'I can take Kiev in two weeks', Vladimir Putin warns NATO leaders

[Matej]

You're living in Matrix, in stalinist propaganda.

Stalin couldn't even dream of such weapons system. Klub K from the second video is deployed in Algeria, India, Vietnam, and China, and Iran and Malaysia are thinking about buying it, too. And since, according to you, Stalinist propaganda now owns Spiegel, the Matrix must have taken over the whole world.

Why am I even replying to this? You are just flaming.

BRICs want to end dependency on US dollar, that would be the measure of their success, not their GDP growth or stock market levels, as some here assume. Every time they trade in dollar they have to spend their profits on investing in US, usually by financing the US debt. BRICs think that convenience of trading in dollar doesn't justify losses from propping the Americans and their insane spending habits.

There's nothing the US can do about it in the long term - it's supply and demand, BRICs WILL eventually find the way to get what they want. They want to untie their well-being from that of the US which they see as a lost cause, morally and financially bankrupt, and supporting itself by bullying others or financial shenanigans like this unprecedented QED.

These things are like viagra - they make you perform for a while but can't change the fact that you are old, useless, and have no future. All empires die, the US is not going to be an exception, and BRICs are simply preparing themselves. China. India, and Russia are much older societies that have reinvented themselves numerous times, they'll survive.

The US? Not so sure, they might never see a white male president again, for example. After Obama it's turn of women and Hispanics, and by the time they are through with it, whites will be in minority.

With the ceasefire and Barroso expressed desire to end this "two weeks" claim quietly this topic has run its course.

China. India, and Russia are much older societies that have reinvented themselves numerous times, they'll survive.

Look at modern history of China, let's say from 1900 until now and history of India after India gained independence in 1947.

BRICs want to end dependency on US dollar, that would be the measure of their success.

You think if they will success there will be a paradise (in BRICS countries)?

Poverty, violence, corruption everything will disappear? Independency on dollar is a delusion.

Nehru believed all his life in idea, no british colonizers no problems. We all know what happened back than.

Today the Chinese are playing a clever game and benefiting from Russia’s crisis with the West.

They struck a fantastic deal with the Russians on energy because the Russians had no choice but to submit to their terms.

Putin's leadership is irrational, emotional, erratic and dangerous ...

Russia is so weakening itself that one consequence will be that it will become a satellite of the China!

The US? Not so sure, they might never see a white male president again, for example. After Obama it's turn of women and Hispanics, and by the time they are through with it, whites will be in minority.

Women can be white too.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Matej

[Matej]

EUROOE, full embargo on all impirts/ expirts to Russia.

Eurooe, restrict/ freeze all financial transactions to Russia.

Opec, drop prices on oil to europe.

Russia becomes a 3rd world nation overnight.

Russia is relegated to the dark ages.. no cash...no power!!

If that were to happen, there would be a freeze alright. across Europe ! Russian gas cannot be replaced before winter. Russia will export to China, and other BRICS nations.It could cripple US economy if it demanded payments in any currency other than the USD.

Russia will export to China.

There is no infrastructure to do that, plus China is not willing to pay for natural gas as much as Europe does, they pay around 50% - 40% less.

Current price between Russia and China is a secret. We all know why ...

Russia already is third world country. More backward than Thailand.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Matej

[Pakboong]

Putin and followers have decided they have to overcome the IMF ruling class to survive. Who cares if it is true, it is simply the motivation for BRICS. The IMF is controlled by the G7 countries with the USA the controlling interest at 17.1%. It is not really the controlling interest that has posed a problem for countries, it is simply that the USA is allowed to subjectively evaluate the rest of the member countries based upon the USA standard of need. It has been corrupted and cronyism is the order of the day. The subjective issue is addressed in the attached PDF document from the Kelly school of business.

The world bank and BIS are also corrupted and Putin wants to purge that corruption. I don't think he can pull it off but who cares if he can pull it off. It is clear who wants him dead and it may not be a country or a president. He is trying to upset the apple cart and there is big money that will not let that happen. Nobody is expecting anyone to believe that Godzilla is real, simply that Putin is completely committed and cannot back out and needs to avoid war at any cost.

http://www.bus.indiana.edu/riharbau/RePEc/iuk/wpaper/bepp2004-06-fratianni-pattison.pdf

Edited September 8, 2014 by Pakboong

[Asiantravel]

Jack Matlock, U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991, says that the U.S. and NATO are to blame for the Ukraine crisis and says that if Ukraine joins NATO, it will lead to nuclear war

Matlock confirmed that the U.S. and the West promised that the U.S. and Nato would not move East and try to encircle Russia

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/09/former-u-s-ambassador-ussr-u-s-nato-provoking-ukrainian-crisis.html

Arming Ukraine could lead to nuclear war: Former President of Poland Lech Walesa

Krynica (Poland) (AFP) - European military assistance to Ukraine could lead to a nuclear conflict between Russia and NATO, according to Poland's iconic cold warrior and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Lech Walesa.

