Debt Rattle March 3 2018
- This topic has 14 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Vincent van Gogh Lilac Bush 1889 • Juncker Threatens Tariffs On Harley-Davidson, Bourbon And Levi’s (G.) • Fed’s QE Unwind Marches Forward Rele
[See the full post at: Debt Rattle March 3 2018]Interesting you (Ilargi) didn’t even mention President Vladimir Putin’s 2-hour long address yesterday to the Federal Assembly.
At the very least, it rattled the Hegemon to its core.
The proof is in the corporate media’s lame, to incompetent, response. Denial at its very best.
Gilbert Doctorow’s scathing critique of western response was thorough and point on.
It can be found here;
https://russia-insider.com/en/us-just-lost-arms-race-it-had-no-idea-was-happening-heads-should-roll/ri22679<p>V. Arnold,
Unfortunately, they are still pretending to be “exceptional.” It will take the sinking of a few aircraft carriers to sort out that mind set.
</p>
<p>Putin’s stunning revelations about new Russian weapons systems</p>
<p>This is absolutely devastating. It shows that the US school and university system is producing laggards. </p>
- A nuclear powered cruise missile with basically unlimited range
- A nuclear powered unmanned submersible with intercontinental range, very high speed, silent propulsion and capable of moving a great depths
- A Mach 10 hypersonic missile with a 2’000 kilometer range (named: Kinzhal)
- A new strategic missile capable of Mach 20 velocities (named: Avangard)
<p>Number 3 above can be launched from a plane travelling at mach 3. It means that surface navies cannot get within 3000 km of any protected coast. The Baltic and Black Seas are no longer in NATO. All the incursions by US ships into the Black Sea to wave the flag are purposeless.</p>
https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/europe/russia-sanctions-explainer/index.html
Measuring the impact of sanctions on Russia’s economy is not an exact science, and different experts have different opinions.
VA, from yesterday’s Debt Rattle:
Putin in his state of the union announced to his people that Russia can defend itself from any attacks, including nuclear. Western media twist his words; the Guardian claims that “Russia threatens arms race” and even Zero Hedge says :“..the era of the Western world attempting to prevent Russia’s expansion is over.” That’s all straight from NATO’s playbook.
Plus RT article: Putin On New US Nuclear Stance: If Attacked, Russia Will Use Nukes (RT)
From his -and Russia’s- point of view, Putin simply does his job: keep his people safe from NATO/US aggression.
And that is also the light to see Putin’s Megan Kelly interview in.
Putin knows who Megan is: someone trying desperately to locate herself in the core of the echo chamber for the sake of her ratings; the least likely spot for any news to seep through to.
If you take a good look at the numbers, and the structure, of the Russian armed forces, the only conclusion can be that Russia doesn’t want war; the opposite of what the echoes claim.
Putin took his state of the union, and the NBC interview, to explain that once again. He’s patient.
I don’t know that Russia is that much smarter weapons wise, even though they spend just 10% of what the US does.
The main difference between the two is that in the US, the military is a way to make money, and efficiency doesn’t fit that picture. It’s exactly like US health care.
Mostly I agree; especially your closing paragraph.
Historically, some of the worlds most brilliant minds have come from USSR/Russia; science, lierature, philosophy, and mathematics.
So, I would argue that Russia’s weapons are smarter; they have to be for Russia’s survival.
Yes, Russia doesn’t want war, so their spending has been primarily defensive weapons; arguably the best in the world, IMO.
Russia, for example, has a super cavitating torpedo capable of 200 mph underwater. The U.S. has not been able to duplicate that weapon; its been trying for over 20 years. For those who would argue the super cavitation obviates targeting (navigational) abilities; once slowed down (no super cavitation) it can certainly attain a target.
Anywho, just one of many examples of superior capabilities.Nassim
Unfortunately, they are still pretending to be “exceptional.” It will take the sinking of a few aircraft carriers to sort out that mind set.Exceptional? Oh sure; in, ignorance, infantile propaganda, corrupt military spending, and it just goes on ad infinitum. I’ll pass on that exceptionalism; too bloody expensive and lacking in intelligence.
That is an interesting out come; the U.S. carrier groups are relegated to expensive sitting ducks.
Very expensive bath tub toys…Raúl Ilargi Meijer
I don’t know that Russia is that much smarter weapons wise, even though they spend just 10% of what the US does.After giving that some more thought; it seems to me Russian’s think with a broader stroke, more imaginatively, than their U.S. counterparts.
Put differently; the U.S. is a victim of its own success and believes far too much of its own propaganda.
Echo chambers do not make for good places to think expansively…Someone made a quote that goes something like this:
“Russia is never as strong as it seems to be and never as weak as it seems to be”
I cannot remember who said it and Google is not much help. I think it was from before WW1
I did find this piece of nonsense though:
“Russia is weak. It is not in any relevant, meaningful, sense, a “Great Power”.
Indeed, it is less powerful in many ways, than Britain.
The message may not be welcomed by Nato and hawks in the west.
But it came, refreshingly, from one of Britain’s most distinguished military historians.
“Russia has always tried to get over its weakness by exaggerating its strength”, said professor Sir Lawrence Freedman. The western commentariat played along with it, and denounced Barack Obama for being weak.
“Keep Putin in perspective; don’t play to the cult of personality”, Freedman warned. “Russia is less powerful in many respects than the UK”, he added. It does have larger armed forces and more nukes, but its economy is in deep trouble.
Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate – sent direct to you
Read moreFreedman was speaking the other day at a conference on “Global Trends and Implications for British Security” at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi).
Russia may be a “Great Power” by virtue of its nuclear arsenal and permanent seat on the UN security council, but being a “Great Power” was highly overrated, he suggested.
It may have started to rebuild its armed forces, but they are no match for Nato’s. Russia’s GDP is close to that of Italy, and its per capita GDP is less than Poland’s. Oil and gas prices have fallen and Russia is having trouble attracting inward investment.”
Putin’s Russia is weak – the UK in many ways is stronger (Guardian 2014)
What is clear; the west, after all these decades/centuries still fails to understand Russian culture; all of them (cultures).
And there’s that GDP falsehood again! Comparing GDP’s for any meaningful measure of a country’s health is just ignorant. There are just so many more things to factor in than GDP. But then most western economists are butt ignorant about economics.
Sir Lawrence Freedman does not know of which he speaks.
A little levity (very little):
There are two rules of war;
#1 Do not march on Moscow
#2 Do not march on Moscow
And then;
The Best time to Attack Russia
This past September, in one of his regular interviews with the newspaper Parlamentní Listy, retired Czech Major General Hynek Blaško commented on the possibility of a conflict between Russia and NATO with a following anecdote:
“I have seen a popular joke on the Internet about Obama and his generals in the Pentagon debating on the best timing to attack Russia. They couldn’t come to any agreement, so they decided to ask their allies.
The French said: ” We do not know, but certainly not in the winter. This will end badly. ”
The Germans responded: “We do not know, either, but definitely not in a summer. We have already tried.”
Someone in Obama’s war room had a brilliant idea to ask China, on the basis that China is developing and always has new ideas.
The Chinese answered: “The best time for this is right now. Russia is building the Power of Siberia pipeline, the North Stream Pipeline, Vostochny Cosmodrome Spaceport, the MegaProject bridge to Crimea; also Russian is upgrading the Trans-Siberian railroad with a new railway bridge across Lena River and the Amur-Yakutsk Mainline. Russia is also building new sports facilities for the World Cup and athletics, and has in development over 150 production projects in the Arctic … Well, now they really need as many POWs as possible!”Last, and possibly most important; if Russians are forced to fight in and for their homeland, NATO or whomever, will be fought with a ferocity unknown in the west for more than 75 years.
Stalingrad and Vietnam come to mind…You gotta love Clint Eastwood. That’s awesome!
I love how he just keeps on chewing his lunch through all of it. Classic.
There are still smart people in the U.S. The trouble is, they’ve long been purged and none of them are in power. Much as you wouldn’t want to invade Russia summer or winter, you wouldn’t want to invade the United States either. The much (purposefully) misunderstood 2nd Amendment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” is because, like Switzerland, the U.S. is not supposed to have a standing army. Ever. Only with an enemy and declaration of war by Congress. And for exactly the creeping reasons we see today, Eisenhower’s Pentagon pork profit warning. National and personal self-defense was so self-evident that they didn’t bother elaborating as to why, say, minority groups should be permitted to have weapons to stop a tyrannical leader. WHEN that declaration of war should ever happen, the U.S., like Switzerland, will call its citizens to muster and become that Army. From where? The existing private militias. And if they don’t come, wouldn’t that mean it’s not really a just, defensive war? And it’s not like we don’t have them now: what do you think Blackwater is? But it’s okay if Exxon has a militia as long as Joe Smith doesn’t have one.
Since there is no standing army, there are no standing army warehouses, etc, so the people will be bringing their own weapons and hardware, and in the case of John Hancock, their own warships. Obsolete? Quite possibly, but that is in fact, the law. Like Switzerland, the people are SUPPOSED to have the keys to the mortars and anti-aircraft guns hidden in mountainside bunkers. Ex-wives don’t seem to be blown up at any excessive rate in Geneva.
Other than entertaining myself by alarming the activists and non-Americans, the point is, what do you think would happen if Russia or China invaded the United States? Exactly what happened when *anyone* invaded Russia. Horrible death tolls, grinding, unending horror, and eventual failure worse than the utter failures in Iraq and Vietnam. And they claim small-arms are useless in a modern war. Pffft! That’s the ONLY thing that won. That being so, why does the U.S. need that army again? Who are they “defending”? Or does this tell you that virtually 100% of the U.S. military is OFFENSIVE in nature, created to attack and invade others without a declaration of war. Qui bono?
P.S. the Navy IS to be standing and perpetual. As the Marines and naval, we would need to add the status of the Air Force. But we could rebuild the entire country in a fortnight by falling back to a defensive posture as Russia has. And eventually we will. But not without bankrupting ourselves first.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.