Russia"s Military Is Leaner, But Meaner

Authore by Leonid Brershidky via Bloomberg.com,

During Russian President Vladimir Putin"s annual press conference on Thursday, a friendly journalist asked Putin whether the escalating tension in relations with the U.S. and the crumbling of arms control treaties would draw Russia into an unsustainable arms race. "We will ensure our security without engaging in an arms race," the president replied, citing widely diverging dollar numbers for the U.S. and Russian defense budgets. 

That"s a simplistic answer from a politician starting an election campaign (of sorts: Putin is headed for re-election in March without giving anyone else a chance). The more pointed question that should be asked is this: How, with a relatively small and decreasing military budget -- 2.77 trillion rubles ($42.3 billion) for 2018, down from some 3.05 trillion rubles this year -- is Russia is still a formidable military rival to the U.S., with its enormous and increasing budget of almost $692.1 billion in 2018, up from $583 billion this year? 

The equalizing value of the two countries" well-balanced nuclear deterrents is enough of a reason to avoid direct confrontation. But leaving that aside, Putin may well understand the nature of modern military challenges better than U.S. President Donald Trump and U.S. legislators -- and Russia"s authoritarian system may be more efficient when it comes to military allocations. Note that Russia is now almost an equal to the U.S. as a power broker in the Middle East, where the Russian military has just helped Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad effectively win a civil war -- in which the U.S. was helping the other side. At the same time, Russian defense spending numbers are deceptive. The country is far more militarized than its defense spending suggests. That level of security spending is only sustainable at the expense of Russia"s future.

Trump"s military spending hike, which makes it necessary to remove the existing cap on defense expenditure, is a dubious and likely outdated response to decreased global security.

Quite aside from the cost of maintaining the world"s most powerful military, the U.S., according to the Washington think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies, has spent at least $2 trillion on its wars since 2001. But, considering the less transparent costs, such as those of caring for veterans, war-related increases to the Department of Defense base budget and interest on the debt taken on to cover defense spending, it"s closer to $4 trillion at the very least. The Afghan conflict has cost the U.S. at least $840 billion -- more than four times Afghanistan"s cumulative GDP since 2001. Since the 2018 U.S. defense budget contains additional funds for sending 3,500 more troops to Afghanistan, the results of the massive outlay over the years are clearly suboptimal.

Today"s wars aren"t fought with fat wads of money. The adversaries are mostly small, agile forces that aren"t as well-resourced as nation states. Fighting them requires a combination of local knowledge, brute force applied only at important points in a conflict and ability to shift risks onto the shoulders of irregular fighters. Russia kept cutting its defense budget all through its participation in the Syrian war. Yabloko, an opposition party, earlier this year put the cost of the Syrian operation for Russia at about 140.4 billion rubles ($2.4 billion at the current exchange rate) since September, 2015; that"s some 4 percent of what the U.S. allocated to overseas contingency operations in 2017 alone -- and the outcome is as good as Russia could have expected.

The U.S. is pumping money into comparatively inefficient warfighting -- and into preparing for the kind of large-scale war that"s not likely to take place because of existing nuclear arsenals and unauthorized nuclear proliferation. Even North Korea, with its unknown but probably small nuclear capability, is dangerous enough to deter the U.S. from attacking. At his press conference, Putin made the point that the U.S. couldn"t know for sure where to strike in North Korea -- and if the Kim regime managed to get a single long-range, nuclear-armed missile in the air, the results could be catastrophic.

U.S. defense budgets, of course, feed a large, powerful domestic industry; even the indirect U.S. involvement in a conflict lifts the stock prices of major defense contractors, research has shown. In Russia, the biggest contractors are state-controlled; they have far less lobbying clout, and the technocratic Russian government has kept them on a short leash, though some of the military"s purchasing decisions have served regional development rather than defense purposes. Such an arrangement, which would have been inefficient in most other industries, probably reduces wasteful spending in the budget-dependent military-industrial complex.

That said, in relative terms, Russia is spending more on force-related functions than the U.S. does. Trump"s budget proposal allocated $71.8 billion to the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department. Add that up with the defense spending, and the total security budget will stand at $764 billion, less than 19 percent of total federal spending. Russia will spend a combined 29 percent of its federal budget -- some 4.8 trillion rubles -- on defense and domestic security. That"s probably not all of the security-related outlay either, as Mark Galeotti pointed out earlier this year: Even some of the education and development spending in Russia goes toward military goals.

In the U.S., federal law enforcement outlay is a fraction of defense spending. In Russia, the two areas of government expenditure are almost equal. That"s the difference between a country with a relatively liberal domestic order and a near-dictatorship, which relies heavily on the suppression of dissent and must keep large law enforcement agencies under centralized control.

Russia could show the world how to spend efficiently on more than adequate defense -- but instead it is engaged in an arms race against its own development. For years, it has been underfunding areas such as education and health, undermining what Putin told the press conference was his vision of the country"s future -- flexible, technology-driven, highly productive. Judging by Putin"s answers to reporters on Thursday, he still prefers not to notice that.

Paul Craig Roberts: "Can"t You See War On The Horizon?"

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

According to news reports in the British press, Russian President Vladimir Putin has instructed Russia’s industries to prepare themselves to be able to make a quick switch to war production.

Clearly, the Russian government would not make such an announcement unless it was convinced that the prospect of war with the West was real.

For some time I have emphasized in my columns that the consequence of years of hostile actions taken by Washington and its European vassals against Russia was leading to war.

It is easy to understand that the massive US military/security complex needs a convincing enemy in order to justify its enormous budget, that the crazed neoconservatives put their fantasy ideology of US world hegemony above the life of the planet, and that Hillary and the Democratic National Committee will do anything to overturn Trump’s presidential victory.

However, it is difficult to understand why the European political leaders are willing to put their countries at risk for Washington’s benefit.

Yet, they do.

For example, on November 13 UK PM Theresa May said that Russia was a threat to international security and was interfering in European elections and hacking European governments. There is no more evidence for these claims than there is for “Russiagate.” Yet the allegations continue and multiply. Now the European Union is organizing former provinces of the Soviet Union—Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan—into an “Eastern Partnership” with the European Union.

In other words, the West is openly organizing former provinces of Moscow against Russia, declared by Prime Minister May to be a “hostile state.” Russia knows that there is no basis for the allegations against Russia and regards them as identical to the false allegations against Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, and Assad in order to justify military attacks on Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Having convinced Russia that she is being set up for attack, Russia is preparing for war.

Think about this for a moment. The world is being driven to Armageddon simply because a greedy and corrupt US military/security complex needs an enemy to justify its huge budget, because Hillary and the DNC cannot accept a political defeat, and because the neoconservatives have an ideology of American Supremacy. What’s the difference between the detested White Supremacy and the American Supremacy that President Obama himself endorsed? Why is white supremacy terrible and American supremacy God’s gift to the “exceptional” and “indispensable” country?

The Russian government has openly shared its concern that Russia is being set up for military attack. As I, if not CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, have reported, the deputy commander of the Russian military’s Operation Command stated publicly the concern that Washington is preparing a surprise nuclear attack against Russia. President Putin recently called attention to Washington’s collection of Russian DNA for a US Air Force weapons lab, which implies development of a Russian-specific bio-weapon. On many occasions Russia has called attention to US and NATO bases on its borders despite previous assurances from US administrations that no such thing would ever happen.

We have to ask ourselves why it is not the top item of public and political discussion that Washington has convinced Russia, a premier nuclear and military power, that Russia is going to be attacked. Instead, we hear of football players who kneel for the national anthem, fake news about Russiagate, a Las Vegas shooting, and so on.

We also must ask ourselves how much longer Washington is going to permit any of us via the Internet to report the real news instead of the fake news that Washington uses to control explanations.

The effort by the Federal Communications Commission chairman to destroy net neutrality and other efforts underway to discredit factual news as Russian propaganda indicate that Washington has concluded that in order to war on Russia Washington must also war on truth.

Washington will not survive its war, and neither will the American and European people.

Putin Blasts Reporter Over Question Of "Disappointment" In Trump: "He Is Not My Bride"

As tensions seemingly mount between the U.S. and Russia, an inconvenient fact for a media complex obsessed with progressing a narrative that the Executive Branch of the U.S. government is now controlled by the Kremlin, Putin offered up a rather unique way of responding to a reporter"s question over whether he was "disappointed" in President Trump.  Speaking at a media conference on the last of the BRICS summit in China, Putin told a reporter that his question regarding his personal feelings toward the U.S. President were "very naive....he is not my bride."

"Regarding frustration and non-frustration your question sounds very naive.  He is not my bride and I"m not his groom." 

"We are doing state activity and each country has its own interests.  Trump follows his country"s national interests in his activity and I follow mine.  I"m really counting on that..."

Of course, these questions come just after the US State Department announced last week that is had ordered the Russian government to close its San Francisco consulate, a chancery annex in Washington and a consular annex in New York City.  The move came exactly one month after Vladimir Putin ordered the expulsion of 755 US diplomats from Russia, as well as the seizure of two diplomatic compounds used by the US in Russia on July 31. 