"It could lead to a nuclear war," the anti-Communist legend told reporters when asked whether the EU should send weapons to Ukraine to help it fights off separatist rebels and Russian aggression.

https://news.yahoo.com/arming-ukraine-could-lead-nuclear-war-lech-walesa-183453862.html

Edited September 8, 2014 by Asiantravel

[Publicus]

Jack Matlock, U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991, says that the U.S. and NATO are to blame for the Ukraine crisis and says that if Ukraine joins NATO, it will lead to nuclear war

Matlock confirmed that the U.S. and the West promised that the U.S. and Nato would not move East and try to encircle Russia

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/09/former-u-s-ambassador-ussr-u-s-nato-provoking-ukrainian-crisis.html

Arming Ukraine could lead to nuclear war: Former President of Poland Lech Walesa

Krynica (Poland) (AFP) - European military assistance to Ukraine could lead to a nuclear conflict between Russia and NATO, according to Poland's iconic cold warrior and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Lech Walesa.

"It could lead to a nuclear war," the anti-Communist legend told reporters when asked whether the EU should send weapons to Ukraine to help it fights off separatist rebels and Russian aggression.

https://news.yahoo.com/arming-ukraine-could-lead-nuclear-war-lech-walesa-183453862.html

Putin assured Ukraine in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, signed by Russia, USA, UK, Ukraine, that Russia would “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.”

And now here we are, Putin having this year unilaterally nullified and cancelled the Memorandum after seizing Crimea then violating Ukraine's eastern and southeastern borders. "One of the countries that agreed to guarantee (Ukraine's) integrity, Russia, has on the contrary violated it,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said, arguing that Ukraine’s fate after voluntarily surrendering its [soviet nuclear] arsenal could encourage other countries to acquire nuclear weapons or refrain from giving them up."

Ras-Putin said he no longer had to honor the Memorandum because the new government of Ukraine wasn't the government that had signed the Memorandum. Ras-Putin thus radically reverses international law as he thrashes about and rampages against his neighbors.

After Putin came to power a number of midsize or small countries of Eastern Europe an Eurasia became more active in applying to the EU for membership and to Nato for sovereign protection against the increasingly aggressive Russian state as directed by Ras-Putin. Neither Prez Bush nor the EU nor the Nato allies in Europe were about to stand in the way of the nine Eastern European or Eurasian countries that applied to Nato after Putin came to power. Several other of their neighbor countries had already joined Nato and/or the EU, to include Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary during the 1990s.

And listen to what Lech Walesa had to say that your cited news story does not report........

"The truth is, if Ukraine were part of the European Union, it would give Russia an opportunity to make 10 times more money because Ukraine's economy and trade would become more stable and prosperous. So it really should be to Putin's benefit to let Ukraine join the EU and make sure it was doing well.

"Furthermore, Russia could start doing business with various companies in Ukraine, thriving under the patronage of the EU. That's why it's hard to believe that the president of Russia wouldn't try to find a better solution for this situation and let his nation benefit from a more prosperous Ukraine."

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/walesa-putin-evil-twin/2014/02/16/id/553065/

Ukraine is one of a dozen or more Eastern European or Eurasian states that since 1994 have turned to Europe and away from the dictatorial, oligarch dominated and still backward society and economy of Russia. Neither does the philistine Russia offer anything culturally to the countries and their peoples.

What Walesa says about Ukraine, shared my many others globally, exposes the nuclear military menace Putin and his Brics pals have decided to create and to become against Europe and to the West in general.

[Publicus]

Putin and followers have decided they have to overcome the IMF ruling class to survive. Who cares if it is true, it is simply the motivation for BRICS. The IMF is controlled by the G7 countries with the USA the controlling interest at 17.1%. It is not really the controlling interest that has posed a problem for countries, it is simply that the USA is allowed to subjectively evaluate the rest of the member countries based upon the USA standard of need. It has been corrupted and cronyism is the order of the day. The subjective issue is addressed in the attached PDF document from the Kelly school of business.

The world bank and BIS are also corrupted and Putin wants to purge that corruption. I don't think he can pull it off but who cares if he can pull it off. It is clear who wants him dead and it may not be a country or a president. He is trying to upset the apple cart and there is big money that will not let that happen. Nobody is expecting anyone to believe that Godzilla is real, simply that Putin is completely committed and cannot back out and needs to avoid war at any cost.

http://www.bus.indiana.edu/riharbau/RePEc/iuk/wpaper/bepp2004-06-fratianni-pattison.pdf

People who propagandize for the Brics by being sympathetic and apologetic while pretending no anti-Americanism need to know that they are standing before us bare-arsed naked. They need to be advised someone talked them into going outside without any clothes on in the imagining that they are fully clothed.

Anyone who wants to see or find corruption can go first to China, then to Russia, also on to Brazil and finish their Corruption Tour in the pits of India.

Each of the Brics countries has its own grand scheme to be the hegemon over its own region, save India which is too disorganized to have a remotely effective central government. China run by punishing dictators, Russia dominated by a nuclear missile tosser, Brazil the World Cup host that lost the Cup. South Africe lost its way long ago, Nelson Mandela RIP.

The Brics have no common currency, no central bank, no treaty or agreement of alliance, common cause or commitment, no respected leaders or forms of government, few experts in global finance and international economics, shaky currencies and only humble and tenuous capital markets. Half their populations live in poverty and squalor. .

So now the Brics led by Putin drag out nuclear warheads as Putin and the Brics think they can become dominant over Europe by nuclear blackmail.

A fine bunch these Brics are, led by the melted down nuclear brain himself.

[Publicus]

EUROOE, full embargo on all impirts/ expirts to Russia.

Eurooe, restrict/ freeze all financial transactions to Russia.

Opec, drop prices on oil to europe.

Russia becomes a 3rd world nation overnight.

