Patty

"Washington desperately needs a new Cold War with Russia to ensure a healthy Military-Security Complex and to maintain global hegemony, former Reagan administration official Paul Craig Roberts told RT in an interview.

"The best thing the Russian government could do is just ignore [Washington's rhetoric] and go on making its relations with China, India, Brazil, and South America, and go on about its business and leave the dollar system, and simply quit trying to be accepted by Washington," said Roberts, also an economist and columnist on global affairs.

RT: The way that some US officials are speaking, it seems that NATO seriously believes that Russia is set to invade the Baltic states.

PCR: What this is all about is that Washington had hoped to grab Ukraine, especially the Russian naval base in Crimea, in order to cut Russia off from the port and access to the Mediterranean. Now, Washington lost that game. They're trying to retrieve it by starting a new Cold War, and that's what all this talk is about.

They're pretending that Russia is going to invade the Baltics or Eastern Europe. This is absurd.

RT: NATO is building up its forces in the Baltic region. Isn't this a dangerously provocative step in terms of a new Cold War?

PCR: Washington wants a Cold War, they need it. They've been defeated in Afghanistan, they were blocked from attacking Syria and Iran, so they've got to keep the military-security complex funded, because that's where an important part of their campaign contributions comes from. When Washington gives the taxpayers' money to the military sector, it is cycled back in campaign contributions to keep them in office. They have to have conflict. With the wars in the Middle East winding down, apparently, they have to start new conflict, and since they lost their plan to take over Ukraine - which has defected, much of it, back to Russia - they're going to start a new Cold War.That's what this means. Now they haven't put enough troops or aircraft in these countries to make any difference, but they want to.

So what Russia is faced with is a new Cold War, and the best thing the Russian government could do is just ignore it and go on making its relations with China, India, Brazil, and South America, and go on about its business and leave the dollar system, and simply quit trying to be accepted by Washington.

Washington is not going to accept - let me read you the [former US Defense Department Deputy Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz Doctrine: "Our first objective is to prevent the reemergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new Defense strategy, and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under their control, be sufficient to generate global power." By "hostile power," Wolfowitz means any country that is not under Washington's thumb - any independent country.

So that's the doctrine here, and I think the best thing the Russian government can do is acknowledge that that is the doctrine. They can't work anything out with this doctrine because Russia - being a rising, powerful state, like China - is by definition a "hostile power."

jonhatfield Loc: Green Bay, WI

RT = Russia Today...Russia's main outside propaganda organ...like our Voice of America.

PCR has been echoing Russian viewpoint of world situation and American villain world domination intentions for some time. This appearance on RT is simply confirmation of where his allegiance has been for some time.

Patty persona has been posting Russian propaganda material from RT (and other Russian prop sources) and from Paul Craig Roberts for near 2 1/2 months now (perhaps 3 1/2 months if the parallel Pana/Capitalist postings are same operation). These postings are confirmation of where Patty's allegiance lies.

I remain puzzled about OPP personas who collaborate with these posted Russian propaganda postings on OPP...unsure which ones are co-operatives in the propaganda op and which ones are only "useful i***ts" for New Russia f*****m.

I similarly was never able to determine whether operatives or "useful i***ts" were involved in the takeover of the UW student chapter of SANE (liberal advocate organization for nuclear disarmament) by unilateral nuclear disarmament ideologues in 1960 when I was a grad student at UW. Unilateral disarmament was a twist to radicalize and create distrust of American intentions rather than an honest position for mutual disarmament. Similar twists were being promoted with civil rights issues, policy toward Cuba (just a reform movement, not c*******t ideologue govt., etc.), & later anti-war organized demonstrations toward violence. Just that the unilateral nuclear disarmament twist was more obviously twisted--so much so that my letter (with enclosed handout demonstrating the unilaternalist twist takeover) to a member of the national SANE steering committee and congressman from Madison district with notation how easily a small group could twist so important an idealist issue on campuses resulted in decision to disband student SANE chapters within weeks. I always wondered what Eleanor Roosevelt, a member of the steering committee, thought of this sad but at time necessary distancing from student organization. And, as stated, I still have no idea what motivation, intentions, or agenda was behind the baby carriage pushing young ladies carrying unilateral disarmament signs who wanted to march together with the civil rights group to JFK's campaign speech but went separately on the other side of the street when I objected the causes were separate (to the relief of Jim, the leader of the campus civil rights group, who thereafter trusted me and became my friend...(ironically perhaps in part because a Republican from East Tennessee wearing a Nixon button there on principle was more reliable than squirrelly libs who might have thought marching together a good idea--oops, did I say my lib friends are sometimes off the wall?).

Well, that all explains where I'm coming from. Still can't figure where PCR and Patty are coming from. Hard to figure why or how Reaganomics originator PCR and American cranky lady OPP persona Patty become participants in Russian viewpoint propaganda presentations. Shades of those nice baby carriage pushing unilateral nuclear disarmament advocates! How can people end up advocating such contradictory things??