Russia ‘urgently recalls officials’ families living abroad’ as WW3 threat looms

Sounds like not a little bit of paranoia... any luck yet with a better source?

 

British tabloids go into WWIII frenzy over reported pull-out of Russian officials’ relatives

It's RT, but I'd trust an (arguably) Russian mouthpiece over a tabloid.

 

Yeah, I looked around and tried to find something else and I failed to do so. I wouldn't mind if there were multiple confirmations, but as you said, everything comes back to an not-all-that-reputable publisher and their anonymous source.

Frankly, I do not see (large scale) nuclear war just suddenly (or truly ever) occuring between states. The policy of mutual destruction is still very much a thing and there is a different between pinpoint nuclear strikes and then bombing cities with nuclear weapons.

It's a nice article headline that fits with the current picture-painting of Russia as a very aggressive state which is attempting to re-build itself into a modern Soviet Union.

 

This is true, but a rational actor would likely want to perpetuate either their own rule or their countrys' rule which would be near-impossible without a country (part of the reason I specifically mentioned states). I have a hard time imagining tensions between U.S./Russia achieving the levels of Cuban Missle Crisis without significant buildup. Syria is contentious for sure, but ehh.

Wars can be extremely profitable for the private industry, look at Dick Chainey's ties to the private industry and the handling of contracts during the 03 Iraq Invasion + the U.S. Initially thought the 03 Iraq invasion could potentially turn a profit. I don't know enough about profitable nuclear incidents, but I imagine such profit again relates to private industry (perhaps in clean-up? I'm not sure).

I can see elite theory pushing a country towards war, but stretching it to the point of nuclear annihilation for sheer profit may be a bit of a stretch. Pre-war money will be useless if caps is the currency.

 

This is very true, but I would argue that it's more so about backing who is going to give who control of another access point into the Middle East. It wouldn't be smart to push into a full-scale conflict, because it would be much too costly on both sides.

This sounds like conspiracy theorist stuff, not something I would base an argument on. There is no solid evidence for it. We would definitely know at this point with all the information leaked from Guciffer and Wikileaks if anything even hinted at a 'culling of the population'.

I agree to an extent, but it's been entirely mutual. There have been aggression on both sides of the line. Annexing Crimea was hugely aggressive on the part of Russia and destabilized eastern Europe more.

 

Saying all of the Syrian rebels equivocates to IS is a oversimplification of the Syrian conflict. I would not try and argue the U.S. hasn't tried to back various rebel groups with results leading to weaponry and such falling into IS hands, but the U.S. is not backing IS in any direct form. The U.S. had (then ISIS pre ISIS/ISIL) destroyed in 2011, but the Syrian conflict (alongside a multitude of other factors) allowed IS to re-rise. The U.S. is not directly funding IS; now, Saudi Arabia, that may be a different story.

The U.S. and Russia have had proxy wars before and I highly doubt either Russia or the U.S. have enough investment in Syria to catalyze a world conflict. The world is linked more-so than ever before and a conflict on that scale would be devastating for all parties if not due to military actions, than economic ramifications.

I have no doubt in the monetary possibilities, but I find it implausible monetary gain by a select few will lead to a nuclear war.

I'm not sure what mainstream narrative you are talking about. Many western countries have made quite a few shitty decisions, but I seldom (if ever) see generalizations of western people are bad; rather, I see this narrative portrayed with Islam and even then it's not heavily coalescence within mainstream media. As for people are destroying the environment, they are and it can fixed (or at least improved on). The modern person is antithetical to the environment, we destroy it to build whatever it is we need and or want and this is part of our nature.

As of 2011, about 90% of U.S. media was owned by 6 companies and while I imagine Clinton's have considerable influence, I'm doubting they're running the media narrative. Even if this narrative is as dominant as you claim, I still think criticizing a population is a far call from genocide.

It also may be worth taking in account that while media is still certainly a large factor in the consumption of information, the likes of social media potentially better enable fact checking and hamper the mindless consumption of a specific narrative (or perhaps the opposite).

Western media consistently portrays Russia as the aggressor and while Western media may have a wider influence, Russia media often does the same (just read some RT articles). The U.S. is no saint in international affairs, but Russia is not some innocent party.

 

I never mentioned anything along the lines of the U.S. backing "moderate" rebel groups. U.S. backing of rebels has been a shit-storm, but the U.S. has in not directly backed IS in any shape or form. If we want to argue U.S. supplies getting into IS hands, all you have to do is look at Mosul in 2013 and the amount of military gear IS got their hands on in that attack alone.

Passage of defeated militants whom were under supervision by coalition (U.S.) drones with U.S. approval is not exactly arming IS. It would not surprise me if actions were taken after said evacuation and said evacuation resulted in an IS loss.

The second article reeks of bias, but even without that I never mentioned the backing of U.S. "moderate" rebels. Even if the article links the group to Al-Nursa, they are not receiving direct (or arguably even purposeful) support & they are not the same as IS. IS may have tried to claim they ran Al-Nursa, but said claim failed and Nursa continues to operate independently of IS and the two groups have fought one-another.

 

anyone know how far the bad shit can spread when the nukes hit?

 

I can relate to both parties opinions although both of them need to cut the crap about being defensive since theyre obviously trying to see how far they can push before one of them actually does something silly

 

Putin outright said in the video that Russia was developing offensive weaponry. They're not really shying away from the idea of being the attacker as opposed to the defender. It's a common strategy: "sometimes, the best defense is a good offense".

If you ask me, everyone is getting into a whole lot of hooplah about shit that isn't happening. The US isn't going to war with Russia. War is always the last resort. The US hasn't placed nearly as many sanctions on Russia as they can, so that would be the first step. If that happens and the Russian aggression continues, then we might be looking down the barrel of the gun. Until then, this is all tinfoil-hat bullshit.