Russia is relegated to the dark ages.. no cash...no power!!

If that were to happen, there would be a freeze alright. across Europe ! Russian gas cannot be replaced before winter. Russia will export to China, and other BRICS nations.It could cripple US economy if it demanded payments in any currency other than the USD.

The lost war against the USDollar is continuing to sputter spastically which is the only thing it can do.

Gazprom last month announced it would "accept" payment in rubles so most global markets yawned while the others chuckled. Two comments stood out, one that GP would have to hunt to find anyone willing to pay in rubles and secondly that the markets don't care what Russia does with its currency. That's not a strong position for Putin to be in trying to demand payment in rubles, hence GP's "request" and any request of this nature is vacuous and big hat no cattle bombast.

The Chinese yuan is monopoly game money and everyone knows it to include the CCP Boyz in Beijing who invented it and who require all corporations in the PRC to sell any and all USD they earn to the government. The CCP Boyz have 3 trillion in USD value in forex reserves because they know they will need a ton of money to cover their bursting bubbles in real estate, housing, banking, consumer credit, shadow banking, local and provincial government debt. The debt to GDP ratio in the PRC is 250% so the Boyz know they need all the USDollars they can get.

Who wants to deal in the real of Brazil or the rupee of India.

The global markets determine prices which means any actions by Russia in cross border trade are subject to global market fluctuations, to include rapid ones. Does Russia want to see prices of its energy exports plunge like a brick into a well? No and the Russian oligarchs know it.

.

Each of the Brics economies need USDollars to pay for the great bulk of their imports. So when no one accepts any of the Brics individual currencies as payment, what are the Brics going to do? They are going to pay in USDollars. The Brics aren't even talking about a common currency because they couldn't create one, not in a million years. And without a common currency, the Brics are nothing.

The new Brics development bank that won't come online for another five years, if at all, will do all of its business in USDollars. The Brics have no choice, no alternative. Only the United States has the capital markets to finance and fund the global economy and the Brics themselves know it.

Pfffft.

[Publicus]

The global chaos people will be pleased to hear that the November G-20 Summit in Australia is in question because of Putin and the Brics.

It ma be cancelled or it may occur absent a number of members due to the global divisions over Putin, Ukraine, the Brics.

Australia FM Julie Bishop unsuccessfully tried to disinvite Putin but the Brics insisted Putin be allowed to attend as scheduled. The Brics hinted they would boycott a G-20 summit that had excluded Putin. The G-7 have of course already thrown Putin out of its membership, which is easier to do than for Putin (or any single country) to be excluded from the G-20.

However, if the Nato, or the EU members of the G-20 boycott the meeting, the G-20 may collapse as a global forum. Or if even half of them choose not to attend. The basis of the G-20 is that the members are united over the fact they have serious differences. The commonality is global trade and development, which also would pay the price.

It's too early at this point for any governments to commit to attending or not attending the summit Nov 15th and 16th.in Brisbane. However, with the global chaos people needing a complete breakdown of world order, cooperation, systems, a collapse or shattering of the November G-20 Summit in Australia would probably be good news for them.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Publicus

[jpinx]

The global chaos people will be pleased to hear that the November G-20 Summit in Australia is in question because of Putin and the Brics.

It ma be cancelled or it may occur absent a number of members due to the global divisions over Putin, Ukraine, the Brics.

Australia FM Julie Bishop unsuccessfully tried to disinvite Putin but the Brics insisted Putin be allowed to attend as scheduled. The Brics hinted they would boycott a G-20 summit that had excluded Putin. The G-7 have of course already thrown Putin out of its membership, which is easier to do than for Putin (or any single country) to be excluded from the G-20.

However, if the Nato, or the EU members of the G-20 boycott the meeting, the G-20 may collapse as a global forum. Or if even half of them choose not to attend. The basis of the G-20 is that the members are united over the fact they have serious differences. The commonality is global trade and development, which also would pay the price.

It's too early at this point for any governments to commit to attending or not attending the summit Nov 15th and 16th.in Brisbane. However, with the global chaos people needing a complete breakdown of world order, cooperation, systems, a collapse or shattering of the November G-20 Summit in Australia would probably be good news for them.

===================================>>

Putin appears to relish his increasing isolation -- probably because it is easier to big a bigger fish in a smaller pond. The chances of him actually using or even threatening the nuclear option is remote, but he is well-capable of letting it "leak" into others' hands. He is young enough to have dreams of rebuilding something of the old USSR and he is currently testing his boundaries. He is a chess master and utterly ruthless - the west, NATO, EU, ASEAN, etc are absolutely no match for him.

[Publicus]

The global chaos people will be pleased to hear that the November G-20 Summit in Australia is in question because of Putin and the Brics.

It ma be cancelled or it may occur absent a number of members due to the global divisions over Putin, Ukraine, the Brics.

Australia FM Julie Bishop unsuccessfully tried to disinvite Putin but the Brics insisted Putin be allowed to attend as scheduled. The Brics hinted they would boycott a G-20 summit that had excluded Putin. The G-7 have of course already thrown Putin out of its membership, which is easier to do than for Putin (or any single country) to be excluded from the G-20.

However, if the Nato, or the EU members of the G-20 boycott the meeting, the G-20 may collapse as a global forum. Or if even half of them choose not to attend. The basis of the G-20 is that the members are united over the fact they have serious differences. The commonality is global trade and development, which also would pay the price.

