Thread: WORLD BRACES FOR WAR: Canada send Jetfighters to Poland to Bolster NATO Forces

Sunni tribe joins fight against Islamic State

Kurds seize Iraq/Syria border post


@ http://www.alipac.us/f19/kurds-seize...-state-311794/

Chinese General says Obama does not scare us

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP8YnPsjHWM

Russia Passes US in Nuclear Weapons Race

Thursday, 02 Oct 2014 06:59 PM
By John Blosser

The United States is losing the nuclear weapons race to Russia.

For the first time in history, State Department START Treaty documents show, Russia has more nuclear weapons deployed than the U.S., The Washington Times reports.

Russia, in the middle of an upgrade of its nuclear weapons arsenal, now boasts 1,643 nuclear warheads in intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines, and heavy bombers, while the U.S. has 1,642, according to an annual State Department report required under the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).

The new report shows an increase by Russia of 131 warheads since March 1, while the U.S. inventory increased by 57.

In 2012, the U.S. had 1,722 warheads deployed, while the Russians had just 1,499.

Mark Schneider, former Pentagon strategic weapons specialist, told the Times, "All U.S. numbers have declined since New START entry into force. The fact that this is happening reflects the ineffectiveness of the Obama administration's approach to New START."

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said, "Not only did Russia violate the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (IRNF) Treaty, signed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, it did so while negotiating with the Obama Administration over new START, a 2010 arms reduction treaty."

Ihofe, the ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, has blasted Russia for developing new nuclear weapons, particularly a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM), in stark violation of the 1987 treaty.

"The White House was at best naïve to Russian duplicity; at worst, it was complicit," Inhofe wrote in Foreign Policy.

Russia, Inhofe wrote, "used the arms control process to reduce the threat posed by U.S. strategic nuclear forces, while simultaneously pursuing alternative nuclear capabilities — such as cruise missiles — in support of its military strategy and national security.

"The United States under President Obama, on the other hand, has tried to set a disarmament and nuclear nonproliferation example by reducing the role and numbers of nuclear weapons in U.S. strategy in the hope that the rest of the world would follow.

"It hasn't."

The State Department fact sheet reveals that Russia has built its stock of warheads on intercontinental ballistic missiles, silo-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers to 528, up from 498 from the last report.

"What's harder to explain," Inhofe wrote, "is why we let them get away with it."

To keep up, Inhofe recommends that the U.S. expand missile defense capabilities, restore lost funding to U.S. nuclear weapons programs and consult with NATO about strengthening regional missile defenses.

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/rus...98323/?ns_mail

Has Turkey Joined the Anti-ISIS Coalition to Counter the Kurds?

Newsweek

- ‎1 hour ago‎

After a long period of hesitation, a bit of American arm-twisting and a fierce war fast closing in on its borders with Syria and Iraq, Turkey has finally joined the U.S. ...

http://www.alipac.us/f19/world-again...roblem-312325/


NATO Can Put Troops Wherever It Wants, New Secretary-General Says

George Soros Slams Putin, Warns Of "Existential Threat" From Russia, Demands $20 Billion From IMF In "Russia War Effort"


Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/23/2014 08:51 -0400

If even George Soros is getting concerned and writing Op-Eds, then Putin must be truly winning.

Here are the highlights from what the Open Society founder has to say about the "existential" Russian threat in a just released Op-Ed:

Europe is facing a challenge from Russia to its very existence. Neither the European leaders nor their citizens are fully aware of this challenge or know how best to deal with it. I attribute this mainly to the fact that the European Union in general and the eurozone in particular lost their way after the financial crisis of 2008.

Getting warmer:

[Europe] fails to recognize that the Russian attack on Ukraine is indirectly an attack on the European Union and its principles of governance. It ought to be evident that it is inappropriate for a country, or association of countries, at war to pursue a policy of fiscal austerity as the European Union continues to do.