Here was the full statement issued by the U.S. State Department:

Achieving Parity in Diplomatic Missions

The United States has fully implemented the decision by the Government of the Russian Federation to reduce the size of our mission in Russia. We believe this action was unwarranted and detrimental to the overall relationship between our countries.

In the spirit of parity invoked by the Russians, we are requiring the Russian Government to close its Consul. General in San Francisco, a chancery annex in Washington, D.C., and a consular annex in New York City. These closures will need to be accomplished by September 2.

With this action both countries will remain with three consulates each. While there will continue to be a disparity in the number of diplomatic and consular annexes, we have chosen to allow the Russian Government to maintain some of its annexes in an effort to arrest the downward spiral in our relationship.

The United States hopes that, having moved toward the Russian Federation"s desire for parity, we can avoid further retaliatory actions by both sides and move forward to achieve the stated goal of both of our presidents: improved relations between our two countries and increased cooperation on areas of mutual concern. The United States is prepared to take further action as necessary and as warranted.

All that said, we"re sure it"s just a matter of time until CNN tells us that this is all just a clever ruse to distract from Trump"s collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election.

Of Russia Baiters And Putin Haters

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

“Is Russia an enemy of the United States?” NBC’s Kasie Hunt demanded of Ted Cruz. Replied the runner-up for the GOP nomination, “Russia is a significant adversary. Putin is a KGB thug.”

To Hillary Clinton running mate Tim Kaine, the revelation that Donald Trump Jr., entertained an offer from the Russians for dirt on Clinton could be considered “treason.”

Treason is giving aid and comfort to an enemy in a time of war.

Are we really at war with Russia? Is Russia really our enemy?

“Why Russia is a Hostile Power” is the title of today’s editorial in The Washington Post that seeks to explain why Middle America should embrace the Russophobia of our capital city:

“Vladimir Putin adheres to a set of values that are antithetical to bedrock American values. He favors spheres of influence over self-determination; corruption over transparency; and repression over democracy.”

Yet, accommodating a sphere of influence for a great power is exactly what FDR and Churchill did with Stalin, and every president from Truman to George H. W. Bush did with the Soviet Union.

When East Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, Poles rose up against Communist regimes, no U.S. president intervened. For those nations were on the other side of the Yalta line agreed to in 1945.

Bush I and James Baker even accused Ukrainians of “suicidal nationalism” for contemplating independence from Russia.

When did support for spheres of influence become un-American?

As for supporting “corruption over transparency,” ex-Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili resigned in disgust as governor of Odessa in November, accusing Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, our man in Kiev, of supporting corruption.

As for favoring “repression over democracy,” would that not apply to our NATO ally President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, our Arab ally Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi of Egypt, and our Philippine ally Rodrigo Duterte? Were U.S. Cold War allies like the Shah of Iran and Gen. Augusto Pinochet of Chile all Jeffersonian Democrats? Have we forgotten our recent history?

The Post brought up the death in prison of lawyer-activist Sergei Magnitsky in 2009. Under the Magnitsky Act of 2012, Congress voted sanctions on Russia’s elites.

Yet China’s lone Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Liu Xiaobo, sentenced to 11 years in prison for championing democracy, died Thursday of liver cancer, with police in his hospital room. Communist dictator Xi Jinping, who makes Putin look like Justin Trudeau, would not let the dying man go.

Will Magnitsky Act sanctions be slammed on China? Don’t bet on it. Too much trade. Congress will do what comes naturally — kowtow. Yet our heroic Senate voted 98-2 to slam new sanctions on Russia.

What are the roots of this hostility to Russia and hatred of Putin, whom a Fox analyst called “as bad as Hitler”?

During the Cold War, every president sought detente with a USSR that was arguably the most blood-soaked regime of the century.

When the Cold War ended in December 1991, the Soviet Union had dissolved into 15 nations. Moscow had given up her empire, a third of her territory, and half the population of the USSR. Marxist-Leninist ideology was dead. An epochal change had taken place.

Yet hostility to Russia and hatred of Putin seem to exceed anything some of us remember from the worst days of the Cold War.

Putin’s Russia is called imperialist, though Estonia, next door, which Russia could swallow in one gulp, has been free for 25 years.

Russia invaded Georgia. Well, yes, after Georgia invaded the seceded province of South Ossetia and killed Russian peacekeepers.

Russia has taken back Crimea from Ukraine. True, but only after a U.S.-backed coup in Kiev replaced the elected pro-Russian regime.

Russia has intervened to back Bashar Assad in Syria. Yes, but only after our insurgent allies collaborated with al-Qaida and ISIS to bring him down. Is Russia not allowed to support an ally, recognized by the U.N., which provides its only naval base on the Med?