It's too early at this point for any governments to commit to attending or not attending the summit Nov 15th and 16th.in Brisbane. However, with the global chaos people needing a complete breakdown of world order, cooperation, systems, a collapse or shattering of the November G-20 Summit in Australia would probably be good news for them.

===================================>>

Putin appears to relish his increasing isolation -- probably because it is easier to big a bigger fish in a smaller pond. The chances of him actually using or even threatening the nuclear option is remote, but he is well-capable of letting it "leak" into others' hands. He is young enough to have dreams of rebuilding something of the old USSR and he is currently testing his boundaries. He is a chess master and utterly ruthless - the west, NATO, EU, ASEAN, etc are absolutely no match for him.

The latter point of the post is mythology -- the same-o and same-o make believe until people believe.

Putin is no mastermind and in fact has hardly anything of a mind.

There are people today who like to maintain Hitler was a genius. I don't say Putin is Hitler, I use the comparison to make the point about a mythology. If Hitler had been a genius you and Putin and I would be speaking German. We don't speak German because Hitler was a lunatic who had no contact with reality so Hitler blew his brains out in a besieged Berlin bunker.

That's true about almost all tyrants to include Putin. Hitler was able to outsmart only the German people of the time much in the ways Putin is easily leading the destitute present day Russians by the nose.

Throughout the Cold War there were always the voices who at every turn said the Soviet leader, each and every one, had outsmarted the U.S. president and European leaders, each and every one of them, always, that the Soviet leader of the moment was a mastermind toying with Washington, London, Paris etc etc etc.

It was never true. The USSR is long gone and so are the mythologized 'masterminds' who led it to oblivion.

Mythology.

Aka: bullshit.

[mccw]

Also if looking at it all as a game; "risk" for example.

The west has taken massive areas across Europe; ex soviet states. Hardly as if Russia is winning. More like a rather minor counter move by comparison to the big picture of losses across Europe since collapse of Soviet Union.

However it is like the west has really backed the Rusdian bear in to a corner. Totally disrespected it's "spheres of influence" which the previous peace was built upon.

[jpinx]

The global chaos people will be pleased to hear that the November G-20 Summit in Australia is in question because of Putin and the Brics.

It ma be cancelled or it may occur absent a number of members due to the global divisions over Putin, Ukraine, the Brics.

Australia FM Julie Bishop unsuccessfully tried to disinvite Putin but the Brics insisted Putin be allowed to attend as scheduled. The Brics hinted they would boycott a G-20 summit that had excluded Putin. The G-7 have of course already thrown Putin out of its membership, which is easier to do than for Putin (or any single country) to be excluded from the G-20.

However, if the Nato, or the EU members of the G-20 boycott the meeting, the G-20 may collapse as a global forum. Or if even half of them choose not to attend. The basis of the G-20 is that the members are united over the fact they have serious differences. The commonality is global trade and development, which also would pay the price.

It's too early at this point for any governments to commit to attending or not attending the summit Nov 15th and 16th.in Brisbane. However, with the global chaos people needing a complete breakdown of world order, cooperation, systems, a collapse or shattering of the November G-20 Summit in Australia would probably be good news for them.

===================================>>

Putin appears to relish his increasing isolation -- probably because it is easier to big a bigger fish in a smaller pond. The chances of him actually using or even threatening the nuclear option is remote, but he is well-capable of letting it "leak" into others' hands. He is young enough to have dreams of rebuilding something of the old USSR and he is currently testing his boundaries. He is a chess master and utterly ruthless - the west, NATO, EU, ASEAN, etc are absolutely no match for him.

The latter point of the post is mythology -- the same-o and same-o make believe until people believe.

Putin is no mastermind and in fact has hardly anything of a mind.

There are people today who like to maintain Hitler was a genius. I don't say Putin is Hitler, I use the comparison to make the point about a mythology. If Hitler had been a genius you and Putin and I would be speaking German. We don't speak German because Hitler was a lunatic who had no contact with reality so Hitler blew his brains out in a besieged Berlin bunker.

That's true about almost all tyrants to include Putin. Hitler was able to outsmart only the German people of the time much in the ways Putin is easily leading the destitute present day Russians by the nose.

Throughout the Cold War there were always the voices who at every turn said the Soviet leader, each and every one, had outsmarted the U.S. president and European leaders, each and every one of them, always, that the Soviet leader of the moment was a mastermind toying with Washington, London, Paris etc etc etc.

It was never true. The USSR is long gone and so are the mythologized 'masterminds' who led it to oblivion.

Mythology.

Aka: bullshit.

==========================>>>

I can not agree with your premise that Putin (also Hitler, Ghengis Khan, et al) is not an extremely clever man. Large intellect most frequently is accompanied by "personality disorders" (they are social misfits), and a large degree of what we call insanity. In the people we are talking about the insanity comes with megalomania and depression. They frequently self-destruct too. As soon as they see that their delusions are nothing more than smoke and mirrors they collapse mentally and physically. They are easily clever enough to hide the dark side of their condition while they pursue their "dreams" at the expense of the population they rely on for blind support, and to be a huge thorn in the foot of the rest of the world.

"It takes a very stupid man to totally underestimate a very clever man"

Edited September 10, 2014 by jpinx

[Publicus]

The post spoke of the mythology of genius - good genius, evil genius.

The post never went down the scale a couple of notches to even mention the "very clever man."

