Post: #1

*Disclaimer: this thread already exclude nuclear apoc talks because we know how it goes*

I recently find myself being interested in Russia as a military power, given the current circumstances.

Not many info exists except for some tibids here:

/thread-3080.html

My question is, just how strong is the Russian military (compared to NATO) and what is their capacity to wage or sustain warfare?

I know a lot of this would be conjecture, but the recent annexation of Crimea and Russia's invovlvement in recent conflits should give us some ideas.

-Leadership: Putin aside, are Russian commanders competent and well trained? Is their command structure effective?

-Manpower: http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-m..._id=russia

This gives a rough estimate of 47 millions fit for service in case a total mobilization is needed. And pretty sure most of those 47 millions are actually fit for service, not polluted with the basement dwellers chodes in Europe/USA.

What about their equipment? Most US sources seem to underestimate Russian equipments. Sure they might not match the US fancy wargear, but how much does this affect their combat effectiveness?

-Morale + Mentality: this is huge in war. One thing that strikes me from the other thread is this:

Quote:It may sound shallow, but I just remember seeing the stolid faces on the Moscow subway, and how I thought to myself--"These people don't expect happiness, they aren't disappointed like those in the 1st world when they don't get the right color Mercedes. They're not scared of when things go wrong.

So Russians are rougher and aren't crybabies like the Western millenials. Not to give in to stereotypes, but how much of this is true.

Let's also exclude the scenario of someone invading Russia because we all know how it ends.

Love to hear your thoughts

Post: #2

In regards to Russian technology and logistics, I'd say that Russia is extremely strong in a defensive war but has very limited ability to project power over the world, except for its nuclear deterrent of course.

That's exactly how every country's military should be, in my opinion: Impossible to conquer in a limited conventional war, dangerous to overwhelm in a total conventional war.

Post: #3

The sinews of war is infinite money and Russia, for all its vast natural resources, has a GDP smaller than California. Russia can have a very effective 'tip of the spear' with well armed and well trained troops. However, what is behind this tip won't be that effective. Russia would run out of money and resources in any sustained conventional conflict.

Take a look at Russia's war with Georgia: Very good front line forces. The second tier forces were such a mess that they did more damage to the areas that they were supposed to defend than the Georgian army did.

Post: #4

(08-11-2016 08:30 AM)Hell_Is_Like_Newark Wrote:  Take a look at Russia's war with Georgia: Very good front line forces. The second tier forces were such a mess that they did more damage to the areas that they were supposed to defend than the Georgian army did.

The Russian military was extensively modernized since then, as can be seen on the example of their intervention in Crimea two years ago. They captur...um, liberated Crimea from Ukraine almost without firing a bullet, demonstrating an increased capability to wage unconventional war by using SOF, cyber-warfare etc.

Post: #5

I wouldn't fight against Russia whatsoever. I'd be more inclined to actually fight FOR them, but ultimately I'd want to try and stay out of it if I could.

Post: #6

It's anyone's guess, but I agree with what Handsome Creepy Eel said.

Russia has been invaded throughout their history by Western European countries, and their war machine is designed for such a scenario. Unlike the West, they don't seem to be interested in wars of conquest, so do not have much in terms of projection of power.

Given their history, most of their forces seem to be designed as a deterrent for would be invaders. They've concentrated a great deal of resources on nuclear weapons technology, as recent history has shown that it's the only effective deterrent from pre-emptive invasion.

On paper, their forces would lose out in a conventional war with NATO. They have lower force numbers, and their most modern equipment (fifth generation air superiority fighters, newest attack submarine class) has been too costly to produce in large numbers.

However, I wouldn't count them out. It's difficult to say what technology they've developed, and how effective it would be against a modern NATO force, or vice versa. Although they've been unable to produce modern fighters in large enough numbers to combat the air forces of NATO, they'be put a great deal of resources in developing anti-aircraft technology. The capability of the S500 surface to air missile system is largely unknown, though its less advanced predecessor, the S400 prevented the RAF from conducting air operations in Syria last year.

If they can prevent NATO from achieving air superiority, their ground forces may be able to deter any attempted invasion. The T-14, and late evolution T-90s are likely very capable battle tanks, and could prove a match for the latest German, British, and US battle tanks. There would also probably be wide deployment of relatively cheap all terrain vehicles carrying surface to surface or surface to air missiles. Helicopters may also be used, though it'd be interesting to see how vulnerable they'd be to cheap shoulder fired surface to air missiles.

