Connect with us


Ramification of Russo-Turkey realignment for US policy



Possibly something bad has happened to US policy makers and CIA-Pentagon duo as their strategy to further divide and complicate relations between Russia and Turkey misfired. The US game plan misfired thanks to the timely crushing action by Turkish government against the plotters and coup leaders who seem to have worked for quite some time under US-EU (Germany) directions to destabilize the Islamist nation so that it never becomes strong, again.

Of course, Washington never expected the coup to fail and sought President Erdogan and his ruling Muslim Brotherhood party to perish in tandem and a puppet regime under a US stooge would assume office to support Israel and USA.

Interestingly as it does happen in international politics, rather quite often, the countries that were targeted by USA, namely Russia and Turkey, got together by comprehending the hidden agenda behind the presumed Pentagon instructions to Turkish military bosses to fire down a Russian war plan that trespassed the airspace (territory) of the erstwhile Ottoman Empire, resumed their ties. This is something that tarnished the image of USA as being the top intelligence nation with high precision information networks.

In August, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan traveled to St. Petersburg to meet his “dear friend” Russia’s strongman Vladimir Putin. Their relations had fallen to a low point when the Turks shot down a Russian warplane over northern Syria. Unlike Western leaders, however, Putin had personally called Erdogan to congratulate him on aborting an attempted military coup in July.

Turkey-Russia relations have had ups and downs since the era of Ottoman Empire. A year ago, they were shaking hands, then relations cooled to icy temperatures, but now it seems Russia and Turkey could be on the road to restoring ties. President Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan have said they want to hold a face-to-face meeting as they agreed to resume cooperation in trade, tourism and the fight against terrorism. Relations took a turn for the worse in November last year when Turkish forces shot down a Russian plane involved in the military campaign in Syria. Ankara said the jet had strayed into its airspace. Erdogan wrote to Putin to reportedly express regret for the incident. The Russian leader said the letter created the conditions necessary to close “this crisis chapter” in bilateral ties. The thawing of relations comes in the same week as a deadly terror attack in Istanbul’s busiest airport, in which more than 40 people were killed.

Russo-Turkish ties have not been upgraded at US cost. Top US officials have not gone to great lengths to hide their dissatisfaction with Turkey’s rekindled friendship with Russia. For many Turks, the irony is that it was the same spokespeople in Washington who urged the Turkish leadership to reach out to the Kremlin – which, Secretary of State John Kerry thought, would play ball. To make matters worse, Washington ignored repeated warnings that steps taken by the US regime would place Turkey’s vital interests at risk. In the end, the Turks turned to other partners to protect their interests. And Russia is a good friend now.

US-Turkey relations have not, however, affected badly as it should because of regular NATO meetings and other secret conclaves. Turkey is the only Muslim nation from Europe in NATO. After roughly nine months of disagreement, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to revive their stalled bilateral relationship in their first direct contact on June 29, fueling hopes about restoring economic and trade ties Turkish Chief of Military Staff General Hulusi Akar departed for the USA to attend the meeting of anti-Daesh coalition military chiefs. The meeting is taking place ahead of the crucial operation to liberate Iraq’s second largest city of Mosul from Daesh. According to the statement released by the Turkish General Staff, the last meeting of the coalition military chiefs had taken place six months ago.

What the USA and European allies are worried about, however, isn’t Turkish tomatoes. It’s that improving ties between Ankara and Moscow could translate into closer cooperation on political challenges including the Syrian crisis. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced that she would provide weapons and ammunition to YPG, the PKK’s Syrian franchise, as part of the anti-Daesh campaign. Russia could use Turkey against Europe.

Arrival and success of Russian warplanes in Syria where Americans were calling all shots, was a slap on Washington. The Moscow-Washington agreement of September 10th on Syria, reached after 10 months of hard bargaining and now in shambles after another broken truce, had one crucial if little noted aspect. For the first time since the Soviet Union imploded, Russia managed to put itself on the same diplomatic footing as the USA. Russian strive for equal status from USA, however, is still elusive

The Pentagon soon signed a memorandum of understanding with the Kremlin over safety procedures for their aircraft, now sharing Syrian air space, and established a ground communications link for any problems that should arise. The morale of the Assad regime had improved, it was no longer in danger of being overthrown and its hand was strengthened at any future negotiating table.

