text:
Putin Prepares, For Russia To Win A Nuclear War
9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth News
The Russian foreign Ministry advised US to remove non-strategic nuclear weapons from Europe
The official representative of the Russian foreign Ministry Alexander Lukashevich believes that U.S. nonstrategic nuclear weapons should be returned to the US. According to the diplomat, the only way to prevent the implementation of the joint nuclear missions, which are contrary to the spirit of the Treaty on the non-proliferation of those weapons.
The official representative of the Russian foreign Ministry Alexander Lukashevich believes that U.S. nonstrategic nuclear weapons should be returned to the US with European territories member countries NATO. This is stated in the report on the website of the foreign Ministry. So the diplomat answered the question about the implementation of the joint nuclear missions.
According to Lukashevich, Moscow has repeatedly drawn the attention of the representatives of the Alliance that this practice is in direct contradiction to the spirit and letter of the Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT). "We believe that to refer, as does the American side, on the "Statute of limitations" and some "understanding", which were allegedly made in the process of negotiating the text of the NPT, at least, inappropriate", - stated in the message.
According to the diplomat, the problem can be solved in only one way: to return all non-strategic nuclear weapons in national territory. In addition, Lukashevich considers it necessary to impose a ban on its placement abroad, to eliminate the infrastructure to provide rapid deployment of these weapons, and to renounce the exercise related to the preparation and use of nuclear weapons by the armed forces of countries that do not possess such weapons.
In addition, Lukashevich said that the representative of the U.S. state Department Jen Psaki "blatantly distorting the facts, arguing that U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe "is constantly under the control of the United States and is never transmitted to other countries".
Earlier, on March 20, Jen Psaki said that the deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe on-site Parking member countries NATO and joint testing with non-nuclear States allies Washington skills of their application consistent with the provisions of the NPT. In addition, she noted that the issue was completely resolved in negotiations in the contract. She stated this at a regular press briefing.
In early March, the Director of the Department of the MFA of Russia on nonproliferation and arms control, Mikhail Ulyanov said that further steps in nuclear disarmament has become difficult in the U.S. actions. According to him, the United States has violated the provisions of the NPT, including teaching pilots NATO use of nuclear weapons.
https://news.mail.ru/politics/21488453/
Time to dust this off:
'Duck And Cover (1951) Bert The Turtle Civil Defense Film':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 10:39 am Post subject:
'Russia would attack NATO only in mad person's dream' – Putin:
http://rt.com/news/265399-putin-nato-europe-ukraine-italy/
'Russia is not building up its offensive military capabilities overseas and is only responding to security threats caused by US and NATO military expansion on its borders, Russian President Vladimir Putin told Italian outlet Il Corriere della Sera.
READ MORE: Moscow 'closely looks' into reported US plans to return medium-range missiles to Europe
Speaking to the paper on the eve of his visit to Italy, Putin stressed that one should not take the ongoing "Russian aggression" scaremongering in the West seriously, as a global military conflict is unimaginable in the modern world.
"I think that only an insane person and only in a dream can imagine that Russia would suddenly attack NATO. I think some countries are simply taking advantage of people's fears with regard to Russia. They just want to play the role of front-line countries that should receive some supplementary military, economic, financial or some other aid," Putin said.
Certain countries could be deliberately nurturing such fears, he added, saying that hypothetically the US could need an external threat to maintain its leadership in the Atlantic community. "Iran is clearly not very scary or big enough" for this, Putin noted with irony.
Russia's President invited the journalists to compare the global military presence of Russia and the US/NATO, as well as their military spending levels. He also urged them to look at the steps each side has taken in connection with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Russia's military policy is "not global, offensive, or aggressive," Putin stressed, adding that Russia has "virtually no bases abroad," and the few that do exist are remnants of its Soviet past.......'
Pentagon lists Russia, ISIS as major threats in new military strategy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x96qyyzoblM&feature=em-uploademail
New Pentagon policy paper states US may unilaterally intervene if international laws are broken. It's not that they don't already 'intervene' when they fancy, it has now been officially stated as policy.
The Subtly Hostile Message Putin Sent Obama on Independence Day:
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/the-subtly-hostile-message-putin-sent-o bama-on-independence-day_072015
'Saturday was a rather slow news day. The crisis in Greece was on a brief hiatus before the Sunday vote, and most Americans were busy celebrating Independence Day. The only thing that was widely reported was Putin's 4th of July message to President Obama, in which he offered an olive branch to the US. "In his message of congratulations, the Russian President noted that, despite the differences between the two countries, Russian-American relations remain the most important factor of international stability and security." The message mostly interpreted as a kind of "Happy 4th of July" to the President.
But on that same day something rather interesting happened, and we're just now hearing about it. Between 10:30am and 11:00 am, two separate teams of Russian Tu-95 strategic bombers flew towards the coasts of California and Alaska. It's not known if they were armed, by they are designed to carry nuclear payloads. While they didn't breach US airspace, they did come close enough to cause several American fighter jets to scramble and intercept the bombers.
This isn't the first time this has happened either. The Russians did the same thing on the 4th of July in 2012, though it lacked Putin's coy message to Obama. Separately these two events would mean nothing, but together, they amount to a not-so-subtle question to President Obama: Carrot or stick?'
Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2015 12:44 am Post subject:
And all NATO can say is
The twits!
Russia's Secret Hypersonic Nuclear Missile Yu-71 Can Breach Existing Missile Defense Systems: Experts
By Kukil Bora @KukilBora on June 29 2015 6:28 AM EDT
http://www.ibtimes.com/russias-secret-hypersonic-nuclear-missile-yu-71 -can-breach-existing-missile-defense-1987590
Russia's new Yu-71 hypersonic missile is said to have maximum speed of about 7,000 mph. Costas Metaxakis/AFP/Getty Images
Russia is currently working on a new hypersonic missile, which can carry nuclear warheads and breach existing missile defense systems, according to military experts. The new weapon is part of Russia's plans to modernize the country's strategic missile force.
Russia is said to have spent several years developing the "Yu-71" missile, under a project codenamed "Project 4202." The missile is claimed to have a maximum speed of 11,200 kilometers per hour (about 7,000 mph or Mach 10), and is also said to be highly maneuverable. Russia has so far carried out four tests of the Yu-71, with the most recent test flight conducted on Feb. 26, Russia's Sputnik News reported, citing a recent report by Jane's Intelligence Review.
"This would give Russia the ability to deliver a guaranteed small-scale strike against a target of choice; if coupled with an ability to penetrate missile defenses, Moscow would also retain the option of launching a successful single-missile attack," the Jane's Intelligence Review report said.
According to the report, Russia could deploy up to 24 nuclear-capable Yu-71 payloads between 2020 and 2025. In addition, the country is also expected to develop the Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile by that time, which could be used to carry the new hypersonic device, Sputnik reported.
The United States and China are also working on the technology needed to build hypersonic missiles, raising concerns about a new arms race among the world's top three superpowers.
China has reportedly tested its hypersonic strike vehicle called "Wu-14," which has been tested at least four times since January 2014. The weapon, which can carry nuclear warheads while travelling at 7,000 mph, can also reportedly neutralize the U.S. anti-missile shield.
The U.S., on the other hand, is said to have engineered a similar weapon, which can travel at Mach 5, or about 3,806 mph, Inquisitr reported.
Putin puts fear of God in New World Order: Barrett:
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/03/19/355259/putin-puts-fear-of-god -in-nwo/
'In the wake of Crimea's independence referendum, Hillary Clinton says Russian President Putin is a "new Hitler." Zbigniew Brezezinski, former National Security Advisor agrees, calling Putin not just another Hitler, but also a thug, a menace, a Mafia gangster, and a Mussolini. The Western mainstream media echoes this childish name-calling.
Why is the whole Western foreign policy establishment so afraid of Putin?
Because Putin is standing up against Western aggression – not only in Ukraine, but also in Syria and Iran. Ongoing Western attempts to destabilize these and other countries are just the most recent examples of a decades-old pattern of aggression. The long-term goal: Total destruction of traditional nations and values, and the creation of a New World Order global dictatorship.
Since the 1953 CIA-MI6 coup in Iran, the West has been using the same formula to overthrow legitimate but uncooperative leaders: First, sabotage the country's economy. Then bribe corrupt military officers and thugs and pay rent-a-mobs to create chaos in the streets. Next (this step is optional) incite violence by paying snipers to fire into crowds – and maybe set off some bombs. Finally, send the corrupt military units and gangsters to overthrow the target nation's legitimate leader, murder or imprison his supporters, install a Western puppet in his place – and announce that "order has been restored."
The CIA did it to Iran's democratically-elected Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953, to Indonesia's President Sukarno in 1965, and to Chile's Prime Minister Allende on September 11th, 1973. They did the same thing to Ukraine's legitimate president, Viktor Yanukovych, a few weeks ago. Neocon regime-change apparatchik Victoria Nuland (The assistant US secretary of state,) got caught admitting that the US had spent five billion dollars to overthrow Ukraine's democratically-elected government; and EU Foreign Affairs Chief Catherine Ashton was heard on tape discussing the "news" that the Maidan Square snipers were part of the US-sponsored coup.
The people of Ukraine should be worried. US-sponsored coups can turn very bloody very quickly.
The CIA's 1965 Indonesia coup was one of the biggest holocausts in history. According to Princeton history professor Bradley Simpson, as cited by the Jakarta Globe: "The US and British governments did everything in their power to ensure that the Indonesian army would carry out the mass killings" of more than one million people following the coup against Sukarno. Most of the victims were tortured before they were murdered. The list of names of people to be tortured and murdered was provided by the CIA to their hired Indonesian thugs. While this was going on, five-year-old Barrack Obama was living in Indonesia with his stepfather Lolo Soetoro, who was working for the American mass murderers.
That's right: Obama's stepfather was a holocaust perpetrator.
