It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Imperial Ambitions: Russia’s Military Buildup......The Dark Corners Of Putin's Mind........

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 06:18 PM
I wasn't sure where to place this thread and I chose here, because Russia is the GREATEST threat to the world. Please move if necessary.

Before we jump the gun, grab our bug out bags or rationing food and water, I thought it would behoove us to better understand Russia's military build up and how we got to where we are today. AND where we could be headed!

I will warn you now the following article is not easy reading...It is long and complex but really dives into the mindset of Putin and how he views the world...

In order to understand the present and the future we must begin in the past....

Stephen J. Blank: In September 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin boasted that he could, at will, occupy any Eastern European capital in two days. This apparently spontaneous utterance reveals, probably more than Russia’s new official defense doctrine, Moscow’s true assessment of NATO’s capabilities, cohesion, and will to resist. In an echo of Soviet tactics, it also reflects Putin’s reflexive recourse to intimidation—e.g., unwarranted boasting about Russian military capabilities and intentions—as a negotiating strategy

The article goes on to say the many times he threatened the Baltic and Nordic states along with civilian airliners...and how he egregiously broke or ignored the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987.

Our administration is acting hoodwinked by the sudden presence of Russia in Syria and the military build up we are witnessing...I really don't understand why they are surprised! In two separate speeches from Washington in 2014,

both indicated that Russia already enjoyed superiority in the Baltic region, these gestures looked like overkill on Putin’s part, to put it mildly.

So how much of a threat, is Russia right now and what is Putin thinking?

Russian sources claim that Putin manages the defense sector very closely. On his watch, Russia’s forces have allegedly increased their capability by 30 percent, received substantial weapons deliveries, and displayed innovative operational concepts of so-called hybrid war (a blend of conventional, irregular, and cyber warfare) in the seizure of Crimea. Those concepts and deployments in Crimea and the Donbas region, in eastern Ukraine, also reflected Russia’s improved foreign and military intelligence processes and ability to tailor a military effort to the specific requirements of disparate European fronts.

And what about the Economic Sanctions placed on Russia? Are they working?

Russian defense spending since 2008 has increased substantially, and procurement has not been affected by sanctions or the current economic malaise. Indeed, Deputy Defense Minister Tatyana Shevtsova has called advocacy of defense cuts tantamount to treason.

So 'treason'? Could this be the reason for Russia's over the top reaction towards the West? How far is Putin willing to go to assure their might and control of the territory lost when the U.S.S.R. fell apart?

The state defense order in 2015 will grow by 20 percent from 2014, fulfilling the government’s demands that the armed forces be 30 percent “modernized” (a term that is never defined) by 2015, and 70 percent by 2020. As Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu has said, “[In 2015] we must supply troops with 701 armored vehicles, two brigade suites of Iskander-M missile complexes, 1545 multipurpose vehicles, 126 aircraft, 88 helicopters, two multipurpose submarines, and five surface combatants.” Russia is also planning a network of reserve armies. And this plan is separate from the nuclear weapons buildup.

The rest of the article deals with their nuclear weapons build up, now, and in the future. How they plan to take back the Baltic states, and conquer or at least confront the Western world.....Just keep in mind the U.S.A. has a plan too!

I would love to get some feedback from the ATS community! Thank you for taking the time to read!


edit on 9/21/2015 by paxnatus because: added authors name

posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 06:34 PM
Cue American fear...?

dun, dun, DUN!

You say the USA has plans to. Well US forces are stationed somewhere in damn near every country on this planet. I think somebody elses plans are light years ahead of Putins plan. Think that makes US biggest threat by far. Just saying. Putin dreams of what the US is already capable of but we are supposed to fear him most?? Pfffft.

Secret for ya. The US Government is rouge.

posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 06:49 PM
a reply to: lightedhype

It is obvious you didn't read the article.....Because the last time I looked we did not march our troops into a sovereign democratic free country and take it over ......Crimea??? How about this Do you think once Putin has taken the Baltic states?
He should go for Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia? That is where he is headed!! Our country has not done anything like this...

Don't be so naive! If you are American or one of our allies....This administration cut our Defense and Military so much we don't have the manpower or the budget to defend ourselves in 2 major conflicts.!

So with Putin wanting to conquer the world, yeah they are our biggest threat!


posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:02 PM

originally posted by: paxnatus
I wasn't sure where to place this thread and I chose here, because Russia is the GREATEST threat to the world. Please move if necessary.

