Russia, Myanmar launch working body for nuclear tech cooperation, Myanmar Times, By Aung Shin | Friday, 28 October
Russia and Myanmar this week established a working body for nuclear technology cooperation, according to officials.
Little is known about the bilateral taskforce, including who is involved or even how many members are included. The two countries signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to cooperate in nuclear technology for peaceful purposes in June last year.
According to a Ministry of Education official, the working body is another step in developing nuclear technology with the help of Russia.
Russian government officials are now in Nay Pyi Taw to discuss further steps for the MoU, said U Khin Maung Latt, director general of the Department of Technology Promotion and Coordination (DTPC) under the Ministry of Education.
“We have a roadmap of further steps for the MoU … We have discussed and agreed for further cooperation,” he said……..
Since 2007 Russia and Myanmar have had an inter-governmental agreement regarding nuclear technology and building a nuclear research centre, according to Rosatom.
Russia has trained more than 700 Myanmar students in nuclear and nuclear-related technologies in the past 10 years.
The Russian state firm is seeking potential investment opportunities in the Southeast Asian region, and is offering comprehensive nuclear technology and experience, said Rosatom officials. The company is building two nuclear power units in Vietnam, and has also won a tender for the preliminary design of a 10-megawatt reactor in Indonesia (see map).
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said on Oct. 8 that the situation between the U.S. and Russia today is more dangerous than it was during the Cold War. As he put it, “It’s a fallacy to think that this is like the Cold War. The current times are different and more dangerous.” Since most of us think of the Cold War as by far the most dangerous time we have known, Steinmeier’s view is startling. It is important to understand what he is saying, not simply because he is the foreign minister of an important country, but because he is a smart man.
On paper, the United States remains committed to the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, while the Russians are protecting it. There is now combat in Aleppo, the largest city in Syria. Russian and Assad regime forces seem to be trying to take control of the city. The United States sees Aleppo as a bastion of anti-Assad forces and doesn’t want to see it fall. The U.S. has the option to try to block the Russian and Assad advance. Russia has to decide whether to stand and fight or withdraw. Neither side is confident it knows the other’s intentions, but both believe that Aleppo is a critical if not decisive battle. The chances of intentional conflict are real, as is the possibility of an unintended clash escalating.
At the same time, Syria is not essential to the national security of Russia or the United States. It is not without importance, but a defeat or capitulation there will not change the balance of power between them at all. It would of course affect psychological and political perception, but in the long run, perception ultimately comes down to substantial military and economic power. The United States can afford to back off. The Russians will find it more difficult, but can contrive reasons for slowing or halting the attacks.
In Ukraine, the issue is fundamental to Russia and secondary to the United States. Therefore, it is far more dangerous than Syria. For Russia, a Ukraine dominated by a third power, with forces deployed in Ukraine, represents a fundamental threat to its national security. For the United States, it is a secondary issue that can rise to a primary one.
As I have written, the foundation of U.S. foreign policy since World War I was preventing any single power from dominating Europe and Russia, as their combined strength in technology and resources would threaten American interests. Therefore, Russia returning to its prior position, with the potential to dominate the European Peninsula, would rise to a primary issue. If Russia invaded Ukraine and used it as a base to threaten its former satellite states, this would begin escalating to a primary level. But that is several steps from happening, and if it did, it would still not constitute a direct threat to the entire European Peninsula.
The Cold War focused on the center of Germany, and the possibility of a Soviet seizure of Western Europe did not appear far-fetched. Since the U.S. was defending Western Europe at a distance, its conventional forces facing the Soviets appeared to be inferior. Therefore, part of U.S. strategy, at least officially, was the use of nuclear weapons, both strategically and on the battlefield, to stop a Soviet offensive. That meant that should the Soviets have chosen to undertake an offensive, or if they detected a U.S. offensive, they had to go nuclear at the earliest possible moment.
This is what kept the Cold War from turning into a shooting war. The Soviets and the Americans, along with their allies or subordinates in Europe, saw themselves in an existential crisis. The deterrence against conventional war in Europe, as opposed to proxy wars elsewhere such as Vietnam or Afghanistan, was nuclear war. Wars that did not involve primary and overwhelming interests did not involve the risk of nuclear war. There was no military target worth a nuclear strike in either country, nor would either country risk immolation over Vietnam or Afghanistan. Therefore, these wars could take place.