Even warmer:

All available resources ought to be put to work in the war effort even if that involves running up budget deficits

And hot, hot, hot:

[IMF] should provide an immediate cash injection of at least $20 billion, with a promise of more when needed. Ukraine’s partners should provide additional financing conditional on implementation of the IMF-supported program, at their own risk, in line with standard practice.

And there it is: the Russian "existential" war threat is, to Soros, nothing but an excuse to end the whole (f)austerity experiment (just don't show Soros Europe's latest record high debt load), and to return to its drunken sailor spending ways.

Ironically, this is precisely what we said would happen, only the globalist neo-cons were hoping the Ukraine civil war would become an all out war between Russia and Ukraine, thus unleashing the "spend your way to prosperity" Soroses of the world. For now, this plan has failed which is why ISIS was brought into the picture.

But it never hurts to try, eh George. And the one thing that is not mentioned is that the people who would gain the most from this latest IMF spending spree would be, you guessed it, billionaires like George Soros of course

* * *

From George Soros, first posted in the New York Reviews Of Books

Wake Up, Europe

Europe is facing a challenge from Russia to its very existence. Neither the European leaders nor their citizens are fully aware of this challenge or know how best to deal with it. I attribute this mainly to the fact that the European Union in general and the eurozone in particular lost their way after the financial crisis of 2008.

The fiscal rules that currently prevail in Europe have aroused a lot of popular resentment. Anti-Europe parties captured nearly 30 percent of the seats in the latest elections for the European Parliament but they had no realistic alternative to the EU to point to until recently. Now Russia is presenting an alternative that poses a fundamental challenge to the values and principles on which the European Union was originally founded. It is based on the use of force that manifests itself in repression at home and aggression abroad, as opposed to the rule of law. What is shocking is that Vladimir Putin’s Russia has proved to be in some ways superior to the European Union—more flexible and constantly springing surprises. That has given it a tactical advantage, at least in the near term.

Europe and the United States—each for its own reasons—are determined to avoid any direct military confrontation with Russia. Russia is taking advantage of their reluctance. Violating its treaty obligations, Russia has annexed Crimea and established separatist enclaves in eastern Ukraine. In August, when the recently installed government in Kiev threatened to win the low-level war in eastern Ukraine against separatist forces backed by Russia, President Putin invaded Ukraine with regular armed forces in violation of the Russian law that exempts conscripts from foreign service without their consent.

In seventy-two hours these forces destroyed several hundred of Ukraine’s armored vehicles, a substantial portion of its fighting force. According to General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, the Russians used multiple launch rocket systems armed with cluster munitions and thermobaric warheads (an even more inhumane weapon that ought to be outlawed) with devastating effect.* The local militia from the Ukrainian city of Dnepropetrovsk suffered the brunt of the losses because they were communicating by cell phones and could thus easily be located and targeted by the Russians. President Putin has, so far, abided by a cease-fire agreement he concluded with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko on September 5, but Putin retains the choice to continue the cease-fire as long as he finds it advantageous or to resume a full-scale assault.

In September, President Poroshenko visited Washington where he received an enthusiastic welcome from a joint session of Congress. He asked for “both lethal and nonlethal” defensive weapons in his speech. However, President Obama refused his request for Javelin hand-held missiles that could be used against advancing tanks. Poroshenko was given radar, but what use is it without missiles? European countries are equally reluctant to provide military assistance to Ukraine, fearing Russian retaliation. The Washington visit gave President Poroshenko a façade of support with little substance behind it.

Equally disturbing has been the determination of official international leaders to withhold new financial commitments to Ukraine until after the October 26 election there (which will take place just after this issue goes to press). This has led to an avoidable pressure on Ukrainian currency reserves and raised the specter of a full-blown financial crisis in the country.

There is now pressure from donors, whether in Europe or the US, to “bail in” the bondholders of Ukrainian sovereign debt, i.e., for bondholders to take losses on their investments as a precondition for further official assistance to Ukraine that would put more taxpayers’ money at risk. That would be an egregious error. The Ukrainian government strenuously opposes the proposal because it would put Ukraine into a technical default that would make it practically impossible for the private sector to refinance its debt. Bailing in private creditors would save very little money and it would make Ukraine entirely dependent on the official donors.

