Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

World News
See other World News Articles

Title: Naval base in Cuba would be Russia's best response to US hawks
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jan 30, 2015
Author: staff
Post Date: 2015-01-30 23:38:16 by Tatarewicz
Keywords: None
Views: 272
Comments: 41

Pravda...

Naval base in Cuba would be Russia's best response to US hawks. NATO getting closer to Russia's borders

A new NATO command center will be created near Varna in Bulgaria: 40 commanders, trainers and liaison officers. The decision was made during the visit of US Secretary of State Kerry and NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg to Bulgaria. "I am in Bulgaria to show that NATO is as committed to Bulgaria as Bulgaria is to NATO," the alliance's Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said. Pravda.Ru asked Director of the Center for Public Policy Research, Vladimir Yevseyev, to comment on such a development.

"Russia has been increasing its military potential in the Crimea, and it comes as a response to NATO's growing activity in the Black Sea region, when the alliance often violates the Montreux Convention. In Romania, they plan to build a base of interceptor missiles. Therefore, Russia has to strengthen its presence in the Crimea. What Russia does is enough to ensure the security of Russia. Yet, the involvement of Bulgaria harms primarily Bulgaria itself. The short-sighted policy of the Bulgarian leadership has already made Russia shut down the South Stream project, which struck a serious blow on the Bulgarian economy," said Vladimir Yevseyev. Tweet

Print version + - Font Size Send to friend

The expert noted that the deployment of any type of NATO infrastructure in Bulgaria forces Russia to use those locations as targets for a possible strike in the event of a hypothetical conflict. Thus, Bulgaria jeopardizes its own population. "I believe that the Bulgarian leaders need to reconsider their policy, as it is clear that Bulgaria's security will be weakened. I would not listen to encouraging statements from the USA. Bulgaria can look at what happened in Georgia, when in August of 2008, no one helped the country, despite numerous promises."

"There were plans to build such a center in Turkey, but the country declined the offer not to ruin the ties with Russia. Why has Bulgaria agreed to be at the forefront of the fight against the Russian Federation?"

"It was the USA that has grown the ruling elite of Bulgaria. The Bulgarian elite conduct the American foreign policy. It is understandable why Bulgaria has agreed to everything that it was offered. Yet, I do not understand what Bulgaria can get in return. Turkey is being much smarter at this point, I believe. Bulgaria wants to follow the example of Poland. However, this path is wrong, because at least three aircraft with caskets, in which the bodies of Polish citizens rest, have arrived from Ukraine, where Polish soldiers fought on the side of Kiev. I think the Bulgarian leadership should take this into account," said Vladimir Yevseyev. Russian warplanes make Britain nervous

Meanwhile, Britain summoned the Russian ambassador to explain what two Russian bombers were doing on January 28 near British airspace. "The Russian aircraft were flying with disabled transponders, so they could be seen only in military radar. We asked the expert to comment on this as well.

"If the Russian aircraft had entered the airspace of the United Kingdom, I would have understood the claims. If the airplanes were flying close, then I do not see any serious reason to call the Russian ambassador. Apparently, the psychosis that has been gathering pace not only in the UK, but also in Nordic countries, shows that they are creating an artificial threat. They inflate the bubble that they are then afraid of themselves. From what I've heard, Russian planes have not transgressed the airspace of the United Kingdom," said Vladimir Yevseyev.

Russian Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko said that the flights of the planes of the Russian Air Force over the English Channel met international standards and could not be viewed as threatening or destabilizing. We asked the expert, whether the intensified patrolling activities could be a response to the deployment of military bases in Eastern Europe.

"I believe that Russia has the right to fly in the areas that are regarded as international. There is no doubt that the activation of NATO near the Russian border will cause a response. I believe that Russia's best response to the US and its allies would be to open a Russian naval base in Cuba. This would cool the ardor of US hawks, who want hegemony like nothing else on Earth. There is no such hegemony in the world, therefore, all attempts to blow the so-called Russian threat out of proportion will lead to nothing. The US will certainly be defeated - I mean Russia is not going to wage a war against the United States. The Americans will have to step back. EU's intention not to introduce additional sanctions against Russia is a proof of that," concluded Vladimir Yevseyev.

Pravda.Ru

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 32.

#1. To: Tatarewicz (#0)

The Russians have had a "base" in D.C for as long as I can remember.

Cynicom  posted on  2015-01-31   1:02:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Cynicom (#1)

The Russians have had a "base" in D.C for as long as I can remember.

Do you mean a Communist Party base of infiltrators in gov offices there or something else?

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-01-31   5:06:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: GreyLmist (#2)

Do you mean a Communist Party base of infiltrators in gov offices

Indeed...

It went beyond infiltration, to the point of control.

Harry Hopkins lived in the White House, bedroom across the hall from FDR, with 24/7 access at will.

Hopkins is dead, other than that not much real difference.

Cynicom  posted on  2015-01-31   7:47:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Cynicom (#3)

Communist Party USA - Wikipedia

The Truman administration's loyalty oath program, introduced in 1947, drove some leftists out of federal employment and, more importantly, raised awareness of [...] Communists as subversives, to be exposed and expelled from public and private employment.

