AWRM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Minutes to midnight: #159751
10/04/2016 04:18 PM
10/04/2016 04:18 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Online content OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Online Content OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
Minutes to midnight: US cuts bilateral contact with Russia

October 03, 2016


Following Russia's decree to end their joint nuclear deweaponization program with the US, the US State Department announced Monday that Washington has suspended bilateral contact with Moscow.

(VERO BEACH, FL) America has “suspended” bilateral contacts with Russia over the Syrian crisis, the US State Department said.

US officials had threatened for a week to withdraw from the Syrian peace process, after the latest ceasefire negotiated by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Secretary of State John Kerry collapsed amid bloody fighting.

While contacts between US and Russian military to “deconflict” encounters between their aircraft in Syrian skies will continue, the US is withdrawing personnel that was dispatched for the purpose of setting up the Joint Implementation Center (JIC) for the ceasefire, agencies reported citing the State Department.

There is "nothing more for the US and Russia to talk about" in Syria, White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters on Monday.

Washington has dragged its feet on setting up the JIC, however, with State Department spokesman John Kirby telling reporters on September 16 that its establishment was contingent on humanitarian aid reaching Aleppo, while the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, told lawmakers the US had “no intention of having an intelligence-sharing agreement with the Russians.”

The JIC is located in Geneva, Switzerland.

On Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin suspended Moscow’s participation in a program for disposing of plutoniumfrom decommissioned nuclear warheads, citing “the radical change in the environment, a threat to strategic stability posed by the hostile actions of the US against Russia, and the inability of the US to deliver on the obligation to dispose of excessive weapons plutonium under international treaties.”

The White House called the decision “disappointing.”


Putin hits US back: Nuclear disposal SUSPENDED

October 03, 2016


Russian President Vladimir Putin has suspended the weapons-grade plutonium disposal agreement with the US in response to “unfriendly” acts by Washington toward Moscow.

Kremlin spokesman: Putin had signed a decree suspending the 2010 agreement under which each side committed to destroy tonnes of weapons-grade material because Washington had not been implementing it and because of current tensions in relations.
Preamble to the decree: Deal signed in 2000 being suspended due to “the emergence of a threat to strategic stability and as a result of unfriendly actions by the United States of America towards the Russian Federation.”
Continued: Washington had failed "to ensure the implementation of its obligations to utilize surplus weapons-grade plutonium".
The 2010 agreement was signed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and then U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Deal called on each side to dispose of 34 tonnes of plutonium by burning in nuclear reactors.
Clinton at the time: Enough material to make almost 17,000 nuclear weapons.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov: "For quite a long time, Russia had been implementing it (the agreement) unilaterally.”
"Now, taking into account this tension (in relations) in general ... the Russian side considers it impossible for the current state of things to last any longer."
Project originally estimated at a total of $5.7 billion.

(MOSCOW, RUSSIA) Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday suspended an agreement with the United States for disposal of weapons-grade plutonium because of "unfriendly" acts by Washington, the Kremlin said.

A Kremlin spokesman said Putin had signed a decree suspending the 2010 agreement under which each side committed to destroy tonnes of weapons-grade material because Washington had not been implementing it and because of current tensions in relations.

The two former Cold War adversaries are at loggerheads over a raft of issues including Ukraine and the western fueled conflict in Syria.

The deal, signed in 2000 but which did not come into force until 2010, was being suspended due to "the emergence of a threat to strategic stability and as a result of unfriendly actions by the United States of America towards the Russian Federation", the preamble to the decree said.

It also said that Washington had failed "to ensure the implementation of its obligations to utilize surplus weapons-grade plutonium".

The 2010 agreement, signed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, called on each side to dispose of 34 tonnes of plutonium by burning in nuclear reactors.

Clinton said at the time that that was enough material to make almost 17,000 nuclear weapons. Both sides then viewed the deal as a sign of increased cooperation between the two former adversaries toward a joint goal of nuclear non-proliferation.

"For quite a long time, Russia had been implementing it (the agreement) unilaterally," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told a conference call with journalists on Monday.

"Now, taking into account this tension (in relations) in general ... the Russian side considers it impossible for the current state of things to last any longer."

Ties between Moscow and Washington plunged to freezing point over Crimea and Russian support for separatists in eastern Ukraine after western backed protests in Kiev toppled the Ukraine’s sovereign leader, President Viktor Yanukovich.

Washington led a campaign to impose Western economic sanctions on Russia for accepting Crimea’s annexation and providing military support to the newly formed state.

Relations soured further last year when Russia deployed its warplanes to an air base in Syria to provide support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's troops fighting ISIS and other western backed terror groups.

The rift has widened in recent weeks, with Moscow accusing Washington of not delivering on its promise to separate units of moderate Syrian opposition from "terrorists".

Huge cost overruns have also long been another threat to the project originally estimated at a total of $5.7 billion.


Russia Launches Massive Civil Defense Drill in Response to US

October 03, 2016


All-Russian civil defense drill involving federal and regional executive authorities, local governments and organizations ‘Organization of civil defense during large natural and man-caused disasters in the Russian Federation’ will start tomorrow morning in all constituent territories of Russia.

(TRUNEWS Vero Beach, FL) - The main goal of the national drill is to practice organization of management during civil defense events and emergency and fire management, to check preparedness of management bodies and forces of civil defense on all levels to respond to natural and man-made disasters and to take civil defense measures.

What does Russia know that we don't?

Read More: Minutes to midnight: US cuts bilateral contact with Russia

It will be a three-stage drill that will take four days:

Stage I: organization of civil defense actions

The stage is going to practice notification and gathering of senior officials of federal and regional executive authorities, local governments and civil defense forces, deployment of civil defense management system on all levels, readying civil defense communication and notification system. After the National Crisis Management Center have brought the management signals, all management bodies, state authorities, forces and facilities on duty and people will be notified through notification systems available.

Stage II: Planning and organization of civil defense actions. Deploying a team of civil defense forces and facilities designed to respond to large disasters and fires.

The stage plans to practice deployment a mobile interagency multi-functional team of civil defense forces and facilities in each federal district in order to carry our rescue and other urgent operations, civil defense actions and to deploy special civil defense units in constituent territories; putting rescue military units, divisions of the federal fire service, rescue units on standby. The stage provides for the team to be reinforced, activation of backup control centers and practicing collecting and exchanging information in the field of civil defense.

Stage III: Organization of actions of civil defense management bodies and forces for response to large disasters and fires.

The stage will deal with the use of the civil defense team to respond to large disasters and fires, setting up aerial and mobile control centers, revising of routes for save evacuation of people, organization of vital services; taking off fire and rescue units of the federal fire service to put out fires and conduct rescue operations at potentially dangerous facilities, including closed administrative territorial entities.

The Emergencies Ministry of Russia will manage the all-Russian civil defence drill from October 4th through the 7th.

More than 40 million people, more than 200,000 resuce and recovery specialists, and more than 50,000 units of equipment will be involved into the drill.

Federal executive authorities, heads of regions, local governing bodies and organizations will also participate in the drill.

Personnel and equipment of the Emergencies Ministry will be fully engaged. Also participating will be paramilitary mine rescue divisions, units of the State Small Vessel Inspectorate, as well as the State Fire Service of the Emergencies Ministry.

Non-staff rescue and recovery units will also participate in the civil defence drill. The drill is designed to check relevance of current plans for different scenarios, and determine preparedness of all personnel and equipment for action.

Information and gathering of the senior personnel of ministries and agencies, executive authorities of the regions of the Russian Federation and local governments will be carried out.

Evacuation, issuing of personal protection equipment, and deployment of sanitation station will be managed. Additionally, all protective equipment will be brought to readiness.

Systems for emergency information of the population are going to be checked upon agreement with regional and municipal authorities.

Quality of medical services will be checked in medical institutions under jurisdiction of the Emergencies Ministry. Rescuers in cooperation with other services will train to mitigate different emergency situations, including natural, as well as man-made disasters in order to improve the efficiency of approaches used to protect the population and territories.

Fulfillment of these tasks will allow increasing level of preparedness of the population, senior management and civil defence forces for action during large scale emergency situations occurring in peace time.

Read the whole story on Emercon of Russia, the emergency response magazine serving the Russian Federation - http://en.mchs.ru/mass_media/news/item/32915549/

Now watch this:

Ukraine, Russia, WW3, part 1

part 2


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159752
10/04/2016 06:10 PM
10/04/2016 06:10 PM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,705
Western States
Breacher Offline
Moderator
Breacher  Offline
Moderator
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,705
Western States
You can only push the Russians so hard around what is clearly their own neighborhood.

Just prior to WW2 the British and French encouraged Poland in being aggressive against both Germany and the Soviets, although there was longstanding issues with the Soviets over the 1920 invasion of Poland, which hammered the Soviets enough to make them indefinitely scrap their plans for overrunning Europe.

If I remember correctly, before the Soviets broke the back of Nazi Germany, the old Russians had pretty well concluded British Imperial conquests in the old world by fucking up the Brits in Crimea. After that, the Britsh never again fought an offensive war in Europe. The Britsh glorify WW2, but let's face it, they didn't fight until their backs were pressed to the wall. WW1, similar basic story and in both cases, they went recruiting family help from the beefy nephews in the former colonies.


Life liberty, and the pursuit of those who threaten them.

Trump: not the president America needs, but the president America deserves.
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159753
10/06/2016 03:42 AM
10/06/2016 03:42 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Online content OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Online Content OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
On The Precipice Of World War III: Russia Prepares For War On Multiple Fronts

October 4, 2016

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Things are quickly spiraling out of control for the US. The Yuan has basically become the reserve currency now. Russia will now head the UN Security Council. And my favorite… Obama has handed the Internet to foreign entities comprised of our enemies… the Russians, Chinese and Iranians. Good times.

But the last couple of days have been REALLY interesting and not in a good way. It all revolves around Russia pretty much and their moves towards World War III. We have been in the beginning phases of the war for a number of years. The opening salvos have taken the form of intrusive cyber attacks. But a hot war is coming… I no longer have any doubt of that whatsoever.

Let’s start with Russia suspending diplomacy with the US over the conflict in Syria. Not good. The US has announced they are ending diplomatic engagement with Russia and are ‘reviewing’ our military options over the Aleppo boondoggle. We don’t seem to get it. Russia and Iran now own Syria. Whatever we do there now won’t be very effective. Russia has Tartus and now essentially the rest of Syria is being handed to Iran. Russia is prepping an offensive to gain ground in the Baltics and the Ukraine… and even further conquests are on the drawing board.

Earlier today the UN warned Russia on their bombing of Aleppo. That doesn’t matter at all to Russia… in fact, they are stepping up their bombing with bunker busters. They want to kill everyone and wipe them off the proverbial map. If we send troops into Syria, Putin is sure to do the same and it will be game on. We are now considering airstrikes on Syria as I write this. Top military leaders say this could very well lead to war with Russia… we are already there boys.

But wait… there’s more. Moscow announced yesterday that it was ending cooperation with the US on a 16 year-old program for the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium to curb the production of more nuclear bombs. Kerry’s ceasefire in Syria was a monstrous joke. In fact, he played right into Russia’s hands. What a tool. A 10 year-old would be better at military strategy than these fools.

Next, Russia has deployed an anti-missile system in Syria for the first time, potentially as a means for the Assad government to counter US and allied cruise missile attacks. That should end well. Yeah baby. Components of the SA-23 Gladiator anti-missile and anti-aircraft system, which has a range of roughly 150 miles, arrived over the weekend “on the docks” of a Russian naval base along Syria’s Mediterranean coastal city of Tartus.

I especially thought this quote from Fox News was appropriate:

While the purpose is not clear, one US official asked sarcastically, “Nusra doesn’t have an air force do they?” speaking about the Al Qaeda-linked group in Syria. The Islamic State also does not fly any manned aircraft or possess cruise missiles, in a sign that Russia is directing its actions to protect itself against any potential attack from the United States or its allies.

Today, the Russian embassy in Damascus was shelled from an alleged terrorist-controlled area of Syria. Guess who Russia is blaming? That’s right… the US. Tick freaking tock goes the war clock. Nobody was injured, but that just ticked the Russians off. Convenient.

The Russian embassy in Damascus came under fire on Tuesday from a neighborhood controlled by militant groups, including Al-Nusra Front, the Russian Foreign Ministry reports. Russia’s Foreign Ministry has declared that the shelling of the Russian Embassy in Damascus, Syria was the result of “those who, like the US and some of its allies, continue to provoke bloody conflict in Syria [and] flirt with militants and extremists of various types,” read a statement posted on the Foreign Ministry website on October 4th.