To complicate matters, Russia is simultaneously dangling carrots and wielding sticks. It is offering—but failing to sign—a deal for gas supplies that would take care of Ukraine’s needs for the winter. At the same time Russia is trying to prevent the delivery of gas that Ukraine secured from the European market through Slovakia. Similarly, Russia is negotiating for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to monitor the borders while continuing to attack the Donetsk airport and the port city of Mariupol.

It is easy to foresee what lies ahead. Putin will await the results of the elections on October 26 and then offer Poroshenko the gas and other benefits he has been dangling on condition that he appoint a prime minister acceptable to Putin. That would exclude anybody associated with the victory of the forces that brought down the Viktor Yanukovych government by resisting it for months on the Maidan—Independence Square. I consider it highly unlikely that Poroshenko would accept such an offer. If he did, he would be disowned by the defenders of the Maidan; the resistance forces would then be revived.

Putin may then revert to the smaller victory that would still be within his reach: he could open by force a land route from Russia to Crimea and Transnistria before winter. Alternatively, he could simply sit back and await the economic and financial collapse of Ukraine. I suspect that he may be holding out the prospect of a grand bargain in which Russia would help the United States against ISIS—for instance by not supplying to Syria the S300 missiles it has promised, thus in effect preserving US air domination—and Russia would be allowed to have its way in the “near abroad,” as many of the nations adjoining Russia are called. What is worse, President Obama may accept such a deal.

That would be a tragic mistake, with far-reaching geopolitical consequences. Without underestimating the threat from ISIS, I would argue that preserving the independence of Ukraine should take precedence; without it, even the alliance against ISIS would fall apart. The collapse of Ukraine would be a tremendous loss for NATO, the European Union, and the United States. A victorious Russia would become much more influential within the EU and pose a potent threat to the Baltic states with their large ethnic Russian populations. Instead of supporting Ukraine, NATO would have to defend itself on its own soil. This would expose both the EU and the US to the danger they have been so eager to avoid: a direct military confrontation with Russia. The European Union would become even more divided and ungovernable. Why should the US and other NATO nations allow this to happen?

The argument that has prevailed in both Europe and the United States is that Putin is no Hitler; by giving him everything he can reasonably ask for, he can be prevented from resorting to further use of force. In the meantime, the sanctions against Russia—which include, for example, restrictions on business transactions, finance, and trade—will have their effect and in the long run Russia will have to retreat in order to earn some relief from them.

These are false hopes derived from a false argument with no factual evidence to support it. Putin has repeatedly resorted to force and he is liable to do so again unless he faces strong resistance. Even if it is possible that the hypothesis could turn out to be valid, it is extremely irresponsible not to prepare a Plan B.

There are two counterarguments that are less obvious but even more important. First, Western authorities have ignored the importance of what I call the “new Ukraine” that was born in the successful resistance on the Maidan. Many officials with a history of dealing with Ukraine have difficulty adjusting to the revolutionary change that has taken place there. The recently signed Association Agreement between the EU and Ukraine was originally negotiated with the Yanukovych government. This detailed road map now needs adjustment to a totally different situation. For instance, the road map calls for the gradual replacement and retraining of the judiciary over five years whereas the public is clamoring for immediate and radical renewal. As the new mayor of Kiev, Vitali Klitschko, put it, “If you put fresh cucumbers into a barrel of pickles, they will soon turn into pickles.”

Contrary to some widely circulated accounts, the resistance on the Maidan was led by the cream of civil society: young people, many of whom had studied abroad and refused to join either government or business on their return because they found both of them repugnant. (Nationalists and anti-Semitic extremists made up only a minority of the anti-Yanukovych protesters.) They are the leaders of the new Ukraine and they are adamantly opposed to a return of the “old Ukraine,” with its endemic corruption and ineffective government.

