Russia Moves Nukes In "Exercise" Aimed at NATO

[What Would Jesus Do?]

This is from a STRATFOR email. [my highlights] Note that Kalingrad borders both Lithuania and Poland. I trust everybody knows where Crimea is. Check the link for more details.

Russia Targets NATO With Military Exercises


Russian military exercises, the latest in a series across the country,
have taken on a threatening posture. While the most recent installment
is not the largest exercise Russia has conducted, the areas involved and
the forces included seem to have been deliberately chosen to send a
warning to NATO; the exercise itself seems to simulate a full-scale
confrontation with NATO through the forward deployment of nuclear armed
submarines, theater ballistic missiles and strategic bomber aircraft.
Strategic weapon systems, including assets that are part of Russia's
nuclear capabilities, have also been deployed to locations near NATO's
borders.


According to Russian statements, the snap exercise, which was not
announced before it began March 16, will last five days and will involve
some 45,000 servicemen, around 3,000 vehicles, more than 40 surface
vessels, 15 submarines and 110 aircraft. The more notable systems
involved are the Iskander mobile theater ballistic missiles and fighter
aircraft that are being deployed to Kaliningrad, Tu-22M3 long-range
strategic bombers that are being deployed to Crimea, and ballistic
missile submarines that have been sent to sea with protective escorts.

STRATFOR

 

[86Hawkeye]

Bluster....

 

[Nat Algren]

Since STRATFOR is a shadow CIA company, I always take what George Friedman says with caution. Surely a good site to visit though. I applauded him when he called the overthrow of Ukraine "the most blatant coup in history." Perhaps he said so because the U.S. was caught with its hand in the proverbial cookie jar.

I wouldn't blame Russia if they engage in these tactics. With Obama's history of naked aggression and invasion, Putin is right to be concerned. I always wondered why the U.S. had never produced satellite pics of all this troop movement. Even with the Malaysian airliner...no pics. They just tried to psychologically condition the masses to hate Russia and go to war.

A dangerous game is being played here. The U.S., according to Friedman, fears an alliance between Russia and Germany. The sanctions are hurting the EU as well. With all this happening, Russia is being pushed into partnerships with China, sure to backfire on the U.S.

This post was edited on 3/19 10:24 AM by Nat Algren

 

[naturalmwa]

Its fun to have a real enemy in the world again. I hope Hollywood takes notice.

 

[h-hawk]

Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:
Bluster....

This. Putin needs to make the world be seen as his enemy to keep his popularity in Russia. Just hope he realizes what is acceptable and what isn't.

 

[Nat Algren]

U.S. Intent on Isolating Russia from Europe
Michael S. Rozeff

Why does the U.S. beat what seems to be a dead horse: Crimea's joining to Russia voluntarily? Washington keeps insisting on the restoration of Crimea to Ukraine, which clearly is not in the cards at all. And Washington will keep sanctions on Russia going as long as Crimea remains in the Russian Federation (RF). So, why do this? Why insist on something that has no chance of happening?

To Washington, this insistence looks like a free lunch. Washington has a way of isolating Russia from Europe and bringing Europe under firmer Washington control. This is evident in statements made by Merkel. One must regard Germany as a defeated nation and satellite of the U.S. The control of the U.S. is not 100% or tight in the sense of Germany being a province or state of the U.S., but it's tight enough. Washington didn't want to see Europe come under Russian influence via trade or related political-economic-military-cultural moves. Ukraine became the tool. Crimea and Ukraine are perfect ways for Washington to divide Europe and Russia. For years Putin attempted to build bridges to Europe. That effort has now been stymied by Washington, using Ukraine to fracture relations. When U.S. official Victoria Nuland said "F**k the EU," it had deeper meaning than simply the U.S. choosing the next puppet to lead Ukraine. It meant that the U.S. was the lead player in this game and that Europe "belongs" to the U.S. It must not be forgotten that the "tri" in trilateral and Trilateral Commission refers to three regions: North America, Europe and Japan. Europe could not be allowed to fall under the influence of Russia. Peace could not prevail. This explains also why Washington has supported NATO's expansion.