We already know that Russia and Iran – two arms of the New Axis of Evil are in Syria – well, here comes the third one… China. Beijing and Damascus have agreed that the Chinese military will have closer ties with Syria and provide humanitarian aid to the civil war torn nation, a high-ranking People’s Liberation Army officer said, adding that the training of Syrian personnel by Chinese instructors has also been discussed, according to Xinhua. This is a clear sign that Russia, China and Iran are aligning against the US. I hate to say I told you so, but I’ve been saying this was coming for years now. China has previously praised Russia’s involvement in Syria.

Last, but certainly not least… Russia is holding a massive evacuation drill for more than 40 million people to prepare for nuclear war. More than 200,000 emergency services personnel and soldiers will use 50,000 pieces of equipment during the massive civil defense exercise. Management bodies and forces of the Emergency Ministry’s territorial bodies have been put on simulated high alert. Representatives of federal executive authorities, heads of regions, local governments and organizations are taking part in the massive drill. Emergency Ministry’s forces and facilities are fully engaged, including rescue military divisions, rescue units, paramilitary mine rescue units and State Small Vessels Inspectorate, fire departments and aircraft. It has already been widely reported that Russia has been busy building nuclear bunkers all over Moscow. I assume in actuality, it has been all over Russia.

Russia’s western missile forces are testing their battle readiness by practicing fire and preemptive strikes on crucial enemy infrastructure, state news agency Itar-Tass reported. The missile brigade in Leningrad region, which surrounds St. Petersburg and borders Estonia, as well as Finland, is on high alert as a part of combat-readiness drills, testing the unit’s preparation. It is conducting fire against a “simulated enemy” from short range Iskander missiles systems. Some of the 500 troops drafted to the regional drill will also practice camouflage, biological and chemical defense of troops in the field and counter-reconnaissance.

As recently as last year, Russia conducted a simulated nuclear hit on an area the size of Sweden. I’m sure that was no accident.

This is a classic preamble to war. Russia is heightening fears of a nuclear confrontation. They have set the US up as the fall guy. Now they are making a very public display of prepping Russians for World War III. Don’t get me wrong… World War III has already started, I just don’t think nuclear bombs are on the table… yet anyway. The war is far more likely to be a massive debilitating cyber war to begin with, but there will be hot elements on the ground as well.

Today’s exercise is being run by EMERCOM, Russia’s Emergencies Ministry. It will go on for four days. Civil Defense Department Director Oleg Manuilov told Interfax: “Training will be held from October 4 to 7 and will be attended by more than 40 million people, more than 200 thousand professionals rescue units and 50 thousand pieces of equipment.”

Russia is spreading this fear mongering throughout their media outlets and official statements. One headline on the website Zvezda last week read “Schizophrenics from America are sharpening nuclear weapons for Moscow” – claiming the US wanted to punish Russia over challenges in the Middle East.

EMERCOM announced on Friday that underground shelters which could fit the entire population of Moscow – 12 million – if war broke out were ready and waiting.

Russia currently has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons with 8,400 and a section of its nuclear doctrine which allows for use of the weapons if there is a vague suggestion of a threat. America has 7,500 warheads, considerably less and those are pretty much outdated. In the past, Dmitry Kiselyov, head of Russia’s main news agency, has said only Russia would be able to turn the US into “radioactive ash.” And you know who is egging all of this on? Alexander Dugin of course. This fits his apocalyptic view of warfare rather nicely.

Putin has invested heavily in decking out top secret facilities around Moscow in the event of war. He has even ordered the building of a 400-square mile facility in the remote wasteland of the Ural mountains from where any future conflict could be directed. Satellite images reveal the location of the huge center near Mount Yamantau.

Russia, China and Iran are actively preparing for war with the United States and soon. You have to wonder why they are prepping their people and we aren’t ours. Russia must be overjoyed at that. Time is running out to stop the Russians and they know it. I fear we have already fallen off the precipice of World War III.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159754
10/07/2016 02:20 AM
10/07/2016 02:20 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Online content OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Online Content OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
General Milley on our Enemies with Emphasis on Russia

October 5, 2016 by TMH

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Military: The U.S. Army‘s chief of staff on Tuesday issued a stern warning to potential threats such as Russia and vowed the service will defeat any foe in ground combat.

“The strategic resolve of our nation, the United States, is being challenged and our alliances tested in ways that we haven’t faced in many, many decades,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told an audience at the Association of the United States Army’s annual meeting in Washington, D.C.

“I want to be clear to those who wish to do us harm … the United States military — despite all of our challenges, despite our [operational] tempo, despite everything we have been doing — we will stop you and we will beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before. Make no mistake about that.”

Milley’s comments come during an election year in which voters will decide a new president and commander in chief — and a period of increased military activity of near-peer competitors, including Russia and China.

The Army has struggled to rebuild its readiness after more than a decade of extended combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The service has significantly cut the size of its force since the Cold War and decreased its modernization budget in the last decade, Milley said.

“While we focused on the counter-terrorist fight, other countries — Russia, Iran, China, North Korea — went to school on us,” he said. “They studied our doctrine, our tactics, our equipment, our organization, our training, our leadership. And, in turn, they revised their own doctrines, and they are rapidly modernizing their military today to avoid our strengths in hopes of defeating us at some point in the future.”

Milley also quoted a senior Russian official as saying publicly, “The established world order is undergoing a foundational shake-up” and that “Russia can now fight a conventional war in Europe and win.”

The general warned that future warfare with a near-peer adversary will “be highly lethal, unlike anything our Army has experienced at least since World War II.”

“Our formations will likely have to be small; we will have to move constantly,” he said. “On the future battlefield, if you stay in one place for longer than two or three hours, you will be dead.”

Despite the challenges, Milley said the Army will adapt to survive such a dangerous battlefield.

“It’s a tall order for sure — to project power into contested theaters, fight in highly populated urban areas, to survive and win on intensely lethal and distributed battlefields and to create leaders and soldiers who can prevail. Tough? Yes. But impossible? Absolutely not,” Milley said.

“Make no mistake about it, we can now and we will … retain the capability to rapidly deploy,” he said, “and we will destroy any enemy anywhere, any time.”

**** So what is percolating globally and against the United States that has the Pentagon concerned?

Using the same provocations that Iran has used against the United States, Russia is doing the same thing.

Nato jets scrambled as Russian bombers fly south

Two Russian Blackjack bombers were intercepted by fighter jets from four European countries as they flew from the direction of Norway to northern Spain and back, it has emerged. Norway, the UK, France and Spain all scrambled jets as the TU-160 planes skirted the airspace of each country. It comes at a time of heightened tension between the West and Russia. Correspondents say the frequency of Russian bombers being intercepted by Nato planes has increased markedly. Spanish media say it is the furthest south such an operation has had to take place. More here from the BBC.

Given the failed truce or cease fire agreement regarding Syria, it was announced by John Kerry and approved by the White House and National Security Council to walk away fully from Russia and seek other avenues with regard to the deadly civil war in Syria. As noted, last week before the Senate, it was admitted there was no Plan B.

In recent months, Russia has been quite aggressive and militant towards Americans in Moscow and other cities in Russia. Some diplomats have been beaten up, robbed and their homes broken into. The most recent incident involved some Americans being drugged.

“We are outraged,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said in a statement posted on the Russian Foreign Ministry website, adding the claim may have been the work of the US State Department seeking “revenge” for the collapse of talks between the two counties to address the situation in Syria.

Russia’s denial came after a report two days ago by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty that the diplomats — a man and a woman who were not senior officials — allegedly had their drinks spiked with a date-rape drug while attending a United Nations convention on corruption last November. The report, attributed to anonymous sources, said the State Department quietly protested the incident to Russian officials.

The story also said one of the diplomats had been treated at a “Western medical clinic” – which Russia said was not true. More here from CNN.

American personnel and diplomats are being evacuated from talks and some ground operations in Syria where and when the bloodshed continues in Aleppo.

Russia had agreed to a cease-fire last month, but that fell apart quickly. Russia argues that the United States has failed in its commitment to separate the moderate rebel groups it supports from more radical factions such as the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda.

Kirby said the United States will withdraw a team that had been dispatched to open a so-called joint implementation center, in which Russian and American armed forces were going to join efforts to fight Islamic State and other jihadi groups.

Also Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree suspending his country’s participation in a treaty with the U.S. designed to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Putin cited “a threat to strategic stability as a result of USA’s unfriendly acts toward Russia.” This was a reference to a deepening diplomatic spat between the Kremlin and the White House over Syria, as well as tensions and sanctions that followed Russia’s 2014 takeover of Crimea and its support to separatists in eastern Ukraine.

It is the latest action by Russia that serves to unwind the nuclear-cooperation and weapons treaties that have governed the relationship between the U.S. and Russia in the years after the Soviet dissolution.

The U.S. said it would continue to participate in multilateral talks over Syria, aimed at achieving a cessation of hostilities and the delivery of aid, and would communicate with Russia regarding airstrikes to avoid collisions.

Last week, when it first threatened to suspend Syria talks with Russia, Washington said it would consider other options, including additional financial sanctions or even military operations. More here from the LATimes.

Then it appears the National Security Council and the State Department pinged the United Nations for some action….well kinda sorta.

The United States virtually blocked the United Nations Security Council’s statement that condemned the mortaring of Russia’s embassy in Damascus, Russia’s Permanent Mission to the global organization said.

“It was actually blocked by the U.S. delegation, which tried to bring outside elements into a standard text. Brits and Ukrainians clumsily helped Americans,” the mission said.

It said that the behavior of the three countries “testifies to their blatant disrespect for the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations”, which demands to protect diplomatic and consular facilities and personnel.

The Russian mission said that “when such crimes were committed earlier, including against the diplomatic missions of Western countries, Russia has always unconditionally supported their condemnation by the Security Council.”

“We have to state that the moral principles of some of our colleagues in the Security Council have seriously teetered,” it said. More here from TASS.

Russia is taking all precautions forecasting future aggressions in Syria as they installed the S-300 anti-aircraft missile defense system at the Russia base of Tartus which is near Latakia, Syria on the Mediterranean Sea.

Further there is the matter of the Baltics and Ukraine. Control and management of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea is at risk.

NATO members must increase the alliance’s military capabilities, position additional forces in the Baltics and Eastern Europe, establish a maritime force in the Black Sea and bolster its presence in the Arctic, all to counter Russia’s growing military strength and increasingly belligerent behavior toward its neighbors, the Atlantic Council said in a new report.

The report, “Restoring the Power and Purpose of the NATO Alliance,” also urges America’s leaders to strengthen U.S. leadership of NATO, work to restore public support for the trans-Atlantic alliance and “counter those who threaten to withdraw U.S. support for NATO.” And it calls on alliance members to maintain their commitment to securing Afghanistan and to increase military assistance and intelligence-sharing with “its Arab partners” in response to the spreading terrorist threat.

The policy paper was crafted by a team led by former veteran diplomatic Nicholas Burns, who was the U.S. ambassador to NATO, and retired Gen. James Jones, a former Marine Corps commandant and Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. The report was prepared ahead of next month’s NATO summit in Warsaw. More here.

What about the Arctic?

Russia: Militarizing the Arctic

While the Arctic region remains peaceful, Russia’s recent steps to militarize the Arctic, coupled with its bellicose behavior toward its neighbors, makes the Arctic a security concern. Russia’s Maritime Doctrine of Russian Federation 2020, adopted in July 2015, lists the Arctic as one of two focal points, the other being the Atlantic.[1]

Russia’s Northern Fleet, which is based in the Arctic, now counts for two-thirds of the Russian Navy. A new Arctic command was established in 2015 to coordinate all Russian military activities in the Arctic region.[2] Underwater, Russian submarines are operating at a rate not seen since the end of the Cold War. Indeed, Admiral Viktor Chirkov, commander-in-chief of the Russian navy, stated in 2015 that the navy had ramped up submarine patrols by 50 percent from just 2013.[3]

Over the next few years, two new so-called Arctic brigades will be permanently based in the Arctic region, and Russian special forces have been training in the region. Soviet-era facilities have been re-opened; Russia is expected to have nine operative airfields in the Arctic by 2018.[4] Russia has reportedly also placed radar and S-300 missiles on the Arctic bases at Franz Joseph Land, New Siberian Islands, Novaya Zemlya, and Severnaya Zemlya.[5] Russia’s ultimate goal is to deploy a combined arms force in the Arctic by 2020, and this plan appears to be on track.[6] In early June, the Russian Navy showed off its first new icebreaker in 45 years.[7]

As an Arctic power, Russia’s military presence in the region is to be expected. However, it should be viewed with some caution in light of recent Russian aggression in its neighborhood. The former Supreme Allied Commander of Europe, General Philip Breedlove, described Russian activity in the Arctic as “increasingly troubling,” stating: “Their increase in stationing military forces, building and reopening bases, and creating an Arctic military district—all to counter an imagined threat to their internationally undisputed territories—stands in stark contrast to the conduct of the seven other Arctic nations.”[8]. More here from Heritage.

