US air power scares the Russian bear

American Thinker ^ | 02/27/2019 | Ed Timperlake

[ETL]

"Putin says Russia isn’t afraid of another missile crisis with US"

March 2012...

"Obama was talking with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev when neither of them realized that their conversation was being picked up by microphones.

Here is what they said:

Obama: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it's important for him to give me space."

Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you ..."

Obama: "This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility."

Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

"This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

That statement tells us much about the president's mindset.

The specific mention of missile defense is worrisome enough.

Mr. Obama has retreated from the missile defense plan that was negotiated with European allies during the George W. Bush administration.

Apparently, he is signaling Moscow that he intends to retreat further. The clear implication from the president's comments is that he cannot tell the American people before the election what he plans to do after the election.

In addition, there is the phrase "on all these issues," implying more is at stake than just missile defense."

Article: Obama plans double cross on missile defense
When it comes to keeping America safe, we shouldn't be too flexible:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/29/obama-plans-double-cross-on-missile-defense/print/

[ETL]

Feb 9, 2017:

Exclusive: In call with Putin, Trump denounced Obama-era nuclear arms treaty [New Start Treaty] - sources

By Jonathan Landay and David Rohde

February 9, 2017

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In his first call as president with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.

When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.

Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. ...”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-call-putin-trump-denounced-obama-era-nuclear-171036908.html?ref=gs

or,

https://web.archive.org/web/20170209182918/https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-call-putin-trump-denounced-obama-era-nuclear-171036908.html?ref=gs

[ETL]

NATO head: Trump's tough talk has added $100B to alliance, helped deter Russia

FoxNews.com ^ | Jan 27, 2019 | Gregg Re | Fox News

"President Trump has been very clear," Stoltenberg told fill-in host John Roberts.

"He is committed to NATO. He stated that clearly just a few days ago and also at the NATO summit in July.

But at the same time, he has clearly stated that NATO allies need to invest more. And therefore at the summit in July last year, we agreed to do more to step up -- and now we see the results."

In all, Stolenberg continued, "by the end of next year, NATO allies will add hundred – 100 billion extra US dollars toward defense. So we see some real money and some real results. And we see that the clear message from President Donald Trump is having an impact."

In July 2018, NATO leaders pledged their “unwavering commitment” to boost defense spending, following stern words from the president. The U.S. and European allies signed a declaration stating they were “committed to improving the balance of sharing the costs and responsibilities of alliance membership.”

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

[rlmorel]

You provide a lot of great content in your posts.

I should be clear: I don’t say we should ignore Russia, they are indeed capable of and willing to engage in mischef, but...we should treat them for what they are while keeping an eye on them.

[ETL]

They are slowly and patiently rebuilding the evil empire.

[rlmorel]

I found it an interesting point that the Russian Embassy (of all places) would admonish us to remember Vietnam, and the author retorted that what we should remember about Vietnam was Linebacker II in 1972.

Good point, Ivan.

[rlmorel]

Agreed. One of the most disconcerting things is the presence of apparently significant numbers of Russians who long for the days of the Soviet Union.

That is concerning.

[rlmorel]

Furthermore, I don’t like our generals engaging in that crap. Just make sure your systems and people perform as they should, and keep your face out of that end of things.

[dfwgator]

Agreed. One of the most disconcerting things is the presence of apparently significant numbers of Russians who long for the days of the Soviet Union. That is concerning.

That's just nostalgia. Just like sometimes we wish we could go back to the 50s, because people just remember the good things, and not the bad.

In general, people prefer the old times because they think it was a "simpler" time.

I guarantee if they could go back in time, within minutes they would beg to come back.

[rlmorel]

I couldn’t be more in agreement. If not, those are the same people who were in gulags, put there by Stalin, who cried when he died!

[HeadOn]

I was a little young to remember much about Viet Nam. It was way over by the time I was of age. I have, however, read books. One called “Thud Ridge” tells about the fighter jets.

It tells of “blue-eyed, blonde” Vietnamese pilots flying Migs who turned tail and RAN across the Chinese boarder when they even suspected the F4 Phantoms were anywhere near - because our boys were “not allowed” to follow them. Better jets, better men, crappy liberal politicians.

[ETL]

That's just nostalgia. Just like sometimes we wish we could go back to the 50s, because people just remember the good things, and not the bad.

Lol! Yeah, all that Stalin worship we see going on there *today* is nothing more than just missing the "good old days". (what 'good old days'??...20+ million killed under the Soviets)

KGB/FSB Putin, bottom center

[dfwgator]

So maybe a couple of thousand people, tops, out of a population of about 150 million.

I’m not impressed.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Is Russia actually comparing an F4 without guns in the early stages of Vietnam to the F35? I guess it is ok, since in the initial phase of air to air combat, Russian fighters will be going up against F22’s.

[ETL]

"Putin said Stalin deserves statues in his honor"

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20131219/185734707/Putin-Says-Stalin-No-Worse-Than-Cunning-Oliver-Cromwell.html
______________________________________

"the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century" -Russian leader Vladimir Putin on the collapse of the Soviet Union...

"World democratic opinion has yet to realize the alarming implications of President Vladimir Putin's State of the Union speech on April 25, 2005, in which he said that the collapse of the Soviet Union represented the 'greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.'..."

"The more I see and read about Mr. Putin, in power since 1999, and his 'managed democracy,' the more apprehensive I become about the future of Russia and the safety of its neighbors.

If Putin believes that the dissolution of the Soviet Union into 15 independent states represents the 'greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,' then it follows that Putin might well believe he should do something to repair the loss..."

http://web.archive.org/web/20090415000000*/http://www.hooverdigest.org/053/beichman.html
______________________________________

"The demise of the Soviet Union was the 'greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century'," Putin said in 2005.

http://www.thetrumpet.com/article/11102.30640.0.0/asia/moscow-puts-the-soviet-squeeze-on-neighbor-nations
______________________________________

[ETL]

[ETL]

This looks like it's in the United States...

[dfwgator]

I still say that way more Russians venerate the Romanov Dynasty today than they do Stalin.

Not that the Romanovs were necessarily saints, mind you.

[ETL]

[qaz123]

I work with a lot of former AF maintainers on a military sales contract. Quite a few have worked on a variety of ‘platforms’, as they call them. Some of them have worked on the F22 or have worked on the F15s and 16s that would go against the F22 in simulations. They chuckle when they talk about the results of these scenarios because the F22 usually knocks most, if not all, of the OpFor out of the sky before those pilots even know what’s going on. I don’t ask about the details, as I don’t understand them. I just smile knowing that some of my tax money goes to such an awesome machine and it has an American flag on it. But, as amazing as the F22 is, and they assure me it is amazing, it’s old. It’s been around for a long time. Enter....the F35, a plane a few of these guys have worked on.

From what these guys have told me, the F35 takes it to another level in many ways. And given that it can be configured to meet the requirements of the different services and the different missions, within each, make it a very special aircraft. It has had it’s problems. But, I’ve been told that they’re planning on putting systems in that plane that haven’t even been invented yet. The ideas are just something an engineer drew on a cocktail napkin, kind of like the F16, and then they’re trying to figure out how to reverse engineer it. But, I’ve challenged them on the cost. Only to learn that, while it is very expensive, as each plane is made and subsequent models are produced, they’re able to reduce production costs, so what was a $100 million plane, becomes significantly cheaper over time.

But, based on what they’ve told me about the planes current capabilities and what they’re forecasting for the future, I have no problem chipping in for the $100,000,000.00.