Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Cold War II

    Palestinian
    Palestinian

    Posts : 28
    Points : 55
    Join date : 2012-08-06

    Cold War II Empty Cold War II

    Post  Palestinian Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:27 am

    Russia has accused the United States of engaging in cold war tactics and threatened tit-for-tat retaliation after the US Senate passed a bill banning Russian officials accused of human rights abuses from travelling to the country.

    The US Senate on Thursday passed the Magnitsky Act, named after a Russian lawyer for London-based investor William Browder, who died in prison, as part of a bill that lifts Soviet-era trade restrictions on Russia. The bill, which must be signed by President Barack Obama before coming into force, includes a visa ban and asset freeze on those officials involved in Magnitsky's death.

    Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said after meeting Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, in Dublin late on Thursday that Russia would retaliate. "We will also close entry to Americans who are guilty of human rights violations," he said.

    Many Russians laughed off the threat, noting that the Russian propensity to keep assets and property in the US is not reciprocated. "And now they'll shut down entry to Russia for some American officials who are involved, let's say, in the death of Afghan kids. What are they going to do, cry?" Margarita Simonyan, the Kremlin-friendly head of Russia Today, the state-run international news channel, wrote on Twitter.

    The Kremlin marshalled the Young Guard, the youth wing of the ruling United Russia party, to protest. The group held a protest in front of the US embassy in Moscow on Friday with the sign:''The US is a police state.""The US positions itself as a country of freedom. And yet, the American leadership is itself infringing upon the freedom of citizens of another country," Maxim Rudnev, a member of the Young Guard, said in a statement. "It's worth asking: is the United States deserving of hosting the Statue of Liberty?"
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/07/russia-us-cold-war-tactics
    SOC
    SOC

    Posts : 576
    Points : 623
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 43
    Location : Indianapolis

    Cold War II Empty Re: Cold War II

    Post  SOC Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:54 am

    Somebody here actually had an intelligent comment: if Congress thinks this is a good idea, why aren't they applying it to ALL nations?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28568
    Points : 29098
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Cold War II Empty Re: Cold War II

    Post  GarryB Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:22 am

    What part of the US government is not responsible for guantanimo and of course rendition etc etc.

    This is clearly a direct shot at Russia... or very few Chinese officials would be able to travel to the US.
    chenzhao
    chenzhao

    Posts : 18
    Points : 22
    Join date : 2012-12-20
    Location : Shanghai

    Cold War II Empty Re: Cold War II

    Post  chenzhao Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:26 am

    Similar event happened to China before, in 19-89, similar laws was passed to forbidden Chinese officials who invloved Tian~an~men square incident to visit USA. Very obviously, USA is supporting a so called "color-revolution" in Russia.
    avatar
    russianumber1

    Posts : 31
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2013-12-18

    Cold War II Empty Re: Cold War II

    Post  russianumber1 Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:42 pm

    in the area of ​​Arctic Russia is at odds with other countries like canada and can be real war still has a U.S. plan that I can not remember the name sa bases to cause a disabling attack using conventional ICBMs with conventional warheads barren and hypersonic missiles I found an article of onten the voice of russia'll see if I can find that is good again seems possible a new cold war with the substance
    avatar
    russianumber1

    Posts : 31
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2013-12-18

    Cold War II Empty Re: Cold War II

    Post  russianumber1 Sat Dec 21, 2013 3:05 pm

    The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia expects the Eurasian Economic Union to be formed in early 2015, said Deputy Foreign Minister Grigori Karasin Russian, noting that "some years ago that Russia aspires to strengthen and deepen the Eurasian integration ".

    Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Belarus, International

    The Russian diplomat continued stating that, in the early próximasemana in Mosco the Supreme Council of Eurasia which will feature the participation of the presidents of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan will be held.

    "Our policy considers that the integration processes do not contradict each other and complement each other," explained Karasin.oque Ukraine will be in the meeting seems that Russia is consequindo dictate its strategy of union euro asiatica to russia with union comsiquira grow more and continue to fund the purchase of weapons))) I know it's just an economic union but it seems that Moscow intends a military union with time)))
    avatar
    etaepsilonk

    Posts : 707
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Cold War II Empty Re: Cold War II

    Post  etaepsilonk Sat Dec 21, 2013 3:54 pm

    russianumber1 wrote: but it seems that Moscow intends a military union with time)))

    You mean, something like this?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization
    avatar
    russianumber1

    Posts : 31
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2013-12-18

    Cold War II Empty Re: Cold War II

    Post  russianumber1 Sat Dec 21, 2013 4:13 pm

    no better total union will be virtually the same army, CSTO is just an alliance of mutual defense not a full military alliance would almost single parents who are not officially be logically and did not worry about riots in Moscow, because they will not admitdo other countries It almost seemed part of Russia, which are independent, they can evolve into CSTO is a broader military union with Ukraine and the Eurasian Union care seemed to question the asiatica euro economic union has nothing aver but with CSTO is an amalgamation of countries, but not Moscow admitting
    Regular
    Regular

    Posts : 2425
    Points : 2409
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Cold War II Empty Re: Cold War II

    Post  Regular Sat Dec 21, 2013 4:27 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:Dudes, I think, that disscussing, which war is likely and which not, is pointless. The job of the military is to prepare for EVERY contingency, be it war with NATO, China, Kazakhstan, Ukraine or Boris Nemtsov.
    True. There is nothing better than to have military with good morale, career opportunities and weapon industry backing it.
    War with NATO or China doesn't seem to be very likely thanks to pragmatism.. Cold war LITE VERSION is possible.
    avatar
    russianumber1

    Posts : 31
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2013-12-18

    Cold War II Empty Re: Cold War II

    Post  russianumber1 Sat Dec 21, 2013 4:38 pm

    most likely a new cold war but you never know
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7216
    Points : 7365
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Cold War II Empty Re: Cold War II

    Post  magnumcromagnon Sat Dec 21, 2013 4:51 pm

    GarryB wrote:In a war with all of NATO tanks will be irrelevant... that is what the nuclear deterrent is for.

    Tactical nukes will make up for any numbers shortage.

    China vs Russia is a western wet dream.

    The most likely conflict China faces is over soverignty of islands near it, or the declaration of independence by Taiwan... the latter will test US resolve as they have pledged to support Taiwan independence if sought AFAIK.

    By 2020 the Russian military will be well into its reforms with 70 percent new equipment... by 2025 it should be 90%.

    From what we have seen they are developing training and testing equipment as well as production equipment etc so by 2020 they should be in a good position to produce things rather more rapidly.


    ...It's their wet dream, and its a circle jerk with concern-trolls like Zbignew Bryznski and Rand Corporation Neo-Con's like Andrew Marshall salivating over a dream that's not likely to happen:

    China shares Russian concerns over US missile defense plans

    MOSCOW, November 29. /ITAR-TASS/. China shared Russian concerns about US missile defense plans, Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said on Friday.

    “Our dialogue with China on missile defense is very important," he told a media briefing at Itar-Tass news agency. "Our colleagues from the People’s Republic of China have the same concerns on US global missile defense plans.”
    Military-technical cooperation with China was developing progressively and was oriented “at the development of state-of-the art arms and hardware”, Antonov said, telling reporters that earlier in the year, the Chinese president visited the defense ministry, the first-ever by a Chinese leader.
    “Following instructions from our countries’ leaders, co-operation between the defense ministries of Russia and China has received an additional boost,” the deputy minister said, noting that the joint naval exercise Sea Co-operation in July and the anti-terrorist exercise Peace Mission 2013 from July to August were culminating points in military co-operation this year.
    Focusing on military and military-technical co-operation between Russia and India, Antonov said transfer of the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya to the Indian navy was “the milestone event of the year”.
    “When the Indian defense minister visited Moscow, agreements were reached to continue regular joint exercises and to continue negotiations between the headquarters on adding global and regional security to their agendas,” he said.

    http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/709553


    What's so fascinating about this story is that there was a previous story from the Washington Post back in the month of May, that revealed that the Chinese obtained blueprints and sensitive information on programs like Aegis, THAAD, standard missile systems, PAC-3, etc. via hacking; the Chinese could very well be sharing that information with the Russian MOD:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/a-list-of-the-us-weapons-designs-and-technologies-compromised-by-hackers/2013/05/27/a95b2b12-c483-11e2-9fe2-6ee52d0eb7c1_story.html

    Here's a quote from a similar article: “This is billions of dollars of combat advantage for China. They’ve just saved themselves 25 years of research and development. It’s nuts.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/confidential-report-lists-us-weapons-system-designs-compromised-by-chinese-cyberspies/2013/05/27/a42c3e1c-c2dd-11e2-8c3b-0b5e9247e8ca_story.html


    ...And apparently it turns out China might possibly have very well obtained PAC-3 tech and sold blueprints to Iran and possibly mordern version's of Iran's pre-revolution standard missiles; here's a video from another thread:

    Hannibal Barca
    Hannibal Barca

    Posts : 1365
    Points : 1377
    Join date : 2013-12-13

    Cold War II Empty Re: Cold War II

    Post  Hannibal Barca Sat Dec 21, 2013 5:45 pm

    We pretty much entered Cold War II around 2007-08. Starting event is not yet broadly agreed. It can be the real estate bubble burst in US, it might be the Lehman brothers thing in December 2007, but if you ask me, it is the Georgian war that gave the signal for the second round.

    If you see the G20 countries is about 8 with the East about 8 with the West and there are 3-4 undecided cases, the most interesting of whom are Germany and Australia as it stands now.

    I don't see a major conflict in the near future, but with all this tension rising month by month and with the event of a relatively bloodless drone or space war becoming more possible in the distant future, I wouldn't be shocked if we see something relatively big in the next couple decades and quite a few minors along the way.

    PS By the way, obviously the match started with the West having the complete initiative but the long term fundamentals favor the East heavily. We shall see. Interesting times ahead.
    mack8
    mack8

    Posts : 953
    Points : 1009
    Join date : 2013-08-02

    Cold War II Empty Re: Cold War II

    Post  mack8 Sat Dec 21, 2013 9:51 pm

    If there's going to be another Cold War i hope Russia and China learned the lessons from the previous one this time. The antagonism between them starting in the early sixties worked wonders against BOTH, that WAS the yanks' wet dream.  Things are different today though, China is world's most successful communist (by name only though, they are light years away from what image the word "communism" invokes) country ever, second most powerful economy, while Russia is recovering from the 15 years lost after the dissolution of the USSR and looks set to recover it's strength. So this time, the yanks have a very real chance of LOOSING this new cold war, and i didn't think there are many to shed a tear for them, that is IF  Russia and China stand together this time. I wish the sino-indian relations will be also greatly improved and for them to go over whatever differences they have, again, this only works against BOTH, and wonderfully serves the US "divide and conquer" strategy. Imagine a joint block of China, Russia and India (and even add the likes of Brazil too!), man the yanks would be *** bricks! Payback is a female dog, as they say.

    Now, don't get me wrong, i am NOT looking forward to more wars, let alone WW3, or actually bringing back again some oppressive bolshevik or maoist regimes, far from that. I'm sure that would not even be possible given the evolutions in the russian and chinese societies these days, even if there is always room for improvement.  But as the yanks self-entitled themselves the "policeman of the world", they have aptly proven to be an increasingly corrupt, violent and turbulent, blood-tainted with the lives of MILLIONS they killed kind of  "policeman", the type of policeman most everyone fears but also everyone loaths  and everyone looks forward to him being found in a ditch or something. They are a FAILED "policeman", so it's time they are sacked from their "position".

