Remember Bushs Missile Defense Shield in East Europe?
Either the cold war never ended or it's not the cold war anymore.
I'd say it's the second. The superpower game never ended but even with the sanctions, trade, travel and politics are not that locked. On the other hand there are those 2.0 war technologies like drones, trolls, cyber warfare...
I think he wanted to use time when Russia was weak and disorganized to contain it. I was thinking that better would have been incorporating Russia to EU back then, but that's not something strong EU countries wanted (being outnumbered by Russians in EU governance) - historically Russia was always trying to become a part of Europe and Europe was always looking at those attempts nervously. I guess now that game is over, Russia seems to have decided it is no longer meaningful to aspire becoming a part of Europe and they will rather go with China, even if they really don't like each other that much. I don't think this is going to end well and we will see some major conflicts.
I never thought anyone wanted to have Russia seriously in the EU. I don't think the EU (or anyone) would be able to handle Russia. NATO however was another topic.
I understand the negative media coverage in Russia about threats from outside (US, Europe) but not the Russia coverage in the American media. I think there was less Russia coverage about in American news some years ago but it seems to increase.
The same is true of Americas' ruling elite, yo. Stop blaming Russia - start blaming Lockheed Martin ($29.4 billion), Boeing ($14.6 billion), Raytheon ($12.3 billion), General Dynamics ($11.8 billion), Northrup Grumman ($9.5 billion), and so on .. ($number in brackets represents value of war-related contracts awarded and currently under obligation...)
These companies need the Russian threat to justify their existence.
>These companies need the Russian threat to justify their existence.
Not really. China works just as well.
Fun fact: the US Navy response to Russia's unilateral abrogation of the INF treaty (IMHO one of the greatest achievements in modern diplomacy & arms control) is to build INF-range missiles - to counter the Chinese.
There's a reason there's an SS-20 and Pershing II next to each other at the NASM. INF was a really big deal. It should be worrying to more people that it is being abandoned with such haste.
The military-industrial complex will certainly leverage any international conflict it can in order to expand its existence - and I wouldn’t put it past nefarious activities - but some underlying geopolitical conditions must exist to exasperate conflict and in the case of Russia that its natural aggressive and expansionary nature towards its neighbors. There countries naturally turn to defensive collectives such as NATO to protect their sovereignty from Russian aggression.
Honestly, I find the American propensity to blame Russia for its actions in Crimea to be of the most blatant hypocrisy one can imagine. Russia has better arguments for defending its naval bases in Crimea from Ukraine hostility, than America has for .. Iraq .. Afghanistan .. Libya .. and so on.
Do Americans just not see their own hypocrisy on this issue? Russia didn't invade and destroy entire nation(s) (PLURAL) in order to exercise global military power - it invaded Crimea to secure its own resources in the region. Ukraine did not fall, it has not been utterly destroyed, its infrastructure not-related to offensive actions against the Russian naval bases in Crimea is still intact.
But we cannot say that about America's actions in the forementioned countries, nor can we say that Russian interference in the American 'election' is anywhere near the same order of magnitude as American interference in .. 20+ different democracies around the world. I shan't make a list - this is an exercise for the average American reader to demonstrate for themselves that there is no hypocrisy here.
And .. NATO. The military organization currently doing its best to ensure Russia is encircled by heavy military assets. Tell me again: when was the last time Russia established full operational, offensive bases within 30 km's of the borders of the USA with any of its clients and their military?
Please, do not play this game. It makes no sense and it just makes you sound utterly ill-informed. Russia is in no way on par with the USA when it comes to military aggression. Not even close.
> Tell me again: when was the last time Russia established full operational, offensive bases within 30 km's of the borders of the USA with any of its clients and their military?
When was the last time the USA threatened Canada and Mexico with annihilation?
Did terrorists based in the Ukraine fly hijacked airplanes into Moscow's skyscrapers? Because that's why the USA invaded Afghanistan.
Iraq however was unjustified. The difference is that more than half of America admits it and thus freely elected a new President from a different party. Match that one Russia.
> Iraq however was unjustified. The difference is that more than half of America admits it and thus freely elected a new President from a different party.
Bush was reelected after the Iraq War by a larger margin than before, serving out his full two terms.
I dunno. When was the last time Canada and Mexico threatened to impound a US naval base? When was the last time Canada tried to ally with the US' principle military opponent and have its military assets installed on its territory?
>Did terrorists based in the Ukraine fly hijacked airplanes into Moscow's skyscrapers? Because that's why the USA invaded Afghanistan.
This is laughable. Those were Saudi terrorists, funded by the Saudi kingdom. By your (admittedly dubious American) logic, Russia should have invaded Hungary and destroyed its infrastructure entirely, just because Georgia sent some terrorists to Russian territory.
I also suspect the US supported Neo-NAZIs in the Ukraine. Both Congress and the Obama Administration approved this, but only when Trump got elected and hurt the feelings of women, LGBT and various minorities did Americans get angry:
The problems in mass shootings is a problem, but no one ever wants to ban military weapons from the US military and its PMCs that have killed lots of innocent people in the name of "liberation". Russia has a GDP similar to Mexico, yet the US spends $1 trillion to build the F-35 and Americans cheer because somehow China & Russia will gang up and takeover the world. Plus, you have the Phds and graduates who think we need to fight wars to maintain our standard of living. As if Saddam
& Iran would refuse to sell the US oil because they want to keep it and drink it.
One of the things people overlooked, was Osama was getting to be a pain on the Taliban factions. They were willing to give up Osama if the Bush administration could provide evidence. But, the Bush & Neocons wanted to use a war in the Middle East as an excuse to carry out policies: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te...
I know it's hard to believe, but look at the 9/11 hijackers: They were mostly Saudi and planned the attacks in Germany and Florida, and had financial connections to factions within the Saudi royal government: https://28pages.org/2016/07/20/selected-revelations-from-the...
And during the Clinton years, Mexico received a bailout... because most of the debt belonged to US politically connected big banks like Citigroup & others. Canada is now going to buy the F-35, so that would explain why the US doesn't really have problems with its neighbors: as long as they give US banks and military contractors money, the US won't interfere with them.
Didn't you see the links to articles with a lot more information and from reputable journalists in the post? Why are you even asking me? Those articles will give you a lot more info. Go ask the journalists who covered the situation for this "theory about _Neo_Nazi in Ukraine". Here are more articles from some established sources:
I'm from Ukraine. I have 360°FOV realtime true color view at Ukraine.
You asked me to say about inaccuracies, so here is answer.