****

ABC: The Russians are already there in force. Last year, they staged a military exercise in the Arctic as seen in this Russian Ministry of Defense footage.

It involved about 40,000 troops, 15 submarines, 41 warships and multiple aircraft. No one disputes their right to do that on their own territory. It’s just that it wasn’t announced.

Philip Breedlove: We pre-announce ours. No one is surprised by them whereas the exercise that Russia did was a snap exercise which is a bit destabilizing.

Until May of this year, retired four-star General Philip Breedlove was the supreme Allied commander of NATO with responsibility for the Arctic.

What else is destabilizing, he says, is Russia’s military build up along something called the Northern Sea Route skirting the Russian Arctic coastline. The route could become an alternative to the Suez Canal, saving huge amounts of time and money for the commercial shipping industry.

Philip Breedlove: I have heard as much as 28 days decrease in some of the transit from the northern European markets to the Asian markets. That is an incredible economic opportunity. And it could be a very boon— big boon to business around the world.

Lesley Stahl: What would it mean if the Russians did gain control over the Northern Sea route?

Philip Breedlove: If the Russians had the ability to militarily hold that at ransom, that is a big lever over the world economy.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159755
10/07/2016 02:23 AM
10/07/2016 02:23 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Online content OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Online Content OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
Russia Warns US Any Strikes On Syrian Army Would Lead To War: "Our S-300, S-400 Defenses Are Up And Running"

by Tyler Durden
Oct 6, 2016

Yesterday morning we reported that in immediate retaliation for the US threat that the Pentagon may launch air strikes against the Assad regime in the latest and most dramatic escalation in the Syrian proxy war in years, Russia's Defense Ministry said that a battery of Russian S-300 air defense missile launchers has been transported to Syria. As Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said, “the Syrian Arab Republic received an S-300 anti-aircraft missile system. This system is designed to ensure the safety of the naval base in [Syrian city of] Tartus and ships located in the coastal area [in Syria]…”

Then, in an amusing twist, Konashenkov said it is unclear why the deployment of the missile system has created such a fuss in the West. "The S-300 is a purely defensive system and poses no threat,” he said.

To which we said that "of course, a defense system is precisely what the Pentagon would prefer to avoid in case an offensive attack was launched."

Today, Russia confirmed that the deployment of the Surface-to-Air missile battery was clearly aimed at containing US offensive ambitions, when the Defense Ministry cautioned the US-led coalition of carrying out airstrikes on Syrian army positions, adding in Syria there are "numerous S-300 and S-400 air defense systems up and running", as cited by RT.

Taking the mic for the second day in a row, Igor Konashenkov said that Russia currently has S-400 and S-300 air-defense systems deployed to protect its troops stationed at the Tartus naval supply base and the Khmeimim airbase. He added that "the radius of the weapons reach may be “a surprise” to all unidentified flying objects."

Uttering the loudest warning yet that any US-coalition airstrikes would be met with a Russian response, the Russian Defense Ministry said that any airstrike or missile hitting targets in territory controlled by the Syrian government would put Russian personnel in danger, clarifying that "members of the Russian Reconciliation Center in Syria are working on the ground delivering aid and communicating with a large number of communities in Syria."

“Therefore, any missile or air strikes on the territory controlled by the Syrian government will create a clear threat to Russian servicemen.”

Konashenkov warnedthat the Russian military won't have time to use the hotline if it sees missiles on their way to targets in Syria.

“Russian air defense system crews are unlikely to have time to determine in a ‘straight line’ the exact flight paths of missiles and then who the warheads belong to. And all the illusions of amateurs about the existence of ‘invisible’ jets will face a disappointing reality,” Konashenkov added.

In an apparent hint at the U.S. stealth aircraft, he added that any "dilettante illusions about stealth planes could collide with disappointing realities."

Adding to the warning, the spokesman also noted that Syria itself has S-200 as well as BUK systems, and their technical capabilities have been updated over the past year.

The Russian Defense Ministry’s statement came in response to the previously flagged “leaks” in the Western media alleging that Washington is considering launching airstrikes against Syrian government forces.

“Of particular concern is information that the initiators of such provocations are representatives of the CIA and the Pentagon, who in September reported to the [US] President on the alleged controllability of ‘opposition’ fighters, but today are lobbying for ‘kinetic’ scenarios in Syria,” he said.

He cautioned Washington to conduct a “thorough calculation of the possible consequences of such plans.”

He is not the only one: as we reported earlier in the week, launching bombing raids over Syria would necessarily require the creation of a "no fly zone" for Syrian and, more importantly, Russian warplanes. To that point, during testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed Services last week General Joseph Dunford rang the alarm over such a strategy, saying that it could result in a major international war which he was not prepared to advocate on behalf of.

The key exchange took place after Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi asked about Hillary Clinton’s proposal for a no fly zone in Syria in response to allegations that Russia and Syria have intensified their aerial bombardment of rebel-held East Aleppo since the collapse of the ceasefire.

"What about the option of controlling the airspace so that barrel bombs cannot be dropped? What do you think of that option?" asked Wicker. "Right now, Senator, for us to control all of the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia. That is a pretty fundamental decision that certainly I’m not going to make," said the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff suggesting the policy was too hawkish even for military leaders.

It remains to be seen if the US president, either the current or next one, will be willing to make a decision which as Russia has now confirmed, would lead to direct, lethal conflict between the US and Russia.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159756
10/10/2016 05:27 PM
10/10/2016 05:27 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Online content OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Online Content OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
Order Out of Chaos: Third World War Rapidly Approaches, International Order Undergoing a Foundational Shift

By Nate -10/09/2016


The world is on the brink of the most catastrophic war in the history of mankind, the Third World War, and the entire geopolitical landscape is undergoing a foundational shift. According to US Army Chief, the next world war is “almost guaranteed,” and would be “extremely lethal and fast.”

Mark Miley, chief of staff United States Military, claims “The strategic resolve of our nation, the United States, is being challenged and our alliances tested in ways that we haven’t faced in many, many decades,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told an audience at the Association of the United States Army’s annual meeting in Washington, D.C.

Miley continued, “I want to be clear to those who wish to do us harm … the United States military — despite all of our challenges, despite our [operational] tempo, despite everything we have been doing — we will stop you and we will beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before. Make no mistake about that.”

The fact of the matter is that World War Three is beyond denial at this point, even the United States Military is claiming it’s imminence. According to Russia the world is undergoing a foundational shift, more specifically the Russian ambassador to the UK, Alexander Yakovenko, said this;

russian-bear-708x404“The established world order, is undergoing a foundational shakeup, with the Crimea, Ukraine, and Brexit.” Later on the ambassador called for the dismantling of NATO, and the European Union. Yakovenko then stated “Russia can now fight a conventional war in Europe and win, Russia is the only country that will remain relevant forever, any other country is dispensable, and that includes the United States, we are in game now.”

It is far more evident now than ever before that relations between Russia and the United States are at all-time lows, and even worse than during the Cold War. In fact, according to “Doomed to Cooperate” editor Siegfried Hecker; recent actions by Putin to suspend the plutonium disposition accord with the US, which is one of the last agreements the two countries have, signals a major breakdown and that war is closing in.

The Plutonium Disposition was a deal set in place, by both Russia and the United States directly after the Cold War; and the agreement entailed the disposal of tons of plutonium to make sure it could never be put back into bombs. Both the Soviets and the US each had tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. Each nation had built stockpiles more than 30,000 nuclear weapons at that time. So when Russia decides to hold on to the plutonium, believe you me – something is up and both the US and Russian armies are gearing up for it.


Mark Milley later on stated:

“In short the ways and means of war is in my view is about to undergo fundamental, profound and significant change…In fact we are undergoing that change right now as we sit here. That change is evolutionary not revolutionary, but it is no less profound.”

Milley is referring to the ‘shift in power’ or in other words the New World Order.

“We know from history that unipolar and bipolar international systems tend to be very stable, but we also know that multipolar systems are inherently prone to competition, confrontation, instability and state on state wars. We are entering that multipolar future, and in fact we have probably been in it for a few years.”

The coming New World Order will rise from the ashes of the short-lived socialist, multipolar international system that is currently ‘under construction.’ The United State’s dominance is declining, and the Obama gang is facilitating that decline. Below is the list of polarities, and their explanations which can be read like a timetable.
1Phase One – Unipolarity

Unipolarity is used to describe the power structure when one superpower dominates alone. The end of the Cold War meant that the previous decades’ superpower rivalry now had ended. There was no longer the “traditional” East vs. West conflict, at least not the way it had been earlier in the 20th century.

The United States surfaced as the sole dominating power in world politics as there were no real challengers to their hegemonic position. This allowed greater room for the superpower to maneuver and to get involved in international issues that not necessarily coincided with national interest. We can describe this new political situation as being unipolar.
2Phase Two – Bipolarity

Bipolarity is used to denote the basic structure in the international system when it is dominated by two superpowers. This means that other states must ally themselves with one of the two major powers, which again limits their room to maneuver and thus result in more stable international politics.
3Phase Three – Multipolarity (currently under construction)

A system of multipolarity increases rivalry in world politics, the reason being that many states of similar strength compete for power and influence. These states are often uncertain of other states’ intentions, which increases the probability of military action. Also, the power balance in this type of system is changing constantly, as a result of changing alliances.

Multipolarity denotes the fundamental power structure in an international system dominated by several large powers, and is characterized by antagonism between these.
4Phase Four – The New World Order

After the collapse of the short-lived multipolar world which led to World War Three, a new world will commence. That international order would be the return of an oligarchy, or in other words, the world would be centralized under a single governance. Under this New World Order, there would be no borders, a single currency, a single religion, operated under highly advanced technology (Artificial Intelligence).

Given the current state of geopolitics, Mark Milley then began to touch on the Homefront and where the military was in regard to readiness. It just so happens that the Chief of Staff indirectly states that Jade Helm was a success.

“In the past year we focused on current readiness and applied time and money into building it, and it’s improving and will remain our top priority. And now we have to define and build the army of the future. We’re heading in the right direction on both fronts. The process that we developed to think critically and deliberately is working and it’s guiding our investments and decisions.”

In 2015, the largest military drill took place across the nation, and it was called Jade Helm 15. Jade Helm began an ongoing exercise that introduces the military to predictive intelligence services. Under the artificial intelligence sectors of DARPA and IARPA, the military expanded their capabilities of predicting enemy combatants movements before their actual actions. On the Homefront, the army, and national guard failed to mention Russians as the enemies and instead the authoritarian forces named Christians and Conservatives as their enemies. In Jade Helm, various states were treated as “hostile” to the establishment, and one of those sates happened to be Texas.

In conclusion it is beyond evident that the United State and Russia are both gearing up for the largest war of our time, World War Three. However, this war will not be fought by the axis and allies, but rather this world war will be serving an agenda; to bring about the New World Order. Through the destruction of the current Order, the globalists will rise; or as famously stated, through their chaos they will “bring order.”

Other various quotes taken directly from Mark Milley throughout the speech (see video above):

“For whatever reason, the bottom line is that massive amounts of people in unprecedented numbers are moving from one country or one region to another, which is amplifying destabilizing effects. One of the most militarily significant mass migrations is the movement of people to cities, which has really been going on for well over a century. 75 percent of Americans lived in rural areas 100 years ago while today that number is completely in-versed with almost 70 percent of Americans living in urban areas. Globally we are witnessing urbanization on a massive scale. In 1950 only two cities, New York and Tokyo, had populations over 10 million people. Today there are 38 and it’s projected by 2050 there will likely be over 50 megacities of over 10 million inhabitants with 70 percent of the worlds estimated 8 billion people living in urban areas.”

“Climate change is yet another driver of future instability.”

“Maturity of various technologies that either exist today or in advanced stages of development when combined are likely to change the very character of war all by themselves.”

