Donald J. Trump continues to surprise me and the world with his bold shifting of 'the Overton window' on immigration, trade and now foreign policy -- all sacred cows to an increasingly out of touch and globalist Washington elite. The billionaire real estate mogul, whose former campaign adviser Roger Stone was a guest on the March 28 Guerrilla Radio program, has not only called on the United States to renegotiate the terms of its alliances with South Korea, Japan and Saudi Arabia, but also with the 28 member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) -- including an increasingly authoritarian and Islamist Turkey.
Naturally, the trans-Atlantic political and mainstream media establishment is apoplectic about Trump challenging the core premises of NATO and why it still exists nearly 25 years after the end of the Soviet Union it was designed to contain.
OMG! A video about Trump's criticism of NATO using an electronic synthesized voice! Someone alert @ChristoGrozev or @RadioFreeTom, it must be the Russian Trump trolls! Quick, get Clifford Kincaid and his 'the Rooskies are coming, the Rooskies are coming' guests on!
Being wary of Trump being misquoted, or having his remarks ripped out of context by his typically truth-challenged political adversaries -- for example, these lying headlines from the UK Independent or the Huffington Post in the context of Trump addressing a possible re-deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons currently in Europe with MSNBC's Chris Matthews? At no point in that discussion of perhaps using nukes against the Islamic State does Trump even remotely hint at 'dropping a nuclear bomb on Great Britain' or any other European country. The headlines illustrate just how crazed and desperate the mainstream media is getting in attacking The Donald and why his support continues to grow when people see such flagrant lying against him. For the Wisconsin NATO flap over the weekend, the Russia Analyst checked the actual Trump quotes online. Sure enough the video below from Euronews does a decent job of capturing what Trump actually said without distorting it into an argument of 'let's just get rid of NATO tomorrow', which is NOT what The Donald said:
According to campaign allies like Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, what Trump wants is for NATO member states led by the richest states like Germany and the Netherlands to pay a greater share of the Alliance's military spending, of which the USA currently funds over 70%. Of course, what Trump doesn't mention in this context is that the U.S. still spends more on 'defense' than Russia, China, India, France, Germany and Japan the next closest competitiors combined if you include the U.S. intelligence community budgets (NSA, CIA, DIA) in that figure. Thus in response to Establishmentarian 'Trump is a useful idiot for the Russians if not their agent!' fanatics like Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid, it isn't as if there is no room where there could possibly be fat for a Trump Administration to trim, particularly via the cancellation of the flying turkey known as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter which the Japanese and NATO allies are expected to buy at over a $100 million a copy.
The United Kingdom, Turkey and tiny Estonia are among the few non-American NATO members who actually meet the Alliance's target for national defense spending....
Donald Trump versus Chris Matthews in MSNBC's Town Hall Nuclear Theater --
Brought to You by General Electric and the U.S./NATO Military Industrial Complex
Furthermore, Trump's greater emphasis on nuclear weapons as part of American deterrence strategy including in Europe could be seen in some respects as a return to the big bombs not necessarily bombers strategy of President Dwight Eisenhower's first term (1952-1956). That is, before the former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces during WWII reluctantly gave in to a surge of new defense spending by the late 1950s. That build up included the so-called 'century series' of fighter jets (F-100/101/104), America's first Redstone, Atlas, Titan liquid fueled missiles, and the B-47/52 bombers, and occurred in the years prior to Ike's farewell address warning Americans about the dangers to liberty from a 'military industrial complex'.
Lest we forget how hackish and misleading Chris Matthews attempts to trip Trump up on nukes during their recent interview were, Trump has frequently referred to an uncle who was an MIT academic with expertise on nuclear weapons during his conversations with the editors of The New York Times and The Washington Post, and said he dreads the prospects of nuclear proliferation if not atomic war. In this, Trump is very similar to the late President Ronald Reagan who after viewing the depiction of a U.S.-Soviet nuclear holocaust in 1983's television event The Day After came away writing in his diary about 'feeling profoundly depressed'.
The Day After Trump gets elected President? We don't think so...Trump's critics are not being honest with themselves, Americans or Europeans about what's making nuclear war with Russia more likely, including the looming death of the dollar creating a 'use it or lose it' urgency for America's bloated military empire before it goes away, Soros funded 'colored revolutions' that serve globalist rather than American interests, neocon revanchists and Russophobic ethno-lobbies desire to avenge the 'losses' of Crimea, Donbass and Syria, armchair strategists underestimating Russian combat and technological prowess, as well as an out of control military industrial complex...
