Obama and Hillary hurtling US towards war with Russia but media prefers to talk about grabbing

[openfire]

Roger Stone: "Obama and Hillary hurtling US towards war with Russia but media prefers to talk about grabbing pussies"

https://twitter.com/RogerJStoneJr/status/785121275433914371?s=01

And the sheep lap it up - "OMG! Trump said he likes pussy 10 years ago! Outrageous!"

Meanwhile...

http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Screen-Shot-2016-06-22-at-8.38.17-AM-1024x526.jpg

[CPUd]

https://i.imgur.com/ptmTS8O.png

[enhanced_deficit]

CPU, is this muddy up post part of HRC campaign directive #3 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?502108-BREAKING-Clinton-Campaign-Thinks-African-Americans-are-Losers&p=6329245&viewfull=1#post6329245)?

Wars bloodbaths are an important topic, not easy to cover up.

[openfire]

https://i.imgur.com/ptmTS8O.png

https://img.ifcdn.com/images/00fc9b3962488f4a41b58ae92139c135ab6e5cb847eb284bfd ac4d8451ac6869_1.jpg

[69360]

There isn't going to be a hot war with Russia. That's ridiculous. Putin isn't stupid and everyone has know since the 40's that war will never happen between nuclear armed foes because of mutual assured destruction. Sure there will be always be the proxy wars.

[openfire]

There isn't going to be a hot war with Russia. That's ridiculous. Putin isn't stupid and everyone has know since the 40's that war will never happen between nuclear armed foes because of mutual assured destruction. Sure there will be always be the proxy wars.

The neocons believe that they can win a nuclear war with Russia using a debilitating first strike that leaves Russia unable to respond.

Read it:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2006-03-01/rise-us-nuclear-primacy

[Zippyjuan]

That was a decade ago before Russia started its current modernization. Article said it "could happen in the future" if things continued as they were. But "US Primacy" never actually happened.


Even as the United States’ nuclear forces have grown stronger since
the end of the Cold War, Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal has
sharply deteriorated. Russia has 39 percent fewer long-range
bombers, 58 percent fewer icbms, and 80 percent fewer ssbns than
the Soviet Union fielded during its last days. The true extent of the
Russian arsenal’s decay, however, is much greater than these cuts
suggest. What nuclear forces Russia retains are hardly ready for
use. Russia’s strategic bombers, now located at only two bases and
thus vulnerable to a surprise attack, rarely conduct training exercises,
and their warheads are stored oª-base. Over 80 percent of Russia’s
silo-based icbms have exceeded their original service lives, and
plans to replace them with new missiles have been stymied by
failed tests and low rates of production. Russia’s mobile icbms
rarely patrol, and although they could fire their missiles from inside
their bases if given su⁄cient warning of an attack, it appears unlikely
that they would have the time to do so.

The third leg of Russia’s nuclear triad has weakened the most.
Since 2000, Russia’s ssbns have conducted approximately two patrols
per year, down from 60 in 1990. (By contrast, the U.S. ssbn patrol rate
today is about 40 per year.) Most of the time, all nine of Russia’s
ballistic missile submarines are sitting in port, where they make easy
targets. Moreover, submarines require well-trained crews to be eªective.
Operating a ballistic missile submarine—and silently coordinating its
operations with surface ships and attack submarines to evade an
enemy’s forces—is not simple. Without frequent patrols, the skills of
Russian submariners, like the submarines themselves, are decaying.
Revealingly, a 2004 test (attended by President Vladimir Putin) of
several submarine-launched ballistic missiles was a total fiasco: all
either failed to launch or veered oª course. The fact that there were
similar failures in the summer and fall of 2005 completes this unflattering
picture of Russia’s nuclear forces

This is no longer the case. It noted:


To be clear, this does not mean that a first strike by the United
States would be guaranteed to work in reality; such an attack would
entail many uncertainties. Nor, of course, does it mean that such a first
strike is likely.

(taken from PDF since it requires registration to read the same article at the link): http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dpress/docs/Press_Rise_US_Nuclear_Primacy_FA.pdf

[openfire]

^ The fact that they have suspended diplomacy and are currently preparing military options for open conflict with Russia in Syria belies that assertion.

[Zippyjuan]

Yeah. US wants to nuke Russia. If you say so......:rolleyes:

Russia's UN Ambassador doesn't think so.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-10-04/talk-of-new-cold-war-over-dramatic-russian-ambassador-tells-itv-news/


Talk of new Cold War 'over-dramatic', Russian Ambassador tells ITV News

Talk of a new Cold War is "over-dramatic", Russia's UN Ambassador has told ITV News.

Vitaly Churkin said there were some "frictions and tensions" between his country and the USA over the Syria conflict but not on the scale of the Cold War.

US-Russian relations have been strained in recent weeks following the collapse of a ceasefire in Syria and the subsequent bombardment of Aleppo.

On Monday, the US halted attempts to reach a new ceasefire deal with Russia, while elsewhere Russian President Vladimir Putin suspended a deal with the US on the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium.

Mr Churkin, who holds the rotating security council presidency for October, said the problems in Syria were caused by a difference of attitude.

Asked by ITV News Washington Correspondent Robert Moore about talk of a new Cold War, he said: "I think it is over-dramatic.

"Real Cold War is when we're investing enormous resources in order to prepare seriously for a nuclear war against each other. This is not the case now.

"The Cold War is when there is this ideological struggle, communist versus capitalism.

"And the Cold War is competition wherever you can pick up a fight with Americans.

"This is not the case at all. On all those three counts, it's not a Cold War."

Mr Churkin added that there were some "differences" and "clashes of interest" between the two nations.

[Zippyjuan]

At least Russia isn't doing anything. Just from this week:

Russia Scraps Nuclear Agreement http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/03/putin-scraps-deal-to-dispose-of-bomb-grade-plutonium-in-swipe-at/

Russia Moves Nuclear Capable Missiles to Europe Doorstep https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1934584/vladimir-putin-ships-nuclear-capable-ballistic-missiles-into-central-europe-as-russias-tensions-with-the-west-escalate/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/nintchdbpict000000410931.jpg?w=960

[openfire]

Yeah. US wants to nuke Russia. If you say so......:rolleyes:

Russia's UN Ambassador doesn't think so.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-10-04/talk-of-new-cold-war-over-dramatic-russian-ambassador-tells-itv-news/

Oh, really?

All from the past week:


Russia Accuses US Of Threatening Its National Security, "Needs Nuclear Weapons For Protection From US Hostility"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-09/russia-accuses-us-threatening-its-national-security-warns-need-nuclear-arms-protecti


40 Million Russians To Take Part In "Nuclear Disaster" Drill, Days After US General Warns Of War With Moscow

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-03/40-million-russians-take-part-radiation-disaster-drill-days-after-us-general-warns-w

Russia Warns US Military "Aggression" In Syria Would Lead To "Terrible, Tectonic" Consequences

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-01/russia-warns-us-military-aggression


Russia Considers Restoring Strategic Outposts In Cuba, Vietnam As US Rhetoric Rises

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-07/russia-considers-restoring-strategic-outposts-cuba-vietnam-us-rhetoric-rises

Obama Warned To Defuse Tensions With Russia, "Unintended Consequences Likely To Be Catastrophic"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-04/obama-warned-defuse-tensions-russia-unintended-consequences-likely-be-catastrophic

But you're probably right... Nothing to see here, move along. :rolleyes:

[Zippyjuan]

Russia has had those emergency preparedness exercises every year. Nothing new there. And their stockpile outnumbers that of the US (and is now more modern too).

http://krepon.armscontrolwonk.com/files/2012/08/krepon-580x344.jpg

There isn't a threat of WWIII or even nuclear war over Syria. That is all over-hype (as Russia's UN Ambassador has noted).

[openfire]

Russia has had those emergency preparedness exercises every year. Nothing new there. And their stockpile outnumbers that of the US (and is now more modern too).

http://krepon.armscontrolwonk.com/files/2012/08/krepon-580x344.jpg

LOL Your graph shows that the US stockpile far outnumbers Russia's.

Watch as Hillary Clinton threatens Russia, China with "serious political, economic and military responses"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz_dZ2SlPgw

[enhanced_deficit]

At least Russia isn't doing anything. Just from this week:

Russia Scraps Nuclear Agreement http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/03/putin-scraps-deal-to-dispose-of-bomb-grade-plutonium-in-swipe-at/

Russia Moves Nuclear Capable Missiles to Europe Doorstep https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1934584/vladimir-putin-ships-nuclear-capable-ballistic-missiles-into-central-europe-as-russias-tensions-with-the-west-escalate/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/nintchdbpict000000410931.jpg?w=960


Russian tweets are getting too controversial, they are even mocking Obama's Press Sec.

http://www.1776coalition.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2016-10-06_17-12-02-300x300.jpg

Russia posts provocative tweet warning US on Syria, mocking Earnesthttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/06/russia-posts-provocative-tweet-warning-us-on-syria-mocking-earnest.html

[Zippyjuan]

LOL Your graph shows that the US stockpile far outnumbers Russia's.



You need a lesson in graph reading? The pink area (Russian warheads) is above the blue area (US warheads) which means Russia has more than the US does.

http://krepon.armscontrolwonk.com/files/2012/08/krepon-580x344.jpg

[openfire]

You need a lesson in graph reading? The pink area (Russian warheads) is above the blue area (US warheads) which means Russia has more than the US does.

http://krepon.armscontrolwonk.com/files/2012/08/krepon-580x344.jpg

LOL No, you do... The pink area (Russian warheads) is smaller than the blue area (US warheads) which means the US has more than Russia does.

[Zippyjuan]

You are too funny! Where the pink space is above the blue space is how many MORE Russia has than the US. If the US had more, blue would be above the pink. No wonder you have troubles understanding what is really going on in the world!

[silverhandorder]

You just fear mongered about a nuke moving to Kaliningrad and then post that exercises are routine. Shit man how can you spin like that. Commy.

[Zippyjuan]

Sorry about that. It isn't a significant threat either.

[silverhandorder]

I agree there is zero threat of war if our leaders are logical. I do believe they are logical. Even Hillary. On the other hand hybrid war is very possible and Hillary is more likely than Trump to engage in it. Trump can just say they fucked up and I have to fix it. Hillary can't or she would lose power. She would have to blame everything on some one else. Aka China and Russia.

[openfire]

You are too funny! Where the pink space is above the blue space is how many MORE Russia has than the US. If the US had more, blue would be above the pink.

My bad. I recently saw a visually similar graph (near identical looking, including same color scheme) regarding this statistic, but laid out slightly different - which is why I assumed that this was the same graph. You are correct in the reading of this particular graph.

Now that that's settled, back to the point...

Why is the MSM silent on the issue of (and the consequences of) potential war with Russia? And focusing on 10 year old trivial statements that have no bearing on the future of the security of the entire planet?

[openfire]

I agree there is zero threat of war if our leaders are logical. I do believe they are logical. Even Hillary.

I think their "logic" is that they'll most likely need a big war on which to blame (and distract from) the collapse of the monetary system...

[openfire]

... while they transition to the next system which they intend to control.

[AZJoe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PgSX-WD96Q

[AZJoe]

Well lets look at the actual statements and events from the Obama-Hitlary administration

1. Well, you have Hitlary Clinton stating she will implement a military response to cyber-attack, and we see she blames every Wiki-leak, every hacking, every Guccifer leak on Russia. Just an allegation is all that is needed, which is par for the course for US foreign policy the past two decades. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?501987-Hillary-Threatens-War-With-Russia-Video&highlight=hillary+war+russia


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4aIIpCDsLU
….........

2. Then we have Psychopathic US Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley threatening to "Destroy" Russia
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?501944-Psychopathic-US-Gen-Mark-Milley-threatens-to-quot-Destroy-quot-Russia&highlight=mark+milley


US Army Chief of Staff last night [Oct 4, 2016] “I want to be clear to those who wish to [resist] us ... the United States military – despite all of our challenges, despite our [operational] tempo, despite everything we have been doing – we will stop you and we will beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before. Make no mistake about that,” said General Mark Milley. …

“Other countries – Russia, Iran, China, North Korea – went to school on us,” he said, adding, “They studied our doctrine [PNAC/Wolfowitz Doctrine world hegemony], our tactics , our equipment [smart missiles, dumb missiles, aerial bombs, drone bombs, spy drones, bombs, bombs and more bombs], our organization [sponsor “regime change” color revolutions with billions of funding; arm train and equip terrorists; false flag incidents; massive PR blitzkrieg using western media, bribes and blackmail and extortion of leaders], our training, our leadership. And, in turn, they revised their own doctrines, and they are rapidly modernizing their military today to avoid our [shock and awe invasions] in hopes of [resisting] us at some point in the future.”

Milley cautioned that [B]the next major conflict will “be highly lethal, unlike anything our Army has experienced at least since World War II,” and will involve fighting in “highly populated urban areas.”

“Make no mistake about it, we can now and we will … retain the capability to rapidly deploy ,” he said, “and [B]we will destroy [Russia, China, Iran] any enemy anywhere, any time,” … making clear who he was threatening to “destroy” General [Strangelove] Miller specifically quoted a senior Russian official, “Russia can now fight a conventional war in Europe and win.” …
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1921458/us-army-chief-mark-milley-fires-terrifying-threat-to-russia-over-syria-and-warns-well-beat-you-any-where-any-time/
http://www.infowars.com/u-s-army-chi...r-with-russia/ (http://www.infowars.com/u-s-army-chief-threatens-war-with-russia/)
…..........

3. Then you have John Kirby outright threatening Russian interest and even “Russian cities”
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?501678-%91Russia-will-continue-to-send-troops-home-from-Syria-in-body-bags%92-%96-US-State-Dept&highlight=send+russians+home+body+bags
In response to Russia defeating Washington's terrorists in Syria, John Kirby was outright threatening Russia, and Russian cities:
[Washington backed] "Extremists and extremists groups will continue to exploit the vacuums that are there in Syria to expand their operations, which will include, no question, attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities, and Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags, and they will continue to lose resources – even, perhaps, more aircraft.

Washington is now making it openly obvious [as if it weren't already] to the world which side they are on - the side of the extremist terrorists.

Russia's Defense Ministry spokesman General Igor Konashenkov stated in response:
"Should there follow any attempts to act on the threats towards Russia and Russian military servicemen in Syria, the militants may find themselves short of both body bags and the time to get away."

A mere two days after Washington promised that there would be "[I]no question, attacks against Russian interests" [in response to Russia going after terrorists] and that "Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags"; sure enough wouldn't you know it -- Washington's proxies launch a mortar attack on the Russian embassy in Damascus. http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950713001136

From Stephen Lendman's blog:
General Viktor Poznikhir said "terrorist groups are preparing provocative attacks with chemical weapons on Syrian army positions and residential areas in (eastern) Aleppo to accuse government forces" of the high crime. Poznikhir's accusation followed Syria's UN envoy Bashar al-Jaafari telling Security Council members about the intent of Ahrar al-Sham terrorists to use white phosphorous against Syrian soldiers and civilians, a hideous weapon, able to burn flesh to the bone on contact. They want government forces blamed for their high crime.
https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Arti...-terrorist.htm (https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/204517-2016-09-29-russia-calls-war-in-syria-a-us-controlled-international-terrorist.htm)
…

4. Then you have former acting director of the CIA Mark Morrell openly advocating murder of Russians and Syrians.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?499814-Michael-Morell%92s-Lawless-Plan-to-Commit-Terror-Murders&highlight=acting+director+cia+russia

Morell seems oblivious to international law and to the vast human suffering already inflicted in Syria … trying to advance one geopolitical goal or another. … Morell prefers to think that a few more U.S.-directed murders and some more aerial-inflicted mayhem should do the trick. Perhaps he thinks that’s the sort of tough-guy/gal talk that will impress a prospective President Hillary Clinton. …

“And sometimes you use military force for military ends.Sometimes you use military force to give you political leverage. … we need to find some ways to put some pressure on Assad, or put some pressure on Russia, and put some pressure on Iran. … what I said is that’s an okay thing, right, because it puts pressure on Iran and Russia to try to see some value in ending this thing politically. …

“the U.S. military itself should take some action … limited U.S. airstrikes against those assets that are extremely important to Assad personally. So, in the middle of the night you destroy one of his offices … You take out his presidential aircraft, his presidential helicopters, in the middle of the night, right, just to send him a message … that maybe your days are numbered … “

Not to put too fine a point on this, but everything that Morell is advocating here violates international law, the rules that – in other circumstances, i.e. when another government is involved – the U.S. government condemns as “aggression” or as an “invasion” or as “terrorism.”
….

5. Then you have US general, Robert Scales, who called for the US to “start killing Russians” in Ukraine … “start killing Russians. Killing so many Russians that even Putin’s media can’t hide the fact…”
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?500025-The-Dangerous-Temper-Tantrums-of-US-War-Hawks&highlight=acting+director+cia+russia
http://thenewsdoctors.com/the-dangerous-temper-tantrums-of-us-war-hawks-steven-macmillan/

…

6. And then you have John Kerry openly advocating direct war against the sovereign government of Syria.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?501784-Kerry-says-he-wanted-to-use-force-against-Assad&highlight=kerry+attack+assad
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?501767-A-holes!-US-bombs-(another)-Deir-Ezzor-Bridge-(again)&highlight=kerry+attack+assad
“I'm the guy who stood up and announced that we're going to attack Assad for the use of weapons,"
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/01/politics/kerry-audio-recording-syria/
…

7. You have mad Hitlary Clinton who steadfastly refuses to repudiate a nuclear first strike.

…

8. You have Washington now providing manpads to terrorist organizations in the “hopes” they will hit Russian/Syrian targets. And the even greater hopes none of them are sold or transported to other locations in Europe, the Americas, other Middles East locales to be used around airports for terrorists strikes against civilian planes.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?501648-War-Footing-Kerry-threatens-to-cut-off-all-contacts-with-Russia&highlight=kerry+attack+assad
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/aleppo-must-not-fall-us-preparing-flood-city-anti-air-missiles-154690394

....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IiS6Fehd44

[XNavyNuke]

The Bobbsey Twins have their course of action, but the only thing that matters is Putin. Right now he looks more like a Russian Nationalist wishing to revive the old empire. What HIS plan?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb0QLxcvowk

XNN

[Zippyjuan]

Trump on Nuclear Weapons: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html


Trump asks why US can't use nukes: MSNBC

Donald Trump Trump reportedly asks why US can't use nukes: MSNBC
Wednesday, 3 Aug 2016 | 9:55 AM ET | 01:20
Donald Trump asked a foreign policy expert advising him why the U.S. can't use nuclear weapons, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough said on the air Wednesday, citing an unnamed source who claimed he had spoken with the GOP presidential nominee.

"Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can't we use them," Scarborough said on his "Morning Joe" program.

Scarborough made the Trump comments 52 seconds into an interview with former Director of Central Intelligence and ex-National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden.

Then at the debate he said the US should take away Russia's nukes.


Now, with that being said, she talks tough against Russia. But our nuclear program has fallen way behind, and they’ve gone wild with their nuclear program. Not good. Our government shouldn’t have allowed that to happen. Russia is new in terms of nuclear. We are old. We’re tired. We’re exhausted in terms of nuclear. A very bad thing.

Looking for the quote but he said something about wanting to take away Russia's nuclear weapons. http://fortune.com/2016/10/09/presidential-debate-read-transcript-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/

[AZJoe]

An interesting analysis:

ISRAEL SHAMIR: Nuclear Poker
http://www.unz.com/ishamir/nuclear-poker/

If the greatest poker game of all times will end by nuclear grand slam, and the survivors will review the causes of WWIII, they will die laughing. The Third World War had been fought to save al Qaeda. … For the future historians, the WWIII commenced with the US decision to terminate bilateral talks with Russia over Syria. Let the arms do the talking, they said. … The US decided to suspend talks after Russia called for withdrawal of al Qaeda (al Nusra Front etc.) fighters from Aleppo. This was the casus belli. …

the Russians wanted to take al-Qaeda out of Aleppo, so the city can be fed and brought back to life. The Americans were ready to start armed hostilities against Russia for the right of Al Qaeda to remain in the city. …

the Americans did not believe in their own myth of moderate opposition. They knew, as well as the Russians, that without “terrorists”, the insurgency in Syria is doomed. … As usual, they made a lot of humanitarian-sounding noise about suffering children of Aleppo. … Why not Yemen, where Saudi troops using American weapons … to kill more children than there are in Aleppo? …

there is a simple way to stop their suffering: to remove the “terrorists” … The insurgency in Syria would have died out long time ago, if the Gulf states and the US did not pump billions of dollars, heaps of weapons and wagonloads of jobless fighters from nearby countries. …