In 1971, following the CIA's coup in Chile, the American stooge Pinochet murdered 3,000 people and tortured 30,000. These actions were fully supported by Pinochet's American sponsors, who trained and paid the thugs and torturers.
The hecatomb in Syria, too, is best understood as yet another US-sponsored coup attempt.
The NWO-driven Americans and their Western allies have killed tens of millions in these coups, interventions, destabilization campaigns, and undeclared wars. According to André Vltchek and Noam Chomsky's book On Western Terrorism, the total number killed is over 50 million since World War II. If we add to this the number of people tortured, brutalized, falsely imprisoned, forced to become refugees, or who had their lives ruined by Western terrorism, the number of victims reaches the hundreds of millions.
Today, the American terrorists and their NATO allies seem less interested in installing puppet governments than in reducing entire nations to chaos. The CIA-NATO coup against Gaddafi has destroyed Libya as a modern nation-state. Western-backed false-flag terror in Iraq is splitting up that country. Syria is being decimated by a Western-backed attempt to overthrow Assad. Venezuela, too, is being destabilized by a CIA-backed coup effort.
In short, the New World Order – a shadowy group of global banking oligarchs bent on establishing a one-world dictatorship – is trying to overthrow every leader on earth who resists. Russian President Putin is resisting. That is why the Western propaganda machine is calling him names.
It is worth noting that Russia and Iran – the two nations most successfully resisting NWO regime change – are doing so in the name of God.
According to Catholic intellectual E. Michael Jones, the 1979 Iranian Revolution was the opening salvo of a global backlash against secularism's destruction of traditional values. Like the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan (driven by Americans' disgust with the so-called sexual revolution) and the rise of Poland's Solidarity movement (which opposed communist atheism), the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran was a landmark event signaling an end to the 20th-century wave of militant secularism and atheism – and a revival of traditional religion.
President Putin enjoys overwhelming popularity in Russia due to his defense of traditional religious values. In his State of the Nation address last December, Putin said: "Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values… Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan."
Putin's reference to Satanism was a pointed rebuke to the New World Order elites, who – though they push militant secularism on the societies they are trying to undermine – are closet Satanists. Anyone who doubts this should run the name "Lt. Col. Michael Aquino" through a search engine. Aquino, an avowed Satanist and credibly-accused mass child abuser, was rewarded for his crimes against children with an appointment as Chief of Psychological Warfare for the US military. (For background on the satanic international banking elite, and its near-total control of Western institutions, read Nick Bryant's book The Franklin Scandal alongside the work of Canadian scholar Henry Makow.)
The shock troops of the NWO's war against religion and tradition (and Russia and Iran) are the neoconservatives. Operation Gladio terrorist Michael Ledeen explains: "Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace ... We must destroy them to advance our historic mission."
Putin is stopping New World Order "creative destruction" in Syria and Ukraine. He is part of a growing coalition opposing the NWO – not just religious traditionalists, but also progressive anti-globalization forces, including Hugo Chavez inspired anti-imperialists in Latin America.
We are facing an epic struggle between those who espouse sacred values such as justice and decency versus those who wish to destroy all values.
God bless President Putin, who is putting the fear of God into the New World Order.'
HRB/HRB
Putin prepares for peace!
Impressive speech it the UN today
Begins by discussing Yalta agreement & the Nazis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q13yzl6k6w0
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:43 am Post subject:
If only we had leaders like Putin and his Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov!
Here is a short 7 1/2 minute video clip of Putin speaking to the Valdai Club, and a full text of his whole speech:
Putin: Who created ISIS?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbZDyr2LkdI
Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club:
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/46860
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2015 12:09 am Post subject:
Moscow doubles down on Washington
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/318753-moscow-washington-war-syria/
Edited time: 16 Oct, 2015 20:03
History may eventually decide the 'New World Order' started on September 28, when Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Barack Obama had a 90-minute face off at the UN in New York.
Irrespective of spin – "productive" according to the White House, "tense" according to a source close to the Kremlin – facts on the ground accumulated almost immediately.
Putin did press Obama for the US to join Russia in a real grand coalition bent on smashing ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. The Obama administration, once again, relented. I detailed here what happened next: an earth-shattering game-changer in the 'New Great Game' in Eurasia, straight out of the Caspian Sea, that caught the acronym fest of US intelligence – not to mention the Pentagon - completely off-guard.
So this was Putin's first message to Washington, and the Pentagon/NATO combo in particular; your fancy ideas of stationing tactical nuclear weapons or expanding missile defense to Eastern Europe, or even Asia-Pacific, are just a mirage. Our cruise missiles are capable of wreaking real effective havoc; and soon, as this piece argues, there will be more hypersonic, high-precision long-range missiles added to the mix.
Old habits don't die hard – they remain in a coma forever. The Pentagon's response to the facts launched from the Caspian Sea was to conduct an airdrop of light weapons to "a select group of vetted leaders and their units," as in those famously non-existent Syrian "moderate rebels." The weapons will inevitably be captured by assorted Salafi-jihadi goon outfits in no time.
Then the British government was forced to deny a Murdoch-controlled Sunday Times "report" that British Tornadoes in Syria are now armed with air-to-air missiles to counter potential Russian aerial "attacks."
READ MORE: UK MoD denies tabloid reports RAF 'ready to shoot down' Russian planes over Iraq
And to top it off, the proverbial "military experts" infesting US corporate media started spinning that we are only 30 seconds from World War III.
The Glazyev nuclear plan
A still apoplectic Pentagon will take time to absorb the new military facts on the Syrian ground – and skies. That will add to the utter desperation displayed by the 'Masters of the Universe' in the Washington/Wall Street axis – itching to break the China-Russia strategic partnership by all means necessary. Quite a feat when the Pentagon is still fighting World War II, with its weapons, ships and monster aircraft carriers displayed as sitting ducks against Russia's new batch of missiles.
But then there's also Putin's second – silent - message to Washington, which didn't even have to be delivered in person to Obama. US intel though may have a hint about it, as they closely follow Russian media.
It's about Sergey Glazyev's (presidential aide) plan for Russia's immediate economic future here is a summary of the plan, in Russian. The plan was formally proposed to Russia's Security Council. Here is a very good summary on how Russia's Security Council works.
There are at least three absolutely key points in Glazyev's plan. We may summarize them like this:
1. If the emerging trend of freezing private assets of Russian legal entities and individuals continues, Russia should consider full or a partial moratorium on the servicing of loans and investment from the countries involved in the freezing.
2. The amount of foreign currency assets of the Russian Federation located in the jurisdiction of NATO countries accounts to more than $1.2 trillion, including short-term debt of about $800 billion. Their freeze may be partially offset by retaliation against NATO assets in Russia, which amounts to $1.1 trillion, including over $400 billion long-term. So this threat would be neutralized if Russian monetary authorities organized a timely withdrawal of Russian short-term assets in the US and the EU.
3. Glazyev is adamant that the Russian Central Bank continues to serve the interests of foreign capital – as in the financial powers in London and New York. He contends that the high interest rates practiced by the Russian Central Bank led Russian oligarchs to borrow more cheaply from the West, making the Russian economy dependent, a debt trap which the West used to slowly squeeze Russia. Then the rigged Western oil and ruble collapse increased the pressure as debt service in ruble cost and interest doubled.
Sergei Glazyev, Presidential Advisor for Regional Economic Integration © Ramil Sitdikov
Sergei Glazyev, Presidential Advisor for Regional Economic Integration © Ramil Sitdikov / RIA Novosti
So what Glazyev proposes, essentially, is that Moscow must gain total control of its Central Bank, preventing speculators to move their credit around for non-productive purposes; Moscow should also establish currency controls; and must create a central organization of technological research to replace the loss of Western technology, imitating the US methodology of rolling out from its centralized military research those technologies that can be commercialized for the consumer market.
The fact is Russia has lost access to Western credit and cannot roll over its debt with the creditors. So Russia will have to pay the principle and the interest as it comes due. That is a trillion dollars plus interest. Russia also cannot import anything from the West without paying double for it. So arguably the country may be now in the very position it will be if Moscow opts for default. Thus, Russia would have nothing to lose by a default - as the damage is already done.
Essentially, once again, a Russian default on a $1 trillion-plus debt to private Western parties remains a possible scenario discussed at the highest level – assuming Washington will persist in its anti-Russia demonization campaign.
It's clear the squeeze Russia is feeling has less to do with sanctions than the grip maintained by Western financial powers over the Russian Central Bank. The Russian Central Bank did create a debt trap by maintaining high interest rates in Russia while the West was lending at low interest rates.
Needless to add, such a default, if it ever happened, would collapse the entire Western financial system.
One should never forget the Big Picture; the Syria/Ukraine/sanctions saga runs in parallel to Russia-China and closer BRICS integration shifting the balance of geopolitical power. For the 'Masters of the Universe', this is beyond anathema. Enter, for instance, the use of cash settlement through their Wall Street proxies to raise the A shares of China to hysterical highs and then try to crash their entire stock market by a reverse cash settlement rig as in 1987.
China is moving toward their own SWIFT payment system, not to mention a whole new Chinese-led set of international institutions independent of US control. Russia, for its part, recently passed a bill that would allow the seizing of foreign assets if Russian assets in the West are seized. As Glazyev pointed out, investment in Russia by the West are more or less equivalent to investments of Russia in the West.
The 'Masters of the Universe' may keep insisting on using financial weapons of mass destruction. Russia, silently and with a few key facts in the Caspian Sea, is letting them know it's ready for whatever scenario they can come up with.
A less apocalyptic ending may be healthy. So here's a popular joke in Moscow nowadays, as told by William Engdahl. Putin is back in the Kremlin after his meeting with Obama in New York. He tells an aide he invited Obama for a game of chess. And then he tells it how it works: "It's like playing with a pigeon. First it knocks over all the pieces, then it * on the board and finally struts around like it won."
