(10-09-2016 05:08 PM)CamelToe Wrote:  framing it as religious is short sighted.... large portion of syrian army is sunni.... also houthi rebels have support from sunni population.

the saudi's have traditionally used religion as a powerful tool in foreign policy/relations for long term influence. during the arab spring they became opportunistic in the same ways that erdogan did. obviously this has backfired on both of them. western states did too

Short sighted? I didn't mention the entirety of Sunni civilians acting against Shia, Christian and Alawite. They do however make up the majority of supporters and fighters so its safe to say, yes it is a war along religious lines.

In other news the British Government is stirring it up with Russia politically. Its like these idiots think what they say will have any positive impact at all.

Sky news

The situation with Russia appears to have intensified drastically over the past two-to-four days. Retired CIA spook John Schindler reports that Putin has moved nukes into Kaliningrad - SA26s that can reach Warsaw in 2 minutes, and is therefore effectively indefensible.

He calls this Obama's own "Cuban missile crisis," alluding to JFK's showdown with the Soviets over nukes put into Cuba to threaten the US in October 16 to 28th, 1962. (The story in short: Castro wanted launch control of them, partly in payback for the US' botched 'invasion' of 1961, called "Bay of Pigs"; Soviet Premier Khrushchev denied him this; and Kennedy threatened going to war if he didn't remove them. Ultmately, Khrushchev backed down, removing them in exchange for removal of Jupiter missiles from Turkey, which were - cleverly - ALREADY scheduled for retirement because they required obsolete liquid fueling, which impaired missile launch readiness. The world became aware of this - the most tense and intense clutch points during the Cold War, and when nuclear war came closest to happening - when Kennedy launched a naval blockade of transit to and from Cuba. The naval blockade was only ended days before Thanksgiving in November, after sufficient agreements and assurances - often secret - had been reached.)

In Schindler's piece at the New York Observer on Monday, the author makes much of Obama golfing through this epic, yet ignored, crisis. (http://observer.com/2016/10/obama-blows-...inst-nato/)

The upshot it this:

Quote:In military terms, this is a game-changer for the Baltic region. Politically, it’s deeply destabilizing too. It’s nothing less than a regional version of the Cuban Missile Crisis, with Moscow placing nuclear missiles close to the Western camp for strategic advantage. Why Putin would do this when Obama has just three months left in the White House is the key question—and answering it reveals disturbing truths.

Schindler also updates ongoing developments through his more frequent Tweets. (https://twitter.com/20committee?ref_src=...r%5Eauthor)

In addition, Russian news via Zerohedge late Tuesday night (US time), says that Putin has ordered the immediate return of officials' children home to Russia from abroad:

Quote:In Europe, when it gets serious, you have to lie... at least if you are an unelected bureaucrat like Jean-Claude Juncker. In Russia, however, when it gets serious, attention immediately turns to the children.

Which is why we read a report in Russian website Znak [LINK at original] published Tuesday, according to which Russian state officials and government workers were told to bring back their children studying abroad immediately, even if means cutting their education short and not waiting until the end of the school year, and re-enroll them in Russian schools, with some concern. The article adds that if the parents of these same officials also live abroad "for some reason", and have not lost their Russian citizenship, should also be returned to the motherland. Znak cited five administration officials as the source of the report.

The "recommendation" applies to all: from the administration staff, to regional administratiors, to lawmakers of all levels. Employees of public corporations are also subject to the ordinance. One of the sources said that anyone who fails to act, will find such non-compliance to be a "complicating factor in the furtherance of their public sector career." He added that he was aware of several such cases in recent months.

(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-11...ing-abroad)

This piece is full of diversionary considerations - concluding in a paragraph beginning, "Ultimately the motivation behind Putin's decision is unclear..." - when the truth is, in fact, perfectly clear: Russia is preparing to invade somewhere soon, and wants potential targets of hostage taking (to be ransomed against Putin's war policy) to be removed from jeopardy; such drastic actions are only undertaken to do so.

The question is "Where will Russia attack?" Syria, the Baltics, or Ukraine?

This entire thread suggests Syria. But there has been an enormous Russian troop and tank buildup, including cancelled leaves (or other preparatory action...my memory is imperfect on the specific detail), along the Ukraine-Russia border, which suggests the latter target, and therefore a move to capture terrain deeper into Ukraine may well be imminent.

(Roosh Readers in Ukraine are WARNED: LEAVE EASTERN UKRAINE NOW.)

Fall is the right time to make it happen, a month or two before the snow falls and winter lands to forestall any sustained resistance campaign against Russian territorial aggression.

The only last question is this: is a renewed invasion coming down before the US presidential election in November? Or after?

To be fair and complete, less than 20 minutes after Zerohedge posted the foregoing, at 10PM there appeared a roundup of potentially bellicose statements from US officials. I note the presence of President' Ashe Carter, among others. Yet nowhere is the new 'nukes in Kaliningrad' issue mentioned in it. ("Nuclear War is on the Horizon" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-11...been-taken)

Whatever the case, context, or cue, none of this suggests a more peaceful fall-into-winter is coming this year.

(10-11-2016 05:01 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

(10-09-2016 05:08 PM)CamelToe Wrote:  framing it as religious is short sighted.... large portion of syrian army is sunni.... also houthi rebels have support from sunni population.

the saudi's have traditionally used religion as a powerful tool in foreign policy/relations for long term influence. during the arab spring they became opportunistic in the same ways that erdogan did. obviously this has backfired on both of them. western states did too

Short sighted? I didn't mention the entirety of Sunni civilians acting against Shia, Christian and Alawite. They do however make up the majority of supporters and fighters so its safe to say, yes it is a war along religious lines.

In other news the British Government is stirring it up with Russia politically. Its like these idiots think what they say will have any positive impact at all.

Sky news

Yes, though one side has multi-confessional fighters and it's not the US and Saudi backed rebels.

There is intense factionalism. Neither side has really well coordinated, disciplined and centralised forces. It's a lot like the Thirty Years War. You muster various militias for a particular offensive, but you don't have the logistical or financial means to keep them together long enough to win the war.

Also like the Thirty Years War, a sectarian civil war has been made into a regional conflict by outside players. Only some of whom are interested in the internal issues. e.g. the Thirty Years War ended up as a confrontation between France and Spain even though they were both Catholic powers. And Syria has ended up as a stand off between Russia and US, even though neither are Shia nor Sunni Muslims.

Good write-up Orson. I feel we're being hidden from the truth on this and the political elite are either willfully ignorant or want it to happen.

Our intelligence services must know something as they're not truly blinded by political correctness and fear mongering.

Rumors afloat about Putin recalling government officials to the motherland and if they don't - it might hinder promotions.

Granted most of this isn't from the standard news sites but tabloids.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-n...orld-war-3

(10-12-2016 01:58 AM)Orson Wrote:  The situation with Russia appears to have intensified drastically over the past two-to-four days. Retired CIA spook John Schindler reports that Putin has moved nukes into Kaliningrad - SA26s that can reach Warsaw in 2 minutes, and is therefore effectively indefensible.

He calls this Obama's own "Cuban missile crisis," alluding to JFK's showdown with the Soviets over nukes put into Cuba to threaten the US in October 16 to 28th, 1962. (The story in short: Castro wanted launch control of them, partly in payback for the US' botched 'invasion' of 1961, called "Bay of Pigs"; Soviet Premier Khrushchev denied him this; and Kennedy threatened going to war if he didn't remove them. Ultmately, Khrushchev backed down, removing them in exchange for removal of Jupiter missiles from Turkey, which were - cleverly - ALREADY scheduled for retirement because they required obsolete liquid fueling, which impaired missile launch readiness. The world became aware of this - the most tense and intense clutch points during the Cold War, and when nuclear war came closest to happening - when Kennedy launched a naval blockade of transit to and from Cuba. The naval blockade was only ended days before Thanksgiving in November, after sufficient agreements and assurances - often secret - had been reached.)

In Schindler's piece at the New York Observer on Monday, the author makes much of Obama golfing through this epic, yet ignored, crisis. (http://observer.com/2016/10/obama-blows-...inst-nato/)

The upshot it this:

Quote:In military terms, this is a game-changer for the Baltic region. Politically, it’s deeply destabilizing too. It’s nothing less than a regional version of the Cuban Missile Crisis, with Moscow placing nuclear missiles close to the Western camp for strategic advantage. Why Putin would do this when Obama has just three months left in the White House is the key question—and answering it reveals disturbing truths.

Schindler also updates ongoing developments through his more frequent Tweets. (https://twitter.com/20committee?ref_src=...r%5Eauthor)

In addition, Russian news via Zerohedge late Tuesday night (US time), says that Putin has ordered the immediate return of officials' children home to Russia from abroad:

Quote:In Europe, when it gets serious, you have to lie... at least if you are an unelected bureaucrat like Jean-Claude Juncker. In Russia, however, when it gets serious, attention immediately turns to the children.

Which is why we read a report in Russian website Znak [LINK at original] published Tuesday, according to which Russian state officials and government workers were told to bring back their children studying abroad immediately, even if means cutting their education short and not waiting until the end of the school year, and re-enroll them in Russian schools, with some concern. The article adds that if the parents of these same officials also live abroad "for some reason", and have not lost their Russian citizenship, should also be returned to the motherland. Znak cited five administration officials as the source of the report.

The "recommendation" applies to all: from the administration staff, to regional administratiors, to lawmakers of all levels. Employees of public corporations are also subject to the ordinance. One of the sources said that anyone who fails to act, will find such non-compliance to be a "complicating factor in the furtherance of their public sector career." He added that he was aware of several such cases in recent months.

(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-11...ing-abroad)

This piece is full of diversionary considerations - concluding in a paragraph beginning, "Ultimately the motivation behind Putin's decision is unclear..." - when the truth is, in fact, perfectly clear: Russia is preparing to invade somewhere soon, and wants potential targets of hostage taking (to be ransomed against Putin's war policy) to be removed from jeopardy; such drastic actions are only undertaken to do so.

The question is "Where will Russia attack?" Syria, the Baltics, or Ukraine?

This entire thread suggests Syria. But there has been an enormous Russian troop and tank buildup, including cancelled leaves (or other preparatory action...my memory is imperfect on the specific detail), along the Ukraine-Russia border, which suggests the latter target, and therefore a move to capture terrain deeper into Ukraine may well be imminent.

(Roosh Readers in Ukraine are WARNED: LEAVE EASTERN UKRAINE NOW.)

Fall is the right time to make it happen, a month or two before the snow falls and winter lands to forestall any sustained resistance campaign against Russian territorial aggression.

The only last question is this: is a renewed invasion coming down before the US presidential election in November? Or after?

To be fair and complete, less than 20 minutes after Zerohedge posted the foregoing, at 10PM there appeared a roundup of potentially bellicose statements from US officials. I note the presence of President' Ashe Carter, among others. Yet nowhere is the new 'nukes in Kaliningrad' issue mentioned in it. ("Nuclear War is on the Horizon" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-11...been-taken)

Whatever the case, context, or cue, none of this suggests a more peaceful fall-into-winter is coming this year.

The question here is why would Russia invade Ukraine or the Baltics? If it has not done it so far, what was the point or the geopolitical goal? Also Russia will never nuke the Baltics or Ukraine since millions of Russians live in these countries.
Whats the point of invading Syria, since Russia has an army with boots on the ground already that are the Assad forces.

Does not the US still have nukes in Turkey at the gates of Russia?

This is fear and warmongering, nothing but a call to arms from the deep US State Department propaganda machine, Schindler, Kissinger, McCain...all the same.

I will be in Eastern Ukraine, thanks for the advice but I decline.

Yeah. I have to admit all the recent headlines have had me feeling a little anxious but I still plan to head to Ukraine on Sat. If WWIII starts it would be great story to tell later. Lol.

Rocha asks "The question here is why would Russia invade Ukraine or the Baltics? If it has not done it so far, what was the point or the geopolitical goal?"

Putin has made no secret that when Gorby gave up the ex-Soviet states that became the FIS, this was a great mistake and betrayal of Russian interests. He has made no secret of the fact that he wants to use the notion of 'Greater Russia' to both rejoin Russian populations with Mother Russia as well as to make non-Russian border nations compliant and intimidated - unlike, for instance, Ukraine, Georgia, etc.

These geopolitical goals are clear. What isn't clear is how far Putin will push them (eg, to Transnistria in Moldova? To Kaliningrad? And How deep into Ukraine?), and when? But it is clear that Putin is an aggressive nationalist and political opportunist, who enjoy gambling to make his own luck!

And all this reinforces his prestige and popularity at home in Russia.

(10-12-2016 04:30 PM)Rocha Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 01:58 AM)Orson Wrote:  The situation with Russia appears to have intensified drastically over the past two-to-four days. Retired CIA spook John Schindler reports that Putin has moved nukes into Kaliningrad - SA26s that can reach Warsaw in 2 minutes, and is therefore effectively indefensible.

He calls this Obama's own "Cuban missile crisis," alluding to JFK's showdown with the Soviets over nukes put into Cuba to threaten the US in October 16 to 28th, 1962. (The story in short: Castro wanted launch control of them, partly in payback for the US' botched 'invasion' of 1961, called "Bay of Pigs"; Soviet Premier Khrushchev denied him this; and Kennedy threatened going to war if he didn't remove them. Ultmately, Khrushchev backed down, removing them in exchange for removal of Jupiter missiles from Turkey, which were - cleverly - ALREADY scheduled for retirement because they required obsolete liquid fueling, which impaired missile launch readiness. The world became aware of this - the most tense and intense clutch points during the Cold War, and when nuclear war came closest to happening - when Kennedy launched a naval blockade of transit to and from Cuba. The naval blockade was only ended days before Thanksgiving in November, after sufficient agreements and assurances - often secret - had been reached.)

In Schindler's piece at the New York Observer on Monday, the author makes much of Obama golfing through this epic, yet ignored, crisis. (http://observer.com/2016/10/obama-blows-...inst-nato/)

The upshot it this:

Quote:In military terms, this is a game-changer for the Baltic region. Politically, it’s deeply destabilizing too. It’s nothing less than a regional version of the Cuban Missile Crisis, with Moscow placing nuclear missiles close to the Western camp for strategic advantage. Why Putin would do this when Obama has just three months left in the White House is the key question—and answering it reveals disturbing truths.

Schindler also updates ongoing developments through his more frequent Tweets. (https://twitter.com/20committee?ref_src=...r%5Eauthor)

In addition, Russian news via Zerohedge late Tuesday night (US time), says that Putin has ordered the immediate return of officials' children home to Russia from abroad:

Quote:In Europe, when it gets serious, you have to lie... at least if you are an unelected bureaucrat like Jean-Claude Juncker. In Russia, however, when it gets serious, attention immediately turns to the children.

Which is why we read a report in Russian website Znak [LINK at original] published Tuesday, according to which Russian state officials and government workers were told to bring back their children studying abroad immediately, even if means cutting their education short and not waiting until the end of the school year, and re-enroll them in Russian schools, with some concern. The article adds that if the parents of these same officials also live abroad "for some reason", and have not lost their Russian citizenship, should also be returned to the motherland. Znak cited five administration officials as the source of the report.

The "recommendation" applies to all: from the administration staff, to regional administratiors, to lawmakers of all levels. Employees of public corporations are also subject to the ordinance. One of the sources said that anyone who fails to act, will find such non-compliance to be a "complicating factor in the furtherance of their public sector career." He added that he was aware of several such cases in recent months.

(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-11...ing-abroad)

This piece is full of diversionary considerations - concluding in a paragraph beginning, "Ultimately the motivation behind Putin's decision is unclear..." - when the truth is, in fact, perfectly clear: Russia is preparing to invade somewhere soon, and wants potential targets of hostage taking (to be ransomed against Putin's war policy) to be removed from jeopardy; such drastic actions are only undertaken to do so.

The question is "Where will Russia attack?" Syria, the Baltics, or Ukraine?

This entire thread suggests Syria. But there has been an enormous Russian troop and tank buildup, including cancelled leaves (or other preparatory action...my memory is imperfect on the specific detail), along the Ukraine-Russia border, which suggests the latter target, and therefore a move to capture terrain deeper into Ukraine may well be imminent.

(Roosh Readers in Ukraine are WARNED: LEAVE EASTERN UKRAINE NOW.)

Fall is the right time to make it happen, a month or two before the snow falls and winter lands to forestall any sustained resistance campaign against Russian territorial aggression.

The only last question is this: is a renewed invasion coming down before the US presidential election in November? Or after?

To be fair and complete, less than 20 minutes after Zerohedge posted the foregoing, at 10PM there appeared a roundup of potentially bellicose statements from US officials. I note the presence of President' Ashe Carter, among others. Yet nowhere is the new 'nukes in Kaliningrad' issue mentioned in it. ("Nuclear War is on the Horizon" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-11...been-taken)

Whatever the case, context, or cue, none of this suggests a more peaceful fall-into-winter is coming this year.

The question here is why would Russia invade Ukraine or the Baltics? If it has not done it so far, what was the point or the geopolitical goal? Also Russia will never nuke the Baltics or Ukraine since millions of Russians live in these countries.
Whats the point of invading Syria, since Russia has an army with boots on the ground already that are the Assad forces.

Does not the US still have nukes in Turkey at the gates of Russia?

This is fear and warmongering, nothing but a call to arms from the deep US State Department propaganda machine, Schindler, Kissinger, McCain...all the same.

I will be in Eastern Ukraine, thanks for the advice but I decline.

Please go back to the Pentagon.

   

(10-12-2016 05:25 PM)Orson Wrote:  Rocha asks "The question here is why would Russia invade Ukraine or the Baltics? If it has not done it so far, what was the point or the geopolitical goal?"

Putin has made no secret that when Gorby gave up the ex-Soviet states that became the FIS, this was a great mistake and betrayal of Russian interests. He has made no secret of the fact that he wants to use the notion of 'Greater Russia' to both rejoin Russian populations with Mother Russia as well as to make non-Russian border nations compliant and intimidated - unlike, for instance, Ukraine, Georgia, etc.

These geopolitical goals are clear. What isn't clear is how far Putin will push them (eg, to Transnistria in Moldova? To Kaliningrad? And How deep into Ukraine?), and when? But it is clear that Putin is an aggressive nationalist and political opportunist, who enjoy gambling to make his own luck!

And all this reinforces his prestige and popularity at home in Russia.

(10-12-2016 04:30 PM)Rocha Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 01:58 AM)Orson Wrote:  The situation with Russia appears to have intensified drastically over the past two-to-four days. Retired CIA spook John Schindler reports that Putin has moved nukes into Kaliningrad - SA26s that can reach Warsaw in 2 minutes, and is therefore effectively indefensible.

He calls this Obama's own "Cuban missile crisis," alluding to JFK's showdown with the Soviets over nukes put into Cuba to threaten the US in October 16 to 28th, 1962. (The story in short: Castro wanted launch control of them, partly in payback for the US' botched 'invasion' of 1961, called "Bay of Pigs"; Soviet Premier Khrushchev denied him this; and Kennedy threatened going to war if he didn't remove them. Ultmately, Khrushchev backed down, removing them in exchange for removal of Jupiter missiles from Turkey, which were - cleverly - ALREADY scheduled for retirement because they required obsolete liquid fueling, which impaired missile launch readiness. The world became aware of this - the most tense and intense clutch points during the Cold War, and when nuclear war came closest to happening - when Kennedy launched a naval blockade of transit to and from Cuba. The naval blockade was only ended days before Thanksgiving in November, after sufficient agreements and assurances - often secret - had been reached.)

In Schindler's piece at the New York Observer on Monday, the author makes much of Obama golfing through this epic, yet ignored, crisis. (http://observer.com/2016/10/obama-blows-...inst-nato/)

The upshot it this:

Quote:In military terms, this is a game-changer for the Baltic region. Politically, it’s deeply destabilizing too. It’s nothing less than a regional version of the Cuban Missile Crisis, with Moscow placing nuclear missiles close to the Western camp for strategic advantage. Why Putin would do this when Obama has just three months left in the White House is the key question—and answering it reveals disturbing truths.

Schindler also updates ongoing developments through his more frequent Tweets. (https://twitter.com/20committee?ref_src=...r%5Eauthor)

In addition, Russian news via Zerohedge late Tuesday night (US time), says that Putin has ordered the immediate return of officials' children home to Russia from abroad:

Quote:In Europe, when it gets serious, you have to lie... at least if you are an unelected bureaucrat like Jean-Claude Juncker. In Russia, however, when it gets serious, attention immediately turns to the children.

Which is why we read a report in Russian website Znak [LINK at original] published Tuesday, according to which Russian state officials and government workers were told to bring back their children studying abroad immediately, even if means cutting their education short and not waiting until the end of the school year, and re-enroll them in Russian schools, with some concern. The article adds that if the parents of these same officials also live abroad "for some reason", and have not lost their Russian citizenship, should also be returned to the motherland. Znak cited five administration officials as the source of the report.

The "recommendation" applies to all: from the administration staff, to regional administratiors, to lawmakers of all levels. Employees of public corporations are also subject to the ordinance. One of the sources said that anyone who fails to act, will find such non-compliance to be a "complicating factor in the furtherance of their public sector career." He added that he was aware of several such cases in recent months.

(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-11...ing-abroad)

This piece is full of diversionary considerations - concluding in a paragraph beginning, "Ultimately the motivation behind Putin's decision is unclear..." - when the truth is, in fact, perfectly clear: Russia is preparing to invade somewhere soon, and wants potential targets of hostage taking (to be ransomed against Putin's war policy) to be removed from jeopardy; such drastic actions are only undertaken to do so.

The question is "Where will Russia attack?" Syria, the Baltics, or Ukraine?

This entire thread suggests Syria. But there has been an enormous Russian troop and tank buildup, including cancelled leaves (or other preparatory action...my memory is imperfect on the specific detail), along the Ukraine-Russia border, which suggests the latter target, and therefore a move to capture terrain deeper into Ukraine may well be imminent.

(Roosh Readers in Ukraine are WARNED: LEAVE EASTERN UKRAINE NOW.)

Fall is the right time to make it happen, a month or two before the snow falls and winter lands to forestall any sustained resistance campaign against Russian territorial aggression.

The only last question is this: is a renewed invasion coming down before the US presidential election in November? Or after?

To be fair and complete, less than 20 minutes after Zerohedge posted the foregoing, at 10PM there appeared a roundup of potentially bellicose statements from US officials. I note the presence of President' Ashe Carter, among others. Yet nowhere is the new 'nukes in Kaliningrad' issue mentioned in it. ("Nuclear War is on the Horizon" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-11...been-taken)

Whatever the case, context, or cue, none of this suggests a more peaceful fall-into-winter is coming this year.

The question here is why would Russia invade Ukraine or the Baltics? If it has not done it so far, what was the point or the geopolitical goal? Also Russia will never nuke the Baltics or Ukraine since millions of Russians live in these countries.
Whats the point of invading Syria, since Russia has an army with boots on the ground already that are the Assad forces.

Does not the US still have nukes in Turkey at the gates of Russia?

This is fear and warmongering, nothing but a call to arms from the deep US State Department propaganda machine, Schindler, Kissinger, McCain...all the same.

I will be in Eastern Ukraine, thanks for the advice but I decline.

(10-12-2016 01:58 AM)Orson Wrote:  The situation with Russia appears to have intensified drastically over the past two-to-four days. Retired CIA spook John Schindler reports that Putin has moved nukes into Kaliningrad - SA26s that can reach Warsaw in 2 minutes, and is therefore effectively indefensible.

He calls this Obama's own "Cuban missile crisis," alluding to JFK's showdown with the Soviets over nukes put into Cuba to threaten the US in October 16 to 28th, 1962. (The story in short: Castro wanted launch control of them, partly in payback for the US' botched 'invasion' of 1961, called "Bay of Pigs"; Soviet Premier Khrushchev denied him this; and Kennedy threatened going to war if he didn't remove them. Ultmately, Khrushchev backed down, removing them in exchange for removal of Jupiter missiles from Turkey, which were - cleverly - ALREADY scheduled for retirement because they required obsolete liquid fueling, which impaired missile launch readiness. The world became aware of this - the most tense and intense clutch points during the Cold War, and when nuclear war came closest to happening - when Kennedy launched a naval blockade of transit to and from Cuba. The naval blockade was only ended days before Thanksgiving in November, after sufficient agreements and assurances - often secret - had been reached.)

In Schindler's piece at the New York Observer on Monday, the author makes much of Obama golfing through this epic, yet ignored, crisis. (http://observer.com/2016/10/obama-blows-...inst-nato/)

The upshot it this:

Quote:In military terms, this is a game-changer for the Baltic region. Politically, it’s deeply destabilizing too. It’s nothing less than a regional version of the Cuban Missile Crisis, with Moscow placing nuclear missiles close to the Western camp for strategic advantage. Why Putin would do this when Obama has just three months left in the White House is the key question—and answering it reveals disturbing truths.

Schindler also updates ongoing developments through his more frequent Tweets. (https://twitter.com/20committee?ref_src=...r%5Eauthor)

In addition, Russian news via Zerohedge late Tuesday night (US time), says that Putin has ordered the immediate return of officials' children home to Russia from abroad:

Quote:In Europe, when it gets serious, you have to lie... at least if you are an unelected bureaucrat like Jean-Claude Juncker. In Russia, however, when it gets serious, attention immediately turns to the children.

Which is why we read a report in Russian website Znak [LINK at original] published Tuesday, according to which Russian state officials and government workers were told to bring back their children studying abroad immediately, even if means cutting their education short and not waiting until the end of the school year, and re-enroll them in Russian schools, with some concern. The article adds that if the parents of these same officials also live abroad "for some reason", and have not lost their Russian citizenship, should also be returned to the motherland. Znak cited five administration officials as the source of the report.

The "recommendation" applies to all: from the administration staff, to regional administratiors, to lawmakers of all levels. Employees of public corporations are also subject to the ordinance. One of the sources said that anyone who fails to act, will find such non-compliance to be a "complicating factor in the furtherance of their public sector career." He added that he was aware of several such cases in recent months.

(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-11...ing-abroad)

This piece is full of diversionary considerations - concluding in a paragraph beginning, "Ultimately the motivation behind Putin's decision is unclear..." - when the truth is, in fact, perfectly clear: Russia is preparing to invade somewhere soon, and wants potential targets of hostage taking (to be ransomed against Putin's war policy) to be removed from jeopardy; such drastic actions are only undertaken to do so.

The question is "Where will Russia attack?" Syria, the Baltics, or Ukraine?

This entire thread suggests Syria. But there has been an enormous Russian troop and tank buildup, including cancelled leaves (or other preparatory action...my memory is imperfect on the specific detail), along the Ukraine-Russia border, which suggests the latter target, and therefore a move to capture terrain deeper into Ukraine may well be imminent.

(Roosh Readers in Ukraine are WARNED: LEAVE EASTERN UKRAINE NOW.)

Fall is the right time to make it happen, a month or two before the snow falls and winter lands to forestall any sustained resistance campaign against Russian territorial aggression.

The only last question is this: is a renewed invasion coming down before the US presidential election in November? Or after?

