Thursday, June 22, 2017

George Soros funds McCain Institute

McCain Institute for International Leadership devoured $9 million in unused campaign funds

George Soros funds McCain Institute


Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) transferred almost $9 million in funds left over from his pathetic 2008 presidential campaign to a new organization called McCain Institute for International Leadership, Richard Pollock of the Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group reports.
Pollock writes
The institute is intended to serve as a “legacy” for McCain and “is dedicated to advancing human rights, dignity, democracy and freedom.” It is a tax-exempt non-profit foundation with assets valued at $8.1 million and associated with Arizona State University.

Bear an uncanny resemblance to the glitzy Clinton Global Initiative

Critics on both the left and right say the institute poses serious conflicts of interest. They say that the new organization’s donors and “McCain’s personal leadership in the organization’s exclusive ‘Sedona Forum’ bear an uncanny resemblance to the glitzy Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) that annually co-mingled special interests and powerful political players in alleged pay-to-play schemes.”
Philanthropy law expert Charles Ortel said “high government officials such as John McCain, [former Secretary of State] Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama should not get involved with vehicles like these where substantial sums can be funneled over time in ways that at best, reeks of impropriety and at worse are public corruption.”
Donations of up to $100,000 have been received from billionaire leftist meddler George Soros and from Teneo, a firm created by former Bill Clinton bag man Doug Band. Teneo has helped to make Clinton rich through high-dollar speaking engagements and business deals.
Notables on the board of trustees of the McCain Institute include former Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.),  former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman, Army General David H. Petraeus (retired), GE chairman and crony capitalist extraordinaire Jeff Immelt, Coalition for Inclusive Capitalism founder Lynn Forester de Rothschild, and Human Rights First CEO Elisa Massimino.

Matthew Vadum -- Bio and Archives |Matthew Vadum, Bombthrowers, and matthewvadum.blogspot.com, is an investigative reporter at a watchdog group in Washington, D.C.
His new book Subversion Inc. can be bought at Amazon.com (US), Amazon.ca (Canada), and as an e-book at Kobo (Canada).

Visit the Subversion Inc. Facebook page. Follow me on Twitter.

Is This The Final Proof That Hitler Escaped To Argentina?


Pedophile Island in the Virgin Islands

FYI 
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 7:40 PM
Subject: Pedophile Island in the Virgin Islands




 
Pedophile Island in the Virgin Islands

To skirt around US tax laws, billionaire financial manager Jeffry Epstein registered his firm “Financial Trust Company” on the island of St. Thomas in the US Virgin Islands.

Three miles off the east coast of St. Thomas sets the 72 acre island of Little St. James, which Epstein purchased and converted into a tropical paradise, complete with a stable of teen-aged sex slaves.

https://nodisinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Screen-Shot-2015-02-16-at-7.40.42-AM-625x351.png

The island has been nicknamed Pedophile Island. Epstein’s private Boeing 727 that transported to the island prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known prime minister, world leaders, and various prominent and powerful people of the upper echelon has been dubbed the Lolita Express.

The name of every passenger that boarded the Lolita Express for a trip to Pedophile Island is registered into the plane’s log. Among the names that were made public are: the Duke of York, Prince Andrew; prominent Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz; Hollywood movie star and director Woody Allen;  TV anchors George Stephanopoulos and Katie Couric; and, it should come as no surprise, Bill Clinton. Bill visited the island 26 times.

The prominent lawyer is again seen in the log flying with Epstein in October 1998 - again, without his wife

A Lolita Express log entry of October 1998 displaying the name of Alan Dershowitz on one of his several trips to the island.

Cameras were concealed in strategic locations to capture everything that transpired on the island. A sting operation conducted by the Palm Beach vice squad uncovered a huge volume of these photographs.

Authorities collected enough evidence to send Epstein to prison for life. His powerful attorneys succeeded in achieving a plea-bargain in which Epstein pleaded guilty to one count of soliciting prostitution from girls as young as 14. He was sentenced to 18-months in prison, for which he served 13 months before being released.

Peace

RS
Wednesday, June 21, 2017

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is
that good men do nothing. –Edmund Burke