Russia has meddled in our election. And we have meddled in the affairs of half a dozen nations with “color-coded revolutions.” The cry of “regime change!” may daily be heard in the U.S. Capitol.

Putin is not Pope Francis. But he is not Stalin; he is not Hitler; he is not Mao; and Russia today is not the USSR. Putin is an autocrat cut from the same bolt of cloth as the Romanov czars.

His cooperation is crucial to the peace of the world, the freedom of the Baltic States, an end to the Syrian civil war, tranquility in the Persian Gulf, and solving the North Korean crisis.

While our tectonic plates may rub against one another, we are natural allies. The Russia of Tolstoy, Pushkin, Solzhenitsyn and the Orthodox Church belongs with the West.

If America stumbles into a war with Russia that all our Cold War presidents avoided, the Russia baiters and Putin haters will be put in same circle of hell by history as the idiot war hawks of 1914 and the three blind men of Versailles in 1919.

Putin's Losing Public Support On Key Issues

According to a Pew Research Center survey released last week, Russians still have a high level of confidence in President Putin"s ability to do the right thing regarding world affairs.

Despite his high overall approval rating, however, as Statista"s Niall McCarthy notes, Putin is actually losing public support on many key issues...

You will find more statistics at Statista

Support for his handling of relations with Ukraine and the EU have dropped 20 and 15 percentage points respectively since 2015.

Russians are also increasingly dissatisfied with the way their president is handing relations with the United States. In 2015, 85 percent of people were satisfied with Putin"s handling of relations between Moscow and Washington and in 2017, that has fallen to 73 percent.

Putin Warns Of "Hot War" And Nuclear Holocaust: "I Don't Think Anyone Would Survive"

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

With tensions among the world’s super powers mounting in places like Ukraine, Syria, North Korea and  most recently Qatar and Iran, it may only be a matter of time before someone pushes the red button.

When they do, all bets are off, and as we’ve learned from the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in June of 1914, once the trigger is pulled there’s no going back and hundreds of millions of lives, perhaps billions, will hang in the balance.

Considering that Russia is closely allied with Syrian President Assad, has a direct interest in maintaining control of Ukraine’s former Crimea region, and its ties to Iran, ignoring the possibility of a global war in coming years could be a devastating oversight.

We are, in fact, at war right now. But just as was the case from the 1960’s through the end of the 1980’s, it is a “cold war.” There have been no direct troop engagements that we know of between the Russians and the United States. But look to cyber space and it should be clear that there is a battle taking place on a daily basis. Moreover, as we’ve previously reported, nuclear war may well be on the horizon, because the confrontations taking place on the geo-political stage are no longer just talk.

Action has already been taken by both sides:

Putin and the Russian people believe the U.S.’s actions are going to lead to a nuclear conflict initiated by the United States.  The leadership of the U.S. is made up of politicians who began their careers as Marxist-Socialists.  Traitors now have their fingers on the triggers of the nuclear warheads, aided by “yes-men” of the general staffs who will not remember their oaths to the Constitution of the United States and the American people.  They will ignore that these charges take precedence above any orders given by a petty, dope-smoking, Marxist community organizer of dubious citizenship who was “emplaced” into office to destroy the country.

Instead of statesmen and diplomats, we now have self-interested, politically-motivated belligerents backing Russia and other nations into corners and pushing them toward war.  How long the war of words will be continued is unknown; however, when the missiles begin to fly you can be certain of something.  You can rest assured that the men who spoke those words will be in bunkers and other safe places and out of harm’s way…paid for by the American taxpayer.

Full Report: Nuclear War Is On The Horizon: “This Is Not Just Talk… Action Has Been Taken”

Indeed, those who push the buttons will likely be in bunkers well before the missiles hit their targets. That’ll likely be the case on both sides.

For the rest of us?

Vladimir Putin has made clear how it will play out:

The Putin Interviews between the Russian leader and the Oscar-winning director, which will be screened on Showtime, were shot between summer 2015 and February this year and give an extraordinary insight into one of the most powerful men in the world.

 

Stone asked Putin whether the US would be ‘dominant’ in the event of a ‘hot war’ between the two nuclear powers.

 

‘I don’t think anyone would survive such a conflict,’ Putin said.

Earlier this year the hacking collective Anonymous issued a frightening warning about World War III, highlighting the fact that while we are all busy enjoying the good times, elite Deep State insiders are planning for what comes next:

All the signs of a looming war on the Korean Peninsula are surfacing… we’re watching as each country moves strategic pieces into place… but unlike past world wars… although there will be ground troops the battle is likely to be fierce, brutal and quick.