Did Russia Just "Gently" Threaten The USA?:
'.......According to the Kremlin was mistakenly leaked secret document. And just to make sure that everybody got it, RT wrote a full article in English about this in an article entitled "'Assured unacceptable damage': Russian TV accidentally leaks secret 'nuclear torpedo' design". According to RT
The presentation slide titled "Ocean Multipurpose System: Status-6" showed some drawings of a new nuclear submarine weapons system. It is apparently designed to bypass NATO radars and any existing missile defense systems, while also causing heavy damage to "important economic facilities" along the enemy's coastal regions. The footnote to the slide stated that Status-6 is intended to cause "assured unacceptable damage" to an adversary force. Its detonation "in the area of the enemy coast" would result in "extensive zones of radioactive contamination" that would ensure that the region would not be used for "military, economic, business or other activity" for a "long time." According to the blurred information provided in the slide, the system represents a massive torpedo, designated as "self-propelled underwater vehicle," with a range of up to 10 thousand kilometers and capable of operating at a depth of up to 1,000 meters.
Actually, such ideas are nothing new. The late Andrei Sakharov had already proposed a similar idea to basically wipe out the entire US East Coast. The Russians have also look into the possibility to detonate a nuclear device to set off the "Yellowstone Caldera" and basically destroy most of the USA in one shot. While in the early years following WWII the Soviets did look into all sort of schemes to threaten the USA with destruction, the subsequent development of Soviet nuclear capabilities made the development of this type of "doomsday weapons" useless. Personally, I don't believe for one second that the Russians are now serious about developing such system as it would be literally a waste of resources. So what is going on here?
This so-called "leak" of "secret documents" is, of course, no leak at all. This is a completely deliberate action. To imagine that a Russian journalist could, just by mistake, film a secret document (helpfully held up for him by a general) and then just walk away, get it passed his editor and air it is laughable. Any footage taken in a meeting of the President with his senior generals would be checked many times over. No, this was a deliberate way to remind the USA that if they really are hell-bent on spending billions of dollars in a futile quest to create some kind of anti-missile system Russia could easily develop a cheap weapon system to still threaten the USA with total annihilation. Because, make no mistake, the kind of long range torpedo being suggested here would be rather cheap to build using only already existing technologies. I would even add that rather than setting such a weapon off the US coast the system could also be designed to fire off a secondary missile (ballistic or cruise) which could then fly to any inland target. Again, such technologies already exist in the Russian military and have even been deployed on a smaller scale. See for yourself:
.........'
Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2015 10:19 pm Post subject:
'US Gambling on War with Russia in Syria' By Finian Cunningham:
'....What other military leverage is being contemplated? This week, Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that a joint ground force was being prepared to set up «safe zones» within Syria. Erdogan said he had discussed this contingency with Obama in a phone call. Of course, Erdogan couched the planned invasion of Syria as a measure to counter the extremist Islamic State group (also known as ISIS, ISIL).
Again, that is just public relations window-dressing since Erdogan's Turkey has been a main sponsor and facilitator of extremist groups infiltrating Syria from Turk territory.
Erdogan said: «We are insisting on a no-fly zone in Syria as a safe zone. Our allies are getting closer to the idea. Some progress has also been made on conducting a ground operation against ISIL… Yesterday [Monday], I had a phone conversation with US President Barack Obama on the issue».
The idea of annexing Syrian territory has long been pushed by Turkey since the beginning of the Syrian conflict more than four years ago. Hawkish pundits and politicians in Washington have also been advocating safe zones or no-fly zones in Syria. But up to now, the Obama administration has baulked at that intervention owing to perceived military risks of large-scale commitment.
According to Erdogan, the White House seems to be finally warming to the idea of annexing Syrian territory. That concurs with the apparent U-turn by the Obama administration to put boots on the ground with the dispatch of special forces and the promise of more troops, as indicated by Carter. The stated purpose of these troops being sent to organise anti-IS local forces among Kurdish and Syrian Arab does not hold water. A recent report by the New York Times admitted that this local Kurd-Arab coalition was an American «invention» that «existed in name only».
Besides, such a US-supported ground coalition that bolstered Kurdish militia and their aspirations for a separatist state on the southern Turkish border would be anathema to the Erdogan regime in Ankara.
That Washington is now calculating on throwing its weight behind the Turkish plan to carve out Syrian territory may also account for the recent assignment of US F-15 fighter jets to Turkey's southwest Incirlik NATO base. As other observers have noted, the F-15s are air-to-air combat planes. They would have no role in launching ground attacks supposedly against Islamic State militants. But the fighter jets would have a role in patrolling the skies over the would-be safe zones annexed by Turk and US ground forces. That would inevitably pit these US warplanes against Syrian and Russian aircraft.
Meanwhile, in southern Syria the Israelis appear to consulting with the Obama administration over their own annexation plans. The Times of Israel reported that during his White House meeting with Obama this week, Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu raised the issue of formally annexing the Golan Heights. The territory has been held by Israel since the 1967 war. Obama reportedly did not mention the matter publicly, but Netanyahu made it clear that he is looking for formal US recognition of Israel's annexation, according to the Times of Israel.
Note that this de facto break-up of Syrian territory, in the north and south, is officially contrary to what US Secretary of State John Kerry said at the first Vienna summit two weeks ago. Kerry appeared then to agree with Russia's position that Syria should remain a unified state. However, as argued here, the erosion of Syrian sovereign territory by Turkey and Israel, with US support, appears to be part of the military leverage that Washington is seeking to exert on Russia in order for Moscow to accede to American demands for political transition in Damascus.....'
At the risk of being repetitive - back to the 'Yinon Plan'.
And these 'Muslim' mercenaries are fulfilling it for Israel!!!
Whe the f**k don't Imams scream this obvious truth from their pulpits and Minarets? Are they just plain dumb, or scared? No 'houris' will be waiting for them in 7th Heaven!!
Russian Military to Get 'Judgment Day' Command Center Aircraft This Month
http://sputniknews.com/russia/20151201/1031030818/russia-aerial-comman d-center.html
Russian 'doomsday' plane to take to skies as Vladimir Putin refuses to rule out nuclear war against ISIS:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/russian-doomsday-plane-take-sk ies-6998274
'As President Vladimir Putin refuses to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against ISIS terrorists, a Russian "doomsday" plane will take to the skies next week.
Experts fear the world could be only one stray missile strike away from a nuclear conflict as US, British and Russian war jets carrying out bombing raids in Syria.
Not since the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall has the threat of nuclear conflict been so high, with all sides readying their defences and attack capabilities for a possible "doomsday" event.
Last Friday the aptly-named HMS Vengeance submarine – equipped with Trident missiles with nuclear warheads – left Plymouth after a £351 million refit, the Irish Mirror reported .
Unknown to the public, and most of the sub's crew, on board is a safe within a safe containing the British Prime Minister's letter of last resort which can only be opened in the event of a nuclear strike on the UK.
No one has ever seen the contents but it has been reported Tony Blair "turned pale" when he signed the letter when he first became premier.
This week, Vladimir Putin ordered a Russian submarine in the Mediterranean to fire cruise missiles at ISIS in their Syrian strongholds, warning "high-precision weapons that can be equipped either with conventional or special nuclear warheads".
The Russian President also ordered tests on an airborne strategic command centre aboard a modified Ilyushin Il-80 aircraft be speeded up as tensions with NATO member Turkey mounted.
The military superplane is said to be virtually invisible and is designed to maintain full control over Russia's armed forces in the event of a nuclear war.
Should a conflict break out the aircraft will carry Russia's top generals who will command the army, navy, air force and have control over a terrifying arsenal of nuclear weapons.
Aleksandr Komyakov, the director general of the research institute which designed much of the plane's sophisticated equipment said the Il-80's main advantage is its "invincibility".
He said: "While command installations with known ground positions could be eliminated, an airborne command post is a target hard to disable because it shifts continuously.
"The Americans call this type of aircraft 'doomsday planes'."
Russia and the US are the only two nations in the world who possess such a jet but Britain has its own doomsday machines.
The Royal Navy has a fleet of four Vanguard-class submarines – Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance which form the UK's Trident nuclear programme.
At any time there is at least one sub hidden beneath the waves and the commander of each vessel has a secret order he hopes he will never have to carry out for it can mean only one thing, there is a nuclear war raging above the surface.
If the vessel cannot make contact with the UK and the captain believes the Government has been wiped out he will walk to an area of the sub that is off limits to everyone but a select few.
There he will find a locked safe containing the British Prime Minister's letter of last resort. The document has never been seen by anyone only the serving PM as it is burned at the end of each premier's term of office.
The document carries the instructions to the commander on what to do if the UK comes under nuclear attack and the Government is gone. Such is the secrecy surrounding this doomsday letter it is held in a safe within a safe in the bowels of the massive sub which, if needed could stay submerged for four years.
There has been much criticism of the massive amount spent on the UK's Trident programme which has only two purposes, deterrence or total destruction.
At all times one of these 15,000 tonne vessels will be wandering the seas aimlessly deep beneath the waves waiting for an event the world hopes will never happen.
Only a handful of military commanders know any sub's location, indeed most of the crew are totally unaware of the 150-metre vessel's position.
After the Queen appoints a new British Prime Minister one of his first tasks is to write the letter of last resort.
Tony Blair's cabinet secretary has revealed the former Prime Minister went "quite white" on being told of the options open to him when compiling the document. In the event of a nuclear strike on the UK the commander will be faced with the horrendous task of pushing the button that would lead to the deaths of tens of millions of people.
Before he would make that decision the commander would have been out of contact with his superiors for a considerable time as well as making a series of other checks.
One of the more bizarre and quintessentially British checks being the requirement on the sub's crew to try to tune into the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 for several days.
The assumption being if the BBC had gone off the air then civilization has broken down in the UK.'
That should give Stop the War something to spout about at today's march and demo (I didn't bother going, for a change; I'm so sick and tired of their refusal to dialogue with the Truth Movement. A week or so ago I went to a big event they had at Friends House, Euston. I went in after it was essentially finished, though most people were still seated, went to the front of the hall, stood with my back to the panel of speakers II was directly in front of George Galloway) and bellowed ' You will never stop wars with slogans, and until you engage with the Truth Movement. You need good information to stop wars, not slogans'. I got no response whatever, so I left.)
Time to brush up on these classics??
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb:
http://www.veoh.com/watch/v19483133d9a7jQka
Duck And Cover (1951) Bert The Turtle Civil Defense Film:
Minor Poster
Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:29 pm Post subject:
Hi all, my first post.
About 10 years ago visiting a relative in the Southern Hemisphere I was warned by a ranter on a mountain to get out of the UK... He said a Black President would run the US and Russia would nuke the UK. I just hope he was wrong and admit it does not look good.
Good site by the way.
Jason16 wrote:
Welcome to a pretty hep crowd!
If it comes to the crunch, UK won't be the only place that gets to be Nuked! And a 'nuclear winter' has NO geographic boundaries.
Living deep in a cave someplace, won't be of much use if you don't have access to safe(????) water, or any food at all; if you venture out, your more likely to get eaten than to find something to eat. Just cheering you up (one of my fortes).
Watch the following, to get yourself into the Yuletide mood:
Did Putin down Russian holiday jet?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3374231/Did-Putin-plant-holida y-jet-bomb-killed-224-Russians-s-outrageous-theory-ex-KGB-agent-claims -dossier-proves-Kremlin-orchestrated-atrocity-justify-waging-war-Syria -decide-yourself.html
Putin's New Year Address 2016: Grateful to all those defending Russia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgGbAq02PtY&feature=em-uploademail
Every time I see Putin or Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, I am struck by their honesty and sincerity (I know Putin is no angel - Moscow flats 'False Flag' for instance) - but to our Prime Minsters, Presidents, Ministers, Congressmen, Senators and politicians they are beacons of straight talking.
Last edited by outsider on Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:47 pm; edited 3 times in total
Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 10:41 pm Post subject:
Probably because they're neither witches nor freemasons
outsider wrote:
Every time I see Putin or Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, I am struck by their sincerity, honesty and sincerity (I Putin is no angel - Moscow flats 'False Flag' for instance - but to our Prime Minsters, Presidents, Ministers, Congressmen, Senators and politicians they are beacons of straight talking.
Russia to Launch Massive Ballistic Missile Test From Nuclear Subs
http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/1.706931
'Russia is about to test-launch a volley of intercontinental ballistic missiles from nuclear-powered submarines, during an exercise to test the combat readiness of its nuclear deterrence forces, according to a report in the newspaper Izvestia.
The missiles will include the new Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missile, which is intended as the future cornerstone of Russia's nuclear capability and is the country's most expensive weapons project.
The missiles will be fired by two Borei-class nuclear-powered submarines, the Yuri Dolgoruky and the Vladimir Monomakh, Izvestiya reported, quoting a source at the Northern Fleet's headquarters.
The Bulava entered service with the Yuri Dolgoruky in January 2013.
The launch, which is expected to take place in the Barents Sea, will test the submarines' ability to fire 16 IBMs while moving at a depth of 50 meters in choppy seas.
It will be only the fourth such exercise since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Previous tests have had very mixed success, according to Pravda newspaper.
"Last year, the Vladimir Monomakh fired two missiles from under the water. However, one of the missiles self-destructed, and the other one did not pass the test for accuracy," Pravda wrote.
"The remaining missiles were sent back to the manufacturer to determine the causes of the failure. It was established that the failure occurred because of production defects."
Russian jet performs 'aggressive' barrel roll over US plane for a second time this month
The US has criticised the Russian plane for the dangerous move, perfomed in international airspace
Harriet Sinclair Saturday 30 April 2016135 comments
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/russian-jet-performs- aggressive-barrel-roll-over-us-plane-for-a-second-time-this-month-a700 8226.html
A Russian jet performed the 'aggressive' move over the Baltic Sea AFP/Getty Images
A Russian jet has performed an 'aggressive' barrel roll over a US plane on a reconnaissance mission for the second time in a month.
The Russian aircraft, a SU-27, performed the manoeuvre in international airspace over the Baltic Sea, approaching the US aircraft and flying over the top of it to the other side, at a distance of around 25 feet, US Army spokesperson Lt. Col. Michelle L. Baldanza told CNN.
"The SU-27 intercepted the U.S. aircraft flying a routine route at high rate of speed from the side then proceeded to perform an aggressive manoeuvre that posed a threat to the safety of the U.S. aircrew in the RC-135," Baldanza said.
Russian jet flies within 15 feet of US Air Force plane
Isis oil convoy destroyed by Russian air strike in Syria
Putin decrees sanctions on Turkey
But Russia defended the 29 April actions of its air force, which come amid rising tensions between the two countries.
"All flights of Russian planes are conducted in accordance with international regulations on the use of airspace," the Russian Defence Ministry said in a statement.
"The US Air Force has two solutions: either not to fly near our borders or to turn the transponder on for identification."
"We are already starting to get used to the insults of the Pentagon regarding alleged 'unprofessional' manoeuvres when our fighters intercept US spy planes at the Russian border," the ministry added.
It is the second 'barrel roll' to be performed over a US plane by a Russian jet in the space of a month, with a similar incident occurring on 16 April, when a Russian aircraft approached the US plane over the Baltic Sea and was described as behaving erratically before rolling over the top of the plane.
Several days prior to the first 'barrel rolling' incident, two Russian warplanes repeatedly buzzed a US Navy destroyer, passing so close to the ship they created waves in the water around it, in what American officials described as a 'simulated attack'.
If USA #NATO push for a war with #Russia
#Europe Will Be A Desolate Land in 60 hours
#WW3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBzgMOfH3XY
Fantastic interview. If only this kind of information was broadcast by mainstream media - some hope!
Denied a voice by the London media
John Pilger on RT
Brilliant as ever....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0JYdD4RlcE
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:00 am Post subject:
This one won't go away will it?
http://www.trunews.com/moscow-threatens-response-as-nato-encircles-rus sia
http://www.trunews.com/putin-to-meet-with-eu-leader-as-nato-postures-a gainst-russia/
http://www.trunews.com/russia-says-turkey-commanding-isis-forces-near- aleppo/
Piioottrr
Путин про спортсменов, ПРО, Brexit, НАТО, ЕС
Источник http://www.kremlin.ru/events/presiden...
В Санкт-Петербурге проходит организованная ТАСС встреча президента России Владимира Путина с руководителями мировых информационных агентств.
In St. Petersburg the organized TASS Vladimir Putin meeting Russian President with leaders of the world news agencies.
Addressing the gathering, the President expressed the hope that the world's media will objectively cover the events in Russia. "It would hope that you will continue to strive for maximum objectivity in relation to Russia," - he stressed.
Vladimir Putin assured that will gladly answer all questions from the media. "I am very pleased to see you in such a representative composition, bearing in mind the global information agency, you represent that you know better than me how many of your materials to publications around the world every day is organized.", - Said the president Rsssii.
Among interested in the question it was, including the situation with supplies of Russian gas through Ukrainian territory. "We generally do not mind, to consider the possibility of participation in the gas pipeline system of Ukraine We are offering this once more, we even memorandum was signed by then President Kuchma, your humble servant and Chancellor Schröder -... We proposed to establish an international consortium with European partners, and in order not to violate the Ukrainian laws, we suggested not to buy Ukrainian GTS, and take it out to the international consortium, while pledging to support her properly, repair and develop. Signed, then all thrown in the trash, refused. then he started . crises of 2008-2009 or should we lower the price below the market limit, the non-market price to Ukraine, or they will not transport gas - that is what it is aware, we have blocked the transit, but we have to protect themselves from this and work properly with Ukraine.. . If, by the way, the Ukrainian partners, we offer economically viable project today, and will offer such a project, which will guarantee us security of supply and economic feasibility, we will work with Ukraine ", - Putin said.
Another question concerned the upcoming US presidential elections in the fall. The Head of State stressed that he is ready to cooperate with any newly elected head of the country, but expressed regret that in the presidential race is actively played the so-called "Russian card". "We will work with any newly elected president, and very much hope that, in spite of what campaign rhetoric, one can only regret that the Russian card is used as a kind of bargaining chip in almost every election campaign in the United States. It is, in my opinion, totally counterproductive. But regardless of any pre-election rhetoric, we will not look at the words, but by deeds. and we will, of course, seek ways to normalize relations, to establish our cooperation in the sphere of economy, international security. in we have a lot of problems that we can only solve together effectively ", - he stressed.
Somewhere at the level of uncertainty is hanging here and there. Who can say? No one can. I believe that for my part it is absolutely incorrect. Whatever I said, it will be decided in favor of a solution such or such. The case of the European Union and the UK business people. "
Vladimir Putin spoke about the deployment in Eastern Europe of US missile defense system. The President recalled that the nuclear threat from Iran is no more, and missile defense continues to be created, creating a threat to Russia's security. "Now build a missile defense system in Romania. What do they say? It's part of defensive potential, not offensive. So this system, which are designed to protect the aggression. It is not true, this is not the case. These cases, which laid the missiles, they are taken from the ships, and where these mines are used for "Tomahawks" there can be a few hours to put there "Tomahawk", and all this is a no no missile How do we know that there is in these mines You just need to change the program -..?! all this work absolutely invisible, Romanians will not know what's going on. what does it all lead, I do not know, but I know for sure that we will have to respond. but I already know in advance that we will again be accused of aggressive behavior, although it is the only answer, but it is clear that we will have to ensure the safety, not only his -. it is very important to ensure that the strategic balance in the world exactly the strategic balance to ensure that guaranteed peace in the world, guaranteed us from the major armed conflicts in the last 70 years. ".
Putin: Russia doesn't want a new Cold War
A GLOBAL RENAISSANCE: RI Spring Crowdfunding Campaign: https://igg.me/at/Gp17O7r2ymo/x/11078070
President Vladimir Putin said on Friday Russia did not want a new Cold war with the West and did not like to think it was slipping into one.