Imperial ambitions? Greatest threat to the world?

Idk, maybe start off in the LOL forum?

U.S.A. has a plan too!

Yeah like imperial ambitions and the greatest threat to the world?

*shakes head*

Greatest threat to the world:

1.) Asteroid Impact
2.) Super volcano eruption
3.) Fukushima
9.) U.S.A
1064.) Russia

Hope this helps.

edit on 21-9-2015 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:15 PM
One thing that comes up a lot is the fact that Russia (Putin) never does what the experts claim he is likely to do .The results are negated and some how ,what pressure or threat directed at Russia comes full circle or moves into a place nobody was expecting . Usually after a small rally the MSM news headlines read ,Washington upset or angry or puzzled .

They may not be the super power the US is but as a Nation the seem to be super at what they are doing or at what they might be trying to do .I guess that is why you keep hearing of many of the actors like Saudi Arabia or Israel making surprised visits to Moscow .

One of the biggest assets is Russia's intelligence and how the process it and how the distribute it .I am sure there are many messages sent to the west without using direct lines ,.hint hint wink wink . Maybe Syria because of the situation on the ground were hard pressed to accept a Russian Military base and maybe it's only a temporary thing for now . One thing it does do though is buy timing and a possible outcome for Syria .

Call it a move of putting a whole new dimension that was not there before . Kind of like Crimea .They both had a Russian Naval base but now both have a Military base . Russia seems to be able to do things quite quickly and easily when the time is right . Then the west is left with that dimension in place to try and unravel or completely shift to another spot . No wonder Washington cant seem to come up with a coherent narrative that lasts more then a week or two . just my 2 cents worth

posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:28 PM
I'm sorry for the long post, but I suck at english and synthesis.

I'll start from the source which is rather biased if you read the "about us" section:

The Transatlantic Renewal Initiative (TRI) was launched by the World Affairs Institute in February, 2014.
The project is co-directed by:

Lorne Craner—Currently a Co-Director of the Transatlantic Renewal Initiative of the World Affairs Institute. Lorne is the former president of the International Republican Institute, a former Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, staff member of the National Security Council, and foreign policy advisor to Senator McCain.

In fact given the crew I wouldn't be worried of calling it straight propaganda (just google mccain with isis and look the images) .

Anyway, "in order to understand the future we must begin in the past" and the past is not 2014, the past is 1989-2000 the period where the soviet union was defeated and every country of the union was trying to be independent. Perfectly fine for the people, but the real reason was to claim the property of russian military assets and sell them before the soviet generals while providing a new "kingdom" for the local mafia.

Ukraine today is seen as a western country subjugated by the russians. This is not true, Ukraine is an oligarchy like many others in the region and post soviet era these "oligarchs" were just called by their name: mafious. They were broke and didn't want to pay Russia so a group of a few chosen with the local Willy Wonka looked around to find a replacement at the expense of the future of Ukraine, which in any case wasn't exactly promising.

Putin is supported by russian mafia, but comes from the secret service. He is more or less like Bush senior without a tycoon granpa. He is not the only one in charge, he wasn't put there because he's a crazy fool nuketriggerhappy guy that could sink Russia because of his crazyness. He is very powerful and I wouldn't want to be in a country run by him ever and ever, but this doesn't mean that every murderer in charge of the western countries might do better for their people's interests. In his case it's the situation that reinforced him, because boosted the russian support.

So I blame the west for having a powerful Putin and 2 civil wars, both avoidable. If it wasn't for the arrogance of the west we would have had a lot of way to untie him from the EU and keep him at low support while exposing his crimes. For example avoiding to kill Gaddafi would have let ENI build oil pipes from Lybia to Italy, but France didn't like it nor did other NATO countries, and frankly given that the italian president was Berlusconi, we could be sure to pay all the bribes on that oil.

Not only Ghaddafi was the "crowd control" from massive african immigration, it was also the card to make Russia less important in the energetic market of European countries. In any case today this is not an option anymore and we see the disaster which is Lybia.
Now we have BP and Mobil using Azerbaijan resources to replace russian oil (which is cheaper) and Qatari gas replacing russian one (which was cheaper) and coincidentally there are revolts in Georgia, a key country in the caucasus; then Ukraine, the main pipeline for russian resources, starts having Orange revolutions and Maidan while Assad (opposing Quatari project for allied interests) is facing an even worse civil war. So it seems Europe is trying to find a way to let people pay more for oil and gas in the interests of the usual suspects.

