|
|
|
|
|
|
by pjc50
3418 days ago
|
|
|
A "traditional" war? No. A destabilisation? Absolutely. Why bother to send in your own forces when you can get people to fight their neighbours? To be effective, it must be deniable, like the MH17 shootdown. This is more or less what's happened in eastern Ukraine (not part of NATO, but supposedly recieving some safety guarantees when it gave up its nuclear weapons). When the intelligence agencies are openly briefing that the President is compromised to the Russians, things are going to get very strange. http://www.politicususa.com/2017/02/12/senior-pentagon-offic... |
|
|
Here's what objectively happened:
"Encircling Russia has never been just a neocon thing. The policy has bi-partisan and trans-Atlantic support, including the backing of America’s old-school nationalists, Cold War liberals, Hillary hawks, and much of Obama’s national security team."
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/steve-weissman/the-feds-...
Also, Soros on CNN in 2014:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1405/25/fzgps.01.html
"ZAKARIA: First on Ukraine, one of the things that many people recognized about you was that you during the revolutions of 1989 funded a lot of dissident activities, civil society groups in eastern Europe and Poland, the Czech Republic. Are you doing similar things in Ukraine?
SOROS: Well, I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of Russia. And the foundation has been functioning ever since and played an important part in events now."
It's already past, but at some moment the foreign organizers of the "colored" revolutions gladly took credit for their activity.