... especially its media-(pseudo)intellectual complex is a collection of lowlifes who have no normal human qualities. Sociopathy is essentially a lack of consciousness. The only "military" capability the UK has is that of terrorism and so the most UK media are supporters of terrorism and should be viewed as such. Hence...
I am stillpuzzled why BBC, as an example, this pedophile central, is present in Russia, as are other representatives of British propaganda, such as degenerate Rosenberg. And Medvedev has a point:
“It’s impossible to ignore the editorial published in The Times,
where the bastards called the terrorist attack on Igor Kirillov and his
assistant a ‘legitimate act of defense’,” Medvedev, who currently serves as deputy head of the Russian Security Council, said in a Telegram post. He stated that according to the logic employed by The Times, its entire management could now be considered “legitimate military targets” for Russia, along with all Western decision-makers. “All
NATO decision-makers from countries that provided military assistance
to Bandera Ukraine are participating in a hybrid or conventional war
against Russia… All these individuals can and should be considered
legitimate military targets for the Russian state,” Medvedev said, adding that the people “who committed crimes against Russia” always have accomplices, including in the media.
Correct, London is a filthy degenerate place, the ball of freaks and, unlike the US, with which Russia has to have some kind of relations, I see no reason for Russia maintaining any diplomatic relations with this Euro chihuahua which still thinks herself a great geopolitical player. The only thing the average UK politician and media creeps understand is fear, and fear they should have.
To understand what these imbeciles think about themselves, get the load of this:
Translation:The use of the Oreshnik medium-range ballistic missile in Ukraine forced London to take a more balanced position regarding long-range strikes deep into Russia, said Russian Ambassador to Britain Andrei Kelin.Although the British were not scared, they realized that a new factor had emerged – Russia’s response to the use of Storm Shadow missiles, Kelin said in an interview with the Russia 24 TV channel, TASS reports.As a result, London has become more cautious about this topic and is closely monitoring developments, he added.Kelin noted that Britain’s official reaction to the launch of the Oreshnik was unclear, but expert circles were studying the capabilities and abilities of this missile.The ambassador emphasized that every point in Europe is accessible from Belarus, where the Oreshnik is planned to be deployed.
No, moron, that IS the definition of being scared. In fact shitting own pants. Because the first candidate for direct demonstration to NATO of what will happen to it in case of continuous terrorism is highly likely Royal Navy and whatever the shit it tries to put to sea. As is the air base Akrotiry. And yes, every point in Europe is accessible from ANYWHERE in European part of Russia.
Translation:The United States are standing at the threshold of a serious geopolitical fiasco in Ukraine, thinks the former US Navy's officer Byron King.
It also goes extremely well with one of the best openings on geopolitics in a while, James Kunstler did it again:
What Baker doesn't understand is that Biden is just the cherry on the top. I don't remember ANY US administration starting with Clinton which wouldn't fuck it up one way or another due to hubris, ignorance and incompetence. The problem is systemic and not just with Biden Admin alone. Leaks are important globally ONLY in terms of sheer idiocy of the American "strategic planning" and a complete detachment from the economic, military and social realities of the world. In terms of Russia--it is my position for years now that most Western "Russia Studies" programs should simply be closed and most of those "scholars" who teach there be stripped off their "degrees" as academic frauds. But then again, one should start looking at what do they "teach" at those History Departments, because with "historians" like late Richard Pipes or alive and well Anne Applebaum and her ilk one will not learn anything about Russia of the XX-XXI century. And that is that simple.