In short: There is no Nazi in Ukraine. There are some attempts to create nationalistic ultra-right organizations by Russian agents, but they are monitored and destroyed as usual. (I destroyed one of them and deflect attempt to create another by myself when I was in operation).
Are there any US agents in the Ukraine? For example, the US funding of the "Azov Battalion":
"Yet some have expressed concern that some of this aid has made its way into the hands of neo-Nazi groups, such as the Azov Battalion. Last summer the Daily Beast published an interview by the journalists Will Cathcart and Joseph Epstein in which a member of the Azov battalion spoke about “his battalion’s experience with U.S. trainers and U.S. volunteers quite fondly, even mentioning U.S. volunteers engineers and medics that are still currently assisting them.”"
There is also this: "In the course of a little over four minutes, the two American diplomats exchange ideas about who ought to be promoted, and who ought to be demoted, by the United States inside Ukraine, which is suffering through a difficult and even violent political dispute over whether Ukraine will tilt east, toward Russia, or west, toward the United States and Europe. Let it first be noted that it shouldn’t be surprising that Nuland would come off as a would-be imperialist or game player. If anything, she’s long been the neoconservative inside the Obama administration." (https://www.thenation.com/article/not-so-secret-ukraine-phon...)
I was in Civil Azov for a week. I saw no Nazi in Azov regiment. It's pure military unit.
Can you point to _any_ evidence? (But exclude information from Russian Federation, please: it's completely OK for Russian invaders to have fear of Ukrainian military and throw dirty words and bold statements at them).
Are any of these videos below inaccurate?
They show Azov logo as a combination of 3 fascist symbols. (Keep in mind, the mainstream media (CNN, FOX, NBC, CBS, PBS, etc) is very anti-Russian and it's only independent media that uses the word "Neo-NAZI". Mainstream media in the US repeats the press releases of the Republicans and Democrats with little investigation into their claims.)
My English is not good, so I don't understand some of the sarcasm you are using. I was asking out of curiosity and to get another opinion. I meant no offense.
I'm not interested in discussion about heraldic. German Nazi used Latin alphabet, so it easy to found connection between Nazi and a Latin letter for anybody who want that.
For example, Nazi used eagle, Russia uses eagle, and so on. It's easy.
I already pointed to source of Azov emblem: it's symbol of French Revolution. IN symbol was used in modern Ukraine since 1991 at least (i.e. from beginning of independence).
I'm interested in actual evidence of fascism in Azov, because it will help to uncover yet another Russian agent. Number of Russian agents in Ukraine is estimated to about 20 000 agents.
Absolute nonsense. Neo-Nazi'sm has established itself in all of the Balkan and Eastern-European states, and fascism is on the rise. None are immune to its effects, because its growth is a tool of the military-industrial complex in its effort to derive yet more profit from fear, hatred, inhumanity.
Yesterday, it was terrorists. Tomorrow its neo-Nazi's and fascists. Either way, we're gonna need weapons to defeat them all, aren't we kids ...
>These companies need the Russian threat to justify their existence.
So you're saying that Russia would be a peaceful, friendly nation, except that the military-industrial complex, which is about 5% of the US economy, persuades congress, the State Department and every president (including Obama) to act in ways that force Russia to be militaristic back?
One reason I find this highly improbable is there are lots of powerful political groups that benefit from peace and lower military spending. Are you saying they just stand by and passively let the military-industrial lobby get what it wants? Furthermore, if your conspiracy theory was true, then military spending would be very high, like 10% of gdp like it was during the cold war. Instead it is, as I recall, down around 4%.
The other reason is you seem to be assuming that Putin and Russia are basically peace-loving. That certainly does not fit with Russia's history. I mean, the Russian Empire got to be an empire through a whole lot of military conquest. And Putin was for decades a dedicated communist who believed world peace could come about only through either revolution or conquest. And Russians are highly ethnicist and nationalist, not at all peaceful universalists.
>Are you saying they just stand by and passively let the military-industrial lobby get what it wants?
Are you really ignoring the acounting for $Trillion defence debt that gets lost by your Pentagon masters on a regular basis?
>Putin and Russia are basically peace-loving.
Tell me again, how many foreign nations has Russia invaded, destroyed their infrastructure, militarily occupied in the last .. lets just say 30 years? Now, how many has the USA invaded? By comparison, Russia is most definitely more peaceful than the US.
>And Putin was for decades a dedicated communist who believed world peace could come about only through either revolution or conquest. And Russians are highly ethnicist and nationalist, not at all peaceful universalists.
We're not even going to go into the Death Cult to which a significant majority of American military-industrial puppets belong, eh?
I've always considered the idea that the Cold War was "over" to be nothing but propaganda designed to prevent people from wondering why their nation is spending $Trillion on their military.
Of course the Cold War is still happening: America has been exporting war wholesale for decades. Just because Russia hasn't been doing it at the same scale as well, doesn't mean squat.
The US and Russia have had plenty of opportunities to leave each other in peace over the last 30 years. The trouble is, they're not the only parties to this farce. Incredibly powerful, massively entrenched super-power-like military industrial multinational corporations are involved as well, and there is no way in HELL they are going to let their number one revenue source dry up just because we all want peace.
Its quite simple: stop assuming that its sovereign nation states doing all the fire-lighting. We are way, way beyond that point now. If you want to get a grip on war economy you have to stop allowing your politicians to push you - the people - into more and more heinous debt, for more and more heinous reasons (imperialist warfare against innocents), without repercussion.
This is going to be a tough sell. Pretty much everyone using computers to establish themselves in the technology markets today is going to have to deal with a multinational, war-mongering, mega-corporate military-industrial giant. We're well and truly being dominated by those who are quite happy having us all in the abyss, trembling in fear at what would happen if we stopped buying from General Electric, Samsung and co.
Don't you think rather than an invisible, evil hand, it's all just a big ouhpsi (see Hanlon's razor: "Never assume/attribute the intention to do evil that which is adequately explained by stupidity.") or just deterrence theory-based? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory)
No, I truly think we are beyond that at this point: it is pure, profit-driven, hatred-based evil. In fact I am positive that the culture of war-mongering is SO entrenched that it has reached a pitch akin to religious fervor among America's (and Russias) elite, who utterly worship death, its instruments, and its application in driving us all into fear.
The reason I think that is because there is so much GOOD technology out there that would solve our crises of cultures in a heartbeat; we are being prevented from applying this, with every $billion-dollar bomber we build in the heartland, instead of schools, hospitals, universities, infrastructure.
EDIT: btw, I don't think its a "big invisible hand", but that's because I pay attention. I think its more of a "the people are cowards and cannot face up to the facts of their own complicity in the death cult".
