Skip to main content

Does America Want War with Russia?

Grew up on Cape Cod, Mass. Army Vet., Fmr. Director of Energy Conservation programs, RE Agent. Current residence: the Space Coast, FL.


This article was initially written before Donald Trump was sworn in as POTUS some of it has been altered to reflect current events, but much of it has been preserved to give reminder to a perspective before the long Mueller investigation ever got underway.

The way the American news media and politicians have characterized the Russian "threat" has often been hysterical and overblown. Many main news sources have also been complicit in deceiving Americans as to the truth of events, either political, or international in scope.

Russia has made no moves of aggression against America, on the contrary, Russia has spent the past 8 years (the span of the Obama Administration) watching as America (NATO alliance) has tried to topple or manipulate nearly every nation that Russia, and formerly the U.S.S.R., has alliances with.

In 1989 Mikhail Gorbachev, leader of the U.S.S.R., willingly dismantled Russia's political and military dominance over Eastern Europe, after meetings with America's top diplomats at that time, Moscow believed such magnanimous efforts to appease them would allow Russia to be treated as equal partners with America, rather than as a rival. Moscow was also led to believe, though not in any formal written treatise, that NATO would not interfere with those countries or counter Russia's influence.

America (and its allies) on the other hand look to 1991 as the date they soundly defeated Russia, as the Soviet Union and its economy collapsed. To their eyes, this cost Russia any say over its neighboring countries, and indeed, its own future... at one point in the mid 1990s international businesses were moving in to take control of Russia's oil and natural gas industries, and all other major business venues wherever opportunity allowed.

When Putin assumed the Presidency in 2000, he took pains to court Tony Blair and George W. Bush, he believed he could reason with them as a partner nation, an equal. He was the first leader to call President Bush and lend him his support after the attacks of Sept. 11, allowing America to build an airbase in Kyrgyzstan so that they could fly bombing missions in Afghanistan.

In return for that good faith effort, Putin was rewarded by America pulling out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, despite Russian protests. Then in 2003, President Bush circumvented United Nations authorization and invaded Iraq, whom Russia maintained historic and economic ties with. Then from 2003-2005 a wave of protests (sparked by foreign interference efforts) spread across Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, leading to pro-Western governments.

Russia has had to watch as the NATO alliance, moved its forces right up to Russia's western border, one nation at a time, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, etc. Until by 2016 Russia had the combined military forces of the EU and America literally sitting on its doorstep, more tanks, artillery, rockets and jets were along its border just weeks prior to President Trump taking office than had been amassed for Desert Shield.

The Fate of Former Allies of the U.S.S.R.


Throughout history, the Russians have been invaded over, and over, and over again. The latest, was when the Nazi Regime, which had signed a non-aggression treaty with Russia, invaded and slaughtered more than 25 million Russians just years after that treaty was signed. Obviously, Russia has legitimate concerns about maintaining a security buffer of friendly nations nearby, like Georgia and Ukraine. History has proved the necessity. Moscow has also been adamant about helping one of the few allies it has left in the world, Syria.

Three countries in the Middle East had strong ties to Russia… Iraq, Libya, and Syria. These three nations were among the countries who allied with the Soviets during the Cold War. The regimes in these countries were supported and supplied by the Soviets, this 'responsibility' was later inherited by Russia and continued after the end of the Cold War in the 1990s. Iran more recently has developed an alliance with Russia, and they have escaped the wrath of America’s military might mainly because of Iran’s alliance with China, as I discussed HERE.

During the Obama Administration, Libya was targeted, and then Syria, Iraq of course, had long ago fallen to America’s interests. The Obama Admin also tried to intercede with Russian, Georgian, Ukraine, and other former Soviet Bloc Nation’s elections and politics.

Putin witnessed America’s "democracy building" in Russia's sphere of influence during the anti-Russian revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine. Hillary Clinton encouraged anti-Putin protests in 2011 by saying Russia's parliamentary elections were neither free nor fair. This while CIA operatives worked to undermine Russia’s influence in neighboring nations, and the EU/NATO nations made every effort publicly and politically to coerce Russia’s neighbors to join in the EU trade/military alliance.

A very good view of this, from the Russian perspective, can be gained from listening to former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev in this interview BELOW.

What would be the reasons why America, the EU, and NATO are interested in threatening Russia with war?

The first reason is obvious, so I will forego elaborating on it here… I will simply say war is big business, and there is no bigger influencer of politics in America than the Military Industrial Complex, there is no profit for them in peace.

