Have you noticed that according to the Pentagon, the CIA, and the U.S. mainstream press (whose newspapers oftentimes appear to be wholly owned subsidiaries of the national-security establishment), it’s always Russia that is “assertive” and “aggressive” while the United States, whose regime invades and occupies countries, assassinates people, partners with brutal dictatorial regimes, and initiates coups, is portrayed as the passive, peaceful, victimized regime?
Consider NATO. The U.S. regime breaks its promise to Russia to dismantle NATO at the end of the Cold War, begins absorbing Eastern Bloc countries as members, moves U.S. forces ever close to Russia’s borders, promotes a pro-U.S. regime-change coup within Ukraine, and then attempts to make Ukraine a NATO member.
Not a peep from the mainstream press about the U.S. regime’s being “assertive” or “aggressive.” Yet, when Russia responds to NATO’s “passive” and “peace-loving” actions by taking control over Crimea or moving troops into Belarus, the U.S. mainstream press goes bananas, exclaiming that Russia is being “assertive” and “aggressive.”
When the U.S. government seizes Russia’s properties in the United States and orders a reduction in the size of the Russian diplomatic staff, there isn’t a peep in the mainstream press about the U.S. regime being “assertive” or “aggressive.” But when Russia responds by doing the same thing over there, the U.S. mainstream press goes bonkers over Russia’s “assertiveness” and “aggressiveness.”
There is really nothing new about the U.S. national-security establishment’s anti-Russia crusade. The crusade goes back to when the Pentagon and the CIA were called into existence and even before. The only difference is that back then the crusade was against godless Russian (or Soviet) communism while today it’s just against Russia itself.
Recall the Cuban Missile Crisis, which occurred in 1962. Isn’t every American schoolchild taught that it was the Russians (or the Soviets) caused that crisis? Doesn’t the U.S. mainstream press always refer to the “offensive” missiles that the Russians installed in Cuba? Don’t they love to say that the Russians “blinked” and that the U.S. prevailed in the crisis?
Take a look at this document, which leads to a top-secret CIA memo dated October 16, 1962. It was released last week as part of the National Archives’ release of JFK-related documents, pursuant to the JFK Records Act of 1992. Keep in mind that the CIA didn’t want people to see this document in 1962 or even the 1990s and beyond.
Why would they want to keep this document secret from the American people? Because it obviously doesn’t fit well with the official portrayal of the U.S. regime as passive, submissive, and peace-loving.
In the document, the CIA calls for demolition of a railroad bridge, shipping and port facilities, and a power plant in Cuba, the mining of various Cuban harbors, a hit-and-run attack on a Soviet missile site, incendiary sabotage of wooden cooling towers, wooden docks, and a sulphur stockpile, and a gunfire attack on an oil tanker in the Havana or Matanzas harbor.
I would be remiss if I also failed to mention that the document reveals that the CIA was also calling for a grenade attack on the Chinese embassy in Havana, which, of course, is considered sovereign soil of China and, therefore, an act of war against China.
There is something important to note about all of these actions: None of them were every committed by Cuba against the United States. Cuba never initiated any act of sabotage or terrorism against the United States, and it never tried to mine U.S. harbors. It also never imposed an economic embargo on the United States. It was always the U.S. regime that was the aggressor against Cuba.
The U.S. regime’s passivity doesn’t stop there. What CIA officials also kept secret from the American people, as well as Congress, for many years is that they entered into a secret partnership with the Mafia, one of the world’s most famous criminal enterprises, to assassinate Cuba’s leader Fidel Castro, whose regime had never attacked the United States or tried to assassinate any U.S. officials.
Pray tell: Which is the assertive and aggressive regime and which is the passive one?
That’s not all. From the very start of the Kennedy administration and even before, the Pentagon and the CIA were proposing or planning a violent regime-change operation in Cuba. That’s what the Bay of Pigs invasion, Operation Northwoods, and the assassination attempts against Castro were all about.
In fact, the reason that Castro wanted those Russian nuclear missiles installed in Cuba was simply to deter another U.S. invasion of Cuba or to defend against such an invasion if it came. Those Russian missiles were never offensive in nature but instead entirely defensive. This was confirmed when the deal to resolve the crisis was struck: In return for Kennedy’s vow not to invade Cuba, the Russians withdrew their missiles.
But like today’s anti-Russia brouhaha, every American schoolchild was taught that it was the Russians who were “assertive” and “aggressive,” not the Pentagon and the CIA, who were — and are — portrayed as the passive and peace-loving ones.
The truth, unfortunately, is that it was the U.S. national-security establishment — i.e., the Pentagon and the CIA — that was at the root of the Cuban Missile Crisis, just as they are at the root of the anti-Russia crisis today.