Now that you've brought it up however I can definitely say Putin is not a "very clever man" either.

Putin is a desperate man, self-isolated and cut off in his own region of the world.

And the world suddenly has taken a stark negative notice of the overwrought guy in the Kremlin who has become everyone's nuclear nightmare. Enter now the Brics and their nuclear arsenal guy.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Publicus

[jpinx]

The post spoke of the mythology of genius - good genius, evil genius.

The post never went down the scale a couple of notches to even mention the "very clever man."

Now that you've brought it up however I can definitely say Putin is not a "very clever man" either.

Putin is a desperate man, self-isolated and cut off in his own region of the world.

And the world suddenly has taken a stark negative notice of the overwrought guy in the Kremlin who has become everyone's nuclear nightmare. Enter now the Brics and their nuclear arsenal guy.

If you had lived and worked with Russians in their country I believe your view would not be thus.

An interesting piece on Russian policy and Putin --

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29078541

[Publicus]

The post spoke of the mythology of genius - good genius, evil genius.

The post never went down the scale a couple of notches to even mention the "very clever man."

Now that you've brought it up however I can definitely say Putin is not a "very clever man" either.

Putin is a desperate man, self-isolated and cut off in his own region of the world.

And the world suddenly has taken a stark negative notice of the overwrought guy in the Kremlin who has become everyone's nuclear nightmare. Enter now the Brics and their nuclear arsenal guy.

If you had lived and worked with Russians in their country I believe your view would not be thus.

An interesting piece on Russian policy and Putin --

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29078541

Thx for the link - it has something for just about everybody.

For instance......

"His ultimate objective is his presidency for life," told BBC News last week.

"So Ukraine has no right to become a democratic, economically open state. From Putin's point of view, that would create a very bad example for Russia."

If the genesis of these conflicts is a matter of dispute, then so is the success of the Kremlin's own alleged policy of destabilisation.

It is nothing new that leaders of governments / states should have policies, strategies, unique methods and means. Hitler had a grand vision of a Nazi ruled world and adopting a general's clever notion of Blitzkrieg became Hitler's highly effective Order of Battle strategy even up to the Battle of the Bulge finally ended it.

Devising a strategy with goals and means does not in itself define genius nor does it necessarily or particularly make a man a "very cliever" one. Then again there are always impressionable people around who haven't ever caught on. For instance, verbally tossing nuclear warheads only makes Putin look like a reckless Rasputin with a panel of red buttons to push as if he were at the toyshop.

Putin was a leftover apparatchik from the bowels of the grossly failed Soviet police state who is trying to ensconce himself at the top in the Kremlin for the rest of his Robert Mugabe life. Which makes Ras-Putin a pedestrian dictator and tyrant. A run of the mill one who happens to be part Stalin and part Romanoff. Both Peter the Great and Katherine the Great are embarrassed..

And besides, Russia has only two seasons -- winter and August -- which probably explains a lot of it. A cold brewski on a hot day in the tropics beats that going away and hands down. I know that surely you don't think I could ever become Russian in any ways - right? Right?

Right?

[BATHIK]

Here's Stratfor boss pontificating on US strategy in Ukraine and Iraq:

Ukraine, Iraq and Black Sea Strategy

[ALFREDO]

NATO would wipe out Russia's conventional military SWIFTLY and utterly.

But Putin has huge amounts of fighter airplanes that are equal or better than the western.

Sure not -"fighter airplanes that are equal or better than the western. "

http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/top_10_fighter_aircraft.htm

[Publicus]

Russia to Hold Major Nuclear Exercise

by Mike Hoffman on September 4, 2014

The Russian military branch responsible for the country’s nuclear arsenal will hold a nuclear exercise in September that will include over 4,000 Russian troops, according to reports out of Russia.

Russian Defence Ministry officials announced that nuclear forces will conduct “combat missions in conditions of active radio-electronic jamming and intensive enemy actions in areas of troop deployment.” Russian troops will also work to counter “irregular units and high-precision weapons.”

The announcement comes as NATO leaders meet in Wales to discuss the conflict in Ukraine and the war in Afghanistan. The exercise also comes days after Russian President Vladimir Putin highlighted his nuclear force at a youth forum.

“I want to remind you that Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear nations,” Putin said. “This is a reality, not just words."

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2014/09/04/russia-to-hold-major-nuclear-exercise-this-month/#ixzz3Cg3jRQhY

Defense.org

Who can support or defend this Rasputin of a character who comes at the world as if from an Ian Fleming novel, as some kind of leader of Spectre in a James Bond movie, except Putin is for real. Putin is beginning to make Joe Stalin look like he might have been a diplomat.

And making these statements to school children as if the world hadn't already got the message that any parent anywhere would get, in Europe especially.

The guy is talking nuclear weapons. Putin is downright mad or so he would try to have us believe.....or maybe he is mad.

This wild and off the wall talk does decisively confirm what Western intelligence has known for two decades, which is that Russian conventional military forces are so inadequate that they are not a factor in Putin's arsenal. Western military and diplomatic intelligence has known for a score of years the Russian military is dilapidated, insufficient even to protect Russia against a major land invasion, incapable due to its lack of resources across the board.

Russia has high tech military capabilities to include cyber warfare, but its conventional military forces are a rusted wreckage of relics.