In 1949's Foley Square trial, the FBI prosecuted eleven members of the CPUSA's leadership, including Gus Hall and Eugene Dennis.

the jury found all 11 defendants guilty, and they were sentenced to terms of five years in federal prison. When the trial concluded, the judge sent all five defense attorneys to jail for contempt of court. Two of the attorneys were subsequently disbarred. The government prosecutors, encouraged by their success, arrested and convicted over 100 additional Party officers in the early 1950s.[39]

By the mid-1950s, membership of Communist Party USA had slipped from its 1944 peak of around 80,000[42] to an active base of approximately 5,000.[43] Some 1,500 of these "members" were FBI informants.[44] To the extent that the Communist Party did survive, it was crippled by the penetration activities of these informants, who kept close surveillance on the few remaining legitimate members of the Party on behalf of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover,[45][46] and the CPUSA dried up as a base for Soviet espionage.[47] "If it were not for me", Hoover told a State Department official in 1963, "there would not be a Communist Party of the United States. Because I've financed the Communist Party, in order to know what they are doing".[48]

In 1993, experts from the Library of Congress traveled to Moscow to copy previously secret archives of Communist Party USA (CPUSA) records, sent to the Soviet Union for safekeeping by party organizers. The records provided an irrefutable link between Soviet intelligence and information obtained by the CPUSA and its contacts in the U.S. government from the 1920s through the 1940s. Some documents revealed that the CPUSA was actively involved in secretly recruiting party members from African-American groups and rural farm workers. Other CPUSA records contained further evidence that Soviet sympathizers had indeed infiltrated the State Department, beginning in the 1930s. Included in CPUSA archival records were confidential letters from two U.S. ambassadors in Europe to Roosevelt and a senior State Department official. Thanks to an official in the State department sympathetic to the Party, the confidential correspondence, concerning political and economic matters in Europe, ended up in the hands of Soviet intelligence.[76][80][81]

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-01-31   8:58:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: GreyLmist (#5)

Spies always operate outside the law, thus laws and penalties are meaningless.

Cynicom  posted on  2015-01-31   9:13:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Cynicom (#6)

Spies always operate outside the law, thus laws and penalties are meaningless.

The laws and penalties and oaths seemed to be working productively with proper enforcement. Enabling Communist infiltration and control by non-enforcement is treasonous complicity, imo.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-01-31   9:49:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: GreyLmist (#7)

Robert Hanssen comes to mind, not long ago and fifteen years of spying.

Cynicom  posted on  2015-01-31   10:03:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Cynicom (#8)

Robert Hanssen comes to mind, not long ago and fifteen years of spying.

Infiltration is what spies do but rapid enough detection or not shouldn't interfere with enforcements to rout Communists from positions of control here as outlaws. Their Communistic, Unconstitutional policies and votes are evidentiary of their subversive activities.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-01-31   10:36:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: GreyLmist (#9)

rapid enough detection or not shouldn't interfere with enforcements to rout Communists from positions of control here as outlaws.

Read Witness?????

Cynicom  posted on  2015-01-31   10:58:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Cynicom (#10)

Read Witness?????

No or maybe infinitesimally amid other research and commentaries. Can you give me a quick review?

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-01-31   11:24:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: GreyLmist (#11)

If I remember correctly, Witness is some 600 pages.

Turtle  posted on  2015-01-31   12:23:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Turtle (#14)

If I remember correctly, Witness is some 600 pages.

Yikes! I'd probaby need another lifetime to get through all of that. Will try to look for a synoposis or something somewhere someday.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-01-31   12:40:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: GreyLmis, Turtle (#16)

Witness is 800 pages and should be required reading for all college people.

Cynicom  posted on  2015-01-31   13:24:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Cynicom (#18)

Witness is 800 pages and should be required reading for all college people.

800! Although I did spend quite a while reading through page 1 of some reviews about that book to get the gist of it (very few of which were criticisms but went on for 66! pages) and it sounds good on the surface as a Communism deterrent, I'll say at this point that those reviews, after prior research about the Whittaker Chambers and Alger Hiss case, didn't manage to change my hypothesis that it may have been more of an in-fighting continuation of the Stalinist purges of Trotskyites/internationalists from the Communist Party than it appeared; State's Witness Chambers -- Stalinist leanings, Alger Hiss of FDR's State Department and the UN -- internationalist Trotskyite leanings. Not saying I couldn't be wrong but that's my impression for now and likely will remain unchanged anytime soon by that particular book with nearly 1,000 pages, even though it does sound highly interesting and educational too.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-02-01   11:52:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 32.

#33. To: Cynicom (#32)

800 pages

Just thought you might like to know that one of the reviews I read astoundingly claimed that they were going to read it again! because they considered it of such historical importance; or words to that effect.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-02-01 12:02:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: GreyLmist (#32)

I suspect you have read Whittaker Chambers in the past and never knew it?????

Cynicom  posted on  2015-02-01 17:31:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 32.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest