The US-NATO military alliance is preparing for war, and the western media are playing its game.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n In straight reporting of news, the UK\u2019s Guardian<\/em> newspaper is one of the very few in the western media that maintains balance and objectivity. Its century-old motto<\/a>, after all, is \u201cComment is free, but facts are sacred\u201d which \u201cimplies honesty, cleanness, courage, fairness, a sense of duty to the reader and the community\u201d and by and large it adheres to and abides by this admirable maxim.<\/p>\n This made it surprising and disturbing to read a headline<\/a> on December 29 informing us that \u201cBiden to speak with Putin amid Russia\u2019s increased presence near Ukraine<\/strong>\u201d because three days previously France 24<\/em>, for example, had noted<\/a> that 10,000 Russian troops had completed winter military exercises and were returning to their bases. Even Fox News carried an item<\/a> mentioning the troop movement, albeit highlighting an appearance by former Secretary of State Pompeo when he warned that \u201cVladimir Putin will continue to push the U.S. as a result of weak leadership.\u201d<\/p>\n There was no mention<\/a> in the Washington Post<\/em> of the routine troop deployment, although on December 28 The New York Times<\/em> report<\/a> of impending US-Russia talks acknowledged that \u201cthe announcement came shortly after Russia declared that 10,000 combat and special forces troops conducting exercises were returning to their barracks. But that move took place at some distance from Ukraine . . .\u201d On the same day, the UK\u2019s Daily Mail<\/em> reported<\/a> that<\/p>\n \u201cthe Pentagon has ordered the USS Harry S. Truman and its carrier group to remain in the Mediterranean Sea amid rising tensions in the Ukraine as Russian troops remain on its border . . . The schedule change, approved by Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, is to reassure European allies of US commitment to regional security, an official told the new outlet, without mentioning the ongoing Russian military build-up on the eastern border of Ukraine.\u201d<\/p>\n It was not surprising that the Mail<\/em> expanded on the \u201congoing military build-up\u201d by amongst other things telling<\/a> its readers that \u201cRussia has assembled 100,000 troops along the Ukrainian border, prompting fears of an invasion\u201d \u2014 then tacking on the throwaway line that \u201cAlthough, ahead of the announced talks, Putin pulled back 10,000 troops.\u201d<\/p>\n It is disappointing that the western mainstream media is reluctant to mention anything favorable about Russia. Certainly, the redeployment of 10,000 troops was planned well in advance and would have been well known to western intelligence agencies whose activities around Russia\u2019s borders are intense (with the US mounting<\/a> missions by E-8 electronic warfare aircraft on December 27 and 29), but it is still a news item of significance that should be made known to the public. Instead of noting positive developments, however, such outlets as the Post<\/em> concentrate<\/a> on matters that will diminish or even destroy western views that Russia wants peace and objects justifiably to the movement towards its borders of combat troops of the US-NATO military alliance.<\/p>\n The US journal Stars and Stripes<\/em> reported<\/a> NATO\u2019s supreme commander and head of U.S. European Command, General Tod Wolters, as saying on December 18 that he \u201cwants to reinforce NATO\u2019s eastern flank with multinational battlegroups in Romania and Bulgaria because of concerns about Russia\u2019s moves around Ukraine\u201d. NATO\u2019s HQ in Brussels \u201cdidn\u2019t directly address Wolters\u2019 proposal\u201d when questioned about it, and it seems the plan is still under discussion, although, as Stripes<\/em> pointed out, \u201cadding battlegroups in Romania and Bulgaria would be in line with more recent efforts by NATO to bolster its position around the Black Sea, a strategic waterway where Russia has been increasingly assertive . . . Most of NATO\u2019s efforts since 2014 have focused on shoring up defences around the Baltics and Poland, where U.S. troops lead a battlegroup just 50 miles from the Russian military exclave of Kaliningrad.