Profit-driven and hatred-based are almost opposite things.
To be profit driven is to be supremely rational, and only requires looking out for oneself. To be hatred-based is to be supremely emotional, and hatred is rarely selfish.
I also object to the sentence "the people are cowards and cannot face up to the facts of their own complicity in the death cult". That is hyperbole and grand-standing all around.
Yet, I am sad to disagree with you. Because it is definitely an interesting question why we spend so much on military. Specifically, it is interesting how this relates to industries that benefit from this spending. Though it is also quite relevant to study popular sentiment towards this spending. However, I do not think one should go to conspiracy level explanations here. If one were to go there, it would take heaps and heaps of evidence.
To convince me, and perhaps the rest of the world, start by making smaller claims that are easily proven. Then you can build up to stronger claims that aren't proven but are at least corroborated by evidence.
Or you might just be an astroturfing russian-payed troll to make us distrust government, but I'd like to think otherwise.
> The trouble is, they're not the only parties to this farce. Incredibly powerful, massively entrenched super-power-like military industrial multinational corporations are involved as well, and there is no way in HELL they are going to let their number one revenue source dry up just because we all want peace.
But Russia is the number two arms exporter, and it spends a higher percentage of its gdp on defense.
But you're right, everything bad that happens between the two countries is entirely the fault of the US </s>
Which country regularly destroys, utterly, the infrastructure and society of other foreign nations, through both covert and overt means, in its quest for global military domination? (Hint: its not Russia.)
> My prediction for the post-Sovjet area was that the US and Russia would just leave each other in peace.
But they didn't. Or at least the U.S. didn't. Russia has warned for years that the US shouldn't be installing rocket shields so close to its borders. So the US has continued to antagonize Russia pretty much since the cold war was "over".
Now, Russia has started to interfere in US politics, possibly as a consequence of that, and it has also started showing its "might" in Europe.
This won't end well, if the two countries continue to antagonize each other.
What a tidy explanation. It might surprise you to learn the US destabilized Ukraine in the first place, when the Ukrainian president put the brakes on their joining NATO and it looked as though they might instead join CSTO, the Russian version. This is all documented.
Putin has been perfectly clear about this, at least when he is talking to his own public. He says the collapse of the USSR and the Soviet block was one of the great tragedies of the 20th century, and he says that Russia will be under grave threat of being invaded and occupied by the US until it gets back its old territory.
He also says that Russia has a right to intervene in any country that has a substantial number of citizens of Russian decent that he believes are being ill-treated.
Yes, since the late 90s. Hillary Clinton's whole “reset button” thing in 2009 was about reversing the escalation in that cold war associated with the Russian invasion of Georgia.
> My prediction for the post-Sovjet area was that the US and Russia would just leave each other in peace.
That prediction was proven wrong less than a decade into the post-Soviet era.
This is where everything went wrong - they incorrectly labeled the button. The English text said "reset" but the Russian text said "overload" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset
So long as Russia has territory it doesn't control inside what it views to be its natural geological boundaries, there will always be Russian aggression.
Russia very much wants to "never get involved in a land war in Asia." To that end, it wants a solid mountain boundary from the Carpathians to the Tien Shan, and the Gobi desert from there to the Pacific. Until then, you can expect continued encroachments on Ukraine, the Caucuses, and steppe Central Asia, and continued buildup of its military capabilities.
How does Ukraine ensure there will not be a war in asia? Ukraine is firmly the border between Russia and Europe. Due to the black sea, Ukraine means nothing for the border between Asia and Russia.
Similarly the Russian border already runs through the Caucuses. That border is already secured by that mountain range.
Meanwhile, to get decent natural borders around Kazakhstan you need to either see that expanse as a natural border, or take over the entirety of Khazakstan.
Further east than that, and Russia's borders again seem to follow natural obstacles.
Part of the problem is that Russia's total territory is way too large for its population and economic strength to adequately defend militarily. That didn't matter so much during the two centuries when China was flat on its back, but now it is back to its normal superpower status.
>So long as Russia has territory it doesn't control inside what it views to be its natural geological boundaries, there will always be Russian aggression.
Quite true. The problem is that in order to gain the territory, it takes aggressive actions that provoke the very hostility it fears.
Russia's basic problem is it thinks we are still in the pre-nuclear era where great powers regularly invaded each other, and the pre-industrial era where that was the main road to economic wealth.
Right. But as long as it can manipulate its way toward that expansion (by, say, laying claim to the ethnic Russian populations in eastern Ukraine and playing tough to the West to inhibit any retaliation) it won't have to get involved in all-out war.
Agree 100%. Russia's biggest strength is also its biggest weakness: reliance on outdated forms of dominance. What we ought to be doing is working closely with China to develop energy technologies. Not only would it strengthen our interdependence on China (reducing the possibility of war with them), but our ability to cripple Russia economically would be substantially increased if we could build a couple thorium salt nuclear reactors in Eastern Europe and cut off Russia's income from oil exports.
What would be the point of that? And, come to think of it, what do you think the likely outcome of such a situation would be? Good for you, you laid evil Putin low. And what about all the actual people living in Russia? Collateral damage?
Warfare, economic or otherwise, is only the answer for people who lack the ability to think creatively.
The post-Soviet era is and was not the end of history. Geopolitical competition exists as a human condition.
Much of the "communist versus capitalist" competition that "justified" the Cold War, was actually just a result of two powers that were going to compete anyway pushing competing views of global economic-political organization.
The competition was not itself about economic philosophies. Rather competition of economic philosophies was the result of conflict.
The United States today is a waning power relative to the rest of the world. However, it's still the de facto superpower.
The American strategy is to keep its foot on Russia's neck and while containing the possible rise of China's power (seeking to keep it to a regional, rather than global setting).
Yes, the Cold War is still going. There's less of a chance of an immediate nuclear exchange, but the US and Russia continue proxy warfare (e.g. Syria, Ukraine, Iran) and propaganda warfare (e.g. US and Russia's interference in one another's elections)
The Iskander is a bit smaller (7.3 metres long, 3.8 tonnes) than the Skybolt (11.7 metres long, 5 tonnes), but that fits with the idea that this is a tactical/theatre weapon rather than a (not quite) strategic one.
How would the US react if Russia build a missile defense site in Cuba? Cuba is closer to the US border than the site in Poland to the Russian border, on the other hand Washington is further away from Cuba than Moscow from the site in Poland. Both capitals would be in range of the interceptors. I do not really know enough to judge whether Putin's statement that one could easily replace interceptors with offensive weapons is true or not but I do not really see why you could not do that.
So would the US be okay with Russian interceptors in Cuba if they promised that it is only for defensiv purposes and can not be repurposed? Putin certainly is not the nice guy but I can to some extend unterstand that he might be rather unhappy with the actions of the USA and NATO more generally since the end of the Cold War.
EDIT: This comment was meant to be as a response to [1] asking about a new Cold War.
While this is absolutely true in this case, one should not ignore the fact that an interceptor can be just as big a missile as an ICBM and they can even have nuclear warheads to blow up incoming missiles. There are of course really important differences, but those things are powerful weapons on their own and one should not think of a missile defense site as a harmless thing firing little rockets towards incoming reentry vehicles.
That were offensive weapons right from the start but that is of course why I picked Cuba together with the similar distances. It is only a bad example because I can not easily come up with a justification for Russia needing a missile defense site there that is as good or bad as NATO justifying the need with Iran and North Korea.
Even though Cuba is further away from DC compared to Poland from Moscow, wealth is more spread out in the US. There are many wealthy and influential people that reside in Florida compared to say, the border of Russia with Poland.
By the same token, if the Ukraine had been more paranoid about Russian intentions, they might not have been invaded by Russia yet again. It’s not just the US, Poland has no interest in becoming a Russian satellite again. We can try to equivocate, but after WWII Russia took over half of Europe, and the US didn’t.
Would Russia have rebuilt Japan and let it go? The history of (East) Germany suggests an answer.
I will stay away from Ukraine as an example because I am unable to judge if and to what extend the West tried to influence the situation there and if Russia's actions where at least partially reactions.
If only Russia had stayed away, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. I’ll say this for the US, at least when they invade they admit it; thy royally fuck it up, but they admit it.
Let me just add this for the records because you added to your initial comment while I replied, I am from East Germany and am surly happy that the Soviet Union fell apart. But I am also quite skeptical and a black and white picture of the good NATO and bad Russia seems rather unlikely. During the German reunification talks it was supposedly at least suggested that the NATO would not expand eastwards and the US has a long history of messing with unwelcome governments.
I really do not want to justify Russian actions in the Ukraine in any way, but I do not feel confident to say that it was pure aggression from Russia. Also whether one should deny a NATO memberships to countries that might have legitimate interests in just because the Soviet Union was against it at the end of the Cold War and especially if it was never even part of any formal agreement is by no means a clear cut issue that I want to argue for or against here.
I really just want to avoid judgments here because I certainly do not understand all the forces and motivations at work.
Well, they elected Viktor Yushchenko and "someone" accidentally tried to poison him with dioxin and almost succeeded. Then somehow Viktor Yanukovych was elected, signed extremely pro-Russian legislation (after being advised by Paul Manafort, currently indicted by Mueller for his actions related to the 2016 US presidential election).
Russia would probably point to NATO encroachment in areas it considered inviolate, but honestly, they invaded free and independent neighbors and annexed them... and perhaps a bit of circumspection in that respect would have been wise.
USA deployed troops in Kyїv (Kiev) and started war against Ukrainians at Donbass, so Russian Federation invaded Ukraine to protect Ukrainians from USA troops. Go to Russian news site and read The Truth. J
That sounds rather implausible, too. I have some weak memories of - at least officially - training missions or something along that line but I can not even tell when this was in relation to other events.
I am slightly confused why you used quotes around truth because that would often indicate that it is not actually the truth. Looking at your two comments I can not really tell if you think the involvement of Academi in the conflict actually happened or whether you are being sarcastic.
Anyway, I heard about it at that time and the evidence that Academi was active in the east of the Ukraine is rather thin at best. There are hundreds of articles but they are all just referencing each other and there is almost no underlying information. Sure, that would be the goal, to remain as unnoticed as possible, but it seems extremely unlikely that there are not more pictures and videos if 400 mercenaries were actively fighting in the Ukraine, especially given how powerful such material would be if its authenticity was not in doubt.
If it were like the defensive site in Poland, there is no reason to become alarmed. Putting aside the declared capabilities of the interceptors (let us assume they are all-powerful and always achieve 100% effectiveness against any target), you have a simple N+1 problem. For N interceptors, simply launch N+1 ballistic missiles. Offensive ballistic missiles are relatively inexpensive and Russia has a large alert force.
These ABM sites are not strategically destabilizing for this simple fact. They do not invite a first strike in the same way a fully operational SDI might have: there simply aren't enough interceptor missiles.
You're absolutely right. Russia should be absolutely terrified by the US abm sites because the US is planning on launching a massive nuclear missile attack that would totally destroy Russia.
I wish we could have continued with much better relations with Russia, instead of seeing polarization escalating and going from the possibility of humanity becoming extinct within 1 hour into the possibility of becoming extinct within 20 minutes. At some point some mad person is likely going to push the button, all just because we are programmed to compete and win by all means with help of misguided philosophies.
Even with an all out nuclear war, humanity would not go extinct. In fact, the United States as a government and people would survive just with severe economic and human losses.
This is the sentiment that our Russian friends have. When the USA decided to quit the ABM treaty in 2002 the old doctrine of 'MAD' was no more and the arms race was fully back on, with the USA doing most of the spending and all the sabre-rattling.
I am amazed at how this story has not been covered by the mainstream media in the UK (and presumably the USA). This Russian capability upgrade has rendered the already useless UK nuclear deterrent into a very expensive joke, however, the penny has not dropped and we are in denial about it.
My 'friends' in the doughnut (GCHQ) do know that Trident is useless, the problem being undersea drones. From my casual chats I know this has been a problem for a few years now and that some changes are having to be made, Ascencion Island being the quiet little place where things happen. Such as last year when a test firing resulted in a missile heading towards Florida (which nobody really cared about).
Since there is only one UK nuclear armed submarine at sea at a given time it is imaginable that this crusty white elephant can be stalked by a deeper diving and faster nuclear tipped and nuclear armed drone across the oceans and back to its base in Faslane at all times. Therefore the anonymity of the oceans is no more, the 'deterrent' therefore is in Emperor's New Clothes territory, but we can pretend and we can ignore what Moscow has to say.
Trident never made any sense to the UK, there is no money left for the conventional fleet, operations such as the Falklands really are not possible any more. Crazy politicians from Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair and Theresa May have been the decision makers, wasting money on war preparations that go against the ethos of the UN and the rule of law. Meanwhile, in Russia they have actually clued up politicians in Putin and his chums that play far better chess than what our 'ruling elite' are capable of.
Neither the UK or the USA have been repeatedly invaded as has happened in Russian history. Our weapon systems are primarily offensive, the Russians may have plenty of hypersonic nuclear missiles pointed at the dreaded imperialists (!) but there is no evidence that the goals in the Cold War era or even now were to obliterate and invade the USA or Western Europe.
More money, human potential and precious materials wasted on war preparations is not a good thing, however, by investing in their military-industrial-complex the Russian government has restored a multi-lateral world. It was not so fun in 2001-2003 when Bush and Blair were able to commit their war crimes with it being a 'unilateral world', so progress has been made towards a safer world by having these deadly new weapons pointed at us and able to destroy life on earth so quickly.
Extinct, hardly. In fact it's difficult to conceive of an event that could make humans, the most adaptable species in the history of Earth fully extinct - it would have to be an incredibly violent event that wipes out pretty much all non-microbial life on the planet. Most things we worry about, like runaway climate change, do not have this capability.
However, enough stress can cause civilization to collapse, as it's rather more fragile. Little things we take for granted like infrastructure, a highly specialized economy, and law and order can fall apart in the event of a nuclear war.
It doesn't matter what it is or does. As soon as anyone fires off a nuclear missile/device civilization ends. Some tiny remnant of people will start over, in a mostly destroyed planet. Some day their descendants will wonder what kind of complete idiot(s) would start a nuclear war.
This whole thing is a scam on Putin's part. Putin claims that the US is rapidly building a huge anti-ballistic missile defense system that could stop every single present Russian warhead. And that it is doing this in preparation for invading Russia and turning it into a brutally-oppressed colony, or at least threatening Russia with nuclear destruction to get it to do all sorts of important things that would be damaging to Russia.
This is all nonsense. The US is building only a modest number of ABM missiles, and there are no plans beyond that. And the US has no interest whatsoever in invading Russia. Not even over-the-top hawks like John Bolton or the neoconservatives, even mention that idea. As far as nuclear threats to Russia, the US is content to stick with the MAD balance of terror that has kept the peace for over half a century.
So why is Putin saying these crazy things? I think it is a combination of two things. One is that he is a Russian, and so as a consequence of Russian history, he believes that the country is always under imminent threat of invasion, no matter what the facts are. The other is that, as authoritarian leaders so often do, he is trying to divert his public's attention from domestic ills that he knows he will not solve.
Does anyone want to disagree with me? Does anyone want to lay out all that would be involved in invading Russia (a review of Napoleon's attempt would be helpful here) and also in occupying it, and argue that yes, the US leadership sincerely thinks it would be a great idea, and the US leadership furthermore has good reasons to think the invasion and occupation would be successes?
As long as the US continues winning the economic/political game it doesn't matter what country builds X weapon that (perhaps) the US doesn't have (yet). It doesn't really make sense for China/Russia to try and compete with the US militarily - need only ask the Soviet Union how that turned out.
They need to compete on the economic/political level and they are still half a century away from having the clout the US has, regardless of who might occupy the Executive.
I have a number of comments for this article. I thought it would be helpful to explain where I am coming from.
A good place to start is what happened after WWII ended. The world was divided between two great powers, and what you would expect to have happened, given the past history of the world, is for this to lead in a decade or two to a massive war between them.
So why didn't that happen? Basically because of some extraordinary economic, technological and governmental changes that had happened over the preceding several centuries.
For thousands of years tribes and states had engaged in regular warfare. This was because they were based largely on agriculture. Even in empires, most of the people still were peasant farmers. This lead to warfare in two ways. One is that populations would often grow too large for agricultural output, the other was that the wealth was in the land and so the way to gain more wealth was through conquest.
The industrial revolution, based on modern science and technology, and operating under free market economics, lead to some radical changes. Radical increases in agricultural productivity, and in addition health advances lead to lower population growth. In addition, the main source of wealth was now industry, rather than land. And one consequence was the rise of democracy.
Nonetheless, warfare persisted. But nuclear weapons radically changed the logic of warfare, and made it suicidal, rather than an often-rational choice. And so we have had a remarkable 70 years of peace.
The problem is that Russia has never really adopted to the new era. Politically, it is authoritarian, rather than democratic. Economically it practices crony capitalism, and one consequence is it is very poor at technological advancement, and depends far too much on natural resources for wealth. And with respect to international affairs it thinks we are still back in the old era where great powers continually try to conquer each other, both for wealth and to eliminate military threats. And so it is pursing a policy of trying to gain back every part of the empire it lost when the Soviet Union collapsed.
I feel sorry for the Russians. Putin is taking them down a path that will lead to stagnation and maybe violent conflict. And, alas, Trump doesn't see this at all. That's because he is himself very out of touch with the realities of the modern, post-war era, and mistakenly thinks Putin is an excellent leader.
I wish someone competent commented on the
Nuclear-Powered Cruise Missile that Putin announced. There are a lot of posts in Russian social media that say that it's total BS.
100 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 121 ms ] threadI read in other media how some new American weapons can fight certain Russian tanks etc, and now I read about Putin bragging about his new weapons.
My prediction for the post-Sovjet area was that the US and Russia would just leave each other in peace.
I'd say it's the second. The superpower game never ended but even with the sanctions, trade, travel and politics are not that locked. On the other hand there are those 2.0 war technologies like drones, trolls, cyber warfare...
These companies need the Russian threat to justify their existence.
Not really. China works just as well.
Fun fact: the US Navy response to Russia's unilateral abrogation of the INF treaty (IMHO one of the greatest achievements in modern diplomacy & arms control) is to build INF-range missiles - to counter the Chinese.
There's a reason there's an SS-20 and Pershing II next to each other at the NASM. INF was a really big deal. It should be worrying to more people that it is being abandoned with such haste.
Do Americans just not see their own hypocrisy on this issue? Russia didn't invade and destroy entire nation(s) (PLURAL) in order to exercise global military power - it invaded Crimea to secure its own resources in the region. Ukraine did not fall, it has not been utterly destroyed, its infrastructure not-related to offensive actions against the Russian naval bases in Crimea is still intact.
But we cannot say that about America's actions in the forementioned countries, nor can we say that Russian interference in the American 'election' is anywhere near the same order of magnitude as American interference in .. 20+ different democracies around the world. I shan't make a list - this is an exercise for the average American reader to demonstrate for themselves that there is no hypocrisy here.
And .. NATO. The military organization currently doing its best to ensure Russia is encircled by heavy military assets. Tell me again: when was the last time Russia established full operational, offensive bases within 30 km's of the borders of the USA with any of its clients and their military?
Please, do not play this game. It makes no sense and it just makes you sound utterly ill-informed. Russia is in no way on par with the USA when it comes to military aggression. Not even close.
When was the last time the USA threatened Canada and Mexico with annihilation?
Did terrorists based in the Ukraine fly hijacked airplanes into Moscow's skyscrapers? Because that's why the USA invaded Afghanistan.
Iraq however was unjustified. The difference is that more than half of America admits it and thus freely elected a new President from a different party. Match that one Russia.
Bush was reelected after the Iraq War by a larger margin than before, serving out his full two terms.
I dunno. When was the last time Canada and Mexico threatened to impound a US naval base? When was the last time Canada tried to ally with the US' principle military opponent and have its military assets installed on its territory?
>Did terrorists based in the Ukraine fly hijacked airplanes into Moscow's skyscrapers? Because that's why the USA invaded Afghanistan.
This is laughable. Those were Saudi terrorists, funded by the Saudi kingdom. By your (admittedly dubious American) logic, Russia should have invaded Hungary and destroyed its infrastructure entirely, just because Georgia sent some terrorists to Russian territory.
* https://www.stpete4peace.org/Ukraine * https://www.thenation.com/article/congress-has-removed-a-ban...
The problems in mass shootings is a problem, but no one ever wants to ban military weapons from the US military and its PMCs that have killed lots of innocent people in the name of "liberation". Russia has a GDP similar to Mexico, yet the US spends $1 trillion to build the F-35 and Americans cheer because somehow China & Russia will gang up and takeover the world. Plus, you have the Phds and graduates who think we need to fight wars to maintain our standard of living. As if Saddam & Iran would refuse to sell the US oil because they want to keep it and drink it.
One of the things people overlooked, was Osama was getting to be a pain on the Taliban factions. They were willing to give up Osama if the Bush administration could provide evidence. But, the Bush & Neocons wanted to use a war in the Middle East as an excuse to carry out policies: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te...
I know it's hard to believe, but look at the 9/11 hijackers: They were mostly Saudi and planned the attacks in Germany and Florida, and had financial connections to factions within the Saudi royal government: https://28pages.org/2016/07/20/selected-revelations-from-the...
The US has given weapons to Mexican gangs: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/26360-congr...
And during the Clinton years, Mexico received a bailout... because most of the debt belonged to US politically connected big banks like Citigroup & others. Canada is now going to buy the F-35, so that would explain why the US doesn't really have problems with its neighbors: as long as they give US banks and military contractors money, the US won't interfere with them.
However, when a South American country decides to buy other than US-debt & weapons, it forments revolutions and installs dictators: https://www.telesurtv.net/english/analysis/10-of-the-Most-Le...
* https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11...
* And another one: https://original.antiwar.com/chris_ernesto/2015/01/28/us-ann...
* And another one: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/the-neo-nazi-q...
In short: There is no Nazi in Ukraine. There are some attempts to create nationalistic ultra-right organizations by Russian agents, but they are monitored and destroyed as usual. (I destroyed one of them and deflect attempt to create another by myself when I was in operation).
"Yet some have expressed concern that some of this aid has made its way into the hands of neo-Nazi groups, such as the Azov Battalion. Last summer the Daily Beast published an interview by the journalists Will Cathcart and Joseph Epstein in which a member of the Azov battalion spoke about “his battalion’s experience with U.S. trainers and U.S. volunteers quite fondly, even mentioning U.S. volunteers engineers and medics that are still currently assisting them.”"
There is also this: "In the course of a little over four minutes, the two American diplomats exchange ideas about who ought to be promoted, and who ought to be demoted, by the United States inside Ukraine, which is suffering through a difficult and even violent political dispute over whether Ukraine will tilt east, toward Russia, or west, toward the United States and Europe. Let it first be noted that it shouldn’t be surprising that Nuland would come off as a would-be imperialist or game player. If anything, she’s long been the neoconservative inside the Obama administration." (https://www.thenation.com/article/not-so-secret-ukraine-phon...)
Can you point to _any_ evidence? (But exclude information from Russian Federation, please: it's completely OK for Russian invaders to have fear of Ukrainian military and throw dirty words and bold statements at them).
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf0vbGj9cO4
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTX6JRpRY_E
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiBXmbkwiSw
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meWM4lChqy4
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SBo0akeDMY&t=262s
https://study.com/academy/lesson/nation-state-definition-exa...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Azov_Bat...
My English is not good, so I don't understand some of the sarcasm you are using. I was asking out of curiosity and to get another opinion. I meant no offense.
I already pointed to source of Azov emblem: it's symbol of French Revolution. IN symbol was used in modern Ukraine since 1991 at least (i.e. from beginning of independence).
https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%83%D0%BA...
I'm interested in actual evidence of fascism in Azov, because it will help to uncover yet another Russian agent. Number of Russian agents in Ukraine is estimated to about 20 000 agents.
Absolute nonsense. Neo-Nazi'sm has established itself in all of the Balkan and Eastern-European states, and fascism is on the rise. None are immune to its effects, because its growth is a tool of the military-industrial complex in its effort to derive yet more profit from fear, hatred, inhumanity.
Yesterday, it was terrorists. Tomorrow its neo-Nazi's and fascists. Either way, we're gonna need weapons to defeat them all, aren't we kids ...
https://www.quora.com/Is-Russia-justified-in-its-annexation-...
https://charlierose.com/videos/15573
That's like the US invading Canada and saying "if we didn't do it Canada could have threatened our existence!".
It's a ridiculous statement.
Crimeans voted to join the Russian Federation - or is voting only "pure" when America does it (lol)?
Is the USA the only country who is "allowed" to protect its sovereign citizens?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
So you're saying that Russia would be a peaceful, friendly nation, except that the military-industrial complex, which is about 5% of the US economy, persuades congress, the State Department and every president (including Obama) to act in ways that force Russia to be militaristic back?
One reason I find this highly improbable is there are lots of powerful political groups that benefit from peace and lower military spending. Are you saying they just stand by and passively let the military-industrial lobby get what it wants? Furthermore, if your conspiracy theory was true, then military spending would be very high, like 10% of gdp like it was during the cold war. Instead it is, as I recall, down around 4%.
The other reason is you seem to be assuming that Putin and Russia are basically peace-loving. That certainly does not fit with Russia's history. I mean, the Russian Empire got to be an empire through a whole lot of military conquest. And Putin was for decades a dedicated communist who believed world peace could come about only through either revolution or conquest. And Russians are highly ethnicist and nationalist, not at all peaceful universalists.
Are you really ignoring the acounting for $Trillion defence debt that gets lost by your Pentagon masters on a regular basis?
>Putin and Russia are basically peace-loving.
Tell me again, how many foreign nations has Russia invaded, destroyed their infrastructure, militarily occupied in the last .. lets just say 30 years? Now, how many has the USA invaded? By comparison, Russia is most definitely more peaceful than the US.
>And Putin was for decades a dedicated communist who believed world peace could come about only through either revolution or conquest. And Russians are highly ethnicist and nationalist, not at all peaceful universalists.
We're not even going to go into the Death Cult to which a significant majority of American military-industrial puppets belong, eh?
Of course the Cold War is still happening: America has been exporting war wholesale for decades. Just because Russia hasn't been doing it at the same scale as well, doesn't mean squat.
The US and Russia have had plenty of opportunities to leave each other in peace over the last 30 years. The trouble is, they're not the only parties to this farce. Incredibly powerful, massively entrenched super-power-like military industrial multinational corporations are involved as well, and there is no way in HELL they are going to let their number one revenue source dry up just because we all want peace.
Its quite simple: stop assuming that its sovereign nation states doing all the fire-lighting. We are way, way beyond that point now. If you want to get a grip on war economy you have to stop allowing your politicians to push you - the people - into more and more heinous debt, for more and more heinous reasons (imperialist warfare against innocents), without repercussion.
This is going to be a tough sell. Pretty much everyone using computers to establish themselves in the technology markets today is going to have to deal with a multinational, war-mongering, mega-corporate military-industrial giant. We're well and truly being dominated by those who are quite happy having us all in the abyss, trembling in fear at what would happen if we stopped buying from General Electric, Samsung and co.
The reason I think that is because there is so much GOOD technology out there that would solve our crises of cultures in a heartbeat; we are being prevented from applying this, with every $billion-dollar bomber we build in the heartland, instead of schools, hospitals, universities, infrastructure.
EDIT: btw, I don't think its a "big invisible hand", but that's because I pay attention. I think its more of a "the people are cowards and cannot face up to the facts of their own complicity in the death cult".
I also object to the sentence "the people are cowards and cannot face up to the facts of their own complicity in the death cult". That is hyperbole and grand-standing all around.
Yet, I am sad to disagree with you. Because it is definitely an interesting question why we spend so much on military. Specifically, it is interesting how this relates to industries that benefit from this spending. Though it is also quite relevant to study popular sentiment towards this spending. However, I do not think one should go to conspiracy level explanations here. If one were to go there, it would take heaps and heaps of evidence.
To convince me, and perhaps the rest of the world, start by making smaller claims that are easily proven. Then you can build up to stronger claims that aren't proven but are at least corroborated by evidence.
Or you might just be an astroturfing russian-payed troll to make us distrust government, but I'd like to think otherwise.
Not really, no. Not when you profit directly from peoples hatred, and its sub-product, fear. Hatred of others, fear of others.
America has commercialized hatred and weaponized fear. How else can you explain the invasion of Afghanistan when it should have had KSA in its sights?
But Russia is the number two arms exporter, and it spends a higher percentage of its gdp on defense.
But you're right, everything bad that happens between the two countries is entirely the fault of the US </s>
Which country regularly destroys, utterly, the infrastructure and society of other foreign nations, through both covert and overt means, in its quest for global military domination? (Hint: its not Russia.)
Factually, that may be correct, but in context the numbers spell out a different picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...
But they didn't. Or at least the U.S. didn't. Russia has warned for years that the US shouldn't be installing rocket shields so close to its borders. So the US has continued to antagonize Russia pretty much since the cold war was "over".
Now, Russia has started to interfere in US politics, possibly as a consequence of that, and it has also started showing its "might" in Europe.
This won't end well, if the two countries continue to antagonize each other.
Yes. Russia wants their empire back. They've already taken back a piece of Georgia, Crimea, and a piece of Ukraine.
Also Crimea IS the piece of Ukraine.
Was.
He also says that Russia has a right to intervene in any country that has a substantial number of citizens of Russian decent that he believes are being ill-treated.
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_war_in_Do...
Yes, since the late 90s. Hillary Clinton's whole “reset button” thing in 2009 was about reversing the escalation in that cold war associated with the Russian invasion of Georgia.
> My prediction for the post-Sovjet area was that the US and Russia would just leave each other in peace.
That prediction was proven wrong less than a decade into the post-Soviet era.
Russia very much wants to "never get involved in a land war in Asia." To that end, it wants a solid mountain boundary from the Carpathians to the Tien Shan, and the Gobi desert from there to the Pacific. Until then, you can expect continued encroachments on Ukraine, the Caucuses, and steppe Central Asia, and continued buildup of its military capabilities.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5497331ae4b0148a6141b...
Meanwhile, to get decent natural borders around Kazakhstan you need to either see that expanse as a natural border, or take over the entirety of Khazakstan.
Further east than that, and Russia's borders again seem to follow natural obstacles.
Quite true. The problem is that in order to gain the territory, it takes aggressive actions that provoke the very hostility it fears.
Russia's basic problem is it thinks we are still in the pre-nuclear era where great powers regularly invaded each other, and the pre-industrial era where that was the main road to economic wealth.
Agree 100%. Russia's biggest strength is also its biggest weakness: reliance on outdated forms of dominance. What we ought to be doing is working closely with China to develop energy technologies. Not only would it strengthen our interdependence on China (reducing the possibility of war with them), but our ability to cripple Russia economically would be substantially increased if we could build a couple thorium salt nuclear reactors in Eastern Europe and cut off Russia's income from oil exports.
What would be the point of that? And, come to think of it, what do you think the likely outcome of such a situation would be? Good for you, you laid evil Putin low. And what about all the actual people living in Russia? Collateral damage?
Warfare, economic or otherwise, is only the answer for people who lack the ability to think creatively.
Much of the "communist versus capitalist" competition that "justified" the Cold War, was actually just a result of two powers that were going to compete anyway pushing competing views of global economic-political organization.
The competition was not itself about economic philosophies. Rather competition of economic philosophies was the result of conflict.
The United States today is a waning power relative to the rest of the world. However, it's still the de facto superpower.
The American strategy is to keep its foot on Russia's neck and while containing the possible rise of China's power (seeking to keep it to a regional, rather than global setting).
Yes, the Cold War is still going. There's less of a chance of an immediate nuclear exchange, but the US and Russia continue proxy warfare (e.g. Syria, Ukraine, Iran) and propaganda warfare (e.g. US and Russia's interference in one another's elections)
Like Skybolt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAM-87_Skybolt
The Iskander is a bit smaller (7.3 metres long, 3.8 tonnes) than the Skybolt (11.7 metres long, 5 tonnes), but that fits with the idea that this is a tactical/theatre weapon rather than a (not quite) strategic one.