Yes, my friends,
you read it right. The Times in its editorial calling for Closing Ranks,
suggests to engage in de facto state terrorism against Russia's civilian
aircraft. Obviously, to a fine lads in The Times the whole notion that their great
compatriot, Sir Isaak Newton, formulated Third Law as:
Is absolutely
unknown. Obviously, disregarding issues of international law and legal process,
the idea that Russia can, in case of Times' hysterical scenario coming to life,
also seize some UK property escapes the bright minds of British journos, who by
now have to feel a real pinch with Skripal affair literally falling apart,
especially after
Scotland Yard making some startling revelations. So, in accordance to
Scotland Yard The Skripals were poisoned at home, then went to restaurant and
then managed to walk to a now proverbial bench where they allegedly succumbed
to this evil Russian poison, which is alleged to be stronger than UK's own VX
neuro-paralytic agent. Yes, small detail, as I already
described it here--VX can kill you in a minute. Something doesn't add up,
don't you think? Especially so, after UK's pathetic, eight grade book report
level attempt on presenting Skripal's case in comic.
The main pearl of
this "adviser" for the Obama national security cabal which went out
of its way in allowing Al Qaeda and ISIS to wreck a havoc in Syria and
destroying Russian-American relations, is this:
Still,
military force is always on the table. Of course, a nuclear Russia changes the stakes in every perspective,
but with regime change trending around the Cabinet, brute force could inch its
way up on the agenda. Russia might be undermining international security, but
there is some good news. Every Situation Room meeting ends with a statement of
conclusions, or SOC in wonk-speak. An SOC from this discussion on retaliation
would invariably note that the United States, along with its partners, took an
unprecedented step to hold Russia accountable for its actions after a careful
process and stakeholder outreach strategy (a lot of intelligence, diplomatic,
policy and news media coordination would have transpired among all of the
countries involved). So, in this respect, the Russia policy process does seem
to be functioning under the Trump administration. Now, it just remains to be
seen whether this step will actually deter Russia from its global bullying
campaign and, if not, what will.
I understand that
they teach all kind of "exceptionalist" crap in US "national
security studies" programs, such
as this, what they don't teach there, and overwhelming empirical evidence
supports me in this (I even wrote a book on that), is sound methodology in
military-political analysis and they certainly don't teach real history there.
I had experience of communicating with several American Ph.Ds in history from
different schools (including Ivy League)--I was stunned with them lacking even
basic understanding of the nature and application of military power. This is
not to mention them not knowing a whole collection of crucial historical
facts.
Apart from
Vinograd being a total amateur in military issues, she, evidently, doesn't
understand and is not aware of the actual military force balance in US-Russia
stand-off and I am talking ONLY about conventional forces. It doesn't favor US
on ANY potential theater of operations, unless the US wants to commit suicide
in getting into the conventional fight with Russia, with US being initially
highly biased towards nuclear option since it will encounter human, materiel
and reputational losses on such a scale that it will be forced to seriously
consider the use of nuclear weapons. But never mind, I am sure this New Jersey
girl knows all about it, including how the US will (not may be, but will) throw
Ukraine under the Russian bus in a desperate attempt to attain any kind of a
result against
the background of immensely accelerating decline. This war is coming. Well,
this war plus wars against Iran and North Korea are certainly on the table--the
Empire is desperate.
But, but in the
midst of this unprecedented hysteria one still cannot escape this bizarre
feeling of a complete unreality of all that and it has nothing to do with some
seemingly dangerous developments, no. This bizarre feeling is in the depth,
grossly underestimated, of the weakness and powerlessness of the combined West
lead by the US. It is, actually, surreal. But then again, none of them read War
and Peace to have a glimpse into the nature of their own downfall--it is not
taught in National Security Studies:
"But all
the general and soldiers of [Napoleon’s] army…experienced a similar feeling of
terror before an enemy who, after losing half his men, stood as threateningly
at the end as at the beginning of the battle. The moral force of the attacking
French army was exhausted. Not that sort of victory which is defined by the
capture of pieces of material fastened to sticks, called standards, and of the
ground on which the troops had stood and were standing, but a moral
victory that convinces the enemy of the moral superiority of his opponent and
of his own impotence was gained by the Russians at Borodino…The direct
consequence of the battle of Borodino was Napoleon’s senseless flight from
Moscow… and the downfall of Napoleonic France, on which at Borodino for
the first time the hand of an opponent of stronger spirit had been laid"(c)