I think this is Steinmeier’s point. The confluence of extremely critical fears and interests paradoxically reduced the chance of conflict, because it increased the chance of nuclear war. Today, none of the friction points between the United States and Russia are of primary interest to both countries. Syria is at best secondary to both, and Ukraine really matters only to Russia. This cannot result in nuclear war, and therefore, each side will take greater risks than they would have in Central Europe during the Cold War.
Therefore, the situation is more dangerous now precisely because the stakes are lower. In lowering the stakes, the risks decline and the possibility of serious conflict between U.S. and Russian forces rises. That direct clash did not occur during the Cold War, at least not on any significant scale. That means that the risk of nuclear war is diminished, but the risk of direct conflict is higher. This would not be proxy wars, but direct war. Undisciplined crises are the most dangerous.
Steinmeier’s observation seems valid. The mystery, of course, is what he is planning to do about that. Having made the declaration, it would seem reasonable that Germany would try to defuse the U.S.-Russian confrontation. Is Germany announcing that it is shifting its role in global politics to a more active role, albeit mediation? These crises raise the question of what Germany will do. That is a question with an ominous past. But if the German foreign minister is speaking for Germany, then this is exactly where his logic would lead him.
Cold war 2.0: how Russia and the west reheated a historic struggle
As chasm grows between a resurgent Russia and a divided US and Europe, diplomats say conflict is now more dangerous, with ‘no clear rules of the road’, Guardian, Patrick Wintour and Julian Borger Washington 25 October 20160
Gen Sir Richard Shirreff remembers the moment he realised Nato was facing a new and more dangerous Russia. It was 19 March 2014, the day after Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.
Shirreff, then deputy supreme allied commander Europe, was at Nato’s military HQ in Mons, Belgium, when an American two-star general came in with the transcript of Putin’s speech justifying the annexation. “He briefed us and said: ‘I think this just might be a paradigm-shifting speech’, and I think he might have been right,” Shirreff recalled.
The Russian president’s address aired a long list of grievances, with the west’s attempts to contain Russia in the 18th to 20th centuries right at the top.
The French foreign minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, said: “The reality is that behind the appearance of consensus … a form of world disorder took hold. We are now paying the price for that error of assessment that gave westerners a feeling of comfort for two decades”.
In the UK, the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, said in his party conference speech that the west had been mistaken in its belief that “the fall of the Berlin Wall meant the world had come to a moment of ideological resolution after seven frozen and sometimes terrifying decades of communist totalitarian rule”.
Others such as Sir John Sawers, the former head of MI6, warned: “We are moving into an era that is as dangerous, if not more dangerous, as the cold war because we do not have that focus on a strategic relationship between Moscow and Washington.” But unlike the cold war, there are now “no clear rules of the road” between the two countries.
The German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, an advocate of dialogue, made the same point: “It’s a fallacy to think that this is like the cold war. The current times are different and more dangerous.”………
Many acknowledge the west must take its share of the blame for the collapse of relations. The mistakes are real, notably the scale of Nato expansion to the east and in the Baltics. Russia also feels deeply that it was duped into accepting a UN resolution criticising Muammar Gaddafi in Libya in 2011, only to find it was used as cover for regime change. Hillary Clinton, then at the State Department, did little to mange the Russians. Russia has not voted for humanitarian action at the UN since……….
The issue in Europe and the US now is how to respond to Putin? Some believe Russian statehood requires a more aggressive foreign policy. The Kremlin, faced by an ailing economy and declining population, needs external threats of war and violence in the media because Putin “has no civilian project to offer to society”, said Dr Andrew Monaghan at Chatham House. Putin instead offers a mobilisation strategy. The answer is to confront and push back, acknowledging that Putin sees offers of dialogue as a sign of weakness.
Others insist the west must continue to engage and keep pressing the reset button because coexistence is the only option.
In the US and Europe, the question about what to do with Russia is far from settled, something Putin is likely to continue to exploit……
The German chancellor, who has probably devoted more hours to the Putin relationship than any other western politician, is exasperated. She is a dealmaker, but in 2014 – following a conversation with Putin on Ukraine’s annexation – she told Obama that the Russian president was “living in a different world”. But a second round of sanctions in an election year is not attractive.
In Britain, the pre-eminent home for anti-Russian rhetoric since Cameron’s failed attempt at detente in 2011, Johnson has warned Russia that if it continues on its path it could be deemed a rogue nation.
But there are British voices urging calm. Tony Brenton, Britain’s ambassador to Moscow from 2004 to 2008, calls for realism. He argues that the post-war international system – or “liberal hegemony” as he puts it – no longer works. “We have failed with Russia and we are failing with China,” he said.
