American foreign policy support to Soviet dissidents provides the United States with strategic advantages relative to the Soviet Union. For this reason […] it is in the American national interest to continue support to the various dissident movements in the USSR.Michael Hall Maggard, Soviet Dissent and the American National Interest
Today I learned that in the 1970es the US Air Force toyed with the idea of using the Jumbo jet as an airborne aircraft carrier.
A few minutes ago I finished watching the movie Failsafe (1964) and cannot praise it enough. I especially liked the acting of Henry Fonda and the right, humanistic message of the plot.
If you look at the official homepage of the NATO, you can see that it is available in several languages.
German is not among them. That’s interesting because Ukrainian is. But Ukraine is not a NATO member yet!
What’s even funnier is that this page is available in Russian. Russia is the official enemy of the NATO. Germany is its member. So why is an official page of the NATO available in the language of its enemy, but not that of its member?
The Cold War Podcast published an episode (MP3) on the classic movie Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
Things I learned from this podcast:
- There were actual generals in the US (the hosts name Douglas McArthur) who wanted to nuke Soviet Russia while the US had more bombs (to wipe out the Russia threat once and for all).
- An actual doomsday device was proposed to Nikita Khrushchev, but he rejected to build it.
I recommend everyone to watch this movie because it’s actually a funny one.
Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here! This is the War Room!Dr. Strangelove
It so happened that today I listened to and watched two videos and podcasts that were linked together. That link is the idea that the US was and is being governed by belligerent elites. That’s nothing new, but truth needs to be repeated.
In the latest episode of the Eyes Left podcast two American war veterans claim that the American military is preparing for a war with Venezuela. They claim that before every war the US started there has been a period of intensive brainwashing. The goal was to convince the public that it is right for the US to invade a foreign country. One of the most popular pretexts for US meddling in other countries internal affairs was the establishment or preservation of democracy.
This time the official media claim that the Venezuelan government falsified election results and in reality, an opposition candidate won. According to the hosts of the podcast, the polls show that 81 percent of Venezuelans don’t know that politician. This article in English (PDF) supports this claim. To me it sounds like the start of (yet another) revolution in Ukraine in 2014, when Western powers challenged the outcome of presidential elections and installed a puppet regime. Based on my talks with ordinary Ukrainians, that “new” president Poroshenko didn’t make Ukraine any better for the Ukrainians than Iushchenko (his predecessor, another Western-backed politician). Maybe Venezuela is the new Ukraine.
Another show I happened to watch on the same day was Lee Camp’s “Redacted tonight”.
Yet NATO is used within the U.S. and by other NATO members as cover to wage wars under the pretense that they are somehow more legal or acceptable. This misconception is not the only way in which NATO works against the rule of law. Placing a primarily-U.S. war under the banner of NATO also helps to prevent Congressional oversight of that war. Placing nuclear weapons in “non-nuclear” nations, in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, is also excused with the claim that the nations are NATO members (so what?).
This means that a war seems more acceptable to the public, if it is framed as “NATO versus victim” war rather than “US against the victim”.
According to the New York Times, NATO has “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is an article of faith, based on the unsubstantiated belief that Soviet and Russian aggression toward NATO members has existed for 70 years and that NATO has deterred it rather than provoked it.
Common nonsense is that the Russians wanted to invade the US and “free” world. To prevent them from doing that, the NATO was formed.
David Swanson rightfully calls the Russo-Soviet threat “unsubstantiated”, but does not provide evidence. Let me help him: In 1954, one year before the Warsaw Pact was created, the Soviets requested to join the NATO. That would have been the end of Cold War!
Western nations did not take that proposal seriously. Hence we may conclude that it was the West (led by the United States) who started the Cold War.
In violation of a promise made, NATO has expanded eastward, right up to the border of Russia, and installed missiles there. Russia has not done the reverse.
So far, Russia has not retaliated NATO’s assaults. Either this enemy is weak, or not an enemy at all. Whatever option is true, Russian threat probably does not justify an annual budget of 1.395 billion Euros (source, PDF).
But the whole idea that the purpose of the NATO is protection against the Russians is ridiculous:
NATO has waged aggressive wars far from the North Atlantic, bombing Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Libya. NATO has added a partnership with Colombia, abandoning all pretense of its purpose being in the North Atlantic.
Exactly how does fighting with
- Bosnia and Herzegovina,
- Pakistan, and
and partnering with Colombia protect NATO members from the Russians?
David Swanson further claims some believable facts that suggest Russia is a midget in terms of military strength compared to the US:
The United States has bombed nine nations in the past year, Russia one. The United States has troops in 175 nations, Russia in 3. Gallup and Pew find populations around the world viewing the United States, not Russia, as the top threat to peace in the world.
According to several Western publications (see section Sources below), the Soviet Union tried to avoid the Cold War by, among other things, proposing that the Soviet Union joins the NATO.
If this proposal would be taken seriously, we probably wouldn’t have the consequences of the Cold War, such as socialism in Eastern Europe and proxy wars like in Korea and Vietnam.
In this video, George Friedman explains the main motive of the US entering the Vietnam war.