Scroll to Continue

Anders Rasmussen, who led the NATO alliance between 2009 and 2014, said Mr Putin “only respects a firm hand” when dealing with other world leaders and said Nato needs to intervene to protect the vulnerable Baltic states.

He said: “The US must increase support for Nato's eastern flank, set up military bases wherever Russia is threatening the freedom and livelihood of US allies, and whole-heartedly protect Ukraine against future Russian aggression.

This is what Obama was pursuing, and what Clinton would have continued, a military intervention against Russia... but not for the reasons they are stating.

The Truth is, that there is estimated to be over 20 Trillion dollars worth in oil and gas resources in the North Pole region which is now becoming accessible due to the warming/melting of the North Pole, there are also trade routes now open for a few months of the year, and should the global warming trend continue as expected, control of this region will be more valuable than control over the Middle East and the Suez Canal combined.

Let me say that again, control over the North Pole Region, in specific the part that directly falls under the control of Russia according to accepted maps and treaties of less than a decade ago, is worth, by today's standards, well over 20 trillion dollars... not including the control of a sea trade route that would be more valuable to the EU than the Suez and Panama combined.

You can read more about this by typing in "Oil and the race for the North Pole" or "Race for Arctic oil poses $43 trillion risk to global economy " on any Search.

Now you should know that Europe is dependent upon Russia for its supply of Oil and Natural Gas, recent events have redirected world resources to Europe to counter (for a short time only) this dependency. Both OPEC and America have increased production of Oil and Natural Gas to historic levels (For instance, America is shipping liquefied Natural Gas to EU by ship despite it being more expensive that getting it piped in from Russia) so that they can devalue the price of oil and gas, and force Russia into an economic collapse (along with their sanctions against Russia) or at least a capitulation to their demands. But this has yet to occur. More information about this can be found here.

What Western Energy Companies, the EU and America would prefer, is to force the removal of Putin, rather force Russia into an act of war, either way the ideal outcome would be to subject Russia to a 'banana republic' so that Europe/U.N./NATO and ‘Western’ corporations can control those resources.

Understand, that if Russia was Argentina, Somalia, or some other resource worthless nation and they were massacring entire populations of nearby nations... we wouldn't be doing much more than giving lip service that they should stop.

But Russia is now sitting on the biggest untapped resource in the world, as well as what will soon become the most important trade route in the world... and there are too many powerful forces within Europe/NATO/U.N. unwilling to sit by and let Russia dictate who gets access to those resources or that trade route. And we have a Military Industrial Complex that is always itching for that next fight.

Additional Information and Resources:

Nikki Haley states it matter of factly (see video below go to 2:45) while addressing the U.N.

America's focus is on Syria, Russia, and Iran (I am surprised Iran was mentioned as its ties to China give it considerable protection)... but this does make sense, finish off Syria, move on to Russia, and then, as I said, America pivots to address China, and Iran gives the excuse to escalate that conflict once Russia has been dealt with.

At 2:45 what is said, says it all

© 2017 Ken Burgess


Ken Burgess (author) from Florida on July 15, 2019:

Jonny sorry for the late reply, and you are spot on, when all you are getting is one side of the story, you are not getting the whole picture.

Like so many things, you need all the facts, or at least both sides of an argument, to get a clear enough picture to judge what is true.

Americans do not get that from their news sources, nothing close.

Ken Burgess (author) from Florida on August 21, 2018:

Thanks for reading it Alan, it was written well over a year ago, and certainly seems as relevant today as when I wrote it considering the 'Russian Scare' that our media seems to keep on pushing.

jonnycomelately on August 20, 2018:

I had not read any of your contributions up to now, Ken, but it seems to make a lot of sense.

The only knowledge we have about Putin and Russia is what we read in the American owned and directed news media. That speaks for itself, in my opinion.

Ken Burgess (author) from Florida on August 07, 2017:


Different times during Reagan, the U.S.S.R. was in direct competition with the 'Western World' (Europe&America).

For those who have very anti-colonial leanings, such as President Obama had expressed, choosing to target former nations under U.S.S.R. influence (and current Russian allies) as military targets would seem suspect.

That Obama would pursue severe efforts of military antagonism just weeks before leaving office (from booting out Russian diplomats here in America to amassing thousands of troops, tanks, jets, etc. along Russia's border) was more than a little alarming.

You need to look past the color of Obama's skin Credence, and question his actions as you would any other President. Maybe if every comment made against his actions, or any criticism he received you didn't label racist or right-winged, then we could have a decent debate as to the why things happened, and more importantly what was the desired results of those actions.

