Putin Just Warned Global War Is Increasingly More Likely: Here's Why

Tyler Durden's picture

Vladimir Putin is basking in Russia’s triumphant return to the world stage. 

What began with a land grab in Crimea and escalated with support for the separatists at Donetsk, culminated in Moscow’s dramatic entry into Syria’s protracted civil war.

To be sure, the deplorable (not to mention comically absurd) strategy adopted by the US and its regional allies in Syria set Putin up for success. The situation was highly exploitable by anyone that’s strategically minded and thanks to the convoluted set of alliances Washington has built with groups that later turned out to be extremists, Moscow gets to achieve its regional ambitions while simultaneously fighting terrorism. Meanwhile, Washington, Riyadh, Ankara, and Doha are left to look on helplessly as their Sunni extremist proxy armies are devastated by the Russian air force. The Kremlin knows there’s little chance that the West and its allies will step in to directly support the rebels - the optics around that would quickly turn into a PR nightmare. 

All of this has provided the perfect backdrop for Putin to begin what’s amounted to a lecture tour on how to conduct foreign policy.

Soundbites have ranged from very serious commentary on why the West should not employ extremists to bring about regime change to comical jabs at the US and its allies who the Russian President last week accused of having “oatmeal brains” when it comes to Mid-East policy. 

Speaking today at the International Valdai Discussion Club's 12th annual meeting in Sochi, Putin delivered a sweeping critique of military strategy and foreign policy touching on everything from the erroneous labeling of some extremists as “moderates” to the futility of nuclear war. 

“Why play with words dividing terrorists into moderate and not moderate. What's the difference?,” Putin asked, adding that “success in fighting terrorists cannot be reached if using some of them as a battering ram to overthrow disliked regimes [because] it's just an illusion that they can be dealt with [later], removed from power and somehow negotiated with.” 

"I'd like to stress once again that [Russia's operation in Syria] is completely legitimate, and its only aim is to aid in establishing peace," Putin said of Moscow’s Mid-East strategy. And while he’s probably telling the truth there, it’s only by default. That is, peace in Syria likely means the restoration of Assad (it's difficult to imagine how else the country can be stabilized in the short-term), and because that aligns with Russia’s interests, The Kremlin is seeking to promote peace - it’s more a tautology than it is a comment on Putin’s desire for goodwill towards men. 

And then there’s Iran and its nascent nuclear program. Putin accused the US of illegitimately seeking to play nuclear police officer, a point on which he is unquestionably correct: The "hypothetical nuclear threat from Iran is a myth. The US was just trying to destroy the strategical balance, [and] not to just dominate, but be able to dictate its will to everyone – not only geopolitical opponents, but also allies."

Speaking of nukes, Putin also warned that some nuclear powers seem to believe that there’s a way to take the “mutually” out of “mutually assured destruction.”

That is, Putin warned against the dangers of thinking it’s possible to “win” a nuclear war. Commenting on US anti-missile shields in Europe and on the idea of MAD, Putin said the following:

"We had the right to expect that work on development of US missile defense system would stop. But nothing like it happened, and it continues. This is a very dangerous scenario, harmful for all, including the United States itself.  The deterrent of nuclear weapons has started to lose its value, and some have even got the illusion that a real victory of one of the sides can be achieved in a global conflict, without irreversible consequences for the winner itself – if there is a winner at all.”

In short, Putin is suggesting that the world may have gone crazy. The implication is that the US believes it not only has the capacity to win a war against the nations Washington habitually places on its various lists of "bad guys" (i.e. Russia, Iran, and China), but that Washington believes America can win without incurring consequences that are commensurate with the damage the US inflicts on its enemies. That, Putin believes, is a dangerous miscalculation and one that could end up endangering US citizens. 

So once again, this is Putin setting the narrative and jumping at every opportunity to portray Russia as a nation that's not content to "lead from behind" (as so many have recently accused the US of doing). And once again, his assessment seems remarkably sober in a world that does indeed seem to have lost its collective mind. 

Full speech (translated) below.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Pooper Popper's picture

Im set,I dont know if Mrs Popper can make bread as good as Mrs Horseman's ???But shes got the canned venison down and makes a great brisket

knukles's picture

Psychopaths and sociopaths delight!

johngaltfla's picture

You just can't launch a global central bank and new world order currency unless you break a few eggs.

So a few hundred million have to die, so what? Is the world really going to miss the Dallas Cowboys and the city of Dallas, TX that much?

fudge's picture

it will be significantly more than a few hundred million, i have old soviet causality maps that you will not believe.

greenskeeper carl's picture

If our survival depends on rather or not a surface to air missile system can shoot down Russian ICBMs I really hope it's not made by the same defense contractors that made the F35 and the other multi billion dollar boondoggles we have bought recently. Derp...

trulz4lulz's picture

Do we have any anti missle capabilities along the northern border with Canada? because thats the direction they would be coming from.

