Putin's End Goal

[Atrasado]

What is Putin's end goal? I mean, he has always struck me as a fairly astute fellow. He doesn't get too emotional and seems down to earth. I also know he's been thinking about this for quite a while. So it's puzzling to see him walk into a political trap that will cripple Russia for years with sanctions and severed ties. Unless he really doesn't care. Unless he's ready to go all the way. By that I mean, unless he's ready to take on the United States. Because there really is no other possible exit on the train he boarded last week. He either wins or loses forever.

I'm really not looking forward to this year. Yes, I'm tired of always wondering when the Tribulation was going to really start for us in the Western countries. But I wasn't nearly tired enough to want what is coming to a theater near us.

[davedan]

The West will open ANWR to oil production which they have been saving for just this scenario. That will drive down oil prices and support a Russian boycott of Russian oil by Europe. Russia may then be forced to invade Alaska. The US (Globalists/Soros/Hunter Biden) should never have been interfering in Ukraine and provoking Putin by Ukraine threatening to join NATO. I think ANWR was preserved untapped just for this scenario. I just don't see either side backing down from this. This is going to escalate and boil over.

[BeNotDeceived]

The West will open ANWR to oil production which they have been saving for just this scenario. That will drive down oil prices and support a Russian boycott of Russian oil by Europe. Russia may then be forced to invade Alaska. The US (Globalists/Soros/Hunter Biden) should never have been interfering in Ukraine and provoking Putin by Ukraine threatening to join NATO. I think ANWR was preserved untapped just for this scenario. I just don't see either side backing down from this. This is going to escalate and boil over.

Oil was placed in the Mideast, in similitude to a tree placed in the midst of the garden.

President Carter proposed OTEC to counter OPEC’s Embargo that would of brought on a decentralized hydrogen economy. Abundant energy could then be produced anywhere there was warm and deep water in the same place. Since we chose to continue feasting on the wrong fruit, we are now beginning to suffer the serious consequences.

3*8**

[tmac]

What I see is that with the decadent U.S. weakened to the point it currently is, with the entire West pushing hard for a liberal, socialistic, technocratic NWO with a OWG, Putin is taking a calculated risk of attempting to thwart those plans by creating a NWO dominated and controlled primarily by a nationalist Russia.

Pretty lofty aspirations on both sides, but the biological clock is ticking for Putin, who probably wouldn't really stand much of a chance of pulling it off even just a year or two down the road.

Or, at least that is the narrative that I think his actions might support from a geopolitical perspective -- unless he's simply in on the whole thing.

If there is one thing there is no question about it is that everyone else -- Eastern or Western -- has had it with U.S. dominance.

It's not like the U.S. hasn't done way worse than what Russia is doing right now, over and over again, with virtual impunity, and has never really had its hands slapped. Ever. The eminent (and arrogant) U.S. is always the sanction giver, never the sanction receiver.

[OCDMOM]

Maybe he doesn't to go along with The Great Reset.

[ajax]

In a recent interview, Gilbert Doctorow stated the following:

"NATO is America's knee to the neck of Europe, and through Europe of the world. So those who want to dismiss NATO lightly are missing the point. It is the means of American control of Europe. And if you've had any doubts about that, just see what has happened in the last week, and how all of Europe has snapped to attention and has submitted to the American sanctions from hell...Mr. Putin is now, with Russia, taking on the whole western world. It's quite incredible. You can say either he's mad, that's what the average person would say who can't imagine breaking with conformity and taking the existential risks that Putin's Russia is now taking, although it has some moral comfort from China, although if I were Russia I wouldn't look to a Chinese life raft to save me from my titanic going down. What he's doing now is historic, and either he will crash and burn and Russia will cease to exist or he will win and NATO will cease to exist. No one can say how this will end, but it will be a historic moment, probably the most historic moment of our lives. Yes, that's where we are today."

[Sarah]

What is Putin's end goal? I mean, he has always struck me as a fairly astute fellow. He doesn't get too emotional and seems down to earth. I also know he's been thinking about this for quite a while. So it's puzzling to see him walk into a political trap that will cripple Russia for years with sanctions and severed ties. Unless he really doesn't care. Unless he's ready to go all the way. By that I mean, unless he's ready to take on the United States. Because there really is no other possible exit on the train he boarded last week. He either wins or loses forever.