Obviously, USA has lost its prestige on world stage even as Moscow is gaining importance in the global eyes.

In August 2015, by all accounts, President Assad was on the ropes and the morale of his dwindling army at rock bottom. Even the backing of Iran and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah had proven insufficient to reverse his faltering hold on power. To save his falling regime from collapse, the Kremlin’s military planners decided to fill the gaping hole left by Syria’s collapsing air force, shore up its air defenses, and boost its depleted arsenal of tanks and armored vehicles. The number of Russian military personnel dispatched was estimated at 4,000 to 5,000. Although none of them were ground troops, this was an unprecedented step in recent Russian history. The last time the Kremlin had deployed significant forces outside its territory- in December 1979 in Afghanistan – proved an ill-judged venture, ending a decade later in their withdrawal, followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991.

Meeting in Istanbul on October 10, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin signed a historic agreement to launch the Turkish Stream, a natural gas pipeline that will deliver Russian gas to Europe via Turkey. Just a few months ago, the project was considered dead in the water: Turks had downed a Russian jet over airspace violations and the Kremlin was trying to hurt the tourism industry in Turkey. There was even talk of a violent escalation between Ankara and Moscow.

Turkey and Russia kissed and made up.

The Turkish-Russian rapprochement has been largely limited to energy and economic cooperation. Since Erdoğan’s visit to St. Petersburg, Russian tourists have come back to the Turkish riviera, as import restrictions on Turkish agricultural produce were largely lifted.

The high level of economic relations between Turkey and Russia has become the most important component of our bilateral multidimensional relations. Trade volume between our countries exceeded 25.2 billion Dollars, as of the first 11 month of 2007, making Russia, Turkey’s second trading partner after Germany. Russia is now the main import source for the Turkish economy. Imports from Russia account for about 13% of overall imports. Turkey’s share in Russia’s foreign trade also reached significant levels. As of 2007, Turkey, with a share of about 5%, is Russia’s 4th export country. Russia’s imports from Turkey are also increasing and reached 4,3 billion Dollars in the first 11 month of 2007. N The total value of projects undertaken by Turkish contractors in Russia surpassed 26 billion Dollars, making Russia by far the most important market for Turkish construction services.

As for Turkish direct investments in Russia, they are estimated to have reached 5,6 billion Dollars. At the same time, there is a growing interest by the Russian firms, especially in the telecommunications, energy and tourism sectors, in investment in Turkey. ,Tourism is yet another economic area where our bilateral relations have grown at a very rapid pace. Where in 1999 the number of Russian tourists visiting our country was bellow 500 thousand, this figure reached 2,4 billion in 2007. Turkey has become the most preferred holiday destination for Russians. The number of Turkish tourist visiting Russia is also rapidly growing and reached about 200 thousand.

However, Turkey and Russia view the Syrian issue differently. While the Turks maintain that there can be no lasting peace in Syria unless Assad is removed from power, the Kremlin recently doubled down by joining the regime in bombing Aleppo, where airstrikes have resulted in large casualties. Likewise, the Turkish leadership has major differences of opinion with the Russians also on Crimea and Egypt. Speaking at the World Energy Congress recently, the Turkish President called for an end to indiscriminate attacks on Aleppo – with Putin just 10 feet away. It was a symbolic gesture to make it clear that Turkey was not backtracking on Syria. It remains unlikely Turkey and Russia will reach an agreement over Syria and the future of Bashar Assad anytime soon.

In recent years, US allies around the world – Turkey, Japan and Israel, among others – felt that Washington was no longer a reliable friend. In the Middle East, Obama rewarded “rogue” Iran for breaking every rule in the book, while taking shots at regional allies in front of the cameras. In Asia-Pacific, Obama failed to support Japan against China and last month congress voted for an act that permits families of the victims of 9/11 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia.

Turkey pursued a policy of diversification in the international arena to learn to work with a large number of partners to address pressing problems and pursue its goals. Instead of relying on Washington, the Turks reached the conclusion that the most effective way to address regional challenges was to promote regional cooperation. Keeping in mind that Turkey isn’t alone, the USA will presumably pay the price of Obama’s ambitions and disloyalty by facing growing isolation in the region.

Meanwhile, the Turks made it clear that they have absolutely no intention to waste precious time with Washington. Obama’s isolationist foreign policy, coupled with his mismanagement of the Syrian crisis, alienated the Turkish leadership and forced Turkey to search for alternative partners. The Obama regime repeatedly urged Ankara to kiss and make up with Moscow when the Russians were still playing ball with US Secretary of State John Kerry – who, at the time, refused to accept that he had deteriorated yet again. Turkey’s policy should only serve as a warning sign of how bad the Obama government hurt US interests around the world.

The next US president might enter the Oval Office only to find out that America has no allies left in the Middle East thanks to Barack Obama’s short-sighted policies. The next president must overhaul foreign policy to win back hearts and minds in Turkey and other frustrated allied nations. Unless Washington corrects its course, Ankara’s cooperation with Moscow will only mark the beginning of a dangerous trend for American interests on the ground. The USA needs to correctly identify its national interests in the Middle East and act accordingly if they would like to be taken seriously by regional actors.

Coercive tactics won’t work any longer. USA must wind down all terror wars meant to showcase its military prowess and ensure its energy security. USA and NATO along with their allies like India and Israel have jointly murdered millions of Muslims worldwide.

Enough of bloodbath in Islamic world!

Fascism and imperialism might look fashionable for the anti-Islamic nations but these are definitely harmful for any democracy and humanity as a whole.

There is absolutely nothing that Washington can do now to disturb the tempo of Russo-Turkish relations growing from strength to strength.

Continue Reading


Russian interview with Putin (and others) discusses geopolitics, nationhood, and America

Eric Zuesse



No Russia, no world discusses and presents a new feature-length, interview-laced, documentary, about the way that Russians, and also Putin, view America, and view the future of Russia. Here are, for me, the highlights from the included video (and I shall link to previous commentaries from me at relevant points, so as to clarify some of the references that are spoken about):

7:34- Carla Del Ponte, UN prosecutor on Syrian war crimes: “The important thing is for peace to prevail, so that civilians can return to their homes, so that refugees return to Syria. I think only Russia can achieve peace in Syria.”

17:15- A Russian soldier says “And all of a sudden, the symphony of the power structures and the Russian people, they joined into one melody. In Spring of 2014 [right after the U.S. coup in Ukraine, Crimea broke away from Ukraine and resumed being a Russian province], we understood that we are one people, this is our president, our forefathers are behind us, this is our history — and all of this combined is our whole.” His eloquent expression of nationhood moved me. Though I am not Russian, nor have even visited there, and feel no particular personal identification to any of its many cultures, Russia under Putin might now be occupying much the same significance in world affairs today that my own country, America, did under FDR, as the moral leader of an emerging new international order. We all live in FDR’s shadow. Future generations could find themselves living in Putin’s. (That’s if the American aristocracy won’t so crave war, so that there soon won’t be any future at all.) The threat in FDR’s time was the German aristocracy; the threat in ours is the American aristocracy. Perhaps Russia, during Putin’s leadership, is up to that challenge, as America was during FDR’s. I hope so.

23:20- Putin: “[In 2012,] They introduced the Magnitsky Act under absolutely imaginary pretexts. … 50 new sanctions, I think. I’d like to draw your attention to the fact that this is 2012 — before any events in Ukraine, before the reunification with Crimea — but sanctions are in full swing! … They have always attempted to ‘contain’ the development of our country — so, I think the answer is simple. It’s just a method against competition. It’s illegitimate, it’s unjust, but that’s how it is. And, of course, it’s an attempt to contain the defense capability of our country.”

27:00- “[In 1991,] we expected that with the end of the Warsaw Pact, NATO would cease to exist too. Or, at least, as we were told at the time, this organization would not expand. We assumed some kind of tectonic changes in international relations to take place, but they did not. It turned out that under the guise of this ideological war, there was also a geopolitical war. For geopolitical interests [’The Great Game’ as aristocracies call it]. Secondly, they thought that they no longer had to consider anyone else in their decisions. [As Obama often expressed this, the United States is “the one indispensable nation”, which means that all others are dispensable.] … They started to support separatism and radicalism in our Caucasus region. They bombed Yugoslavia in 1999 without a resolution from the UNSC [U.N. Security Council]. They just spat on everything — they bombed it, destroyed the country. … If the people of Yugoslavia strove for independence, maybe it’s good. But did you have to do it by that method? … I doubt it. I am assured it should not have been done. … Then Afghanistan. Then Iraq. Then two waves of NATO expansion.”

33:40- “In 1992 or 1993, the then Mayor [of St. Petersburg, Anatoly] Sobchak took me with him to Bonn, where he met with Chancellor Kohl. At some point, Kohl asked all the attendees to leave [but] I was left to translate between the two. … And that was the first time I heard the Chancellor say, ‘I don’t see a future for Europe without Russia.’ For me, as a former KGB officer, it was completely unexpected.” (Putin continued by making clear that he views Russia as being part of Europe, “culturally and spiritually, its science, its defense potential.”)

39:00- The documentary announcer criticizes Merkel’s immigration-policy: “As admitted by German experts, … 4 out of 5 migrants don’t wish to study [to learn German and to learn skills to become productive in the economy]. They want to receive benefits.” If this is true, then perhaps America’s billionaires are aiming to destroy the social-welfare states in Europe, so as to spread America’s sink-or-swim economy, make the public as desperate as possible. Perhaps that’s one reason why Europe’s role is to take in the people who have lost their homes and their life’s savings in the countries that we’ve bombed and that we’ve aided the jihadists to decimate and destroy — that it’s in order to flood Europe with culturally alien ‘third-world’ immigrants, who (with those difficulties) will drain, instead of grow, Europe’s economy.

41:25- Putin: “In some places, liberalism is giving up its positions. … The multicultural model they tried to build in Europe, not only did it not work, but my [European] colleagues who wanted it, today say themselves that it failed.” Q: “Will we lose our national identity?” A: “Us? No. It’s too dear to us. … [Some] Russians convert to Russian Orthodox, other Russians convert to Islam, but, still, together, this is ‘us’ [regardless of religion].”

56:45- Putin, referring to Ukraine’s violations of the Minsk agreements it had signed that established a pathway by which Donbass would democratically re-enter being part of Ukraine: “The law on amnesty is not [even] being signed [by Ukraine]. The law on special status of Donbass [within Ukraine] is not signed. Practically [on Ukraine’s side] nothing is signed. To the contrary, they signed a law on ‘de-occupation’, which doesn’t mention the Minsk agreements at all. They do this to themselves, with their own hands.”

1:07- Putin is presented with Western media characterizations of him as an evil man and “Putin’s War on The West,” and is asked “What’s it like to be the main global villain?” He answers: “I have some very good anchors. Those anchors are the interests of the Russian Federation and its people.”

1:14- Q: “We see the targeted approach to distance our allies from us. They’re working Belarus, Kazakhstan, working Armenia very actively. We see the way they drip poison into their ears. How can we counteract this?” A: “Whoever drips poison anywhere will end up drinking it themselves, at the end of the day. We have a good saying about it: ‘Don’t spit into the well [from which we all drink]’.”

1:27- Putin: “What we have to do in the near future is to ensure that it is technological innovation that is the main driver behind Russia’s development. If we can achieve this — which includes all of its components: digital technology, biology, fundamental sciences — then without a doubt, Russia will preserve the status of a great superpower.”

