‘US, Russia plunging into new Cold War’

Tit-for-tat moves between Russia and the US are plunging the two nations into a new Cold War, says Russia expert Stephen Cohen. Washington’s longtime policy towards Moscow is to blame for the growing tensions.

The ‘reset’ in relations between the United States and Russia is dead, as the Obama administration has never truly cooperated with Moscow, instead pushing the same policy Washington has been imposing on Russia for the past 20 years.

“That policy is advancing NATO toward Russia’s borders, building missile defense on Russia’s borders, interfering in Russia’s internal politics,” Stephen F. Cohen – professor of Russian Studies and History at New York University and Princeton University told RT.

RT: After the US Senate passed the controversial [Magnitsky] bill, Russia accused Washington of engaging in 'Cold War tactics'. Now that Moscow has retaliated, how would you describe the two countries' relations?

Stephen Cohen: Increasingly we are plunging into a new Cold War. But it’s not a surprise. The story of the orphans doesn’t begin with the Magnitsky Bill. Number of us in the United States have been warning since the 1990s – nearly 20 years – that unless Washington changed its policy, its kind of winner-take-all policy after the Cold War policy toward Moscow, that we would drift toward Cold War, not toward the partnership we all hoped for 20 years ago. This is just the last stage I wouldn’t say it’s inevitable. But even though the tragedy of those orphans already adopted in effect who now will not be able to join their families in America is foremost in our minds – especially on the Christmas Eve and the eve of the New Year.

A real honest, analytical approach by an American patriot – as I am – is that Washington bears a large part of responsibly because of the policies it pursued toward Moscow. And what we saw in the Russian Duma and in the Russian Higher House – the Federal Assembly – when virtually every deputy voted in favor of the ban on American adoption, which was just signed by Putin, is an outburst of pent-up of anti-American feeling in Moscow which has been caused not only, but in large measure by American policy.

RT: How much is this dispute actually just political saber-rattling and how will it actually impact the children?

SC: There is an old Russian saying – “Words are also deeds.” A lot of people in Moscow and in Washington- when they passed the Magnitsky Act and now the ban on adoption in Moscow – may have though that they werejust talking, showing off, playing grandstanding. But these words have consequences. They have backed, they have fueled this new Cold War atmosphere which is enveloping the relationship between our two countries. Each going to affect American relations with Russia regarding Afghanistan, regarding missile defense, regarding Syria, regarding Iran – these are very serious matters. The angrier people get, the more resentment people have on both sides, the worse is the situation.

For example, anti-Putin feeling in America is irrational, completely irrational. There has been a kind of demonization of Putin in America. Some of us tried to counter it by beginning a rational discourse about Putin as a leader. We are not pro-Putin, we just see him as a national leader who needs to be understood. But these events – the Magnitsky and the orphan act are going to make it impossible to have a discourse in America about Putin’s leadership in a way that would lead to any cooperation between Obama and Putin.

RT: With the US and Russia exchanging tit-for-tat actions, what possible further moves can we expect?

SC: There was some surprise in America because our legislature does not think about the consequences of what it does. Many people thought that the Russian reaction to the Magnitsky Bill would be for Moscow to start selling its dollars, for example, and try to harm the American economy or perhaps that Moscow would reduce its cooperation with the United States in supplying NATO troops fighting in Afghanistan. So many people were surprised that the orphan issue became the retaliation.

But there are two issues here that are interesting: In the beginning President Putin did not seem to favor the ban on American adoptions, but he signed the bill after it turned out that almost every member of this parliament favored it. It is also said that President Obama did not favor the Magnitsky Bill, but he signed it when it turned out that almost every member of Congress favored it. So it may be that we are exaggerating the power both of Putin and Obama.

RT: The reset button was pressed in 2009 – but how much has really changed in ties between Washington and Moscow?

SC: I see Obama’s reset is what we – the older generation – used to call when we were in a Cold War a ‘detente’ – meaning an attempt to reduce Cold War conflict by replacing it with cooperation. I think there was a lost opportunity. When Obama and then President Medvedev entered into the reset, Moscow wanted certain things from Washington and Washington wanted certain things from Moscow. Without going into the detail Washington got everything from Moscow it wanted and Moscow got nothing. So the reset has been dead for several months, maybe a year.