    One of the side effects of the yanks loosing this Cold War II would be, from my point of view, the very real possibility of the creation of a true, United EU as the world's fourth superpower, free from the domination, hegemony and sabotage of the americans, we can take care of ourselves very well, thank you. Europe is too small a place for all the little countries here to NOT stand and work together, and certainly NOT be part (as mere vassals) of the americans' criminal politics and corporate profit  driven wars, this standing in contrast with the overwhelming will and the values of  the european society in  in general. This is what i dream about, however utopian it might sound.

    I always thought that various characters claiming to be  russian or chinese etc. who wet themselves on the www and stir things up at the prospect of an imminent conflict between the two in which obviously their side will win and smash the "inferior" other side, they are not really russian nor chinese, but some sort of sock puppets based in Langley... divide and conquer, remember?
    avatar
    russianumber1

    Posts : 31
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2013-12-18

    Cold War II Empty Re: Cold War II

    Post  russianumber1 Sun Dec 22, 2013 12:15 am

    I appreciated your comment
    avatar
    russianumber1

    Posts : 31
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2013-12-18

    Cold War II Empty Cold War II

    Post  russianumber1 Sun Dec 22, 2013 2:12 am

    Does Russia Reel back or fight back?

    Read more: Cold War, Ukraine, EU, NATO, Russian elites

    12/19/2013 11:30

    BOVT Georgy far can the confrontation between Russia and the West go? There is a line where the two sides will stop before you start with a clean sheet? So far, the confrontation was only growing. The Cold War II can start any day, if not already in progress. It seems that the West and the Kremlin have no answers to these questions. They leave everything to chance. No country stopped to think that the world will be like in the mid-2020s, nor is anyone developing a short term policy, according to a long-term strategy. They forget that there are limits beyond which can grow dangerous confrontation.

    Take Ukraine. It seems EU officials underestimated the Kremlin and Putin's determination to avoid calling Euro integration. Do not be fooled by their sovereign choice words about the Ukrainians. "EU officials may express his outrage at Putin's" blackmail "poor Yanukovych as much as they want. But when they and the Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland visit opposition from Kiev, Independence Square, to shake hands with the protesters and distribute breads between protesters and police, as did Ms. Nuland, the Kremlin definitely see this as fresh evidence that the unrest in Ukraine is being financed by external forces and it is directed against Russia.

    The Russian ruling class firmly believe that nothing happens without a reason, and that most of what happens is directed against Russia.

    Does anyone consider the integration of Ukraine if not for its eastern neighbor and its president? Who would have the courage to say "no" to this question?

    According to the predominant, or better, the only belief in the Kremlin next stop after Ukraine NATO European integration would, with tanks and missiles block, let alone the defense system against ballistic missiles deployed near Belgorod and Kursk . Not even the girls administrator in western Kremlin guarantees confidence that the BMD system is not directed at Russia.

    The Russian ruling class believes that the loss of Ukraine, and that is how your "escape" to the West, either via European integration or otherwise, is seen, is a threat to the survival of Russia, which must be fought by all available means, even by military force if all other methods fail.

    Unfortunately, the Russian ruling class traditionally sees the world around him as a conglomerate of threats, large and small, rather than opportunities.

    One can explain this by post-imperial complexes, theories that work well for all types of seminars held in centers of business pleasant five star hotels. When the Kremlin denounced eastward expansion of NATO through Georgia and Ukraine as an unacceptable threat, few people in the West thought Moscow would resort to military force, as it did in 2008, and would even consider marching all the way to Tbilisi. But that's what happened, and at a time when Russia-West relations were better than they are now and a different president sat in the Kremlin.

    Will the authorities in Brussels, keep this in mind when they say they will not discuss the problem of Ukraine with Russia in a trilateral format, because "colonial era" is past, and refuse to admit that Moscow has an area of ​​interest National? These may be the right words, but they are good only for the bright future when, as Mikhail Gorbachev put it, the world will be ruled by a new political thinking. But this age is not nothing but a dream. They can refuse to admit it, but EU officials do not see the Ukrainian bid as part of their big game with Moscow? EU policy in Ukraine is not limited to this game, but it is certainly an aspect of its policy, mainly at the insistence of former allies of Russia Warsaw Pact.

    Putin is not the most popular politician in the West, and his government do not incorporate the values ​​that form the basis of the Euro-Atlantic civilization. Moreover, Putin has changed since the early 2000s. He now says that Russia has its own set of different values ​​and do not live according to Western values.

    Interestingly, there is a parallel between the current complaint of "tolerance asexual" and accusations of "rootless cosmopolitanism" in early 1950.

    Does this mean that Putin's Russia should be controlled to give the wrong step and subsequently forced to become one of the calls rogue nations? This is the number of people in the Russian ruling class to evaluate the current situation, because they are always ready to find evidence of this in both objective reality and the things that only exist in a paranoid mind. Many believe that Russia is pushing in that group of nations with their own unhealthy actions. But when EU officials encouraging a boycott of the Sochi Olympics, has to wonder why they do it. Moscow has troops deployed in Afghanistan again?

    It is true that the Russian authorities often use obsolete methods appropriate to the 1960s or even worse, in the Middle Ages to fight the generally recognized standards of behavior in the economy, cooperation and human rights. But this is not the point. The question is: What happens when Russia is pushed out of the group of major nations, to the delight of his enemies in the West and, as a result of the persistent efforts of the Russian kleptocracy? Will the world order be ideal with a marginalized and ostracized Russia?

    Moreover, being a rogue country is not so bad. For example, Iran has threatened to destroy Israel, denounced the United States as the Great Satan, and has worked to create a nuclear bomb. The international community imposed sanctions against him, of course, but Iran still earned dollars 69,000 million in revenues from oil exports in 2012.

