With the rising tensions in Syria between the United States, NATO, Europe, and Russia, there are, once again, signs that both sides are preparing for the potential of some type of direct military confrontation between the world’s two superpowers.
While most individuals assume that both historical and future events arise as a result of a series of massive and seismic actions, the truth is often that a whimper precedes the bang. While many events are indeed sparked by a single definitive act, it is also true that, in the events leading up to the defining moment, rarely does the general public realize that they are walking along the path to such an event. Even rarer is the individual who realizes that this path was already carved out by high-level players in the halls of banks, corporations, governments, and secret societies long before the destination is ever reached.
For instance, most scholars present the events leading up to World War I as an immediate reaction to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand by a shadowy semi-secret society that was not fundamentally connected to any other secret establishment. The truth, however, is that not only was the Black Hand a part of a Revolutionary Freemasonic structure and the war itself a carefully orchestrated plot that involved the personal attention and assembly of King Edward VII as well as British and French Freemasonic Lodges, but it was not solely a reaction to the assassination of Ferdinand.
More importantly for the context of this article is the fact that, for thirty days after the assassination, life, for the most part, continued on without any apparent changes in the lives of the general public. Indeed, in the month after the assassination of Ferdinand, the majority of the world’s population had returned to what has been described as a “dreamlike trance” of ignorance even as the declarations of war were being prepared behind the scenes.
The time of this “dreamlike trance” – July 1914 – may very well bear relevance to the time in which we find ourselves today. While we must do our best to avoid sensationalism, the question of US-Russia relations, US imperialism, and the geopolitical imperatives of the US, Russia, China, and NATO compounded by the overwhelming ignorance of the general public is one that should cause some concern as to whether or not we find ourselves in a similar situation today.
In March, 2015, I wrote an article entitled “Do Russia/NATO Military Drills Signal Something Ominous?” where I listed and discussed a number of “military drills” and acts of strategic positioning that pointed toward the potential for direct military confrontation between the two powers. It is now over a year later and that cataclysmic confrontation never took place. Unfortunately, signs and indications that it is a possibility are picking up again.
The Polish Drills
The recent drills involving U.S., British, and Polish troops, dubbed Anaconda, are some of the largest NATO drills of its kind and they are doing nothing to ease the tensions with Russia over the deployment of the missile defense system aimed at Russia and being placed essentially at its doorstep.
US, British and Polish soldiers parachuted to the ground in Poland on Tuesday in a mass show of force as NATO launched its biggest war games in eastern Europe since the Cold War.
The exercises — staged against the backdrop of a military and diplomatic standoff between Russia and the West — have rattled the Kremlin.
NATO says the 10-day Anaconda manoeuvres involving 31,000 troops are intended to shore up security on the alliance’s eastern flank, where member states have been spooked by Russia’s increasingly assertive actions.
“There’s no reason to be nervous,” Ben Hodges, Commanding General, US Army Europe, told reporters, insisting the exercises were purely “defensive”.
They are being held a month ahead of a NATO summit in Warsaw set to seal its largest revamp since the Cold War by deploying more troop rotations to eastern European members deeply wary of Russia after its 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.
Moscow fiercely opposes the NATO moves, billed by the US-led alliance as part of its “deterrence and dialogue” strategy.
And the Kremlin reacted angrily to the start of the manoeuvres, NATO’s biggest since the Trident drills last year involving 36,000 troops in Italy, Spain and Portugal.
“The exercises… do not contribute to an atmosphere of trust and security,” said spokesman Dmitry Peskov.
“Unfortunately we are still witnessing a deficit in mutual trust.”
Anaconda involves troops from 24 states, including 14,000 from the US, as well as ex-Soviet “Partnership for Peace” states like Ukraine.