“With the advances in information technology we are now seeing an entire new domain of warfare in the form of cyber.”

Works Cited

MARK HODGE. “ WWIII WARNING Third World War would be ‘extremely lethal and fast’ US Army chiefs reveal as they discuss taking out Russia or China.” The Sun. . (2016): . . http://bit.ly/2d5pOWb

Matthew Cox. “Army Chief Issues Stark Warning to Potential Enemies.” Military . . (2016): . . http://bit.ly/2dUPV3K

Jeffery Lewis. “The United States and Russia Are Prepping for Doomsday.” Foreign Policy. . (2016): . . http://atfp.co/2dEzd9D


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159757
10/11/2016 02:26 AM
10/11/2016 02:26 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Online content OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Online Content OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
HILLARY’S WARS (Pt. 1): Clinton Reset Button with Russia Goes Nuclear


The infamous Clinton reset button for US-Russian relations turned out this week to be the other proverbial red button used to launch nuclear missiles. Wikileaks documents that will be covered in this series of articles reveal a chain of wars that started due to Hillary Clinton’s diplomacy.

Hillary’s Wars exploded this week when Russian President Vladimir Putin terminated nuclear disarmament agreements that existed between Russia and the United States:



Tensions between the U.S. and Russia escalated Monday as the Obama administration suspended talks over Syria’s civil war hours after Moscow announced it was ending cooperation with the U.S. on a 16-year-old program for the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium to curb the production of more nuclear bombs.

The Obama administration stopped pursuing diplomacy with Russia amid renewed attacks by Russian and Syrian forces on the city of Aleppo. Frustrated administration officials acknowledged that Syrian President Bashar Assad is making territorial gains with Moscow’s help after the collapse of a cease-fire negotiated by Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. (The Washington Times)


Why Clinton reset button went nuclear



Putin stated that he is ending the Plutonium-elimination agreement because the United States has failed under Barrack Obama to hold up its end of the agreement.



Mr. Putin’s decree cited Washington’s “unfriendly actions” and the U.S. inability to fulfill its obligations under the 2000 deal as reasons for the move. Under the agreement, which was expanded in 2006 and 2010, Russia and the U.S. each were to dispose of 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium, enough material for about 17,000 nuclear warheads…. Russia said last year it had started up a plant that produces mixed-oxide commercial nuclear reactor fuel known as MOX from weapons-grade plutonium. Meanwhile, the construction of a similar U.S. plant in South Carolina has been years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. The Obama administration wants to cancel the Savannah River Site’s MOX project…. Defending Mr. Putin’s move, the Russian Foreign Ministry said the U.S. has “done all it could to destroy the atmosphere encouraging cooperation,” citing U.S. sanctions on Moscow over the Ukrainian crisis and deploying NATO forces near Russian borders.



Unfriendly actions by the Obama Administration, in the Russian view, include the coup in Ukraine, which Russia believes was US sponsored, sanctions against Russia over its annexation of Crimea (intended ostensibly to keep Crimea out of the hands of an illegitimate (coup) government), attacks made against Bashar Assad (whom Russia has long supported) aimed at regime change, not at stopping ISIS, and the long-term build-up of NATO artillery on Russia’s border, which accelerated after Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

The Russians explaining their withdrawal from the nuclear agreement, the Russians stated particularly that, in order to resume the treaty, the US will have to pull back its military installments near Russian borders to where they were before the Bush years and that it will have to get used to the idea that “it cannot bring sanctions against us and at the same time continue selective cooperation in areas it sees as advantageous.”



“Russia has been observing the agreement unilaterally for quite a long time, but now it no longer sees such a situation as possible amid the tensions,” Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.



Given the timing of the announcement and the statements about tensions, I think it’s clear Russia’s break from nuclear disarmament was triggered by the concurrent stalemate between the US and Russia over how the war in Syria should be handled, even though Russian statements show that it is the culmination of a great many earlier affronts.

The Obama administration also announced this week that it is talking about stepped-up military strikes in Syria as a “means of forcing Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to pay a cost for his violations of the cease-fire.”


Clinton Reset button was a bad joke from day one



Hillary’s crudely made toy reset button for relations with Russia was defective from the day she had it made. It said “reset” in English for Americans who would see photos of it and “peregruzka” for Russians. Undoubtedly, a lot of thought went into putting the Russian word first in order to make the Russian’s feel good, since the button was being presented to Russians, not to Americans. However, not much thought went into how the word was written. Hillary Clinton’s state department missed the little detail that Russians read in Cyrillic alphabet, not in Roman. As a result, Russians had to read their own language in the American way. Rather symbolic, I think, of the ham-fisted way in which America has approached Russia on many issues from George Bush onward. “We’ll work with you … our way.”

Russians also found the Clinton reset button amusing because the Russian word Hillary Clinton and her Department of State chose actually meant “overload.” Oops. A truer word for Clinton’s relations with Russia during her time as US secretary of state and Obama’s relations from that point forward could not have been chosen.

What Hillary apparently didn’t foresee when she presented her toy reset button back in March of 2009 was that she brought the wrong button to her meeting with Russia’s foreign minister. Without realizing it, she was holding out the opportunity for her Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, to put his finger on the nuclear button. Ironically, it said “reset” in English only because the policies of the Clinton state department and the subsequent Kerry state department would ultimately reset Russian-American relations back to Cold War status.


Hillary miscalculated Russian response in Syria



While the next article in this series will establish from Wikileaks archive of Hillary Clinton’s emails that the Clinton State Department always intended a war against Syria for the sake of regime change, I want to point out one part of that masterplan that shows how Hillary’s strategies clearly misfired.

The Department of State, under Hillary’s lead, put out a document recommending war against Syria, that assured President Obama — based on Hillary’s close experience with her Husband’s war in Kosovo — that Russia would never involve itself in a Syrian War if the Obama administration chose to take the State Department’s advice and pursue regime change:

Russia will never support such a mission [as regime change in Syria], so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council. Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example shows otherwise. In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which don’t exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain. (Wikileaks)



Oops! I guess Russia thought differently after years of feeling pushed around its borders by the US and realized that it needs to do more than complain if the US is going to take its objections seriously and not discount them as the State Department did above. Rather than just complain Russia leaped directly into the Syrian Civil War with its own bombers.

This week, it took another leap and ended cooperation on its nuclear treaty with the US, taking both nations deeper into Cold War status. Oops again in terms of Hillary’s calculations about how Russia would respond to US efforts to turn over the Assad regime.

As the next article will show (“Wikileaks Proves Syria about Iran and Israel“), the cost of getting a tenuous nuclear “deal” with Iran was the loss of an established nuclear treaty with Russia. I’ll leave it to you to decide if that’s a winning outcome; but it is clearly a case where Hillary’s state department miscalculated how much the US can keep pushing Russia around, which the next step in Russia’s warnings makes even more clear:


Hillary’s War in Syria becomes a proxy war with Russia



While a few have claimed US involvement in the Syrian war was really intended as a proxy war against Russia, I think the next article will show that the US simply miscalculated how involved Russia would get in Syria because they show the state department clearly had a different (but equally imperial) motive than engaging with Russia. In the statement above, they show they didn’t believe Russia would get involved at all.

That said, the proximity of war with Russia in Syria certainly intensified Friday. Russia has placed anti-aircraft artillery in and around areas where Assad’s forces are located, and then issued the following warning late last week:



An extraordinary warning tonight from Russia to the US against conducting military strikes in Syria. In a strongly worded statement, a spokesperson for the Russian defense minister said any [US] strikes against President Bashar Assad’s regime … could result in American aircraft being shot down. (ABC)



US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter responded Friday that Russia will face the consequences for its growing involvement in Syria. (See, they are surprised Russia has had the boxy to involve itself in a way that endangers US aircraft as a result of earlier advice from Hillary that said it wouldn’t. Thus, the Obama administration professes outrage that things have taken this seriously dangerous turn.)

The Pentagon this week has been presenting the Obama administration with options for potential strikes on Assad’s air force bases to punish the regime for its failure to abide by the recent ceasefire agreement. (And, as the next article shows, because overthrowing Assad was always Plan One as a measure of support for Israel.) State Department officials, however, have said that Obama is unlikely to approve the strikes, though the Joint Chiefs of Staff are in favor of them.

To this news of recommended air strikes directly against Assad, Major-General Igor Konashenkov, the Russian defense ministry spokesman, responded,



I would recommend our colleagues in Washington to thoroughly consider the possible consequences of the realization of such plans.



This is about as close as you get to a hot war with Russia without actually being in one. Russia is not just saber rattling. It is saying its missiles will be in the air, and Russia won’t have time to coordinate missile flight plans with the US. So, if the US happens to be in the air in the same place and same time, its planes could get shot down.

I think there is even more to this warning than concern that US planes may accidentally get caught in the fire:



Konashenkov, however, suggested Russia would target any unidentified aircraft attacking Syrian government targets and warned “American strategists” not to assume a covert intervention would go unanswered…. Konashenkov also warned that Russian troops were now widely deployed across Syria, implying any strikes could hit them, pulling the U.S. into conflict with Russia. Konashenkov referred again to a strike on Sept. 17, when U.S. military aircraft killed dozens of Syrian government troops accidentally. The Pentagon has said the strike was a mistake, but Konashenkov said Russia was prepared to prevent “any similar ‘mistakes’” against Russian troops.



In other words, all stealth aircraft (by nature “unidentified”) that attack Assad will be targeted and shot down, even though they most likely belong to the US if they are not planes Russia can identify as its own; and any US attacks against Assad that wind up endangering Russian troops will receive a direct Russian counter-attack.

Russian bombardment of the besieged city of Aleppo during the past week was described as the most intense in this war to date. At the same time, the fact that the talk of targeting by the US has been directed at Assad’s air bases says that clearly regime change is the only order of the day for the US. ISIS seems to have become a sideshow compared to US rage against Assad. (It was, in fact, a sideshow from the beginning of Clinton’s recommendations for a US war against Assad.)


Was the US also the destabilizing force in the Ukrainian coup d’etat?



Predictably, the US defended itself from accusations that it is at fault for the breakdown in relationships with Russia by trying to pit the blame on Putin:



State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau told reporters Monday. The U.S. “seeks a constructive dialogue with Russia on strategic issues, but it is Russia instead who continues to engage in destabilizing activities. (Bloomberg)



But is it really Russia that is initiating destabilizing activities? Part Two of this series shows that the US Department of State saw the Syrian Civil War as an opportunity to work covertly for regime change in order to help Israel and in belief that regime change in Syria will transform the Middle East into a more friendly place for the US.

Syria’s Civil War is not a war the US needed to be involved in for its own protection any more than the US needed to change regimes in Iraq in order to protect itself (another war Hillary Clinton fully supported). Syria has also become a hardened training ground for ISIS, just as Iraq became an incubator for ISIS.

Putin has maintained for years that the US is moving imperially to reshape the Middle East in a manner best suited to US interests. So, who is the destabilizing force, given that neither of these countries ever brought an attack agains the US or its NATO allies? Who is destabilizing things by trying to change the entire Middle Eastern map?

And US efforts at regime change (or, at least, backing of illegitimate regime changes) are not just happening in the Middle East. The Obama administration worked through the UN in 2014 to censor Russia with sanctions for involving itself in Ukrain’s civil war by annexing Crimea, even though there is good reason to believe the US sponsored the coup d’etat that started the civil war by throwing over Ukraine’s democratically elected government.

Putin’s suspicion of US support for the coup is warranted, given that the Obama administration’s full approval and support of the insurrectionist government that overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected government was almost instantaneous.

So much for supporting democracy … if it winds up electing a government that is much more aligned with Russia than with the US. How could the US assess and support an uprising that happened almost overnight if the Obama administration didn’t know a lot about the group behind the coup to begin with? In the very least, from Putin’s standpoint, the US is fully supporting a government that took over Ukraine by insurrection, directly in conflict with Russian interests.

Wether the US can be proved to have been directly funding the coup or not, it certainly supported an insurrection that moved against Russian interests in the region.

During that time, Hillary Clinton (no longer secretary of state) had to defend her reset button against criticism that Russia’s annexation of Crimea proved the reset had obviously failed. In defending the Clinton reset button, Hillary pointed out how Russia had subsequently agreed to sanctions against Iran and to allowing US planes to fly over Russia in order to supply NATO troops in Afghanistan.