I'm really not looking forward to this year. Yes, I'm tired of always wondering when the Tribulation was going to really start for us in the Western countries. But I wasn't nearly tired enough to want what is coming to a theater near us.

Yep, he and Xi are ready to take on the West completely. Right now they are creating that enmity, with sanctions and everything else the West is throwing at them now. At some point US forces will be called to act in the Pacific and Middle East, in order to wear down and distract the US military, so Russia can keep bullying Europe and Xi can take Taiwan.

[tmac]

At that point what you are describing is a bi-lateral "Illiberal" (that's the big new word) NWO completely dominated by Russia and China.

I do think that is where they are trying to go with it.

But one of the big questions is whether Xi is actually a globalist or a nationalist? I think he would be just fine with Globalism, as long as he's in charge. The bottom line is, the rest is nothing but inconsequential window dressing as long as they are in charge -- which goes for all PTB.

[djinwa]

When the Soviets put missiles in Cuba, why did Kennedy care? What was his “end goal?”

If China puts missiles in Mexico, would we ignore that?

Why do we have the Monroe Doctrine?

For some reason, we think we can surround Russia with missiles and they shouldn’t feel threatened. It doesn’t matter that we have troops in 130 countries because we’re the good guys.

Complete hypocrisy.

[Sarah]

At that point what you are describing is a bi-lateral "Illiberal" (that's the big new word) NWO completely dominated by Russia and China.

I do think that is where they are trying to go with it.

But one of the big questions is whether Xi is actually a globalist or a nationalist? I think he would be just fine with Globalism, as long as he's in charge. The bottom line is, the rest is nothing but inconsequential window dressing as long as they are in charge -- which goes for all PTB.

It's likely the western puppets will be rallying the West till the end. Who knows, but what might happen is that as America and the world collapses, and Russian and Chinese troops start making moves across our border, our leaders will say they've made a deal with them so that if we surrender, we can be part of a global government system, or something like that.

[Sarah]

When the Soviets put missiles in Cuba, why did Kennedy care? What was his “end goal?”

If China puts missiles in Mexico, would we ignore that?

Why do we have the Monroe Doctrine?

For some reason, we think we can surround Russia with missiles and they shouldn’t feel threatened. It doesn’t matter that we have troops in 130 countries because we’re the good guys.

Complete hypocrisy.

Well, obviously if we had invaded and bombed Cuba, or if we chose to invade and bomb Mexico because of a deal Mexico makes with China, that would be wrong.

[tmac]

Well, regardless of how things may look at this minute, no one should be deluded into thinking that the West has any clear upper hand at this point. Unless/until God intervenes, the decadent U.S. and its people will capitulate, because they have lost the ability and the will to do anything but talk tough, with little actual substance to actually back it up.

Does anyone really question how the U.S. would fare at this point in a divided front against Russia, China, and Iran?

And lest there be any confusion, geopolitics have absolutely nothing to do with right and wrong.

[NeveR]

When the Soviets put missiles in Cuba, why did Kennedy care? What was his “end goal?”

If China puts missiles in Mexico, would we ignore that?

Why do we have the Monroe Doctrine?

For some reason, we think we can surround Russia with missiles and they shouldn’t feel threatened. It doesn’t matter that we have troops in 130 countries because we’re the good guys.

Complete hypocrisy.

Well, obviously if we had invaded and bombed Cuba, or if we chose to invade and bomb Mexico because of a deal Mexico makes with China, that would be wrong.

You're being a little disingenuous. It's not just a 'deal'. It's membership in a hostile military alliance and nuclear weapons being hosted. And we HAVE illegally bombed and invaded countries all over the world and killed MILLIONS in the process. We have NO moral high ground.

I keep making the comparison and you keep ignoring it, but if Mexico was joining a Russian military alliance and hosting nukes close to our border you know our govt would intervene, and you'd expect them to.

[Sarah]

When the Soviets put missiles in Cuba, why did Kennedy care? What was his “end goal?”

If China puts missiles in Mexico, would we ignore that?

Why do we have the Monroe Doctrine?

For some reason, we think we can surround Russia with missiles and they shouldn’t feel threatened. It doesn’t matter that we have troops in 130 countries because we’re the good guys.

Complete hypocrisy.

Well, obviously if we had invaded and bombed Cuba, or if we chose to invade and bomb Mexico because of a deal Mexico makes with China, that would be wrong.

You're being a little disingenuous. It's not just a 'deal'. It's membership in a hostile military alliance and nuclear weapons being hosted. And we HAVE illegally bombed and invaded countries all over the world and killed MILLIONS in the process. We have NO moral high ground.

I keep making the comparison and you keep ignoring it, but if Mexico was joining a Russian military alliance and hosting nukes close to our border you know our govt would intervene, and you'd expect them to.

Okay, change my quote then from deal to nukes. It would still be wrong for the US to invade and bomb and kill Mexicans, and no, I don't think we'd actually do it, although we'd make lots of threats like we're doing now. But we wouldn't because we'd know Russians would come to Mexico's aid.

[Mamabear]

Maybe he doesn't to go along with The Great Reset.

I have not done my homework on this claim but it could be a possibility.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... e=timeline

[tmac]

if Mexico was joining a Russian military alliance and hosting nukes close to our border you know our govt would intervene, and you'd expect them to

Let me just put it bluntly like this: U.S. leaders would first have to change their panties, and then try to figure out what to do next. But the first thing they would do is soil themselves down both legs.

And, like so many other places, China already pretty much has Mexico locked up and eating out of its hand.

[EvanLM]

The West will open ANWR to oil production which they have been saving for just this scenario. That will drive down oil prices and support a Russian boycott of Russian oil by Europe. Russia may then be forced to invade Alaska. The US (Globalists/Soros/Hunter Biden) should never have been interfering in Ukraine and provoking Putin by Ukraine threatening to join NATO. I think ANWR was preserved untapped just for this scenario. I just don't see either side backing down from this. This is going to escalate and boil over.

have you researched this or is it just your opinion? I had oil field contracts from 1984 til 2013 and researched constantly since my decision to continue contracts depended on the politics and the trends . . . . just asking

di you know that russia, with the help of no one else, has always been the number 2 oil and gas producer in the world? They provide most of Europe their natural gas to heat homes . . . .as well they took crimea so that they had ocean front access to ship oil since that is a cheaper way to ship and is not regulated as strictly as land . . . .

I kinda wouldn't agree with your guess unless you can give me somne information that I hadn't seen before . . . just saying

[EvanLM]

the world has changed sooooo much . . . . the US hasn't dominated for years. . . just dominated in their own pride, lies and bs about themselves. . . this thread sounds like we are in the 70s and we won a war in vietnam . . .ww2 was how many years ago? We are so decadent that even God is no longer protecting us from ourselves . . .he is no longer protecting us from our gad government . . .

Putin is destroying the bioweapon labs that were created and opertated by Kerry, Hillary, Romney, McCaine, etc. He is taking apart the WHO one piece at a time. . . .since they are too scared to have it known what they have been doing with our tax funds, then they refuse to send troops . . .they are starting to get weary of truth tellers and don't know how to put the lid back on the pot . . .

Putin has complained to the world organizations such as UN, NATO and others for the last four months regarding these biolabs in Ukraine . . .some of which are on the border . . . he told the UN and then american and Ukraine citizens were moved . . .he provided a map of where he was going to hit . . .the hit sites are all of the lab sites . . .since then the US embassy has removed all of the information of these labs from their website . . .then the second day of editing they removed all of their pdf files . . . crimes are being shouted from the rooftops . . .I'm amazed how few people really believe the evil that we are under . . .I don't know how much more obvious God needs to make it. . . .

do you find it unusual that no other , even NATO, country has gone in? . . crickets except some condemnation coming out of mouths . . . he has been given full permission to bomb those plants . . .I wouldn't want to breathe the air after that but . . . anyway look real seriously at how much our news is censored since the rest of the worl dKNOWS what is going on and haven't gone to defend Ukraine . . . Putin has a small army compared to even France . . .

where's those Un peacekeeper troops . . .did ya hear Pelosi today . . .maybe we should send blankets .. .or humanitarian . .

[EvanLM]

Maybe he doesn't to go along with The Great Reset.

I have not done my homework on this claim but it could be a possibility.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... e=timeline

he's repeating old news . . .nothing new here . . .

[Artaxerxes]

When the Soviets put missiles in Cuba, why did Kennedy care? What was his “end goal?”

If China puts missiles in Mexico, would we ignore that?

Why do we have the Monroe Doctrine?

For some reason, we think we can surround Russia with missiles and they shouldn’t feel threatened. It doesn’t matter that we have troops in 130 countries because we’re the good guys.

Complete hypocrisy.

