"Shortly after noon on August 31 , [1939, Chancellor Adolf] Hitler [of Germany secretly] ordered hostilities against Poland to begin at 4:45 a.m. the next morning. At 8 p.m. on August 31, Nazi S.S. troops wearing Polish uniforms staged a phony invasion of Germany, damaging several minor installations on the German side of the border. They also left behind a handful of dead concentration camp prisoners in Polish uniforms to serve as further evidence of the supposed Polish invasion, which Nazi propagandists publicized as an unforgivable act of aggression."

Of course, the planning for this operation had been going on for quite some time, as had been the flood of Nazi propaganda about how the "poor German residents" of Poland were being "horribly mistreated" by the Polish Government. (The Nazis has used the same excuse for the invasion of Western Czechoslovakia in September, 1938, summarized for all time by the single word "Munich .") But even with that run-up, the Nazis still set up a "false flag" operation, even though hardly anyone in the world at the time (with the possible exception of the pro-Nazi political forces in the United States and Great Britain) would believe it.

It happens that false flag operations had been going on for quite some time. For example, at the time of the Mexican-American War of 1846-48 a first-term U.S. Congressman from Illinois thought it very possible that President Polk had mis-located an attack by Mexican troops on those of the U.S. along the disputed border, and that that attack had occurred on Mexican, not U.S./Texas territory. He introduced what were called the "Spot Resolutions," designed to determine just where the original attack had occurred. His Congressional initiative went nowhere and at the next election he lost his seat in the House because of that initiative. His political career was put on hold for some years because of that event, but he did eventually achieve higher office in the U.S. His name was Abraham Lincoln.)

And so why am I telling these stories of false-flag and possible false-flag operations. Well, numbers of good friends and long-time colleagues of mine took the position during the last Presidential campaign that Donald Trump, at least as compared with Hillary Clinton, was the "peace" candidate. After all, he spoke admiringly of President Vladimir Putin (the first name "Vladimir" being the only discernable characteristic that Putin has in common with the founder of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin). He changed a component of Republican National Platform from one that sharply criticized Russia over the "Ukraine" events to one that softened it sharply. He openly asked the government of President Putin to hack Hillary Clinton's email files. More importantly, he did talk about "de'tente" with Russia (even though that word was always used to describe the easing of relations between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. [or China], not another capitalist power). And so on and so forth.

And so, the proto/21^st/century fascist tendencies that Trump revealed right from the beginning of his Presidential campaign were set aside as concerns by certain parties in the U.S., in search of "peace." For one thing, Clinton, who at one time had talked about establishing a "no-fly zone" over parts of Syria, was considered a strong war hawk. (If she had won and had she implemented that policy that could have led to a shooting war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. --- ooops, I mean Russia. It does happen that there are some folks, including some seemingly experienced ones, who seem to get the two confused. History lesson, folks: the U.S.S.R. was, in terms of the ownership of the means of production at least, a socialist nation, while the Russia is organized around a rapacious, robber-baron style of capitalism, based on a large set of means of production which were stolen from the people of the U.S.S.R. at time of its collapse, aided and abetted by U.S. stooge, the former Communist --- and drunk --- Boris Yeltsin.)

But something happened to the "pro-peace" Donald Trump since he became President. He has bombed in Syria and Afghanistan. He has increased U.S. "boots of the ground" in that theater . He has threatened war with Iran and North Korea (although in general terms). He has characterized the ISIS attack in Tehran as being "deserved" by Iran. He has done nothing to try to influence Saudi Arabia to pull back in its war in Yemen which some fear could, among other things, lead to wide-spread famine there . At the same time he has inexplicably taken sides in the increasingly sharp conflict between Saudi Arabia and Qatar (which is of course home to the most important U.S. airbase in the Middle East). And so on and so forth.

At this point you might be asking "where are you going with this?" And why did you begin with that brief description of the Nazi false flag attack on Poland in 1939? Because Trump has now taken an action that, under his type of leadership, and that of the political and ruling class forces behind him, could actually lead us into war with Russia. This step is his open, sharp, and very explicit commitment of the United States to Article 5 of the NATO treaty. That Article requires all of the NATO signatories to come to the aid of any one of them attacked by a non-NATO power.

NATO powers, especially the United States are now talking all the time of "threats by Russia towards its neighbors," namely Poland and the Baltic countries. They use Russian actions in Ukraine as the example of what might happen, when in fact they are not. In Ukraine, as is well-known (but never referred to in Western media) a U.S.-backed coup overthrew the elected, Russia-leaning government (corrupt and inefficient, but nevertheless elected) and installed a pro-Western one. Russia moved quickly to protect its only warm-water naval base, at Sevastopol in Crimea. It had been held on a lease from Ukraine which, with its new government, could have revoked it at any time. They also gave aid to Russian-speaking separatists in eastern Ukraine who right-wing forces in the new Kiev government had threatened with violent suppression.

Further, Trump may have one or more personal reasons for not wanting to move against Russia: investments there; loans from Russians to his businesses; tapes; proof that he, or at least certain underlings, colluded with the Russians in their election-interference which benefitted the Trump campaign; and so on and so forth. But the forces behind Trump need Permanent War as much as any previous elements of the U.S. ruling class/Military Industrial Complex. And so, as I have detailed before, since the other two leading candidates for "permanent enemy," China (too many economic inter-relationships) and Iran (just not big enough), Russia has to be it, Trump, and Tillerson, to the contrary notwithstanding. As a matter of fact, Tillerson, who desperately wanted the sanctions lifted so that Exxon-Mobil could pursue its proposed Artic drilling joint venture with Russia, recently made a strong anti-Russia statement.

"Article 5" has always been there. But now Trump has put it forth loud and clear. For many reasons, it is beyond imagining that Russia would ever mount an invasion of any its neighbors to the north of Ukraine. The latter was a special circumstance. And anyway, there were no worries about NATO in that situation. But by sharply endorsing Article 5, something he had been loathe to do until very recently, Trump has set up the perfect storm for a false flag attack, let's say on Poland. On September 1, 1939, Poland was subjected to a false flag attack from the West. What is to say that in 2017 they could not face one from the East, set up, if not actually initiated, by Trump "the peacemaker." After all, the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex does have to keep on being fed.