Isolation first, then pressures, and then subverting Russia itself. That's the long-term thrust of Washington's moves. This is why it will keep Crimea alive as an issue. And it will keep Ukraine alive as an issue too, attempting to make Russia take the bait of invading, which it has wisely not done to this date. To keep Ukraine alive as an issue dividing Europe and Russia, Washington can employ many pressures. And it will. It will not let this matter die or reach a negotiated stopping point. It will back further military moves by Kiev against the eastern Ukraine republics. The current cease-fire is almost surely going to prove futile, as the Rada passes conditions that do not satisfy the separatists. Even without much U.S. prodding and intervention, Kiev is itself capable of causing problems for Russia.

link

 

[ihhawk]

As Obama would say, "Russia the most geo-political threat, the 80s called..."

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by Nat Algren:

U.S. Intent on Isolating Russia from Europe
Michael S. Rozeff

Why does the U.S. beat what seems to be a dead horse: Crimea's joining to Russia voluntarily? Washington keeps insisting on the restoration of Crimea to Ukraine, which clearly is not in the cards at all. And Washington will keep sanctions on Russia going as long as Crimea remains in the Russian Federation (RF). So, why do this? Why insist on something that has no chance of happening?

To Washington, this insistence looks like a free lunch. Washington has a way of isolating Russia from Europe and bringing Europe under firmer Washington control. This is evident in statements made by Merkel. One must regard Germany as a defeated nation and satellite of the U.S. The control of the U.S. is not 100% or tight in the sense of Germany being a province or state of the U.S., but it's tight enough. Washington didn't want to see Europe come under Russian influence via trade or related political-economic-military-cultural moves. Ukraine became the tool. Crimea and Ukraine are perfect ways for Washington to divide Europe and Russia. For years Putin attempted to build bridges to Europe. That effort has now been stymied by Washington, using Ukraine to fracture relations. When U.S. official Victoria Nuland said "F**k the EU," it had deeper meaning than simply the U.S. choosing the next puppet to lead Ukraine. It meant that the U.S. was the lead player in this game and that Europe "belongs" to the U.S. It must not be forgotten that the "tri" in trilateral and Trilateral Commission refers to three regions: North America, Europe and Japan. Europe could not be allowed to fall under the influence of Russia. Peace could not prevail. This explains also why Washington has supported NATO's expansion.

Isolation first, then pressures, and then subverting Russia itself. That's the long-term thrust of Washington's moves. This is why it will keep Crimea alive as an issue. And it will keep Ukraine alive as an issue too, attempting to make Russia take the bait of invading, which it has wisely not done to this date. To keep Ukraine alive as an issue dividing Europe and Russia, Washington can employ many pressures. And it will. It will not let this matter die or reach a negotiated stopping point. It will back further military moves by Kiev against the eastern Ukraine republics. The current cease-fire is almost surely going to prove futile, as the Rada passes conditions that do not satisfy the separatists. Even without much U.S. prodding and intervention, Kiev is itself capable of causing problems for Russia.

Notwithstanding the source, that sounds about right.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by Nat Algren:
Since STRATFOR is a shadow CIA company, I always take what George Friedman says with caution. Surely a good site to visit though. I applauded him when he called the overthrow of Ukraine "the most blatant coup in history." Perhaps he said so because the U.S. was caught with its hand in the proverbial cookie jar.

I wouldn't blame Russia if they engage in these tactics. With Obama's history of naked aggression and invasion, Putin is right to be concerned. I always wondered why the U.S. had never produced satellite pics of all this troop movement. Even with the Malaysian airliner...no pics. They just tried to psychologically condition the masses to hate Russia and go to war.

A dangerous game is being played here. The U.S., according to Friedman, fears an alliance between Russia and Germany. The sanctions are hurting the EU as well. With all this happening, Russia is being pushed into partnerships with China, sure to backfire on the U.S.

This post was edited on 3/19 10:24 AM by Nat Algren

Friedman is a balance of power practitioner. He sells his analyses to businesses and governments. You can disagree with what you may think are his own preferences, and you can occasionally disagree with how he thinks things will turn out, but his analysis is always exceptionally sharp and unsullied by the propaganda that pretends we are exceptionally wonderful while our current enemies are exceptionally wrong and vile.


This post was edited on 3/19 11:38 AM by What Would Jesus Do?

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by Nat Algren:

U.S. Intent on Isolating Russia from Europe
Michael S. Rozeff

Why does the U.S. beat what seems to be a dead horse: Crimea's joining to Russia voluntarily? Washington keeps insisting on the restoration of Crimea to Ukraine, which clearly is not in the cards at all. And Washington will keep sanctions on Russia going as long as Crimea remains in the Russian Federation (RF). So, why do this? Why insist on something that has no chance of happening?

To Washington, this insistence looks like a free lunch. Washington has a way of isolating Russia from Europe and bringing Europe under firmer Washington control. This is evident in statements made by Merkel. One must regard Germany as a defeated nation and satellite of the U.S. The control of the U.S. is not 100% or tight in the sense of Germany being a province or state of the U.S., but it's tight enough. Washington didn't want to see Europe come under Russian influence via trade or related political-economic-military-cultural moves. Ukraine became the tool. Crimea and Ukraine are perfect ways for Washington to divide Europe and Russia. For years Putin attempted to build bridges to Europe. That effort has now been stymied by Washington, using Ukraine to fracture relations. When U.S. official Victoria Nuland said "F**k the EU," it had deeper meaning than simply the U.S. choosing the next puppet to lead Ukraine. It meant that the U.S. was the lead player in this game and that Europe "belongs" to the U.S. It must not be forgotten that the "tri" in trilateral and Trilateral Commission refers to three regions: North America, Europe and Japan. Europe could not be allowed to fall under the influence of Russia. Peace could not prevail. This explains also why Washington has supported NATO's expansion.

Isolation first, then pressures, and then subverting Russia itself. That's the long-term thrust of Washington's moves. This is why it will keep Crimea alive as an issue. And it will keep Ukraine alive as an issue too, attempting to make Russia take the bait of invading, which it has wisely not done to this date. To keep Ukraine alive as an issue dividing Europe and Russia, Washington can employ many pressures. And it will. It will not let this matter die or reach a negotiated stopping point. It will back further military moves by Kiev against the eastern Ukraine republics. The current cease-fire is almost surely going to prove futile, as the Rada passes conditions that do not satisfy the separatists. Even without much U.S. prodding and intervention, Kiev is itself capable of causing problems for Russia.

Notwithstanding the source, that sounds about right.

I particularly liked how he referred us as Washington. That's an important word he used there, and it's a word more people should start familiarizing themselves and using when speaking of these things.

No finger pointing at any certain political entity, but correctly pointing at our government as a whole.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by Nat Algren:

U.S. Intent on Isolating Russia from Europe
Michael S. Rozeff

Why does the U.S. beat what seems to be a dead horse: Crimea's joining to Russia voluntarily? Washington keeps insisting on the restoration of Crimea to Ukraine, which clearly is not in the cards at all. And Washington will keep sanctions on Russia going as long as Crimea remains in the Russian Federation (RF). So, why do this? Why insist on something that has no chance of happening?

To Washington, this insistence looks like a free lunch. Washington has a way of isolating Russia from Europe and bringing Europe under firmer Washington control. This is evident in statements made by Merkel. One must regard Germany as a defeated nation and satellite of the U.S. The control of the U.S. is not 100% or tight in the sense of Germany being a province or state of the U.S., but it's tight enough. Washington didn't want to see Europe come under Russian influence via trade or related political-economic-military-cultural moves. Ukraine became the tool. Crimea and Ukraine are perfect ways for Washington to divide Europe and Russia. For years Putin attempted to build bridges to Europe. That effort has now been stymied by Washington, using Ukraine to fracture relations. When U.S. official Victoria Nuland said "F**k the EU," it had deeper meaning than simply the U.S. choosing the next puppet to lead Ukraine. It meant that the U.S. was the lead player in this game and that Europe "belongs" to the U.S. It must not be forgotten that the "tri" in trilateral and Trilateral Commission refers to three regions: North America, Europe and Japan. Europe could not be allowed to fall under the influence of Russia. Peace could not prevail. This explains also why Washington has supported NATO's expansion.

Isolation first, then pressures, and then subverting Russia itself. That's the long-term thrust of Washington's moves. This is why it will keep Crimea alive as an issue. And it will keep Ukraine alive as an issue too, attempting to make Russia take the bait of invading, which it has wisely not done to this date. To keep Ukraine alive as an issue dividing Europe and Russia, Washington can employ many pressures. And it will. It will not let this matter die or reach a negotiated stopping point. It will back further military moves by Kiev against the eastern Ukraine republics. The current cease-fire is almost surely going to prove futile, as the Rada passes conditions that do not satisfy the separatists. Even without much U.S. prodding and intervention, Kiev is itself capable of causing problems for Russia.

Notwithstanding the source, that sounds about right.

I particularly liked how he referred us as Washington. That's an important word he used there, and it's a word more people should start familiarizing themselves and using when speaking of these things.

No finger pointing at any certain political entity, but correctly pointing at our government as a whole.

Washington does what its corporate paymasters tell it to. Pretending that the political cartel is calling the shots is just as naive as pretending it's just one party or all of America that's making these decisions. Yes, the political cartel exercises power. But the oligopoly owns the power.

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Washington does what its corporate paymasters tell it to. Pretending that the political cartel is calling the shots is just as naive as pretending it's just one party or all of America that's making these decisions. Yes, the political cartel exercises power. But the oligopoly owns the power.

Many times the politicians we have in office have direct ties to many of these corporate paymasters. Cheney, Bush Sr, Bush Jr., are good examples as those who had international and big money ties before they ever stepped into office.

I don't really have hate for Obama, because I understand he's just the figure head of the moment. As President, yes he has power, but he could also be brought down anytime the money masters wanted him to be. A little scandal here, a little scandal there, maybe an assassination attempt, who knows.

The title should be changed to Aimed at The US in my opinion. This strike is about US, I doubt they are too overly concerned about the rest of NATO. Espcially since we are the ones that make up over 70% of it's assets.

 

[lucas80]

We just sent an armored unit on an 1100 mile jaunt through Europe designed to reassure Poland and the Baltic States, and to send a message to Russia. So, it's understandable Putin will show he has a big pair.
I'd like to see a thoughtful analysis of the battle ready capabilities of NATO nations and Russia. My opinion is Russia can field quite a few elite, well trained units, but the rest are drunken conscripts with aging equipment. The Russian Navy in particular is thought to be in horrible shape.

CNN link

 

[Nat Algren]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by Nat Algren:
Since STRATFOR is a shadow CIA company, I always take what George Friedman says with caution. Surely a good site to visit though. I applauded him when he called the overthrow of Ukraine "the most blatant coup in history." Perhaps he said so because the U.S. was caught with its hand in the proverbial cookie jar.

I wouldn't blame Russia if they engage in these tactics. With Obama's history of naked aggression and invasion, Putin is right to be concerned. I always wondered why the U.S. had never produced satellite pics of all this troop movement. Even with the Malaysian airliner...no pics. They just tried to psychologically condition the masses to hate Russia and go to war.

A dangerous game is being played here. The U.S., according to Friedman, fears an alliance between Russia and Germany. The sanctions are hurting the EU as well. With all this happening, Russia is being pushed into partnerships with China, sure to backfire on the U.S.

This post was edited on 3/19 10:24 AM by Nat Algren

Friedman is a balance of power practitioner. He sells his analyses to businesses and governments. You can disagree with what you may think are his own preferences, and you can occasionally disagree with how he thinks things will turn out, but his analysis is always exceptionally sharp and unsullied by the propaganda that pretends we are exceptionally wonderful while our current enemies are exceptionally wrong and vile.


This post was edited on 3/19 11:38 AM by What Would Jesus Do?

I don't disagree with you. I said it's a good site.

 

[swagsurfer02]

Didn't Romney say something about this last time he ran?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[86Hawkeye]

Originally posted by montross:
As Obama would say, "Russia the most geo-political threat, the 80s called..."

Romney was right.

 

[Nat Algren]

While looking at these maps on the link, I can see that Russia has clearly moved their country right up to NATO's bases. In fact, they have encircled themselves. A certain mis-step on Putin's part that will go down as one of the biggest calamities in history.

This post was edited on 3/20 11:56 AM by Nat Algren

link of maps