Is Vladimir Putin pushing for conflict?



The Daily Journalist Community Opinion.


Recently, Russia has shown an alarming scale of fighter jets illegally flying through EU NATO airspace. Turkey, Norway, Belgium and Sweden among the countries who detected these Russian jets.

Just by watching the recent APEC event, it seem to me as if Obama was angry at Putin, who rubbed the US presidents back, who not once maintained eye contact with him. Tension on the rise.

With the annexation of Crimea and also the financial and secretive military support to encourage a revolution in Ukraine, Russia is showing a worrisome face to the west. The expulsion of Russia from the G8, and the EU trying to provide Ukraine with Energy has not digested well in Moscow.

Putin wants to reestablish the Russian empire — A dream of his peer Khrushchev.

In my opinion, NATO and the US look relatively weakened on their military campaigns on the Middle East.  And Putin is watching it, testing the murky waters inside the EU, who outside of France, and Germany have a weak military.

1. Is Russia showing signs of conflict given the recent moves? If yes, why? If not, why? 

2.  Would the EU adopt a more aggressive approach to Moscow’s latest international violations?  And do you expect more violations to come?

3.  Would it be on Putin’s interest to one day take over Europe, if the right opportunity arrives since he is an advocate of Khrushchev dream to reestablish a Russian Empire? 

4. What do you preview next on Russia’s relation with Europe? Improvement or conflict? 


Claude Nougat. 

(Passionate traveler (80 countries+) 25 years experience in United Nations: project evaluation specialist; FAO Director for Europe/Central Asia)

“Yes, Putin is certainly aiming high on the international scene. And growling like a bulldog. Crimea was not enough, now he needs a corridor to reach it, therefore he wants Eastern Ukraine too.

His “expulsion” from the G8 must have hurt his pride. Incidentally, that was a very silly move on the part of G8 leaders – never shut the door on a group member, dress him down, sure, but don’t kick him out, you’re cutting off one essential avenue for dialogue, something you should NEVER do if you have any sense of diplomacy, or any sense at all.

But Putin is a pragmatic guy, he is surely responding more to (presently suppressed) internal opposition (though it was pretty lively a couple of years ago) than to any snub from G20 leaders or remonstrations from Merkel. She is supposed to be the only European leader in his confidence – personally, I doubt it; she is simply playing an ugly double game because for Germany the Russian market is terribly important, particularly as a provider of energy.

Is Russia aiming to conquer Europe or expand in any other way beyond that ugly business in Ukraine? I doubt it. Putin dreams of Big Russia, true, these are Tsarist dreams. Putin and Catherine the Great… But such dreams also offer the right ideology to get the physical on-the-ground space he needs to tie Crimea (where his navy is stationed) to mainland Russia.

The tsars never wanted to conquer Western Europe and neither does he. Perhaps the Baltic States, Poland and Hungary are more at risk, perhaps Serbia would like to become close buddies with Russia (the big slav brother) but the European Union is a bulwark. Putin can never overcome that economic power:  his economy is seriously unbalanced (too much linked to energy) and is now flailing due to economic sanctions from the West. And his army is certainly not what it used to be if you compare it to Krushev’s days (remember how the USSR displaced the US in the race to outer space with is Sputnik?).

Because even if the US continually makes mistakes in the Middle East, even if it is looking more towards China than Europe, it is still a fact that any frontal attack on the West would cause NATO forces to descend on Russia like a ton of bricks – or rather, with waves upon waves of smart brimstone-style missiles and bombs. And I wouldn’t want to live in Moscow, watching the robotic kind of war that the US and NATO are capable of unleashing..”



Steven Hansen.

(Publisher and Co-founder of Econintersect, is an international business and industrial consultant specializing in turning around troubled business units; consults to governments to optimize process flows; and provides economic indicator analysis based on unadjusted data and process limitations)

“I think this whole line of questions is wrong. it is like discussing what is happening today in the Middle East without going back and understanding how we got there.

Russians view the world as those they trust (friends), and those they do not trust. The West, lead by the USA is nobody’s friend. Their foreign policy is myopic and self centered.

The USA is backing Russia into a corner – treating them like dirt for the last 20 years since the breakup of the Soviet Union. The actions today are not a new strategy per se, but realization and action to block the West from further actions which are not in the interests of Russia.”