I am more equal than others's picture





WOLVERINES  (original)

ZerOhead's picture

Putin is really pushing the "nuclear war" angle hard.

I guess his good friend Henry Kissinger must have told him that power is the only thing that NeoCon fucknuts like himself understand...

Jethro's picture

so this is like the "good cop, bad cop" routine? But it's now the "effeminate cop, manly cop" routine with Barry and Vlad?

El Vaquero's picture

For any who want to read it, here is some detailed information on what the USSR's nuclear strategy was during the Cold War:




While some things will have changed due to changes in technology, what kinds of targets the Russians would pick is likely much the same as it was when it was part of the USSR.   If you live near a target, this might be helpful:



Squid-puppets a-go-go's picture

article lost me at 'land grab in crimea'

if 95% of the people vote to go back to russia, how is that represented as russian imperialist greed?

sushi's picture

The people of the Falklands voted to remain associated with the UK. The citizens of Quebec, Canada nearly voted themselves out of Canada, the citizens of Scotland nearly voted themselves out of the the UK, Self Determination is respected by the UN as being a fundamental right of all peoples, so of course when the the citizens of Crimea undertake exactly the same process and vote to join Russia it is a Russian imperialist land grab.

Watch more MSM. They will explain it all to you.


Bastiat's picture

Generally we don't expect the kind of embedded propaganda under a "Tyler" by line.

Blankone's picture

You have not being reading carefully for at least the last 6 months.

Bastiat's picture

I have--almost everything is posted by a Tyler but usually the propaganda pieces have a different byline.

Pure Evil's picture

Bomb out shelters in Florida?

Yeah good one.

Well, anyway, just find the first sink hole, that should do it.

Occident Mortal's picture

Russian ICBM's can't be shot down with air defense missiles.


Russian ICBM's constantly recalculate their trajectory following a continually regenerated 'random path' through 3D space all the way to their target. The downside is that the missles need 20% more fuel.

All air defense systems work by tracking a missle and projecting it's trajectory then triangulating an intercept location and launching an interceptor to that location.


But by the time the interceptor reaches the intercept location the Russian ICBM will have changed course several times and is likely to be thousands of meters away.


In order to intercept a Russian ICBM the interceptor needs to travel at over 35,000mph. Good luck with that.


George Bush decided he wanted a Star Wars missle defense system and after spending a boat load of cash.. the Kremlin called in the US amabasador and told them all Russian missle had just received a software upgrade that would render Star Wars obsolete before it was even built. The Star Wars program was scrapped within a month.

Manthong's picture

That Crimean land grab really irks me.

Where can I find Catherine the Great to tell her how mad I am?


jeff montanye's picture

manthong, the obvious answer is she is fucking a horse, in san francisco.

TahoeBilly2012's picture

When ur Tribe(tm) is the king of New York and Hollywood...you seem to think the world is your oyster (slaves). 

StychoKiller's picture

Shellfish aren't considered Kosher.

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Not a problem for someone who can Think outside the Box -- as I do:

You simply launch two waves:  the 1st one to get close enough to the incoming ICBM and detonate an EMP that's strong enough to kill its electronics.  If it has a fallback to Inertial Guidance, which will keep it on a steady course, you then launch the 2nd wave that will take them out completely.  Problem solved.

In reality, what will probably happen, is that it will be a veritable swarm of Cruise Missiles and Drones that will overwhelm any defense (Bandwidth is a bitch), and thus preserve the MAD balance of deterrence.

conscious being's picture

MIRV - Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle. Russian ICBMs seem to have 10 war heads per missle. So if they are not stopped on the way up. They turn into 10 times the intercept problem on the way down. Good luck stopping that.

jeff montanye's picture

everyone who enjoys these  last few comments, no matter how on point or insightful, and hasn't, needs, badly, to watch one of peter sellers' masterworks, dr. strangelove.  the other two are lolita and being there.  there are also others very good.

this is the best.



emersonreturn's picture

kirk, nice to see you, hoping you are well...glad to see you are still outside the box. ;-)

conscious being's picture

Good to see Everyman, an ancient legend.

El Vaquero's picture

Relying on EMP to kill ICBMs won't work.  Lets just say that they wouldn't fly, with or without EMP, if they weren't hardened.  And the US already messed around with using nuclear missiles to take out incoming warheads.  Look up the Sprints and the Spartans (missiles.) 

wizteknet's picture

Russian nukes, we have nukes tooo

o r c k's picture

Lots of 'em in Fla.  Bay of Pigs.



SMG's picture

Whoever wrote this is pretty right on about the current NWO plan for rolling out a global government if you're interested.  It involves a switch to what they term a "multipolar" world.


