Putin, Russian, US Elections & NATO Expansion

Here's what you won't hear from the pundits and the pols. They'd rather you think in simple terms of good guys and bad guys, and hopefully lump Trump with Putin, who they tell us wants Trump to win.  Maybe he does.  He has experience with Hillary.  On the other hand, seriously, he has experience with Hillary.  I can't believe anyone who heads up a world power is looking forward to a Trump presidency in the US.

[W]hen Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, she endorsed Russian dissidents running against the Putin regime in 2011 and 2012. Washington evidently thought meddling in that foreign election was a noble thing to do.

[...]

What’s going is that the United States and its neocon war hawks are flirting dangerously with the possibility of real war with Russia [...] [M]ost Americans may not [know that] the United States was deeply involved in agitating for the overthrow of Ukraine’s corrupt and Russia-friendly president. The so-called Maidan Revolution succeeded: Ukraine is now governed by a corrupt and US-friendly president. And US taxpayers are on the hook.

In a healthy democracy, both parties would be debating the question. Why should we care who owns Ukraine? The answer may shock some innocent Americans. It’s about gaining a larger market for the US military-industrial complex. That is, recruiting more customers for the planes and other war-fighting equipment manufactured by US companies.

[...]

After all, that was the real reason for NATO expansion after the Cold War ended. Contrary to its assurances [that it would not do so], Washington pushed hard to expand NATO membership eastward, right up to the Russia border. Former Soviet satellites were happy to join, though this was sure to be understood by struggling Russia as a hostile act. Putin’s aggressive posture was his response.

[...]

Ukraine was not included in the initial NATO expansion because that country was such a mess at the time.

[...]

The true winners were Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and other major arms makers. I know this because as a reporter I attended Washington issue forums where the US companies and their congressional lackeys laid out the arguments for expanding NATO. There was no plausible threat at the time to justify it; Russians were suffering through their horrendous post–Cold War depression.

[...]

Most of the new NATO members are too poor to buy the best American-made weapons, but they are part of the thriving second-hand market. Even then, the Pentagon has to provide bargain prices or lend the financing to many countries.

[...]

American taxpayers will be stuck with the check.

  William Greider @ The Nation

I can't remember who I heard say it, but recently I heard someone describe the US foreign policy as a marketing scheme for the defense industry.  Think about it.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.