If Ras-Putin had an adequate conventional military force he would wield that as his weapon of choice instead of having to throw all his chips into the nuclear pot. His 20,000 combat forces at the Ukraine border, which would be turned back far from Kiev, are an insufficient invasion force against even the stretched and strained Ukraine military and is a clear statement of Russia's woeful military posture and weakness.

What you have claimed here about the Russian conventional forces is true or very close to it. It clearly speaks to why Putin would not attack anyone on the ground. It is very contradictory to your point regarding Russian aggression. Of course Russia has a large nuclear arsenal but they are very unlikely to use it. Nobody is defending Putin, some of us are defending the logic that Putin has no serious reason to attack the Ukraine, nor anyone else at this particular time. He needs his plan to enhance his country's economic posture via BRICS. All logic points to reasons he would not attack.

This map and the analysis at the links presented below help a great deal to explain why Putin is reluctant in the extreme to militarily engage Nato.

The Telegraph identifies the name and the composition of the military forces at each of the numbered bases at this link....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10173740/Where-are-the-worlds-major-military-bases.html

Given Putin's nuclear threats and the support of the other Brics countries of his nefarious pursuits and methods, this map is its own justification and rationale. Brazil and South Africa are not a military threat to either the United States or to the whole of Nato. China is contained and India is not going to get actively involved.:

Neither does the map show nuclear armed "boomer" submarines of Nato or Russia.

While in the Asia-Pacific the United States is containing the CCP Boyz in Beijing and their increasingly aggressive military, Nato has always been designed and purpose created to specifically conduct a war in Europe/Eurasia to stop a Russian military invasion and Russian military aggression.

Mark Galeotti of NYU and an expert on the Russian military has this to say about Putin's conventional military of 850,000 active duty forces and 2.5 million in civilian reserve....

"It’s moderately competent. It’s not at the level of the American or British or German military, but it’s better than in the 1990s. The [Russian] military is good at bullying small neighbors, but it would not be effective against NATO. It would not be able to defeat China.".

http://theweek.com/article/index/257406/what-would-a-us-russia-war-look-like

There's a 2.5 minute video about the 13,000 Nato Response Force (NRF) which remains perennially at the ready to be the first Nato units to engage any invading or attacking Russian forces. The proposed new and additional 4000 Nato Rapid Response Force (NRRF) would create immediate action initial force units to disrupt or discourage Russian military action against Nato allied countries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A5pF3yT4dA&feature=player_embedded

Putin in reality has only a nuclear force arsenal.

Would Putin use it? There are highly credible people who know Putin, who have fallen out with him, and who say it's part of his plan to use nuclear weapons.......

That leaves Putin only one option: a nuclear attack. Not a massive launch of intercontinental ballistic missiles at the United States or Western Europe, which would bring about a suicidal atomic holocaust, but a small, tactical strike or two against a NATO member that few in the West would be willing to die to protect.

Piontkovsky surmises that, in such a conflict, the nuclear-armed country with the "superior political will" to alter the geopolitical "status quo" and -- most importantly -- with the "greater indifference to values concerning human lives" would prevail. Any guesses which country that would be,

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/09/04/putins_nuclear_option_russia_weapons

[jpinx]

The post spoke of the mythology of genius - good genius, evil genius.

The post never went down the scale a couple of notches to even mention the "very clever man."

Now that you've brought it up however I can definitely say Putin is not a "very clever man" either.

Putin is a desperate man, self-isolated and cut off in his own region of the world.

And the world suddenly has taken a stark negative notice of the overwrought guy in the Kremlin who has become everyone's nuclear nightmare. Enter now the Brics and their nuclear arsenal guy.

If you had lived and worked with Russians in their country I believe your view would not be thus.

An interesting piece on Russian policy and Putin --

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29078541

Thx for the link - it has something for just about everybody.

For instance......

"His ultimate objective is his presidency for life," told BBC News last week.

"So Ukraine has no right to become a democratic, economically open state. From Putin's point of view, that would create a very bad example for Russia."

If the genesis of these conflicts is a matter of dispute, then so is the success of the Kremlin's own alleged policy of destabilisation.

It is nothing new that leaders of governments / states should have policies, strategies, unique methods and means. Hitler had a grand vision of a Nazi ruled world and adopting a general's clever notion of Blitzkrieg became Hitler's highly effective Order of Battle strategy even up to the Battle of the Bulge finally ended it.

Devising a strategy with goals and means does not in itself define genius nor does it necessarily or particularly make a man a "very cliever" one. Then again there are always impressionable people around who haven't ever caught on. For instance, verbally tossing nuclear warheads only makes Putin look like a reckless Rasputin with a panel of red buttons to push as if he were at the toyshop.

Putin was a leftover apparatchik from the bowels of the grossly failed Soviet police state who is trying to ensconce himself at the top in the Kremlin for the rest of his Robert Mugabe life. Which makes Ras-Putin a pedestrian dictator and tyrant. A run of the mill one who happens to be part Stalin and part Romanoff. Both Peter the Great and Katherine the Great are embarrassed..

And besides, Russia has only two seasons -- winter and August -- which probably explains a lot of it. A cold brewski on a hot day in the tropics beats that going away and hands down. I know that surely you don't think I could ever become Russian in any ways - right? Right?

Right?

Yea -- I like a balanced view

[Publicus]

You didn't respond to my question.

I also said Putin was a tyrant, a leftover apparatchik of the failed Soviet police state, in no way a genius or master of mind or of anything except being another pedestrian dictator. I wrote a lot of things of this nature.