"I am sure that nobody wants that. We certainly do no want that," Putin said during a question and answer session at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum.
Putin also criticized NATO's expansion, warning there would be consequences if the alliance continued what he said was its one-sided policy against Russia. If both sides coordinated on defense, he said there would be no new Cold War.
Fareed Zakaria Was Unpleasantly Reminded of the West's Loss of Media Monopoly
The St Petersburg International Economic Forum was just another sign of the West's increasing impotence
By: Simon North
Don't you hate that? You're a prominent figure amongst those entrusted with disseminating the official narrative from on high, but then when you go and rather sensibly suggest to your wayward charge that he should stop misbehaving and dutifully conform to the authorized narrative, he proceeds to go off-message, and at length.
This is what happened to Fareed Zakaria, a mainstream media grandee, at the recently concluded St. Petersburg International Economic Forum when he posed a loaded question to Putin. "Given that Russia is responsible for bringing us to to this pretty pass, where we're on the verge of a new cold war, what can be done?" he essentially asked.
Ah, but that's the thing, isn't it? The official, authorized narrative only works when the powers that be enjoy a monopoly over the transmission of information, able to cut off, give coverage to, or consign to oblivion whomever they wish, as the case may be.
But here was isolated Putin (flanked by Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi to his left and Kazakhstan's President Nazarbayev to his right, and having earlier shared a panel with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker) in a setting where he was able to give his side of the story, his narrative, uninterrupted.
Putin proceeded to relate to Zakaria and the audience the litany of NATO and the West's perfidy, mendacity and duplicity in relation to Russia since the fall of the USSR, showing indubitably how it is the West that is responsible for bringing things in international relations to this juncture and not Russia as Zakaria's narrative sought to maintain.
Standard YouTube Licence
Russophobia Dates to Early 1800s, When Russia First Challenged British Empire
It's not something that started in 1945. The roots of the Cold War and Russophobia run deep in history
(Sputnik - Russian news agency) Subscribe to Sputnik - Russian news agencyMon, Aug 17, 2015 | 6,031	35
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/russophobia-dates-early-1800s-wh en-russia-first-challenged-british-empire/ri9228
Justification changes, prejudice remains
This article originally appeared at Sputnik
Practically every week, a new Western journalist proclaims the beginning of a "new cold war" between Washington and Moscow, referring to US/NATO muscle flexing on Russia's borders and the growing hostility toward Russia in the West, Canadian historian Professor Michael Jabara Carley of the University of Montreal points out, adding that the phenomenon has long history.
"The Cold War, I would remind readers, started in November 1917 when the Bolsheviks took power in Russia… Undiscouraged and terrified of a socialist revolution in Russia, the so-called Entente [Great Britain and France] tossed fat rolls of banknotes to anyone who said he would fight the Soviets. The Entente sent its own forces to the four distant corners of Russia to do the job themselves. This was the 'Allied' intervention which continued until the beginning of 1921 in the west and until 1922 in Eastern Siberia," Professor Carley elaborated.
"The same old gang" — the US, France, and Britain — was behind "Sovietophobia." However, unfortunately for Western elites their soldiers refused to fight a new war against Soviet Russia after the disastrous First World War. The West's intervention in Russia ended ingloriously.
Remarkably, "Russophobia and Sovietophobia did not end after the failure of western military intervention. On the contrary, enmity continued right up until the Nazi invasion of the USSR in 1941," the historian pointed out.
Sovietophobia was especially intense in the 1920s and 1930s, and prevented the formation of an alliance against an emerging Nazi Germany, Carley stressed.
Moreover, US economist Guido Giacomo Preparata exposed in his book "Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich," that the US and British elites facilitated the rise of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany as a driving force that could deal a lethal blow to the USSR.
According to Carley, the 1941 Grand Alliance of the US, Britain and the Soviet Union resembled "a kind of inadvertent shotgun marriage" prompted by the common danger of Hitler's Germany.
Despite the USSR suffering huge losses during the Second World War, it defeated Nazi Germany. In response, however, the British leadership developed the "Operation Unthinkable" in 1945 aimed at nuking the Soviet Union.
"The outrageous 'Operation Unthinkable,' a 1945 British contingency plan for war with the USSR, merely underlined undiminished British Sovietophobia, shared of course by the United States, absent President Franklin Roosevelt who died in April 1945. One might argue that the Cold War resumed even before the end of World War II," Carley underscored.
Washington still believes due to its "notoriously short" and "self-serving" memories, that the Cold War was something the West unleashed after 1945. "They were wrong about that, even though their idea, like a zombie, is hard to kill," the professor noted.
But the point is that the Soviet Union collapsed decades ago. Seemingly, there is currently no reason for Sovietophobia in the West.
What we see today is a "traditional Russophobia" that started even before the First World War, the historian noted. And this Russophobia is prompted by "US intolerance of any state unwilling to bow before the Great American Hegemon." Even when Russia was on its knees in 1990s during the rule of "the corrupt, drunken puppet" Boris Yeltsin, Washington pushed ahead further NATO expansion toward Russia's borders.
Interestingly enough, the term "Russophobia" was first used by Fyodor Tyutchev (1803 — 1873), famous Russian poet, diplomat and politician in reference to growing Western hostilities against Russia on the "eve" of the Crimean War (1854-56) between the Russian Empire and an alliance of France, Britain, the Ottoman Empire, and Sardinia.
Historians elaborate that the so-called "Russophobia campaign" actually started as early as the 1820s — instigated by Britain — following Russia's glorious victory over Napoleonic France in 1812-13.
"British hostility towards Russia had recurred periodically ever since the late eighteenth century. In had become increasingly apparent, albeit in a gradual and evolutionary fashion, in the years after Waterloo… Fear of Russia's aims in Europe and Asia surfaced as early as 1817," American historian Edward M. Spiers wrote in his book "Radical General: Sir George de Lacy Evans, 1787-1870."
Britons were especially concerned about their dominance in Central Asia and the "Russian threat" to their hegemonic ambitions in the region. According British diplomat Sir Martin Ewans, in the 1820s-30s London deemed that it would be "unwise" to allow the Russian Empire to extend its influence over Caucasus, Persia and Afghanistan. "That Russophobia existed is undeniable," Sir Ewans remarked in his book "Conflict in Afghanistan: Studies in Asymmetric Warfare."
Remarkably, in the 1860s, Russian ethnologist, philosopher and historian Nikolai Danilevsky slammed the Western propaganda machine for spreading distorted information and blatant lies about the "Russian threat" and imaginary "expansionist ambitions" of the Russian Empire in his book "Russia and Europe."
Professor Carley warned that those who attacked Russian and teased the Russian Bear "have generally done poorly against Russian armies."
"Even the Mongols, who destroyed Kievan Rus in the 13th century, were eventually driven out. Other invaders, Teutonic knights, Poles, Lithuanians, Turks, Swedes, French, Germans, not to mention the Entente in 1918-1920, or the Japanese from 1918 to 1922 and in 1945, all eventually fared badly," the professor stressed.
"[The] Russophobia nourishing US and western belligerence is not a "new cold war." It's an older pre-1914 type of conflict, and we all know where that led," the Canadian historian concluded.
A Stark Nuclear Warning 98 6,414
Russian Spies Pooped On U.S. Diplomat's Carpet, Which Really Tied The Room Together Man 20 1,712
Putin in Helsinki: 'NATO Would Gladly Fight Russia Until the Last Finn' 186 10,482
NATO General Plotted Against Obama to Escalate Russia Tensions 18 2,590
EU Court Shielded Suspected Istanbul Bomber From Russia Extradiction 38 2,501
Stockman: "At Last The Tyranny Of The Global Financial Elite Has Been Slammed" 13 1,969
New US 'Offer' to Cooperate With Russia in Syria Is Deceptive Nonsense 56 3,883
Hacked Emails Reveal Gen. Breedlove Plotted Against Obama to Escalate Ukraine War 77 3,513
BECOME A MEDIA SKEPTIC
All our headlines, in one daily email
+ADD ME
Primordial interest of the US over 2 world wars and the cold war, has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united they are the only force that could threaten us, and to make sure that that doesn't happen
2016 Krieg in Europa Plan der USA Hier die Beweise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BocHPvIJXfk
George Friedman Chicago council for global affairs
How the World Ends
Baiting Russia is not good policy
PHILIP GIRALDI • MAY 24, 2016
http://www.unz.com/article/how-the-world-ends/
Russia vs US
Last week I attended a foreign policy conference in Washington that featured a number of prominent academics and former government officials who have been highly critical of the way the Bush and Obama Administrations have interacted with the rest of the world. Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago was on a panel and was asked what, in his opinion, has been the most notable foreign policy success and the most significant failure in the past twenty-five years. The success was hard to identify and there was some suggestion that it might be the balancing of relationships in strategically vital Northeast Asia, which "we have not yet screwed up." If I had been on the panel I would have suggested the Iran nuclear agreement as a plus.
As for the leading foreign policy failure there was an easy answer, "Iraq" which was on everyone in the room's lips, but Mearsheimer urged one not to be so hasty. In reality the Iraq disaster has killed hundreds of thousands, has cost trillions of dollars and has unleashed serious problems for the Mideast region in general while allowing the rise of ISIS, but in "realistic foreign policy terms" it has not been a catastrophic event for the United States, which had hardly been seriously injured by it apart from financially and in terms of reputation.
Mearsheimer went on to say that, in his opinion, there is a far greater disaster lurking and that is the total mismanagement of the relationship with Russia ever since the downfall of communism. He cited the drive by Washington democracy promoters to push Ukraine into the western economic and political sphere as a major miscalculation as they failed to realize or did not care that what takes place in Kiev was to Moscow a vital interest. To that observation I would add the legacy of the spoliation of Russia's natural resources carried out by Western carpetbaggers working with local grifters turned oligarchs under Boris Yeltsin, the expansion of NATO to Russia's doorstep initiated by Bill Clinton, and the interference in Russia's internal affairs by the U.S. government, to include the Magnitsky Act. There have also been unnecessary slights and insults delivered along the way, to include sanctions on Russian officials and refusal to attend the Sochi Olympics, to cite only two examples.