It will also be globally devastating on the environmental and economic levels.

…

This is a real war with real global consequences… With three super powers drawn into the mix… Other nations will be coerced into choosing sides.

…

The citizen will be the last to know…

Video

And because the citizen will be the last to know, now may be a good time to review your nuclear war preparedness strategies and stock up on survival essentials that should include FDA approved anti-radiation pills and NBC rated tactical gas masks.

The elite will have plenty to go around in their bunkers, but you can be 100% assured that none of the supplies they’ve been stockpiling for the last decade will ever make their way to the general population.

Prepare accordingly.

Buchanan Asks "Is Putin The 'Preeminent Statesman' Of Our Times?"

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

“If we were to use traditional measures for understanding leaders, which involve the defense of borders and national flourishing, Putin would count as the preeminent statesman of our time.

“On the world stage, who could vie with him?”

So asks Chris Caldwell of the Weekly Standard in a remarkable essay in Hillsdale College’s March issue of its magazine, Imprimis.

What elevates Putin above all other 21st-century leaders?

“When Putin took power in the winter of 1999-2000, his country was defenseless. It was bankrupt. It was being carved up by its new kleptocratic elites, in collusion with its old imperial rivals, the Americans. Putin changed that.

“In the first decade of this century, he did what Kemal Ataturk had done in Turkey in the 1920s. Out of a crumbling empire, he resurrected a national-state, and gave it coherence and purpose. He disciplined his country’s plutocrats. He restored its military strength. And he refused, with ever blunter rhetoric, to accept for Russia a subservient role in an American-run world system drawn up by foreign politicians and business leaders. His voters credit him with having saved his country.”

Putin’s approval rating, after 17 years in power, exceeds that of any rival Western leader. But while his impressive strides toward making Russia great again explain why he is revered at home and in the Russian diaspora, what explains Putin’s appeal in the West, despite a press that is every bit as savage as President Trump’s?

Answer: Putin stands against the Western progressive vision of what mankind’s future ought to be. Years ago, he aligned himself with traditionalists, nationalists and populists of the West, and against what they had come to despise in their own decadent civilization.

What they abhorred, Putin abhorred. He is a God-and-country Russian patriot. He rejects the New World Order established at the Cold War’s end by the United States. Putin puts Russia first.

And in defying the Americans he speaks for those millions of Europeans who wish to restore their national identities and recapture their lost sovereignty from the supranational European Union. Putin also stands against the progressive moral relativism of a Western elite that has cut its Christian roots to embrace secularism and hedonism.

The U.S. establishment loathes Putin because, they say, he is an aggressor, a tyrant, a “killer.” He invaded and occupies Ukraine. His old KGB comrades assassinate journalists, defectors and dissidents.

Yet while politics under both czars and commissars has often been a blood sport in Russia, what has Putin done to his domestic enemies to rival what our Arab ally Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi has done to the Muslim Brotherhood he overthrew in a military coup in Egypt?

What has Putin done to rival what our NATO ally President Erdogan has done in Turkey, jailing 40,000 people since last July’s coup — or our Philippine ally Rodrigo Duterte, who has presided over the extrajudicial killing of thousands of drug dealers?

Does anyone think President Xi Jinping would have handled mass demonstrations against his regime in Tiananmen Square more gingerly than did President Putin this last week in Moscow?

Much of the hostility toward Putin stems from the fact that he not only defies the West, when standing up for Russia’s interests, he often succeeds in his defiance and goes unpunished and unrepentant.

He not only remains popular in his own country, but has admirers in nations whose political establishments are implacably hostile to him.

In December, one poll found 37 percent of all Republicans had a favorable view of the Russian leader, but only 17 percent were positive on President Barack Obama.

There is another reason Putin is viewed favorably. Millions of ethnonationalists who wish to see their nations secede from the EU see him as an ally. While Putin has openly welcomed many of these movements, America’s elite do not take even a neutral stance.

Putin has read the new century better than his rivals. While the 20th century saw the world divided between a Communist East and a free and democratic West, new and different struggles define the 21st.

The new dividing lines are between social conservatism and self-indulgent secularism, between tribalism and transnationalism, between the nation-state and the New World Order.

On the new dividing lines, Putin is on the side of the insurgents. Those who envision de Gaulle’s Europe of Nations replacing the vision of One Europe, toward which the EU is heading, see Putin as an ally.

So the old question arises: Who owns the future?

In the new struggles of the new century, it is not impossible that Russia — as was America in the Cold War — may be on the winning side. Secessionist parties across Europe already look to Moscow rather than across the Atlantic.