The al-Qaeda forces … are on their way to defeat. ... The only way to save al-Qaeda … is to start war with Russia. And this is actually the choice the US administration is about to make. …

We know that the US supported Qatari plan to build a pipeline from the Qatari gas field to Europe to undermine the Russian economy and European dependence on Russian gas. We know that Hillary Clinton promised to break up Syria “for the sake of Israel”, as she wrote in a wikileaked email. And still, these are just rationalisations of the true thing. I’ll tell you the real reason. …

American leaders appreciate brinkmanship, … Young kids like to walk at the edge of the precipice. This is their way of proving they are better than their mates. Grown-ups do it too, for the same reason. Brinkmanship is the practice of causing a situation to become extremely dangerous in order to get the results that you want ...

True, the kids of Aleppo could be saved by removal of fighters out of the city, but it does not score in the brinkmanship game.

The Russians understand the game. … Every time, they tried to be reasonable. They did not like what was done to them, but they lived with it. Now they have finally come to the conclusion that the US will not stop pushing until the challenge has been met. It is surrender, or war. Even if they were to leave Syria (and they have no such intention), the Americans will find the next reason for pushing them.

This is why Putin published his Plutonium and Uranium decrees. … Many missiles were dismantled, nuclear warheads were broken and shipped to the US to be used as a source of energy for American reactors. … Russia observed the agreements made by Gorbachev and Yeltsin and duly shipped plutonium and enriched uranium to the West. These agreements made the US safe, and kept Russia vulnerable.

If the US would play its cards safely and fairly, this situation could last for a long time. Until now, the Russians meekly responded to the crescendo of NATO threats and accusations. But now, in course of one week, the western mainstream media accused the Russians of multiple war crimes … Putin has been demonised as Milosevic and Saddam, compared to Hitler and even (oh, the horror!) Trump. … This concerted push made an impact. You never know how far you can push until you push too far. The Russians were pushed too far. …

Now nuclear war is quite likely, – unless the US leaders will come to their senses. Russians aren’t worried about the forthcoming war. There is neither panic nor fear, just cool stoic acceptance of whatever comes. … They do not want war, but if it comes, it will be met. …

An American attack on Syrian or Russian bases in Syria could be a starting point for the avalanche. I am truly amazed by the Russian spirits … the daily life of an average Russian has greatly improved. Russia probably never lived as good as she does now. They have much to lose; it is only the feeling of being cornered and unjustly so, that makes them to react in such a way.

The audacious demands of Putin: lift all sanctions, pay for damages caused by sanctions and counter-sanctions, remove your troops and tanks from the Baltic states, Poland, other late-joiner NATO states – show that the stakes are indeed high. Not only can the US leaders walk at the edge of the abyss: the Russians can show them the art of brinkmanship. …

There are some signs of the Americans coming to their senses. “The president has discussed in some details why military action against the Assad regime to try to address the situation in Aleppo is unlikely to accomplish the goals that many envisioned now in terms of reducing the violence there,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters Thursday.

And even the warmongers’ best friend The New York Times has published a call: Do Not Intervene In Syria.

So perhaps we shall live a bit longer.

[timosman]

American leaders appreciate brinkmanship, … Young kids like to walk at the edge of the precipice. This is their way of proving they are better than their mates. Grown-ups do it too, for the same reason. Brinkmanship is the practice of causing a situation to become extremely dangerous in order to get the results that you want ...

True, the kids of Aleppo could be saved by removal of fighters out of the city, but it does not score in the brinkmanship game.

The Russians understand the game. … Every time, they tried to be reasonable. They did not like what was done to them, but they lived with it. Now they have finally come to the conclusion that the US will not stop pushing until the challenge has been met. It is surrender, or war. Even if they were to leave Syria (and they have no such intention), the Americans will find the next reason for pushing them.

As usual we fucked them one too many times.