Are you sure you read my post, the post I wrote?

Accusing me of balance suggests you might need more coffee this morning.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.

[jpinx]

You didn't respond to my question.

I also said Putin was a tyrant, a leftover apparatchik of the failed Soviet police state, in no way a genius or master of mind or of anything except being another pedestrian dictator. I wrote a lot of things of this nature.

Are you sure you read my post, the post I wrote?

Accusing me of balance suggests you might need more coffee this morning.

My reference was to the fat that the BBC article showed some balance.

Personal opinions are fuelled by personal experiences and material read -- so it is important to read balanced articles before forming opinions

[Matej]

Everyone who thinks that Vladimir Putin is doing this policy for some personal reasons(asset, power, playing bloody games ... whatever) is wrong.

Vladimir Putin believes he is Russia, he also believes he saved Russia from Boris Jelcin catastrophe and he only knows what is the best for Russia, he is a messiah.

In his mind a strong state is a mongol type state(individual means nothing, unity is everything), also Russia is where Russians have lived/been living since 17th century(for example Odessa, Donetsk, Luhansk, Sevastopol, Dnepropetrovsk ...), concept of motherland, country, land ... that is Russia, borders or no borders.

This type of thinking, is extremely dangerous. We have to prepare for a worst-case scenario.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Matej

[Pakboong]

You didn't respond to my question.

I also said Putin was a tyrant, a leftover apparatchik of the failed Soviet police state, in no way a genius or master of mind or of anything except being another pedestrian dictator. I wrote a lot of things of this nature.

Are you sure you read my post, the post I wrote?

Accusing me of balance suggests you might need more coffee this morning.

My reference was to the fat that the BBC article showed some balance.

Personal opinions are fuelled by personal experiences and material read -- so it is important to read balanced articles before forming opinions

While I generally agree with you, I do believe there are next to zero balanced articles. We have to accommodate the idea of balance by reading both extremes and use our own logic skills to figure out where in the middle the truth actually is. The problem usually has to do with our individual biases. The hardest aspect to this kind of problem solving is to remove biases such as nationalism which just get in the way. For example, I don't like Russians in general and Putin in particular, but, I get what he is trying to do. No matter how much I dislike Putin, there are many others that I dislike a lot more. The hard part is to factor out the likes and dislikes and focus on what makes the most sense on a grand scale.

If I focus on my dislike for Russia, my opinion becomes really worthless. Of course, it may be worthless anyway.

[Matej]

You didn't respond to my question.

I also said Putin was a tyrant, a leftover apparatchik of the failed Soviet police state, in no way a genius or master of mind or of anything except being another pedestrian dictator. I wrote a lot of things of this nature.

Are you sure you read my post, the post I wrote?

Accusing me of balance suggests you might need more coffee this morning.

My reference was to the fat that the BBC article showed some balance.

Personal opinions are fuelled by personal experiences and material read -- so it is important to read balanced articles before forming opinions

While I generally agree with you, I do believe there are next to zero balanced articles. We have to accommodate the idea of balance by reading both extremes and use our own logic skills to figure out where in the middle the truth actually is. The problem usually has to do with our individual biases. The hardest aspect to this kind of problem solving is to remove biases such as nationalism which just get in the way. For example, I don't like Russians in general and Putin in particular, but, I get what he is trying to do. No matter how much I dislike Putin, there are many others that I dislike a lot more. The hard part is to factor out the likes and dislikes and focus on what makes the most sense on a grand scale.

If I focus on my dislike for Russia, my opinion becomes really worthless. Of course, it may be worthless anyway.

I do believe there are next to zero balanced articles. We have to accommodate the idea of balance by reading both extremes and use our own logic skills to figure out where in the middle the truth actually is.

It's a total nonsense. Your statement is not and cannot be supported with any objective evidence for last 100 years. It's a meta-statement, belongs in the same category as astrology, utopian socialism ... There's something like independent journalism, experience, intellect, education, global reality, scientific data, historical background, curiousness, personal philosophy, common sense and million other things that make(help) journalism objective, impersonal, unbiased and what's the most important open-minded. Of course, nothing is ideal, but next to nothing, come on.

You really think, in this particular case Russia's foreign policy, that the West news are balanced next to nothing? Don't be ridiculous.

[jpinx]

You didn't respond to my question.

I also said Putin was a tyrant, a leftover apparatchik of the failed Soviet police state, in no way a genius or master of mind or of anything except being another pedestrian dictator. I wrote a lot of things of this nature.

Are you sure you read my post, the post I wrote?

Accusing me of balance suggests you might need more coffee this morning.

My reference was to the fat that the BBC article showed some balance.

Personal opinions are fuelled by personal experiences and material read -- so it is important to read balanced articles before forming opinions

While I generally agree with you, I do believe there are next to zero balanced articles. We have to accommodate the idea of balance by reading both extremes and use our own logic skills to figure out where in the middle the truth actually is. The problem usually has to do with our individual biases. The hardest aspect to this kind of problem solving is to remove biases such as nationalism which just get in the way. For example, I don't like Russians in general and Putin in particular, but, I get what he is trying to do. No matter how much I dislike Putin, there are many others that I dislike a lot more. The hard part is to factor out the likes and dislikes and focus on what makes the most sense on a grand scale.

If I focus on my dislike for Russia, my opinion becomes really worthless. Of course, it may be worthless anyway.