It should also be noted that much of the negative interaction between Washington and Moscow is driven by the consensus among the western media and the inside the beltway crowd that Russia is again or perhaps is still the enemy du jour. Ironically, the increasingly negative perception of Russia is rarely justified as a reaction in defense of any identifiable serious U.S. interests, not even in the fevered minds of Senator John McCain and his supporting neocon claque. But even though the consequences of U.S. hostility towards Russia can be deadly serious, the Obama Administration is already treating Georgia and Ukraine as if they were de facto members of NATO. Hillary Clinton, who has called Vladimir Putin another Adolf Hitler, has pledged to bring about their admittance into the alliance, which would not in any way make Americans more secure, quite the contrary, as Moscow would surely be forced to react.
A number of speakers observed that while Russia is no longer a superpower in a bipolar system it is nevertheless a major international player, evident most recently in its successful intervention in Syria. Moscow has both nuclear and advanced conventional arsenals that would be able to inflict severe or even fatal damage on the United States if animosity should somehow turn to armed conflict. Given that reality, if the United States has but a single foreign policy imperative it would be to maintain a solid working relationship with Russia but somehow the hubris inspired recalibration of the U.S. role in the world post the Cold War never quite figured that out, opting instead to see Washington as the "decider" anywhere and everywhere in the world, able to use the "greatest military ever seen" to do its thinking for it. This blindness eventually led to a de facto policy of regime change in the Middle East and a turn away from détente with the Russians.
The comments of John Mearsheimer and other speakers became particularly relevant when I returned home and flipped on my computer to discover two news items. First, NATO, with Washington's blessing, has admitted Montenegro into the alliance. I must confess that I had not thought about Montenegro very much since reading how Jay Gatsby showed narrator Nick Carraway his World War I medal from that country in chapter 4 of The Great Gatsby. But perhaps in a "Lafayette We Are Here" moment to return the favor bestowed on Gatsby, the inclusion of Montenegro now means that under Article 5 of the NATO treaty the United States is obligated to go to war to defend Montenegran territorial integrity, something that few Americans would find comprehensible. Russia, which is directly threatened by the NATO alliance even though NATO claims that that is not the case, protested to no avail.
And the second article was far, far worse. It was in The New York Times, so it must be true: "The United States Justice Department has opened an investigation into state-sponsored doping by dozens of Russia's top athletes…The United States attorney's office for the Eastern District of New York is scrutinizing Russian government officials, athletes, coaches, antidoping authorities and anyone who might have benefited unfairly from a doping regimen…Prosecutors are believed to be pursuing conspiracy and fraud charges."
Yes folks, the United States government, which has long claimed jurisdiction over any and all groups and individuals worldwide who might even implausibly be linked to terrorism is now extending its writ to athletes who take performance enhancing drugs anywhere in the world. Particularly if those athletes are Russians. Having read the article with disbelief I slapped myself in the face a couple of times just to make sure that I wasn't imagining the whole thing but after the post-concussive vertigo abated there it was still sitting there looking back at me in black and white with a banner headline and a color photo, Justice Department Opens Investigation Into Russian Doping Scandal.
Being somewhat of a skeptic, I looked at the byline, expecting to see Judith Miller of weapons of mass destruction fame, but no it was Rebecca Ruiz. Could it be a nom de plume? I thought I might be on to something so I reread the piece more slowly second time around. How does Washington justify going after the Russkies? The article noted "In their inquiry, United States prosecutors are expected to scrutinize anyone who might have facilitated unclean competition in the United States or used the United States banking system to conduct a doping program." The article added that some Russian athletes allegedly have run in the Boston Marathon, though they did not win, place or show. If they popped an amphetamine before using their Visa card to dine at Chuck e Cheese when sojourning in Bean Town they are toast, as the expression goes. Likewise for the handful of Russian athletes who have apparently participated in international bobsled and skeleton championships in Lake Placid, N.Y.
And of course there is a Vladimir Putin angle. The Russian sports minister, who has been implicated in the scandal, was appointed by Putin in 2008, so it's all about Russia and Putin which makes it fair game. FBI investigators and U.S. courts are now prepared to go after Russians living in Russia for alleged crimes that may or may not have occurred in the United States based on the flimsiest of grounds to establish jurisdiction. Since much of the world's financial dealings transit through American banks in some way or another the whole world becomes vulnerable to unpleasant encounters with the U.S. criminal justice system. If the accused choose to offer no defense to the frivolous prosecutions they will be found guilty in absentia and fined billions of dollars before having their assets seized, as happened recently to the Iranians, who had nothing to do with 9/11 but are nevertheless being hounded to prove themselves innocent.
My point is that the Russians are not exactly failing to notice what is going on. No one but Victoria Nuland and the Kagans actually want a war but Moscow is being backed into a corner with more and more influential Russian voices raised against détente with a Washington that seems to be intent on humiliating Russians at every turn as part of a new project for regime change. Many Russian military leaders have quite plausibly come to believe that the continuous NATO expansion and the stationing of more army units right along the border means that the United States wants war.
Russia's generals base their perception on what they have very clearly and unambiguously observed. When Russia acts defensively, as it did in Georgia and Ukraine, it is accused of aggressive action, is sanctioned and punished. When the Western powers probe Russian borders with their warships and surveillance aircraft they claim that it is likewise aggression when Moscow scrambles a plane to monitor the activity. Washington in its own warped view is always behaving defensively from the purest of motives and Moscow is always in the wrong. But picture for a moment a reverse scenario to include a Russian missile cruiser lounging just outside the territorial limits off Boston or New York to imagine what the U.S. reaction might be.
Washington's misguided policy towards Russia under both Republican and Democratic presidents indeed has the potential to become the greatest international catastrophe of all time, as Professor Mearsheimer observed. U.S. provocations and the regular promotion of a false narrative that Russia is both threatening and seeking to recreate the Soviet Union together suggest to that country's leaders that Washington is an implacable foe. The bellicose posturing inadvertently strengthens the hands of hard line nationalists in Russia while weakening those who seek a formula for accommodation with the West. To be sure, Russia is no innocent in the international one upmanship game but it has been more sinned against than sinned. And the nearly constant animosity directed against Russia by the Obama Administration should be seen as madness as the stakes in the game, a possible nuclear war, are, or should be, unthinkable.
cogbias
Ursula von der Leyen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_2VV-P-D68
http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Deutschland-fuehrt-Ost-Batallion-der-Nato-a rticle17941636.html
http://m.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article156337306/So-verzweifelt-s ucht-von-der-Leyen-neue-Soldaten.html
http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/weissbuch-von-der-leyen-101.html
Military shield in Korea:
http://www.anderweltonline.com/klartext/klartext-2016/us-raketenabwehr -fuer-korea-die-einkreisung-russlands-wird-vorangetrieben/
"Nein zur Nato",
https://propagandaschau.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/ard-zdf-nato-luegen-u nd-geschichtsklitterung-gegen-russland/
9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth News All times are GMT


Centre and state are conspiring against Sasikala and me, s..
TTV Dinakaran lashes out Centre and state govts over ACB raids on his and Sasikala properties under 'Operation Black Money'. He said both the govts are conspiring against Sasikala and him as all the Shell companies & groups belonging to Sasikala family are raided. He said Tamilnadu people are watching everything and said confidently that it will reflect in the future elections. He said he met Sasikala in prison yesterday, and said the govt doesn't want them to be in politics. He affirmed that those who misuses govt agencies will have to face the consequences.


text:
Corporate Governance UK
Dedicated to improving Corporate Governance for all UK businesses
Category: Corporate Governance
D&O litigation on the rise amid host of emerging risks
By Gavin Hinks
As bankruptcies mount brought on by the current crisis, so the risk of litigation against directors and officers (D&O) climbs. But it is not just the pandemic bringing potential problems to the door of company directors.
A host of issues have emerged to heighten concerns of regulators and shareholders, leaving directors with greater exposure to litigation and regulatory investigation. As the world becomes more complex, so too do the risks.
"The role of directors has become riskier," says Nepo Loesti, head of financial lines Europe at insurance company AIG. "They are under more scrutiny and are being held accountable for their decisions, but at the same time their responsibilities have been increasing in areas like cybersecurity and privacy; compliance, such as bribery and corruption laws; and a heightened focus on corporate social responsibility."
A new special report—Board Directors' Guide to D&O Liability Insurance—produced by Board Agenda in partnership with AIG, highlights the trends driving D&O litigation. They include record numbers of class action lawsuits in the US, including increased numbers against non-domestic firms; increased activity originating in other countries, such as Australia, and across Europe; increased event-driven claims, such as those prompted by cyber attacks or executive misconduct; and a tougher regulatory environment.
In Europe, the report warns, the trends point towards the emergence of a claims culture, and a general desire to hold directors responsible and seek compensation.
Insolvency, cyber and societal change
Experts point to a number of risks that have raised D&O concerns. These include insolvency claims; cybersecurity and data breaches; climate change and environmental issues; the #MeToo movement and other societal risks and merger objection litigation.
While insolvency is a risk as old as business itself, other risks have emerged in recent years to test directors.
One of these is cybersecurity, which companies have previously tended to see as an operational issue rather than rooted in governance. The report warns that boards should seek external advice and regulator briefings to ensure that companies are aware of the risks posed by cyber and new technologies.
Meanwhile, environmental issues are behind a number of D&O claims, a trend that is likely to accelerate. Societal risks also continue to evolve, with increased personal accountability, changing attitudes and the rise of social media meaning that directors are increasingly exposed.