Brenton’s answer is to accept the limits of 21st-century western influence. “We are going to have to moderate our own ambitions. We can defend ourselves. We can protect our interests. But telling other bad countries how they should behave is less and less possible,” he said.
What’s next? How the west could respond to Russian threatsThe EU, in search of a policy response, is reaching again for sanctions. They have been estimated to have cost the Russian economy $280bn in capital inflows and to be taking roughly 0.5% a year off the GDP. In a society devoid of internal political and institutional constraints on the behaviour of the elite, extended sanctions could weaken Putin’s grip on power………
ultimately the key decisions will be taken in the new White House. Anthony Cordesman, a strategic analyst at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said the new administration must confront three realities. “First, Russia is a now broad strategic rival and is likely to remain so at least as long as Putin is in power. Second, the US can’t rebalance to Asia away from Europe or the Middle East. And third, short of being chased off the stage, the United States will have to play out a weak hand in Syria to limit and contain Russian influence.”
“There are no easy answers to the Russians,” said a Washington-based European diplomat. “They are deploying such aggressive rhetoric and policy. During the cold war there was an accepted vocabulary between the sides. There was a game, there was an accepted game,” the diplomat said. “Now the danger is there is no order. There is no accepted language. We are not talking the same language”. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/24/cold-war-20-how-russia-and-the-west-reheated-a-historic-struggle
Why a military conflict between Russia and the US is unlikely, Russia Direct, Oct 21, 2016, Dmitry Polikanov The risk of a military conflict between Moscow and Washington has been overstated. However, both sides should think about prevention mechanisms to minimize the risk of accidents that could lead to an open conflict. The expert community has been crying wolf for a long time now: “War is at the doorstep!” The gloomy predictions indicate that Russia and the United States are at the brink of direct military clashes, as if they were trying to celebrate the 54th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis in some perverse way. However, any conflict, if it happens, will most probably be accidental – the parties are not yet ready for full-scale military confrontation.
In the last few years, Russia has been modernizing its armed forces to replace the outdated Soviet-era materiel and structure. Numerous exercises, trillions of rubles spent, new equipment and combat vehicles emerging out of the blue, and a charismatic defense minister who changed the entire image of the Russian Army and brought back its popularity with society – all these steps provided for the fast (and real) growth of national military might.
However, it remains rather limited in comparison with the overall total potential of theNATO states. Some would say that the alliance is reluctant to take any serious decisions and is nothing more than a paper tiger. Nonetheless, the brainwashing of the last two years has significantly improved the decision-making capacity of NATO and the chances for achieving consensus over the “Russian threat.”
The ability to mobilize quickly strong conventional forces is still low, as NATO generals admit themselves. However, active recent revival of the nuclear sharing arrangements and the consolidation of U.S. troops in various countries of Central and Eastern Europe present enough deterrence against any light-minded action. It is clear that the war will not happen in Europe (and not even in Ukraine with its unpredictable leadership). However, wherever it occurs, NATO forces can eventually be mobilized to help their allies.
Moreover, Moscow has largely been pursuing a defensive policy over the past 16 years. Even now, when “the Russians are (seemingly) coming,” an independent observer would probably notice that the lion’s share of the activities of Moscow are reactive rather than proactive. …….
Two factors raise the probability of an armed clash between Russia and the U.S. One of them is rhetoric. There have been more words than action so far and there is a clear trend– nobody is responsible for their words any longer. Any of the statements of the last few months would mean immediate war in the 19th or even in the 20th century. Nowadays, politicians throw thousands of words against each other and the struggle is with the minds and hearts and not with bodies. However, such belligerent rhetoric creates the climate of antagonism and public anticipation of a conflict. As a result, such atmosphere may facilitate prompt steps “in response” to another accident.
The second factor is, paradoxically, the low importance of the regional conflicts. Syria is so far away from Moscow and Washington that the parties do not really care about its future, its population and even its militants. Both Russia and the United States can afford there much more than they could in Ukraine, for instance (where actually none of them cared about the fate of Ukraine, but the proximity of Europe made it more difficult to fight). And such lack of significance may lead to a dangerous neglect of dramatic consequences of any armed clash and make the decision-making process easier to go to war.
Nowadays, Russia and the United States demonstrate wisdom and restraint. Given the current leadership in both countries, the expectations of war will hopefully stay just that– expectations. However, the situation may change next year and it would be better for the parties to think about some minimal confidence-building measures and provide for the prevention of accidents, any of which may become fatal, just like an accidental missile launch during the Cold War era. http://www.russia-direct.org/opinion/why-military-conflict-between-russia-and-us-unlikely
Amid Rising Tensions, Old Allegations Spark New Panic
by Jason Ditz, October 19, 2016 In 2008, Russia carried out a test of a cruise missile which US officials argued might conceivably violate the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). This was first brought up by US officials in 2014, during the anti-Russia hysteria surrounding the East Ukraine civil war.