But until you can look at the cause and effects, without viewing every comment made through a prism where every statement or position is tainted by racism and extreme political stances, we can never have a debate on things based on known facts.

Credence2 from Florida (Space Coast) on August 06, 2017:

Yeah, what about the other American Presidents who had goals of undermining Russia,


Do you put any focus on Reagan and Bush, for example?

Ken Burgess (author) from Florida on July 30, 2017:


Well we are three months down the road, and you can see for yourself just how the D.C. system of corruption has worked to block or ignore Trump everywhere it could.

No I don't think he wanted to be a 'Front man', but I understood he was only one man, who had no experience in D.C. and likely no idea that it was a town bought and paid for by the Banks and Corporations, and it no longer answers to the people. Or the President for that matter, should he try to oppose the corruption.

All those 30+ year politicians that brought us the Mortgage Crisis and near collapse in 2007/8, and NAFTA, and so many other wonderful things that have helped drain this country of jobs and resources, and stagnated wages and benefits, are still there... untouchable it seems, and unaccountable.

Criminals like McCain, Waters, Pelosi and Graham seem to survive every 'bad' decision, every collusion with corporate or foreign powers they align with, every disaster they have helped guide this country into in the last 30 years.

Trump rode a wave of dissent with the establishment (and the lying, scheming, reality altering Media that helps support D.C.'s antics and efforts).

But mostly Trump rode a wave of people who are angry, and will remain angry, at the loss of jobs (due to NAFTA, CAFTA, Open Borders, H1-B &2B visa programs) and benefits, loss of homes (Mortgage crisis claimed millions of people's homes while the banks got bailed out and richer off of tax payers), and loss of dignity (the 'American way' being defiled and denigrated by the 'globalist elites' in D.C. and our media)...

When you have what you value most stripped from you, and then are told to shut up about it (you aren't allowed to complain because you are one of those white 'privileged' people responsible for all the world's woes) there is going to be backlash... that backlash was the election of Trump.

And the Media/D.C. Institution will do whatever they can to oppose him, control him, or undermine his efforts. Trump may want to befriend Russia, but those who are running America do not. In that sense, Trump is but a figurehead.

Brad on April 12, 2017:


I understand and agree with the history, but the Who is not Trump. Yes, the government is infested for several decades but all those presidents were part of that system. I don't think Trump went through all that trouble to just be another front man.

Let us see what the next move is in this game.

Ken Burgess (author) from Florida on April 12, 2017:

Thanks for the comment Brad,

The answer is multi-layered, Trump (the Presidency) does not exist in a vacuum, Trump does not have anything close to complete power... this should have been made evident when he tried to block the entry of refugees, he was stopped not once, but twice, by minor federal judges.

Trump can only make decisions based on the information he is given, and in large part through the perspectives they are given him. The 'Shadow Government' or "The Establishment' or whatever you want to consider life long government 'employees' that have been in the halls of D.C. the Pentagon, and the Intelligence services for decades, 30, 40, years are now surrounding him... those that are not in favor with them, or who are not on board with the direction/plan they are taking the world... such as Flynn and Bannon, have been removed from the National Security Council, and other positions of importance around Trump.

Therefore, the people who have been directing our International Affairs for more than a generation, and have been following a plan of action for decades, are still in control... Trump is the front man for the same plans of action, that were there during Bush, and Obama.

In addition America does not control NATO, nor the U.N., America's sovereignty has been significantly handicapped by things like the IMF, WTO, WB, and other International Controls and Trade agreements it has entered into.

So these forces, EU, U.N. have sway over the direction our foreign policy takes. America has nothing to gain from war with Russia (other than the Billions/Trillions to be made from war itself for those Military Industrial Corporations), but Europe has Trillions in trade, Trillions in energy that can be controlled, as well as peace of mind that a 'banana republic' in place in Russia will not be the threat that Putin appears to be.

So I suppose you could say, that I never expected Trump to buck the system, change the direction of International Affairs, Energy Corporations worth Trillions, The Military Industrial Complex worth Trillions, International Banking worth Trillions, etc. really control things... the most any President can do is delay, redirect lesser important policy, maybe even handicap the efforts of certain parties for a while... but the President doesn't really control the big issues anymore, and hasn't for a long time.

Brad on April 12, 2017:


I am continuing the flow of your statement from another hub.

I notice in the hub that there is no mention of president Trump, and most of your reasons are based on pre Trump. Trump was the one that wanted to defund Nato because they needed to start paying their own defense.

So, I am confused about why president Trump would want to start a war with Russia, while he has more problems with N Korea and Iran, along with all the conflicts still in existence from the Obama presidency?

Related Articles