Well, obviously if we had invaded and bombed Cuba, or if we chose to invade and bomb Mexico because of a deal Mexico makes with China, that would be wrong.

You're being a little disingenuous. It's not just a 'deal'. It's membership in a hostile military alliance and nuclear weapons being hosted. And we HAVE illegally bombed and invaded countries all over the world and killed MILLIONS in the process. We have NO moral high ground.

I keep making the comparison and you keep ignoring it, but if Mexico was joining a Russian military alliance and hosting nukes close to our border you know our govt would intervene, and you'd expect them to.

Why do you keep arguing this straw man? Russia already borders four Nato states. How many of them host nukes?

[Subcomandante]

When the Soviets put missiles in Cuba, why did Kennedy care? What was his “end goal?”

If China puts missiles in Mexico, would we ignore that?

Why do we have the Monroe Doctrine?

For some reason, we think we can surround Russia with missiles and they shouldn’t feel threatened. It doesn’t matter that we have troops in 130 countries because we’re the good guys.

Complete hypocrisy.

Well, obviously if we had invaded and bombed Cuba, or if we chose to invade and bomb Mexico because of a deal Mexico makes with China, that would be wrong.

You're being a little disingenuous. It's not just a 'deal'. It's membership in a hostile military alliance and nuclear weapons being hosted. And we HAVE illegally bombed and invaded countries all over the world and killed MILLIONS in the process. We have NO moral high ground.

I keep making the comparison and you keep ignoring it, but if Mexico was joining a Russian military alliance and hosting nukes close to our border you know our govt would intervene, and you'd expect them to.

Why do you keep arguing this straw man? Russia already borders four Nato states. How many of them host nukes?

To answer the question, NATO has a presence in the Baltics and in Poland. Estonia and Latvia border Russia, whereas Lithuania and Poland border Russia's Kaliningrad oblast.

NONE of the four nations mentioned harbor nuclear weapons. The closest NATO states that harbor nukes are Germany, Italy, and Turkey.

Nevertheless, the question stands. If Russia were to put nuclear missiles in Mexico or in Cuba, there's ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that the United States would go ballistic (pun not intended) and be asking for explanations.

[Artaxerxes]

Well, obviously if we had invaded and bombed Cuba, or if we chose to invade and bomb Mexico because of a deal Mexico makes with China, that would be wrong.

You're being a little disingenuous. It's not just a 'deal'. It's membership in a hostile military alliance and nuclear weapons being hosted. And we HAVE illegally bombed and invaded countries all over the world and killed MILLIONS in the process. We have NO moral high ground.

I keep making the comparison and you keep ignoring it, but if Mexico was joining a Russian military alliance and hosting nukes close to our border you know our govt would intervene, and you'd expect them to.

Why do you keep arguing this straw man? Russia already borders four Nato states. How many of them host nukes?

To answer the question, NATO has a presence in the Baltics and in Poland. Estonia and Latvia border Russia, whereas Lithuania and Poland border Russia's Kaliningrad oblast.

NONE of the four nations mentioned harbor nuclear weapons. The closest NATO states that harbor nukes are Germany, Italy, and Turkey.

Nevertheless, the question stands. If Russia were to put nuclear missiles in Mexico or in Cuba, there's ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that the United States would go ballistic (pun not intended) and be asking for explanations.

We probably would be concerned. But we're like five steps removed from that happening (and Ukraine isn't asking for nukes), so it's a made up crisis.

If there was actually a proposal to put nukes there, and we were talking about non-killing people type reactions, I think a lot of people would say Russia is justified. But that's not being proposed, and Russia is obviously just using it as an excuse to rebuild it's empire.

[EvanLM]

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT

Obama administration OKs Shell bid to drill for oil in Arctic
By ELANA SCHOR 08/17/2015 03:34 PM EDT Updated 08/17/2015 03:56 PM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
The Obama administration on Monday gave Shell the go-ahead to expand its multibillion-dollar attempt at Arctic offshore oil drilling, aggravating environmentalists just two weeks after the president basked in their praise for pushing an aggressive climate change plan.

The move, which opens up another potential gap between President Barack Obama and Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, allows Shell to drill into the oil- and gas-bearing zones in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea, a remote and challenging environment where green groups had fought hard to keep the company away from threatened walruses and polar bears.


The expanded permits approved by the Interior Department allow Shell to tap into oil- and gas-bearing zones in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea, a remote and challenging environment where green groups had fought hard to keep the company away from threatened walruses, polar bears and sea ice.

Shell last got permission to drill that deeply into the Chukchi, which is estimated to hold more recoverable oil and gas than any coastal area outside the Gulf of Mexico, between 1989 and 1991.

Since its beleaguered 2012 Arctic drilling season ended with a rig running aground while being towed out of Alaska on New Year’s Eve, Shell has beaten back a colorful campaign by eco-activists to disrupt its return to the Last Frontier. Protesters have turned to obstruction by kayaking near the rig as it left harbor in Seattle, dangling from a bridge in Oregon to block a Shell icebreaker, issuing viral videos and circulating old-fashioned legal petitions.

Full coverage of energy policy
POLITICO PRO

Full coverage of energy policy
But the administration insisted on Monday that it had thoroughly vetted the operations before giving its final approval.

“Activities conducted offshore Alaska are being held to the highest safety, environmental protection, and emergency response standards,” Brian Salerno, director of the Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, said in a statement.

Climate activists who implored Obama to keep the oil industry out of the Arctic’s waters say tapping its oil and gas resources would embarrassingly undercut his work to make the fight against global warming into a legacy issue. And Clinton, facing skepticism among many on the environmental left, appeared to side with them July 29 by telling a New Hampshire television station that “I have doubts about whether we should continue drilling in the Arctic.”

The Democratic presidential front-runner has previously said she favors shielding more areas from drilling but has opposed banning it on all public lands and waters. Environmental groups livid after Interior’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement approved Shell’s plans are highly likely to press Clinton to move further left on Arctic oil and gas.

“Last week, President Obama said climate change puts Alaska at the ‘front lines of one of the greatest challenges we face this century,’ and yet today he approved Shell’s plans to drill for oil in the Alaskan Arctic,” Greenpeace USA Executive Director Annie Leonard said in a statement. “The president cannot have it both ways.”

Shell got Interior’s green light to begin work in the Chukchi last month, but that permit blocked the company from oil- and gas-bearing zones beyond 3,000 feet below the surface until a damaged icebreaker ship could return to the area with required safety equipment. The repaired vessel got back to the Arctic in recent days, setting the stage for a final OK of Shell’s drilling plan.

The approval is good for this year’s summer season, set to end in late September.

Shell’s troubled 2012 drilling effort stopped short of oil- and gas-bearing zones in the Chukchi after Interior denied the permits, citing the failure of required safety equipment. An Interior review released in 2013 attributed the stumble to “shortcomings in Shell’s management and oversight of key contractors.”

The company drilled four exploration wells in the Chukchi between 1989 and 1991, according to Interior, including one located in the same Burger Prospect area off the Alaskan coast that Shell is seeking to tap this year. That early effort was abandoned after it yielded mostly natural gas, though newer geological data shows the likelihood that oil is also present.

Shell’s current Alaskan offshore drilling program carries particular urgency for the company, which already has sunk a reported $7 billion-plus into the Arctic even as it slashes spending elsewhere during a historic downturn in oil prices. It’s also crucial for Alaska, where the swoon in crude prices has crunched the state’s budgets and heightened the importance of new discoveries, even in federal waters that don’t yield direct royalty money to the state treasury.

[EvanLM]

Here's Why Obama Is Approving Arctic Drilling Again ...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/here-s...
Apr 01, 2015 · April 1, 2015 By Timothy Gardner WASHINGTON (Reuters) - For a leader who has made fighting climate change a priority, President Barack Obama's decision to approve Royal Dutch Shell's return to oil...



Obama administration clears hurdles for drilling off ...
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/obama...

May 11, 2015 · The Obama administration has essentially cleared the way to allow Royal Dutch/Shell to begin drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic Ocean this summer. It's one of the most consequential and...

Judge allows oil, gas lease sales in Alaska’s Arctic ...
https://wtop.com/world/2021/01/judge-allows-oil...
Jan 05, 2021 · JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A U.S. judge on Tuesday refused to halt an oil and gas lease sale for Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that was pushed by the Trump administration in its final days.

[Atrasado]

One other thing. The Russians must have figured out how to track our subs. The subs are our ace in the hole. If they've figured them out, we are in trouble. About three weeks ago the Russians claimed they chased one of our nuclear subs out of their waters. We proclaim that no such thing ever happened, of course. There are lots ways the American could have accidentally revealed themselves. But is Russia did figure out how to find our subs we are in big trouble!!!!