On 3 June 2014, I headlined “How and Why the U.S. Has Re-Started the Cold War (The Backstory that Precipitated Ukraine’s Civil War)” and, with a number of graphs, showed the drastic improvement in Russia’s economy under Putin, and in the lifespans and other welfare-indicators of the Russian people, and I explained why the U.S. aristocracy want to get rid of him. But, given that America’s anti-Russian war (which has thus far included Serbia, Iraq, Georgia, Syria, Ukraine, and other Russia-friendly governments, and is now moving on to Russia itself) was established on 24 February 1990, before Putin was even in the picture, there’s no reason for him to take The West’s insults personally. This has been the U.S. Government’s plan even before there was any President Putin.

Continue Reading


New American-Russian Conflict: A Confrontation beyond Cold War



The conflict between the White House and Grand Kremlin Palace, which by far is more dangerous and intense than that of the Cold War era, seems to have reached its peak.

The 2008 Russo-Georgian War was a clear instance of Russian military confrontation with one of the allies of the United States.

The Russo-Georgian War was a war between Georgia, Russia and the Russian-backed self-proclaimed republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.  Russia and Georgia were both formerly constituent republics of the Soviet Union.

During the battle, Russians troops drew very close to Tbilisi, Georgia’s capital, forcing Mikheil Saakashvili, former president of Georgia who was a US ally to surrender. Then, the dialogue between Georgia (US) and Russia began at two levels. On the surface, were the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) special moves for expansion to the East and the adoption of military configurations in the Baltics. However, the underlying agenda for the US was to bring down Russia’s political system through its neighbors like Ukraine.

Today, we are witnessing the power struggle between Russia and the US that has certain properties.

The tension between Moscow and Washington, as mentioned, is rising, and both states more than ever before have been boasting their power to the extent of elimination of the other. Failed plans such as “Anti-Proliferation: to limit the expansion of nuclear weapons technology” and Nuclear Disarmament: to reduce the total number nuclear devices in existence, ideally down to zero,” are clear examples of the conflict.

NATO plays a pivotal role in the recent dispute between the two states. In the summer of 2017, NATO troops held a large scale defensive drill, “Iron Wolf 2017”, on the border separating Poland and Lithuania, to deter Russian aggression.

In response, Russia conducted Zapad 2017 military drills with Belarus in September of the same year in Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad bordering Poland and Lithuania. It was Russia’s largest exercise since the Cold War with 12,700 troops in the drills.

In 2017, Russia tested its new hypersonic missile, 3M22 Zircon, an anti-ship missile with five times the speed of sound.

Clearly, Moscow’s objective is to challenge NATO and the US naval and military capabilities. However, on a larger scale, Russia intends to frighten the US and the EU and create a sense of fear and insecurity through boast of power, a sense of “warning that a war is on the way.” Obviously, here NATO will change the balance of power to the benefit of Russia.

On the other hand, the recent decision by the US and NATO members in the establishment of two command centers in America and Germany against Russia, and enhancement of NATO and US nuclear weapons in German’s territory, reveal Washington’s long-term military strategy against Moscow.

The concerns have put Washington’s and NATO’s at an alert level for a possible military attack on Moscow.

Despite recent warnings from influential political figures like former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev, the late and ongoing conflicts between the US and Russia can lead to a condition far more grim than the Cold War era.

In this mayhem, factors such as “multiplicity of actors,” “increasing the rate of international actors’ vulnerability,” “modernizing nuclear weapons,” will enhance the cost of the new confrontation between Washington and Moscow.

Europe turns into battleground between US, Russia

As the conflict between Washington and Moscow is on the rise, many analysts believe the world will be going through a repeat of tensions of the Cold War era or even worse.

NATO’s (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and Russia’s new type of military drills both represent a radicalization of the climate between the two sides and a shift from “political” dispute to “military” conflict.

Although the real conflict is between Washington and Moscow, NATO’s European member states will inevitably get affected by the dispute, the result of which can severely threaten the European Union’s (EU) security.