Two and a half years later, tensions with Russia are on the rise again, so officials appear to have decided that the exact same 2008 test is suddenly a huge thing again, with a number of Congressional hawks issuing a letter claiming the Russian test was an “egregious” violation, and demanding that the Obama Administration “impose penalties” on Russia over it.
Russia had threatened to withdraw from the INF over NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe, saying it changed the balance of power in the region. They were also riled by the Bush Administration’s threats to install missile defense along the Russian frontier.
The missiles in question are a multi-stage system Russia designed which are aimed to technically comply with the letter of the treaty, while expanding intermediate range capabilities in ways that the treaty was meant to forbid. The US has made similar developments over the years since 1987.
With US officials riled at Russia over Aleppo, and presenting the fighting in the city as a “holocaust,” they have also brought up several other grievances they have with Russia, accusing them of everything from treaty violations to supporting Donald Trump.
It’s interesting to note, however, that most of the grievances aren’t particularly new, and didn’t have a lot of meat to them the last time they brought them up. The effort seems to be to just keep Russia’s name out there, and always in a negative light.
U.S. Calls For Meeting With Russia Over Missile Treaty Dispute , Radio Free Europe, 20 Oct 16 WASHINGTON — The United States has called for a special meeting with Russia over alleged violations of a landmark Cold War-era arms-control treaty, a policy reversal that echoes deepening U.S. fears about Moscow’s intentions.
The planned meeting of the Special Verification Commission, scheduled in the near future, focuses new attention on concerns about the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty (INF).
The treaty, which bans testing, producing, and possessing ground-launched cruise missiles with ranges between 500 to 5,500 kilometers, eliminated an entire class of missiles from Europe, and set up an extensive system of verification and compliance. The agreement was considered crucial in the thaw between the Soviet Union and the United States.
Two years ago, the United States first asserted that Russia was in violation of the treaty, by developing a missile system that fell within the INF prohibitions. Moscow denied the allegations, and later charged that U.S.-led efforts to install elements of a missile-defense system in Europe were in fact prohibited by the INF.
Clues to the end of the world shared during final 2016 presidential debate, Mondoweiss, Wilson Dizard on October 20, 2016 “……Four minutes is what it takes between the president’s decision to fire nuclear missiles, Clinton claimed during the debate, and their launch………..Here is the most illuminating exchange on nuclear weapons, according to a transcript published by the Washington Post. Clinton gave a clinical description of how fast nuclear weapons can be fired away at a president’s command. That information was perhaps a subtle way of warning Russian president Vladimir Putin that we remain the fastest guns in the West.
CLINTON: “I — I find it ironic that he’s raising nuclear weapons. This is a person who has been very cavalier, even casual about the use of nuclear weapons. He’s advocated more countries getting them, Japan, Korea, even Saudi Arabia. He said, well, if we have them, why don’t we use them, which I think is terrifying.
But here’s the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so. And that’s why 10 people who have had that awesome responsibility have come out and, in an unprecedented way, said they would not trust Donald Trump with the nuclear codes or to have his finger on the nuclear button……..
What Trump doesn’t seem to understand that defending Saudi Arabia, Germany, Japan and South Korea means defending major trading partners and, in the case of Saudi Arabia, a sand seared ocean of oil. But if the American nuclear umbrella suddenly closed, all of those countries could have nuclear weapons ready within weeks or months. The details are unimportant. What’s nauseatingly disturbing is that we are discussing the possibility of nuclear war at all. After all, this is 2016, right? If the arc of history bends towards justice, a nuclear holocaust is the thing that would blow that arc to smithereens. The real end of history
Clinton, for her part, recommitted herself to a no-fly zone in Syria, a provocation to Russian air forces the U.S. blames for bombing civilians and Western-friendly rebels. She also said that the occupation of Iraq would “not be in our interest,” while not mentioning that the Iraqis also have their objections to American military occupation. Classic Clinton.
The system has five states of alert, increasing in severity from DEFCON 5 – the least severe – to DEFCON 1 – the highest level. Currently, the levels is understood to be at 5.
But conspiracy theorists have warned the threat has secretly been upgraded two levels to DEFCON 3 – meaning the US could mobilise troops in as little as 15 minutes. The level was last upgraded to 3 in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 – with standby ordered for a potential rise to DEFCON 2.
