19:07 GMT +321 October 2017
Live
    US soldiers are pictured prior the beginning of the official welcoming ceremony of NATO troops in Orzysz, Poland, on April 13, 2017.

    'The Russians Are Coming!' What's Really Behind the New US Security Strategy

    © AFP 2017/ Wojtek RADWANSKI
    Politics
    Get short URL
    52878263

    Democratic Rep. Adam Smith's new military strategy, which recognizes "Russia's challenge" as one of the central concerns of US national security, comes as no surprise, Sputnik contributor Andrei Kots writes, explaining why the slogan "The Russians are coming!" is as relevant as ever in the US.

    The House Armed Services Committee's ranking member, Democratic Rep. Adam Smith, proposed a new bill entitled "The Fostering Unity Against Russian Aggression Act of 2017" on Tuesday, which envisions countering Russia's growing military capabilities.

    Sputnik contributor Andrei Kots explained why the adoption of the new security strategy won't translate into serious political changes.  

    "Today, we are witnessing some of the most fundamental threats to our democratic values and to the cohesion of our alliances since the beginning of the post-World War II era," Smith said in an official statement Tuesday.

    According to Smith, the US needs to develop a comprehensive new strategy to "deter Russian aggression, strengthen allied and partner defenses, and boost our cohesion while including measures to reduce the risk of nuclear war and avoiding a reckless plunge into a new nuclear arms race."

    "It is time for us to recognize that this challenge must become one of the central concerns of US national security strategy," he stressed.

    However, there is nothing new about Smith's proposal, Kots wrote, commenting on the issue.

    "Many experts and political scientists note that the new strategy will differ from the previous ones only in form, but not in content. The US administration had actively pushed ahead with measures to deter Russia long before Crimea, sanctions or Russia's interference in the Syrian civil war," the journalist highlighted.

    De facto, the US started to implement plans aimed at deterring Russia back in June 2002, when George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. To add to the controversy Washington began to build its missile defense shield in Europe.

    Kots noted that on paper the NATO missile defense system in Europe envisaged countering threats from Iran and North Korea. However, in reality, it was designed to contain Russia's strategic forces.

    In addition, the journalist continued, from 2003 to 2005, a series of "color revolutions" were carried out in three former Soviet republics, with active information, diplomatic and financial support from the United States: the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004, and the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan in 2005.

    "As a result, anti-Russian political regimes backed by the US emerged one by one on Russia's borders," Kots noted, adding that simultaneously NATO continued its eastward march, Washington openly supported Russia's opposition movements and launched repeated attacks against Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Western media.  

    Although Barack Obama's election had initially brought new hope to the Russians and Americans of a potential détente, it was soon followed by the US invasion of Libya, US-supported turmoil in Syria and the US-backed Euromaidan Revolution in Ukraine in 2014.

    Given all the above it is clear that over the years Washington's deterrence strategy towards Russia had never changed.

    What lay at the root of this policy?

    "Let's be honest: Russia, by its very existence, allows American defense contractors to earn tens of billions of dollars," Sergei Sudakov, a specialist in American politics and professor at the Academy of Military Sciences, told RIA Novosti.

    "Adam Smith's bill is primarily the initiative of retired military personnel who work in large lobbying companies. They are artificially fanning the flames of the anti-Russian hysteria in the media in order to force the [US] government to fork out," Sudakov underscored, adding the US military lobby is very strong and constantly urges the government to pour more money into the production of new types of weapons.

    As for US President Donald Trump, he is merely unable to resist the pressure from the US military-industrial complex.

    "It turns out that Trump is the president who reigns, but does not rule," Sudakov explained. "He is likely to sign the bill on the new national security strategy [which envisages anti-Russian deterrence]. This will severely limit all of Trump's further efforts to normalize relations with our country."

    According to Kots, the adoption of "The Fostering Unity Against Russian Aggression Act of 2017" is unlikely to result in any major changes in the US politics. One also shouldn't expect a further aggravation of tensions between the two countries, he wrote, adding that the situation is already very complicated.

    As long as the US military industrial complex is able to capitalize on the Russian "threat," the slogan "The Russians are coming!" won't lose its relevance in America, the journalist concluded.

    Related:

    Trump Gives Pentagon Blank Check for Expansion of Afghan War
    Pentagon's Secret Weapons Maker Taps Intel for Hyper-Fast Data Processor
    Pentagon Urges Seoul to Finish THAAD Missile System Install to Fight DPRK Threat
    US Conducts First Strike Against Al-Shabaab Positions in Somalia - Pentagon
    Pentagon Reveals Photos of Russian Su-27 Intercepting US Military Aircraft
    Tags:
    US missile defense systems, US military-industrial complex, color revolutions, Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, Cold War, World War II, NATO, Adam Smith, Donald Trump, George W. Bush, Europe, United States, Russia
    Community standardsDiscussion
    Comment via FacebookComment via Sputnik
    • Сomment