Dr. John Bruni.

(open source intelligence and security consultancy) based in Adelaide, South Australia, formerly served as Special Military Researcher Adviser at the Emirates Centre for Strategic Studies and Research (ECSSR))

“Re Question 2 – The EU is organizationally incapable of acting aggressively. The EU is not a military alliance, nor does it have the power to declare a state of military hostilities on behalf of its constituent member-states. It does, however, hold the trump card of sanctions over Moscow, and this is biting Russia and Putin’s inner circle presently.

The central question is, will the sanctions regime placed on Moscow create the conditions for Putin’s removal and the ‘democratization’ of Russia’s body politic? It is a waiting game. Russia, being interlinked to Western Europe through its stranglehold on energy supplies and energy distribution networks, can manipulate the flow of energy and affect Europe’s anaemic economic recovery.

Brussels on the other hand may believe it has a larger ‘war chest’ to punish Russia and a more resilient socio-political base to weather any Russian stratagem regarding Moscow’s potential manipulation of Europe’s energy market. The latter will depend on how the Russian oligarchs feel about taking more economic hits to their bottom line for their support of Putin’s confrontational gambit.

Re Question 4 – In the fullness of time, the EU and Russia will come to a mutual understanding and relations will improve. But this is still a long way off. If Putin is removed from the presidency of Russia, this will be followed by political turmoil in Russia that may in fact make the country a less reliable international partner, and, at least in the short-term, more belligerent toward the West.

But the political, strategic and cultural divisions between West and East will remain irrespective of any general improvement in relations. Russia is a very different international actor to the states of the West. Even were Russian diplomacy to become more conciliatory, Moscow’s needs and views of itself will make it lurch from bouts of cooperation to bouts of confrontation with the West.”



Olga Karatch. 

(Master of Arts in Political Sciences, European Humanitarian University, Vilnius, Lithuania Graduate, Russian Philology, Masherov University, Vitebsk; with Red Diploma)

“Why is Russia behaving like that? Why are economic sanctions so ineffective and fail to bring the presupposed results?
Today, the main Russia’s national idea, which explains Vladimir Putin’s strikingly high popularity ratings, is the idea of revenge, and, in a certain sense, the idea of revising the outcomes of World War II.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia, which considers itself a “country that had defeated fascism”, was surprised to find out that the “victors” live worse than the “losers”; and Russia, as a power, is far from playing the leading role in the modern world. Since then, the Russian elite has been trying to “catch up and overtake” the West; however, obviously, too great cultural differences and different understanding of what it means to respect and influence; and what it means to humiliate others have thrown Russia into the abyss of self-isolation – now, it is not very much interested in the opinion of the West.

Besides, every resident of Russia knows quite well that living in the state of Cold War is quite usual and normal for him or her. What they cannot do, is to live in the state of peace. Therefore, Russia will continue playing the war and demonstrating the Cold War attributes by returning to familiar cultural codes and by frightening European citizens with the KGB and ice-axes like the one Trotsky was killed – aiming to put pressure on their governments in order to keep them away from conflicts, thus, distancing from the areas of Russia’s interests.
Russia cannot stop, just like the Soviet Union could not.

Thus, be ready to see new aggressive actions – “we’ll show them the gruel” – this succinct phrase is explaining everything. Putin lives as if in those days when GDR was under the USSR; and he dreams of returning those days and those positions; and it means that Europe has pretty plenty surprises still upcoming.

The dream of Khrushchev was to bury Europe and the West ideologically, that is, to prove the advantages of the socialist system over the capitalist one. The only way to prove it is by conquering and capturing Europe. That is why Khrushchev kept 20,000 tanks and strategic nuclear weapons in Eastern Germany; and that is why Soviet tanks were in Prague in 1968. Vladimir Putin is in a more difficult situation now – his system is not a socialist one, and it is too late to use nuclear weapons; however, ideologically, Putin is trying to inherit Khrushchev’s ideas. And this is the most dangerous thing – especially for Russia’s neighbours, because the revival of USSR will start with annexing them.