To be fair and complete, less than 20 minutes after Zerohedge posted the foregoing, at 10PM there appeared a roundup of potentially bellicose statements from US officials. I note the presence of President' Ashe Carter, among others. Yet nowhere is the new 'nukes in Kaliningrad' issue mentioned in it. ("Nuclear War is on the Horizon" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-11...been-taken)

Whatever the case, context, or cue, none of this suggests a more peaceful fall-into-winter is coming this year.

Is that you Ash Carter?

Royal Air Force Pilots Receive Green Light to Shoot Down Russian Jets in Syria if 'Threatened'

Zero Hedge article

Latest escalation in a series of increasingly aggressive geopolitical moves on either sides in the last week. One nervous pilot on either side can flip the table upside down.

Seems like relations between the West and Russia are going below 0.

Oh man, the shit is hitting the fan hard. Hopefully its all one big bluff and nothing is happening. The last time we got this close to a full on war in Syria was when that footage of sarin gas attack by assad was released. At that time there was extreme pressure on Obama to go to war but there was also extreme pressure from the people(many on the left) to not go to war. But now that pressure is gone, the anti-war left has been subverted by globalist tools.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/...sian-face/

Mikhail Gorbachev warns world is at 'dangerous point' amid US-Russian face off over Syria

Quote:Soaring tensions between the United States and Russia have brought the world to a “dangerous point,” Mikhail Gorbachev warned on Monday.

The former Soviet leader’s intervention came amid a collapse in East-West relations over the war in Syria that has seen the Kremlin openly threaten to shoot down Western aircraft, drawing comparisons with the worst crises of the Cold War.

"I think the world has reached a dangerous point," Mr Gorbachev, 85, told state news agency RIA Novosti.

"I don't want to give any concrete prescriptions but I do want to say that this needs to stop. We need to renew dialogue. Stopping it was the biggest mistake."

The United States suspended months of talks with Russia over Syria on October 3, accusing Russia of ripping up a ceasefire deal in order to launch a relentless aerial assault on rebel-held areas of Aleppo.

John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, called on Russia and the Syrian government to be investigated for war crimes over the Aleppo campaign, a call that was echoed by France’s foreign minister on Monday.

Russia in response has accused the US of “unfriendly” actions, and deployed nuclear-capable missiles to its Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad, and warned that it would shoot down Western aircraft if the US launched airstrikes against pro-government targets in Syria.

Vladimir Putin also pulled out of and arms-control agreement aimed at reprocessing weapons-grade plutonium and demanded the US roll back its military commitment to Nato members in eastern Europe, saying that expansion of the alliance had threatened Russian security.

"It is necessary to return to the main priorities. These are nuclear disarmament, the fight against terrorism, the prevention of an environmental disaster," Mr Gorbachev said, in a rare intervention in global affairs.

"Compared to these challenges, all the rest slips into the background," he added.

Mr Gorbachev ruled the Soviet Union from 1985 until it broke up in 1991. He is widely credited with ending the Cold War and building the architecture of nuclear arms control in a series of summits with Ronald Reagan.

He has rarely intervened in politics since, but has spoken out to criticize both the Kremlin and the West over the collapse in relations. In 2014 he blamed American "triumphalism" for fueling what he warned could become a "new Cold War."

The recent collapse of relations with the West has been accompanied by open speculation in the Russian media about the dangers of all-out war with the US. Some public figures have compared the confrontation over Syria with the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German foreign minister, warned last week that "it's a fallacy to think that this is like the Cold War. The current times are different and more dangerous."

On Monday Russia said it would expand its current naval facility at the Syrian post of Tartus into a “permanent” base.

The announcement followed the ratification by the Russian parliament of a treaty allowing indefinite deployment of Russian forces to the country.

Russia is also reported to be considering establishing a military presence in Egypt for the first time since the Cold War.

Moscow and Cairo are discussing options for renting several bases, including the Soviet-era air base near Sidi Barrani, Izvestia, a pro-government daily paper, reported on Monday.

Russia said is sending 5000 paratroopers to take part in joint exercises in Egypt later this month, in a move that signifies Middle Eastern ambitions well beyond Syria.

GREAT NEWS COMRADES.

COMMANDER KLINTON WILL LEAD US TO GLORIOUS VICTORY OVER THE COMMUNIST DOGS. NUCLEAR WAR IS NOTHING COMPARED TO THE MIGHT OF THE AMERIKAN PEOPLES.

WE HAVE THEM SCARED, WORLDWIDE DOMINATION IMMINENT FOR OUR BANKSTER LEADERS! ALL HAIL THE $$$.

(10-12-2016 05:25 PM)Orson Wrote:  But it is clear that Putin is an aggressive nationalist and political opportunist, who enjoy gambling to make his own luck!