The new Ukraine has to contend with Russian aggression, bureaucratic resistance both at home and abroad, and confusion in the general population. Surprisingly, it has the support of many oligarchs, President Poroshenko foremost among them, and the population at large. There are of course profound differences in history, language, and outlook between the eastern and western parts of the country, but Ukraine is more united and more European-minded than ever before. That unity, however, is extremely fragile.

The new Ukraine has remained largely unrecognized because it took time before it could make its influence felt. It had practically no security forces at its disposal when it was born. The security forces of the old Ukraine were actively engaged in suppressing the Maidan rebellion and they were disoriented this summer when they had to take orders from a government formed by the supporters of the rebellion. No wonder that the new government was at first unable to put up an effective resistance to the establishment of the separatist enclaves in eastern Ukraine. It is all the more remarkable that President Poroshenko was able, within a few months of his election, to mount an attack that threatened to reclaim those enclaves.

To appreciate the merits of the new Ukraine you need to have had some personal experience with it. I can speak from personal experience although I must also confess to a bias in its favor. I established a foundation in Ukraine in 1990 even before the country became independent. Its board and staff are composed entirely of Ukrainians and it has deep roots in civil society. I visited the country often, especially in the early years, but not between 2004 and early 2014, when I returned to witness the birth of the new Ukraine.

I was immediately impressed by the tremendous improvement in maturity and expertise during that time both in my foundation and in civil society at large. Currently, civic and political engagement is probably higher than anywhere else in Europe. People have proven their willingness to sacrifice their lives for their country. These are the hidden strengths of the new Ukraine that have been overlooked by the West.

The other deficiency of the current European attitude toward Ukraine is that it fails to recognize that the Russian attack on Ukraine is indirectly an attack on the European Union and its principles of governance. It ought to be evident that it is inappropriate for a country, or association of countries, at war to pursue a policy of fiscal austerity as the European Union continues to do. All available resources ought to be put to work in the war effort even if that involves running up budget deficits. The fragility of the new Ukraine makes the ambivalence of the West all the more perilous. Not only the survival of the new Ukraine but the future of NATO and the European Union itself is at risk. In the absence of unified resistance it is unrealistic to expect that Putin will stop pushing beyond Ukraine when the division of Europe and its domination by Russia is in sight.

Having identified some of the shortcomings of the current approach, I will try to spell out the course that Europe ought to follow. Sanctions against Russia are necessary but they are a necessary evil. They have a depressive effect not only on Russia but also on the European economies, including Germany. This aggravates the recessionary and deflationary forces that are already at work. By contrast, assisting Ukraine in defending itself against Russian aggression would have a stimulative effect not only on Ukraine but also on Europe. That is the principle that ought to guide European assistance to Ukraine.

Germany, as the main advocate of fiscal austerity, needs to understand the internal contradiction involved. Chancellor Angela Merkel has behaved as a true European with regard to the threat posed by Russia. She has been the foremost advocate of sanctions on Russia, and she has been more willing to defy German public opinion and business interests on this than on any other issue. Only after the Malaysian civilian airliner was shot down in July did German public opinion catch up with her. Yet on fiscal austerity she has recently reaffirmed her allegiance to the orthodoxy of the Bundesbank—probably in response to the electoral inroads made by the Alternative for Germany, the anti-euro party. She does not seem to realize how inconsistent that is. She ought to be even more committed to helping Ukraine than to imposing sanctions on Russia.

The new Ukraine has the political will both to defend Europe against Russian aggression and to engage in radical structural reforms. To preserve and reinforce that will, Ukraine needs to receive adequate assistance from its supporters. Without it, the results will be disappointing and hope will turn into despair. Disenchantment already started to set in after Ukraine suffered a military defeat and did not receive the weapons it needs to defend itself.

It is high time for the members of the European Union to wake up and behave as countries indirectly at war. They are better off helping Ukraine to defend itself than having to fight for themselves.

One way or another, the internal contradiction between being at war and remaining committed to fiscal austerity has to be eliminated. Where there is a will, there is a way.

Let me be specific. In its last progress report, issued in early September, the IMF estimated that in a worst-case scenario Ukraine would need additional support of $19 billion. Conditions have deteriorated further since then. After the Ukrainian elections the IMF will need to reassess its baseline forecast in consultation with the Ukrainian government. It should provide an immediate cash injection of at least $20 billion, with a promise of more when needed. Ukraine’s partners should provide additional financing conditional on implementation of the IMF-supported program, at their own risk, in line with standard practice.

The spending of borrowed funds is controlled by the agreement between the IMF and the Ukrainian government. Four billion dollars would go to make up the shortfall in Ukrainian payments to date; $2 billion would be assigned to repairing the coal mines in eastern Ukraine that remain under the control of the central government; and $2 billion would be earmarked for the purchase of additional gas for the winter. The rest would replenish the currency reserves of the central bank.

The new assistance package would include a debt exchange that would transform Ukraine’s hard currency Eurobond debt (which totals almost $18 billion) into long-term, less risky bonds. This would lighten Ukraine’s debt burden and bring down its risk premium. By participating in the exchange, bondholders would agree to accept a lower interest rate and wait longer to get their money back. The exchange would be voluntary and market-based so that it could not be mischaracterized as a default.

Bondholders would participate willingly because the new long-term bonds would be guaranteed—but only partially—by the US or Europe, much as the US helped Latin America emerge from its debt crisis in the 1980s with so-called Brady bonds (named for US Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady).

Such an exchange would have a few important benefits. One is that, over the next two or three critical years, the government could use considerably less of its scarce hard currency reserves to pay off bondholders. The money could be used for other urgent needs.

By trimming Ukraine debt payments in the next few years, the exchange would also reduce the chance of a sovereign default, discouraging capital flight and arresting the incipient run on the banks. This would make it easier to persuade owners of Ukraine’s banks (many of them foreign) to inject urgently needed new capital into them. The banks desperately need bigger capital cushions if Ukraine is to avoid a full-blown banking crisis, but shareholders know that a debt crisis could cause a banking crisis that wipes out their equity.

Finally, Ukraine would keep bondholders engaged rather than watch them cash out at 100 cents on the dollar as existing debt comes due in the next few years. This would make it easier for Ukraine to reenter the international bond markets once the crisis has passed. Under the current conditions it would be more practical and cost-efficient for the US and Europe not to use their own credit directly to guarantee part of Ukraine’s debt, but to employ intermediaries such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development or the
World Bank and its subsidiaries.

The Ukrainian state-owned company Naftogaz is a black hole in the budget and a major source of corruption. Naftogaz currently sells gas to households for $47 per trillion cubic meters (TCM), for which it pays $380 per TCM. At present people cannot control the temperature in their apartments. A radical restructuring of Naftogaz’s entire system could reduce household consumption at least by half and totally eliminate Ukraine’s dependence on Russia for gas. That would involve charging households the market price for gas. The first step would be to install meters in apartments and the second to distribute a cash subsidy to needy households.

The will to make these reforms is strong both in the new management and in the incoming government but the task is extremely complicated (how do you define who is needy?) and the expertise is inadequate. The World Bank and its subsidiaries could sponsor a project development team that would bring together international and domestic experts to convert the existing political will into bankable projects. The initial cost would exceed $10 billion but it could be financed by project bonds issued by the European Investment Bank and it would produce very high returns.

It is also high time for the European Union to take a critical look at itself. There must be something wrong with the EU if Putin’s Russia can be so successful even in the short term. The bureaucracy of the EU no longer has a monopoly of power and it has little to be proud of. It should learn to be more united, flexible, and efficient. And Europeans themselves need to take a close look at the new Ukraine. That could help them recapture the original spirit that led to the creation of the European Union. The European Union would save itself by saving Ukraine.

—October 23, 2014

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-1...-threat-russia

Putin Warns Of Risk Of Major Conflict, Says Dollar Losing Reserve Currency Status


Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/24/2014 14:06 -0400

Having been relatively quiet for a while, Russia's leader Vladimir, speaking in Sochi (following meetings with Middle East crown princes who confirmed Russia as a key partner - "isolated"?), has unleashed his most aggressive statements with regard the failing world order:

• *PUTIN SAYS U.S. DOLLAR LOSING TRUST AS RESERVE CURRENCY
• *PUTIN: WORLD WITHOUT RULES IS POSSIBILITY; ANARCHY GROWING

Adding that the risk of major conflicts involving major countries is growing, as well as the risk of arms control treaties being violated, Putin exclaimed that the US-led unipolar world is like a dictatorship over other countries and that "US leadership brings no good for others," and calls for a new global consensus.

Having met Crown Prince Al Nahyan of Abu Dhabi in Sochi, who confirmed that Moscow “plays a very important role in the Middle East," and added that he had no doubts that his country and Russia “are bound by a privileged relationship," it appears Russia is less "isolated" than the West would have many believe.

As Bloomberg reports:

• *PUTIN SPEAKS AT MEETING OF VALDAI CLUB IN SOCHI
• *PUTIN SAYS WORLD GROWING LESS SECURE, PREDICTABLE
• *PUTIN SAYS NO GUARANTEE OF GLOBAL SECURITY
• *GLOBAL SECURITY SYSTEM IS WEAK, DEFORMED: PUTIN
• *COLD WAR ENDED WITHOUT PEACE BEING ACHIEVED: PUTIN
• *PUTIN SAYS COLD WAR `VICTORS' DISMANTLING INTL LAWS, RELATIONS
• *U.S. HAS WORSENED DISBALANCE IN INTL RELATIONS: PUTIN
• *PUTIN SAYS U.S. ACTING LIKE NOUVEAU RICHE AS GLOBAL LEADER
• *PUTIN SAYS WORLD LEADERS BEING BLACKMAILED BY `BIG BROTHER'
• *U.S. LEADERSHIP BRINGS NO GOOD FOR OTHERS: PUTIN
• *PUTIN SEES GLOBAL MEDIA UNDER CONTROL, UNDERMINING TRUTH
• *PUTIN SAYS WEST CLOSED EYES TO INTL TERRORISM ENTERING RUSSIA
• *PUTIN CALLS U.S. SELF-APPOINTED LEADER
• *PUTIN: UNIPOLAR WORLD LIKE DICTATORSHIP OVER OTHER COUNTRIES
• *PUTIN SAYS MANY COUNTRIES DISENCHANTED W/ GLOBALIZATION: PUTIN
• *PUTIN SAYS U.S. DOLLAR LOSING TRUST AS RESERVE CURRENCY
• *RUSSIA WON'T BEG FOR ANYTHING: PUTIN
• *SANCTIONS UNDERMINING WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION RULES: PUTIN
• *RUSSIA ISN'T WALLING ITSELF OFF FROM WORLD, PUTIN SAYS
• *RUSSIA READY FOR DIALOGUE ON NORMALIZING ECONOMIC TIES: PUTIN
• *PUTIN: WORLD WITHOUT RULES IS POSSIBILITY; ANARCHY GROWING
• *PUTIN CALLS FOR NEW GLOBAL CONSENSUS, INTERDEPENDENCE
• *PUTIN: CONTINUED USE OF FORCE IN UKRAINE MAY LEAD TO DEAD END
• *PUTIN SAYS U.S. CAN'T HUMILIATE ITS PARTNERS FOREVER

* * *
Fighting talk?
* * *

Escalation? It seems sabre-rattling is picking up as The Washington Times reports,

Russian military provocations have increased so much over the seven months since Moscow annexed Crimea from Ukraine that Washington and its allies are scrambling defense assets on a nearly daily basis in response to air, sea and land incursions by Vladimir Putin’s forces.

Not only is Moscow continuing to foment unrest in Eastern Ukraine, U.S. officials and regional security experts say Russian fighter jets are testing U.S. reaction times over Alaska and Japan’s ability to scramble planes over its northern islands — all while haunting Sweden’s navy and antagonizing Estonia’s tiny national security force.



“What’s going on is a radical escalation of aggressive Russian muscle flexing and posturing designed to demonstrate that Russia is no longer a defeated power of the Cold War era,” says Ariel Cohen, who heads the Center for Energy, National Resources and Geopolitics at the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security in Washington.

“The more we retreat, the more we are encouraging Russia to behave in a more aggressive way,” Mr. Cohen said. “We need to be engaging more deeply with our Central Asian allies, but instead we are in the process of abandoning turf to Russia, and it’s wrong — it’s against our interests geopolitically to let Russia feel that they all of a sudden have won all the turf without firing a shot.”

* * *

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-1...urrency-status

12 November 2014 Last updated at 11:05 ET

Ukraine crisis: Russian troops crossed border, Nato says



A column of unidentified tanks was seen on a road near the rebel-held town of Shakhtarsk on Monday

Ukraine crisis

• Will war return?
• Crisis mapped
• Chaos and courage
• Tense time

Nato officials have seen Russian military equipment and Russian combat troops entering Ukraine this week, its top commander says.

"Russian tanks, Russian artillery, Russian air defence systems and Russian combat troops" were sighted, US Gen Philip Breedlove said.

Russia's defence ministry denied that its troops were in eastern Ukraine to help pro-Russian separatists there.

However, the rebels have admitted being helped by "volunteers" from Russia.

The United Nations Security Council is convening an emergency session later on Wednesday to discuss the reported sightings.

Heavy artillery fire rocked the east Ukrainian city of Donetsk, the industrial hub held by pro-Russian separatist rebels, on Wednesday morning.
It was unclear whether the fire came from besieging government forces or the rebels themselves, or both.

There were also reports of fighting near the rebel-held city of Luhansk. One Ukrainian soldier was killed and another injured north of Luhansk, when rebels fired on government positions near the village of Schastya, Ukrainian security forces said.


Analysis: Jonathan Marcus, BBC defence and diplomatic correspondent Events in Ukraine seem to be turning full circle.

Back in August, Nato was warning about the deployment of Russian artillery batteries inside Ukraine, the supply of Russian military equipment to the rebel forces and the build-up of further Russian combat units at the Ukrainian frontier.

Since then many of these units have been withdrawn.

But now with tensions renewed, Nato's Supreme Commander in Europe General Philip Breedlove has confirmed that over the past two days, Nato has seen columns of Russian armour, artillery and crucially - combat troops - entering Ukraine.

The question now is whether this is just a re-run of events in the summer or does a more significant clash beckon, perhaps one where the Kremlin may decide - in its terms - to teach the Ukrainians a military lesson.

General Breedlove also confirmed that Nato believes Russia is deploying nuclear-capable weapons to Crimea - a reference to reports that Russia is deploying short-range Iskander ballistic missiles there that could potentially be equipped with nuclear warheads.


Unmarked convoys The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has reported seeing unmarked convoys in the region in recent days.

Gen Breedlove, talking to reporters on a visit to Bulgaria, was asked about the purpose of the alleged Russian troop deployment.

He replied: "As to their intent, I'm not sure. My strategic team believes that there is a possibility that, as you know, this pocket of separatist Russian-backed forces and Russian forces in the east of Ukraine - it's not a very contiguous pocket. There are lines of communications that are interrupted. There are airports that are not held by the Russian-backed forces etc.

"And so it is our first guess that these forces will go in to make this a more contiguous, more whole and capable pocket of land in order to then hold on to it long term."
Gen Breedlove did not specify how many troops, vehicles or weapons were seen. A Nato official confirmed to the BBC that Nato "assessed" that the equipment and troops were Russian in origin.



The main city in Ukraine's east, Donetsk, has seen its heaviest shelling in weeks
Russian defence official Maj-Gen Igor Konashenkov said "there was and is no evidence" to support Gen Breedlove's claims.

Russia has consistently denied sending troops and equipment to support the rebels fighting in eastern Ukraine.

Preparations Separately, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said that the country's long-range bombers would go on patrol flights over the Arctic Ocean to the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico.

He said that the current situation required Russia to restart the flights, which were abandoned at the end of the Cold War.
Meanwhile, Ukraine's defence minister has said that government forces are redeploying in preparation for a possible new offensive by pro-Russian separatist rebels.



A Reuters reporter captured armed men and military vehicles near a checkpoint in Donetsk on Wednesday "The main task I see is to prepare for combat operations. We are doing this, we are readying our reserves," Stepan Poltorak told a government meeting.

More than 4,000 people have died since government forces moved in April to put down an armed insurrection by the rebels in the two regions, which border Russia.
A fragile ceasefire was agreed in Minsk on 5 September, although hundreds of people have been killed since then.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Tuesday her government was "not satisfied" with the progress in implementing the Minsk agreement, but added that there were no plans at present for further economic sanctions against Russia over its involvement in Ukraine.

"Further economic sanctions are not planned at the moment, we are focusing on the winter and the humanitarian situation there and how to get a real ceasefire," she said.
The OSCE said earlier that the conflict could get worse.

"The level of violence in eastern Ukraine and the risk of further escalation remain high and are rising," OSCE representative Michael Bociurkiw told reporters in Kiev.



http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe...e=news_central

BREAKING The Russian Air Force Started Operations Inside Occupied Eastern Ukraine, Nov 12 2014



Published on Nov 12, 2014
EMPR as independent citizen media focuses on developing the capacity of Ukrainian citizens to engage with the international community & spread truthful news on events in Ukraine 24/7 as a window into conflict areas in times of crisis.

Join EMPR & stay with us:
Web: https://empr.media
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Euromaid...
Twitter EN: https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPR
Twitter IT: https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPR_IT
Twitter RU: https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPR_RU
Facebook DE: https://www.facebook.com/EuromaidanPR.de
Facebook IT: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Euroma...
Facebook PL: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Euroma...
Facebook RU: https://www.facebook.com/Euromaidanpr...
Facebook FR: https://www.facebook.com/euromaidanpr...
Facebook PT: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Euroma...ês/606316119437434?fref=ts
Facebook EN: https://www.facebook.com/empr.media.en
Google+: https://www.google.com/+EuroMaidanPR
========================================*======
EMPR supports ppl with in-time news.You can also support EMPR: https://plus.google.com/1127001722531...
========================================*======
With credits to EuroMaydan
Original video available at http://youtu.be/0l17xf7a9Cc
========================================*=======
The present material selected, adapted & published by EMPR #1 independent citizen media about Ukraine | BREAKING The Russian Air Force Started Operations Inside Occupied Eastern Ukraine, Nov 12 2014 | http://youtu.be/PPA8QMbbUMI

Russia Announces Deployment of Bombers Over Gulf of Mexico

Announcement follows NATO moves in Eastern Europe


Image Credits: U.S. Air Force

by Kurt Nimmo | Infowars.com | November 12, 2014

Russia will send long-ranger bombers on regular patrols over the Gulf of Mexico, according to military officials.

Following moves by NATO in response to the crisis in Ukraine, Sergei Shoigu, the Minister of Defense for the Russian Federation and General of the Army, said “we have to maintain military presence in the western Atlantic and eastern Pacific, as well as the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico.”
In June, U.S. fighter jets intercepted Russian bombers off Alaska and California.
Earlier this week, the European Leadership Network released a report, Dangerous Brinkmanship: Close Military Encounters Between Russia and the West in 2014, stating there has been an increase in military encounters between Russian and NATO since the annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region in March.
The foundation supported think tank says three out of nearly 40 incidents had a “high probability” of triggering military confrontation. It reports the incidents “include harassment of reconnaissance planes, close overflights over warships, and Russian ‘mock bombing raid’ missions.”
The increased flights are designed to demonstrate Russia is capable militarily as NATO increases its military cooperation with Eastern European nations on its border.
“It’s interesting the way these multiple violations have been quite carefully choreographed to show it can encircle NATO,” Justin Bronk, a research analyst for the Royal United Services Institute think tank, told Channel 4 News in October.
“They forced as many players within NATO as possible to deploy intercepts.”

http://www.infowars.com/russia-annou...ulf-of-mexico/