Now website DEFCON warning system claim it has been upgraded again in a terrifying revelation.
While there are currently no imminent threats to the US, it claimed the situation is “fluid and can change rapidly.” However it also highlighted the dying relationship between the US and Russia, citing concerns of all-out warfare between the bitter rivals. A statement posted on its website read: “Tensions between Russia and the United States have reached levels beyond the cold war in the recent week.
“The situation between Russia and the United States is extremely fluid at the moment. In all likelihood as dynamic as at times during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
“At this time, the DEFCON Warning System feels that an increase to DEFCON 3 would be a prudent move.” Russian citizens have been encouraged to find bomb shelters and gas masks today, as state-sponsored infomercials on television gave out guidelines on how people should prepare for a nuclear attack.
President Vladimir Putin meanwhile has ordered the evacuation of 40 million people in a military drill.He also transferred nuclear-capable Iskander ballistic missiles to one of its strategic Baltic regions last week, in what officials claim was part of regular military manoeuvres.
However many world leaders fear the moves are being carried out in preparation for war. The conspiracy theory site warned citizens to prepare for any potential conflict, saying: “This is a very sensitive situation which has the potential to spiral out of control.
“It is recommended that all citizens learn the steps to be taken in the event of nuclear war.”
Theorists have even claimed a move to DEFCON 2 is being muted, based on Putin’s call for Russians to return home.
Though the threat of war seems to be rising, the DEFCON level indication reported by the website is only speculation. The US military do not share the actual DEFCON status with the public for obvious security reasons.
Throughout her campaign, Clinton has repeatedly called for a no-fly or “safe zone” for Syrian civilians, without providing a detailed explanation as to what that would entail. But her advisors have suggested that it could involve the United States shooting down Syrian aircraft, forcing Russia to choose between defending Assad or working with Washington. In discussing the no-fly-zone idea, Clinton has not acknowledged the presence of an advanced Russian S-400 air defense system in Syria, which potentially could be used against U.S. aircraft enforcing a no-fly zone
Putin Throws Out the Old Nuclear Rules, Rattling Washington, FP,Washington and Moscow used to keep arms control separate from other crises around the world. But that era is over and the next president will have to decide how to deal with it. BY DAN DE LUCE, REID STANDISHOCTOBER 16, 2016
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling and military brinksmanship have upended the rules that long governed relations between Moscow and Washington, presenting the United States with a dangerous dilemma.
The next U.S president will inherit an increasingly fraught relationship with Russia in which Washington’s attempts to deter Putin have mostly failed. Moscow’s decision this month to pull out of a landmark agreement on disposing tons of weapons-grade plutonium, coupled with reports last week that Russia deployed new nuclear-capable missiles to Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea, underscore how Putin is flexing Russia’s power in new and often unpredictable ways.
U.S. and European officials are increasingly alarmed over Putin’s willingness to risk military confrontation and threaten to use his country’s nuclear arsenal over issues the West sees as unrelated and separate. That makes it devilishly difficult for the United States and its European allies to find an effective response to Putin’s audacious tactics that in recent years range from Russia’s annexation of Crimea, to its air war in support of the Syrian regime, to Moscow’s suspected hacking of America’s presidential election.
“It very much feels like we are entering a very troubled and dangerous phase in this bilateral relationship,“ said Julianne Smith, a former senior Pentagon official who oversaw NATO policy and a former senior advisor to Vice President Joe Biden. “The next president will face some big strategic choices,” said Smith, who now advises Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Europe and Russia.
President Barack Obama’s successor will have to choose from a range of unpleasant and risky options when it comes to handling a resurgent Russia, current and former officials said. A more conciliatory stance, aimed at cutting a grand bargain with Russia focused on Ukraine, would defuse tensions in the short term but at the cost of ultimately emboldening Putin. A more hawkish line — like the one championed by Clinton, who is leading nationwide polls — would risk escalation, with the chance of a military showdown in Syria or the Baltics……….
In the Kremlin’s decree this month declaring Russia would no longer cooperate with the United States on a 2009 agreement to dispose of weapons-grade plutonium, Moscow said it would consider reviving the agreement only if the United States scaled back its military presence near Russia’s border, lifted all sanctions against Russia, and paid Moscow compensation for the economic losses caused by the sanctions.
U.S. officials said they were disappointed by Moscow’s decision and dismayed at what they consider a worrisome pattern of behavior……..