Calling Putin a gambler reveals how little you actually understand Russia, its leaders and the situation at hand.

Quote:US Russia War: US’ DEFCON Raised To Level 3 – Air Force Ready To Mobilize In 15 Minutes

Quote:According to the unofficial site DEFCON Warning System, DEFCON is already at level 3. Current international events, rising tensions, and therefore the increased possibility of a declared US Russia War seems to have raised the level. There is no lack of potential triggers – the greatest of which would be the state of the Syrian civil war, which has had both the US and Russia blaming each other over a broken ceasefire agreement, bombed aid envoys, and devastating airstrikes on and around Aleppo. With the US backing rebel groups and Russia pushing Bashar al-Assad’s government, the continued bloodshed has not made communication between the two nations any easier.

http://www.morningledger.com/us-russia-w.../13111931/

Whatever the case, the Russians will go in with the full weight of their people's support while the Americans will be going in with morale through the floor and both sides of the political spectrum either indifferent or outright rallying for a retreat followed by negotiation.

This would be the most unpopular US war in the history of all US wars, and that's really saying something. I will personally be screaming from the rooftops for zero Australian support. That was a hard sell in Iraq, but on this? It would foment rebellion.

It really puts into perspective the utter lack of political capital left in the US. Nobody trusts DC. Nobody trusts the media. All that's left is the jack-boot, and can they leverage that at home while at war abroad?

Wild times.

This is absolutely ridiculous.

I have a hard time believing that people are going to take this one sitting down.

It's funny to me that Mexico is literally at America's doorstep. It's riddled with crime and highly armed and organised drug cartels running wetbacks, drugs, guns and soldiers across the southern border....

...yet DC is obsessing over some arab state thousands of miles away.

And they wonder why people see Trump as a sane man confronting an oligopoly full of lunatics.

Trump seriously needs to go all out on anti-war sentiment. This would win him the support of the berniebros and lose him nothing with conservatives who are frankly sick of sending their sons to die for the portfolios of billionaire bankers.

Samseau called it in February.

Any other reports of this http://www.morningnewsusa.com/ww3-alert-...12768.html

sirens and jets launching? My guess is drills related to Defcon 3

(10-12-2016 05:25 PM)Orson Wrote:  Rocha asks "The question here is why would Russia invade Ukraine or the Baltics? If it has not done it so far, what was the point or the geopolitical goal?"

Putin has made no secret that when Gorby gave up the ex-Soviet states that became the FIS, this was a great mistake and betrayal of Russian interests. He has made no secret of the fact that he wants to use the notion of 'Greater Russia' to both rejoin Russian populations with Mother Russia as well as to make non-Russian border nations compliant and intimidated - unlike, for instance, Ukraine, Georgia, etc.

These geopolitical goals are clear. What isn't clear is how far Putin will push them (eg, to Transnistria in Moldova? To Kaliningrad? And How deep into Ukraine?), and when? But it is clear that Putin is an aggressive nationalist and political opportunist, who enjoy gambling to make his own luck!

And all this reinforces his prestige and popularity at home in Russia.

It does not make sense. If V. Putin wanted to invade Ukraine he would have done so at the beginning of the crisis (when Ukraine was unprotected), not now, years later, when Ukraine troops are entrenched... Also, what would or could V. Putin possibly do with a huge country that would plunge into almost generalized civil and guerrilla war (in case of Russian troops taking control)?

Russian strategy regarding Ukraine and the world in general, seems clear: wait one month to see if Hillary is elected, and if so, wait one year, the time necessary for her to transform the USA into a non-functioning broke and failed state (with hundreds of Fergusons everywhere). Then they win by default.

Why go to war when you just have to patiently watch your adversaries auto-destruct themselves (through illegal mass migrations, faggotism and leftism)?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cia-...ia-n666636

CIA cyberstrikes are being planned against Russia. Are we trying to attack Russia to effect the election?

I think that it is a way to sway people away from the wikileaks that show just how corrupt America is.

DR Howard; I got a lot of spam popups and redirects from that link. Be warned


America will lose this war badly. We're not prepared. Don't think China won't get involved. They've been waiting for their chance for years to hit their neighbors. The active duty are already mobilizing to eastern Europe. The reserve is being prepped now. My entire BCT is going to EE by 2018, if not sooner. I welcome you guys to get to know God and try to live righteous before the end takes place

Is anyone on military forums with active service personnel? The Defcon level going to 3 is one step from nuclear exchange and we hear nothing on the news.

It is a state of readiness but to think Obama's administration and its pay masters have allowed this to come to be speaks for itself. They need to be in prison at the very least.