Moreover, Russians are sincerely bewildered by the fact that other nations are not eager to join Russia; they get offended by this reluctance to join. The danger is twofold here – it is not clear at all what a mess is in the heads of the Russian elite, which lives, on the one hand, with the images of armoured spearheads of 1968, and, on the other hand, has plenty of real estate in London.
It makes no sense for Europe to be afraid of an armed conflict, because Russia is already different. For example, today the flagship of its

Baltic Fleet is an auxiliary vessel; and the closest tank to Europe is stationed in Pskov. However, Putin has and relies on other weapons – the Europeans’ fear of these tanks and the KGB. Putin will make use of the of carrot and stick policy to make Khrushchev’s dream true: in the morning Europeans will be frightened with aircrafts and submarines, and in the evening, just as Nikita Khrushchev had dreamed, the pipelines stretched across Europe will be used to sell gas and oil – for Russian elites to buy still more real estate objects and yachts.”



Michael Anderson.

(Research interests have included computer simulation of manmade systems, decision theory, and the structure of invisible colleges. Member of the Association of Ancient Historians Member of The American Philological  Association)

“1. Russia is stirring things up because they are unhappy about the sanctions. This is their historical reaction. They want to push on the west and measure the west’s reaction to them so they can see how far they can go. They are too tied to the west economically to completely isolate themselves so, for them, the place to be is just short of that point.

2. The EU is in a precarious position because of the economic ties it has with Moscow. It must figure out how to show it’s strong and independent without disrupting business interests. Moscow will continue violations as long as it suits their agenda.

3. We’re probably beyond the time of countries taking over other countries so I do not see that as Putin’s goal. The takeover of Europe ultimately failed because it had such a negative impact on the Russian economy. Having said that, Putin would love to control Europe economically to further Russian interests.

4. We’re in a period of phase where the players are trying to figure out what to do next. Eventually things will sort themselves out, Putin will back off, and the sanctions will be lifted. For now he has to pretend that they are not hurting him.”


rsz_dsc_2408 (1)

Jamil Maidan Flores. 

(He has been speechwriter to the President and the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Indonesia from January 1992 (present)—a period of more than 22 years)

“1. If you mean to ask whether Putin intends to engage in an open warfare with the NATO, I say that is not probably the case. Russia does not have the economy to be able to take on NATO.

2. In the face of violations of international law by Russia, the EU will try to show a firmer hand. But probably the EU reaction will not be strong enough to stop Russia’s probing aggression. Russia will then continue with the violations, calibrating them so that they are not threatening enough to trigger an all-out war. But it can miscalculate and therein is the danger. It can unintentionally trigger an all-out war.

3. I don’t think Putin is deluded enough to believe Russia can swallow up Europe the way it devoured Crimea. But Putin will continue to destabilize Europe because he can do it and that’s all he can do. That’s why I think the tensions will be there for a long long time. Until Putin miscalculates or the sanctions become unbearable to the Russian people.”



Allen Schmertzler.

(He is an award winning and published political artist specializing in figurative, narrative and caricatured interpretations of current events)

“Without a doubt, Putin is looking for any weakness to rebuild and expand Russia’s sphere of influence and dominance. Let’s remember that a Russia, under severe economic duress coiled back into itself, leaving it’ satellite nations such as Cuba starving for money and Russian support.

With energy revenues, Russia is economically resurgent, providing a more secure format upon which to flex as much muscle again in its sphere. Also, without doubt, the West, especially USA, will not challenge Russia militarily. Economic and diplomatic sanctions are only elbows with sting but no knockdown.

Russian-US relations have been sour, at least since Edwin Snowden took up asylum residence in Russia. Sadly, Russia can grab the Ukraine and any other former region with localized resistance, but will not find itself confronted by direct western military forces. There is a long history of the U.S. Implying it would intervene to help “freedom” fighter, but mostly the U.S. has an addiction to deploy our military to provide military cover to right wing dictators who benefit our economic interests.”



Jon Kofas.

(Retired university professorm, Academic Writing, International Political Economy – Fiction)

“It certainly does appear that Vladimir Putin may be much stronger than the capabilities of Russia could possibly carry him. This is an impression that the US and EU governments and Western media have created in order to build up the “monstrous threat” that the Russian bear represents once again after a period of hibernation during the 1990s and early 2000s.