True it had, but the beginning of a serious tear that happened over Ukraine does not have to mean that all attempts by Russia toward good relations were immediately terminated. These kinds of tears get worse and worse over time (like a deteriorating marriage) until they are complete. This past week, however, put the US and Russia much closer to complete breakdown of the relationship. The only way it can become any more complete is if we start actually intentionally shooting at each other.

In 2014, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said that a “reset of relations” between Russia and the US was impossible due to the United States’ “destructive” and “stupid” sanctions against Russia over its annexation of Crimea. Russia, of course, says that it annexed the predominantly Russian-speaking Crimea to keep it out of the hands of an illegitimate coup government.


Has Clinton’s reset button reset the US and Russia to Cold War status?

Duck-and-Cover drill photo by Creator:Walter Albertin [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons



That same year (2014), the man who ended the first cold war, Mikhail Gorbachev, warned that the United State’s conflict with Russia over Ukraine was likely to reset relations back to a cold war status. After that, some politicians and pundits argued that calling Russian-American relations a return to cold-war status was unwarranted because things had not deteriorated that far.

Gorbachev, however, was not saying relations had returned to a cold war status, but that Hillary Clinton’s reset strategies were marching everyone down that path.Now that Russia has stepped away from this nuclear disarmament treaty, a lot of weight has been added to the argument that we are moving back into a cold war position.

How much does the following article this week sound like the days of “duck and cover” during the Cold War?



Amid growing international tensions, particulary over Russia’s conduct in Syria, the Defence Ministry-run Zvezda TV network announced last week: “Schizophrenics from America are sharpening nuclear weapons for Moscow.” (The Independent)



That comment was prelude to other announcements this past week that Russia’s Ministry for Civil Defence, Emergencies and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters (EMERCOM) will be running a three-day emergency drill with 40 million civilians and 200,000 emergency responders to assure the nation is prepared for nuclear, chemical or biological attacks from the West.

Sounds like the Cold War “duck and cover” drills to me:





Russia also stated its plans this week to build underground nuclear shelters in Moscow sufficient to house the city’s entire population, and it has begun building a new generation of nuclear bombers and ICBM’s, missile launchers and nuclear-armed subs. The Kremlin is reportedly seeking nuclear fire power superior to that of the US.

That doesn’t sound like the Cold War?

In Syria, these tensions advanced this week very close to becoming a hot war — about as hot as the Cuban Missile Crisis. As soon as US Secretary of State John Kerry terminated diplomatic relations with Russia in the Syrian war this past week, the Syrian war began to look and sound all the more like the “very, very familiar proxy war cycle from the bad old days of the Cold War” (Vox) that some said it was.

The Clinton reset button looks more and more like the proverbial nuclear button that launched a purposeful chain of regime-change wars that is turning out to be more of chain reaction.


(Pt. 2): Wikileaks Proves Syria about Iran & Israel
Sebastian Zwez [CC BY 3.0 de (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/de/deed.en)], via Wikimedia Commons

Wikileaks’ exposure of Hillary Clinton’s emails reveals that US intrusion in the Syrian Civil War is really all about Iran and Israel and is part of a masterplan that started with Hillary’s advice to enter the Libyan Civil War. Hillary’s War is another expensive American adventure in nation building as the US inserts itself into another civil war, ostensibly to restrain ISIS (or “ISIL” as the Obama Admin. prefers); but Obama’s manner of fighting this war supports Wikileaks‘ revelation that US involvement is all about regime change.

Both the US and Russia want to defeat ISIS, but only the US wants to make sure Syria’s President Bashar Assad is overthrown. The United State’s ulterior motive of regime change is the reason it is ineffective against ISIS — because it wants ISIS to do its dirty work — and is the reason for the stalemate last week between Russia and the United States that resulted in a significant move back to cold-war status. I think everyone has generally observed that the US-Russian disagreement is not about how to fight ISIS but about regime change in Syria. What many might not know yet is how last week’s eruption with Russia goes back to Hillary Clinton during her time as Secretary of State.


Wikileaks archive of Clinton emails shows this is Hillary’s War with Syria



The Syrian Civil War began in 2011 — the middle of Hillary Clinton’s term as US Secretary of State. Unmarked NATO war planes began arriving in Turkey that same year, delivering weapons absconded from Libya where America participated in another war for regime change. The planes also transported volunteer Libyan soldiers. (In my view, a mission clearly outside of NATO’s charter, which was to form an alliance under which all members would fight to protect any individual member if it was attacked, not to transform the world. No one in Syria was attacking any NATO member.) By December of 2011, the CIA and US special ops also began providing communication support to Syrian forces seeking to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Having advised President Obama to enter the Libyan Civil War, Hillary Clinton assured the press at the start of the Syrian Civil War that the United States would not similarly involve itself in that conflict. However, some documents exposed recently by Wikileaks show that Hillary’s advice to the president to enter the US into Libya’s Civil War came with a clear and intentional connection to topple the Assad regime:

In one document labeled “CONFIDENTIAL,” Sidney Blumenthal, a former aide to President Bill Clinton and long-time confidante to Hillary Clinton, wrote the following to Hillary:



Assad’ s gestures at reform are delusional attempts to recreate the pattern of his own recent past when he gained a modicum of respect from the West. Likely the most important event that could alter the Syrian equation would be the fall of Qaddafi, providing an example of a successful rebellion. (Wikileaks)



Prior to the fall of Qaddafi, Clinton was being advised to overthrow Qaddafi in order to effect change in Syria. Blumenthal then quotes an article by David W. Lesch, whom he says is “the U.S. expert with the closest relationship with Bashar al- Assad”:



One game-changer [in Syria] could be the fall of Col. Moammar Gadhafi in Libya…. If Gadhafi falls within the next few months, there will be another model for regime change: that of limited but targeted military support from the West combined with an identifiable rebellion. Not that this can be easily applied in Syria. It hasn’t even been easily applied in Libya, and Syria would be a much harder nut to crack. Furthermore, the Syrian opposition is far from united or being able to establish a Benghazi-like refuge from which to launch a rebellion and to which aid can be sent. But if there is regime change in Libya … it would give the Syrian regime something to really think about…. The Syrian regime does not want, nor can it probably survive, long-term international pressure or isolation, but it is used to sanctions…. Success for the rebels in Libya might change that.



US involvement in Libya began at Hillary’s urging shortly after Hillary received this advice from her confidante Sidney Blumenthal. Note that the advice that the overthrow of Qaddafi needed to be connected with “an identifiable rebellion” in Syria means that it needs to be connected with civil war in Syria. US involvement in Libya was, of course, coordinated out of Benghazi, as the advice to Hillary suggested.

Once the fall of Qaddafi was a fait accompli, Hillary’s State Department advocated the overthrow of Bashar Assad as a critical component for calming Israel so that President Barrack Obama could accomplish his legacy nuclear pact with Iran without Israel blowing Iran up before the deal was sealed.

The next document obtained by Wikileaks in its acquisition of Clinton’s emails is not advice to Hillary but subsequent advice from Hillary’s state department to the White House:



Negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program will not solve Israel’s security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program…. Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s civil war may seem unconnected, but they are….. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security … through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests…. Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that “the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran….” Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran’s strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran’s nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack — if necessary over the objections of Washington. With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran’s program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria…. Only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s mind…. (Wikileaks)



(Note if you look it up that the Wikileaks document shows dates that refer to when the document was unclassified, not when written. The date of the State Department’s creation of this document can be determined by its content: “the talks between the world’s major powers and Iran that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May.” The switch from past tense to future tense dates the document sometime between April, 2012, which is when the talks began in Istanbul, and May, 2012, when they continued in Baghdad.)

That same document provides evidence the connection between Hillary’s War in Libya and the next war in Syria clearly became a part the Department of State’s strategy under Hillary: (Note how it states that Libya was an easier case, following the wording in the advice Hillary had been given by Blumenthal about overthrowing Qaddafi as a way to make regime change in Syria more accomplishable.)



The Obama administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria like the one conducted in Libya. Libya was an easier case…. Other than the laudable purpose of saving Libyan civilians from likely attacks by Qaddafi’s regime, the Libyan operation had no long-lasting consequences for the region. Syria is harder. But success in Syria would be a transformative event for the Middle East…. using territory in Turkey and possibly Jordan, U.S. diplomats and Pentagon officials can start strengthening the opposition. It will take time…. The second step is to develop international support for a coalition air operation. Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council. Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example shows otherwise. In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which don’t exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain.



According to this massively revealing document pillaged from Hillary Clinton’s email archives, Obama needed to bring down Assad’s regime in order to calm Israel into accepting the eventual nuclear agreement he was working out with Iran. So, US involvement in the Syrian Civil War is even less about Assad than it is about Iran and Israel — at least in the State Department’s strategizing.

Connect the dots: First, Hillary counseled the president to establish regime change in Libya, the easiest target for such change. Then, with that success weighing on Assad’s fears, the State Department advised seeking regime change in Syria, emphasizing to the president that overthrowing the Assad regime would be essential to his establishment of a nuclear agreement with Iran. The theory was that Assad’s newfound fears from the regime change in Libya coupled with US empowered opposition in his own country, would get him to step down. Underlying the whole plan for regime change in Syria is the motive of weakening Iran, calming Israel and transforming the entire Middle East.

So, Libya was the first hit in a planned one-two punch to Assad that would, in the scheming and collective mind of Hillary’s state department, transform the Middle East. Gaining the presidency right now would put Hillary in office just in time to be the one to see through and reap the benefit of being the president who transformed the Middle East. When it becomes a big success she can tell all about how it was her plan from the beginning and how she saw it through to the end during her presidency.


Where does ISIS/ISIL fit into Hillary’s Wars in Libya and Syria?



If you read the full document, you may be struck as I was by how there is no mention at all of concerns about ISIS/ISIL as a reason to engage in regime change in Syria. That leads me to believe concerns about ISIS were secondary at best in the State Departments advice for US engagement in Syria. Perhaps they were not much more than the necessary cover story for such engagement because many US citizens were already sick and tired of hearing about “regime change.” Regime change was supposed to be the stuff of George Bush, not the center ambition of Hillary’s reset.

The Wikileaks copy of the document from Hillary Clinton’s email archives closes with the clearly ambitious and optimistic goal of resetting all of the Middle East:



Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes. For Israel, the rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be eased. And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel…. America can and should help them.



Wow! How much does the State Departments advice sound like the optimistic statements of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld that the US would be greeted as liberators in Iraq once the war was over (other than the the more realistic allowance that success in Syria will take a good deal of time and not be accomplished in a hundred days)?

Whether or not Hillary’s War in Libya is scaring Bashar Assad or inspiring his opponents, it did also nicely provide arms for the follow-on war in Syria. The tidy thing about that arrangement is that it might not be seen as US armaments that were attacking Assad directly, especially if the area arrived with Libyan fighters.

Unfortunately, there were unintended negative consequences as so often happens with US-backed regime changes. The US Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2013 assessed that Turkey had effectively transformed the secret US arms program that was shipping through Turkey from supporting “moderate rebels” (whatever a “moderate rebel” is) into supporting all elements of the Syrian opposition, including al-Nusra and ISIS.

As a result (?), The United States began direct involvement in the Syrian Civil War in September, 2014, by sending jets and Tomahawk missiles under its own command (as opposed to NATO’s) to destroy ISIS targets. The need to actually take US planes in to fight ISIS in the Syrian Civil War became a great concern as soon as it appeared US support of Assad’s opposition actually empowered ISIS. Since the Obama administration had claimed that Bush’s War turned Iraq into an incubator for ISIS, it could hardly let Obama’s covert attempt at regime change in Syria wind up empowering ISIS with US arms via Turkey.

The State Department document recommended an air operation in Syria to overthrow Assad, but it turned out that the US also needed to terminate what was happening with ISIS. Fighting ISIS (without mentioning that we had supplied them with weapons) was a much easier sell than air strikes to create regime change.

Have no fear, though, Hillary already has it all figured out, as the State Department document assures, that a regime friendly toward the US will fill the vacuum in Syria, not one constructed from ISIS. We can only hope that prediction turns out better than Clinton’s prediction that Russia would never get directly involved in the Syrian conflict just because the US was supplying Assad’s opponents.


In conclusion



The State Department document above reveals that regime change in Syria was the primary objective in a masterplan that goes as far back as the Libyan Civil War … just as much as regime-change was the overt objective in Iraq.