RT: During the US Presidential elections, Barack Obama had been accused by his Republican counterpart of being soft on Russia. Could the latest decision mean he's changing his stance?

SC: The Republicans said that because they were prepared to say anything negative they could think about Obama in order to defeat him. But he reality is that Obama has continued the policy toward Moscow begun by President Clinton, a Democrat, and continued by President Bush, a Republican. That policy is advancing NATO toward Russia’s borders, building missile defense on Russia’s borders, interfering in Russia’s internal politics, most recently the street demonstrations. This is the same policy that began 20 year ago with the Soviet Union.

The fundamental American policy toward Russia has not changed. So it’s ridiculous to call Obama ‘soft’ on Moscow. Just because two leaders get together as they always do and say ‘we are friends’ – it doesn’t mean anything. The reality is that the partnership we need between Washington and Moscow to make the world safer for all of us has not existed since the Soviet Union ended. And we may be farther from it today as a result partially of this orphan act than we have been in 20 years.


http://rt.com/news/cold-war-russia-us-047/


I think SC was somewhat understating it when he said;

'So it may be that we are exaggerating the power both of Putin and Obama'.

Um, SC, of course you(they) are. Obama has no power for sure, he is merely the figurehead, as every US President has been, since JFK imo.

He is the paid stooge, the man that gets to stand in front of camera, and read out that which the shadow Gov have effectively written for him. He gets to sign and put his name to paperwork, that shadowy legislators have written for him. And he gets paid to be the guy that the public throw custard pies at. That IS the extent of his TRUE power.

I would imagine much the same is true with Putin.

 

Well when did Russia or Soviet Union had good relationship with USA. I don't blame Russia, NATO forces are almost in every corner of our world, is intimidating and treat for all societies.

 

NATO needs to be collapsed.

Any good intent it ever had, has long gone, they are like a branch of mafia.

I don't blame Russia either, they can see what is happening, globally, and so can China, who are quietly watching.

That is why, imo, Russia needs to be a little more robust in it's defence of Iran and Syria. If they go, Russia will be next.

 

I think that we will see a lot of conflicts in central Asia in the coming decades. Sponsored by NATO and powers such as Saudi Arabia and America. They will be low level proxy conflicts such as we see in Syria and may soon see in Iraq against the current government there.

Exactly. After Syria and Iran the Great Game moves further north into Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and the Caucasus. The west will use proxy armies of terrorists and political malcontents to create and cause problems among the different ethnic populations of the countries there. It's a slow process of destabilization of civil societies in the area.

Russia needs to get serious about stopping this. The wests goal is nothing less than chaos and warfare throughout the length of Asia, from Moscow to Vladivostok until the region is dominated by obedient "democracies". They need to arm Iran, send those S-300 missile systems and such, give the Afghans Kornet missiles and Igla manpads. Being civil will only be seen as weakness by the west. I fear it is too late for Syria, it will fall. All they can do is hope to obstruct and stave off the inevitable.

 

Yes, Russia do, but do not forget, behind Putin there are a shadowy cabal of Jews, you know it, I know it, I have communicated with other Russians who basically tell me that when communism fell, and was replaced by capitalism, all that was really happening to Russia, was the one Jewish construct was being replaced by another. Then look at all the Russian oligarchs that came into being, after that, almost all of them Jews. And they did not make their money by working hard, and being frugal, but through theft, and connections to pretty much everything that one would regard as questionable.

I have seen the pics of Putin sat there, big oak table, almost surrounded by Jews, on either side of him, dressed in black, like angels of death, rather than light and celebration.

As someone else put it today, as well, from a historical context;

'Hitler considered the jewish commssars who guided the Holodomor as subhuman, mainly because of the inhuman killings there (nailing the intestines to a post and then whip the person around the post until he dies, putting rats in a cage on the belly of a prisoner and then start a fire ontop of the cage, so the rat would bite itself into the belly of the prisoner, foring mothers to kill their babies and et them and so on). I do believe the term for these commissars do fit.
There are no quotes in any book or speech by Hitler saying that Russians in general were subhuman, it only was for these mostly Jewish commissars.The ratio of soldiers killed in action was that of 1 dead German there were about 10 Russian. Again many officers were Jewish.

As Germany was fighting against Britain and was winning the Jewish mafia convinced Stalin to attack Germany from the back. Stalin moved more division to the German border than all warring parties combined.

Through the quick reaction of the German forces they attacked in the build up of the Russian forces and were able to push them back.
Stalin knew that the Germans were considered as liberators from Stalin's rule, so he had Russian in German uniforms killing Russians and burning houses etc.that was supposed to create hate in Russians against Germans.
Russia and Germany has a long history of supporting each other and working together. The wars between Germany and Russia only made Jew richer but created devastating blows to each other.

 

I think this is Russia Today and should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

RT is currently the most honest and accurate mainstream news service, imo.

 

She's been doing this all day, no matter if you then go on and raise other related points.

Best ignored, if she is going to be like that, today.

View attachment 16910

 

Margot's opinion is always welcome , Jack, worthwhile from her experience alone. You're not obliged to agree with it, however.

RT is biased- it just happens to be biased on the side of truth as I see it.

 

Come on, Moon... Ink sells when its sensational.

 

It's not really an opinion on the content, to moan about RT ten times a day though.

 

Corporate media are the least reliable source for ANYTHING.

 

Likewise sheep dip , Margot. Have you seen the BBC lately ? Whatever happened to al Jazeera ?

 

I have never mentioned RT before.

Putin is not an ideologue.. he's all about commerce and pipelines.. There are LOTS of people who want a new cold war.. God knows the first one was stupid and sensational..

 

I've seen similar pics but with Bush surrounded by Jews (Perle, Wolfowitz, Abrams, you name 'em). There's no question in my mind that the Iraq invasion was orchestrated by OUR Jews and that the Chechen invasion was orchestrated by THEIR Jews. Could it be that the international Jews are trying to encourage world-wide conflict so that they can pick up the pieces when it's over?

 

I tend to read Al Bawaba or Arab News. I have real problems with media.. I don't think they know anymore than we do and the situation is always fluid.

Might as well read Debka or World Nut Daily or PressTv..

 

Yes you jolly well have, Margot!!

 

No I have not, Jack..

 

Yes, it is almost an identical pic.

Again, surrounded by these Men In Black, even the pics themselves LOOK very..imposing...are you getting that?

Yes also, to your closing question. Sadly, as has happened before in history actually, people will be too confused, too divided, too much in denial, to see that which is staring them in the face.

There is no doubt, for instance, that while 'Zionist Jews' were always non religous, that they saw the advantage in tricking Christians in the US.

Had they not been able to do this, I really do not think they would have got to the position that they are in today.

They do not care about the religion of Christianity, if they have any feelings about it, they hate it, they hate Christians, and they want to cull as many as possible, in massive wars, and through other means (How many Russian Christians did the Bolsheviks and Communists murder, far more than the number of Jews that are said to have been killed during the Reich, that is for sure). But outside of Russia, this fact is often not even known, and you are hateful to even mention it, of course..

In what context do they 'care' about Christianity? In so far as they can eventually duped a population into going so far to do the bidding for Israel, and for Jews, for that is what they have been reduced to, just as the Jews inteneded(the gentiles were created so that Jews did not have to be served by actual beasts, according to their own writings).

In that way, the can literally get the population to support anything Jews have lied about in the ME, and, in doing so, there is the implication (engineerd by Jews, spewed out by their media), that this is really a sort of religous war, between Christians and Muslims.

Of course they would wish to encourage that, for one thing, truly, it is an amusement to them. For another thing, they find ways to profit from it, hell, even the Jew Silverstein managed to turn 911 into smiles all round, for his off shore accounts. And, for another thing, it weakens two groups that they despise.

 

The article is real regardless of their spin on things. The Cold War started when the West ignored Russias objections to our entering the civil war in Yugoslavia. Russia realized then that it was not respected as a power, regardless of whether it was or was not at the time. In response to Clinton's illegal interference in Yugoslavia, Russia showed that since the U.S. started a precedence, then they could act accordingly...thus their war with Georgia over Abhazia and S. Ossetia.

