Sunday, June 11, 2017

What's Behind Putin's Remark on War With US Which 'Nobody Would Survive'

Talking on a possible military conflict between Russia and the US, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that no one would survive it. Political scientist Nikita Danyuk discussed the Russian leader's remark with Radio Sputnik.

In a series of interviews to renowned film director Oliver Stone, the Russian leader was asked a question if the United States would be dominant in a "hot war" with Russia.


"I think no one would survive [such a conflict]," Putin said.

Putin on Allegations of Russia's Interference in US Election: 'Just Stop'


Putin added that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is constantly looking for an enemy to justify its existence. However, Putin said that the hope for normalization of the Russia-US relations still exists.

The full four-part documentary by Stone, dubbed The Putin Interviews, will be broadcast by the Showtime television network on June 12-15. The documentary has been partially released to date.

Political scientist and the deputy director of the Institute of Strategic Studies and Prognoses Nikita Danyuk told Radio Sputnik that Putin is right as the US and Russia are both nuclear powers, in case of any escalation, a global conflict could emerge.


"As for a possible confrontation between the US and Russia, the history shows that crises have repeatedly happened, when we were on the brink "of a hot phase [of war], but we have always found solutions at the political and diplomatic level. I think the statement of the Russian leader given an impetus to the US counterparts that tensions should be avoided. In this case, it seems to me, such a signal would be understood rightly by our American partners and they would be more responsible in their foreign policy and wouldn't try to redraw the system of international relations," the expert concluded.
Sputnik: Putin's Remarks on War Wth US

16 comments:

Auburn Parks said...

What a bunch of empty rhetoric. Just as bad as any Trump Bullshit. Right, because Russians and American fighter jets fighting over Syria would definitely result in a full nuclear holocaust.

Thats right, Russia and America would be willing to destroy their entire countries and hundreds of millions of people all for Syria!!!!

How fucking retarded. Nuclear forces will never be used precisely because there will never be a reason to use them. NATO is never going to invade Russia to conquer the country, so there is no existential threat to Russia that would force them to defend themselves w nukes. And Russia could never beat NATO in a conventional war and so there would never be a reason for NATO to use nukes against Russia.

So where is the reason for nuclear holocaust other than stupid peacenik hyperventilating and empty political rhetoric and strategic posturing? There simply isnt any because the era of geogrpahical conquest and direct imperialism are over and gone.

Tom Hickey said...

There are two areas concern that could lead to nuclear conflict.

The first is accident/mistake. This has resulted in situations that came extremely close to nuclear launch.

The second is the perception that the other side is preparing a pre-emptive first strike.

Auburn Parks said...

Yes we need to have fewer nukes and better security protocols.

Pre-emptive first strike is total bullshit and not a serious concern. Neither country is going to kill 10s of millions or perhaps 100 million people for no reason. Nukes would only ever be used as an absolute last resort to avoid state annihilation. But there will never be a situation where this would occur because conquest and imperialism are over.

Tom Hickey said...

Pre-emptive first strike is total bullshit and not a serious concern.

Tell that to the Russians and Chinese. They apparently disagree and are putting their money on it.

Even if it is BS, and everyone hopes it it, they have to take it into account strategically. And they are doing so.

Kaivey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kaivey said...

I hope it's BS too, but PCR says the neocons think that a limited first strike will so disable Russia and China that they will surrender. It's all based around Game Theory - to out nerve your enemies.

But blowing up Russia's and China's nuclear arsenal so they can't use them would still destroy the planet, unless it's possible that when you blow up nuclear weapons nuclear fusion doesn't take place. I don't know.

MRW said...

Auburn, for someone who I consider one of the smartest commenters around, this geopolitical situation has obviously sailed over your head. Like most Americans, you appear to consider “war” to be the war on drugs or the war on terror.

The Russians experienced war in WWII. Real war. And lost almost a third of its country. Millions upon millions. The scars are still there. http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jun/22/local/me-43656

I don’t know if you bother to read military and defense magazines, but the Russians have military equipment we can’t beat. They have electromagnetic weapons using technology DARPA is only now dreaming about (the Russians solved the unified field theory about three or four decades ago, and they ain’t telling us how they did it.). We can’t even make a fighter jet anymore, and we’ve been trying since 2002.
http://thedailycoin.org/2017/03/02/f-35-boondoggle-can-target-stationary-slow-moving-objects/
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/134796/the-jet-that-ate-the-pentagon.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reese-schonfeld/mccain-jsf-program_b_1132570.html

The Russians are the reason all of Europe isn’t speaking German. They won WWII. Not us. They beat the Nazis by pushing them back to Berlin and ending them. We just made the armament and showed up for real in June 1944 (D-Day) for a few trots around Italy.

The Russians have skin in the game. And they will never let a repeat of WWII happen within their borders. Ever. (Read the first link.) No more than we would let the Russians occupy Quebec and Ontario and the lower half of the Western Canadian provinces without perceiving a threat. Instead we think Mexican peasants swimming across the Rio Grande are a threat to our nationality.

This has nothing to do with Syria. We have positively loony idiots like John McCain and his Lady Lindsey call Russia a greater threat than ISIS, and a Sec Def who appears to believe the same thing. Mad Dog, indeed.

But Putin is a fucking realist when he says that NATO needs a justification for its existence. Trump, to his credit, is trying to reorient the Cold War mentality NATO was created to protect by asking it to make ending ISIS its goal.

Let’s hope he succeeds.

MRW said...

The documentary has been partially released to date. Anyone got a link to where I can find it? I don't have Showtime.

Kaivey said...

All in know is that there are little bits of it on YouTube. It says Showtime, are you able to watch this?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mDP7ik2wBzs

Kaivey said...

Good post!

Bob said...

Need to being back the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. This "we can win a nuclear war" BS has got to stop.

But Putin is a fucking realist when he says that NATO needs a justification for its existence. Trump, to his credit, is trying to reorient the Cold War mentality NATO was created to protect by asking it to make ending ISIS its goal.

Let’s hope he succeeds.


No, it is time to end NATO and Europeans have the responsibility and the incentive to do so.

Bob said...

*bring*

MRW said...

Bob,

No, it is time to end NATO and Europeans have the responsibility and the incentive to do so.

They do? I thought they bitched like hell about Trump wanting to pull out of NATO—a campaign promise—and that love fest in Brussels recently for staying in was a confirmation of it.

I agree with you, though, that it’s time to end it.

And also most of the US bases we have around the world. Take a look at these three maps: https://www.exopermaculture.com/2017/04/20/iran-russia-china-want-war-u-s-proof/

MRW said...

Of course, selling war fattens the coffers of a lot of people and multinationals.

Kaivey said...

There must be better ways to make money. There's plenty of new technologies they could invest in. Why leave it all to China?

Tom Hickey said...

The new business plane is to do R&D and manage from the home country. Products are built to spec abroad in factories that are at least partially owned by investors in the home country and which are staffed by low wage workers abroad. Then the goods are imported for sale in the home country with the embedded foreign resources and labor. The home country only produces specialty products that can bear the price and high tech that is not permitted to be exported.

This is the new imperialism and colonialism, where the emerging nations provide the resource, labor and manufacture of goods for developed countries. The prices are low and bearable by the mostly lower wage workers in developed countries that are mostly service economies rather than manufacturing.

This is opposite from historical imperialism and colonialism, where the colonies exported resources to the home country for manufacture and subsequent sale in both the home country and colonies, since the colonies were not permitted to compete in manufacture. So the funds paid for in the colonies for the resources were used to pay for the goods exported from the home country. This was considered comparative advantage in trade.