    This is still not a war, but there is no notion of unacceptable damage, and the damage threshold for Western civilization, with its "tolerant asexual" and comforts of consumption, is getting smaller. Now it is much lower than during the Berlin Crisis in 1948, or the missile crisis in Cuba in 1962. They say Putin is the Big Bad Wolf, who imprisoned Pussy Riot and hates gays. At the same time, they are strangely euphoric about the new president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, who smiles and calls almost daily Barack Obama, unlike his predecessor. They are happy that he seems willing to discuss the Iranian nuclear program. These smiles, photos of secretary of state John Kerry shaking hands with well-educated and Western-educated hopes Chancellor naive and Iran that the Iranian thugs will eventually embrace "new thinking" overshadowed the essence of the Geneva meeting, which recognized Iran's right to develop a nuclear program.

    This means that the worse you behave the more readily the world will shake hands with you if you promise to mend his ways?

    The North Korean dictator is almost the darling of the West. Pakistan can do anything, provided you keep nuclear weapons away from the Taliban. India a wonderful young democracy, forbade homosexual sex and no one in the West as much as turned a hair. It is a strange logic that underlies Western actions.

    President Putin probably do not know how far it goes in its confrontation with the West. But the logic of his actions shows that he became disillusioned in cooperation with the West as he saw in September 2001, he suffered the consequences of their hypocritical policy of double standards, and is preparing for a long conflict and increasingly intense .

    This explains the policy sovereignization elites. In the not so distant future, we may find that in 2013 we were only at the beginning of this difficult path and that sovereignization of elites, or the Orthodox Taliban as some describe this process, also affected the general public and is becoming manifest in politics, the economy and everyday life. The public increasingly feel the weight of the new spiritual values, and views of people like St. Petersburg politician Vitaly Milonov, who tried to establish the law of God, attacking homosexuals, will become the dominant ideology.

    One element of this new policy is the focus on rearmament. It is interesting to note, however, that the armies are never reset, so as to create new jobs and new technologies, but in preparation for a war.

    Putin did not say a word about foreign investment in his speech to parliament in 2013. But he spoke of the return of capital to the country, which is another element of the dependency of power and resources of a policy. More and more bastions counter-advertising are appearing in the imagination of the Western Front, and they will soon appear in the Russian-speaking Internet in the form of firewalls prohibitive.

    Many Western officials responsible for policy towards Russia and on Ukraine and the entire post-Soviet space, believes that Russia is weak and many of their economic interests (ie the interests of the ruling bureaucracy) are located in the "potential adversary countries." They think there will come a day that the Kremlin will reel back, swallow your pride and accept his new role, humiliating before crawling away - figuratively and literally - in Europe and pro-European values ​​and to the East.

    These arguments are supported by rational economic calculations and comparisons of technological achievements. But what if rationalism is a bad counselor, in this case, as in the West turns out to be wrong?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28568
    Points : 29098
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Cold War II Empty Re: Cold War II

    Post  GarryB Sun Dec 22, 2013 9:35 am

    a U.S. plan that I can not remember the name sa bases to cause a disabling attack using conventional ICBMs with conventional warheads barren and hypersonic missiles I found an article of onten the voice of russia'll see if I can find that is good again seems possible a new cold war with the substance

    The US would no more be able to fire ICBMs conventionally armed or nuclear armed at Russia than it would be able to launch a cruise missile at Russia.

    By the time the US gets conventional weapons on ICBMs Russia will have S-500s in operation.

    Very simply the question the US needs to ask itself before firing at anything on Russian territory, is do we want to start WWIII?

    There is a reason US drones kill people in Pakistan and Yemen and not Russia or even North Korea.

    I think Russia and the other countries of BRICSA and any countries that want to join them should not consider world police roles... that should never be the goal. It is the West that wants to spread its moral code... a code it clearly is not interested in following itself. The west is broken and it was broken from the inside by large companies... the main check and balance in the west used to be a free media... that no longer exists so real corruption is ignored or mislabelled.

    The real amusing thing is the direction the US is taking... its Republican party seems to be getting more religious and more anti science every year.

    Not that it is any of my business.
    Regular
    Regular

    Posts : 2425
    Points : 2409
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Cold War II Empty in the area of ​​Arctic Russia is at odds with

    Post  Regular Sun Dec 22, 2013 5:06 pm

    Yeah, US should world police thing to UN even if they are not active bunch, but they aren't spreading "democracy" on every corner.
    I respect Russian army for not concentrating on expeditionary warfare, but rather on fighting on it's own territory, with weapons suited for Russian environment.
    Strategic potential is being kept in a good shape and it is better than having power projection in the form of boots. And nukes are the best peacekeepers since beginning of cold war.
    Palestinian
    Palestinian

    Posts : 28
    Points : 55
    Join date : 2012-08-06

    Cold War II Empty Cold War II

    Post  Palestinian Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:00 am

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/us-russia-exchange-threats-at-tense-un-meeting/2014/03/19/0ea22b4c-afca-11e3-b8b3-44b1d1cd4c1f_story.html
    UNITED NATIONS — Russia and the United States exchanged threats Wednesday at a tense U.N. Security Council meeting over the Ukraine crisis, with Moscow’s envoy warning that the U.S. ambassador’s “insults” are jeopardizing Moscow’s willingness to cooperate with Washington on other diplomatic matters.

    It was the council’s eighth meeting in less than three weeks on Ukraine, a show of determination by Western powers to highlight Russia’s diplomatic isolation over the Crimean Peninsula — even if the council is powerless to act because of Moscow’s veto power as a permanent council member.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28568
    Points : 29098
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Cold War II Empty Re: Cold War II

    Post  GarryB Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:11 am

    Clearly the US needs to impose an embargo on all Russian companies like the ones providing about 70% of the Titanium for the F-35 production... or perhaps the company that makes the rocket engines the US uses to put things in space...
    nemrod
    nemrod

    Posts : 836
    Points : 1334
    Join date : 2012-09-11
    Age : 56

    Cold War II Empty Map: East-Europe Forces against Russia Forces

    Post  nemrod Sun May 18, 2014 3:00 pm


    Russia's forces against East Europe

    Cold War II 12a62a327300766

    Or here, if you prefer.