The fact that things were not turning out so well in the Iraqi-ISIS incubator meant that the US had to make its efforts in Syria look more about ISIS than about regime change. Even George Bush needed support for his regime-change goal in Iraq, which he found in the notion that he war in Iraq was largely about fighting al Qaeda in Iraq and getting rid of enriched uranium and weapons of mass destruction, not just about liberating the people from a dictator. He could never have sold regime-change as his primary goal, though it was.

This explains why US efforts against ISIS have appeared ineffective. The US has an ulterior motive that is at odds with destroying ISIS. ISIS is useful to the US for the time being because ISIS wants to destroy Bashar Assad as badly as the US does, though with a completely different intended outcome, which is that ISIS rules the Middle East.

The US appears to be running a strategy that is willing to use ISIS where it can to be successful in deposing Assad, but clearly the US does not want to strengthen ISIS to where it becomes the eventual new regime. That final result would completely counter Hillary’s rosy goals of a transformed Middle East that becomes a region that is friendly to the US and safer for Israel.

It’s hard to justify a war directly against Assad, but if ISIS does it, it is completely easy later on to justify a war against ISIS. The US just has to make sure ISIS doesn’t get the upper hand against all of the rest of Assad’s opponents so that they wind up being the ones to fill the power vacuum when Assad is deposed.

That conflict of interests explains why Russia has repeatedly ridiculed the US for being unable to separate the “moderate rebels” it seeks to back (in their attack against Assad) from terrorist groups (like ISIS and al Qaeda) that are also attacking Assad. Operating with mixed motives makes Obama appear inept compared to Putin, whose two motives of protecting Assad and killing ISIS are not in conflict with each other.

While Hillary’s goals might seem (to some) to be worth the means she is taking to get there, these regime changes never turn out that rosy. As shown in the first article of this series, this strategy has already cost the US its nuclear disarmament agreement with Russia and has put the US on the edge of a hot war with Russia. Allowing ISIS to have as much victory against Assad as the US feels is safe in order to try to keep the United States’ hands clean of directly overthrowing Assad is a dangerous strategy. Empowering the enemy of our enemy to fight a war has usually backfired on the US. I find it hard to think of a situation where that strategy hasn’t gone bad for the US and everyone else or where nation-building has worked out well in the last fifty years.

The US would be a safer place and the world a better place if the US stopped trying to reform the world in its image — a grand globalist goal it scarcely can afford any longer.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159758
10/11/2016 04:04 AM
10/11/2016 04:04 AM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,705
Western States
Breacher Offline
Moderator
Breacher  Offline
Moderator
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,705
Western States
I don't have a link to the article, but the Russians were posting in their own news about their people being all over Syria and they frequently mix humanitarian and military assistance just like US forces got well known for in the 1980s and 1990s.

Lots of reserve type units going in and servicing internal refugee populations and carrying weapons for self protection, but the units tend to be vulnerable to long range strikes from outright combat type units. It's like a lot of the Balkans deployments in reverse. If one of those lightly armed aid distribution type units gets hit from the air, there is nothing they can do about it except call in to headquarters for a retaliatory strike and mass medivac. The problem is that "winning" means explaining the bodies and why beautiful young Katya who was in a photo op earlier in the day handing out bottled water to children is splattered all over the wreckage of a cargo truck that got hit by a laser guided US bomb and every swinging dick in her unit who wished he could have fucked her is out to lynch the SF types who they know damn well are in the area and guided the strike in.

The Russians start arresting these guys for war crimes, or say, some SF advisers who are not really in control of some rebel group they are advising and the rebels decide they are going to massacre the family of some former government officials who did it to their families earlier, it's not a question of who is elite, but who has the most powerful conventional force on the ground and pipeline to the UN and ICC.

A lot of scenarios in this thing could look really bad really quick and the only ones i envision kind of working all involve relatively conventional support for a sovereign Kurdish nation which ends up with some formerly Syrian territory.


Life liberty, and the pursuit of those who threaten them.

Trump: not the president America needs, but the president America deserves.
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159759
10/12/2016 01:43 AM
10/12/2016 01:43 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Online content OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Online Content OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
Nuclear War Is On The Horizon: “This Is Not Just Talk… Action Has Been Taken”

Jeremiah Johnson
October 10th, 2016
SHTFplan.com


As the U.S. elections draw nearer, the amount of bellicose rhetoric from politicians and key military commanders (in truth, “politicians” as well) has been increasing. The main focus of that rhetoric has been directed toward Russia, and is also “blathered” in the direction of China, North Korea, and Iran when it suits U.S. political interests. The problem is that all of it is not just talk: action has been taken, especially regarding Russia and the Syrian theatre of operations.

Within the past several weeks, the U.S. has bombed Syrian troops, killing 62 outside of Deor ez-Zor in airstrikes and then admitting to doing so “mistakenly.” The Russians responded by firing up a UN/coalition convoy almost immediately after. Russian naval artillery then took out a command post with approximately 30 “coalition” officers, some of them being Americans. The U.S. then made itself responsible (indirectly) for an attack on the Russian Embassy in Damascus, Syria: anti-Assad Islamic militants did the job, and these have support with funding and materials of the U.S.

These “cat-and-mouse” exchanges have not been new by any means, as evidenced by the aerial “Top-Gun” provocative fly-by’s that have been occurring all year long, in Syria as well as in Eastern Europe. The U.S. has retracted the cease fire agreement and suspended all operations and discussions with Russia pertaining to Syria. What is new is the level that the rhetoric has reached…rhetoric that is no longer rhetorical but actually constitutes direct threats against Russia.

On September 29, 2016 the Washington Post reported these words from U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter:

“Across the Atlantic, we’re refreshing NATO’s nuclear playbook – to better integrate conventional and nuclear deterrence, to ensure we plan and train like we’d fight, and to deter Russia from thinking it can benefit from a nuclear use in a conflict with NATO.”

The irony of that statement is evident. While the U.S. emplaces missile batteries in Germany, Romania, and Moldova, Russia has not responded by placing missiles in either Cuba or Venezuela, two countries she holds strong ties with both militarily and economically. Carter champions deterrence while simultaneously works to increase U.S. nuclear and conventional buildups in Eastern Europe. But it doesn’t stop there with his words. This was reported by George Ourfalian of AFP in an article entitled US Using Syrian Crisis to ‘Wage a Surrogate War’ Against Russia, on October 4, 2016:

“US State Department spokesman John Kirby has made strong statements regarding Russia’s involvement in Syria, claiming that if Russia will not cooperate with the US, Moscow will keep sending troops home in body bags.”

Strong words, and quite bellicose originating with a State Department spokesman completely removed from harm’s way. Then this came out today, the date of this writing on October 5th as reported by Alex Jones’ Prison Planet:

“I want to be clear to those who wish to do us harm…. the United States military – despite all of our challenges, despite our [operational] tempo, despite everything we have been doing – we will stop you and we will beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before. Make no mistake about that.”

General Mark Milley, U.S. Army Chief of Staff

Milley was directing these words toward Russia. He went on to describe the next coming war, as such:

“[The next war will] be highly lethal, unlike anything our Army has experienced at least since World War II,” and would involve fighting in “highly populated urban areas.”

Did the General mean overseas, or in the United States? The Russians are currently (until the 7th of October) conducting nuclear evacuation drills involving over 40 million people. Everyone from Putin and his general staff to local Moscow reporters believe that a nuclear war started by the United States is just on the horizon. Just this week, Putin shelved an agreement between Russia and the U.S. to reduce the amount of Plutonium that can be converted into nuclear warheads.

That agreement had been forthcoming since Obama initiated it in 2012, but Putin was straightforward in his reasoning behind cancelling things on Russia’s end from PrepBlog on 10/3/16 that because of U.S. belligerence, Russia needs:

“…urgent measures to defend the security of the Russian Federation.”

Putin and the Russian people believe the U.S.’s actions are going to lead to a nuclear conflict initiated by the United States. The leadership of the U.S. is made up of politicians who began their careers as Marxist-Socialists. Traitors now have their fingers on the triggers of the nuclear warheads, aided by “yes-men” of the general staffs who will not remember their oaths to the Constitution of the United States and the American people. They will ignore that these charges take precedence above any orders given by a petty, dope-smoking, Marxist community organizer of dubious citizenship who was “emplaced” into office to destroy the country.

Instead of statesmen and diplomats, we now have self-interested, politically-motivated belligerents backing Russia and other nations into corners and pushing them toward war. How long the war of words will be continued is unknown; however, when the missiles begin to fly you can be certain of something. You can rest assured that the men who spoke those words will be in bunkers and other safe places and out of harm’s way…paid for by the American taxpayer.


Jeremiah Johnson is the Nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces (Airborne). Mr. Johnson is also a Gunsmith, a Certified Master Herbalist, a Montana Master Food Preserver, and a graduate of the U.S. Army’s SERE school (Survival Evasion Resistance Escape). He lives in a cabin in the mountains of Western Montana with his wife and three cats. You can follow Jeremiah’s regular writings at SHTFplan.com or contact him here.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159760
10/12/2016 02:08 PM
10/12/2016 02:08 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Online content OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Online Content OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
Emergency Post - Russians bringing families home to Motherland NOW
Oct 11, 2016

This is a huge blip. This is serious. War is not only possible - I think it is LIKELY. Get ready. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10...


Russia...Nuclear Preparation Now???

Watch both videos and plan accordingly.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159761
10/12/2016 03:06 PM
10/12/2016 03:06 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,823
Trapped in Rhode Island
L
Lord Vader Offline
Member
Lord Vader  Offline
Member
L
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,823
Trapped in Rhode Island
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10...
All I got was Page Not Found.


VINCE AUT MORIRE (Conquer or Die)
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159762
10/12/2016 03:38 PM
10/12/2016 03:38 PM
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 199
N.E. Wa.
Kelldor42 Offline
Senior Member
Kelldor42  Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 199
N.E. Wa.
I deleted my reply to Mexneck's post in Situation Reports, because it doesn't really meet the guidelines for that forum. Requesting honest opinions about what you think of Southfront insofar as gathering information on Russia and the Syrian Civil War.

Southfront youtube channel appears to be a good source for info on the Russia/Syria deal. I think southfront.org is out of Crimea, but has contributors from multiple countries. Their reporting is pro-Russia, but is also very detailed as far as troop numbers, movements, equipment, detailed maps, and specific information on the myriad of groups involved in the conflict. I see some stuff about Ukraine once in a while as well. India/Pakistan has been covered too. They seem to specialize in military intelligence or something because the detail is like nothing I have ever seen before. Certainly we don't get this kind of reporting in our media. They aren't pro-America, but objectively to me seem to be a good source of info. What do you folks think? Thx.

Syrian War Report – October 10, 2016: 35,500 Terrorists Killed in 6 Month
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yllLQfu_Byw

Syrian War Report – October 7, 2016: Russia to Take Down Airplane or Missile Targeting Syrian Army
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yRYjeHwvgA

Syrian War Report – September 19, 2016: ISIS Obtains Air Force
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m-mfZq4B0c


https://mtc.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/BA...sionId=4t5.0tXamTaMhBZwfXljf3ZmZOMXKupj "Honestly, um, there are things more important than your life, and freedom is one of them."
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159763
10/13/2016 02:40 AM
10/13/2016 02:40 AM
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 381
San Antonio, TX
Mexneck Offline
Senior Member
Mexneck  Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 381
San Antonio, TX
"I deleted my reply to Mexneck's post in Situation Reports, because it doesn't really meet the guidelines for that forum."

For those that didn't see it. Here's what I posted.
I presume that many people here have never been to Russia or speak Russian. I've included a link to the material as a means of showing this is a legitimate situation and that many Russians have started preparing for nuclear war.
Putin has, according to this report, sent an ultimatum to the present administration of the US detailing that they will no longer be responsible for the safety of any nations aircraft in Syria. In addition they will consider any further killing of Syrian forces as an act of war. They have further stated that they are suspending all nuclear weapon inspections and treaties with the US. The reporter states that since Russia is being blamed for all evils of the world anyway that Russia will accept full responsibility for a pre-emptive nuclear strike. To give weight to the content the Russian embassy has now issued travel advisories for all Russian citizens living abroad to be on the lookout and prepare for terrorist attacks. And the link in case you speak Russian or have access to a translator, https://youtu.be/62mWDoUrM8o

Right now there is information spreading that the Russians have called home all Russian citizens. If that is true than it may be true for government officials. So far there has been no call through the Russian embassy or official government channels for ordinary Russian citizens too return home. Russians generally send in an evacuation team for all Russian citizens. If you recall the recent evacuation of Yemen, it was the Russians that also evacuated citizens of US,EU countries.


