From Screeching Kettle blog (These guys do a great job of actually gathering multiple sources of information to demonstrate a point .. a verified "blog"; unlike me, who just provide links to items with an occasional editorial note):
Who wants a
new "cold war" with Russia? Do you? I certainly don't. So who does? Who benefits most from yet another round of needless tensions between two countries with enough nuclear firepower to obliterate every creature on the face of the earth ten times over?
Defense companies, for one, who rely almost entirely on the Pentagon to provide them with business.
Case in point: The U.S.
announced in March 2014 that it plans to speed up a previously-stalled "missile shield" over Poland. Back in 2009, President Obama put the Bush-era idea
on hold in order to get Russian cooperation on negotiations with Iran over their
non-existent nuclear weapons program. The justifications at the time for the missile shield were also flimsy, with the U.S. saying that its purpose was to protect Europe from Iran. Of course in reality, the missile shield was really about Russia, which is why when we fast-forward to early 2014, we see the following
reportedby NBC News:
"The NATO member [Poland] had planned to reduce the number of bidders for the system by June, but the crisis in Ukraine and concerns about Russia's annexation of Crimea have prompted officials to speed up the timetable."
How very convenient that the "crisis" in Ukraine has sped up plans for the missile shield. But I wonder who is behind the so-called "crisis" in Ukraine? Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland might be able to give us some clues.
Reports The Associated Press:
"U.S. officials blamed Moscow for the Internet leak of recordings of Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the U.S. ambassador in Kiev discussing a possible future government for Ukraine, where Washington and Brussels back anti-Kremlin demonstrators."
Let's recap: The U.S. backs protesters in their quest to overthrow the Russian-friendly Ukrainian government and then uses Russia's response as justification to speed up plans for a $13 billion missile shield.
"I think the action in Crimea makes it abundantly clear that NATO needs to do more to upgrade its defenses," the aforementioned NBC News article quotes U.S. Congressman Stephen Lynch as saying.
Lynch is a shining example of everything that's wrong with this country not because of what him and politicians like him say, but because of why they say it. According to
The Center for Responsive Politics, Lynch received $5,500 from Raytheon in campaign contributions, $2,000 from Lockheed Martin, $2,500 from Boeing, and $3,000 from General Dynamics - all defense companies,
two of which are involved in the missile shield project (Raytheon and Lockheed Martin).
So who benefits from bringing the world back to the brink of a nuclear clusterfuck? Defense companies, and politicians like Stephen Lynch, who rely on defense companies to fill their campaign coffers.
----------------------------------------
AA