    Since the begining of these sad events America did what it is possible in order to trigger a civil war in Ukraine, untill now, unfortunetly, they successfully won. The next chalenge for US, and they did what is possible in for Europe to be away from Russia. For US bastards leaderships the goal is simple, as Russia, and China became ennemies, hence, it is no use to repay their huge debts vis a vis Russia and China. This is their ultimate goal.

    Meanwhile, they will declare that they won't pay their debts, they are destabilzed every countries that have good relationships with Russia, and China. Nigeria is the the top, and they helped Boko-Haram in order replace the actual president Goodluck by another president who is the new US-french puppets. Isn't a hasard if Boko-Haram attacked christians, and ...chinese factories. The goal is simple, US want to do another big alliance against Russia, China, India, Brasil big more dynamic economies. As they are successfully doing this with Ukraine.


    sepheronx
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7088
    Points : 7356
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 31
    Location : Canada

    Cold War II Empty Re: Cold War II

    Post  sepheronx Sun May 18, 2014 3:36 pm

    That map does not seem accurate, to me atleast. I think Russia has more tanks and aircrafts than that.

    Anyway, Russia may have lost partially a sinking ship known as Ukraine, but EU amd US gained nothing of real value. All the while, Latin American countries, excluding Columbia, are moving away from US due to historical reasons. Europe is in trouble economically, and they are hoping Ukraine would be a way out of the slump, but their economic policies are about being stingint rather than investing in infrastructure development, so Ukraine will be a big loss. As well, Ukraine along with other nations like Bulgaria share a history with Russia where I highly doubt they would be willing to wage a war with a nation they are related to. Add in Turkey, they are following a different path these days and are a wild card. They have a lot of investments in Russia.
    sepheronx
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7088
    Points : 7356
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 31
    Location : Canada

    Cold War II Empty Chuck Hagel stated Russia is at NATO doorstep

    Post  sepheronx Thu Oct 16, 2014 8:19 pm

    http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/754838

    I think its time Russia moves their troops to the NATO borders, because now revisionists in NATO are stating Russia moved its borders near NATO (what?). Maybe its time to give ultimatum to Europe and state that the more they continue this, the closer they get to war, and they can kiss their economies goodbye. I think its time to be more then prepared, by showcasing the movement of nukes, talk of new placement warheads and start moving equipment to allied nations like Cuba. Tell the US that the closer they move to Russian border, the more they are at fault for anything bad that happens.

    I think it is Russias complacensy that is allowing US to push itself towards Russia and trying to bully it. If Russia steps up and starts doing something back, then Chances are US will step back cause they will know.
    Werewolf
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5288
    Points : 5489
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Cold War II Empty Re: Cold War II

    Post  Werewolf Thu Oct 16, 2014 9:10 pm

    sepheronx wrote:http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/754838

    I think its time Russia moves their troops to the NATO borders, because now revisionists in NATO are stating Russia moved its borders near NATO (what?). Maybe its time to give ultimatum to Europe and state that the more they continue this, the closer they get to war, and they can kiss their economies goodbye. I think its time to be more then prepared, by showcasing the movement of nukes, talk of new placement warheads and start moving equipment to allied nations like Cuba. Tell the US that the closer they move to Russian border, the more they are at fault for anything bad that happens.

    I think it is Russias complacensy that is allowing US to push itself towards Russia and trying to bully it. If Russia steps up and starts doing something back, then Chances are US will step back cause they will know.

    +1

    I completley aggree.
    Russia can not allow to pardon one offense after another and aggression by NATO mafia while doing nothing to showcasing that the RED line has crossed long time ago and still talks of "partners" while the US and NATO dogs have openly declared war against Russia with such crap like the "Russian Aggression Preventation Act" which literally gives and encourages and even binds key members of NATO to deplyo troops,hardware, information and readiness for direct war with Russia when the US says so.
    sepheronx
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7088
    Points : 7356
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 31
    Location : Canada

    Cold War II Empty Re: Cold War II

    Post  sepheronx Thu Oct 16, 2014 9:35 pm

    The pacts are useless. The turkeys will turn and run as soon as a major war happens. After the firs tactical nuke is dropped, killing 10's of thousands of US troops in one go, people here will be screaming and crying, asking "how did it get this far?". In the end, a war with Russia may be the last war humanity will fight, and maybe people are starting to forget this, especially now that Russia stopped doing physical tests of its nukes. Maybe that should be the next step, launch nukes as tests off the coasts of certain nations and state: "we are simply testing our capabilities if you guys ever decide to attack us". And then people may start to say: "hey, maybe we should give Russia a little room here and stop antagonizing it.

    Russian gov, for shits and giggles should come up with a "nato" or "us" military aggresson prevention act. And in it, state every country US bombed in its short time, just to remind people when they post it on western media screaming about it, that hey, were the aggressors!
    Sujoy
    Sujoy

    Posts : 1269
    Points : 1427
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India || भारत

    Cold War II Empty Russia's strategic view of US.

    Post  Sujoy Wed Oct 22, 2014 3:15 pm

    Russia's strategic view of US.