The Revelation 12 Sign 23rd of September 2017


Evil Has Never Been Easier To See Than It Is Now


Petrodollar doomed as Qatar breaks ranks and sells its oil in Yuan


Benjamin Fulford Update June 19, 2017
Monday, June 19, 2017 7:34

Petrodollar doomed as Qatar breaks ranks and sells its oil in Yuan
The crisis in Qatar marks a major turning point in the battle against the Khazarian mafia. Ostensibly Saudi Arabia and other oil exporting states decided to try to blockade Qatar “because it was supporting terrorism.”
In reaction to this move, US President Donald Trump showed the world he was not in charge of the US by first supporting the blockade and then being forced by the Pentagon to change his stance 180 degrees the next day.
What is really going on here is that Qatar reached a deal with Iran to export gas from its massive gas fields not West in exchange for worthless Euros or US dollars but rather East to places like India and China in exchange for their currencies.
The US House of Whores, oops! I mean House of Representatives. reacted to this development by passing new sanctions against Russia that basically amounted to telling Europe to buy expensive American gas instead of cheap Russian gas. The Germans and Austrian reacted by telling the Americans to buzz off.
These developments show clearly the old regime is falling apart with splits between Washington and the EU becoming more pronounced by the day.
The Khazarian mafia controlled Saudis and their Israeli partners in crime have seen their entire plan for an “Arab Nato,” blow up in their faces.
True Muslim countries like Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and others together with super powers like Russia and China lined up to support Qatar, leaving the Saudi Israel alliance isolated. India and Pakistan have shown they are with Russia and China by joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, something Iran is expected to do next year.
The US military, for its part, showed it was against the Khazarian mafia by staging joint military drills with Qatar last week even as China staged drills with Iran. Pentagon sources explain “The US military needs Qatar because of the Al Udeid airbase.”
The Pentagon sources did not mention the fact Qatar also offered to buy $12 billion worth of US military jets to help keep the Pentagon financed.
In any case, the airbase also functions to ensure that madman Satanist Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and his fellow Khazarian mobsters do not get any chance start World War 3, the sources say. A more direct message would be “SURRENDER OR DIE.”
The battle to remove the Khazarians from all levers of control in Washington DC is also intensifying. The fake blame everything on Russia campaign by the Khazarians is blowing up with even Khazarian owned corporate propaganda media stooges starting to expose it as completely bogus.
The following twitter storm issued by Donald Trump summarizes quite well how the power struggle in DC is going:
“You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people!
They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice
I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt
Why is that Hillary Clintons family and Dems dealings with Russia are not looked at, but my non-dealings are?
Crooked H destroyed phones w/ hammer, ‘bleached’ emails, & had husband meet w/AG days before she was cleared- & they talk about obstruction?
A.G. Lynch made law enforcement decisions for political purposes…gave Hillary Clinton a free pass and protection. Totally illegal!”
Pentagon sources say the next stage in the battle against the Khazarian mafia hold-outs in DC will begin with the arrest of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, special counsel Robert Mueller as well as
Hillary Clinton (although CIA sources say she died last year), Barack Obama, former attorney general] Loretta Lynch, former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, former CIA head John Brennan, former NSA director Michael Hayden and others “at the 2nd stage to decapitate the deep state,”
Fired FBI director James Comey has “been singing like a canary,” about the Khazarian mob as well as the P2 Freemason lodge, CIA sources confirm.
“Comey was forced to commit 2 stage seppuku in front of congress,” the sources say. He began ratting on his colleagues to avoid being charged with “multiple felonies for leaking, misprision (deliberately hiding knowledge) of felony, aiding obstruction of justice etc.” the Pentagon sources continue.
The attack against Trump son in law Jared Kushner has also intensified as Trump picked New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s attorney and friend Chris Wray to run the FBI. “Kushner hates Christie for putting his criminal mosado dad Charles in jail when he was New Jersey prosecutor,” the sources note.
The Khazarians are of course literally fighting for their lives as their control grid continues to collapse. “House Republican majority whip (#3) Steve Scalise may have been shot because of his support of anti-child sex trafficking law as the battle against pedophilia escalates,” the Pentagon sources note.
The George Bush Sr. faction of the Khazarian mob is also still diligently working to eliminate the evidence trail by bumping off former senior associates. That is why former Panamanian Dictator Manuel Noriega and arms dealer/CIA asset Adnan Khashoggi were recently bumped off, Pentagon sources say.
The power elite in Washington DC is also in a deadlock because of MAB or mutually assured blackmail preventing the long awaited mass arrests of known criminals like Senator John McCain. The answer will probably have to be to remove the 70% or so of Washington DC politicians, both Republican and Democrat, who have been corrupted by drugs, pedophilia, bribes etc.
In Europe, meanwhile the German controlled Vichy regime in France run by Rothschild puppet Emmanuel Macron stole Sunday’s Parliamentary election to give his slave regime the appearance of popular support.
The French Rothschild regime is circling the wagons as Wikileaks of Hillary Clinton’s e-mail reveal to the world at large what this newsletter reported years ago and that is the fact the French overthrew the Libyan regime of Muammar Gadaffi because he threatened their control of French Africa with his plan to issue a gold backed Dinar.
In a sign the battle for Africa is far from over, the French staged robbery of gold mines in Mali came under renewed attack last week as a resort for ex-pats there was attacked.
Khazarian attempts to prolong their financial system by seizing gold are also continuing in many parts of the world.
In the Philippines, the US military helped President Rodrigo Duterte fight Khazarian hired Daesh mercenaries who were trying to seize gold in Marawai.
Also last week in the Island of Bougainville ten trucks filled with mercenaries were dispatched to try to capture White Dragon Society representatives, including this writer, visiting King David Peii II. The Bougainville Rebel Army stopped them by cutting down trees and shutting a highway after the WDS representatives were evacuated. The French Branch of the Rothschild family, through their Rio Tinto Zinc corporation, are trying yet again to force landowners in Bougainville to sign over to them the rights to mine gold on the Island. The Rothschilds also do not want the world at large to know they are guilty of slaughtering at least 10% of the Island’s population. It is because of this history of slaughter and environmental destruction that the locals would rather fight another war than let those mass murdering war criminal back in.
We will write more about this and other related news in a special report to be issued later this week. Suffice it to say for now that the Rothschilds, especially the French branch headed by wanted criminal David de Rothschild, will not get their hands any of the huge gold supplies on that island.
In Japan, meanwhile, the Khazarian puppet regime of Shinzo Abe showed how insecure it was by passing an “anti-conspiracy” bill that gives the government power to arrest people for crimes they have not yet committed. This sort of acceleration of repressive measures was seen in Eastern Europe too in places like Romania just before the regimes there collapsed.
Sources in Japanese military and law enforcement circles say they will not obey criminal orders from the politicians to oppress the people despite the passage of this law.
In any case, right wing sources close to the Emperor say Abe is very ill and has been advised by his doctor to resign or else die within six months.
However, Abe intends to die in office, the source says. Japanese power brokers are waiting for the civil war inside the US government to end before they make any big changes here, multiple sources agree.
So for now the old Rockefeller/Rothschild controlled regime remains in place here even though it has no support from the military or other armed groups in the country. However, behind the scenes, the Khazarians have already lost Japan as well as South Korea.

In Discussing Middle East Policy, US Should Acknowledge the Goal of Regime Change

In Discussing Middle East Policy, US Should Acknowledge the Goal of Regime Change

Ivan Sheehan
|
Posted: Jun 19, 2017 1:00 PM
In Discussing Middle East Policy, US Should Acknowledge the Goal of Regime Change
The election of Donald Trump last year set the stage for major changes in U.S. foreign policy and particularly American policy toward the Islamic Republic of Iran. It was clear on the campaign trail that Trump’s views on Iran could hardly be more different than those of his predecessor, Barack Obama. Almost six months into his first term the administration is now well positioned to lay the foundation for a lasting Middle East legacy by boldly embracing the goal of regime change in Tehran.
Whereas the Obama administration took great pride in the Iran nuclear deal it helped to negotiate, then GOP candidate Trump repeatedly referred to the agreement as one of the worst deals ever negotiated and promised to overturn it upon assuming office. Although the Trump White House is technically upholding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), it has also imposed tough new sanctions on the regime that are unrelated to the Iranian nuclear program. Iran policies now under development suggest that an explicit endorsement of regime change may well be on the horizon.
Given the nature of the Iranian regime and the lack of meaningful reform following the JCPOA’s implementation, the Trump administration and its allies in Congress should make their intentions clear and outline a concrete plan that will further weaken the world’s only modern theocracy and the worst state sponsor of terrorism in the world.
This is not to say that I – or anyone with a sensible handle on Middle East affairs – believe the U.S. should facilitate regime change directly. And fortunately this does not appear to be an agenda of the Trump administration, which has repeatedly pledged to put “America First” – rhetoric that suggests the avoidance of direct overseas entanglements but not at the expense of defending American interests and democratic values throughout the world.
Toward that end, the U.S. needs to focus its efforts on building useful partnerships abroad. This is a strategy that Trump initiated with his first official oversees trip wherein he visited Saudi Arabia and Israel – a sign to many Middle East hands that he hoped to encourage and even foster cooperation between onetime adversaries who now face a mutual threat from the Islamic Republic. Whereas Obama’s conciliatory approach led to a cooling of U.S. relations with these historic allies, Trump’s willingness to push back on the Iranian regime has made them eager to re-embrace the U.S. at a critical moment in Middle East affairs.
Trump’s foreign tour also took the president to the Vatican, a sign of the potential for bolstered cooperation among the world’s three Abrahamic faiths. Contrary to the Obama administration’s illusory hopes for Iranian moderation following the JCPOA, the Islamic Republic is necessarily excluded from interfaith cooperation. The Iranian regime is notorious for religious persecution, routinely denying minorities like the Baha’is access to education or jobs and frequently imprisoning people for many years or even sentencing them to death on the basis of religious crimes.
Tehran is also responsible for a great deal of the sectarian violence in the broader Middle East, especially against the backdrop of the Syrian Civil War – which Iran has prolonged through its support of murderous dictator Bashar al-Assad. Countless Iran-backed militant groups are fighting in that war, and many of them have been accused of massacring Sunni populations in much the same way that ISIS massacred Shiites.
The Iranian people are among the most progressive and well-educated peoples in the Middle East and they are overwhelmingly opposed to the regime that has barred them from expressing their secular democratic preferences for nearly four decades. This opposition is a crucial reason why it is realistic for the U.S. to embrace and expect regime change, and more specifically, regime change from within driven by local populations as opposed to being imposed by Western authorities. Both within Iran and amongst the Iranian expatriate community there are millions of people who are either actively pushing for the establishment of a truly democratic system in place of the existing theocracy or silently advocating for that goal when outside of the nearly omnipresent gaze of the Iranian security state.
This sentiment will be on display in Paris on July 1 when the leading coalition of Iranian opposition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), holds its annual Iran Freedom rally. Previously, such events have attracted upwards of 100,000 people, including hundreds of political dignitaries and foreign policy experts from the U.S., Europe, and throughout the world. The event will also be broadcast to millions of residents of the Islamic Republic who maintain household satellite dishes in defiance of the regime’s strict censorship laws.
The stage is now set for a much more comprehensive change of policy toward Iran, and one that includes a dramatic expansion in potential American partnerships. The Iranian people never should have been neglected in Middle East policymaking. The only reason they have been is because acknowledging the popular will of the people would have necessitated endorsing a goal of regime change long ago.
President Trump could become the first American leader since the Iranian Revolution to give the people of Iran a voice on the world stage. But doing so presupposes that the U.S. will support their message. And that message will be made clear on the banner celebrating the NCRI’s Paris rally: “regime change is in reach.”

Former CIA Analyst: 'We Are Smoking Something' if We Think North Korea Denuclearization Is Achievable

Former CIA Analyst: 'We Are Smoking Something' if We Think North Korea Denuclearization Is Achievable


NEW YORK, June 19, 2017 — Former CIA analyst and Deputy Intelligence Officer in the U.S. National Security Council Sue Mi Terry discusses her recent informal discussions with North Korean officials and why they repeatedly emphasize that giving up their nuclear weapons development is "completely off the table." (2 min., 53 sec.)
A former CIA analyst and deputy intelligence officer in the U.S. National Security Council says that informal talks with North Korean officials in Sweden earlier this month have made her even more pessimistic about the possibility of the Asian country ever giving up its nuclear program.
“They emphasize over and over: Denuclearization is completely off the table,” said Sue Mi Terry, currently managing director for Korea at Bower Group Asia, while speaking at Asia Society in New York on Monday. “We are smoking something if we think this is something that is achievable.”
The talks, reportedly attended by scholars and current and former government officials from South and North Korea, the United States, and China were held in Stockholm between May 31 and June 2.
Terry said that North Korean officials were open to discussing a peace treaty, but denuclearization was not even up for discussion. “They emphasized that they are so close to completing the nuclear program, so close to perfecting this nuclear arsenal,” she said. “Then they predictably gave us the example of Libya and Iraq and said, ‘Of course from our perspective, this is the only means of regime survival.’”
Terry noted that this means there are only two realistic options for the U.S. going forward: “Learning to live with” a nuclear North Korea by focusing on deterrence measures, or military intervention. She added that the North Korean officials at the meeting were not interested in including South Korea in any peace negotiations. “The U.S. is our counterpart,” she recalled them saying. “South Korea, you are a puppet of the United States and we don't even need to have you in this discussion.”
Also speaking at the event, Senior Fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute and former Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel Russel called North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile development “a pretty conventional shakedown” aimed at convincing the U.S. to “buy off” the country. “Wouldn't we rather have a period of quiet, even if their centrifuges are spinning in the background?” Russell said. “Even if their technology continued to advance, at least there wouldn't be these explosive nuclear detonations or missile launches. This is [Kim Jong Un’s] gambit.”
Russel added that no U.S. president would accept North Korea as a legitimate nuclear state and that the international community needs to create a set of circumstances in which Kim is forced to conclude that his approach isn’t working and his rule is in greater danger with nuclear weapons than without them. “Nothing that he is doing is weakening the U.S.-ROK alliance, in fact it's strengthening [it] and the U.S.-Japan alliance and increasing trilateral coordination and infuriating China to boot,” Russell noted. “This is not a tenable proposition and time is not on his side.”
Also at the event, Chung-in Moon, a special advisor to South Korean President Moon Jae-in, addressed recent controversial remarks he made saying that that South Korea and the United States may “scale down” joint military exercises if North Korea suspends its nuclear and missile development activities. “We need to come up with some incentive so we can make North Korea change its provocative behavior,” he said. “But [the] conservative public in South Korea is not really [accepting of] the idea.”
South Korea’s presidential office has since distanced itself from Moon’s remarks, saying they do not reflect the president’s position. “I do not speak for the government,” Moon noted at the Asia Society event. “I speak for myself … I can give my opinions to the president — whether he takes it or not is up to him.”
In the above video clip, Terry discusses her meetings with North Korean officials. Watch the complete program in the video below.

