© Jeon Heon-kyun / ReutersNATO's top muppet.
The Russian military has significantly progressed in recent years to become "a very serious adversary" to the US and NATO, the bloc's top commander has said, noting
Russia's army is now more professional, faster-learning, and more agile at thinking.
"Russia is back," General Curtis Scaparrotti, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and head of US European Command, told the Aspen Security Forum on Friday.
Run by the renowned Aspen Institute to discuss US national security issues, this year's forum featured top military brass, including US Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley, NSA Director Mike Rogers, and Commandant of the US Marine Corps Robert Neller.
"
I'm impressed with the fact that they've taken a force that really had some serious problems only a few years ago," General Scaparrotti said, referring to the large-scale military reforms and re-armament program that have been taking place in Russia in recent years.
Comment: At least Scaparrotti is acknowledging the truth regarding Russia's military capabilities. Too bad he's a raving NATO-nutjob who probably fantasizes about being the guy take down that "very serious" adversary. But don't expect a career U.S. military man to have an ounce of common sense when it comes to realizing the pragmatic and moral necessity of negotiations over military posturing, and of working together with Russia over clinging to a senile and paranoid cold war mentality. See:
NATO's new European commander proves to be 'even worse warmonger' than Breedlove Here's the routine: NATO acts like a belligerent drunk wife-beater, Russia responds to its aggression by beefing up its military, NATO cries "Russian aggression", says how woefully unprepared they are, and defense budgets increase. Rinse and repeat.
Case in point:
Vladimir Putin is assembling a secret fleet of super submarines which could topple NATO and plunge the world into war. [SOTT: hysterical nonsense.] A report by naval experts warns that Russia already has a small but sophisticated army of subs which are capable of launching missile strikes across the globe. The deadly group of stealthy underwater weapons are currently patrolling the world and have already reportedly breached UK waters having approached the Royal Navy's base in Faslane, Scotland. Russia is stepping up its secret submarine programme to 'Cold War' levels and experts warn NATO members "no longer" have the defences to stop the aquatic death machines.
...
While the fleet is not as big as the Soviet Union's colossal arsenal, the report says the new subs can dive deeper, and move quieter, than any ever before. The nuclear-powered ships are armed with electronic warfare gear, long-range cruise missiles, torpedoes and mines. And while the Kremlin is growing their amphibious firepower, the number of US submarines is dwindling.
The incredible [SOTT: literally, as in 'not credible'] report says the formerly formidable Royal Navy is at its "lowest ebb" while NATO needs to reinvest its defence capabilities or risk being toppled by the might of Putin's super subs. [SOTT: No, you need to stop being belligerent azzhats.] Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain with Center for New American Security, told Breaking Defense said: "We're in a bad place as an alliance with regard to Russia's underwater resurgence."
Comment: Who's McAuliffe? It wouldn't be a surprise if Clinton flip-flops on TPP. After all, "Companies [and countries] who have signed on to the U.S. Business Coalition for TPP have donated a minimum of $21 million to the Clinton Foundation", including:
- Coca Cola ($5,000,000—$10,000,000) Wal-Mart ($2,000,000—$10,000,000) Citigroup ($1,500,000—$6,000,000)
- Dow Chemical ($1,025,000—$5,050,000)
- Boeing ($1,000,000—$5,000,000)
- Exxon Mobile ($1,000,000—$5,000,000)
- Microsoft ($1,000,000—$5,000,000)
- Procter & Gamble ($1,000,000—$5,000,000)
- Pfizer ($1,000,000—$5,000,000)
- Toyota ($1,000,000—$5,000,000)
- General Electric ($500,000—$1,000,000)
- Monsanto ($500,000—$1,000,000)
- Nike ($500,000—$1,000,000)
- Visa ($500,000—$1,000,000)
- Morgan Stanley ($360,000—$775,000) Goldman Sachs ($250,000—$500,000)
- Australia ($5,000,000—$10,000,000)
- Brunei ($1,000,000—$5,000,000)
- Canada ($250,000—$500,000)
Australia actually donated up to $88bln - the reporting on the figure has been contradictory.So, to ask again, what exactly would Clinton 'fix' about the deal? And who would benefit from those fixes (and vice versa)?