On the naval front, Russia likely has among the world's most advanced naval mines, and could effectively close access to most of it's key coastal regions. During the first gulf war, Iraq was able to prevent naval operations using much older mine technology. The US is retiring it's minesweeping fleet, and is having difficulty developing it's replacement in the LCS-2 class.

The nuclear submarine force is too small to take the NATO nuclear submarine force head on, but could be deployed to conduct disproportionate logistical warfare in NATO ports, or to harass supply lines. America's MAD (magnetic anomaly detection) capability is aging, and the P-3s will be retired eventually. Their large force of conventional submarines are extremely quiet, and could be an additional deterrent for coastal operations by their adversaries.

Though, in a scenario where Russia were to be invaded, it's hard to discount the probability of them using nuclear weapons, or the entrance of China into the conflict on their side.

Post: #7

Interesting. All this basically means that if the West elites complete their plan, they dont have to be afraid of Russia? Of course they wont be able to invade it but that's not necessary.

I guess the idea of Russia holding out the storm is just forlorn hope.

Post: #8

Interesting. I pretty much know nothing about this sort of thing. So the gist is that russia wouldn't be able to really take the fight abroad but they are tough to crack at home. That sounds about right. In regards to Russia (and china) there is always an element of hype surrounding the nation so it's hard to really figure out such things.

I'd be more afraid of Russia than China at this junction. That much is for certain.

Post: #9

Russia is an independent sovereign nation that's not under the direct or indirect control of the West. Therefore, they're viewed as a threat. A direct military conflict would be costly economically and politically, so an economic war is currently being waged against them. This is the reason for the current engineered oversupply of oil, and the drop in oil prices. It hurts energy exporting nations, of which Russia is one of the largest. This goal is also reflected in the otherwise inexplicable economic sanctions which Russia is being subjected to. These actions also hurt Russia's trading partners, especially Europe, but European politicians are vassals of Western interests.

Part of the nature of Psychopathology is a desire for absolute control, and viewing uncertainty as an existential threat. Those nations which don't serve the interests of the psychopaths who hold the reigns of power in the West are in danger of invasion, color revolution, social subversion, economic and energy restrictions, or perhaps even environmental disruption.

This is why nations which exert national sovereignty are undertaking a mad scramble to produce deterrents to these scenarios. The BRICS (Brazil Russia India China South Africa) are attempting to develop an alternative polarity to the globalists of the West. Brazil is the current target, and is facing economic and environmental turmoil.

Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and to some extent India are attempting to create greater defenses to all forms of regime change. Modernization of retaliatory nuclear capabilities is an obvious step, though there have also been efforts to clamp down on foreign NGOs (non governmental organizations) and media outlets. China is greatly reliant on access to energy from the middle east, which is why it's taking such great efforts to establish military bases in the South China Sea, preventing the possibility of a naval blockade of it's trade routes.

China is playing the long game financially, and it will be interesting to see if following the next global financial crisis, they default and create a new world reserve currency tied to gold. They've already been accepted as one of the SDR basket curencies, and they've create the AIIB and Yuan swap facilities throughout the world. The next 10 years will be interesting times. Let's hope they remain quiet and peaceful.

Post: #10

they are pretty much a land force and tactical nuke power, air power and navy is not their forte if you compare them with Uncle Sam, but then again, when Russia is drawn to a big war, China will not sit idle for sure.

Russia China US are Frienemy to each other.

Post: #11

It makes sense why Russian intervenes/interferes (depend what side of the coin you're on) locally in Europe and bordering Asia.

That affects them directly, like has been said above, they've been invaded a few times, they've learned their lessons.

However they aren't afraid to fight back one bit and without mercy.

The US and NATO allies constantly agitate Russia and her interests - basically poking the Bear (lightly).

They also have to worry about China in their own backyard, regardless if they're friends or fake friends.

Russia is capable, has the will, logistics, and weaponry to fight. I wouldn't want to fuck with them.

Post: #12

I agree nobody wants to fuck directly with Russia, as Hitler and Napoleon can testify.

What is regrettable is that Russia will not be able to influence the downfall of the West and the plan of the elites by itself. It basically turtles up and presents a rock in an increasingly rising shitstorm that is Europe (and probably US if the crooked win), but it will not be able to sail out and save drowing people.

Post: #13

To echo what others have already said, Russian territory is extraordinarily vast and varied and would prove difficult to conquer and effectively hold. I agree that Russia would have a difficult time enaging in a conflict where forces would have to be deployed en mass and where power projection (aside from the TU-95/TU-160s) makes a difference, but they are very well-entrenched and can battle well in regional conflicts around its borders.

On the hardware aspect, Russian equipment seems behind the curve in terms of bleeding edge technology but compensates in terms of sheer ruggedness. Most of their aircraft - for example - have extraordinary soft field capability to allow quick and nearly unfettered forward basing even on unimproved airstrips.

As an armchair aviation/military nerd, I have a great affinity for Soviet/Russian hardware. You have to appreciate what they were able to do without the pooled resources of a dozen nations, a seemingly endless pocketbook, and the computer advances that Western militaries have had the benefit of for the past 40 years.

Post: #14

^^

Putting this shortly and in manosphere terms, Russia is no White Knight. So why should she be the saviour of the west and the westerners?

Post: #15

Since the sanctions basically nulified all treaties Russia has been moderizing all their foces including offensive electroics... jamming etc able to blind both offensive NATO and US planes and ships with counter attacks via their new hypersonic plane and ship killer missiles... their Buk anti aircraft missiles are also effective... they have modernized their nuke arsenal as well while Obama the traitor has allowed our combined forces to atrophy with the smallest ship count since prior to WW2. Any attack on Russia would go nuclear in a heartbeat which is why they are livid about our proposed anti ballistic batteries that can take out incoming ballistic warheads.

As for their military aged men the old industrial cities have a high heroin and krocodil addiction and associated HIV rates so problematic to say the least... any NATO attack would result in a devastating Nuclear response. Just the facts.

Post: #16

(08-11-2016 01:36 PM)Deepdiver Wrote:  Since the sanctions basically nulified all treaties Russia has been moderizing all their foces including offensive electroics... jamming etc anle to blind both offensive NATO and US planes and ships with new hypersonic plane and ship killer missiles... their Buk anti aircraft missiles are also effective... they have modernized their nuke arsenal as well while Obama the traitor has allowed our combined forces to atrophy with the smallest ship count since prior to WW2. Any attack on Russia would go nuclear in a heartbeat which is why they are livid about our proposed anti baklistic batteries that can take out incoming ballistics.

As for their military aged men the old industrial cities have a high heroin and krocodil addiction and associated HIV rates so problematic to say the least... any NATO attack would result in a devastating Nuclear response. Just the facts.

I was waiting for our resident nuclear submariner to post and now I think that about seals it unless there are any 4 star generals out there who would also like to comment.

Post: #17

While Russian narrative in the past has been that they have a response for every American military technological breakthrough, Russian high ranking military personnel, think-thanks and officials are increasingly open, and telling everyone that Russia is interested in low cost alternatives to any challenge.

This explains Russian interest into cyber warfare, communications hacking, sabotage, espionage, satellite guided missiles etc. It's not that Russians are geekish in nature, but it's much cheaper than having a precision guided missile for every purpose. Particularly against smaller nations and middle powers, who lack proficiency or infrastructure to defend against major Russian cyber onslaught, which can cause much confusion and disorganization during an impeding conventional military drive.

Even Putin said openly, "we will seek cheap but effective responses" when he talked about Russian reaction to missile shield in Romania etc. Even a sophisticated high speed aircraft is cheaper alternative, than trying to replicate NATO missile infrastructure.

Post: #18

Here's a blog about the Russian military which I read:

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.co.uk/

Some of the latest Russian hardware is very impressive. Such as this:

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.co.uk/2016/0...rived.html

Air defence system with missiles travelling at >mach 10 and range of 600km. Can also take out low earth orbit satellites. So if things really went hot, they might be able to take out the GPS satellites and with them the US's precision strike capability. But Russia has its own GPS equivalent system (GLONASS), so they would keep theirs.

An article on the Armata tank:

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.co.uk/2016/0...-bite.html

And on the subject of low-cost solutions to problems, there's this:

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.co.uk/2016/0...-bite.html

Post: #19

(08-11-2016 11:22 AM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  I agree nobody wants to fuck directly with Russia, as Hitler and Napoleon can testify.

What is regrettable is that Russia will not be able to influence the downfall of the West and the plan of the elites by itself. It basically turtles up and presents a rock in an increasingly rising shitstorm that is Europe (and probably US if the crooked win), but it will not be able to sail out and save drowing people.

Why would they want to save the West? They did that once already in WW2. The USSR paid by far the heaviest cost in casualties out of the Allied Powers. And was anyone grateful for it? The hell they were. In fact the West made plans to invade the USSR soon after WW2, although they were never acted on. So now the Russians will do the minimum they can to defend themselves and that's that.

Post: #20

(08-11-2016 02:10 PM)Diogenes Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 11:22 AM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  I agree nobody wants to fuck directly with Russia, as Hitler and Napoleon can testify.

What is regrettable is that Russia will not be able to influence the downfall of the West and the plan of the elites by itself. It basically turtles up and presents a rock in an increasingly rising shitstorm that is Europe (and probably US if the crooked win), but it will not be able to sail out and save drowing people.

Why would they want to save the West? They did that once already in WW2. The USSR paid by far the heaviest cost in casualties out of the Allied Powers. And was anyone grateful for it? The hell they were. In fact the West made plans to invade the USSR soon after WW2, although they were never acted on. So now the Russians will do the minimum they can to defend themselves and that's that.

Also the West and specially the US have been portraying them russians as sub-humans and evil creatures, the bashing did not stop not even after the Iron curtain ended. Masoch was Austrian not Russian...

Post: #21

I think of Russia as a regional power in the largest, oldest developed region on Earth. They are a power because they have 11% of the world's land mass and the most territory on 2 continents (Asia and Europe). Their strategy was never one of global force projection but one of area denial and strategic retreat. Their ability to project a combined arms force globally or even across the whole of their territory is not on par with the US, UK, France, or soon China.

Deepdiver is absolutely right in that they focus on area denial and neutralizing our projection forces. Force multipliers like SOF, airborne, naval infantry, tac air get head of the line at resource trough, but their military is mostly conscripts. They have several crack formations that get the lions share of funding, training, resources, and real world assignments but the remainder are reserve units with poor equipment and probably even worse training.

Also right about going nuclear. Their plan to attack NATO relied heavily on using superior numbers to force a stalemate on the continent before US REFORGER units could be brought into play. Failing that, tactical nuclear weapons would have been employed on the whole of eastern Europe both to stop the NATO counter attack and to deny the area via scorched earth (literally in this case).

So they are not the 10' grizzly bear they are sometimes made out to be, but more like a 6' black bear. Would still fuck you up though.

Post: #22

LOL every time Putin is questioned what would happen if Russia was ever attacked he would simply answer "I have nuclear weapons."

This is why I laugh at HRCs anti Trump commercials claiming she negotiated arms limitation treaties with Putin. Those were all nullified with sanctions and he has led a massive modernization of Russias arsenal especially electronic warfare, nuclear and with hypersonic as mentioned above mach 10+ missiles that are hard to track yet defend against.

A MAJOR REASON HE MOVED ON Crimea soon after Sochi olympics to protect his naval and air bases with their nuclear arsenals.

That said ancient wisdow... Sun Tsu etc., states when your adversaries drill and act in a belligerant manner i.e. hostile fly bys, they want peace (Russia). Whereas when your adversaries profess peace at all opportunities and in all they do they are planning for war ( i.e. Communist Red China and their new South Seas man made island air fields to dominate strategic air and sea trade routes).

Post: #23

The Russians have more tanks than all of Western Europe combined. The United States is the only real competitor that the Russians have on the world stage.

Post: #24

Another issue is China is providing unlimited man power to help develop new Siberian energy fields and direct pipelines to China to lessen Chinas dependence on mid east oil. Problem is when you invite dragons into your vast Siberian resource rich lands they may eventually take over via soft invasion not unlike reconquistas in the USAs southwest.

Post: #25

Ok, so there's this guy named Dmitry Orlov, who is an engineer, born in Russia, living in the U.S. I first became aware of him because he wrote with great clarity and force about societal collapse and peak oil. His original solution to the possibility of SHTF situations was to live on a boat, so at least you would be mobile.

Lately he has been sounding more and more pessimistic about the political situation, and it is sounding like he is planning on moving back to Russia, even though he has made a life for himself here.

He is extremely freaked out that the U.S. keeps poking the Russian bear, and he posted a warning lately on his blog:

A Russian Warning

I will leave it to the more geo-politically savvy than I am to analyze it:

Quote: Tuesday, May 31, 2016




A Russian Warning


We, the undersigned, are Russians living and working in the USA. We have been watching with increasing anxiety as the current US and NATO policies have set us on an extremely dangerous collision course with the Russian Federation, as well as with China. Many respected, patriotic Americans, such as Paul Craig Roberts, Stephen Cohen, Philip Giraldi, Ray McGovern and many others have been issuing warnings of a looming a Third World War. But their voices have been all but lost among the din of a mass media that is full of deceptive and inaccurate stories that characterize the Russian economy as being in shambles and the Russian military as weak—all based on no evidence. But we—knowing both Russian history and the current state of Russian society and the Russian military, cannot swallow these lies. We now feel that it is our duty, as Russians living in the US, to warn the American people that they are being lied to, and to tell them the truth. And the truth is simply this:

If there is going to be a war with Russia, then the United States
will most certainly be destroyed, and most of us will end up dead.

Let us take a step back and put what is happening in a historical context. Russia has suffered a great deal at the hands of foreign invaders, losing 22 million people in World War II. Most of the dead were civilians, because the country was invaded, and the Russians have vowed to never let such a disaster happen again. Each time Russia had been invaded, she emerged victorious. In 1812 Nepoleon invaded Russia; in 1814 Russian cavalry rode into Paris. On June 22, 1941, Hitler’s Luftwaffe bombed Kiev; On May 8, 1945, Soviet troops rolled into Berlin.

But times have changed since then. If Hitler were to attack Russia today, he would be dead 20 to 30 minutes later, his bunker reduced to glowing rubble by a strike from a Kalibr supersonic cruise missile launched from a small Russian navy ship somewhere in the Baltic Sea. The operational abilities of the new Russian military have been most persuasively demonstrated during the recent action against ISIS, Al Nusra and other foreign-funded terrorist groups operating in Syria. A long time ago Russia had to respond to provocations by fighting land battles on her own territory, then launching a counter-invasion; but this is no longer necessary. Russia’s new weapons make retaliation instant, undetectable, unstoppable and perfectly lethal.

Thus, if tomorrow a war were to break out between the US and Russia, it is guaranteed that the US would be obliterated. At a minimum, there would no longer be an electric grid, no internet, no oil and gas pipelines, no interstate highway system, no air transportation or GPS-based navigation. Financial centers would lie in ruins. Government at every level would cease to function. US armed forces, stationed all around the globe, would no longer be resupplied. At a maximum, the entire landmass of the US would be covered by a layer of radioactive ash. We tell you this not to be alarmist, but because, based on everything we know, we are ourselves alarmed. If attacked, Russia will not back down; she will retaliate, and she will utterly annihilate the United States.

The US leadership has done everything it could to push the situation to the brink of disaster. First, its anti-Russian policies have convinced the Russian leadership that making concessions or negotiating with the West is futile. It has become apparent that the West will always support any individual, movement or government that is anti-Russian, be it tax-cheating Russian oligarchs, convicted Ukrainian war criminals, Saudi-supported Wahhabi terrorists in Chechnya or cathedral-desecrating punks in Moscow. Now that NATO, in violation of its previous promises, has expanded right up to the Russian border, with US forces deployed in the Baltic states, within artillery range of St. Petersburg, Russia’s second-largest city, the Russians have nowhere left to retreat. They will not attack; nor will they back down or surrender. The Russian leadership enjoys over 80% of popular support; the remaining 20% seems to feel that it is being too soft in opposing Western encroachment. But Russia will retaliate, and a provocation or a simple mistake could trigger a sequence of events that will end with millions of Americans dead and the US in ruins.

Unlike many Americans, who see war as an exciting, victorious foreign adventure, the Russians hate and fear war. But they are also ready for it, and they have been preparing for war for several years now. Their preparations have been most effective. Unlike the US, which squanders untold billions on dubious overpriced arms programs such as the F-35 joint task fighter, the Russians are extremely stingy with their defense rubles, getting as much as 10 times the bang for the buck compared to the bloated US defense industry. While it is true that the Russian economy has suffered from low energy prices, it is far from being in shambles, and a return to growth is expected as early as next year. Senator John McCain once called Russia “A gas station masquerading as a country.” Well, he lied. Yes, Russia is the world’s largest oil producer and second-largest oil exporter, but it is also world’s largest exporter of grain and nuclear power technology. It is as advanced and sophisticated a society as the United States. Russia’s armed forces, both conventional and nuclear, are now ready to fight, and they are more than a match for the US and NATO, especially if a war erupts anywhere near the Russian border.

But such a fight would be suicidal for all sides. We strongly believe that a conventional war in Europe runs a strong chance of turning nuclear very rapidly, and that any US/NATO nuclear strike on Russian forces or territory will automatically trigger a retaliatory Russian nuclear strike on the continental US. Contrary to irresponsible statements made by some American propagandists, American antiballistic missile systems are incapable of shielding the American people from a Russian nuclear strike. Russia has the means to strike at targets in the USA with long-range nuclear as well as conventional weapons.

The sole reason why the USA and Russia have found themselves on a collision course, instead of defusing tensions and cooperating on a wide range of international problems, is the stubborn refusal by the US leadership to accept Russia as an equal partner: Washington is dead set on being the “world leader” and the “indispensable nation,” even as its influence steadily dwindles in the wake of a string of foreign policy and military disasters such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen and the Ukraine. Continued American global leadership is something that neither Russia, nor China, nor most of the other countries are willing to accept. This gradual but apparent loss of power and influence has caused the US leadership to become hysterical; and it is but a small step from hysterical to suicidal. America’s political leaders need to be placed under suicide watch.

First and foremost, we are appealing to the commanders of the US Armed Forces to follow the example of Admiral William Fallon, who, when asked about a war with Iran, reportedly replied “not on my watch.” We know that you are not suicidal, and that you do not wish to die for the sake of out-of-touch imperial hubris. If possible, please tell your staff, colleagues and, especially, your civilian superiors that a war with Russia will not happen on your watch. At the very least, take that pledge yourselves, and, should the day ever come when the suicidal order is issued, refuse to execute it on the grounds that it is criminal. Remember that according to the Nuremberg Tribunal “To initiate a war of aggression… is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” Since Nuremberg, “I was just following orders” is no longer a valid defense; please don’t be war criminals.

We also appeal to the American people to take peaceful but forceful action to oppose any politician or party that engages in irresponsible, provocative Russia-baiting, and that condones and supports a policy of needless confrontation with a nuclear superpower that is capable of destroying America in about an hour. Speak up, break through the barrier of mass media propaganda, and make your fellow Americans aware of the immense danger of a confrontation between Russia and the US.

There is no objective reason why US and Russia should consider each other adversaries. The current confrontation is entirely the result of the extremist views of the neoconservative cult, whose members were allowed to infiltrate the US Federal government under President Bill Clinton, and who consider any country that refuses to obey their dictates as an enemy to be crushed. Thanks to their tireless efforts, over a million innocent people have already died in the former Yugoslavia, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, the Ukraine, Yemen, Somalia and in many other countries—all because of their maniacal insistence that the USA must be a world empire, not a just a regular, normal country, and that every national leader must either bow down before them, or be overthrown. In Russia, this irresistible force has finally encountered an immovable object. They must be forced to back down before they destroy us all.

We are absolutely and categorically certain that Russia will never attack the US, nor any EU member state, that Russia is not at all interested in recreating the USSR, and that there is no “Russian threat” or “Russian aggression.” Much of Russia’s recent economic success has a lot to do with the shedding of former Soviet dependencies, allowing her to pursue a “Russia first” policy. But we are just as certain that if Russia is attacked, or even threatened with attack, she will not back down, and that the Russian leadership will not “blink.” With great sadness and a heavy heart they will do their sworn duty and unleash a nuclear barrage from which the United States will never recover. Even if the entire Russian leadership is killed in a first strike, the so-called “Dead Hand” (the “Perimetr” system) will automatically launch enough nukes to wipe the USA off the political map. We feel that it is our duty to do all we can to prevent such a catastrophe.

Evgenia Gurevich, Ph.D.
http://thesaker.ru

Victor Katsap, PhD, Sr. Scientist
NuFlare Technology America, Inc.

Andrei Kozhev

Serge Lubomudrov

Natalya Minkovskaya

Dmitry Orlov
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com

Irina Petrova, RP

The Saker (A. Raevsky)
http://thesaker.is

[Пожалуйста, напишите мне, если вы хотите добавить свою подпись. Мой адрес можно найти справа наверху.]

As a postscript, here are his comments about Trump:

Quote:Dmitry Orlov said...

A lot of you seem to be bashing Donald Trump because you've been misled by his rabble-rousing rhetoric on Moslems, immigration and other tangential issues. But perhaps you will agree that preventing all of us from dying is a bit more importnat? Clearly, none of you have bothered to listen to his address on foreign policy. And yet if you did, you would have found out that the questions he asked are well-reasoned, that nobody else is asking him, and that his proposals are realistic and statesmanlike. Furthermore, you seem to have completely missed the point that Trump has declared war on the neocons that are behind Hillary, and that the neocons have declared war on Trump. I am not telling you how to vote; I am not even telling you that you should vote, seeing as the whole system is a fraud. But the battle lines have been drawn; which side are you on? If you had the power to choose, would you really choose "Death by Hillary"? Somehow, I doubt it.
Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 11:47:00 AM EDT