With the total mess in the Middle East where the US became involved militarily and indirectly only to create much bigger problems than it proclaimed it wished to solve, the Ukrainian crisis looks even worse than it really is for the US and EU. After all, Obama had no choice but to work with Iran at some level, and to water down his commitment to remove Assad from power, considering that Turkey has been playing all sides, including the US and Saudi Arabia that had been providing financing for the rebels in Syria.

Upon closer examination, the US and NATO are the most potent military force in the world. However, the question is whether military force can be used as a deterrent instead of diplomacy to solve what are in essence political issues. Have military solutions really worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan that it is time for yet another one in Ukraine? Is Russia so adamantly opposed to a political solution that it will not sit at the negotiating table?  Is the US really interested in testing the limits of Russia’s military power and China’s diplomatic resolve in backing Moscow over Ukraine?

1. Russia has indeed displayed its predisposition toward military resolution to the current crisis over Ukraine, which in the view of Moscow is a crisis between Russia and the West that wishes to impose a strict containment policy on Russia. However, this is because Moscow feels that the West refuses to permit Russia a sphere of influence that Russians regard historically theirs. Besides, if Moscow agreed to everything Washington demands over Ukraine, which former Soviet republic is next in line for integration with the West?

While there are constant reports of Russian military exercises everywhere from the Mediterranean and Baltic to the border of the Ukraine and Australia, exactly what do these military exercises mean, other than to send a symbolic message? I would like to emphasize that Russia under Soviet rule was always more about displaying its military power and about making noise than actually carrying out military campaigns. The history of Soviet intervention was always limited to Communist regimes.

It is true that Russia has no qualms moving militarily when it comes to its own borders, but only if it faces a threat to what it defines as “national security” zone. Let us keep in mind that Russia from Czar Peter the Great until the present has always had a policy of “continental imperialism” (expansion within Eurasia) in comparison with European imperialism that was always “extra-continental” involving territories in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Having said this, Moscow is acting largely out of a defensive posture because Putin feels the US and EU have been ganging up on Russia, encircling it to contain it and not permitting a zone of influence Moscow regards as its historical right. Attempting to integrate Ukraine in the Western zone of influence would be comparable to Russia trying to integrate Mexico into its zone of influence. After all, there is the Cuban example.

2. I seriously doubt that Germany and France are interested in a conflict with Russia, especially now that they realize sanctions have backfired and Russia’s decision to float its currency has come back to haunt EU. Having spent billions defending the rubble, Russia opted for a floating currency, thus ending the euro-dollar pegged currency. This move forces all currencies on a downward path, but places special burdens on Europe and especially on Germany that relies heavily on Russia for energy and as an export-import market.  Considering that EU is faced with a contracting economy at this juncture, and considering that major businesses including European defense industry, refuse the take the fall because the US wants sanctions on Russia, EU governments feel the squeeze from their own business community.

Russia will have a competitive advantage because of the floating decision which comes at a time that EU economy is stagnant and undergoing enormous global competition. Putin has in effect neutralized Germany and France forcing them to distant their policies from the US aggressive diplomacy/military-solution option. The risk/benefit ratio for France and Germany is to determine how far it can go along with US policy before striking out on their own and proposing some kind of solution over Ukraine that both Moscow and Kiev can live with.

3. The simple answer to this scenario is absolutely no chance. It is true that there are Russian nationalists with dreams of a large Russian empire, but even the most delusional nationalists have the sense to realize EU means NATO and nuclear weapons.  Russia is only interested in recovering a part of its lost glory from the past, but within reason and that means within Eurasia, and not beyond it.  It is interesting that Western politicians and analysts in the media play up this card of making Russia a much more aggressive power than it really is simply because they are interested in strengthening their own defense budgets. What a better way to convince public opinion to accept more military spending, as the US insists must take place, than to present Russia as an aggressor whose long term goals are to take Paris and Berlin. The scenarios are simply absurd and serve only the defense industry, as well as governments shifting the public’s attention away from domestic issues like unemployment and low living standards for workers and the middle class.