So would the US be okay with Russian interceptors in Cuba if they promised that it is only for defensiv purposes and can not be repurposed? Putin certainly is not the nice guy but I can to some extend unterstand that he might be rather unhappy with the actions of the USA and NATO more generally since the end of the Cold War.
EDIT: This comment was meant to be as a response to [1] asking about a new Cold War.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16511248
I think that was the trigger for the Cuba crises?
Would Russia have rebuilt Japan and let it go? The history of (East) Germany suggests an answer.
I really do not want to justify Russian actions in the Ukraine in any way, but I do not feel confident to say that it was pure aggression from Russia. Also whether one should deny a NATO memberships to countries that might have legitimate interests in just because the Soviet Union was against it at the end of the Cold War and especially if it was never even part of any formal agreement is by no means a clear cut issue that I want to argue for or against here.
I really just want to avoid judgments here because I certainly do not understand all the forces and motivations at work.
Russia would probably point to NATO encroachment in areas it considered inviolate, but honestly, they invaded free and independent neighbors and annexed them... and perhaps a bit of circumspection in that respect would have been wise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efcDkTyyZtQ
You will not believe in that for the first 20 years or so, of course.
Anyway, I heard about it at that time and the evidence that Academi was active in the east of the Ukraine is rather thin at best. There are hundreds of articles but they are all just referencing each other and there is almost no underlying information. Sure, that would be the goal, to remain as unnoticed as possible, but it seems extremely unlikely that there are not more pictures and videos if 400 mercenaries were actively fighting in the Ukraine, especially given how powerful such material would be if its authenticity was not in doubt.
These ABM sites are not strategically destabilizing for this simple fact. They do not invite a first strike in the same way a fully operational SDI might have: there simply aren't enough interceptor missiles.
I am amazed at how this story has not been covered by the mainstream media in the UK (and presumably the USA). This Russian capability upgrade has rendered the already useless UK nuclear deterrent into a very expensive joke, however, the penny has not dropped and we are in denial about it.
My 'friends' in the doughnut (GCHQ) do know that Trident is useless, the problem being undersea drones. From my casual chats I know this has been a problem for a few years now and that some changes are having to be made, Ascencion Island being the quiet little place where things happen. Such as last year when a test firing resulted in a missile heading towards Florida (which nobody really cared about).
Since there is only one UK nuclear armed submarine at sea at a given time it is imaginable that this crusty white elephant can be stalked by a deeper diving and faster nuclear tipped and nuclear armed drone across the oceans and back to its base in Faslane at all times. Therefore the anonymity of the oceans is no more, the 'deterrent' therefore is in Emperor's New Clothes territory, but we can pretend and we can ignore what Moscow has to say.
Trident never made any sense to the UK, there is no money left for the conventional fleet, operations such as the Falklands really are not possible any more. Crazy politicians from Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair and Theresa May have been the decision makers, wasting money on war preparations that go against the ethos of the UN and the rule of law. Meanwhile, in Russia they have actually clued up politicians in Putin and his chums that play far better chess than what our 'ruling elite' are capable of.
Neither the UK or the USA have been repeatedly invaded as has happened in Russian history. Our weapon systems are primarily offensive, the Russians may have plenty of hypersonic nuclear missiles pointed at the dreaded imperialists (!) but there is no evidence that the goals in the Cold War era or even now were to obliterate and invade the USA or Western Europe.
More money, human potential and precious materials wasted on war preparations is not a good thing, however, by investing in their military-industrial-complex the Russian government has restored a multi-lateral world. It was not so fun in 2001-2003 when Bush and Blair were able to commit their war crimes with it being a 'unilateral world', so progress has been made towards a safer world by having these deadly new weapons pointed at us and able to destroy life on earth so quickly.
However, enough stress can cause civilization to collapse, as it's rather more fragile. Little things we take for granted like infrastructure, a highly specialized economy, and law and order can fall apart in the event of a nuclear war.
This is all nonsense. The US is building only a modest number of ABM missiles, and there are no plans beyond that. And the US has no interest whatsoever in invading Russia. Not even over-the-top hawks like John Bolton or the neoconservatives, even mention that idea. As far as nuclear threats to Russia, the US is content to stick with the MAD balance of terror that has kept the peace for over half a century.
So why is Putin saying these crazy things? I think it is a combination of two things. One is that he is a Russian, and so as a consequence of Russian history, he believes that the country is always under imminent threat of invasion, no matter what the facts are. The other is that, as authoritarian leaders so often do, he is trying to divert his public's attention from domestic ills that he knows he will not solve.
Does anyone want to disagree with me? Does anyone want to lay out all that would be involved in invading Russia (a review of Napoleon's attempt would be helpful here) and also in occupying it, and argue that yes, the US leadership sincerely thinks it would be a great idea, and the US leadership furthermore has good reasons to think the invasion and occupation would be successes?
They need to compete on the economic/political level and they are still half a century away from having the clout the US has, regardless of who might occupy the Executive.
A good place to start is what happened after WWII ended. The world was divided between two great powers, and what you would expect to have happened, given the past history of the world, is for this to lead in a decade or two to a massive war between them.
So why didn't that happen? Basically because of some extraordinary economic, technological and governmental changes that had happened over the preceding several centuries.
For thousands of years tribes and states had engaged in regular warfare. This was because they were based largely on agriculture. Even in empires, most of the people still were peasant farmers. This lead to warfare in two ways. One is that populations would often grow too large for agricultural output, the other was that the wealth was in the land and so the way to gain more wealth was through conquest.
The industrial revolution, based on modern science and technology, and operating under free market economics, lead to some radical changes. Radical increases in agricultural productivity, and in addition health advances lead to lower population growth. In addition, the main source of wealth was now industry, rather than land. And one consequence was the rise of democracy.
Nonetheless, warfare persisted. But nuclear weapons radically changed the logic of warfare, and made it suicidal, rather than an often-rational choice. And so we have had a remarkable 70 years of peace.
The problem is that Russia has never really adopted to the new era. Politically, it is authoritarian, rather than democratic. Economically it practices crony capitalism, and one consequence is it is very poor at technological advancement, and depends far too much on natural resources for wealth. And with respect to international affairs it thinks we are still back in the old era where great powers continually try to conquer each other, both for wealth and to eliminate military threats. And so it is pursing a policy of trying to gain back every part of the empire it lost when the Soviet Union collapsed.
I feel sorry for the Russians. Putin is taking them down a path that will lead to stagnation and maybe violent conflict. And, alas, Trump doesn't see this at all. That's because he is himself very out of touch with the realities of the modern, post-war era, and mistakenly thinks Putin is an excellent leader.