If russian military spending is worrying then how can we call the USA military budget? Russia can be a bully with some old soviet countries for more than a reason, first of all the economic dependence then the military one. Russia could hardly be a bull if we could have Lybia's resources, it may have had economic pressure on some countries, but why western lobbies and politicians are allowed to do it while China and Russia can't? (hello ttip and ttp).
And there is also a strategic problem with some of those countries, because the USA is openly an enemy now and they are building strong ties with countries on the russian border. Wheter it's an excuse or not, it's hard to deny that ANY country would let an enemy capable of destroying it on their borders or without a big increase in defense budget.

The Baltic is the only connection left with Europe (Russia is building a second pipeline to reach Germany and bypass Ukraine) and they still have an oblast there so they have "some" rights, it's not like they are oversea. As long as the countries bordering Russia aren't going too close to the west they need to fear nothing. But the western temptation is strong, it comes with billions of dollars making politicians and corporations cum. It doesn't matter if the country will be drawn in debt, the same fate that all newcomers in Europe will see once they aren't needed anymore as a strategic partner.

Putin would be dangerous if he was at the head of the USA or if he was the current hegomonic power, but Russia is hardly a bigger threat than China, Israel or the USA for the world peace. We tend to project western colonialism to other countries with different cultures, but unless they found themselves this hegemonic power overnight, it's very unlikely they can do more than creating problem to western proxy wars. And to keep fights away from their country they WILL go abroad to fight any proxy war in the future.

So I think that the article draws conclusions that aren't realistic, but focused on creating a new threat like ISIS, Assad, Ghaddafi, Hussein for the american people first, and westerners in general.
The problem of having a nuclear arsenal is a big one, but if Russia hadn't now they would be fighting some internal rebellion from which there was no escape and from which there would be no recovery.

I am for having a balance because hegemony destroys the world and make the bully more aggressive and arrogant. But since we the people count nothing, we will end up having to see our ass nuked while the people who pushed the button first are safely in a bunker. And I doubt that button would be pushed by a russian or a chinese first, while I don't doubt they would retaliate immediatedly.

There were better way to handle Putin and there were no reasons outside of gas pipelines to remove Assad. The USA has a plan too, it's called TTIP and TTP or corporate world. If you read the cyberpunk novels you could see how prophetic they were, but I'm not sure I would want that world.

Just my opinion

posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:34 PM

originally posted by: paxnatus
a reply to: lightedhype

It is obvious you didn't read the article.....Because the last time I looked we did not march our troops into a sovereign democratic free country and take it over ......Crimea??? How about this Do you think once Putin has taken the Baltic states?
He should go for Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia? That is where he is headed!! Our country has not done anything like this...

Don't be so naive! If you are American or one of our allies....This administration cut our Defense and Military so much we don't have the manpower or the budget to defend ourselves in 2 major conflicts.!

So with Putin wanting to conquer the world, yeah they are our biggest threat!


Sorry but this is just wrong. While I don't endorse "taking" Crimea you should read what IS Crimea, how it got to Ukraine and since how long the people in Crimea are trying to get back to Russia or fully independent. It goes back at least to 1991 with the return of tatars.

Also I would be careful in saying that you didn't march in a sovereign country and if you think the USA is a country with much more freedom than Lybia and Syria you probably are assuming it based on religious bias. And thinking that Putin would want scandinavia... for what reason? Finland is the only one at a moderate risk because they MAY join NATO and there had been some controversy about borders.

And for the bolded part.. well not much to say.

posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 11:20 PM
I'm sorry, perhaps I am not being clear enough. If you think Russia is NOT a threat then your thoughts are completely opposite of the U.S. and NATO....

It is no wonder that the US Strategic Command leadership, watching these developments, now admits concern about Russia’s emerging strategic military capabilities. Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, commander of Army forces in Europe, has publicly stated that within five years Russia could run multiple Ukraine-sized operations in Europe.

So instead of a major centric war, how about war on several countries in one region at one time in military and non military ways!

Moscow has arguably moved beyond its adaptation of the US concept of network-centric war, which drove previous defense reforms starting in 2008. It now seems to favor an approach based on hybrid or multidimensional war, similar to the Chinese concept of “unrestricted war,” embracing simultaneous employment of multiple instruments of war, including nonmilitary means where information warfare, such as mass political manipulation, is a major capability. Thus Russia’s procurement objectives range from space to submarines, from cyber information and command-and-control technologies to the formation of so-called information troops (i.e., troops whose mission would go beyond cyber attacks to include mass political manipulation on a constant long-term basis). And all the while Moscow sees itself in a permanent state of siege at the hands of a Western order that it believes is using nonmilitary as well as military forces against Russia.