    Interview with Nikolay Patrushev, secretary of the Russian Security Council

    https://www.facebook.com/sharmine.narwani/posts/741370525911333

    Rossiyskaya Gazeta, October 15, 2014
    Cold War II: Interview with Nikolay Patrushev
    by Ivan Yegorov
    “The sobering up of the Ukrainians will be harsh and painful”
    In an interview for Rossiyskaya Gazeta the secretary of the Russian Security Council explained how Russian analysts were predicting the development of the situation in Ukraine a year ago. And he also gave an assessment of the role of the United States and NATO in the events in eastern Ukraine, explained why these events are a continuation of Zbigniew Brzezinski's plan for the disintegration of the USSR and Russia, and assessed prospects for the development of the multipolar world and the possibility of a future struggle for hydrocarbon resources.

    [Yegorov] Nikolay Platonovich, the realities of recent months are a coup d'etat in Ukraine, military operations by the Ukrainian authorities against the inhabitants of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, and a frenzied anti-Russian course by Kiev. Would it have been possible to predict this turn of events only a year ago?

    [Patrushev] Our specialists were warning of the high probability of an escalation of the situation in Ukraine in the context of political and economic instability, particularly under external influence. At the same time it should be acknowledged that the probability of an imminent instant seizure of power in Kiev with the support of militant groups of open Nazis was not considered at that time. Let me remind you that prior to the coup you mentioned, Moscow was implementing in full all its partnership commitments to Kiev.

    We were constantly providing material and financial aid, without which Ukraine was in no condition to cope with economic difficulties that had become chronic in nature. To support our neighbours, material and financial resources amounting to tens of billions of dollars were mobilized. Unfortunately for many people in Ukraine this aid became, in time, so customary that its importance for the country's survival was simply forgotten.

    As for longer-term predictions, the Ukraine crisis was an entirely expected outcome of systematic activity by the United States and its closest allies.

    For the past quarter of a century this activity has been directed towards completely separating Ukraine and the other republics of the former USSR from Russia and totally reformatting the post-Soviet space to suit American interests. The conditions and pretexts were created for colour revolutions, supported by generous state funding.

    Thus, Victoria Nuland, US assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, has repeatedly stated that during the period 1991 through 2013 Washington spent 5bn dollars on "supporting the desire of the people of Ukraine for stronger, more democratic government". According to figures from open sources alone, for instance US Congress documents, the total amount of state funding for various American programmes of "aid" to Ukraine in the period 2001 through 2012 came to at least 2.4bn dollars. That is comparable with the annual budget of some small countries. The US Agency for International Development spent about 1.5bn dollars, the State Department nearly half a billion, and the Pentagon more than 370m dollars.

    According to congressional records, organizations such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Peace Corps, and the Open World Centre took part in Ukrainian aid programmes, in addition to the well-known USAID and other departments. It is not hard to guess for whom and why American volunteers and staffers of diplomatic missions have been "opening the world" throughout the 23 years since the breakup of the Soviet Union.

    [Yegorov] Maybe this money went to a good cause and helped to build a real "democratic" society in Ukraine, as the Americans understand it?

    [Patrushev] I do not know what kind of a good cause that could be, if as a result of this activity in Ukraine an entire generation was raised that is completely poisoned with hatred of Russia and with the mythology of "European values". It has not yet realized that these values, even in the positive sense of the term, are not actually designed for Ukrainians. Nobody intends to set about boosting living standards in Ukraine or establishing these young people in Europe, which is itself having great difficulty coping with extremely serious challenges and threats.

    I think the "sobering up" of the Ukrainians will be harsh and painful. It remains to be hoped that this will happen relatively quickly, and a whole string of objective factors could promote that. I would like to note another factor that is of fundamental significance. Irrespective of the subsequent development of events, the significance of the one for the other - Russia and Ukraine - will persist. Ukraine will simply not be able to develop successfully without Russia, whether anyone likes it or not.

    Such is the objective interdependence of economic, logistical, and other links that has developed over the centuries. But whereas for Russia the total severance of these links would be a painful blow, for Ukraine it would be disastrous. It is no accident that current President Petro Poroshenko was obliged, in the wake of his ousted predecessor, to raise the question of postponing the implementation of economic section of the already signed association agreement between Ukraine and the EU. It is to be expected that the victory euphoria of other Kiev rulers will also give way to a more sober assessment of the real state of affairs.

    [Yegorov] Some experts think the Ukraine crisis was only a pretext for a new deterioration in the West's relations with Russia. Is that so?
    [Patrushev] It is true that if the catastrophe in Ukraine had not happened some other grounds would have been found to step up the policy of "containment" of our country. This course has been pursued unswervingly for many decades; only the forms and tactics of its implementation change.

    As you know, after World War II the confrontation between the USSR and the West headed by the United States took the form of a "cold war". The military-political component of this standoff was entrusted to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), formed on the initiative of the United States on 4 April 1949. An analysis of NATO's practical activity indicates that in creating the alliance the United States was pursuing two main objectives.

    First, a military bloc directed against the USSR was formed under American leadership.
    Second, Washington forestalled the emergence in Western Europe of an autonomous grouping of states that could have competed with the United States. It should be recalled that the territory of the United States itself, which essentially established unilateral military control over the allies, is not included in NATO's zone of responsibility.
    After the breakup of the USSR and the termination of the Warsaw Pact, which united Europe's socialist countries and which by definition represented the main danger to NATO, not only was the bloc not disbanded, it began to expand even more in quantitative and military terms.

    [Yegorov] But surely NATO was not the only factor that influenced the breakup of the Soviet Union?
    [Patrushev] In the cold war period a whole string of ideological doctrines emerged in the West that served as justification for an anti-Soviet political course. One of the authors of this kind of research was Zbigniew Brzezinski, an American political scientist and statesman of Polish extraction. He established the so-called strategy of "vulnerabilities" in relation to the USSR, and under President Reagan this became the basis of American policy towards our country. The implementation of the strategy was guided by the National Security Council headed by the president of the United States. The identification and definition of "vulnerabilities" and the task of organizing ways of converting them into substantial problems for the USSR were entrusted to the US Central Intelligence Agency.