“Putin has become a symbol of national sovereignty in its battle with globalism,” writes Caldwell. “That turns out to be the big battle of our times. As our last election shows, that’s true even here.”

Putin Says Ready To Meet Trump In Melania's Native Country

Russian President Vladimir Putin thanked Slovenia on Friday for offering to host his first meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump, saying he is ready to meet his American counterpart, Donald Trump, however added that the prospect of such a meeting hinges on Washington. "It depends not only on us, but we are naturally ready for it," he said. The Russian leader hailed Slovenia, where Trump"s wife Melania was born and grew up, as an "excellent" venue for possible talks with Trump.

“Ljubljana – and Slovenia in general – is of course a great place to hold such dialogue,” Putin said on Friday.

Speaking after holding talks at the Kremlin with his Slovenian counterpart Borut Pahort, Putin said Russia welcomes Trump"s statements about his intentions to restore the strained Russia-U.S. ties.

"We always welcomed that and we hope that relations will be restored in full in all areas," Putin said. "It relates to trade and economic ties, security issues and various regions of the world, which are suffering from numerous conflicts. By pooling our efforts, we naturally would be able to significantly contribute to solving those issues, including the fight against international terrorism."

Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, shakes hands with Slovenian
President Borut Pahor

As AP notes, in 2001, Slovenia hosted Putin"s first meeting with former U.S. President George W. Bush that led to a short-lived thaw in relations between Moscow and Washington. A similarly short warm spell early during Barack Obama"s presidency gave way to new tensions. As part of Obama"s early effort to "reset" ties with Moscow, the two nations in 2010 signed a pivotal arms control pact that set new lower caps on the number of warheads each country can deploy. On Thursday Reuters leaked an unconfirmed summary of the recent Trump-Putin phone call according to which Trump stated that he was against the New START agreement as implemented between Russia and the US.

Also on Friday, Putin"s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov said the prospects of extending the New START Treaty that is set to expire in 2021 will "depend on the position of our American partners" and require negotiations. He wouldn"t say whether the Kremlin favors extending the pact that limited Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals to no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads each.

Speaking in a conference call with reporters, Peskov pointed to a "certain break in dialogue on strategic security issues" during the Obama administration, and said Moscow and Washington now need "an update of information and positions." While suggesting possible cooperation with Moscow to fight the Islamic State group in Syria, as a candidate Trump was critical of the New START and talked about a need to strengthen U.S. nuclear arsenals. In December, Trump declared on Twitter that the U.S. should "greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability" until the rest of the world "comes to its senses" regarding nuclear weapons. Putin also has said strengthening Russia"s nuclear capabilities should be among the nation"s priorities.

Separately, Peskov on Friday denied a report by the Washington Post claiming that Trump"s National Security Advisor Michael Flynn had discussed a possible review of anti-Russian sanctions with the Russian ambassador to Washington in December. Peskov said Ambassador Sergei Kislyak did talk to Flynn, but the rest of the report was wrong.

The platform of Trump"s Republican Party had promised to "abandon arms control treaties that benefit our adversaries without improving our national security" and called for the development of "a multi-layered missile defense system."

Kislyak told Russian media in Washington that he sees little chance for a compromise on missile defense, as Moscow believes the U.S. wants to develop the shield against Russia despite assurances that it"s directed against other threats. "I don"t exclude that at a certain stage we may have a mutual interest to talk about those issues, but as of now I"m not seeing any basis for reaching agreement," he said, according to the Interfax news agency.

He voiced hope, however, that joint efforts to fight the IS could help break the ice in Russia-U.S. ties. "If we have serious cooperation, it could help to start rebuilding trust," Kislyak said in televised remarks. Kislyak added that Russian and U.S. diplomats will start soon to try to prepare a Putin-Trump meeting.

The ambassador also has sought to downplay differences on Iran, saying that "we disagree more on accents related to the nuclear agreement rather than substance."

In His First Foreign Trip As President, Trump Plans To Meet With Putin In Reykjavik

Donald Trump and his advisers have told British officials their administration’s first foreign trip will be a meeting with Russia’s Vladimir Putin in the capital of Iceland, the Sunday Times reported, citing an unidentified source, a move that is certain to unleash even more domestic and foreign criticism of Trump"s alleged proximity to the Russian leader.

According to The Sunday Times, Trump hopes to conduct the Putin "summit" within weeks of his January 20 inauguration in the Reykjavik, "emulating Ronald Reagan’s Cold War deal-making in Reykjavik with Mikhail Gorbachev."  