European countries were hit the worst post-World War II andCold War and were the main victim of the wars devastating effects due to their geopolitical position.

Today, given the deployment of American’s nuclear missiles in Europe and Russian’s on Western European borders, Europe can once again become the “main battlefield” between the White House and the Kremlin.

Even if no war breaks out between the United States and Russia, European countries will experience the aftermath of the conflict on their economy, which is pretty much dependent on imports and exports, and will be hit by a tsunami of immigration.

Nowadays, the likelihood of the European Union collapse, due to internal and external threats, has increased more than ever before which is a matter of concern for many EU leaders.

In a wrap, European states don’t hold certain theoretical and practical framework or policy in regulating relations with Moscow and Washington, thus many of them have become involved in the conflict between the two powers, a process that can be very dangerous for the European Union.

What can salvage the European continent which is stuck in the middle of the US and Russia’s tug of war is the formation of a coalition of EU member states that are also part of NATO to mediate in the growing crises between the United States and Russia.

US, Europe meddle in Russian elections

Tensions have escalated between the United States and Russia. These tensions have also appeared in various parts of the world, including Syria, the Mediterranean, the Baltics, and the Crimean Peninsula. As time passes, the battlefield between the United States and Russia becomes wider. European countries, too, have directly gotten involved in the complex situation. On the one hand, without the support of the US and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), they have the power to form an independent and unified army to counter Russia’s threats. On the other hand, their commitments to the United States and NATO have led to a sharp decline in their maneuverability in the peaceful settlement of existing conflicts between the United States and Russia.

What is certain is that European countries, as effective actors in the international arena, see their security as a precondition for avoiding a persistent controversy (especially in the military dimension) between the US and Russia. European countries know well that in the event of any conflict between Washington and Moscow, Europe will be the main venue for it. But will the European countries have mediation power between the White House and the Kremlin? Will they be able to resist engagement in case of chronic tensions between Russia and the US? The answer to this question is definitely no.

The fact is that the membership of many EU member states in NATO as well as the specific geo-strategic and even geo-economic status of the European Union has made these countries part of the conflict between the United States and Russia. While, according to the best-known mediation rules in the international system, if the independence of an actor is less, mediating power also declines. Europe can not only play a mediating role between the United States and Russia, but will directly influence the conflict. The European Union is now faced with Russia in various geographic and strategic areas.

Undoubtedly, in the near future, we will see more serious political conflicts regarding Europe’s relationship with the United States and NATO. These disagreements will augment conflict between the United States and Russia. Since 2014, as a result of the crisis in Ukraine and the intensification of tensions between Russia and NATO in Syria, Europe has directly entered the conflict between the United States and Russia. In 2017, the trend was intensifying. In the NATO military maneuvers in the summer of 2017 in Poland and Lithuania, NATO members presented a controversial military confrontation with Russia. By contrast, Russia also responded sharply to NATO’s military maneuvers in the Kaliningrad area. Undoubtedly, in 2018, the tensions between Russia and the United States will increase further. However, the main question is, what will be the future of Europe?  No one can answer this question.

The United States and the European Union are making a joint and complementary effort to change the political fabric of Russia. Washington and NATO members are well aware that one of the major ways in which the Russians rethink foreign policy and the retreat of the Kremlin against NATO threats is to deflect Russia’s internal structure through the emergence of some political conflicts and chronic disagreements.

The next point is that the United States and the European Union consider the “election” as the most sensitive political event in Russia which can strengthen the pro-NATO currents within Russia and weaken Putin’s power. In other words, the United States and Europe see Russia as an opportunity to inject some of the deterrent factors in Moscow’s domestic and foreign policy towards the 2018 presidential election. Washington and Europe know that according to polls Putin will be reelected. Nonetheless, NATO members are struggling to strengthen the internal divide between Russian parties and the Russian people. The West does not pay much attention to the outcome of the Russian presidential elections, but seeks to curb Russia’s power by creating a turbulent political atmosphere inside the country.