    It is noteworthy that the then CIA Director William Casey decided to enlist prominent scholars in this work, first and foremost economists but also experts from the business world who had real experience of business wars with competitors. As a result of large-scale analytical work, the USSR's "vulnerabilities" in the political, economic, ideological, and other spheres were defined and systematically studied.
    Our country's main "vulnerability," as defined by the CIA, was its economy. After detailed modelling, the American experts identified its "weakest link", namely the USSR budget's extremely high dependence on the export of energy resources. A strategy of provoking the financial and economic bankruptcy of the Soviet state was formulated, envisaging two interconnected objectives: the bringing about of a sharp reduction in revenue to the USSR's budget from foreign trade, combined with a substantial increase in expenditure on resolving problems created from outside.

    A reduction in world oil prices was envisaged as the main measure for reducing the income side of the budget. This was successfully achieved by the mid-1980s when, as a result of US collusion with the rulers of a number of oil extracting countries, an artificial surplus of crude was created on the market and oil prices fell almost by a factor of four.

    A growth in the Soviet Union's expenditure was provoked in several areas: the transition from the strategy of American opposition to the USSR in Afghanistan to the strategy of dragging it deeply into the Afghan war; the incitement of antigovernment demonstrations in Poland and other states in the socialist camp with a view to provoking Moscow into additional expenditures on stabilizing the situation in Eastern Europe; the whipping up of the arms race, among other things by introducing the SDI [Strategic Defence Initiative] bluff, and so forth.
    It should be said that at that time the Americans succeeded in achieving their objectives. The outcome of their activity was a substantial excess in the USSR's expenditure over income, which ultimately provoked a profound economic crisis that extended into the political and ideological spheres. Shortsighted attempts by the Soviet leadership to alleviate the situation through foreign financial aid gave Washington additional levers of influence over Moscow. The "recovery" measures proposed by the West and implemented through the IMF and the World Bank to liberalize foreign trade without a smooth transition from the previous monopoly system led to the final collapse of the economy.

    In the assessment of American experts, it was the strategy of "vulnerabilities", which demonstrated the colossal effectiveness of economic variety of cold war compared with "hot" war, that was decisive in promoting the elimination of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact.
    [Yegorov] After the breakup of the USSR, could Russia still somehow have opposed the new redivision of the world, or was the surrender of its positions and its former allies, such as Yugoslavia, already predetermined?

    [Patrushev] By the end of the 20th century a kind of sociopolitical "fault line" had formed in this region, standing out most clearly in the disintegration of the multiethnic and multifaith Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The leaders of the United States and the leading NATO countries exploited a military-political situation that was developing favourably for them in order to realize their long-term aims in Southeast Europe.

    In the 1990s the Russian Federation, for well-known reasons of an internal and external nature, lost the dominant influence in the Balkans that the Soviet Union had enjoyed and embarked on the path of conciliation with the West. It was in the Balkans that the unilateral and totally uncompensated surrender by Russia of its positions in the international arena was manifested most distinctly. In 1991-1996 the bodies that shaped our country's foreign policy did not officially even have any such concept as "national interest". They nurtured groundless expectations of gratitude for obedience from the Western partners and some kind of special benefit for our country from close and unconditional cooperation with the United States. In practice our American partners almost immediately stopped taking us seriously and only gave us a condescending "slap on the shoulder", so to speak, from time to time.

    The NATO bloc, under cover of peacekeeping and without encountering serious objections from our side, operated increasingly confidently outside its own zone of responsibility, sought the rights to lease strategic infrastructure facilities for lengthy periods, and effectively brought the organs of military command and control of a number of Balkan countries under its own control by various means. The Alliance's subunits became firmly established in the region. Other states taking part in peacekeeping missions, including Russia, set themselves no such objectives, having reconciled themselves to the role of junior partners and preferring not to see the self-evident fact: The war in the Balkans could perfectly well be regarded as a rehearsal and a prologue to larger-scale steps to redivide the world.
    [Yegorov] Is it likely that it was these steps that led to the clash of interests between Western countries and Russia in the entire post-Soviet space?

    [Patrushev] The United States has been behaving particularly assertively and shamelessly over the past 20 years in and around this space. Encouraged by the weakening and subsequent elimination of the USSR, American ruling circles did everything possible to ensure dominance over the major sources of raw materials resources in our country and in Central Asia, as well as the transit routes for their export. Washington planned to extend its sphere of direct influence to the regions of the Black Sea, the Caucasus, and the Caspian.
    All these territories were named a US zone of strategic national interests. The only remaining obstacle to the realization of the Americans' plans to take complete control of the corresponding deposits and transport corridors was Russia, which preserved its military potential to inflict unacceptable damage on the United States.

    American strategists saw the solution to this difficulty in the final collapse of the system of state power and the subsequent dismemberment of our country. The first region that was supposed to leave Russia was the North Caucasus.
    Particular importance was attached to Chechnya, which declared its independence and was temporarily under the effective control of the West. Extremists and their supporters in Russia were offered support by the special services of Britain, the United States, and allies in Europe and the Islamic world.

    In these conditions the Russian leadership adopted a firm, principled stance of defending the unity of the state. Ultimately, as a result of the firm political will displayed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and at the cost of enormous efforts, it proved possible to stop attempts to detach Chechnya from Russia and then to consolidate the Republic's place within the Federation.

    After 11 September 2001 the world community recognized the terrorist threat as the main threat and a global threat, reaching the understanding that countering this threat requires common efforts. As a result there was, in particular, a slight weakening of the West's attacks on Russia because of its campaign against international terrorists in the Caucasus, while we did not object to the operation by the Americans and their allies in Afghanistan. The announcement of the formation of a broad antiterrorist coalition followed.
    At that time Washington displayed a certain readiness to collaborate, although in actual fact it did not intend to abandon the policy of "containment" with regard to Russia. More and more new NATO facilities moved up to our borders. International law was supplanted by the law of force (let us recall the aforementioned dismemberment of Yugoslavia, followed by Serbia, the occupation of Iraq, and the invasion of Afghanistan by the so-called coalition forces).