NEW YORK, June 19, 2017 — Chung-in Moon, Daniel Russel, and Sue Mi Terry discuss what the future holds for the U.S.-Korea alliance, the Korean Peninsula, and the security of Northeast Asia. The conversation was moderated by Barbara Demick with opening remarks by Ro-Myung Gong. (1 hr., 25 min.)

Despite Concerns About Blackmail, Flynn Heard C.I.A. Secrets

Despite Concerns About Blackmail, Flynn Heard C.I.A. Secrets

Photo
Mike Pompeo, center, the C.I.A. director, at the Capitol to brief members of the House Intelligence Committee last month. Credit Al Drago/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — Senior officials across the government became convinced in January that the incoming national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, had become vulnerable to Russian blackmail.
At the F.B.I., the C.I.A., the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — agencies responsible for keeping American secrets safe from foreign spies — career officials agreed that Mr. Flynn represented an urgent problem.
Yet nearly every day for three weeks, the new C.I.A. director, Mike Pompeo, sat in the Oval Office and briefed President Trump on the nation’s most sensitive intelligence — with Mr. Flynn listening. Mr. Pompeo has not said whether C.I.A. officials left him in the dark about their views of Mr. Flynn, but one administration official said Mr. Pompeo did not share any concerns about Mr. Flynn with the president.
The episode highlights a remarkable aspect of Mr. Flynn’s tumultuous, 25-day tenure in the White House: He sat atop a national security apparatus that churned ahead despite its own conclusion that he was at risk of being compromised by a hostile foreign power.
Continue reading the main story
The concerns about Mr. Flynn’s vulnerabilities, born from misleading statements he made to White House officials about his conversations with the Russian ambassador, are at the heart of a legal and political storm that has engulfed the Trump administration. Many of Mr. Trump’s political problems, including the appointment of a special counsel and the controversy over the firing of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, can ultimately be traced to Mr. Flynn’s stormy tenure.
Time and again, the Trump administration looked the other way in the face of warning signs about Mr. Flynn. Mr. Trump entrusted him with the nation’s secrets despite knowing that he faced a Justice Department investigation over his undisclosed foreign lobbying. Even a personal warning from President Barack Obama did not dissuade him.
Mr. Pompeo sidestepped questions from senators last month about his handling of the information about Mr. Flynn, declining to say whether he knew about his own agency’s concerns. “I can’t answer yes or no,” he said. “I regret that I’m unable to do so.” His words frustrated Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat and a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
“Either Director Pompeo had no idea what people in the C.I.A. reportedly knew about Michael Flynn, or he knew about the Justice Department’s concerns and continued to discuss America’s secrets with a man vulnerable to blackmail,” Mr. Wyden said in a statement. “I believe Director Pompeo owes the public an explanation.”
After Mr. Pompeo’s Senate testimony, The New York Times asked officials at several agencies whether Mr. Pompeo had raised concerns about Mr. Flynn to the president and, if so, whether the president had ignored him. One administration official responded on the condition of anonymity that Mr. Pompeo, whether he knew of the concerns or not, had not told the president about them.
A C.I.A. spokesman declined to discuss any interactions between the president and Mr. Pompeo.
“Whether the C.I.A. director briefed the president on a specific intelligence issue during a specific time frame is not something we publicly comment on, and we’re not about to start today,” said the spokesman, Dean Boyd.
Concerns across the government about Mr. Flynn were so great after Mr. Trump took office that six days after the inauguration, on Jan. 26, the acting attorney general, Sally Q. Yates, warned the White House that Mr. Flynn had been “compromised.”
Ms. Yates’s concerns focused on phone calls that Mr. Flynn had in late December with Sergey I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States. When the White House faced questions about whether the two men had discussed lifting American sanctions on Russia, Vice President Mike Pence told reporters that Mr. Flynn had assured him that sanctions were not discussed. Intelligence officials knew otherwise, based on routine intercepts of Mr. Kislyak’s conversations.
“That created a compromise situation,” Ms. Yates later told Congress, “a situation where the national security adviser essentially could be blackmailed by the Russians.”
Mr. Trump waited 18 days from that warning before firing Mr. Flynn, a period in which Mr. Pompeo continued to brief Mr. Flynn and the president. The White House has offered changing explanations for why the president waited until Feb. 13 — soon after Ms. Yates’s warning made national news — before firing Mr. Flynn.
White House officials have said they moved deliberately both out of respect for Mr. Flynn and because they were not sure how seriously they should take the concerns. They also said the president believed that Ms. Yates, an Obama administration holdover, had a political agenda. She was fired days later over her refusal to defend in court Mr. Trump’s ban on travel for people from several predominantly Muslim countries.
A warning from Mr. Pompeo might have persuaded the White House to take Ms. Yates’s concerns more seriously. Mr. Pompeo, a former congressman, is a Republican stalwart whom Mr. Trump has described as “brilliant and unrelenting.”
Mr. Pompeo was sworn in three days before Ms. Yates went to the White House. He testified last month that he did not know what was said in that meeting. By that time, C.I.A. officials had attended meetings with F.B.I. agents about Mr. Flynn and reviewed the transcripts of his conversations with the Russian ambassador, according to several current and former American security officials. Separately, intelligence agencies were aware that Russian operatives had discussed ways to use their relationship with Mr. Flynn to influence Mr. Trump.
Mr. Pompeo, who briefs the president nearly every day, had frequent opportunities to raise the issue with Mr. Trump.
The President’s Daily Brief is a rundown of what America’s spies consider the most pressing issues facing the United States. On any given day, it can include details of a terrorist plot being hatched overseas, an analysis of a foreign political crisis that threatens American interests or a look at foreign hackers who are trying to breach American government computer systems.
Each president takes the briefing differently. Mr. Obama was said to prefer reading it on a secure tablet. President George W. Bush liked his briefers to talk through the document they were presenting. Mr. Pompeo has described Mr. Trump as a voracious consumer of the briefing who likes maps, charts, pictures, videos and “killer graphics.
At an event last month at Westwood Country Club in Northern Virginia, Mr. Pompeo told retired C.I.A. officials that his briefings often ran past their scheduled 30 minutes, according to one retired official in attendance. Mr. Pompeo said Mr. Trump was eager for information and asked many questions.
At his confirmation hearing, Mr. Pompeo assured senators that he would provide the president with unvarnished information, even when it would be viewed as unpleasant. “I can tell you that I have assured the president-elect that I’ll do that,” Mr. Pompeo said.
On Capitol Hill, Mr. Wyden questioned why Mr. Pompeo continued having discussions with Mr. Flynn despite the concerns of intelligence officials. “He was the national security adviser,” Mr. Pompeo said. “He was present for the daily brief on many occasions.”
Mr. Flynn had no love for the C.I.A., and the feeling was mutual. An Army general who had risen to lead the Defense Intelligence Agency, Mr. Flynn emerged in retirement as a C.I.A. critic, blaming the agency for his firing and what he called its failure to foresee the rise of the Islamic State. He insisted the Obama administration had politicized the agency, an assertion Mr. Pompeo later said he saw no evidence to support.
Follow Matthew Rosenberg at @AllMattNYT and Adam Goldman at @adamgoldmanNYT.
Eileen Sullivan contributed reporting.

Assessing the Russian military as an instrument of power



Assessing the Russian military as an instrument of power
28871 Views
August 25, 2016

It has been a quarter of a century now since the fall of the Soviet Union and yet the memory of the Soviet Armed Forces is still vivid in the minds of many of those who lived through the Cold War or even remember WWII. The NATO-sponsored elites of eastern Europe still continue to scare their citizens by warning of a danger of “Russian tanks” rolling down their streets as if the Soviet tanks were about to advance on Germany again. For a while, the accepted image of a Russian solider in the West was a semi-literate drinking and raping Ivan who would attack in immense hordes with little tactical skills and an officer corps selected for political loyalty and lack of imagination. Then the propaganda narrative changed and now the new Russian bogeyman is a “little green man” who will suddenly show up to annex some part of the Baltics to Russia. Putatively pro-Russian “experts” add to the confusion by publicly hallucinating of a Russian deployment in Syria and the Mediterranean which could wrestle the entire region away from Uncle Sam and fight the entire NATO/CENCOM air forces and navies with confidence. This is all nonsense, of course, and what I propose to do here is to provide a few very basic pointers about what the modern Russian military can and cannot do in 2016. This will not be a highly technical discussion but rather a list of a few simple, basic, reminders.
Russia is not the Soviet Union
The first and most important thing to keep in mind is that the Russian military is truly focused on the defense of the Russian territory. Let me immediately say that contrary to much of the Cold War propaganda, the Soviet military was also defensive in essence, even if it did include a number of offensive elements:
1) The military control of all of Eastern Europe as a “buffer zone” to keep the US/NATO away from the Soviet Union’s borders.
2) An official ideology, Communism, which was messianic and global in its stated goals (more or less, depending on who was in power)
3) A practice of global opposition to the US Empire anywhere on the planet with technical, political, financial, scientific and, of course, military means
Russia has exactly zero interest in any of these. Not only did the nature of modern warfare dramatically reduce the benefits of being forward deployed, the messianic aspects of Communism have even been abandoned by the Communist Party of Russia which is now focused on the internal socio-economic problems of Russia and which has no interest whatsoever in liberating the Polish or Austrian proletariat from Capitalist exploitation. As for a global military presence, Russia has neither the means nor the desire to waste her very limited resources on faraway territories which do not contribute to her defense.
But the single most important factor here is this: the overwhelming majority of Russian are tired and fed up with being an empire. From Peter I to Gorbachev, the Russian people have paid a horrific price in sweat, tears, blood and Rubles to maintain an empire which did absolutely nothing for the Russian people except impoverish them and make them hated in much of the world. More than anything else, the Russians want their country to be a “normal” country. Yes, safe, powerful, wealthy and respected, but still a normal country and not a global superpower. Many Russians still remember that the Soviet Politburo justified the occupation and subsequent war in Afghanistan as the completion of an “internationalist duty” and if somebody today tried that kind of language the reply would be “to hell with that”. Finally, there is the sad reality that almost all the countries which were liberated by Russia, not only from Nazi Germany, but also from the Turkish yoke show exactly zero gratitude for the role Russia played in their liberation. To see how our so-called “Orthodox brothers” in Bulgaria, Romania or Georgia are eager to deploy NATO weapons against Russia is nothing short of sickening. The next time around, let these guys liberate themselves, everybody will be happier that way.
It is a basic rule of military analysis that you do not look at the intentions but primarily at capabilities, so let us now look at Russian capabilities.
The Russian armed forces are relatively small
First, the Russian armed forces are fairly small, especially for the defense of the biggest country on the planet (Russia is almost twice the size of the USA, she has a about half the population and land border length of 20,241km). The total size of the Russian Armed Forces is estimated at about 800’000 soldiers. That puts the Russian Armed Forces in 5th position worldwide, somewhere between the DPRK (1’190’000) and Pakistan (643’800). Truly, this kind of “bean counting” makes absolutely no sense, but this comparison is useful to show something crucial: the Russian Armed Forces are relatively small.
This conclusion is further bolstered if we consider the fact that it is hard to imagine a scenario in which every Russian solider from Kalinigrad to the Kamchatka will be engaged at the same time against one enemy. This is why the Russian territory has been broken up into five separate (and, de facto, autonomous) military districts (or “strategic directions): East, Central, Northern, Western and Southern.

While there are a number of units which are subordinated directly to the high command in Moscow, most Russian units have been distributed between the commands of these strategic directions.
[Sidebar: it is also interesting to know that when Putin came to power the Western military district was almost demilitarized as nobody in Russia believed that there was a threat coming from the West. The aggressive US/NATO policies have now changed that and there now is an major program underway to strengthen it, including the reactivation of the First Guards Tank Army.]
There is no US equivalent to the Russian military districts. Or, if there is, it is very different in nature and scope. I am talking about the US Unified Combatant Commands which have broken up our entire planet into “Areas of Responsibility”:

Notice that all of Russia is in the area of “responsibility” of only one of these commands, USEUCOM. In reality, however, in the case of full scale war between Russia and the United States USCENTCOM and USPACOM would, obviously, play a crucial role.
The Russians are *not* coming
The size and capabilities of the Russian Military Districts are completely dwarfed by the immense power and resources of the US Commands: in every one of these commands the USA already has deployed forces, pre-positioned equipment and built the infrastructure needed to receive major reinforcements. Furthermore, since the USA currently has about 700 military bases worldwide, the host countries have been turned into a modern version of a colony, a protectorate, which has no option than to fully collaborate with the USA and which has to offer all its resources in manpower, equipment, infrastructure, etc. to the USA in case of war. To put it simply: all of Europe is owned by the USA who can use it as they want (mainly as canon fodder against Russia, of course).
It is important to keep this immense difference in size and capabilities in mind when, for example, we look at the Russian operation in Syria.
When the first rumors of an impending Russian intervention began flooding the blogosphere many were tempted to say that the Russians were about to liberate Syria, challenge NATO and defeat Daesh. Some had visions of Russian Airborne Forces deployed into Damascus, MiG-31s criss-crossing the Syrian skies and even Russian SLBMs cruising off the Syrian coast (though they never explained this one). At the time I tried to explain that no, the “Russians are not coming” (see here, here, here, hereand here), but my cautionary remarks were not greeted with enthusiasm, to put it mildly. A Russian task force did eventually materialize in Syria, but it was a very far cry from what was expected. In fact, compared to the expected intervention force, it was tiny: 50 aircraft and support personnel. What this small force achieved, however, was much more than anybody expected, including myself. So what happened here, did the Russians really do everything they can, or did they get cold feet or were they somehow pressured into a much less ambitious mission than they had originally envisioned?
To explain this, we now need to look at the actual capabilities of the Russian Armed Forces.
The true “reach” of the Russian armed forces
First, Russia does have very long range weapon systems: her missiles can reach any point on the planet, her bombers can fly many thousands of miles and her transport aircraft have ranges of several thousand miles. However, and this is crucial, none of that amounts to a real power projection capability.
There are two main ways to project power: to take control over a territory or, failing that to deny it to your enemy. The first one absolutely requires the famous “boots on the ground” while the second one requires air supremacy. So how far away from home can the Russian solider and pilots really fight? How far from home can the Russian Aerospace forces establish a no-fly zone?
Let’s begin by dispelling a myth: that Russian Airborne Forces are more or less similar to the US 82nd or 101st Airborne. They are not. The 82nd and 101st are light infantry divisions which are typically engaged in what I would call “colonial enforcement” missions. In comparison to the US airborne forces, the Russian Airborne Forces are much heavier, fully mechanized and their main mission is to fight in the operational level support of the front to a maximum depth of 100km to 300km (if I remember correctly, the Russian Aerospace Forces don’t even have sufficient aircraft to airlift an entire Airborne Division although they will acquire that capability in 2017). Once landed, the Russian Airborne Division is a much more formidable force than its US counterpart: not only are the Russians fully mechanized and they have their own artillery. Most importantly, they are far more tactically mobile than the Americans.
But what the Russians gain in tactical mobility, they lose in strategic mobility.: the US can easily sent the 82nd pretty much to any location on the planet, whereas the Russians most definitely cannot do that with their Airborne Forces.
Furthermore, even a Russian Airborne Division is relatively weak and fragile, especially when compared to regular armed forces, so they are critically dependent on the support of the Russian Aerospace forces. That, again, dramatically reduces the “reach” of these forces. All this is to say that no, the Russian VDV never had the means to send an airborne division/Brigade/Regiment to Damascus any more than they had the means to support the Russian VDV company in Pristina. This is not a weakness of the Russian Airborne Forces, it is simply the logical consequence of the fact that the entire Russian military posture is purely defensive in nature, at least strategically.
Like any other modern military force, the Russians are capable of offensive military operations, but those would be executed primarily as a part of a defensive plan or as a part of a counter-attack. And while the Russian Ground Forces (aka “Army”) have excellent terrain crossing capabilities, they are all designed for missions of less than a couple of hundred kilometers in depth.
This is why in the past I have written that the Russian Armed Forces are designed to fight on their national territory and up to a maximum of 1000km from the Russian border. Now, please do not take this “1000km” literally. In reality, 200km-400km would be much more realistic, and I would say that the capabilities of the Russian military diminish in a manner roughly inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the Russian borders. Here is what this maximal 1000km looks like on a map showing the western and southern borders of Russia:

Map by Harry
Keep in mind that the real distance the Russian armed forces can “reach” is not primarily determined by distance, but much more by terrain and the possible defenses encountered in this zone. Flying over Estonia to reach the Baltic Sea would be much easier than to fly over Turkey to reach Syria. It is much easier to cross the Ukrainian plains that it would be to cross the snow covered forests of Finland. Again, the conceptual 1000km distance would often be much shorter in the real world.
If we now take a closer look at the Middle-East, here is what we see:

Map by udbc
Notice that Khmeimin is just at the edge of this 1000km distance, but only 50km from the Turkish border and that in order to resupply it the Russians would need to either cross Turkish airspace of fly around Turkey via Iran and Iraq. In other words, Khmeimim and Damascus are way too far for the Russian armed forces to insert anything but a relatively small force and give it a relatively limited mission. And while the Russians were extremely successful in Syria, I would argue that Putin took a huge risk, even if he, and the Russian General Staff, calculated the odds correctly and achieved a truly remarkable success.
Has the recent Iranian offer to use the Hamedan airbase made a difference in Russian capabilities?
Yes and no. Yes because it will now make it possible for the Russians to use their Tu-22M3 in a much more effective way and no because this improvement does not fundamentally change the regional balance of power or allow the Russian to project their forces into Syria. To put it simply: the Russians are years away from being capable of executing something similar to what the USA did during “Desert Shield”. In fact, such operations are not even part of the Russian military doctrine and the Russians have no desire to develop any such capability. There is a reason why the AngloZionist Empire is broke: maintaining a global empire is prohibitively expensive, the Russians painfully learned that lesson in the past and they have no desire to emulate the USA today. Doing so would not only require a dramatic change in the Russian military posture, but also to imitate the US political and economic model, something Russia neither desires nor is capable of.
There are, however, also big advantages to the Russian force posture, the main one being that Russians will only fight on “their turf” not only in terms of location, but also in terms of capabilities. The very same inverse square “law” which so severely limits the Russian military power projection capabilities also acts in Russia’s favor when dealing with an enemy approaching the Russian border: the closer this enemy gets, the more dangerous his environment becomes. In practical terms, this means that the three Baltic states, the Baltic Sea, the Gulf of Finland, most of the Ukraine, the Black Sea and the Caspian are all, for all practical purposes, “Russkie-land”. The fact that NATO pretends otherwise makes no difference here: the kind of firepower, capabilities which Russia can bring to bear simply dwarfs what the US and NATO can commit. This is not an issue of number of tanks, or helicopters or combat aircraft, it is the fact that over and near the Russian territory the Russian armed forces would act as an integrated whole, exactly what they cannot do as far as, say, in Syria. So even if NATO can in theory bring more aircraft to the battle, Russian aircraft would be supported by the multi-layered and fully integrated Russian air defense network, a large number of sophisticated electronic warfare systems which, together with highly capable and long range interceptors: land based like the S-400 or airborne like the MiG-31BM would make it extremely dangerous for US/NATO aircraft to get anywhere near Russian airspace, especially for the AWACs the US air doctrine completely depends on.
The real meaning of A2AD

The American nightmare
The US and NATO are, of course, very much aware of this. And as is typically the case, they concealed this reality behind an obscure acronym: A2AD, which stands for anti-access area denial. According to US strategists, Russia, China and even Iran are plotting to use A2AD strategies against the USA. What this means in plain English is simple, of course: some countries out there actually can fight back and defend themselves (hence the burning aircraft carrier on the cover of this book). The arrogance of it all is simply amazing: it is not like the USA is concerned about Iranian A2AD in Paraguay, Russia A2AD in Africa or even Chinese A2AD in the Gulf of Mexico. No, the USA is concerned about these countries defending their own borders. Indeed, how dare they?!
Fortunately for the world, Uncle Sam only get’s to whine here, but cannot do much about it except conceal these realities from the general public in the West and obfuscate the dangers of messing with the wrong countries under bizarre acronyms like A2AD. And that brings me to the Ukraine.
A quick look at 1000km map will immediately show that the Ukraine is also well within the conceptual “Russkie-land” zone (again, don’t take 1000km literally, and remember that this is a maximum, a couple of hundred kilometers are much more realistic). This does not at all mean that Russia would want, or should, attack or invade the Ukraine (the the Baltic states and Poland, for that matter), but it does mean that such an operation is well within the Russian capabilities (at least if we forget about public opinion in Russia) and that to try to counter that would take a truly immense effort, something nobody in the West has the means to undertake.
In truth, that kind of scenarios only exist in the demented minds of western propagandists and in the artifical world of US think tanks which make providing the politicians with frightening fairy tales their daily bread (for an example of the latter, see here). To be sure, the fact that both sides have long-range standoff weapons, including nuclear ones, makes such a scenario even less likely unless we assume that the Russians have gone insane and are trying to force the US to resort to nuclear weapons. The opposite scenario – the US taking the risk of forcing Russia to use her nukes – is, alas, not quite as unlikely, especially if the Neocons take full control of the White House. The difference? The Russians know that they are neither invulnerable nor invincible, the Americans don’t. This is why the latter are far more likely to trigger and conflict than the former.
A full-scale war between the USA and Russia would be far different from anything described here: it would last a week, maybe two, it would involve conventional and nuclear strikes on both the USA and Russia, and it would be fought primarily with standoff weapons, “boots on the ground” or armored warfare would matter very little in such a scenario.
The Ukraine is located well inside Russkie-land
So if in Syria the “Russians are not coming”, then in the Ukraine they are already there. I am not referring to the sending of equipment (the voentorg) or volunteers (the “northern wind”) but to the fact that the Ukraine and, especially, the Donbass are so close to the Russian border as being basically undeniable to the Russians should they decide to take it. Again, I am not suggesting that they will, or even that this should happen, but only that all the hot air from the regime in Kiev about “defending Europe against the Russian hordes” or “teaching NATO on how to fight the Russians” is absolute nonsense. Ditto for the talk about supplying “lethal weapons” to the Ukronazis. Why? Because the situation in the Donbass is extremely simple: it is highly unlikely that the Ukronazis would succeed in taking over the Donbass but if, by some miracle, they did, they would be destroyed by the Russian armed forces. Putin has made it abundantly clear that while he will not intervene militarily in the Ukraine, he will not allow a genocide to take place in Novorussia. In fact, just the Russian artillery deployed along the border has the means to destroy any Ukrainian force invading Novorussia. In fact, that is exactly what happened in July of 2014 when in a single cross-border 2 minutes long fire strike by Russian multiple rocket launchers and long range artillery guns completely destroyed two Ukrainian mechanized battalions (a first in the history of warfare).
As I wrote many times, all parties to the conflict know that, and the only real goal of the Ukronazis is to trigger a Russian intervention in the Donbass, while the Russians are trying to avoid it by covertly supporting the Novorussians. That’s it. It is that simple. But the notion of the Ukronazis ever getting their hands on the Donbass or, even less so, Crimea is absolutely ridiculous as even the combined power of the US and NATO could not make that happen.
Conclusion: Russia ain’t the Soviet Union and it ain’t the USA
It is absolutely amazing how hard it is for so many people to understand the seemingly simple fact that Russia is not a USSR v2 nor an anti-USA. It is therefore absolutely essential to repeat over and over again that the Russia of 2016 has no aspirations to become an empire and no means to become a global challenger to the AngloZionist hegemony over our planet. So what does Russia want? It is simple: Russia simply wants to be a sovereign and free country. That’s it. But in a world ruled by the AngloZionist Empire this is also a lot. In fact, I would say that for the international plutocracy ruling the Empire, this Russian aspiration is completely and categorically unacceptable as it sees this Russian desire as an existential threat to the USA and the entire New World Order the Empire is trying to impose upon all of us. They are absolutely correct, by the way.
If Russia is allowed to break free from the Empire, then this means the end for the Empire’s global domination project as other countries will inevitably follow suit. Not only that, but this would deprive the Empire from the immense Russian resources in energy, potable water, strategic metals, etc. If Russia is allowed to break free and succeed, then Europe will inevitably gravitate towards Russia due to objective economic and political factors. Losing Europe would mean the end of the AngloZionist Empire. Everybody understands that and this is why the ruling 1%ers have unleashed to most hysterical full-spectrum russophobic propaganda campaign in western history. So yes, Russia and the Empire are already at war, a war for survival from which only one side will walk away while the other will be eliminated, at least in its current political form. This war is a new type of war, however, one which is roughly 80% informational, 15% economic and 5% military. This is why the ban on the Russian paralympic team is every bit as important as the delivery of US and British counter-battery radars to the Nazi junta in Kiev.
If militarily and economically Russia is dramatically weaker than the US led block of all the countries forming the Empire, on the informational front Russia is doing much better. It is enough to see all the hysterics of western politicians about RT to see that they are most definitely feeling threatened in an area which they used to completely dominate: information operations (aka propaganda).
The goals of Russia are quite simple:
a) military: to survive (defensive military doctrine)
b) economic: to become truly sovereign (to remove the 5th columnists from power)
c) informational: to discredit and de-legitimize the Empire political and economic basis
That’s it. Unlike the grandiose hopes of those who wish to see the Russian military intervene everywhere, these 3 goals are commensurate with the actual capabilities/means of Russia.
One cannot win a war by engaging in the kind of warfare the enemy excels at. You have to impose upon him the kind of warfare you excel at. If Russia tried to “out-USA the USA” she would inevitably lose, she therefore chose to be different in order to prevail.
There are still many out there who are nostalgic for the “good old days” of the Cold War when any anti-US movement, party, regime or insurgency would automatically get the support of the USSR. These are the folks who deeply regret that Russia did not liberate the Ukraine from the Nazi junta, who fault Russia for not standing up to the USA in Syria and who are baffled, if not disgusted, by the apparently cozy relationship between Moscow and Tel Aviv. I understand these people, at least to some degree, but I also see what they plainly fail to realize: Russia is still much weaker than the AngloZionist Empire and because of that Russia will always prefer a bad peace to a good war. Besides, it is not like there was a long line of countries waiting to defend Russia when her interests were affected. Does anybody know which countries, besides Russia, have recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Answer: Nicaragua, Venezuela and Nauru! Yep, not even Kazakhstan or Syria… Isn’t friendship and partnership a two-way street?

The truth is that Russia does not owe anything to anybody. But even more importantly, Russia does simply not have the means to engage in a planetary zero-sum game against the AngloZionist Empire. Since Vladimir Putin came to power he achieved a quasi-miracle: he made Russia into a semi-sovereign state. Yes, I wrote semi-sovereign because while Russia is militarily safe she remains economically subservient to the AngloZionist Empire. Compared to the Empire, her economy is tiny and her armed forces only capable of defending the Russian homeland. And yet, just as the tiny Russian contingent in Khmeimim achieved results way superior to anything which could have been expected from it, Russia is still the only power on the planet who dares to openly say “niet” to the AngloZionist Hegemon and but to even openly challenge and even ridicule its legitimacy and so-called ‘values’.
The war between the Empire and Russia will be a long one, and its outcome will remain uncertain for many years but, as the Russian saying goes, “Russia does not start wars, she ends them”. The Papacy fought against Russia for 1000 years. The Crusaders for roughly a century. The Swedish Empire for 21 years. Napoleon for just a few months. Queen Victoria, Napoleon III and Abdülmecid I (what I call the “Ecumenical Coalition against Russia) for about 3 years. The Kaiser Wilhelm II also for 3 years. The Trotskysts for a decade. Hitler for 4 years. The Jewish mobsters (aka “oligarchs”) for 9 years. And yes, they all eventually were defeated, even after a temporary victory, but each time Russia paid a huge price in blood and suffering. This time around, the Russian leaders have chosen a different strategy, they try as hard as possible not to give the West a pretext for a full-scale military confrontation. So far, this strategy has been successful and besides a two terrorist attacks (in Egypt and Syria) and a two-year long recession (apparently ending soon), Russia did not have pay the horrendous price countries at war with the West typically have had to pay. It would be delusional to expect the Russians to change course at this time, especially since time is now clearly on the Russian side. Just look at all the problems all the enemies of Russia have to which she does not have to contribute at all: the US and EU are both in a deep and potentially devastating political crisis, the US is sitting on an economic time-bomb while the EU is quite literally imploding. The Ukraine has turned into a textbook example of a failed state and is likely to break apart, while Turkey is undergoing the worst crisis since its foundation. And each passing day just makes things worse and worse for the Empire. This reminds me of the monologue of Captain Willard in the movie “Apocalypse Now”: “I’m here a week now… waiting for a mission… getting softer. Every minute I stay in this room, I get weaker, and every minute Charlie squats in the bush, he gets stronger. Each time I looked around the walls moved in a little tighter”. Replace Charlie with Ivan and the jungle with the taiga, and you get a pretty good picture of the dynamic taking place: every days the walls of the Empire are moving in a little tighter while the AngloZionists are completely clueless as to what to do to stop this.
Conclusion
In international affairs, as in many other areas, it is better to never say never. So I will only say that to see the Russian armed forces going into an offensive operation remains exceedingly unlikely. Nor will Russia defend even an important partner at “any cost”. The primarily mission and military posture of the Russian armed forces will remain fundamentally defensive and while Russia might use her armed forces in support of a political goal or to help an ally, she will do that with extreme caution not to allow that engagement to escalate into a regional war or, even less so, a direct war against the Empire.
Unlike the West where a possible war with Russia is almost never discussed (and, when it is, it is done in an absolutely ridiculous manner), the prospects of war with the West are discussed in the Russian media on an almost daily basis, including on the main, state-funded, TV stations. As for the Russian armed forces, they are engaged in huge rearmament and force-training program which, so far, has been roughly 50% completed. These are all clear signs that Russia is preparing, very intensively, for war. Should the Neocon “crazies in the basement” trigger a war they will find Russia ready, militarily and psychologically, to fight and to win, no matter what the costs. But Russia will never again volunteer for the role of global anti-US agent or engage her armed forces if there is a viable alternative to such an engagement. So no, most definitely not, the Russians are not coming.
The Saker