MSNBC's Chris Matthews tries to 'stump the Trump' and constantly interrupts The Donald in the context of discussing under what circumstances the U.S. could theoretically use nukes. Matthews mocking question 'you might use them in Europe' is answered by Trump with a quick 'no'. Yet the UK Independent and Huffington Post's headlines explicitly say otherwise. Sad!
The notion that Trump is some sort of cowboy just itching to 'push the button', when he repeatedly vowed to deescalate the situation in Ukraine and 'get along' with the leader of the leading nuclear power on Earth is absurd. Yes that's right RogueMoney readers, Russia has quietly surpassed the U.S. both in the number of deployed warheads AND in the quality of delivery systems both tactical and strategic. Yet MSNBC, the UK Independent and the HuffPost all pushed this bogus storyline about how Trump just can't wait to nuke somebody, including American allies. They're not only lying, they know full well they are lying.
While Bill Gertz sources may be wrong about Russia violating the START Treaty already, the Washington Times reporter is not wrong that the Russians are engaged in a nuclear forces buildup not seen since the 1980s, and the new Sarmat heavy ICBMs are superior in terms of evading anti-ballistic missile systems and delivering multiple warheads (including via suborbital and Southern Hemisphere trajectories!) than anything overtly fielded by the U.S.
Red Storm Rising Myth vs. Reality: In an Early 80s Warsaw Pact/NATO War the U.S. Probably Would've Used Tactical Nukes First to Stop the Soviet Onslaught
As a former aide to Democratic House Speaker Tip O'Neill, Matthews knows damn well that unlike the Soviets, NATO never even bothered with a formal 'no first use' policy in Europe, and for very sound military reasons. Matthews also ought to know that since 1992, the U.S. has kept hundreds of nuclear gravity bombs in Europe years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, despite Chancellor Angela Merkel's promise a few years ago to remove the aging B-83 nuclear bombs from NATO bases in Germany.
Looking to a current hot spot, Turkey, where U.S. personnel were partially evacuated from this week, U.S. nukes are stored at bases in that country as well. That's right folks, despite the increasingly erratic and Islamist direction of the ISIS/Al-Nusra sponsoring Turkish state, and regardless of how many Al-Nusra terrorists were within a 120 miles of the base before the Russians and Syrians blasted them out of Syria's northern Latakia province, we know of no reports that U.S. nukes were moved out of Incirlik to a safer point in Europe. Perhaps it was done super quietly and we'll learn about it someday years from now, but I for one would sleep better at night knowing U.S. nukes were not at a base the Turkish military could theoretically lock down or take over one day if they really wanted to do so.
Over at his Sic Semper Tyrannis/Turcopolier blog, retired Army Col. and DIA analyst Patrick Lang also pointed out at his that Matthews had been briefed in the 1980s on nuclear weapons being an integral part of any U.S./NATO strategy to defend West Germany from overwhelming Soviet numerical superiority in tanks and artillery. All Matthews was trying to do was 'stump the Trump', which he only partially managed to do through constantly interrupting Trump, plus the magic of the MSM's selective quotation and video editing.
Able Archer 1983...the exercise that almost led to Armageddon, in part because NATO simulated nuclear strikes on advancing Warsaw Pact forces in West Germany...funny how when U.S./EU media outlets claim Russia simulated nuclear strikes on Warsaw or parts of Sweden they never mention how many thousands of times the U.S has simulated nuking Russia or other parts of Europe since the 1950s...
Peace is Popular -- There's a Reason Most of the Polled Troops Prefer Trump or Bernie
Although most voters don't pay attention to foreign policy issues which largely remain driven by ethno-lobbies and are dominated by the definition of special interests (read: think tanks and retired generals funded by the military industrial complex including NBC/MSNBC owner General Electric that needs Russia and China as 'the best enemies money can buy'), there's no doubt Trump's recent stumbles in response to questions about abortion have hurt his candidacy with the few remaining undecided Republicans, independents and crossover 'Trump Democrats' voting in the GOP contests. Nonetheless, Trump's message about 'getting along with Putin' has received polite applause on the campaign trail and has distinguished him from a bipartisan Establishment that seems hellbent on provoking Russia with more NATO forces including possibly nuclear arms on Russia's borders.
