a unipolar world with western hegemony as the only game on the planet. No matter what you may think about that, you have to admit that he has a formidable arsenal, both nuclear and otherwise. A person like that you would think would be one that you would want to get along with as best you can, not antagonize.
We have to get beyond the simple stereotype, not everybody is a HITLER. Some people represent their people, and Mr. Putin enjoys very high support amongst his people, while we seem to not like our leaders, congress, candidates and politicians very much anymore.
It is time that the American people take notice that the same attitudes that have brought us success in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria, Chile, etc. are now at the forefront of antagonizing the Russians, the Chinese and others. And some of those are capable of making a real hell out those attitudes if it comes to nuclear exchanges. We all are standing on the brink, do what you can to bring us back from it. Even if just standing on a corner and shouting. If you want to participate contact carolyn@rmpjc.org.
Peace now, stop NATO expansion.
Charles Armstrong/Boulder
Clinton’s Salazar pick undermines her progress on fracking
In response to Secretary Clinton’s appointment of Ken Salazar as her White House transition team lead, Greenpeace USA Democracy Campaign Director Molly Dorozenski said, “Secretary Clinton’s appointment of former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar as head of her transition team is the wrong move for a candidate who needs to strengthen her progressive policies, not weaken them. If Clinton plans to effectively tackle climate change, the last thing her team needs is an industry insider like Ken Salazar.
Salazar’s track record illustrates time and again that he is on the side of big industry, and not of the people. His most recent opposition to the anti-fracking initiatives in his home state of Colorado directly undermines Clinton’s alleged support of local control over fracking. If Secretary Clinton wants to be the environmental leader that she claims to be in campaign speeches, she has to put the people before industry insiders.”
Cassady Sharp, Greenpeace.org
Two flawed candidates
Clinton and Trump are flawed candidates running for president.
Clinton has questionable scruples, and she has made significant mistakes. As secretary of state she set up an unsecured private server in her home for government email communications and sent and received secret and top secret information. She had ultimate responsibility for the Benghazi debacle where our ambassador and other Americans were killed by Islamic terrorists.
Her foundation accepted contributions from foreign entities.
Trump is the most unqualified person to ever run for president. He is a vile loudmouth with possible bigoted views who only cares about himself, and he does not respect our constitution and our institutions. Trump could have dictatorial tendencies. He has no knowledge of government operations and has no understanding of our domestic and world economies. His lack of knowledge in foreign affairs and military matters will hurt us in the world.
The choices are: Vote for who you dislike the least, or vote for a third party candidate, or do not vote. How sad.
Donald Moskowitz/Londonderry, NH