The New Russian Base
It is very strange logic to consider a military base built inside one’s own country as an act of aggression. However, it can be considered an act of strategic positioning and it cannot be argued that Russia is not being forced to respond to U.S. provocation and encirclement. For this reason, it appears that the Russians are building a new base on the Russian/Ukrainian border in an effort to protect itself from the growing potential of a direct confrontation with NATO troops.
Reuters also reports on the new Russian initiative by writing,
Russia is building an army base near its border with Ukraine, the latest in a chain of new military sites along what the Kremlin sees as its frontline in a growing confrontation with NATO.
While there have been no clashes between the former Cold War rivals, Russia is building up forces on its western frontiers at a time when the NATO alliance is staging major military exercises and increasing deployments on its eastern flank.
A Reuters reporter who visited the Russian town of Klintsy, about 50 km (30 miles) from Ukraine, saw a makeshift army camp, large numbers of newly-arrived servicemen and military vehicles.
. . . . .
Last year, Reuters also reported on construction of two other bases further to the south on Russia’s border with Ukraine.
It is rare for a mainstream media outlet to utter anything resembling reality these days but Anton Zverev did manage to do so when he wrote for Reuters that “Each side says it is only responding to steps taken by the other, but the build-up risks locking NATO and Russia into a spiral of measure and counter-measure from which it will be difficult to escape.” Of course, the article did not point out that American/NATO aggression is indeed the reason why Russia feels the need to shore up its defenses.
The U.S. Aircraft Carrier In The Mediterranean
After the small draw down of Russian troops and aircraft from Syria, the Western media could not contain itself from making claims that the Russians were running scared from their battle with ISIS, despite the fact that the Russian-Syrian alliance had done more to destroy the group in weeks than the U.S. had done in years.
But, while the Russian draw down was itself limited and merely a change in strategy after the initial phase of Russian involvement had been completed, it appears that Russia has ordered another round of military equipment to Syria.
Even as that aircraft carrier is scheduled to appear in the Mediterranean in the coming months, the United States has made an “unplanned diversion” of its own as the USS Harry S. Truman has also been sent to the Mediterranean.
This 20-story-tall aircraft carrier with a crew of 5,000 made an unplanned diversion from the Gulf to the eastern Mediterranean last week — a quick pivot intended to send a clear message to Russia.
. . . . .
Rear Adm. Bret Batchelder, the highest-ranking officer on the carrier, told visiting reporters this week that moving the “capital ship” of the U.S. Navy from the Gulf through the Suez Canal is a flexing of muscle meant to reassure North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies of the American commitment to maintaining the balance of naval power in the Mediterranean.
“It is a demonstration of capability. That’s for sure,” he said. “There are undoubtedly folks who are watching that and this is just a graphic representation of what we’re capable of.”
A military official in Washington said the Truman’s shift was a signal to Moscow and a demonstration of the Navy’s operational flexibility and reach.
The Race For Raqqa
The Syrian military is quickly closing in on Raqqa, one of the last ISIS strongholds in the country, and is expected to reach the city within a matter of weeks or even days where a major battle between government and terrorist forces is inevitable. Recently, the Syrian military liberated a number of areas in eastern Syria near the Taqba airbase, another site that is expecting liberation in the next few days. The Syrian military has already reached the edge of Raqqa province.
Raqqa has acted as the ISIS capital since the mysterious appearance of the group two years ago and has gone virtually untouched as the Syrian military has been bogged down in major cities and western/central areas of the country in their fight against the Western-backed terrorists. Notably, despite its rhetoric of fighting to “degrade and destroy” ISIS, the U.S.-led coalition has yet to bomb Raqqa.
Fresh on the heels of a major public relations victory in Palmyra, however, the Syrian military is now marching toward Raqqa and, if successful, it will score one of the biggest victories in the five-year war. This is not only because the de facto ISIS capital will be eliminated or because the SAA will gain more territory, it is because the liberation of Raqqa will be yet another example of how the Syrian military will have accomplished in weeks what the United States and coalition members have claimed may take a decade to do. It will be another instance where the lack of will on the part of the United States to actually destroy Daesh is put on display for the rest of the world, either causing the U.S. to look weak in the eyes of the world or exposing it for actually supporting the terrorist organization to begin with. Regardless, the victory for the Syrian government will be twofold.