And you think we are "sheeple"? Buying whatever the "Right or Left" is selling us!! Take a look at Putin's plan and the Kremlin for Europe and how it will unfold....These citizens will be brain washed ....So stop telling me AMERICA is the big bad evil!! You want to see evil, take a look for yourself!

Already Moscow has authorized large increases of expenditures on external and internal media outlets and reliable “trolls” and hackers (as well as “useful idiots”) abroad to influence foreign perceptions of Russia and Russian policy. Although suffering the effects of economic upheaval, Russia has increased the budget of its broadcaster RT by 30 percent and its international news agency Rossiya Segodnya by 300 percent. Rossiya Segodnya’s staff in Berlin has grown from two to 39, and the agency is reportedly preparing to open local bureaus in 29 world capitals. RT will receive a $39 million budget increase specifically for pro-Kremlin programming in French. And the new multimedia operation called Sputnik, operating under Rossiya Segodnya’s aegis, aims to produce 800 hours of broadcasting, aired daily in 30 languages across 130 cities in 30 countries.

To judge from its procurements, the current large-scale comprehensive buildup of weaponry through 2025 aims to acquire a multi-domain, strategic-level reconnaissance-strike complex as well as a tactical-level reconnaissance-fire complex that would together give Russia high-tech precision forces that could conduct operations in space, under the ocean, in the air, on the sea and the ground, and in cyberspace. This force would have parity with the US and NATO in conventional and nuclear dimensions of high-tech warfare, and therefore the capability to deter and intimidate NATO. It would also have strategic stability, which Russia defines to include non-nuclear strike capabilities, and therefore sustain non-nuclear and pre-nuclear (i.e., before conflict starts) conventional deterrence across the entire spectrum of conflict, including against internal threats, which now feature prominently in Russia’s defense doctrine.

Here is the projection through 2025:

By 2025, Russia’s military should contain a much larger percentage of “professional” soldiers, a reliable first- and second-strike nuclear capability to overcome US missile defenses, and a space-strike, counter-space, and anti-satellite capability. These capabilities presume a robust, as well as qualitatively and quantitatively improved, aerospace offensive and defensive capability from ground and sea to space. Russia also envisions achieving a navy and air force each capable of global power projection if necessary but certainly of global strike and defense against the US. And it aims to outfit many of its ships with long-range, high-accuracy (or precision) munitions capable of non-nuclear deterrence and of response to the United States’ prompt global strike threat.

If this does not make you nervous, then i must assume you are ignorant of the world's current state and wish to remain so!

And i would just like to say, we the USA are not running around threatening to wipe countries off the Earth! America is not sneaking subs with nuclear warheads around in the waters of Sweden!! WE do NOT threaten nor take down civilian Airliners! We do NOT sneak into Russian or Chinese Air Space for kicks and giggles just to rattle a saber! And we do not sit around with our finger on the button threatening nuclear war if someone sneezes the wrong way! Those are the differences between a dictator led country with a crazed misogynistic Pig at the helm and our "rogue government"

And while I am no fan of our own misogynistic Pig in charge NOW he has not used chemical weapons against us or beheaded us and made videos for You Tube!! Why is that?? I will tell you why Because, while not all military men and women have the right intentions to protect you and the Sovereignty of this country, most of them do!! And most of us have no idea the sacrifices they make on a daily basis! They would have that so called "leaders" head on a chopping block so fast they wouldn't know what hit them.

I believe the entire point of the article is to say, this is the only way Putin knows how to establish Russia as a "power player"!

Putin does not give one damn about the people in Russia! The article states that "he" was willing to endure economic suffering in order to build the military up! But you and I both know, Putin is not suffering but her people are!!

Go ahead turn up the fire I can take it!


edit on 9/21/2015 by paxnatus because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 11:28 PM
These threads get me when people are unable to see the wrong thier own countries do and look to point the finger at other countries for example Russia.

Ho hum ignorance is bliss. . . .

posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 11:46 PM
Putin is just a choir boy compared to Bush, if you want the most evil POTUS.

But that doesn't justify Putin's wrong doings either, but Bush is worse, considering 9/11 apart from the wars he started during his time.