The United States says Russia has flouted a 1987 arms control treaty, negotiated by then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, which called for the elimination of all ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. The treaty helped bring an end to the Cold War and served as a crucial foundation for arms control efforts.
After signing the New START arms control accord in 2010, Russia has rebuffed overtures from Obama during the past six years to negotiate further reductions in nuclear weapons. The treaty expires in 2021, and without a new deal, the gains in arms control over the last 25 years would be endangered. Putin’s government also has backed away from mutual efforts launched in the 1990s to secure nuclear material. In March, Russia declinedto attend the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington…….
Against the sharp deterioration in U.S.-Russian relations, finding a new way to moderate mounting tensions between the two countries will be left to the next U.S. administration. In Syria, Russia’s deployment of fighter aircraft squadrons and artillery in 2015 blindsided the Obama administration, and has succeeded in shifting the tide of the war in favor of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. The intervention has enabled Russia to set the agenda in Syria, reducing Washington’s influence and drastically limiting U.S. options for any military action.
When lawmakers last month asked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, about the possibility of the United States setting up a no-fly zone in Syria, he said it “would require us to go to war with Syria and Russia.”
Throughout her campaign, Clinton has repeatedly called for a no-fly or “safe zone” for Syrian civilians, without providing a detailed explanation as to what that would entail. But her advisors have suggested that it could involve the United States shooting down Syrian aircraft, forcing Russia to choose between defending Assad or working with Washington. In discussing the no-fly-zone idea, Clinton has not acknowledged the presence of an advanced Russian S-400 air defense system in Syria, which potentially could be used against U.S. aircraft enforcing a no-fly zone………….. http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/16/putin-throws-out-the-old-nuclear-rules-rattling-washington-clinton-trump-arms-control/
Putin preps Russians for nuclear war; civilians advised to check bomb shelters and prepare gas masks. INQUSITR, John Thomas Didymus, 15 Oct 16
President Vladimir Putin of Russia is sending a clear signal to the U.S. and its Western allies that he is ready for a military showdown with the West over the ongoing clash of geostrategic interests in Syria. Following the spiraling of tensions between Moscow and Washington to their highest since the Cold War, the Russian government has been issuing instructions to civilians through the state-controlled media about what to do in the event that war breaks out with the West and the “Motherland” comes under direct attack.
The Russian authorities have directed civilians to check and familiarize themselves with the nearest bomb shelters and to prepare their gas masks, according to ABC News. Officials have also issued detailed instructions on how to prepare for a nuclear attack and what to do in the event of an attack.
The latest disquieting set of instructions to civilians and related actions in recent weeks by the Russian authorities ostensibly in preparation for war have grabbed the attention of global analysts who are scrutinizing them to decipher the underlying motives of the Kremlin.
Most analysts believe that despite Moscow’s elaborate and dramatic posturing to the rest of the world that it is preparing for a major global conflict that could involve deployment and use of nuclear arms, Putin is not actually preparing to launch a war against the U.S. and its allies. He is only engaging in tactical responses to ongoing speculation that Washington is considering seriously a plan to launch airstrikes against Syrian government forces.
The chain of events that led directly to the present situation was initiated after the U.S. suspended bilateral consultations with the Russians over Syria, with U.S. officials alleging that the Russians had failed to fulfill a commitment to curtail ongoing aerial and ground assaults on the eastern districts of Aleppo held by rebel forces.
The U.S. authorities also formally accused the Russian government of waging cyber warfare against U.S. institutions, including the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign, the Inquisitr reported.
U.S. intelligence officials later told NBC News that the CIA was preparing to launch a series of retaliatory cyber-attacks against the Russian government. The CIA sources said the attacks were being designed specifically to disable the capacity of the Russians to use cyber warfare to disrupt presidential voting in November.
According to NBC News, the CIA sources said the agency “has already begun opening cyber doors, selecting targets and making other preparations for an operation.”
“We are sending a message to Putin and that it will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact,” Vice President Joe Biden reportedly said.
Tensions rose further following speculation that Washington was planning to launch aerial strikes against the forces of President Bashar Al-Assad in an attempt to stop ongoing assault against Aleppo and force the Syrian government to consider resuming negotiations.
Russia reacted to the speculation, warning sternly that the U.S. should consider “the possible consequences” of launching airstrikes against government forces in Syria. The Russian defense ministry threatened that it would shoot down U.S. and coalition jets attempting to launch attacks against forces of Syria’s President Bashar Al-Assad.
The Russians warned that they had deployed S-300 VM air defense systems in Syria that have the capability to shoot down U.S. fighter jets. They warned that any airstrikes against Syrian government forces would be construed as an attack against Russian forces on the ground.