4. For now, there seems to be no easy answer and the stalemate will continue. Nothing so far seems to satisfy Moscow, Kiev and Washington as far as a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis, but things can change in a few weeks or a few months. The pessimists fear that as a result of the lingering cat-and-mouse games between Moscow and Kiev the result may be escalation toward conventional war that would then invite NATO intervention on a limited basis, that would then invite China to side with Russia and then we are faced with a very serious scenario for WWIII. I do not want to dismiss this as absurd because anything is possible when no government is willing to make concessions at the negotiating table.

However, with all due respect to Ukraine, is this country worth going to war as far as Russia, the US, and especially the EU are concerned? How many French and German politicians and military officers would answer yes to this question?  True, the British will always side with the US as they have historically, but even they have to think of the dire consequences confronting Russia. And for all this for Ukraine and for what it may mean if Russia scores a few more points toward the realization of its dream in restoring the former glory of the USSR?

I like believe that even the most hard-headed ideologues in Moscow, Washington, Kiev, and London are driven by a greater sense of national responsibility and continue to retain some modicum of their rational faculties so they would never go to the brink.  My prediction is a resolution that will probably come after Franco-German pressure on Washington and Moscow. China may play a role here because it wants a more tamed Russia, and certainly a less adventurist US trying to destabilize various regions around the world where China needs to expand its business. Improvement between Russia and EU are inevitable because of geography and common economic interests. As Erick Fromm noted in his famous book about the madness of the Cold War, May Man Prevail, we still have political solutions to pursue through negotiations, because in the last analysis the alternative is madness.”



Shaukat Qadir.

(He is a part-time journalist and Consultant on Security related and political issues. Currently, he is a consultant (Adviser) on the Awareness program of the National Accountability Bureau in Pakistan)

“1) In my view, there is a little more to the background perspective. Indeed Putin seems to have snubbed Obama, perhaps deliberately. Yes, it seems as if Obama is upset with it. Putin does want to regain Russia’s lost stature—–it is but natural and the US is overstretched and (temporarily) in a weakened position, perhaps at par with Russia for the time being.

2) Therefore, it is my view that Putin is using this “window of opportunity” to test the waters. If the US is weakened and overstretched, Putin is fully conscious that, in the event of another conflict, it can regroup and, Russia is in no position to challenge the US militarily—-not for the foreseeable future. Putin will ensure that Russia remains short of a conflictual situation.

3) It is for the EU to decide how far it is prepared to ignore Russia’s aggression but, I think that it should draw its own “Red Lines” and, without announcing the lines, let Russia know that Red Lines have been defined. Defense and diplomacy are linked by an umbilical cord and there is always a delicate balance between throwing down the gauntlet and a muted threat of response

Without challenging Russia, the EU should warn it. Perhaps the best way of achieving this is by quietly re-positioning its forces to a more offensive position. It is in this regrouping and re-positioning that the US can indicate its position. Token forces of US Eastern Command should be moved—-perhaps in an “exercise mode”. Not towards Europe but merely to indicate readiness to support EU if it is forced to respond to Russian aggression. By not stating its Red Lines, EU leaves Russia guessing. It is important to make Putin uneasy.

3) In my view Russia’s dream of annexing Europe is, for the foreseeable future, an un-realizable dream. And Putin is certainly a pragmatist. He might dream big but I think he knows that he is not likely to see such a dream come true in his lifetime.

4) I think Russia will continue to test the waters in Europe. That is why I suggest the response of a “muted” threat by EU backed by the US.”


rsz_lucas_photo_1 (1)

Lucas Juan Manuel Alonso 

(PhD Economics (graduated with honours) with specializations in Research in the Management of Organizations (Methods & Techniques) and Investment & Financing, MBA Executives Degrees in International Commerce and Innovation & Management, University of Santiago de Compostela)

“1. In answering this question, I refer in part to what I say in the second question. Meanwhile a ceasefire agreement cannot be reached, we continue to witness of Moscow and Kiev accusing one another. But according the main international news agencies and international reference bodies, yes, clearly, Russia is showing signs of conflict. Why? I think that the most likely reason seems to be because Russia wants to reinforce its political influence on Ukraine.

2. United States is playing a somewhat more predominant role on the Ukraine crisis than the European Union. Yes, obviously EU should adopt a more aggressive approach due to the fact that the EU has a more vital stake in the Ukraine crisis than the US. But, a major question arises: to what extent EU has power to apply some sort of sanctions against Russia? Because, as a result of goods imported (in particular, oil and gas) from Russia into the European Union, as well as its Direct Investment in Russia (it is precisely for these reasons that the European Union have big switching costs), the EU becomes more vulnerable and dependent on Russia than vice versa. With this economic-political scenario, the EU’s possible sanctions against Russia in reaction to the Ukraine conflict are very limited.

It is expected that Russia will continue to help separatist rebels in Ukraine. The first step, in order to resolve the conflict, is to declare a ceasefire, and the ceasefire outlined by the Minsk protocol is the only way out of the conflict. Thus, sanctions against Russia should be in place until the Minsk agreements are fully implemented.

Meanwhile a ceasefire agreement cannot be reached, we continue to witness of Moscow and Kiev accusing one another about facts such as, ceasefire violation, sending soldiers and weapons to help separatist rebels, increasing in social violence in the region, hostilities against the separatists,…etc.

May be we would like to hear what the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (which is monitoring the ceasefire) has to say in this respect.

3. I don’t see it as a possible hypothetical scenario. Additionally I think, in our days, there can be no military solution to this type of conflicts and these need to be resolved only through political and diplomatic means.

4. As I see it, the economy will be a stabilizing force for the current political tensions among Europe and Russia. Thus, the economy will become a key step towards a better understanding of the challenges ahead. Mainly on the European Union, Russia is the third trading partner of the EU and the EU is the first trading partner of Russia. Although in my view, some goods imported (in particular, oil and gas) from Russia into the European Union have bigger switching costs than those goods imported from EU into Russia and, as a consequence of this weak point, European Union becomes more dependent on Russia. But this situation is offset in part because the EU is the most important investor in Russia; about 75% of Foreign Direct Investment stocks in Russia come from EU Member States.

But at the same time, this large concentration of capital on only one market makes the EU vulnerable and dependent on Russia. Therefore, at least for me, it is easy to see that EU has bigger switching costs resulting from imported goods and Direct Investment in Russia. Russia might not respect all its WTO commitments and disrupt a long trade relation, as well as to establish stronger ties and preferential trade arrangements with China. Another possible scenario: Russia, China and South America could provide the core of a new commercial axis and step aside EU.

European economy remains stagnant and in my view, mainly in the euro zone, unemployment rates will continue to rise or, at best, with only cyclical and insignificant downward variations. The main reasons for this are very simple: Member States with highest unemployment rates have (and they will continue to have) economic growth rates that are insufficient to generate employment, as well as unproductive organizational structures.

And, I am afraid that the strongest economies in Europe are going to suffer a steeper economic downturn. In fact, in spite of measures such as precarious and poorly-paid work, labour flexibility, less costly hiring, cheaper dismissal, different modalities of hiring (…etc.), there will be not any significant effect on employment but, undoubtedly, these measures are going to reduce consumer spending (less purchasing power of the middle classes) without increasing investment spending (investors are more likely to save than invest).

As a result, if European Union (mainly the euro zone) continues to follow the same policy rhetoric, it is perfectly clear that we will be facing a future of economic stagnation, greater unemployment and inequality, increase in the fiscal deficit and public debt. In my view, this situation can lead Europe to an unending vicious circle through which Russia can be able to take political and economic advantage.”



Tony Greenstein.

(He has been a political activist for all his adult life, mainly focusing on Palestine, anti-racist and anti-fascist activities)

“The question is premised on a wrong set of assumptions.  Russia’s actions are defensive not aggressive.  Nothing it did in Crimea wasn’t done by the West in Kosovo.

Russia’s actions are defensive.  It took over Crimea (which historically was part of Russia) because it’s  only naval base is in the Crimea (Sebastapol) and it would be unthinkable for NATO to take it over.

It was the West (EU and US behind it) which overthrew a democratically elected leader in the Maiden demonstrations (which it encouraged and financed) after a trade agreement with the EU was rejected by the President in favour of one with Russia.  The first thing the new Ukrainian parliament did was to withdraw Russia as an official language.

The fact is that the Russian people of East Ukraine support breaking away.