That is, unless the U.S. gets there first . . . .
The U.S. has been using the presence of ISIS in Syria as an excuse to bomb, send Special Forces, publicly support terrorists, and possibly invade since the Western-backed terror group appeared on the scene two years ago. Yet, despite its rhetoric, the United States and its coalition have not bombed Raqqa and have largely abstained from bombing (see here and here) any other terrorist group. Instead, the U.S. has focused on bombing Syrian military targets, civilians and civilian infrastructure (see here also), and acting as a deterrent to the Syrian military’s movement in many “rebel-held” areas of the country.
Now, however, the United States seems to have great interest in Raqqa as it aids its loose collection of terrorists, fanatical Kurds, and Arabs known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in “battles” around the ISIS capital.
So why the sudden interest in Raqqa? It’s fairly simple. The United States sees clearly that the Syrian military and its Russian allies are going to liberate Raqqa soon enough and the U.S. does not want to suffer another public relations setback. A defeat for ISIS is thus a humiliation for the United States. That fact alone should raise some eyebrows.
Regardless, the United States would like to have its own “victory” in Raqqa before the Syrians and the Russians can have theirs. If the SDF is able to “take” Raqqa, the U.S. will then be able to shout from the rooftops that America has liberated Raqqa and defeated ISIS in its own capital.
The U.S. also has another goal in Raqqa – the theft of more Syrian territory by using its proxy forces going by the name of the SDF. Whether or not ISIS proper is in control of Raqqa is merely a secondary concern for the United States. If the SDF succeeds in imposing control over the city and the province, then the West will have succeeded in cementing control over the area in the hands of its proxy terrorists once again, but with yet another incarnation of the same Western-backed jihadist fanaticism. The U.S. can then use the “moderate rebel” label to keep Russia and Syria from bombing the fighters who merely assumed a position handed to them, albeit through some level of violence, by ISIS.
With the situation as it stands, there is now the very real possibility of some type of major confrontation taking place in Raqqa that could very well have international ramifications. On one hand, there is the Syrian military, backed by the Russian Air Force and Russian Special Forces heading East to Raqqa while, on the other side, there is the SDF, backed by the U.S. Air and Special Forces, heading West toward Raqqa. Both sides are in a race to gain control over the ISIS capital, gain territory, and declare a victory for the world to see. But what if they arrive in Raqqa at the same time?
In other words, there is a distinct potential that, in the race for Raqqa, the Syrian/Russian alliance might find itself face to face with the possibility of direct military conflict with the U.S./SDF (terrorist) alliance. At that point, the question will be who, if either, will back down? If both forces decide to push forward, the result could be devastating not only for Syria but for the rest of the world.
It is now legitimate to wonder whether or not Russia and NATO are engaging in troop placement under the guise of drills for the purposes of preparing for and eventually launching a real war.
Indeed, one would be entirely justified in wondering whether or not we are seeing the chess pieces being set for a major military confrontation beginning in Eastern Europe but finding its way to North America and eventually enveloping the entire world.
Given the track record of both governments, it is entirely plausible to believe that, if both nations were indeed placing their military personnel in strategic positions, the cover of “drills” could and would be used so as not to forewarn the general public or cause panic in society and hamper the war effort. In addition, the cover of military drills and exercises is obviously a tactic available to governments whereby they are able to position military personnel in prime locations before any actual combat has taken place.
With all of this in mind, we must begin to ask ourselves, “Are the American people in a dreamlike trance?”
“Are we in July, 1914?”
 Stalin: The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia’s Secret Archives, Anchor, (1997) ISBN 0-385-47954-9, pages 454-459
Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 650 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.
This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.