Russian S-300VM Antey-2500 missile system [Image by Vitaly V. Kuzmin/CC BY-SA 4.0/Resized/Wikimedia]
“Today, the Syrian army has effective S-200, BUK and other air defense systems, which have undergone technical renovation in the past year,” Major General Igor Konashenkov said. “I [also] remind US strategists that air cover for the Russian military bases in Tartus and Hmeymim includes S-400 and S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems, the range of which may come as a surprise to any unidentified flying objects.”
The Russian government followed up the stern warnings by stepping up preparations for war and issuing instructions to civilians about how to prepare for a nuclear attack, including what to do in the event of direct attack against the “Fatherland.”
“If that [nuclear attack] should one day happen, each of you must know where the nearest bomb shelter is,” the government instructed civilians in a broadcast by the state-controlled NTV.
The broadcast also took Russians on a familiarization tour of nuclear bunkers in Moscow and advised civilians to have their gas masks ready.
Earlier in the month the authorities had held a large-scale civil defense drill involving 40 million citizens. The authorities issued information about how government would operate in the event of a war and which government bodies would be in charge of different areas of public affairs.
Putin’s government has warned the U.S. that it will shoot down U.S. jets attempting to attack government forces in Syria [Image by Plavevski/Shutterstock]
In the midst of the drills, the authorities deployed nuclear-capable Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea, close to the Lithuanian and Polish borders. The move, which rattled the Polish authorities, brought major Western European cities, including Berlin, within reach of Russian nuclear strike.
The Defense Minister of Poland Antoni Macierewicz said the Polish authorities were highly concerned about the development and were monitoring the situation.
The Russians had earlier conducted a series of ICBM tests in the Sea of Okhotsk and the Barents Sea, RIA Novosti reported.
The tensions escalated even further when Putin suddenly canceled a planned visit to France scheduled for October 19, following a row that flared after President Francois Hollande lashed out at Moscow over its role in Syria, the Inquisitr reported.
The French government reportedly said it was considering requesting that prosecutors with the International Criminal Court investigate alleged war crimes by Russia and the Syrian government in rebel-held parts of Aleppo.
There was widespread bemusement in Russia when news broke soon after the row with France that the Kremlin had issued a directive to state officials to bring home all relatives living abroad.
The authorities warned that officials who failed to heed the warning could be overlooked for promotion, the Inquisitr reported.
According to analysts, Moscow’s posturing to the rest of the world that it is preparing for war is designed to boost popular support for Putin at home as tensions rise and to signal to the West that Russia will stand its ground in Syria in the event of U.S. intervention.
Kremlin strategists apparently believe that sending a strong message that Russia will not back down with regard to its perceived geopolitical interests will dissuade the U.S. and its allies from trying to stop Russian bombing in Syria.
Other analysts believe that Russia’s apparent preparation for war, less than four weeks away from the U.S. presidential election, is not a coincidence.
It streamlines with the Kremlin’s overall subtle message to Americans to vote for change by electing the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump rather than the Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
India-Russia ties boosted by defence, energy deals, Straits Times, OCT 16, 2016, Modi and Putin revive Cold War bond with lucrative agreements between two nations BENAULIM (India) • Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a raft of lucrative defence and energy pacts yesterday following talks aimed at reinvigorating ties between the former Cold War allies.
Mr Modi hailed Mr Putin as an “old friend” after their meeting in the Indian state of Goa, where leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (Brics) were gathering for a summit.
“Your leadership has provided stability and substance to our strategic partnership,” Mr Modi said alongside Mr Putin at a beachside resort, after officials signed up to 20 agreements between the two nations……..
They also signed an initial agreement on India’s purchase of Russia’s state-of-the-art S400 missile defence system, capable of shooting down multiple incoming missiles, although there were no details on a timeframe for delivery. The system would strengthen India’s defences along its borders with China and Pakistan……..