Continue Reading


Putin Explains Why Russia’s New Weapons Can’t Be Stopped by ABMs

Eric Zuesse



In a “Russia Insight” TV interview of Russian President Vladimir Putin that was uploaded to youtube with English subtitles on March 10th, NBC’s Megyn Kelly asked him why America’s ABMs wouldn’t be able to knock out Russia’s new missiles. He answered (16:40): “We have created a set of new strategic weapons that do not follow ballistic trajectories, and the anti-missile defence systems are powerless against them. This means that the U.S. taxpayers’ money has been wasted.”

A ballistic missile — the types of missiles at which an ABM or anti-ballistic missile is directed — is not just any type of missile, but instead is a missile with a certain type of trajectory, which goes above the Earth’s atmosphere and then comes down largely using the force of gravity instead of continuously under propulsion and strict control. Putin is saying that Russia’s new missiles, which are designed so as not to be adhering to the flight-paths that ballistic missiles do, can’t be hit by anti-ballistic missiles.

Putin referred to Russia’s largest new missile as “Voyevoda.” The missile’s manufacturer posts online about it, “33 launches in all were conducted, 97.4% of them successful.”

She then asked him whether these weapons will be used only if Russia comes under a nuclear attack, or against any attack; he answered it would be either a nuclear attack “or a conventional attack on the Russian Federation, given that it jeopardizes the state’s existence.” He implied that if an ally of Russia gets attacked, Russia will respond only with non-nuclear forces.

Then, he volunteered to say, in response to a question about what the issues would be that Russia would want formal negotiations with the U.S., that, “today, when we are acquiring weapons that can easily breach all anti-ballistic missile systems, we no longer consider the reduction of ballistic missiles and warheads to be important.”

She asked whether the new weapons he was referring to could be “part of the discussion,“ and he said they “should, of course, be included in the grand total.”

This interview continued with non-nuclear matters, such as the accusations that he had interfered in America’s 2016 Presidential contest, or tried to. His answers were very direct, but viewers who support the ongoing Russiagate investigations will probably not believe his answers.

As regards the weapons-issues, there is posted online a brilliant technical description of the types of engineering issues that the Russians have been developing for decades, in which they’ve led the world and in which their lead has been widening, and which were behind what Putin was speaking about in his March 1st speech. Though that technical description was a reader-comment, instead of an article, it was article-length, and makes the issues clear; and the article that it was commenting upon was itself brilliant: and it links to an earlier brilliant article by Andrei Martyanov; so, all three of those together enable a pretty clear understanding of what’s involved in Russia’s biggest strategic-weapons breakthroughs.

Continue Reading


Green Planet39 mins ago

UN spotlights rainwater recycling, artificial wetlands among ‘green’ solutions to global water crisis

With five billion people at risk of having difficulty accessing adequate water by 2050, finding nature-based solutions, such as China’s...

Newsdesk3 hours ago

Beijing: Getting to know Chemical Leasing

Experts from the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) have introduced the circular economy business model, Chemical Leasing, to stakeholders...

Tech7 hours ago

UN forum to spotlight ways ICT can help beat poverty and boost development

Making information and communication technology (ICT) readily available for vulnerable countries and harnessing it’s potential to help tackle a raft...

Green Planet8 hours ago

Climate Change Could Force Over 140 Million to Migrate Within Countries by 2050

The worsening impacts of climate change in three densely populated regions of the world could see over 140 million people...

Energy10 hours ago

Sustainable energy at affordable prices precondition for prospering economies in OSCE region and beyond

Energy security, the protection of critical energy infrastructure, the development and integration of renewable energy and the best use of...

Middle East11 hours ago

The role of spin doctors in the Eastern Ghouta crisis

When it comes to war, it is exceedingly important to get all the facts straight: always remember there are—at least—two...

Newsdesk12 hours ago

UNIDO to work together with the International Solar Alliance

The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) has signed an agreement to work together with the International Solar Alliance (ISA)....



Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy