Paul Craig Roberts: 10 million Russian soldiers leave NATO no chance

January 28 2022 51

The Russians initiated security talks involving the US and NATO. They clearly explained that security is a common thing, and it can only be built if each of the parties feels protected, a former assistant in the administration of Ronald Reagan writes on his personal page, political analyst Paul Craig Roberts.

The CIA immediately hurriedly made new accusations against Russia. The national security adviser personally read the scenario to the public: Russia intends to attack its own troops under a “false flag” so that it has an excuse to invade Ukraine. The national security adviser is so stupid that it doesn't even occur to him that if Russia really wants to invade Ukraine, it will. Russia needs no excuses and no one in Washington or NATO can stop it.

The Russians explained on their fingers that they did not feel safe. They are constantly demonized, punished with sanctions only on the basis of some publications in the Western press, and their president is insulted. Military maneuvers are held on their borders, and US Navy ships are almost permanently in the Black Sea, where they have absolutely nothing to do. Washington broke its promise to Gorbachev and not only pushed NATO to Russia's borders, but also deployed missile defense forces in Poland and Romania. Washington has overthrown the legitimate Ukrainian government with the further goal of depriving Russia of its naval base in Crimea, placed puppet politicians at the helm in Kiev hostile to Moscow and the Russian population of eastern Ukraine, and is gradually mastering the former Soviet republic militarily.

With its intentions sooner or later to include Ukraine and Georgia in the NATO bloc, the West only proves its aspirations to surround Russia with military bases in preparation for a large-scale war.

The Kremlin is making it clear that the country's security situation is taking a menacing turn, which is unacceptable. During the Cold War, the two powerful powers sought to ease tensions, but in the XNUMXst century, Washington has disavowed all previous arms control agreements and become more assertive.

Russia tells us that it will no longer put up with more and more US and NATO bases on its borders, and certainly will not allow Ukraine and Georgia to become members of the Alliance. Any move by the West in this direction will lead to "terrible consequences."

As a direct participant in the Cold War, as a member of the secret presidential committee that helped Ronald Reagan put an end to the confrontation with the USSR, I can tell you that I am amazed at Washington's decision to ignore everything that the Russians are rightly trying to convey to the United States.

If such signals had come from Moscow in the 1980s, we would have advised President Reagan to recognize them and reduce tensions. Today the situation has changed so much that the consequences of the actions of the American authorities extremely frighten me. The insane in Washington, confronted by a much more powerful Russia armed with weapons we can only dream of, pretend they are not afraid of anything. The capital of the United States has become a gathering place for the most stupid and arrogant people on the planet, they put human life at untold risk, firmly believing in their own unsurpassed power. This is already a sign of insanity.

Russia is moving as many as four armies from the Far East to its western borders. These four armies, even without those already in the region, are enough to instantly destroy any force that NATO and the US can quickly muster. This army is able to capture all of Eastern Europe in a matter of days.

Moreover, the Pentagon knows very well that Russia can quickly mobilize up to 10 million soldiers. NATO, despite all the boasting of its crazy Secretary General Stoltenberg, has no chance to resist Russia even in a non-nuclear war.

This means, and the Kremlin knows, that to save face, Washington will have to resort to nuclear weapons. This will mean the complete annihilation of the US and Europe - they will simply cease to exist.

For Russia, with its layered missile defense and extensive network of nuclear bunkers, such a war would no doubt be a disaster, but Russia will survive, unlike us.

Russia does not want such a war. Russia does not want to attack anyone, not even Ukraine. The Russians only want to ensure their own security. That's all.

If we face Armageddon, it will be only because Washington denied Moscow security guarantees.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Moray Boreas

-1

28 January 2022 09: 03

Well, that's right, the man said.
rotkiv04

0

28 January 2022 09: 11

It's a shame there aren't many like him in the states.
Expert_Analyst_Forecaster

-9

28 January 2022 09: 16

Well, yes.

I predict:
In the event of war, Japan, Great Britain, Poland, Ukraine, Israel, the Netherlands will be completely destroyed.
USA, Canada, Russia, China by 50%, but with the loss of 80% of the industrial potential.
The Germans, Brazil, France, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Turkey will fight for leadership in the new world.
There will be no nuclear winter, but in many territories human habitation will become impossible for decades.
Immediately after the collapse of the Russian Federation, China and the United States, numerous local wars will begin without the use of nuclear weapons.
1. Expert_Analyst_Forecaster
  
  -6
  
  28 January 2022 09: 39
  
  Amendment.
  By Ukraine, I meant the territories that would still be called Ukraine at the time of the nuclear war.
  But the rest of the territories, oddly enough, will survive and play an important role in the creation of Southern Russia.
2. boriz
  
  -4
  
  29 January 2022 02: 10
  
  I predict:
  In the event of war, Japan, Great Britain, Poland, Ukraine, Israel, the Netherlands will be completely destroyed.
  
  No, they're just dumped. That is why the United States is asking not to publish its proposals.
Moray Boreas

0

28 January 2022 09: 31

Even felt sad...I remembered the standard of mass graves in mass graves...but what kind of people whose citizens????
Miffer

-8

28 January 2022 09: 43

Former aide in Ronald Regan's administration?
Let's start with the fact that I do not represent such a position at all - "assistant in the administration." And then - that administration was more than 30 years ago. That is, this person is already too old
1. Kristallovich
  
  0
  
  28 January 2022 09: 58
  
  You can start where you want and imagine what you like, but the President of the United States, as well as the President of the Russian Federation, has assistants on economic, political, and defense issues.
  1. Miffer
    
    -4
    
    28 January 2022 13: 20
    
    but the President of the United States, as well as the President of the Russian Federation, has assistants
    
    Yes, what are you saying? It's incomprehensible to the mind, what knowledge!
    Then they would have written like that - "assistant for defense (political, economic issues)".
    Assistant (senior janitor) in the Reagan administration.
    1. Kristallovich
      
      -1
      
      28 January 2022 13: 40
      
      Not mentioning a specific specialty does not deprive him of his position. In any case, he is an assistant, in what exactly - it does not matter.
    2. Vladimir Daetoya
      
      -2
      
      29 January 2022 06: 29
      
      Dude, you don't know how to use a search engine?
Jacques sekavar

-7

28 January 2022 10: 29

In a war without the use of weapons of mass destruction, the mobilization potential of EuroNATO alone (we take a population of 300 million) is twice as large as the mobilization potential of the Russian Federation (146 million population) and if the Russian Federation can field 10 million fighters, then EuroNATO is twice as large - 20 million. and to this we must add the potential of the United States, Canada, Australia and many others.
A global nuclear war using both sides of the entire nuclear arsenal does not lead to the complete annihilation of people not only on the entire planet, but even in North America, Europe and the Russian Federation, because all these arsenals are not enough to cover the entire territory of the enemy with a square-nested carpet bombardment, and therefore the untouched territories of the warring parties will be preserved, not to mention other continents.
The consequences of a global nuclear war can be judged by the fall of a meteorite in the Gulf of Mexico, after which dinosaurs are believed to have died out, by Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Chernobyl and Mururua Atoll - the population of cities exceeds a million, nature is rampant in Chernobyl and excursions are conducted, but there are no more and traces of radiation.
Well, the fact that people who are afraid of North Korea and Iran, but do not put the Russian Federation in anything, have settled in the white house, one cannot but agree with Roberts.
1. Bulanov
  
  -1
  
  28 January 2022 10: 39
  
  In a war without the use of weapons of mass destruction, the mobilization potential of EuroNATO alone (we take a population of 300 million) is twice as large as the mobilization potential of the Russian Federation (146 million population) and if the Russian Federation can field 10 million fighters, then EuroNATO is twice as large - 20 million. and to this we must add the potential of the United States, Canada, Australia and many others.
  
  Don't forget the PLA. Even during the Civil War, Chinese volunteers helped to establish proletarian order in Russia. It costs them nothing to add a few million of their volunteers to exhort the EU. True, it will be like that of Chersonesos with Mithridates. Chersonese will fall under the control of Mithridates. And in the Russian Federation, many still remember socialism and do not mind returning to it.
  1. Miffer
    
    -3
    
    28 January 2022 13: 24
    
    Even during the Civil War, Chinese volunteers helped to establish proletarian order in Russia.
    
    They flooded Russia with blood ... Jewish commissars (shi) s, Latvian riflemen and Chinese volunteers.
    1. Bulanov
      
      -1
      
      28 January 2022 13: 26
      
      Blood was poured from all sides. Even the Czechs managed to:
      
      We were attacked by evil Czechs, they set fire to our native village. ... There are at least two dozen recordings of this song, which is extremely widespread - among the Russian and Cossack population on the Don, in the regions of Bryansk, Kaluga, Vologda, Kirov, in the Kama region, in the South Urals, Udmurtia, Bashkiria, Altai
2. Alexey Davydov
  
  -1
  
  28 January 2022 11: 56
  
  Craig's opinion is more credible. If only because he is one of the ten best journalists in America, he worked as an assistant for economic policy to the US Secretary of the Treasury in the administration of Ronald Reagan, he is a Chevalier of the Order of the Legion of Honor. I don't know you.
  As for your calculations on your knee, they don’t even pretend to be correct
3. andrey ivanov_2
  
  +1
  
  28 January 2022 13: 18
  
  Potential is like words on a fence, someone is kindled with hope, climbed, and there the firewood lies. Are there many
  burghers from "evroNATO" will go to war voluntarily????? And there will be no call (sorry) ........
4. Dear sofa expert.
  
  +1
  
  28 January 2022 14: 25
  
  if the Russian Federation can field 10 million fighters, then the euroNATO is twice as much - 20 million ...
  
  What are you saying?
  
  10 million FIGHTERS, against 20 million WHO ???
  
  There is no call for military service:
  In the UK - since 1960
  In Italy - since 1985
  In France - since 2001
  In Spain - since 2002
  In Germany - since 2011
  etc.
  And in those European countries that are not of great importance (in military terms), where there is still conscription, the majority choose “alternative service” (in fact, “washing their asses” for residents of nursing homes is also a necessary thing, but whatever, but not "warriors").
  
  So who will the 20 millionth army consist of? Of the people who don't even know why they rely on the "first / second" system?
  1. Expert_Analyst_Forecaster
    
    -4
    
    28 January 2022 15: 01
    
    You write about conscription in peacetime. Indeed, many countries have a professional army. But no one bothers to declare mobilization in wartime. So they can recruit people.
    
    But why only 20 million? The population of Europe is five times larger than the population of Russia.
    Something wrong with arithmetic.
    
    Of the people who don't even know why they rely on the "first / second" system?
    I would not be proud of drill training or the ability to pay for the first / second. We have the same people in the majority. There will be 3-4 million fit for military service. On the strength of five.
    
    But the main drawback of all these arguments is that it is supposed to fight with conventional weapons. And this is not an option. How are you going to deal with 125 million Japanese? If we want to save at least part of the population, we will have to fight with nuclear weapons.
    
    Judging by the article, Roberts is a shitty analyst. Although many words said true and correct. Sheer trifle - the conclusions are stupid.
    1. Dear sofa expert.
      
      -1
      
      28 January 2022 15: 44
      
      But no one bothers to declare mobilization in wartime. So they can recruit people.
      
      But why only 20 million? The population of Europe is five times larger than the population of Russia.
      
      There were serious doubts that you had anything to do with the army.
      
      I would not be proud of drill training or the ability to pay for the first / second.
      
      Doubt intensified.)
      
      You will go on the attack at once "with the whole herd" means? A couple of good snipers will “overshoot” your “horde” in five minutes, if in turn, you will not move in short dashes (2-3 seconds each - the reaction time of the shooter) in two or three groups.
      And how will you know your order if you haven’t paid in advance?
      
      That's "combat training" for you.
    2. Jacques sekavar
      
      -1
      
      29 January 2022 09: 48
      
      300-350 million in the USA + 500-550 million. in the EU and around the world millions hundred. Total somewhere under a billion.
      Ate the Russian Federation from 140-150 million. can put up 10 million fighters, according to the Chevalier of the Order of the Legion of Honor, who is one of the top ten journalists, who worked as an economic policy assistant to the US Treasury Secretary in the Reagan administration, then I believe NATO is many times more, and not arithmetic frets do not allow you to say how many times exactly. Already do not blame me, hto counts himself more literately.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Besmaster
        
        -1
        
        30 January 2022 19: 30
        
        Quote: Jacques Sekavar
        300-350 million in the USA + 500-550 million. in the EU and around the world millions hundred. Total somewhere under a billion.
        Ate the Russian Federation from 140-150 million. can put up 10 million fighters, according to the Chevalier of the Order of the Legion of Honor, who is one of the top ten journalists, who worked as an economic policy assistant to the US Treasury Secretary in the Reagan administration, then I believe NATO is many times more, and not arithmetic frets do not allow you to say how many times exactly. Already do not blame me, hto counts himself more literately.
        
        He's fine with arithmetic, unlike you. Are you familiar with the concept of a mobilization reserve? I think no. It will not work just to add up the population of Europe and the USA and get 20 million soldiers))) For example, the population of the Netherlands is 20 million people - and the mobilization reserve is 0 people)))
5. wichera65
  
  -2
  
  28 January 2022 16: 30
  
  I would not want to live in the USA after the third world war, digging in the ruins of once flourishing cities, and reassure myself with the thought that everything is fine in Africa, they did not get it.
Alexey Davydov

-5

28 January 2022 15: 02

Paul Craig is an honest journalist, but you definitely shouldn't expect one thing from him - "recipes" for us in the confrontation with the States. He is still an American.
I will repeat once again verbatim my opinion, which has not yet lost its relevance.
This is very important.
Our confrontation with the States (including their instrument - NATO) is expressed by the following scheme:
1. Until our ultimatum:
- The states are gradually tightening the "noose" around our neck
- We declare our concerns and "red lines"
The States were fine with this situation.
2. After our ultimatum, the situation looks like this:
- The states continue to gradually tighten the "noose" around our neck
- We declare our demands and military-technical threats
3. After the transition to military-technical threats, the situation will look like this:
- The States will accelerate the tightening of the "stranglehold" around our neck, accept new NATO members on an accelerated basis, and take part in the arms race and the creation of military-technical threats, their military-industrial complex will gladly capitalize on this
- We will try our best to withstand the confrontation in the creation of military-technical threats
“The world at this time will become more and more dangerous and unpredictable. As danger and unpredictability increase, the world as a state will rapidly depreciate.
- The side that fails the race first will be forced to surrender, or go to the "hot" phase, i.e. to war. In a world in which the world will already be devalued, this will happen easily and imperceptibly.
Thus, this is the path of sliding towards a GUARANTEED global war.
What is the "root" of this situation?
It lies in the fact that both sides, and above all, the Americans, in this version "to the last" can live in the old, peaceful reality. This allows them, to the last, not to take seriously the price that will have to be paid in the war.
It is not for nothing that the Americans, as a mantra, mainly for themselves, are repeating the threat of our offensive in Ukraine, and not a blow to them. This is also facilitated by the joint statement of the "nuclear five" on the prevention of nuclear war.
We need ANOTHER ANOTHER from the Americans.
We need them NOW to realize the price they will have to pay.
Therefore, you need a DIFFERENT OPTION.
It is necessary to declare our withdrawal from the joint statement of the "nuclear five" (regardless of China's opinion).
Declare readiness to start a nuclear war against the United States and its NATO allies.
It is necessary to make one, go several warning shots with nuclear weapons at our ranges. You may need a warning shot at a deserted island, or at a training ground in Nevada.
The states must move to another reality, understand that these are no longer threats. This is the war itself. But there is still a possibility to stop it.
If they do not need a nuclear war on their territory, they will stop it.
1. Ksv
  