The leaders also signed a framework agreement to supply more reactors to a nuclear plant in Kudankulam in southern India, which is attempting to reduce its reliance on highly polluting coal for power. Mr Putin said that Russia would be able to build a dozen nuclear reactors in India over the next 20 years to back Mr Modi’s growth strategy for Asia’s third-largest economy, which continues to suffer power shortages………
Mr Modi was expected to hold talks with China’s President Xi Jinping late yesterday, also in the hope of boosting investment and trade. Relations, however, have been frustrated by Beijing’s decision so far to block New Delhi’s entry to a nuclear trade group, among other issues. http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/south-asia/india-russia-ties-boosted-by-defence-energy-deals
Going Beyond Propaganda. Nuclear Conflict, Deception or Real Threat? Pentagon: A “Preemptive” Nuclear Strike against Russia is still Valid By Federico Pieraccini Global Research, October 16, 2016The events in the Middle East, Syria and Aleppo are the focus of global attention. Rarely has a battle been so decisive to the outcome of a war and the fate of hundreds of millions of people around the world
Hillary Clinton in the last presidential debate repeatedly called for the establishment of a no-fly zone (NFZ) in Syria. The concept, reiterated several times, clashes with the revelation contained in her private emails admitting that the implementation of a NFZ would entail the increased deaths of Syrian civilians.
In a recent hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Philip Breedlove was asked what kind of effort would be required for the US armed forces to impose a NFZ over Syrian skies. With obvious embarrassment, the General was forced to admit that such a request would involve hitting Russian and Syrian aircraft and vehicles, opening the door to a direct confrontation between Moscow and Washington, a decision the General was simply not willing to take. The military leadership has always shown a readiness to implement the military option; so this time they must have sniffed the danger of a direct conflict with Moscow.
WORLD WAR 3 THREATS LOOM AS PUTIN ORDERS ALL RUSSIAN OFFICIALS TO BRING FAMILY MEMBERS LIVING ABROAD BACK HOME, INQUISITR, 13 Oct 16As threats of a global war rise, Russia is apparently ordering all its officials to bring their family members living abroad back home. According to local media in Russia, Several high-ranking officials and politicians have received a warning message from Vladimir Putin, urging them to bring their family members back to the “Fatherland.”
This news comes after Putin cancelled his previously planned visit to France following disagreements over Russia’s involvement in Syria.
And according to local media, all high ranking officials are now being told that it would be wise to bring their family members living abroad back home. The “recommendation” has been imposed upon officials of every level, including administration staff, regional administrators, lawmakers and even employees of public corporations. It has also been said that those that ignore this recommendation may lose their chance of being promoted in the public sector……..http://www.inquisitr.com/3589849/world-war-3-putin-russia-nuclear-war-officials-bring-family-living-abroad-home/
Russia downplays moving nuclear-capable missiles to Kaliningrad Deployment of Iskander missiles to Baltic outpost alarms neighbours but Russia says move is part of regular drill, Guardian, Patrick Wintour, 9 Oct 16 Russia has played down the significance of the deployment of nuclear-capable Iskander missiles to the Russian outpost of Kaliningrad after the move led to protests from Estonia, Poland and Lithuania, underlining tensions about Russian intentions.
The deployment of the missiles was part of regular drills and was not a secret, the Russian defence ministry insisted.
“First of all, the authors behind the fuss should know that the Iskander missile system is a mobile one,” said a ministry spokesman, Gen Igor Konashenkov.
“As part of the combat training plan, units of the missile forces throughout the year improve their marching capabilities by covering great distances across the territory of the Russian Federation in various ways: by air, sea and on their own.”
Konashenkov said that Kaliningrad “is no exemption here” and that the system would be relocated to the exclave in the future “as part of the military training of the Russian armed forces.”
The Iskander-M, first introduced to the Russian military in 2013, is designed to target missile systems, rocket launchers, long-range artillery and command posts as well as aircraft and helicopters. It has a range of 500km (310 miles) and is capable of carrying nuclear warheads, and its deployment led to deep concern in Estonia.
Work starts on on-shore infrastructure for Russian floating plant, World Nuclear News 07 October 2016 A ceremony was held on 4 October in Pevek, Russia, to mark the start of construction of the coastal infrastructure for the first-of-a-kind floating nuclear power plant. The floating power and heat plant is set to be commissioned there in 2019.
The event in Pevek in the Chukotka Autonomous Region – the northern most city of Russia – was attended by, among others, the regional governor Roman Kopin; Rosenergoatom deputy CEO and director of special projects and initiatives Pavel Ipatov; and head of the floating nuclear power plant construction administration Sergey Zavyalov.
During the ceremony, the first sheet pile driving into the foundation of the on-shore infrastructure was carried out. A memorial plaque and a time capsule were then installed to mark the start of construction of the infrastructure…….
Zavyalov said, “We expect that the works on elaborating the technical conditions for the floating plant’s power delivery we carry out jointly with the Department of Energy, Chukotenergo, and RAO EES Vostok will be completed by October-November 2016.” He added, “In December, we plan to be ready to submit operational documents and to order the electric technical equipment to be installed on our site.”……
nuclear-news 