(OT) New "Cold War" Between the US and Russia: US Will "Calibrate", Russia Will "Incinerate"

Too funny to pass these up...

President Obama says this, after slapping "sanctions" on Russia (and Ukraine's government officials, 11 of them in total) over what seems like a very democratic vote in Crimea to leave Ukraine and re-join Russia, according to Bloomberg News (3/17/2014):

Obama said at the White House. The U.S. can “calibrate our response” based on whether Russia chooses “to escalate or to de-escalate the situation.”

While President Obama, who didn't attend the National Security Council meeting at the White House over the weekend (again), "calibrates", Mr. Dmitry Kiselyov, a presenter of the Russian state-owned TV, says, according to The Independent (3/17/2014):

"Russia is the only country in the world realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash," Kiselyov said standing in front of a large screen depicting a mushroom cloud produced by a nuclear explosion.

"Americans themselves consider Putin to be a stronger leader than Obama," he said. "Why is Obama phoning Putin all the time and talking to him for hours on end?"

Kiselyov suggested President Obama's hair is turning grey because he is fretting about Russia's nuclear capacity, which could turn the US into dust.

The Independent has a screen shot of Mr. Kiselyov with the image of a huge mushroom cloud in the back:

A less-colorful and plainer word is from Crimea's Prime Minister Sergey Aksyonov, according to CNN:

"We are going home. Crimea is in Russia"

Soviet Russia did have one awe-inspiring atomic bomb (Tsar Bomba):

Tweet

(OT) Anatole Kaletsky: "Realpolitik in Ukraine"

A post at Zero Hedge has made most sense to me so far regarding the turmoil in Ukraine after the West has successfully incited the opposition to President Yanukovich and after Russia has entered Crimea.

Putin’s decision to back himself into this corner has been derided by the Western media as a strategic blunder but it is actually a textbook example of realpolitik. Putin has created a situation where the West’s only alternative to acquiescing in the Russian takeover of Crimea is all-out war.

Accept Putin's terms, or an all-out war.

In another word, checkmate for the West?

From Zero Hedge (3/3/2014; emphasis is mine):

Realpolitik In Ukraine

Submitted by Anatole Kaletsky via Evergreen-Gavekal


Oscar Wilde described marriage as the triumph of imagination over intelligence and second marriage as the triumph of hope over experience. In finance and geopolitics, by contrast, experience must always prevail over hope and realism over wishful thinking. A grim case in point is the Russian incursion into Ukraine. What makes this confrontation so dangerous is that US and EU policy seems to be motivated entirely by hope and wishful thinking. Hope that Vladimir Putin will “see sense,” or at least be deterred by the threat of US and EU sanctions to Russia’s economic interests and the personal wealth of his oligarch friends. Wishful thinking about “democracy and freedom” overcoming dictatorship and military bullying.

Financial markets cannot afford to be so sentimental. While we should always recall at a time like this the famous advice from Nathan Rothschild to “buy at the sound of gunfire,” the drastically risk-off response to weekend events in Ukraine makes perfect sense because Russia’s annexation of Crimea is the most dangerous geopolitical event of the post-Cold War era, and perhaps since the Cuban Missile crisis. It can result in only two possible outcomes, either of which will be damaging to European stability in the long-term. Either Russia will quickly prevail and thereby win the right to redraw borders and exercise veto powers over the governments of its neighbouring countries. Or the Western-backed Ukrainian government will fight back and Europe’s second-largest country by area will descend into a Yugoslav-style civil war that will ultimately draw in Poland, NATO and therefore the US.

No other outcome is possible because it is literally inconceivable that Putin will ever withdraw from Crimea. To give up Crimea now would mean the end of Putin’s presidency, since the Russian public, not to mention the military and security apparatus, believe almost unanimously that Crimea still belongs to Russia, since it was only administratively transferred to Ukraine, almost by accident, in 1954. In fact, many Russians believe, rightly or wrongly, that most of Ukraine “belongs” to them. (The very name of the country in Russian means “at the border” and certainly not “beyond the border”). Under these circumstances, the idea that Putin would respond to Western diplomatic or economic sanctions, no matter how stringent, by giving up his newly gained territory is pure wishful thinking.

Putin’s decision to back himself into this corner has been derided by the Western media as a strategic blunder but it is actually a textbook example of realpolitik. Putin has created a situation where the West’s only alternative to acquiescing in the Russian takeover of Crimea is all-out war. And since a NATO military attack on Russian forces is even more inconceivable than Putin’s withdrawal, it seems that Russia has won this round of the confrontation. The only question now is whether the new Ukrainian government will accept the loss of Crimea quietly or try to retaliate against Russian speakers in Ukraine—offering Putin a pretext for invasion, and thereby precipitating an all-out civil war.

(Full article at the link)

The United Kingdom has already backed out of trade sanctions against Russia over Crimea, as it fears the impact on global economic recovery.

(What recovery? 99.9% would ask...)

Tweet

Russian President Vladimir Putin: Snowden "Is a Free Man", US Accusations of Russia Are "Drivel and Nonsense"

From Bloomberg News (6/25/2013):

Putin Defends Snowden’s Stopover, Rejects U.S. ‘Drivel’

Russian President Vladimir Putin refused to extradite fugitive Edward Snowden as the Obama administration maintained that officials in Moscow have a legal basis to return him to the U.S.

Russia was “completely surprised” by the arrival of Snowden, who remained in a Moscow airport transit zone after traveling from Hong Kong on June 23, Putin told reporters in Finland yesterday. Snowden, who faces U.S. espionage charges, can’t be handed over because the two nations don’t have an extradition treaty, Putin said.

Tensions between the U.S. and Russia increased after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on June 24 that it would be “deeply troubling” if Russia had received advance notice of Snowden’s arrival. Yesterday, Putin said that Russian security agencies “didn’t work and aren’t working” with Snowden and any accusations of wrongdoing by his country are “drivel and nonsense.”

Snowden has requested asylum in Ecuador, and he also may be exploring other possible places of refuge, according to Julian Assange, founder of the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks. Snowden, a former worker for government contractor Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp. (BAH), disclosed top-secret U.S. National Security Agency programs that collect phone and Internet data.

Snowden “is a free man, and the sooner he selects his final destination, the better it will be both for us and for him,” Putin said. “As a transit passenger, he has the right to buy a ticket and fly wherever he wants.”

(Full article at the link)

Let's see. John Kerry, a swift boat captain, vs Vladimir Putin, KGB spymaster. Who will win?

The comment section of the article is more entertaining than the article, which is increasingly the case with any media websites these days. People continue to write stuff, even though they now know NSA is snooping.

Tweet