\u201d<\/p>\n It is apparent that the United States considers itself entitled, indeed obliged to deploy hot-for-war battlegroups fifty miles from Russia\u2019s border, while publicly condemning the Moscow government for conducting military exercises in its own territory. HQ NATO describes<\/a> the battle groups in its \u201cforward presence in the eastern part of the Alliance\u201d as \u201crobust and combat-ready forces\u201d which \u201ccan be rapidly reinforced by additional forces and capabilities\u201d in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.<\/p>\n NATO\u2019s \u201cenhanced forward presence\u201d around Russia\u2019s borders is at variance with the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty which was intended, as noted<\/a> by the independent and objective Arms Control Association<\/em>, to prevent Russia and NATO \u201cfrom amassing forces for a blitzkrieg-type offensive . . .\u201d and included restrictions on permanent positioning of outside forces. US-NATO has overcome this problem by rotating its battlegroups and thus abiding by the letter although certainly not the spirit of the Treaty, which sums up the policy of confrontation that has been the recurrent theme of the Pentagon-Brussels alliance for so long.<\/p>\n In its cover of the Putin-Biden talks on December 30 The New York Times<\/em> stated<\/a> that \u201cMr. Putin repeatedly accused the United States and NATO nations of placing offensive weapons near Russia\u2019s borders, imperiling the country\u2019s security\u201d which had apparently \u201cpuzzled\u201d US officials who \u2014 said the Times<\/em> \u2014 thought he may have been referring to Javelin anti-tank weapons \u201cand other small munitions\u201d sold to Ukraine by US manufacturers. But the NYT declared it had \u201cbecome increasingly clear\u201d that Moscow means nuclear missiles \u201cprohibited by a treaty that Moscow violated for several years, and President Trump abandoned.\u201d<\/p>\n Then the Times<\/em> tried to make matters a little clearer by referring to Washington\u2019s policy as described by Jake Sullivan, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.<\/p>\n Mr Sullivan gave a talk<\/a> to the Council on Foreign relations on December 17 in which he was asked a question about US offensive weapons near Russia\u2019s borders. His answer was intended to be eminently intelligible, noting that \u201cas we speak [we are] continuing to deliver defensive assistance to Ukraine. Just last week, another package of that assistance arrived. More will be arriving. We have a pipeline. There is an absorptive capacity question. But we are constantly assessing additional needs that Ukraine has, putting together potential packages. And those packages are actively under consideration.\u201d On the other hand, Mr Sullivan seemed diffident about defining the distinction between defensive and offensive weapons, as he seems to imagine that the former are invariably employed by the US and its military allies whereas the latter are the exclusive provenance of those against whom the defensive category are aimed.<\/p>\n He then explained<\/a> that<\/p>\n \u201cthis is not an issue of saying yes or no to one piece of equipment or one package. We are moving a pipeline. As we do so, we look at more things we can move, and then more, and so forth. And so that is the nature of the way that we are looking at defensive assistance. And we don\u2019t move into our calculus a particular perspective on Russia\u2019s attitude or not. It\u2019s about our assessment of needs and the pipeline and the steps that are being taken to currently deliver assistance. That\u2019s how we\u2019re approaching that question.\u201d<\/p>\n That somewhat opaque statement is yet another arrow in the quiver of western disinformation regarding the US-NATO military build-up, the \u201cenhanced forward presence\u201d along Russia\u2019s borders in NATO countries and especially in Ukraine that does not yet have a formal alliance with the US, although as CNN informed us<\/a> on December 8,<\/p>\n \u201cin November, about 150 members of the Florida National Guard\u2019s Task Force Gator deployed to Ukraine as part of the Joint Multinational Training Group-Ukraine . . . The Pentagon did not disclose how many special forces were in Ukraine because of operational security concerns.\u201d<\/p>\n Offensive planning is frequently disguised in the media by the every-ready \u201coperational security\u201d refrain, just as offensive weapons are suddenly turned into protective \u201csystems\u201d when their evident purpose cannot conveniently be otherwise concealed. These are simply parts of the overall propaganda campaign. The US-NATO military alliance is preparing for war, and the western media are playing its game.<\/p>\n
\n