Why are the US and Russia still paving the way for an all-out global conflict? While the attention span of citizens becomes shorter and shorter with each brush of conflict and subsequent calming down, it becomes more and more difficult to keep up with each event that could serve as a catalyst for global conflict.

In an effort to keep up with the tide of information, an article from the Anti-Media said:

“Iran hawks fear that if the U.S. does not take control in the aftermath following ISIS’ downfall, Iran will emerge the dominant victor in Syria’s six-year-long war. This is ironic considering the whole purpose of launching a foreign-backed insurgency against the Assad government was to undermine and contain Iran in the first place.

Once again, America’s foreign policy strategy has backfired and merely strengthened Iran’s presence in the region. War hawks in the U.S. only have themselves to blame for this dilemma considering they overthrew an anti-Iranian president in Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and replaced him with a Shia-led government that quickly aligned itself with Tehran.

However, as catastrophic as a potential war with Iran would be, there is a majorly overlooked elephant sitting on the battlefield that no one is talking about: the Russian military.

As Newsweek explained last week, both the Russian and American militaries are now battling ISIS in Raqqa — “but not as allies.” The fact that Russia is taking credit for an airstrike that reportedly may have killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in Raqqa is a testament to the fact that both Russia and America’s armed forces are bombarding the same area. However, the fact remains that they are not working in tandem – far from it.

The Russian air force is bolstering the Syrian Arab Army (S.A.A.). According to a recent statement from the S.A.A., the U.S. military reportedly just shot down a Syrian government warplane in Raqqa, which is a flagrant act of war. In response to this violation of Syria’s sovereignty, Russia has released a statement of its own, warning the U.S.-led coalition it will now treat coalition warplanes as targets. Russia has also suspended the supposed “hotline” between Russia and the United States which was set up to avoid these types of scenarios.

Russia also recently confirmed that the U.S. had, indeed, deployed a long-range rocket launcher to the Al-Tanf base in Syria — a region where no ISIS fighters are present. Rather, that area is filled with Iranian-backed militia fighting under the banner of the S.A.A.

It needs to be further emphasized that ISIS’ last stand in Syria will pit the United States’ air force directly against Russia’s. This is not something that can simply be de-escalated through the use of a hotline because the U.S. and Russia have polar opposite interests in the country, and ISIS’ defeat is edging ever closer. Once ISIS is defeated, the two rivals will seek to influence who retakes control of the liberated areas.

Despite the ongoing massacre taking place in Raqqa right now as ISIS fighters flee the city, it is becoming increasingly clear that ISIS’ last stand will not take place in Raqqa but in a vitally strategic area called Deir ez-Zor, which is also home to an isolated Syrian government outpost.”

In the recent heavily publicized interview between Oliver Stone and Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Putin said no one in the US or Russia would survive a war between the two powers.

One question to ask is: why are Russia and the US/NATO in such opposition to each other?

Is it possible that some even more powerful people or entities are pulling the strings of both nations? How much of this rivalry is real, and how much isn’t? Why do they continue to inch closer toward conflict, backing off just a little bit with every step forward, until each clash becomes worse?

This isn’t to say that the US/Russia rivalry is definitely a charade by any means, but if there’s one thing for certain, it is that nothing is certain. Any piece of info that is used as a foundation to build other opinions onto, when it comes to geopolitics, is a foundation that should be questioned and put to the test. This may be one of the most strategically obfuscated fields of research out there.

If we explore the possibility of nuclear war, it gets quite bleak. According to an article by Joshua Paniagua titled “Scientists of the World Urge U.N. to Ban Nuclear Weapons”:

“With global conflicts on a steady slope upward, the increased military flexing from global superpowers, and the potential of modern nuclear weapons all considered, concerns regarding the possibility of a global nuclear fallout in the near future are not unrealistic. The chemical attacks carried out in Syria, the 59 tomahawk missiles the U.S. has fired at a Syrian airbase, Russia’s angry response to the U.S. airstrike — all events that have transpired in the last week alone.

But what exactly would happen in the event of a global nuclear war?

Theoretically, it begins with approximately 2600 American and Russian nuclear weapons being deployed at strategic points in Europe and North America in a matter of minutes. The resulting catastrophe causes the immediate deaths of tens — if not hundreds of millions of civilians in high populated areas. After decimating hundreds of cities, around 150 million tons of thick smoke rises from the rubble and ascends above the clouds into the stratosphere. The smoke quickly spreads, blocking and absorbing sunlight from approximately 70% of the Northern Hemisphere and up to 35% of the Southern Hemisphere. This ushers in a new ice age, promoting subzero temperatures and making agriculture nearly impossible for years to come.

Furthermore, the ozone begins to further deteriorate, exposing the Earth’s surface to heightened levels of damaging UV rays, putting further stress on already collapsing ecosystems across the globe. In a nutshell: a mass extinction.“

What is really happening here? Does anyone know something about the US/Russia rivalry that most do not know?