Implied Violins's picture

I've posted links to that piece - and many other of Ken's articles, as well as Brandon Smith's, who writes in a similar vein - many times on these pages. Both Ken and Brandon provide links to relevant information, give well-reasoned arguments, and their arguments are based on the same research of such stalwarts as Carroll Quigley, Antony Sutton, Gary Allen and Gary Abraham. I'd seriously like to see people who downvote this information provide reasoned arguments about why they don't see what these people see, instead of just reflexively dismissing them.

Manthong's picture

Merkel must have been off her meds for a bit..

she let this slip out:

Merkel says migrant influx a fallout from globalization


jeff montanye's picture

i think smg deserves as well reasoned and offered a reply.  unfortunately i am unfamiliar with his writers and their opinions.  

maybe including some of that would have increased the audience. and links.

Implied Violins's picture

OK, here's a link to a free downloadable version of 'None Dare Call it Conspiracy,' which is a great place to start (and it's a really short book):

kamron.com/Downloads/none dare call it conspiracy.pdf

It was written by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham, who were speechwriters for Governor George Wallace...who was shot just hours before he was going to give a speech based on the information found in this book. The only problem with the book is that the charts are not good quality, as the PDF format is not good. The updated version of the book, 'Call it Conspiracy' from 1985 is available for a decent price on Amazon, though.

conscious being's picture

IV - Are you familiar with Michael Kordorkovsky? If so, please explain his case in light of your argument. Thanks. Doesn't have to be a thesis. From my perspective, his case seems to be one of a number of real life examples that contradict they're all in it together claim.

Russia was conquered by the banksters under Yeltsin. They knew how to cynically fabricate elections. They owned the media. They owned the banks. They owned all the significant means to create wealth. The Russian oligarchs and the global banksters, including the Rothchilds were joined at the hip. What good did it do the bankster cabal to let it all go? What benefit did they derive by having their agents stripped of their assets? Same question, why was it good for the bankster clique to have their top level operatives in the country flee, get disposessed, thrown in prison and/or wind up dead?

"I'd seriously like to see people who downvote this information provide reasoned arguments about why they don't see what these people see, instead of just reflexively dismissing them."

I reply all the time. Maybe you should take a look? Thanks for the link.

more: Earlier reply on a BS thread. Lively discussion follows. ConfederateH makes a clear case. Some nutcake roccman, claims "The Rothchilds are part of the slave class"!! Do they know? Starts here ->http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-16/guest-post-false-eastwest-paradigm-and-end-freedom#comment-6678552


Implied Violins's picture

OK, just reading through his Wikipedia page, I see that he made a lot of his fortune (especially early) by gaming the government, and most likely he stepped on a lot of other oligarch's toes in the process. Also, this gave me pause:

"In 2001, Khodorkovsky launched the Open Russia Foundation in Somerset House in London, owned by the Rothschild's Family Trust, with Henry Kissinger as its trustee."

"In 2003 Khodorkovsky's shares in Yukos passed to Jacob Rothschild under a deal that they had concluded prior to Khodorkovsky's arrest."

Reading further down, it seems he had a fundamentally different belief in what Russian government should be, and wasn't shy about expressing it:

"Khodorkovsky is openly critical of what he refers to as "managed democracy" within Russia. Careful normally not to criticise the current leadership, he says the military and security services exercise too much authority. He told The Times:

"It is the Singapore model, it is a term that people understand in Russia these days. It means that theoretically you have a free press, but in practice there is self-censorship. Theoretically you have courts; in practice the courts adopt decisions dictated from above. Theoretically there are civil rights enshrined in the constitution; in practice you are not able to exercise some of these rights.""

So, I think he may have been targeted by the globalists for removal because he was too powerful and not 'in line' with their goals, but not before giving him a chance first (what with the start of the Rothschild foundation). Plus, getting rid of him made it look like Putin was not afraid to go after REAL power and put oligarchs in their place, a view that serves him well at this time in history (though it was frowned upon at the time).

And the facts are that he is STILL not enamored of Putin and wants to replace him, as stated later on in the 'US visit' part of the page. So, it may be simply that he was not a man who could be 'bought;' had fundamental differences of opinion on Putin; and served as a sacrificial pawn that propped up belief in Putin having the power to confront even the biggest big-wigs. Plus, as has often been seen throughout history, the very top echelons of this globalist system have absolutely no compunctions about getting rid of some of their servants if it serves the higher cause. Anyway, that's my quick analysis based on the Wiki page.

conscious being's picture

IV thanks for picking up the thread.

So, "managed democracy", come on IV, Kordorkovsky's team, the Globalist, Soros, Knuleman Kagan team created the "managed democracy". Then, Kordorkovsky is crying about being stuck outside the gate his Zionist team set up. Too bad for them through a strange twist of fate, Putin, who was selected to replace the drunk and unequivical, oligarch front-man, Yeltsin, turned out to be a Russian Patriot. Or at least a guy who was determined to take back the stolen wealth of his country by among other things, clawing it back from oligarchs. Russian standard of living took off.

There's a lot on YouTube. Try this - The Rise of Putin and The Fall of The Russian-Jewish Oligarchs (1/2)

jeff montanye's picture

well, thank you.  i'm not so sure how helpful calling this "communism" is; i think you put off communists who are potential allies.

but a conspiracy of the rich against the world?  hell yes.

conscious being's picture

The argument I don't buy is that there is no conflict or rivalry among the rich and powerful, that they are a monolithic block and they're all in it together. Powerful made men wind up dead. Just ridiculus, in my mind, that some people consider that cooperation.

Implied Violins's picture

Yes, there is undoubtedly conflicts at the oligarch level. In fact, I would venture to say that it is ENCOURAGED, as it both creates chaos and gives the impression that there ARE rifts at the highest levels. The thing is, the oligarchs are NOT the highest level; they are only the players in the casino - they are NOT the House. And at the house level, there is perfect agreement and meticulous planning.

OF course, not all things go according to plan, but when chaos is part of your plan (to hide the overlying structure), it's all good in the end - because: a good crisis NEVER GOES TO WASTE! So, there are fights between oligarchs as they split the pie made available to them...but all the ingredients, the pie dish, the oven, the chef etc. are all supplied courtesy of the house.

conscious being's picture

You know IV, if no one ever sees this even higher layer you are talking about, no offense, maybe it does not exist? Is roccoman correct in that "the Rothchilds are at the slave level"?

You skipped over the Michael Khordorkovsky question. Is he just expendable? And Boris Berezovsky, the richest man in Russia, the "Gray Ghost of the Kremlin". The Zionist guy who held all the reigns of power in the Kremlin? He was just expendable too? Are your hidden powers playing to lose? It sounds like a discussion the ancient Greeks had about their gods. What are those crazy gods we up to now? A New World Order that will surplant the Zionist World Order is a good thing for most people.

Implied Violins's picture

There's a larger picture here you're just not getting.

Here, take a look at this chart, the history of the reserve currency: http://azizonomics.com/2012/01/04/a-history-of-reserve-currencies-in-one...

That chart only goes back to 1400, but in actuality it stretches back to Sumerian times. But you can see that there is a definite, step-wise pattern there. A reserve currency - the currency used for international trade - has a prescribed 'shelf life' of from 70-100 years, after which it is supplanted. Digging deeper into that chart and looking at what happens throughout time, especially at the times of transition, a common thread can be found: there are only 13 families (plus the Vatican) who have been linked to the money supply throughout history. The names may change (like Bauer to Rothschild), as does the currency, but a definite lineage can be found there.

What happens is that those who control the money supply use that money to 'buy' greedy, power-hungry psychopaths to do their dirty work. They are the power behind kings and queens, but choose to not be visible themselves. When they gain control of a powerful leader (and his armies), they use him to take control of a country and consolidate their gains, then they further their aims by getting him and other leaders of other countries they control to attack other countries that they DON'T control, and they use the currency of the main country they currently operate out of to buy up assets, backed up with force.

Over time, they basically bankrupt the country that they have been using as hosts, and when they are done with it, they then go on to 'buy' another psychopathic leader of yet *another* country they don't yet control and PAY HIM TO ATTACK THEIR CURRENT COUNTRY (just look up the history of the House of Orange for a good example). Then they move on to control that new country and consolidate their gains, looking at their next target.

At the current time, these families/Vatican/Zionists have a central bank in nearly every country, which is their 'seat of control' for the country. The only (major) countries that didn't have such central banks a decade or so ago were: Tunisia, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and a couple of others. See a pattern there?

In order to carry out their nefarious plans, those at the top of this pyramid can - and do - use oligarchs as pawns to further their aims. If one oligarch isn't privy to their plans - or can't be bought - then they'll just find someone else who WILL do their bidding, and remove the one who won't play their game.

A good book which outlines some of this is William Bramley's 'Gods of Eden.'

Implied Violins's picture

And a p.s. on the Rothchilds being 'slaves' - yes, yes they are. Bramley makes that case very well. Now, slaves to whom? THAT I won't answer here, because...well, this isn't a conspiracy website :-)

johngaltfla's picture

We do have bomb shelters in Florida.

We call them 'fat chicks with deep thighs.'

jeff montanye's picture

although we obviously share similar interests, john galt fla is whistling past a graveyard.

one, of many, dirtly secrets of florida is that there are no basements (for you to return to and live out your days, japanese style).  not only that but the ubiquitous swimming pools are not a done deal.  don't put it in during september, for instance.  let's just say if you do you may be making cookies for your neighbors (don't ask).