The meeting with Vladimir Putin, which would be Donald Trump’s first foreign trip, is where Trump will start working on an agreement limiting nuclear arms within a "reset" in US-Russian relations. The Times adds that according to sources close to the Russian Embassy in London, Moscow would agree to a summit between the two heads of state.

A summit between Putin and Trump could reset western relations with the Kremlin.

The meeting would come just over 30 years since the historic summit on October 11-12, 1986, between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, the second in a series of meetings that relaunched the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, and ultimately led to a material de-escalation in the raging, at the time, nuclear arms race between the USA and USSR.

And, just like Ronald Reagan then, Trump wants to discuss nuclear disarmament with Putin, the Times reported, adding that sources said Trump wants to meet Putin outside of Russia and that Reykjavik was a strong contender.

The latest report comes just a day after Trump told the WSJ he is open to lifting the sanctions against Russia “under certain conditions.” In an hour-long interview on Friday, Trump said he wants to keep the sanctions that the Obama administration recently imposed on Russia “at least for a period of time.” However, the President-elect added that he would consider lifting the restrictions, depending on how helpful the Russians are in the fight against terrorism, as well as assisting with other goals that he feels are key to the US.

The meeting has not officially been announced by Trump team officials or Russian officials, and reports say Iceland has not been formally contacted about such an event. But more importantly, the talking points for all of Sunday"s news shows and media talking points are currently being updated to reflect this latest olive branch by the Trump administration toward the Kremlin, which will be promptly spun as further "proof" of Putin"s diabolical control over his brand news Oval Office puppet.

Flight Of Russian Diplomats Expelled From US Is Now On Its Way To Moscow

To Russia with hate.

While Putin took the "high road" and refused to retaliate tit-for-tat to last week"s decision by the Obama administration to impose sanctions on the Kremlin, for dozens of Russian diplomats stationed in the US the first day of the new year meant taking what is likely a last, one way flight out of the US in direction Moscow, simply because it was Russia"s duty to be the scapegoat for Hillary Clinton"s loss in the presidential elections after Vladimir Putin himself, according to the narrative, "hacked the US elections."

"The plane took off, everyone has left," RIA quoted the embassy"s press service as saying.

Flight of Russian diplomats expelled from US now on its way to Moscow. https://t.co/XquoQRvRip #RSD88 pic.twitter.com/4C5GrE3BC6

— Flightradar24 (@flightradar24) January 1, 2017

The path of the official Il 96-300 flight can be tracked in real-time courtesy of FlightRadar.

Washington Post Published Fake News Story About a Vermont Utility Getting Hacked by Russians

The propaganda coming out of the Washington Post isn"t even creative or convincing. It"s the type of nonsense that one instantly dismisses as the work of a lazy employee of the state. Look at this sensationalist headline posted by Washpo last night.

 
Ooh, sounds menacing right? By the looks of it, the Russians were quickly working their vodka driven ways towards shutting down all of our lights, Christmas tree included. The only problem with this narrative is that it"s a complete fabrication.
 
Here is the statement from Burlington Electric.

 
In other words, a single laptop, not connected to the grid whatsoever, had malware on it -- likely from purveying porn sites, and Washpo published an alarmist story suggesting the entire grid was at risk of becoming the bitch to malicious Russian hackers. What the fuck?

After being revealed to be fake news, the cucks at Washpo changed the title of their article. This is what it reads now.

And here"s what the democratic governor of Vermont had to say about the event.
 

"Vermonters and all Americans should be both alarmed and outraged that one of the world"s leading thugs, Vladimir Putin, has been attempting to hack our electric grid, which we rely upon to support our quality-of-life, economy, health, and safety."

So instead of keeping his mouth shut after it was revealed that the Russians had not hacked the grid, Shumlin doubled down on a fake Washington Post story and blamed Putin himself for trying to fuck up America"s "quality of life, economy, health, and safety."
 
Bear in mind, all of this assumes that the actions of this so called Russian hacking group using "GRIZZLY STEPPE" malware is actually real, actually Russian, and not actually a figment of the CIA"s imagination. This was the proof offered to the American people regarding this insidious group, led by Putin, trying to install Trump into the Presidency and then shutting off our lights.
 

 
Long time reader of the site and real life cyber security expert, Gap, summed it up best.
 

As to the actual code being used in these sophisticated attacks, they appear to be "made in the Ukraine", is outdated and thoroughly shit.
 
Source: Zerohedge
 

According to some cybersecurity specialists, the code came from an outdated Ukrainian hacking tool. As RT notes, IT specialists that have analyzed the code and other evidence published by the US government are questioning whether it really proves a Russian connection, let alone a connection to the Russian government.
 