    After 7-8 August 2008, when the Georgian leadership, with US support, attempted to annihilate South Ossetia, the world once again changed substantially. For the first time in many decades Washington provided direct support to a foreign state that had perpetrated an attack on Russian citizens and peacekeepers.
    Everything was staked on surprise. The Georgian dictator believed that a military incursion on the opening day of the international Olympic Games would put Russia in a difficult position, and the Georgians, taking advantage of this, would carry out their "blitzkrieg". However, the Russian leadership reacted promptly to the sharp deterioration in the situation and the necessary measures were adopted to halt the aggression.

    [Yegorov] It was at that time that people started talking about the shaping of a new geopolitical reality - the multipolarity of the modern world. How did the United States react to this?

    [Patrushev] After the August events in the Caucasus, Washington was clearly alarmed by Russia's obvious intention to take its place among the world powers of the 21st century and uphold the principle of equal opportunities and full autonomy in global politics. And also to convert the state's financial income from the exploitation of natural resources into real economic and defence potential and human capital.
    The American leadership clearly also disliked the prospects of Russia's collaboration with China and India, the introduction of the practice of summits in the BRICS format, the successful activity of other organizations in which Russia occupies leading positions (the CSTO [Collective Security Treaty Organization], the SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization], and the EAEC [Eurasian Economic Community]), and the formation of the Customs Union.

    In the context of the growing world financial and economic crisis, major new players in the international arena such as the PRC, India, Brazil, and Iran as well as the growing economies of Southeast Asia and South Korea became increasingly significant factors for the United States. Hence, incidentally, the emergence of new conceptual principles such as the American-Chinese special partnership, the strategic collaboration between the United States and India, the establishment of direct dialogue between Washington and Iran, and so forth.
    Indications of the need to resume the beneficial dialogue with Russia on a whole range of issues began to emerge from the new administration of President Barack Obama. This positive inclination on the part of the American authorities could only be welcomed.
    However, it soon became clear that Washington is not inclined towards real cooperation. It confined itself to mere statements of friendliness and the devising of certain negotiation tracks from which the benefit to Russia, in the end, proved almost zero. After a while even totally nonbinding positive dialogues of this kind came to an end and the US attitude towards our country began once again to be reminiscent of cold war times.

    [Yegorov] And the logical culmination of this policy was the Ukraine crisis?
    [Patrushev] The coup d'etat in Kiev, accomplished with clear US support, followed the classical pattern tried and tested in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. But never before has such a scheme affected Russian interests so profoundly.
    Analysis shows that by provoking Russia into retaliatory steps the Americans are pursuing the very same objectives as in the 1980s with regard to the USSR. Just like back then, they are trying to identify our country's "vulnerabilities". At the same time, incidentally, they are pursuing the objective of neutralizing European economic competitors who have, in Washington's opinion, grown excessively close to Moscow.

    I would like to remind you that Washington has always sought to have levers of pressure on Russia. Thus, in 1974 the famous Jackson-Vanik Amendment was adopted, restricting trade relations with our country. It appeared to have completely lost its relevance immediately after the breakup of the USSR, but it was still in force right up to 2012, when the so-called "Magnitsky List" was promptly adopted in its place.

    The current sanctions are in the same category. The US Administration's activity in the Ukrainian sphere is taking place within the framework of an updated White House foreign policy course aimed at holding on to American leadership in the world by means of the strategic containment of the growing influence of the Russian Federation and other centres of power. In this context Washington is actively making use, on its own terms, of NATO's potential, seeking to use political and economic pressure to prevent any vacillations on the part of its allies and partners.
    [Yegorov] Why is the American elite clinging so stubbornly to the right to control other people's natural resources at a time when the Western expert community is declaring the importance of the development of alternative energy sources that are supposedly capable of taking the place of oil and gas in the near future?

    [Patrushev] In actual fact, specialists are certain that no real substitute for hydrocarbons as the basis of power generation will emerge in the next few decades. Furthermore the understanding prevails in the West that the total capacity of nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, and other power stations will meet no more than one-fifth of world demand.
    Nor should another important aspect be forgotten. In the modern world we can observe a steady growth in the shortage of food and drinking water for the growing population of the planet. The absence of the most elementary means of existence pushes desperate people into manifestations of extremism and involvement in terrorism, piracy, and crime. This is one reason for the acute conflicts between countries and regions and also for mass migration.

    The shortage of water and irrigated land is not infrequently the cause of friction, for instance, between the Central Asian republics. The problem of water resources is acute in a number of other countries in Asia and particularly in Africa.
    Many American experts, in particular former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, assert that there are vast territories "under Moscow's power" that it is incapable of exploiting and which therefore "do not serve the interests of all humanity". Assertions continue to be heard about the "unfair" distribution of natural resources and the need to ensure so-called "free access" to them for other states.
    The Americans are convinced that people must be thinking in similar terms in many other states, particularly those neighbouring on Russia, and that in the future they will, as is nowadays the custom, form "coalitions" to support the corresponding claims on our country. As in the case of Ukraine, it is proposed to resolve problems at Russia's expense but without taking its interests into account.
    Even during periods of a relative thaw in relations between Russia (the USSR) and the United States, our American partners have always remained true to such notions.

    Therefore irrespective of the nuances in the behaviour of the Americans and their allies the Russian leadership still faces this task as a constant: To guarantee the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Motherland, to defend and multiply its riches, and to manage them correctly in the interests of the multiethnic people of the Russian Federation.

    Sponsored content

    Cold War II Empty Re: Cold War II

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Apr 11, 2021 2:00 pm