I do believe there are next to zero balanced articles. We have to accommodate the idea of balance by reading both extremes and use our own logic skills to figure out where in the middle the truth actually is.

It's a total nonsense. Your statement is not and cannot be supported with any objective evidence for last 100 years. It's a meta-statement, belongs in the same category as astrology, utopian socialism ... There's something like independent journalism, experience, intellect, education, global reality, scientific data, historical background, curiousness, personal philosophy, common sense and million other things that make(help) journalism objective, impersonal, unbiased and what's the most important open-minded. Of course, nothing is ideal, but next to nothing, come on.

You really think, in this particular case Russia's foreign policy, that the West news are balanced next to nothing? Don't be ridiculous.

The history of the relationship between Russia in it's various forms and the rest of the world has left us with the polarised attitudes today. It's not possible to have a balanced view unless you are the man on the moon -- totally uninvolved Meantime, back in the real world we have to get from today into tomorrow without too much unhappiness and without making a tricky situation worse. It's fair to say that a lot of the things being done these days are fuelling russian nationalism and western paranioa.

[lovetotravel]

While I generally agree with you, I do believe there are next to zero balanced articles. We have to accommodate the idea of balance by reading both extremes and use our own logic skills to figure out where in the middle the truth actually is. The problem usually has to do with our individual biases. The hardest aspect to this kind of problem solving is to remove biases such as nationalism which just get in the way. For example, I don't like Russians in general and Putin in particular, but, I get what he is trying to do. No matter how much I dislike Putin, there are many others that I dislike a lot more. The hard part is to factor out the likes and dislikes and focus on what makes the most sense on a grand scale.

If I focus on my dislike for Russia, my opinion becomes really worthless. Of course, it may be worthless anyway.

I think the problem here is like the US. Many don't like the US. Not the US people, but the government. Same is true here. It's not the Russian people who are causing the problems, it's their maniac leader.

[BATHIK]

Russian airforce attacks Ukraine, those russkies are up to their usual no good again.

Hope it lightens up the mood here.

[Matej]

It's not possible to have a balanced view unless you are the man on the moon -- totally uninvolved.

People were/are running from east to west, Iron Curtain - running, shooting, death, real people, humans. Rich Russian spending holidays in Paris, their families, children live and study in west countries, they save money in west's banks accounts ...

I reported 2 simple facts and now I'd like to know what is western paranoia. Unfold the objective truth.

[Pakboong]

You didn't respond to my question.

I also said Putin was a tyrant, a leftover apparatchik of the failed Soviet police state, in no way a genius or master of mind or of anything except being another pedestrian dictator. I wrote a lot of things of this nature.

Are you sure you read my post, the post I wrote?

Accusing me of balance suggests you might need more coffee this morning.

My reference was to the fat that the BBC article showed some balance.

Personal opinions are fuelled by personal experiences and material read -- so it is important to read balanced articles before forming opinions

While I generally agree with you, I do believe there are next to zero balanced articles. We have to accommodate the idea of balance by reading both extremes and use our own logic skills to figure out where in the middle the truth actually is. The problem usually has to do with our individual biases. The hardest aspect to this kind of problem solving is to remove biases such as nationalism which just get in the way. For example, I don't like Russians in general and Putin in particular, but, I get what he is trying to do. No matter how much I dislike Putin, there are many others that I dislike a lot more. The hard part is to factor out the likes and dislikes and focus on what makes the most sense on a grand scale.

If I focus on my dislike for Russia, my opinion becomes really worthless. Of course, it may be worthless anyway.

I do believe there are next to zero balanced articles. We have to accommodate the idea of balance by reading both extremes and use our own logic skills to figure out where in the middle the truth actually is.

It's a total nonsense. Your statement is not and cannot be supported with any objective evidence for last 100 years. It's a meta-statement, belongs in the same category as astrology, utopian socialism ... There's something like independent journalism, experience, intellect, education, global reality, scientific data, historical background, curiousness, personal philosophy, common sense and million other things that make(help) journalism objective, impersonal, unbiased and what's the most important open-minded. Of course, nothing is ideal, but next to nothing, come on.

You really think, in this particular case Russia's foreign policy, that the West news are balanced next to nothing? Don't be ridiculous.

Not one mainstream source has reported Putin's situation with regard to the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and BIS. Pretty much every alternative media source covers it. None of the BRICS countries are happy with having a combined 11% share of IMF business while the USA alone has 17%. Keeping in mind that China is moving into the number one economy and India just moved ahead of Japan into the number 3 spot.

I could simply ignor this because I benefit from the 17% USA control. That would be nationalism at its worst. In the playground, that would be called not playing fair. I don't care but I cannot jump on the" kill Putin" bandwagon because he is making a perfectly legal move to gain a fair share of the world's control over money. He blames much of what is wrong on dual nationality individuals which control US finances. He moves ahead of BRICS to purge all dual nationality Russians from government, removes non Russians from operating Russian banks, he makes it illegal for most Russians to bank outside of Russia.... These are all moves in preparation to create BRICS on what he believes to be a clean start.

Who knows what will become of BRICS but it is not illegal nor is it immoral and is certainly not a reason to start WW3. My country will not likely stand for this for many reasons and where does that leave me? I like being at 17% but I know why BRICS is not satisfied with only 11%.

No mainsteam media is willing or able to explain Putin's issue with the IMF and why he is being targeted for extinction.