Well, this is it.
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159764
10/13/2016 02:44 AM
10/13/2016 02:44 AM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,401
In the Mountains
N
North Force Offline
Senior Member
North Force  Offline
Senior Member
N
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,401
In the Mountains
Seems like good reporting - nothing we would ever see from our All-High Controlled Gov Media.

But i think we also get a view of what it will look like here - Misc groups with the 5 Star General wannabe's infighting for power and control.


"To achieve One World Government it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, their loyalty to family traditions and national identification."
~ Brock Chisholm, when director of UN World Health Organization
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159765
10/13/2016 04:23 AM
10/13/2016 04:23 AM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,705
Western States
Breacher Offline
Moderator
Breacher  Offline
Moderator
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,705
Western States
It's not just Obama, but a whole bunch of these new breed of what were the mod squad population leaders throughout the system with this whole big attitude that if they clawed their way up from the ghettos and glass ceiling society of 1970s and 1980s American society to rule the county and what's left of the "American Empire", they can just out play anybody.

I have seen it before, that big dick thinking black man overconfidence. Think they got everybody figured out and can shove anybody to the wall. Thing is, the Russians, you can only push them so far and the Obama administration is just not getting it, and the pushy Clinton Broad isn't getting it either.


Life liberty, and the pursuit of those who threaten them.

Trump: not the president America needs, but the president America deserves.
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159766
10/13/2016 05:25 AM
10/13/2016 05:25 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Online content OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Online Content OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
Napoleon rolled across Europe like a steam roller and thought Russia would be a pushover.

Hitler thought the same thing.

Both led the mightiest armies on earth.

Both learned the hard way what happens when you poke the bear.

NATO chooses to ignore history at their own peril.

Modern academics, globalists and generals are willfully historically illiterate. These arrogant, self righteous, self appointed "leaders" believe they will create a new order out of chaos. When in fact they are leading the world to destruction.

Quote
One of my contacts who serves on a General Staff mentioned that the recent news reports about contingency plans for a war with Russia have actually under-reported the intensity of the planning effort. There is now a quite frequent shuttling of general officers around the world, to attend logistical planning meetings. My source mentioned that high level staff meetings have been going on since the Ukraine crisis began in late 2013, but they have recently intensified.

If you are not yet concerned about the possible advent of World War III, then you should be. The recent policy shift toward the U.S. providing lethal aid to the Ukrainian Army (approved by Congress in late 2015, but delayed by the BHO administration and likely start in earnest, after the November election) will surely be seen as provocative by the Russians. And of course with so many proxy armies now in play, events could very easily spin out of control in Syria. Stock up, folks. And if you still live in a target area (read: in or downwind of a major population center or a military target), then it is high time to relocate. John Lithgow (as Dr. Emilio Lizardo) said it best: “The clock, she is a-ticking!” – JWR


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159767
10/13/2016 06:58 AM
10/13/2016 06:58 AM
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 199
N.E. Wa.
Kelldor42 Offline
Senior Member
Kelldor42  Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 199
N.E. Wa.
A few weeks ago I talked with a former co-worker who is ex-Army. The Army called him and asked him to come back. They offered him a job in intelligence and his first assignment will be to report to somewhere in Texas to start learning Russian.

Around the same time period I saw something pretty cool - What looked like an MRAP, painted all white, but instead of UN markings, it had the old school Blue Triangle, White circle, red letters "CD" logo, and on it was written CIVIL DEFENSE. It was on a flatbed, southbound I-5 in Marysville heading towards Everett, Wa. I was going the opposite way, couldn't get a picture.

@ Mexneck: Thanks man! I think that's why no one was replying - getting better traction here.

@ North Force: Thanks for the reply. One of the things I like is that they are stating just the facts in an even keel tone of voice, without any emotionalism.

South Front came out with a new one. Apparently a deal has been struck where US and Saudi Arabia are going to escort 9000 terrorists out of Mosul Iraq into Syria... (/palmface) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge_s8igIp6o

Here's A little poetry to brighten your day. I hope this puts a smile on your face, cause we all need a laugh once in a while, especially when we are minutes to midnight. Here goes:

Up is down.
Another Creepy Clown.
Black is white.
Left is Right.
And which bathroom should I have used?
I'm getting so confused.
What a bizarro world we are living in.
(Dripping with sarcasm) "I'm voting Hillary cause Trump hates women."
I reply, "What does it matter if we end up in nuclear war?"
With a vacuous stare, she doesn't get it, and is still voting for the globalist whore.


https://mtc.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/BA...sionId=4t5.0tXamTaMhBZwfXljf3ZmZOMXKupj "Honestly, um, there are things more important than your life, and freedom is one of them."
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159768
10/13/2016 07:55 AM
10/13/2016 07:55 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,823
Trapped in Rhode Island
L
Lord Vader Offline
Member
Lord Vader  Offline
Member
L
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,823
Trapped in Rhode Island
Right now one of the few thing and the way I feel the only thing that may prevent this from happening is if Trump gets elected, and at this time the probability of Trump becoming President is not looking all that great.

Unless one or multiple large terrorist attacks occur close to election day, then Trump winning is almost a sure thing.


VINCE AUT MORIRE (Conquer or Die)
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159769
10/13/2016 08:34 AM
10/13/2016 08:34 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 22,911
Tulsa
airforce Online content
Administrator
airforce  Online Content
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 22,911
Tulsa
I wonder how much of Putin's actions are meant for domestic consumption. Even brutal dictators need the support of the people, and if he can paint the U.S. as the enemy it would only help him in whatever Middle East plans he has.

Hillary seems to be unintentionally helping him in this endeavor. Her proposal of imposing a no-fly zone over Syria is patently ridiculous, but it only plays into his hands.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Re: Minutes to midnight: #159770
10/13/2016 04:18 PM
10/13/2016 04:18 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,626
East of the Pacific
fal3 Offline
Senior Member
fal3  Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,626
East of the Pacific
With the fear of sounding unpatriotic or even anti-American can I make a couple observations ?

1. The Russian people as a whole have shown more Biblical morality in recent times than NYC, LA, Detroit, Chicago, or NOLA citizens.

2. Russian politicians at least are always putting Russia first, not globalism.

3. The gun control laws in Russia are almost identical to those in Cali. (Yes, I checked the laws and comments of Russian citizens verifying them).

Now, there are other observations, but consider a scenario where Hillary wins the presidency (shudder !). Her globalist vision will certainly erode whatever God-given liberties we have left. Our laws will be more restrictive and tyrannical than Russia's.

Under Obama, the US has exhausted and tied the hands of its soldiers. It has frustrated or removed the most wise and responsible generals and admirals. It has toppled the governments of friends in the name of "democracy." It has created instability in the world, and uncertainty about what the US vision really is. No one can count on us, so why would they bother to come to our aid ? How many would would lay down their lives for Commander-in-Chief Hillary ? What would be the purpose ? Defending our freedoms ? What freedoms would be left ? Once she appoints her social-engineering SCOTUS judges, there will be none.

Despite the bravery of our men and women in the military, I do not believe we could win a world war. We have to go to a scrap yard to get parts for our planes now. Most weapons systems depend upon China or other countries to produce replacement parts. New weaponry is put into the field to test as an afterthought. Is Hillary going to make this better ?

When it comes down to it, is it possible that we would do better under another nation's rule than to be under Hillary's vision of a country without borders.

I still hold out the hope that enough Godly men and women can take a stand that results in at least SOME regions of this continent being secured for our God-given rights. But, if we fail, I suspect that the choice after November may be between Hillary or Putin.

So, which one would be worse ? If you know anything about Hillary's long standing goals and stated promises, you know that Hillary will bring a death-blow against our remaining freedoms in this country.

Just some questions that have been thrown to me. What do you think ?


----------------------------------
"Take heed: watch and pray, for ye know not when the time is." -- Mark 13:33.
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159771
10/14/2016 03:01 AM
10/14/2016 03:01 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Online content OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Online Content OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
Points 1, 2 and 3 - all true.

obummer and hillary have spent the past 8 years systematically destroying this country. If hillary wins the election, she will finish it off.

After 15 years of conflict our military is in no shape to fight a world war. ...For all the reasons Fal points out.

If it came down to a choice between hillary or Putin; I'd pick the Russian.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159772
10/14/2016 01:13 PM
10/14/2016 01:13 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,031
Tennessee
Hawk45 Offline
Moderator Officer Contributor
Hawk45  Offline
Moderator Officer Contributor
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,031
Tennessee
Doc, that Green Beret Major that I know that has that other site is telling those close to him to bunker in, NOW.

Right now all I am able to do is spit blood and do the Tylenol sleep thing.

If things go south, send folks for extra supplies if you need to. Just make sure I know they are coming.

Re: Minutes to midnight: #159773
10/14/2016 01:55 PM
10/14/2016 01:55 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Online content OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Online Content OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
Hawk,

Yes, Woden is very concerned. As am I. Reminds me of 1962; only worse this time.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159774
10/15/2016 10:00 AM
10/15/2016 10:00 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Online content OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Online Content OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
US Army Fears Major War Within Five Years

By Samuel Culper,

What’s focusing the minds of U.S. Army
leaders right now is the fear that they will be in a major war within five years. They know they’ll be fighting terrorists and insurgents for the foreseeable future, but what really preoccupies them is the likely return of large-scale conventional conflict — maybe with Russia in Eastern Europe, or Iran in the Middle East, or North Korea in Northeast Asia. Maybe in all three places.

Senior Army officials are circumspect about discussing the danger in open forums — they don’t want to advertise U.S. vulnerabilities — but it seems clear that the Obama administration’s “pivot to the Pacific” announced in 2012 has created a geopolitical vacuum stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Persian Gulf that Russia and Iran are trying
to fill.

What worries Army planners is that their service isn’t adequately prepared for any of these scenarios — much less a situation in which more than one unfolded simultaneously.

Source:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenth...ve-years-but-lacks-the-money-to-prepare/


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159775
10/18/2016 08:57 AM
10/18/2016 08:57 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Online content OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Online Content OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
Navy Officer Tells Alaskans: Prepare For War
Anonymous official suggests Russia preparing invasion in response to US strikes


Clifford Cunningham - October 18, 2016


An unnamed former Navy official has warned the residents of Alaska to prepare for an invasion in the event of war between the U.S. and Russia.

The Daily Star has reported that a former high-ranking Naval official has evidence to suggest Russia is preparing to invade Alaska if war breaks out between the United States and Russia.

“We are the verge of being invaded from Alaska all the way down into Canada and eventually the Northwest,” he said.

The invasion, according to the Naval official, will begin via submarine incursion near the city of Wasilla, approximately 43 miles northeast of Anchorage.

Wasilla is located along the coast of the Knik Arm, a body of water that branches into the Cook Inlet, which flows west into the Gulf of Alaska.

“Our feeling in the Navy was that Obama had turned Alaska into a defenseless area that will serve as a forward base of operations when World War III begins,” the unnamed official suggested.

Russians disguised as “highway road crews” are allegedly already in Alaska preparing to serve in an asymmetrical role during a full-scale invasion. The crews are set to “disrupt communications and seize vital bridges” when war begins.

Another anonymous source claimed Russians in “civilian clothing” have been seen moving into abandoned motels and military bases.

To describe the Alaskan coast around Wasilla as “undefended” is not entirely accurate, however; Joint Base Elmendorf–Richardson, site of Alaska Command, NORAD Alaska, the 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division and the 11th Air Force, is located in Anchorage.

Clear Air Force Station, which houses a radar station designed to detect ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and Eareckson Air Station, which houses the Cobra-Dane radar system, are also located in Alaska.

As tensions with the United States continue to rise over competing interests in Syria and threatening language from American military officials, Russia has begun taking steps to build up its military capabilities in the sparsely populated Far East region of the country to counter American military forces in Alaska.

Russia recently announced plans to position a new coastal defense military division along its eastern coast by 2018, with some troops expected to be stationed approximately 50 miles from Alaska.

Deployment of the Iskander M, a mobile missile system capable of targeting aircraft and launching nuclear-armed missiles at targets up to 300 miles away, would drastically limit America’s ability to deploy F-22 Raptors from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in response to long range patrols by nuclear capable Tu-160 Blackjack and Tu-95 Bear bombers recently ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin.


