Russian versus US "aggression": Keep Ukraine NATO neutral

Both Bernie Sanders​ AND Hillary Clinton​ share enthusiasm for this amazing feat of creative cold war politic. WTF?

Gen. Philip Breedlove in the Latvian capital Riga come a day after the Pentagon said it would begin continuous rotations of an additional armored brigade of about 4,200 troops in Eastern Europe beginning in early 2017.

“We are prepared to fight and win if we have to ... our focus will expand from assurance to deterrence, including measures that vastly improve our overall readiness,” Breedlove said following talks with Baltic region NATO commanders.

“To the east and north we face a resurgent and aggressive Russia, and as we have continued to witness these last two years, Russia continues to seek to extend its influence on its periphery and beyond.”

Crimea, Ukraine and how "your land is my land, Putin!"

Let's see. This is a country on Russia's border "threatening" to open ties with the EU, effectively "cutting" ties with Mother Russia. Namely and most threateningly, the Ukraine's gesture to join the west's killing apparatus, NATO, might have raised an eyebrow.

Perspective: Imagine if Canada or Mexico were undergoing revolution and threatening to join the Warsaw Pact. Do you think we would tolerate such a thing? Could we be blamed for responding? Are you kidding me? We would nuke Canada into next Winter before we would allow it to join the Warsaw Pact!

Russia, however, was openly hostile to Ukrainian membership in NATO.

Ya think? Given the collective's recent bloody history is it any wonder?

Though a more persuasive case that by far the most concerning global aggressors are the United States and, when cover is warranted,  its NATO lackeys "coalition", such an objective observation comes with and dangerous prerequisite: that we reject the notion "our" aggression serves a greater good, one of "progress" and "democracy" and "civilization" while "theirs" serves the interest of tyranny and conquest.

These are the warmed over Cold War ideologies that continue to permeate the national discussion despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, as observed by pretty much the rest of the world.

All told, 24 percent of worldwide respondents chose America as the greatest threat to world peace. Coming in second, with a whopping 8 percent, was Pakistan.

No mention of say, Iraq? The completely "illegal under international law" invasion and subsequent occupation (permanent military bases) to dominate western oil interests in the region.  Libya anyone? How about the West's "non-involved involvement" in Syria?

Both interventions of which among other things, could be deemed part of "the greater Israel project": a series of military interventions sold as, among other things, making sure Israel feels safe in its self-created "bad neighborhood". Israel has dreamed of a "post-Saddam" Iraq for at least 20 years.

Oh, that's right. International Law, like international terror, is something that applies to "them", not "us".

At least Hillary and Bernie are upfront about their NATO bloodlust. Trump so far, is the only one bold or reckless enough to call for dismantling the dangerous Cold War relic.

That means we are protecting them, giving them military protection and other things, and they’re ripping off the United States. And you know what we do? Nothing,” Mr. Trump said at a subdued rally here on the outskirts of Milwaukee. “Either they have to pay up for past deficiencies or they have to get out.” 

“And if it breaks up NATO, it breaks up NATO,” he concluded.

From the mouths of babes.

So the only feasible 'win win' situation appears to be quite simple and rather obvious. Ukraine should remain neutral. Advocate ties with the west all day long, just leave the murderous terror affiliation behind, as pitched by Noam Chomsky:

Now, in the case of the Ukraine, again, whatever you think about Putin—think he’s the worst monster since Hitler—they still have a case, and it’s a case that no Russian leader is going to back down from. They cannot accept the Ukrainian move of the current government to join NATO, even probably the European Community. There is a very natural settlement to this issue: a strong declaration that Ukraine will be neutralized, it won’t be part of any military alliance; that, along with some more or less agreed-upon choices about how—about the autonomy of regions. You can finesse it this way and that, but those are the basic terms of a peaceful settlement. But we have to be willing to accept it; otherwise, we’re moving towards a very dangerous situation. I mentioned before that the Doomsday Clock, famous clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, has just been advanced to three minutes before midnight. That’s very close. Midnight means we’re finished. That is the highest, closest it’s reached since 1983.

Seems like the surest way to avoid armageddon in this lifetime.

Do you agree with German politician Dr. Alexander Neu?

Dr. Neu also mentioned that it was the West, not Russia that sparked the coup in Ukraine. "I don't see that [Moscow] poses a threat to the Baltic states, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. This is why this threat is imaginary." 

The latest Pentagon's announcement, according to the German politician, could indicate that the US is trying to contain Russia because Moscow does not want to follow what the West wants it to do.

Food for thought.