  -1
  
  28 January 2022 21: 26
  
  In principle, I agree, but it seems to me that they will find a way out easier. any shock and especially nuclear weapons on the territory of Ukraine and similar ones will simply be destroyed by non-nuclear weapons (for now), since tolerating such weapons at our border means admitting defeat. Quite a weighty warning for the mongrels of the United States. There is simply no other choice, because further weapons dangerous for us will appear in the Baltic states, Moldova, and anywhere else, including the same Finland
2. Alex_Ko
  
  0
  
  29 January 2022 23: 37
  
  Yes, most likely Russia will have to withdraw from all treaties restricting the development and use of nuclear weapons. And conduct field tests. The best option, it seems to me, is in the Arctic. And do not care about all the howling that will rise in the west and in our liberal fifth column. It is advisable to strike so that the destructive power of this weapon would be clearly visible. To refresh the memory of those who fantasize that it is possible to survive in a nuclear war.
3. MarkoMarkin
  
  0
  
  1 February 2022 00: 54
  
  Nuclear warning strike on the Nevada test site. Yes, you are a stupid man, my friend! In response to this warning missile launch, a massive launch of American missiles will immediately follow as soon as it takes off and heads towards the states. This attack is not interpreted in any other way. You really live in a fairy tale of pink ponies.
  1. Alexey Davydov
    
    -2
    
    3 February 2022 01: 02
    
    I live in Russia, which you are going to destroy. That says it all.
    The Nevada option is the last one, when it doesn’t matter any more - a nuclear war.
    A massive launch of your missiles will lead you to death, so no one in your right mind will give such a command during a single launch.
    This is a concept. Is it possible and how to do it - our specialists at headquarters decide
Expert_Analyst_Forecaster

0

28 January 2022 15: 06

Quote: Alexey Davydov
It is necessary to make one, go several warning shots of nuclear weapons at our test sites. You may need a warning shot at a deserted island, or at a training ground in Nevada

What for? Especially in our ranges.
1. Alexey Davydov
  
  -2
  
  28 January 2022 15: 14
  
  A warning shot demonstrates to the enemy the presence and serviceability of the weapon and the determination to use it. It serves as the LAST warning before weapons are used.
  The purpose of a warning shot is to warn that the next shot will be to kill, and to give the opponent the LAST opportunity to agree to the proposed terms.
  In case of disobedience, a warning shot is followed by a shot to kill.
  Our polygons - not necessarily. It is possible - their polygons. It will be more efficient.
  I have already described the function of the shot in our situation.
  If in simple terms - to REACH
Expert_Analyst_Forecaster

+1

28 January 2022 15: 08

Quote: Alexey Davydov
It is not for nothing that now the Americans, like a mantra, mainly for themselves, are repeating the threat of our offensive in Ukraine, and not a blow to them themselves.

That is, in order to prevent a nuclear war, you propose to start it as soon as possible. The logic is wonderful. Napoleon from the next chamber approved this strategy?
Expert_Analyst_Forecaster

+1

28 January 2022 15: 34

Quote: Alexey Davydov
A warning shot demonstrates to the enemy the presence and serviceability of the weapon and the determination to use it. It serves as the LAST warning before weapons are used.

How pathetic.

What happens if a warning shot is fired, but does not reach the range.
The Americans will shoot him down. And they will say: "We do not care about your threats." Will you start a war?
Expert_Analyst_Forecaster

-3

28 January 2022 15: 53

Quote: Dear sofa expert.
Doubt intensified.)