MORE:
Why Is Barack Obama Threatening Russia With World War III Right Before The Election? http://themostimportantnews.com/arc...-world-war-iii-right-before-the-election

Wars and Rumors of Wars Abound http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/wars-rumors-wars-abound/

US and Russia could 'start Third World War over Syria conflict', says Turkey 'If this proxy war continues, let me be clear, America and Russia will come to a point of war' http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-minister-numan-kurtulmus-a7366571.h tml


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159776
10/18/2016 07:09 PM
10/18/2016 07:09 PM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,705
Western States
Breacher Offline
Moderator
Breacher  Offline
Moderator
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,705
Western States
There have been persistent rumors for decades over Soviet special operations running training and recon missions in Alaska for decades. Heck for that matter, around 2003ish, I met one of the group leaders who was doing it. He spoke good enough English that he figured he would check out the rest of the US and Canadian western states when his term of service ended. He funded his little trip with the clever importing of (then) current issue Russian "replica" guns through Canada. AK 100 series rifles with the side folding. Stocks and different sighting and optic setup, solid non-bored barrels and buggered bolt and gas systems, but good recievers and trunions. He had managed to get a bunch stuff imported through Canada.

As it was, at the time, I passed on his $1600 non functioning AKs. I finally offered $1200 for one just to keep him hanging around and hear his stories. Thought I would impress him with my 5.45 krink, but he said those were not used nearly as much by their SF and were seen as a truck drivers weapon.

So basically, Alaska and parts of Canada have been a Russioan spec ops playground for so long they even contract hunting guides and R&R excursions, but it's always barter of some sort, they rarely have cash and the officers pay equivalents look like US NCO pay. The captain made around $2500 a month and with some side hustling, could do $5k with the right connections.

As for who is or is not friends, might want to brush up on your John Titor theory, it was likely a bullshit story one its own, or one of those alternate reality timeline things, but the theory, that's not entirely bullshit. A lot of Alaskans could weigh the issues of a Hillary run government vs Putin and start thinking that open trade with Siberia might benefit them.


Life liberty, and the pursuit of those who threaten them.

Trump: not the president America needs, but the president America deserves.
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159777
10/19/2016 04:25 AM
10/19/2016 04:25 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Online content OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Online Content OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
Iran Launches War Drills Amid Accusations U.S. Breaking Nuke Deal

BY: Adam Kredo Follow @Kredo0
October 18, 2016

Iran on Monday launched a series of war drills that included the use of American-made planes amid accusations by top officials that the United States is violating last summer’s comprehensive nuclear agreement, according to regional experts and Persian-language media reports.

Iran’s Artesh Air Force kicked off a three-day series of drills aimed at displaying the Islamic Republic’s air might, according to Iranian military officials who told the country’s state-run press that the drills are in preparations for upcoming war.

“The goal of holding this drill is the creation of readiness so as to be able to combat any threat, and should a war occur, the Air Force will be the first force to enter the battlefield,” Iranian Air Force Gen. Masoud Rouzkhosh was quoted as saying, according to independent translations of the original Farsi provided to the Washington Free Beacon. “The newest armaments of the Air Force like precision-guided bombs and laser-guided missiles will be used in this year’s drill.”

Iran is using many American-made jets in the drills, including F-4 and F-5 warplanes, as well as large Boeing airliners, which are aiding in mid-air refueling tactics, experts told the Free Beacon. Iran also is using Russian-made warplanes.

The three-day air drills, now entering their second day, come as senior Iranian officials repeatedly accuse the United States of violating its side of the nuclear agreement.

Iranian officials maintain that they will continue to fund global terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, which are committed to Israel’s destruction, despite objections from the United States.

“When they ask the foreign minister of America why do you violate your commitments under the JCPOA, they say we have acted on our commitments and even gone further than they require. However, Iranians must do certain things, such as ceasing their support for terrorists and halting their missile activities,” Ayatollah Sadeq Larijani, the head of Iran’s Judiciary, was quoted as saying in Farsi-language reports on Monday.

“However, what they mean by terrorists are resistance groups like Hezbollah of Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine, which have stood against the violations and crimes of the Zionist regime,” Larijani said.

Iranian officials have reportedly pressed their counterparts in the United States to explain why America is not, as they claim, upholding its end of the nuclear deal.

Iran’s outrage over the issue comes just months after the Obama administration made a secret cash payment to Iran of $1.7 billion as part of what lawmakers described as a ransom payment to free American hostages.

The Obama administration also has moved forward with new sanctions relief that is expected to provide Iran with even more financial resources, a large portion of which are suspected by Congress of being allocated to the country’s military and terrorist organizations.

Top Iranian military commanders say the armed forces remain committed to removing the American presence from the region.

“The bloody wars of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, the continued occupation of Zionists in Palestine, the war of the Ba’ath regime of Saddam against the Islamic Republic of Iran, the conflicts in Lebanon, Bahrain, and other events and incidents where each one [has featured] thousands of dead and maimed and brought about endless destruction, are only part of the behavior of the satanic governing body of America in the region,” Brig. Gen. Massoud Jazayeri, deputy commander of Iran’s Armed Forces General Staff, was quoted as saying on Monday, when the war drills commenced.

“The presence of America in the region is a cancerous malign tumor that can only be treated by removing the filthy tumor and the ejection of America from the region,” Jazayeri added. “In Iran, nobody will permit America to tie its failure to live up to its commitments to defense issues and the interests of the resistance”

Regional experts told the Free Beacon that Iran’s rhetoric is part of an effort to squeeze more concessions from the Obama administration as it seeks to preserve the deal in the final months of its term.

“These comments are part of a calculated gamble to gain additional sanctions relief without any meaningful changes in Iranian behavior,” Behnam Ben Taleblu, senior Iran analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told the Free Beacon. “By constantly referring to perceived failures in American compliance with the accord, Iran is able to threaten the durability of the deal, thereby demonstrating it has exit options.”

“For months now, Iranian officials have provided a steady stream of criticism against the West for allegedly failing to live up to its own promises pursuant to the accord that would grant Tehran meaningful sanctions relief,” Taleblu said.

Iran’s efforts have appeared to pay off, as the administration has moved forward with several new plans to boost Iran’s access to the global financial system.

“Just recently, Secretary Kerry attested to the U.S. going above and beyond the terms of the accord,” Taleblu explained. “This was noted by officials in Tehran like Ayatollah Larijani as not being enough. This is a tried and true tactic by Tehran. During the negotiations with the P5+1 that led to the JCPOA, Iran was able to force concessions by upping the ante. This was most notably seen with the centrifuge cap. Now, in the deal implementation era, Iran is upping the ante in an attempt to garner additional relief.”


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159778
10/19/2016 11:16 AM
10/19/2016 11:16 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Online content OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Online Content OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
U.S. Wants to Deploy Marines 60 Miles From Russia

Classified Norwegian cave system hosts combat equipment for 15,000 Marines

Clifford Cunningham - October 19, 2016

The United States wants to deploy Marines at a base in Norway only 60 miles from Russia.

If the proposal is approved by the Norwegian government, a rotating force of 300 Marines would be deployed at Vaernes, an air station located outside the city of Trondheim near the Russian border.

The request was confirmed in a statement from the commanding officer of Marine Forces in Europe.

“We enjoy a very close relationship with the Norwegian Armed Forces and a limited rotational presence in Norway would certainly enhance this relationship and our ability to operate together,” Major General Niel E. Nelson, commander of US Marine Corps Forces Europe and Africa, said in a statement. “If approved by the Norwegian government, a Marine Corps presence in Norway will increase NATO’s ability to rapidly aggregate and employ forces in northern Europe.”

A spokesman for the Norwegian Defense Ministry, Lars Gjemble, said “the Unites States is a long-term and close ally to Norway.”

“US participation in military exercises and training in Norway is one element in this long-standing and close security policy relationship,” he added. “Considerations about how to tailor allied exercise activity in Norway is a continuous effort.”

“A limited rotational US Marine Corps presence in Norway is a possible option currently being considered. Even though dialogue has been ongoing at the military level, the process at the political level is still ongoing…”

Norway, a member of NATO, already hosts a significant amount of pre-positioned military equipment in climate-controlled caves across the country in preparation for possible war with Russia.

Maintained by a crew of 100 Americans and Norwegians, the complex houses enough combat equipment to support 15,000 Marines.

The cave complex was used during the last decade of the Cold War, but the United States questioned whether or not to continue maintaining the complex following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Norwegian government ultimately decided to pick up the costs of maintenance.

“Any gear that is forward-deployed both reduces cost and speeds up our ability to support operations in crisis, so we’re able to fall in on gear that is ready-to-go and respond to whatever that crisis may be,” said Colonel William Bentley, operations officer for the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade.

The deployment of NATO forces to Norway is clearly a provocative act directed at Russia. Norway shares a 121 mile border with Russia, while the Russian Northern Fleet is based in the Murmansk Oblast, approximately 100 miles from the border.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159779
10/21/2016 02:58 PM
10/21/2016 02:58 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Online content OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Online Content OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
Top British General Warns of Nuclear War With Russia; “The End of Life as We Know It”

Claims Moscow plans to march into Baltic states

Paul Joseph Watson - October 21, 2016

Senior British army officer and former deputy supreme allied commander Europe Gen. Sir Richard Shirreff warns that NATO faces “nuclear war with Russia in Europe,” and that America is already technically at war with Russia.

In a hawkish article for CNN, Shirreff asserts that the west faces the biggest threat from Russia since the Cold War and that Vladmir Putin plans to “re-establish Russia’s status as one of the world’s great powers” by marching into the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

Comparing the west’s policy towards Putin to the appeasement of Hitler, Shirreff claims that Moscow, “may have already lit the fuse that could lead to the unthinkable: nuclear war with Russia in Europe.”

Under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, an attack on one NATO member country represents an attack on all member countries, meaning the United States would be at war with Russia if Russian troops set foot in Baltic countries.

“A Russian attack on the Baltic states puts America at war with Russia — meaning nuclear war, because Russia integrates nuclear weapons into every aspect of its military doctrine,” writes Shirreff.

He also states that “Russia is at war with America already,” recycling the claim, which remains unproven, that Russia is behind the email hacks that led to Wikileaks’ publicizing of Clinton campaign emails.

“And don’t think Russia would limit itself to the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. Any form of nuclear release by the Russians would almost certainly precipitate nuclear retaliation by the United States, and the dreadful reality of mutually assured destruction and the end of life as we know it would follow,” adds Shirreff.

Shirreff’s article is timely given that a fleet of Russian warships passed through the English Channel earlier today, closely monitored by the Royal Navy.

As we reported earlier this week, Kremlin insider Sergei Markov warned that war between the United States and Russia could break out “even before the November elections in the U.S.,” urging citizens to stockpile food.

State-owned television stations are urging citizens to find out where their nearest nuclear bomb shelter is located, while 40 million Russians from all levels of the military and government took part in a massive emergency evacuation drill earlier this month.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159780
10/23/2016 07:41 AM
10/23/2016 07:41 AM
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 865
West
Archangel1 Offline
Senior Member
Archangel1  Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 865
West
Why does this seem to be saber rattling before the election? I have to admit that if Russia attacks the Baltic states again, there should be retaliation.


"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always Bad Men." Lord Actin 1887

I fear we live in evil times...
Re: Minutes to midnight: #159781
10/23/2016 07:45 AM
10/23/2016 07:45 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 22,911
Tulsa
airforce Online content
Administrator
airforce  Online Content
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 22,911
Tulsa
Quote
Originally posted by Archangel1:
Why does this seem to be saber rattling before the election? I have to admit that if Russia attacks the Baltic states again, there should be retaliation.
I think much of it is related to Putin's own political situation. One way to unite his people is to create the illusion of threats from the U.S. and NATO. And Hillary is playing right into his hands.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Re: Minutes to midnight: #159782
10/23/2016 08:11 AM
10/23/2016 08:11 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Online content OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Online Content OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
I don't know that it's an illusion.

We backed the Ukrainian coup which is in his backyard.

We placed missile batteries and troops near his borders.

We're backing terrorist organizations in an attempt to overthrow a legitimate sovereign.

We are bombing a sovereign nation that has not attacked us, which is an ally of Russia.

NATO and US military leaders are threatening to engage in first strike - bragging about how bad they will kick their Russian enemies ass.

They are accusing him of engaging in cyber-warfare without offering any proof.

Nah, I'd be pissed off too.

At least he's preparing his people in case geopolitical tensions escalate out of control.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861

.
©>
©All information posted on this site is the private property of the individual author and AWRM.net and may not be reproduced without permission. © 2001-2020 AWRM.net All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.1.1