NATO (why does it even exist after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact?) has increasingly expanded into  Easter Europe right up to Russia’s borders, making Putin and co. very scared.  The suggestion of taking over Europe is a reversal of reality.  Who has bases in about 50+ countries?  Who invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, destabilised Southern America, argues with China over obscure islands nr Vietnam and of course played utter havoc in the Middle East?  What right did the   UK and France, with US support, have to bomb Libya?  The agenda was quite clear, to be rid of the secular authoritarian regimes of the Middle East.

I hold no brief for monsters like Assad and Saddam Hussein but people in Iraq today say that the situation is far far worse.  The US introduced a confessional divide and rule, as it has tried to do in Syria and as its armed watchdog Israel seeks to do.  You will notice that there is nothing Israel does that merits the slightest criticism in the UN.  One wonders why not (& no it’s not ‘the Jews!)”


Jaime Ortega-Simo. 

(The Daily Journalist president and founder) 

“1) Militarily wise, It will be hard for the EU, to eventually keep up with Russia without promoting more internal unity; that means the non-separation of regional cities or countries from their countries of origin and unions, solving national policies and disputes related with sum- ministration of wealth for the working class, and regulating new strategies for quick economic growth within regional and bordering partners… Only there, will the EU achieve the dream of building new military to protect its interest to secure the Euro from outside threats. With Putin in-charge, Russia is pushing for the Euro Asian Union to become a financial power and regulate trade in South Central Asia.

In my opinion, despite the accusations of Moscow to make Kiev look guilty during the MH17 shoot down, I have no questions the FSB was behind the incident. Perhaps the perfect excuse for Putin to gain support from the EU, and take control over Eastern Ukraine. It is true Eastern Ukraine does not feel represented by its own government, but only a minority supports joining Russia.

Crimea and Ukraine, are no doubt direct objectives for Putin to envision a new Russia. Belarus, Macedonia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Chechnya…will eventually become other future targets to expand the new Soviet Union.

Russia plans to push a monetary currency on their quest to unify Euro Asia, but they also want a new physical empire which will consist of countries in Eastern Europe. A two headed hydra.

Russia spends yearly over +84Bn $USD, which they take out from social programs on eastern provinces that don’t get much attention due to their isolation and distance from Moscow–Siberia is an exception. Currently Russia is the country with 3rd largest military expenditure, and unlike the era of Boris Yeltsin, Gorvachov and his predecessors, Putin is focused on equipping his troops with ultimate technology by spying, using cyber-intelligence to breach the EU, and EEUU. Something China has increasingly continue to successfully achieve during Obama’s administration for the past 7 years, right after Bush left office. Russia has noticed a few breaches in US Intel that will help their military absorb more military information.

2) The EU is not prepared to engage in conflict with Russia. Merkel, Cameron, Hollande,….Don’t look to promiscuous to use force that is ‘not’ in the form of financial sanctions. No one is adopting or promoting revitalizing strategies which deal with military intervention, and Putin understands the problems very well, just by looking at how the EU deals with terrorism in the Middle East. When I look Van Rampuy, Jean-Claude, Juncker…I don’t see anything that would protect and secure, EU interest in the future. The EDA, for what is worth, needs to restructure a big army to defend itself,  but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

3) He is already in the process of reestablishing a new Euro-Asian-Union, which headquarters will be located in Moscow — Trying to mimic Brussels on the EU. Currently Azerbaijan, is meditating whether or not it will be a better idea to join forces with Russia financially speaking. So the present process is already happening financially, and Geo-politically.

4) We’re headed for conflict, and if the EU does not recover financially, Russia will try to twitch like pincers the already wobbling EU economy, even if in the process that means hurting themselves also. Indisputably, their military budget  shows Putin’s intention to one day head on a straight collision with European interest.

The problem resides that most People think Putin is a normal guy, with his heads in his shoulders, but in my opinion he has the typical traumas of a narcissistic personality disorder. He thinks he is Napoleon, and just alike Hitler he is entitled with the vision of destiny. That makes him a dangerous man. Putin will lead his ship where he wants, how we wants, and no one inside Russia’s Federation Council will stop his will, just as he stopped and jailed those Oligarchs who opposed his view.

EU will be more secure without Putin.”

What Next?

Recent Articles