"We should expect to see more claims in the future resulting from societal change," says Geraud Verhille, head of financial lines UK at AIG. "People are now far less willing to put up with perceived injustices and failings in corporate conduct and culture.
"They are more willing to speak up and will find the lawyers waiting should they want to bring a complaint."
That all places a premium on directors being prepared for things going sour. There are potentially ruinous costs involved in facing claims. Regulatory investigations can go on for many years before the directors are finally exonerated. Even when directors are innocent, claims can result in large and unexpected legal bills.
Board engagement with risk has never been so important. Directors need to develop a deep understanding of their liabilities and emerging risks, and to engage—in partnership with their risk managers and legal counsel—in regular reviews of their D&O liability insurance.
Click here to download the report.
The post D&O litigation on the rise amid host of emerging risks appeared first on Board Agenda.
From:: D&O litigation on the rise amid host of emerging risks
UK to review dual-class shares as part of consultation on listings
Dual-class shares, long a point of friction in financial markets around the world, are set to become a battleground in the UK. The development comes after the chancellor Rishi Sunak included shares with special, or weighted, voting rights in a new consultation looking at a number of listing rules. The arguments have already begun.
On one side are institutional shareholders anxious not to see their influence diminished by the creation of super-powered shares. On the other are public markets keen to attract the listings of big tech companies whose founders are keen to retain a grip on control of their companies.
The UK debates was kicked off when the chancellor revealed a review of listings would be coming. The International Corporate Governance Network (ICGN), an organisation for institutional shareholders, responded with an open letter to the chancellor spelling out why the very idea of dual-class shares should nipped in the bud.
The ICGN argues that 84% of their members oppose differential voting rights, while two-thirds believe they "negatively impact" corporate governance. The ICGN says dual-class shares "marginalise minority shareholders" and undermines the accountability of executives. Dual-class shares also "water down" investor influence and in conflict with the global drive improve stewardship, a phenomenon the CIGN dubs "regulatory schizophrenia".
The body says it has evidence too. The French have used shares with double voting rights since 2014. The ICGN says studies reveal that companies with dual-class shares have a "high market to book ratio"—a measure widely seen as a proxy for overpriced shares; while other studies indicate companies with dual-class shares experience a higher cost of capital and lure fewer foreign institutional investors. Research in the US, the ICGN says, suggests companies with differential shares have lower governance standards, while another found "firm value" is negatively associated with "insiders' voting rights".
In writing to the chancellor, the ICGN says the introduction of dual-class shares would be "unwelcome", adding that it would "lead to lower corporate governance standards and could threaten, not enhance, the reputation of the London Stock Exchange".
Dual-class shares in the UK and beyond
Dual-class shares have become a point of conflict around the world, with the debate over London simmering since November last year. Companies such Pinterest, Lyft, Xiaomi, Snap, Alphabet, Facebook, Alibaba and LinkedIn have all made headlines by opting for dual-class structures.
In 2018 both Hong Kong and Singapore—territories anxious that tech entrepreneurs were listing elsewhere in the world—changed their listing rules to allow dual-class shares. Meanwhile the debate in the US has used emotive language. In a Financial Times editorial in May last year, Aeisha Mastagni, a portfolio manager for corporate governance at the huge US pension fund Calstrs, described Facebook's capital structure as akin to a "dictatorship" and in conflict with the "American dream".
When Snap announced an IPO with no voting rights at all for shareholders until the founders were dead, Anne Simpson, head of corporate governance at Calpers, said: "Telling us to wait for nature to take its course is a banana republic-style approach."
It's fair to say the Treasury recognises these problems in its consultation documents. But it also highlights potential benefits of dual-class shares. Its says a dual-class structure might "protect a company from initial takeover threats once going public".
The Treasury wants to know if dual-class shares should be allowed and whether they should face limitations of some kind; whether is a demand for differential rights and how corporate governance standards could be maintained if dual-class shares are introduced.
Some academic research supports dual-class shares. Writing for the Oxford Law School blog, Aurelio Gurrea Martínez, a professor at Singapore Management University, says dual-class shares are less risky in a "country with more sophisticated investors" because such markets tend to "punish" founders who badly run their companies.
"As a result, founders will have incentives to go public with dual-class shares only when they really think they can create value for the shareholders as a whole," he writes. He also argues more protection for minority shareholders would reduce risk.
Other academics have argued that the risk from dual-class shares can be reduced with the use of "sunset clauses" which would stipulate when extra voting rights would end (one proposal is a seven-year limit).
Such a time-based sunset clause has attracted much support. Though some have argued the time limits are arbitrary and instead propose "transfer-based" sunsets, i.e. a change in voting rights when the founder dies or retires or if they sell their stake.
In the UK some have accepted that flexibility in UK listing rules could be useful. Carum Basra, a corporate governance advisor at the Institute of Directors says there "may need to be a recognition that some founders will want to retain greater control."
However, the "floodgates" should not be opened to dual class shares and it should not be without strings. "Crucially, if we are going to allow more companies to issue shares with differential voting rights in the UK, they must sit apart from the premium segment. They should not benefit from passive investment flows intended for mainstream blue-chip companies with conventional governance structures."
The Treasury's consultation is open until 5 January 2021. There will be much arguing until then—and after.
The post UK to review dual-class shares as part of consultation on listings appeared first on Board Agenda.
From:: UK to review dual-class shares as part of consultation on listings
Roadmap to mandatory TCFD reporting 'should focus minds'
When it comes to mandatory climate-related risk reporting there isn't as much time as recent headlines might suggest. The government has said the legal framework to make it compulsory will be in place by 2025. But a detailed look at government timelines reveals for premium listed companies the changes will come in as soon as next year.
"The real time scale is from next year and that should focus a few minds," says Veronica Poole, head of accounting for north and south Europe at business advisory firm Deloitte. She adds that work on preparing climate-related risk disclosure should be starting now. "If it hasn't started already, you're way behind what you're competitors are likely to be doing."
The urgency comes after ministers revealed last week that the government would push ahead with mandatory reporting based on a framework published by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). The TCFD was set up by the G20's Financial Stability Board (then led by former Bank of England governor Mark Carney) and revealed its reporting guidelines in 2017.
Image: Twocoms/Shutterstock
The guidelines were voluntary but many have been advocating for mandatory measures for some. Progress on adoption has been reasonable, though the TCFD has consistently called for faster action by companies.
In May this year Mark Carney, former governor of the Bank of England, said it was time for the reporting system to be mandated. The UK government had already indicated it was moving in that direction back in February.
It's not hard to see why. There has been a growing sense that companies are not yet disclosing the right climate change information. Recently, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), the UK's corporate reporting watchdog, concluded in a report that companies were failing to meet investor expectations.
FRC chief executive Sir Jon Thompson said it was time to "raise the bar" in company reporting. An investor told the FRC: "There are too many conversations where the board doesn't get it."
TCFD reporting roadmap
TCFD is not the only sustainability reporting system available. There are a raft options for companies to choose. However, in recent months there has been movement. Five bodies (IIRC, SASB, CDP, GRI and CDSP) have announced a project to align their reporting standards. Elsewhere, the body that produce international financial reporting standards has launched a consultation on whether it should begin work developing new sustainability reporting guidelines.
At this point, however, the Treasury has thrown its weight behind TCFD and made clear that it will amend the Companies Act 2006, the UK's most important piece of governance legislation, to enshrine the guidelines in legislation. But the timeline is tight.
A diagrammatic roadmap published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), says it will have the regulations in place for pension schemes bigger than £5bn, banks, building societies, insurance companies and premium listed companies by next year.
That means accounts departments will need to hit the gas if they are to be ready. And there is much to review. TCFD guidelines range across four areas: governance, strategy, risk management, metrics and targets.
When TCFD reported on their adoption in October it said energy and materials companies were leading the way; 60% of the world's largest 100 companies were supportive and report in line with TCFD recommendations, while 700 more had become supporters in the past 12 months.
But there is also concern. While disclosure of climate-related financial information has increased since 2017, there is more to do. Specifically, more companies should be revealing the potential financial impact on their strategies. In fact, disclosures on the resilience of company strategies "was significantly lower than that of any other recommended disclosure", said the report.
That implies openness about strategy is either particularly difficult to do, or a little too sensitive to confront. And that's an issue. The key to TCFD reporting, according to Richard Spencer, head of thought leadership at chartered accountancy body ICAEW, is understanding that it's not just a disclosure exercise.
"Good disclosure has to be rooted in good practice. It's not really going to have anything to report if you aren't taking account of the impact that dramatic climate change is having on you or your contribution to that problem," says Spencer.
For Veronica Poole, TCFD asks how companies have changed course after measuring and weighing climate risks.
"One of the things that is in TCFD is a recognition that you've got to change your business model. It says, 'tell me how you think about your decision-making within the business, incorporating climate considerations," she says.
And that may mean changing behaviours, placing a premium on urgent action for companies that have yet to engage with climate risks.
"The question starts really from: What is the TCFD? What does it really require me to do? Is it just a set of disclosures that we will have to comply with? Or, is it actually considerably more, is it an expectation of a behavioural change within the business?" Poole asks.
"The point with TCFD is that it is both. It requires both. You actually need to embrace, if you will, TCFD principles in your business before you can report."
That means putting in place the right climate governance to identify climate risks and opportunities for strategic decision making, as well as deciding the right things to measure. That may make uncomfortable decision making, decisions that may not have been taken had TCFD not been around.
Poole says non-executives need to boost their knowledge levels on climate change, then identify how the board will lead its climate work: the whole board, a committee or an individual non-executive director.
While skills may be important, Spencer says data will be key. Some companies may have legacy systems collecting diverse kinds of data for different climate-related reasons, which all needs to be brought together in a coherent way to address TCFD questions. "It's an enormous task," says Spencer.
But companies must remain focused on avoiding a simple reporting checklist. "Whatever you're going to report on in compliance with TCFD needs to be reflective of what's actually happening in the business, it can't be just be a climate disclosure checklist of some type," says Poole. "It needs to reflect the actual governance process and decision-making process that is happening in the business."
The post Roadmap to mandatory TCFD reporting 'should focus minds' appeared first on Board Agenda.
From:: Roadmap to mandatory TCFD reporting 'should focus minds'
NBB tops in ESG banking sector ranking
… sector for Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) by ESG Invest.
ESG …
From:: NBB tops in ESG banking sector ranking
Press release: Bankruptcy restrictions extended for former Chief Executive
By HM Government Christopher Michael Hutcheson's bankruptcy restrictions extended by four years after disposing of his share of property proceeds to his wife.
From:: Press release: Bankruptcy restrictions extended for former Chief Executive
Do You Have News to Share? Get It Published.
With EIN Presswire press release distribution services you will reach decision makers and journalists plus get valuable SEO benefits.
From:: Do You Have News to Share? Get It Published.
Press release: Developer jailed after diverting customer payments
By HM Government Banned developer jailed for 27 months after diverting £91,000 of customer payments to his personal account.
From:: Press release: Developer jailed after diverting customer payments
Greiner Bio-One Announces Virus Stabilization Tube for SARS-CoV-2 Available for Healthcare Facilities
Critical product supply now available as COVID-19 cases continue to rise in many states.
MONROE, NORTH CAROLINA, UNITED STATES, November 23, 2020 /EINPresswire.com/ — Greiner Bio-One is announcing the availability of the VACUETTE® Virus …
From:: Greiner Bio-One Announces Virus Stabilization Tube for SARS-CoV-2 Available for Healthcare Facilities
ASIC acting chair says overpayments scandal could have been avoided
By Rachel Clayton
The head of the Australian Securities and Investment's Commission says the regulator could have avoided coming under fire for an overpayments scandal had its former chairman agreed to changing to its governance.
From:: ASIC acting chair says overpayments scandal could have been avoided
Technical Advisory Board (TAB) – Industry and Independent Members
By Debbie Wright
Industry and Independent Members – Technical Advisory Board (TAB) Body: Technical Advisory Board Appointing Department: Home Office Sector: Regulation Location: London Skills required: Communication / Media / Marketing, Legal / Judicial, Regulation Number of Vacancies: 5 Industry Members and 2 Independent Members Remuneration: The Home Office will reimburse all reasonable expenses incurred in respect of […]
From:: Technical Advisory Board (TAB) – Industry and Independent Members
Corporate Governance (2,683)
UK Corporate Governance (866)
US Corporate Governance (27)
Director Development (6)
Non-Executive Director Training (6)
NED Training (6)
NHS Non-Executive (1)
Non-Executive Director (3)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The Director of Digital Strategy is responsible for translating business priorities into digital strategy by collaborating with senior leaders, corporate and business segment stakeholders, the product team and enterprise technology with the end goal of deploying innovative solutions through United Bank digital channels. This role will build out strategy that delivers improved user experience through well-defined customer journeys. Projects are broad in scope and require creativity, flexibility, analytical and structured thinking, and strong communication, teamwork and leadership skills. The successful candidate will be self-motivated and able to independently drive strategic initiatives from ideas and execute through effective teamwork and networking across the company. Responsibilities Responsible for digital presence of United Bank. Digitize the entire scope of banking operations with emphasize on improving the customers experience. Continue to improve our digital presence and leverage the Digital Network. Optimize and manage the technology network in a manner that is efficient, resilient, and yet manages cost effectively. Identify needs and ensure ideal software solutions are developed in a timely manner to help increase operational efficiency and leading-edge products. Collaborate with senior leaders to develop and maintain overall framework of IT policies, standards and strategies that will empower business and people to deliver on their commitments to the strategy and budgets. Partner with Communication and Marketing stakeholders to develop and execute enterprise digital content strategy. Leverage dataanalytics to track against business priorities and identify new opportunities Lead regular digital strategy meetings with leadership from across the enterprise to ensure strategy tactics deliver against business priorities Developing long term plans to sustain and support the business, anticipate the future trends. Qualifications Bachelorrsquos degree required, Masterrsquos Degree preferred. Minimum of Ten (10) years of mid to senior level professional experience in Banking or Digital systems required. Minimum of Five (5) years of IT strategic business experience highly desired. Firsthand knowledge in supervising development of software solutions. Exposure to Core Banking Solutions, Mobile Digital banking, networking, server administration. Strong project management skills and management of development, maintenance and support teams. Academic experience with exposure in participating in seminars, conferences, research publications representing the organization. Up-to-date with the current (and future) levels of IT security, threats, vulnerabilities that could impact the Bankrsquos digital and financial assets responsibilities. Proficiency in Microsoft Office Products required Demonstrated ability to make sound judgements based on information provided and maintain high level of confidentiality Ability to travel 10, some travel may be overnight Essential Functions Sitting or standing for extended periods of time. Sufficient dexterity of hands and fingers to efficiently operate a computer keyboard, mouse and other computer components. Ability to converse and exchange information with all levels of staff within organization. Ability to observe, perceive, identify, and translate data Ability to travel via air, rail, automobile andor bus Company Profile With over 175 years of experience, United Bank is one of the regionrsquos premier banks with locations in West Virginia, Virginia, Washington, DC, Maryland, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. A subsidiary of United Bankshares, Inc., with dual headquarters in Washington, DC and Charleston, WV, we are a full service financial institution with over 19 billion in assets. At United Bank, our people are our greatest asset. Our company is a perfect fit for hard-working, driven individuals as we provide a culture that is entrepreneurial, efficient, relationship-based and service-oriented. United is proud of our record of growth and our commitment to service - not only to our customers, but also to the communities in which we live and work. United encourages our employees to become involved in the community and in professional activities, and we provide continued training and other support to help all employees achieve their full potential.


text:
Who is Maxum boats made by?
Maxum was a subsidiary of the Brunswick Boat Group, a division of the Brunswick Corporation, which manufactured recreational boats. One manufacturing plant was in Pipestone, Minnesota. This facility was established in the 1970s with 300 plus employees and produced the Maxum runabouts.
How fast does a Maxum boat go?
Maxum has rated the boat for a top speed of 40.8 mph with the standard 135 hp 3.0L Mercury MerCruiser stern drive. Carrying a light load, we were able to reach exactly 40 mph that day on the water.
Range at 29.3-mph cruising speed 92 miles
What is a Maxum boat?
Selling medium-sized boats ranging through runabout, yacht and cruiser classes, Maxum Marine was created in 1987 as a premium line to Bayliner boats. Suited to customers seeking upscale cruising, Maxum Marine boats allow for flexibility in seating and storage space design.
Why were Maxum boats discontinued?
Maxum announced a re-invigoration of its lineup in 2002 but it was too little, too late. By 2009, it had cut back its product offerings to 12 models from 18-37 feet. But damage had also been done by the horrendous financial downturn of 2008 and, after a 20-plus year run, Maxum boats were discontinued in 2009.
Who is Maxum boats made by? – Related Questions
Can you still get parts for Maxum boats?
maxum BOAT PARTS
Although the brand is no longer in production, a large amount of parts are still available. You can source the complete parts catalogue for your boat dating back to 1991. http://www.maxumcustomercare.com/.
What engine is in a Maxum boat?
The 5.7L, 300hp, 350 Magnum MerCruiser V8 purring away in the test boat's engine bay powers this boat to more than 60mph (52.1 knots) at 5800rpm, so no one can dispute the grunt she has to offer.
FÅ MED DEG: How many people take the JMC?
What is a posh boat called?
Yachts can further be defined as a superyacht or megayacht, depending on their size. Superyachts are typically 24 meters (78 feet) and above. Megayachts are typically over 80 meters (260 feet).
Is Maxum 1900 a good boat?
The verdict? The 1900 SR3 is a seaworthy boat and roomy enough to carry up to, say, six adults or, ideally, a family of four. But, as with most things, there's a compromise, a price you pay for the wide-beam forward. Fact is, the ride isn't quite so smooth as sportier bowriders.
What are the boats with big fans called?
An airboat is also known as a fan boat, plane boat, swamp boat, bayou boat, etc. They have flat bottoms that have large propellers powered by automobile motors or jet engines.
Can airboats go in reverse?
There must be a forceful airflow in order for the vessel to be steered. Airboats do not have brakes and are incapable of traveling in reverse. Stopping and reversing direction are dependent upon good operator/pilot/driver skills.
Can airboats go in deep water?
"Most airboats are for a shallow haul and top heavy but can be terrible in the open sea," he says.
What boats are good for shallow water?
Best Boats for Shallow Water
Aluminum Fishing Boats.
Bass Boats.
Bay Boats.
Flats Boats.
Jet Boats.
What boat has the least maintenance?
They run in length from 10 to 30 feet. Most pontoon boats are powered by low maintenance outboard engines. Many of them are made of aluminum so they're durable and relatively lightweight.
FÅ MED DEG: Are Evinrude E-TEC motors any good?
What boat shape is the most stable?
Multi-hulled boats are some of the most stable on the water. They also require more room to steer and turn. Examples of common multi-hulled boats are catamarans and pontoon boats .
What is the smallest boat to take offshore?
The most common offshore boats are usually between 30 to 40 feet, which is perfect for long trips and most weather conditions. Anything less than 30 feet will not handle weather and waves as well, but they still make for great boats if you pay attention to the weather.
What is a good size boat for the ocean?
If you are planning on traversing the oceans and seas where the waves and waters can get fairly rough, you should consider looking at boats 30ft and up. A boat this size will better handle the choppy and unpredictable water and currents, as well as longer trips offshore.
How far out is considered offshore?
The most obvious difference between the two is where you'll go. Offshore fishing or "deep sea" fishing, goes beyond thirty meters deep, by most definitions, and includes a wide range of deep sea fishing activities.
Are Yanmar Diesel engines good?
Why did Bayliner stop making cruisers?