In addition to questioning the value of NATO in recent days, Trump has also called out the countries of Europe that supposedly are terrified of 'Russian aggression' in Ukraine yet have refused to send troops to the country, except on training missions. Trump's critics again mislead by sidestepping the troops and money for Kiev point, and instead fixating on the Poles and Balts rhetoric rather than actual contributions both financial and military from countries supposedly threatened by the Ukraine conflict.
If Kiev's claims about Ukraine being THE frontline against Moscow's aggression and the imminent threat Russia poses to say, Poland or the Baltic states were taken seriously, shouldn't the Poles and Balts not only be sending troops to fight alongside the Ukrainians in Donbass, but bragging about it?
Training at Yavoriv yes, being willing to bleed and die for Donetsk alongside the Ukrainian Army, no...instead of sending troops to Donbass, NATO has covertly sent 'volunteers' from various countries including Croatia, Poland, and Georgia while accusing Russia of waging covert war on behalf of its proxies in the fought over region...
NATO's Cognitive Dissonance and Lies About How Seriously Most Europeans Take the 'Threat of Russian Aggression' -- Why Won't Poland or Lithuania Officially Send Troops to Donbass?
As of today, NATO and Polish media continue to deny, deny, deny that they have done any such thing, despite evidence of a few NATO 'vacationers' or 'foreign legionnaires' who clearly aren't Ukrainians caught on video in the Donbass. Basically the NATO lobby including groups like the Atlantic Council realize deep down if it weren't for billions in U.S. funding for propaganda and military exercises every year, the vast majority of NATO including the Germans, Czechs, Hungarians, Italians, French and Greeks would not be interested in provoking Russia with maneuvers 60 miles from downtown St. Petersburg in Narva, Estonia. Nor would there be any push outside of the Baltics for getting further involved in Kiev's Donbass quagmire, much less insane attacks on Transnistria or armed to the teeth Crimea (yes, when you get right down to it, even the Poles disavow having any 'vacationers' of their own fighting Moscow's alleged 'little green men' in Donbass).
If NATO doesn't have a 'foreign legion' fighting in Ukraine, who are these guys? And if Poland is so terrified that it's 'next' after Ukraine to face 'Russian aggression', why does Warsaw together with the rest of NATO disavow the Western 'volunteers' already fighting for Kiev?
The notion that Trump is the radical in national security shows only how out of touch with everyday Americans' largely economic concerns and warmongering so much of Washington has become, and furthermore how much D.C. equates maintaining an empire of bases overseas with actual defense of American and allied nation citizens' lives. The possibility that Trump is trying to send a message to Moscow (and Beijing), that the United States isn't interested in building up NATO in Ukraine and the Baltics or military confrontation in the South China Sea -- but will continue to keep nuclear weapons as an option for deterrence -- hasn't occurred to Trump's critics. Or if it has, they are so determined to destroy the threat the Trump (and to a lesser extent, the Bernie Sanders campaign) represents to their Beltway 'rice bowls' that they are going to continue lying about Trump's statements anyway.
NATO Isn't Defending Europe from the Real Rather than Imaginary Russian Invasion
Individual Member States Have to Act on Their Own to Defend their Borders
Despite the uselessness of NATO thus far in actually stopping the real invasion of Europe underway, by young military age Muslim males who could already be radicalized, vested interests are going to keep maintaining the centrality of NATO to U.S. and EU defense planning at any costs. The alternative, the abandonment of the American Empire overseas in much the same way a generation ago Moscow had to give up its Warsaw Treaty/Soviet Empire, is too terrible for the Establishment to contemplate. Yet Trump's remarks about a severe recession if not depression looming just over the horizon, and his bold proclamation that the U.S can eliminate its $19 trillion national debt in just a decade, show that The Donald is aware of the global economic reset that's coming.
Trump is the Only Candidate Talking About Peacefully Winding Up the American Empire
In fact, Trump has been warning about the unsustainability of America's overseas commitments to defend numerous countries and its lopsided trade arrangements as part of maintaining an empire since the late 1980s. At any interest rate, the only way the U.S. can eliminate 19 trillion in IOUs owed to China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and 'to ourselves' i.e. Wall Street and City of London banks is the simplest: default. And it is a cold hard fact that neither the U.S. dollar in its current form nor a bloated military industrial complex in its present incarnation can survive such an earth shattering economic event.