Wordfence, a cybersecurity firm that specializes in protecting websites running WordPress, a PHP-based platform, published a report on the issue on Friday.
 
Wordfence said they had traced the malware code to a tool available online, which is apparently funded by donations, called P.A.S. that claims to be “made in Ukraine.” The version tested by the FBI/DHS report is 3.1.7, while the most current version available on the tool’s website is 4.1.1b.
 
"One might reasonably expect Russian intelligence operatives to develop their own tools or at least use current malicious tools from outside sources,” the report says.
 
The second part of the analysis deals with the list of IP addresses provided by the US agencies. The report says they “don’t appear to provide any association with Russia” and “are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors.”

Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

Putin Stunner: "We Will Not Expel Anyone; We Refuse To Sink To 'Kitchen' Diplomacy"

Vladimir the merciful?

Following this morning"s reports that Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov would recommend to Russian President Vladimir Putin a retaliation in kind, and expel 35 American diplomats, saying that “we cannot leave such acts unanswered. Reciprocity is part of diplomatic law"  with Putin spokesman Peskov adding that "there is no doubt that Russia"s adequate and mirror response will make Washington officials feel very uncomfortable as well", it was ultimately up to Putin to decide how to respond to the US.

Which he did on Friday morning, when in a stunning reversal, the Russian leader took the high road, rejected the Lavrov proposal, and in a statement posted by the Kremlin said that Russia won’t expel any Americans in retaliation to US moves, in a brutal demonstration of just how irrelevant Obama"s 11th hour decision is for US-Russian relations.

The reversal comes as Russian officials portrayed U.S. sanctions as a last act of a lame-duck president and suggested that Trump could reverse them when he takes over the White House in January.

President Obama expels 35 ???????? diplomats in Cold War deja vu. As everybody, incl ???????? people, will be glad to see the last of this hapless Adm. pic.twitter.com/mleqA16H8D

— Russian Embassy, UK (@RussianEmbassy) December 29, 2016

Earlier Russian Prime Minster Dmitry Medvedev said the Obama administration was ending its term in "anti-Russia death throes."

"It is regrettable that the Obama administration, which started out by restoring our ties, is ending its term in an anti-Russia death throes. RIP," Medvedev, who served as president in 2009 when Obama tried to improve Russia-U.S. relations, wrote on his official Facebook page.

In the just released statement, Putin laughed off Obama"s 11th hour temper tantrum, and said that Russia won’t cause problems to U.S. diplomats or deport anyone, adding that Russia has the right to respond in tit-for-tat manner, but it will not engage in irresponsible diplomacy.

The punchline, however, was saved for what may be Russia"s final slam of the debacle that is Obama"s administration saying that "It’s a pity that the current U.S. administration is finishing their work in such a manner" saying that Russia refuses "to sink to the level of this irresponsible "kitchen" diplomacy."

Putin ended the statement by congratulating U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, and the American people on the New Year and invited the hildren of US diplomats to a holiday celebration at the Kremlin.

From the full statement posted on the Kremlin website:

Although we have the right to retaliate, we will not resort to irresponsible ‘kitchen’ diplomacy but will plan our further steps to restore Russian-US relations based on the policies of the Trump Administration.

And with that one statement, Obama lost the diplomatic war with Russia.   

In other news, the Kremlin said it will send a government plane to the US to evacuate the expelled diplomats and their family members. Earlier, there were reports that the diplomats were having problems buying tickets on such short notice, with airlines already booked by New Year’s travelers.

* * *

Full Putin statement below:

We regard the recent unfriendly steps taken by the outgoing US administration as provocative and aimed at further weakening the Russia-US relationship. This runs contrary to the fundamental interests of both the Russian and American people. Considering the global security responsibilities of Russia and the United States, this is also damaging to international relations as a whole.

As it proceeds from international practice, Russia has reasons to respond in kind. Although we have the right to retaliate, we will not resort to irresponsible ‘kitchen’ diplomacy but will plan our further steps to restore Russian-US relations based on the policies of the Trump Administration.

The diplomats who are returning to Russia will spend the New Year’s holidays with their families and friends. We will not create any problems for US diplomats. We will not expel anyone. We will not prevent their families and children from using their traditional leisure sites during the New Year’s holidays. Moreover, I invite all children of US diplomats accredited in Russia to the New Year and Christmas children’s parties in the Kremlin.

It is regrettable that the Obama Administration is ending its term in this manner. Nevertheless, I offer my New Year greetings to President Obama and his family.

My season’s greetings also to President-elect Donald Trump and the American people.

I wish all of you happiness and prosperity.