He needs to be crucified!
edit on 21-9-2015 by InnerPeace2012 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-9-2015 by InnerPeace2012 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 12:07 AM
a reply to: Mastronaut

Speak for yourself I wanna be a chromer...

posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 12:26 AM
russia and usa have come to reasonable accord regarding Syria, and a reasonable Russian counterbalance in the middle east. Russia will inherit Syria, and both Russia and usa have accord to move against ISIS. history teaches us, the cold war is a healthy war compared to hot wars that end in chaos.

posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 12:42 AM
This new cold war 2.0 with the revived Russian Bad Bear may not go quite as planned .Remember how they taught us back in school if a Nuke was going to hit you should get under your desk ? It probably wouldn't have worked as being any safer but it did put the scares into all the little kids . Kind of a cruel thing to have done to a Nations Children . Remember Iraq's WMD's that was a serious scare on most of those kids that had been prepared for 911 eh.?!

Now it seems that it's Capitalism of a kind . The US's wheel house so to speak . So Russia is going to sell the EU oil and gas and we should be afraid,very afraid. Maybe Washington should tell the EU to add Russian oil and gas to the sanctions too . I mean if the economic sanctions have hit the European Nations harder then Russia ,they may as well be cold this winter too .They can close down their industry and can you imagine how much CO2 they wouldn't be producing . I wonder if Putin would get a Nobel Prise for saving the planet like Al Gore did .

posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 01:00 AM
a reply to: bangster

i agree with you about the Cold War being better than a hot one....but as far as a counter balance in the Mid East? I'm not so sure.. When Putin has said they wish to help go after ISIS, he also says kind of tongue and cheek Russia to U.S. "Talk to us on Syria or risk unintended incidents". That sounds like a threat to me!

edit on 9/22/2015 by paxnatus because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 01:09 AM
I get why Russia took Crimea it's where their Black Sea base and fleet were located.

What strategic importance is Syria? I doubt it's because they're best good buddies. I'm thinking because Syria is a direct flight route to Iran from Israel. As of now Russia has planes and anti aircraft missiles in place.

Where is the line drawn in Europe? How far is Putin willing to go? and would the US do anything if he attacked a Nato country? Is the US willing to risk all out war if Putin attacks?

I don't believe Putin is stupid or crazy he's a cold blooded calculating killer. He has proven not only is he willing to confront the US directly but also that he will do what he wants in Europe.

I think this is the closest we been to all out war with Russia since the Cuban missile crisis. Between Russia moving into Americas playground in the middle east and China fortifying the South China Sea we're one step from all out war. There are a lot of variables to take into account. One misstep and this could turn into all out war.

posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 02:32 AM
a reply to: paxnatus

Your source seems to be a rhetorical propaganda machine based in Washington DC.

See here;

edit on 22-9-2015 by supamoto because: a

posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 02:35 AM
Bring it on.

posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 04:08 AM
a reply to: paxnatus

I cannot understand where the OP is coming from on this.

If anyone was guininely intrested in finding out who the trouble maker is in the world, they study some basic stats that may or may not be 100% accurate but are unlikely to wildly inaccurate.

in the last 100 years the US has invaded 37 countires. Since the days of Bll Clintion the US has bombed 11 countries.

In the last 100 years Iran has invaded zero (0) countires but they are demonised by the US just to do the right thing by israyhell and portray Iran as an evil country, not just by Iran but also by the US and all of its slave states interestingly.

posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 05:26 AM

originally posted by: paxnatus
I'm sorry, perhaps I am not being clear enough. If you think Russia is NOT a threat then your thoughts are completely opposite of the U.S. and NATO....

Ding, ding, ding! Winner! Winner!

Turn up the heat, you can take it? Talk about owning your argument. No wiggle room eh? Seems a little too attached to the idea if you ask me.

Carry on.

posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 07:34 AM

originally posted by: paxnatus
a reply to: bangster

I agree with you about the Cold War being better than a hot one....but as far as a counter balance in the Mid East? I'm not so sure.. When Putin has said they wish to help go after ISIS, he also says kind of tongue and cheek Russia to U.S. "Talk to us on Syria or risk unintended incidents". That sounds like a threat to me!


I'm sorry, sourcing from a Western propoganda news source is not helping your case at all.

Read for yourself what Assad and Putin have to say on the Syrian Crisis here

edit on 22-9-2015 by InnerPeace2012 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in