Of course the U.S. hasn't stopped and is still insulting Russia, but much of the insults have to do with internal policies and the pressures of the Eastern Europeans living in the States as well as the support those nations gave the U.S. in Afghanistan.

Anyway as Putin said, we are not enemies we are competitors, and he is right. The U.S. fears Russias control of Europe because of their dependancy on its gas, so there is a bit of paranoia towards them in the West. Also Russia feels that if we helped in breaking up Yugoslavia, then what is to stop us from breaking up Russia in the same way...after all they do have problems in the Causasus? China feels the same way as Russia, since it too has problems with Tibet. This is the reasons they are so adamantly opposed to our interference in Syria.

 

I think I read that 13,000,000 Christians were killed in the Ukraine by Bolsheviks for committing such atrocities as hiding potatos from the city mice. Those fkers made Pol Pot seem like a Sistine Choir eunuch.

As you know, Hitler was afraid of the Bolsheviks (or whatever they called the collectivists in Germany). Not all Jews were Bolsheviks, and not all Bolsheviks were Jews, but, close enough. Whatever their goals are, they seem to eventually invite retaliation on a mass scale. I think most Americans sense what they up to but, for the time being, they are being given cover by the goofball religious right.

 

Russia has agreed to talk with the Syrian rebels and suggests Assad do likewise.

 

Numbers vary from between 13-66 million, mainly white Russian christians, butchered, torture, put into gulags, starved, beaten, and oppressed.

It is strange to me that 'Christians' in the US do not pay homage to that, yet keep lining up to watch the latest 'All non Jews are evil' Spielberg production.

Communism was not a nationalist construct, in short, it had no interest in anything but actually culling and dehumanising the people of that nation, which is why, in every single country that fell under Communist rule, you saw such barbarity, such levels of death, and of course, people desperate to escape from it. Even when Germany was divided by the wall, people were shot dead, trying to escape from the Communist East.

This 'ism' accounted for the invasion and occupation of more lands, the murder of more people, and for longer, than that which NS is accused of.

The Red Army were vile, I mean, bad things go on in all, but I beleive that each military can differ, either in psyche or order, from another.

For instance, for all the over dramatisation of German soldiers, they were never encouraged, ordered, or known to use rape. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that being caught engaging in such would land them in v serious trouble,but I do not believe it was in the psyche of most Germans to have used that anyway.

Compare that to the Red Army, who were well known for being vile creatures on two legs, that used rape almost as policy (a bit like Israel do today, when they use rape or the threat of, to get people working for them).

One need only look at the horrors of what they did to innocent women and children, in Berlin. It is said that not single female there was not brutually raped. A war crime? Sure. But no, they never had to answer for such heinous crimes.

 

They have to KNOW about it first, and that type of information is in secure lockdown. I have never seen a single History Channel film re: Bolshie/Jewish treatment of Ukrainians. Compare that to the holocaust libraries.

I don't know about the rape charge specifically, but the Germans certainly hanged and shot a lot of Russian civvies on their ways in and out. By the time the Russkies entered Berlin, they had to be plenty pissed. And I say that being a Kraut myself.

The main issue, tho, is that America has been colonized by Israel. They couldn't have secured this country any tighter if they came in guns blazing.

 

Well you know about it, and I know about it, so unless we are privy to some secret info source, I see no reason for them to be ignorant.

**

THE Red Army's orgy of rape in the dying days of Nazi Germany was conducted on a much greater scale than previously suspected, according to a new book by the military historian Anthony Beevor.

Beevor, the author of the best-selling Stalingrad, says advancing Soviet troops raped large numbers of Russian and Polish women held in concentration camps, as well as millions of Germans.

The extent of the Red Army's indiscipline and depravity emerged as the author studied Soviet archives for his forthcoming book Berlin, to be published in April by Viking.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ian-women-as-they-freed-them-from-camps.html#


The same Red Army that were honoured by Israel, btw.

Demons reach out to one another, eh?