Doubts replace arguments for you?
The fact that you were somewhere near the army makes it difficult to calculate how much 750/146 will be?

Even if you served, does that make you smart, knowledgeable - automatically, only at the expense of your rank?

I retired with the rank of senior sergeant. And although I served in the Strategic Missile Forces, I do not at all pretend that my service helps me understand politics.

I propose to stop fucking my brain and answer intelligently if you have something to say on my comment.
1. Dear sofa expert.
  
  0
  
  28 January 2022 18: 22
  
  Even if you served, does that make you smart, knowledgeable
  
  No, it's not about that. It's just that the conversation turned to people who have no idea about the army, and therefore do not have the skills of elementary military art. If you train a soldier for at least 1-2 years, then later, in the war, he will have at least some chance to complete the task, and most importantly, to survive on his own, and not become useless "cannon fodder".
  
  The fact that you were somewhere near the army makes it difficult to calculate how much 750/146 will be?
  
  You know, I don't want to argue, let alone quarrel. I don `t want.
  So here's some lyrics for you.)
  Maybe that will ease the situation somehow.
Kapany3

0

28 January 2022 22: 37

Quote: Expert_Analyst_Forecaster
You write about conscription in peacetime. Indeed, many countries have a professional army. But no one bothers to declare mobilization in wartime. So they can recruit people.

But why only 20 million? The population of Europe is five times larger than the population of Russia.
Something wrong with arithmetic.

Of the people who don't even know why they rely on the "first / second" system?
I would not be proud of drill training or the ability to pay for the first / second. We have the same people in the majority. There will be 3-4 million fit for military service. On the strength of five.

But the main drawback of all these arguments is that it is supposed to fight with conventional weapons. And this is not an option. How are you going to deal with 125 million Japanese? If we want to save at least part of the population, we will have to fight with nuclear weapons.

Judging by the article, Roberts is a shitty analyst. Although many words said true and correct. Sheer trifle - the conclusions are stupid.

You in no way pull on an "expert", and certainly not at all on an analyst. Strongly
I doubt that emigrants from the Middle East (increasing the demographic indicators of a dying Europe) will fight.
1. Expert_Analyst_Forecaster
  
  +1
  
  29 January 2022 07: 23
  
  All that was enough for you was to quote my text and express doubts. Not a single argument.
  Before talking about emigrants, find out how many of them are currently in Europe. How many of them have already lived for generations, and how many have come in large numbers in recent years. Although what am I talking about? Here, many people simply have trouble with arithmetic, starting with the isperd.
boriz

-1

29 January 2022 02: 20

This is a former economic policy assistant to the US Secretary of the Treasury in the administration of Ronald Reagan in 1981-82.
So, he stood at the origins of Reaganomics, advised how best to carry it out. The results are all observed online.
And now he's smart. Retirees are always distinguished by sanity in hindsight. And this hypocrite also criticizes what he has done. With the beginning of the millennium, he sharply wised up. He criticizes others, but is silent about what he advised the Reagan administration. After all, all this credit pumping of the population (so that we envy the standard of living of Americans) began just then. Now the US is clearing it all up.
1. boriz
  
  0
  
  29 January 2022 02: 33
  
  Now the US is clearing it all up.
  
  And so are we, by the way. And the whole world.
2. Alexey Davydov
  
  -2
  
  29 January 2022 16: 47
  
  Why do you think he advised it? Maybe he just advised not to do this.
  1. boriz
    
    0
    
    29 January 2022 16: 53
    
    Reaganomics was developed under Carter. Under Reagan, they began to implement it on the move. And personnel, of course, were selected in accordance with the tasks at hand.
    Remember how they tried to put on the post before. Central Bank Glazyev ...
  2. boriz
    
    0
    
    29 January 2022 16: 58
    
    https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/1099341
    
    Father of Reaganomics
    
    That is, there was some kind of administrator in the post of Minister of Finance, and Roberts was an ideologue. Most likely, he developed this topic under Carter.
Expert_Analyst_Forecaster

0

29 January 2022 07: 26

Quote: Dear sofa expert.
You know, I don't want to argue, let alone quarrel. I don `t want.

This makes me happy.
Expert_Analyst_Forecaster

0

29 January 2022 07: 31

Quote from ksv
any shock and especially nuclear weapons on the territory of Ukraine and similar ones will simply be destroyed by non-nuclear weapons (yet)

It's just a departure from the decision today, in order to fight later in worse conditions.
It doesn't smell of seizing the initiative. Following the plans of enemies is not the best strategy.
The later we strike, the greater our losses and the less chance of success.
But you still have to fight. In any case, the world does not smell. It won't dissolve on its own.
Alexey Davydov

-2

30 January 2022 09: 36

Something happened after we received the US and NATO responses.
- The peace-loving statements of Lavrov and Medvedev, who suddenly appeared “instead of” Putin on public display.
- Dropping out of Putin's plans in Beijing of meetings with "other leaders of the countries".
- Switching Putin from the political and military agenda to the “economic” one.
- Unexpected courtesy of the Ministry of Defense in relation to the fishermen of Ireland with the transfer of the previously chosen location for military exercises
In response to our ultimatum, the States had to strike back.
Probably, he was sent to those who really control the country and Putin's actions.
What options were the Americans most interested in?
- Russia's relations with China
- Removing the risk of a nuclear war between Russia and the United States
- Elimination of the most serious military-technical threats (existing and potential)
- Exemption from Ukraine, unnecessary to them after the proposed deal
Going to a forced deal with the States, Russia passes the initiative into the hands of its enemy and loses the possibility of its salvation in the future.
In its history, Russia also knew "troubled" times.
People who loved the Motherland did not let her perish and saved her. Traitors and lowered hands rulers went into oblivion.
On this Love, Russia has lasted for centuries.
I hope that we, these people, will save her now too.
MarkoMarkin

0

1 February 2022 00: 41

He believes that the US is a puppet government of Israel. Supports Russian President Vladimir Putin, blames Euromaidan and the Syrian civil war for a neocon conspiracy, and claims that human rights NGOs operating in Russia are part of a "US fifth column" seeking to undermine its government. Allegations of conspiracy theory and anti-Semitism. Was a regular guest on programs broadcast by RT (formerly known as Russia Today). Well, just the most typical American expressing the opinion of all Americans.
1. Alexey Davydov
  
  -1
  
  3 February 2022 01: 13
  
  Why do we need the opinion of zombified Americans if we managed to find an adequate person. From what you say
MarkoMarkin

0

1 February 2022 00: 55

Quote: Alexey Davydov
A warning shot demonstrates to the enemy the presence and serviceability of the weapon and the determination to use it. It serves as the LAST warning before weapons are used.

Yes, and he will be the first and last in the Atomic War.
1. Alexey Davydov
  
  -1
  
  3 February 2022 01: 09
  
  Quote from Marko Markin
  Yes, and he will be the first and last in the Atomic War
  
  That's what it's designed for.
Yuri Neupokoev

0

3 February 2022 13: 24

If you look again at our ultimatum - everything is on point and we ask for a minimum. The impudent Saxons have become insolent for a long time and we allowed them to do this (now the limit is already). It's time to change the situation. Can't do without heat. There will be a discharge, but it is not clear what kind. I hope there will be no big war, but we must prepare for the worst.
Art Pilot

0

3 February 2022 20: 04

In modern warfare, everything is decided not by the number of soldiers, but by the striking power of missile weapons.
ksa

0

5 February 2022 10: 25

1. Recall ambassadors from the Baltic countries.
2. Urgently evacuate our astronauts from the ISS.
3. Warn the States that in no case (for the sake of their own safety) should they not approach the Poseidons flooded off the coastline if they are accidentally discovered.