Must Read! Putin Signs Secret Pact to Crush NATO

[European Knight]

http://www.trevorloudon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/COLDER-300x137.jpg

Moscow’s long term strategy to take down the United States and achieve world domination is nearing its final phase.

Marin Katusa’s new book The Colder War is a must read for anyone who values liberty and the remnants of Western Values. Katusa focuses on the Energy and Financial Wars, but unfortunately these are only the beginning. The Russians and Chinese plan to destroy the Western Alliance, then if necessary launch a nuclear surprise attack on

http://www.trevorloudon.com/2014/11/must-read-putin-signs-secret-pact-to-crush-nato/

[Sandman]

Political fiction. No one dares to challenge the dominance of NATO's military over the next 50 years. Only this is true quote
"It is also important that realize That Putin is Merely a puppet for the real rulers of Russia - the old KGB / Communist Party hierarchy. Just as every Soviet / Russian leader since Stalin, Putin is playing out his Merely Assigned roles. "

[Petros Houhoulis]

Nope, Putin cannot attack Western Europe and/or the U.S. of A., because he shall lose.

He can nuke some OPEC state though, and tilt the balance in his favor. Europe and the United States won't really react to it, but the Muslims shall have to create a defensive pact afterwards, something that will boost the Yankee dominance of the world...

[Excel]

The idea that Russia is somehow a super power is a joke, if that was true Putin wouldn't be getting cheap threats from the west nor would the US be playing in his own backyard i.e Ukraine.

That said I would like to see the US try and play around with China in Tibet. Besides Russia is more afraid of China than the US.

[Tooting Carmen]

Scaremongering in order to bolster NATO.

[Kazimiera]

It can't be a very good secret since it is on Apricity. :D

[ALSh]

The only way to crush NATO is fighting it.

[Loki]

What nonsense. Wish it was true though.

[Vasconcelos]

Wish it was true though.

Let me quote something you might have missed.

if necessary launch a nuclear surprise attack
Don't you live in London? You'd die.

[Loki]

Don't you live in London? You'd die.

Not anymore. London can go as far as I'm concerned.

[Petros Houhoulis]

Not anymore. London can go as far as I'm concerned.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1tEpjmFH9g

Looking for Putin pesticide?

[glass]

Ending US hegemony - yes, world dominance - surely not

[finsun835]

you care joking, surely

[Anthropos]

Moscow’s long term strategy to take down the United States and achieve world domination is nearing its final phase.

Russia hasn't been even nearly as interested in "world domination" as the United States is so it really doesn't make any sense.

[European Knight]

Political fiction. No one dares to challenge the dominance of NATO's military over the next 50 years. Only this is true quote
"It is also important that realize That Putin is Merely a puppet for the real rulers of Russia - the old KGB / Communist Party hierarchy. Just as every Soviet / Russian leader since Stalin, Putin is playing out his Merely Assigned roles. "

I was reading a study which give Russia winner in case of war vs Nato

[Siberyak]

Hopefully. I'm convinced nato would take the side of musli

[Arhat]

I was reading a study which give Russia winner in case of war vs Nato

a study which is fifty years old? russian was once a world power but today is it just a regional power and can only win wars against even more poorer countries like ukraine and georgia. The nato would easily win a war against russia and because of that putin will never directly attack the west

[Sarmatian]

a study which is fifty years old? russian was once a world power but today is it just a regional power and can only win wars against even more poorer countries like ukraine and georgia. The nato would easily win a war against russia and because of that putin will never directly attack the west

Sure, if you say so. But could you remind me how many wars against an equal rival USA had won? And how many had Russia won?

[Empecinado]

John Glubb, who studied the different stages all empires go through , from its birth to its decline, concluded that all lasted exactly 10 generations or 230-250 years, and his description of the decline stage coincides with the USA , which according to this theory would exist just 10 years more as an hegemonic imperial power able to maintain its tentacles over the world.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-juEXqBfswRA/UOnraQts02I/AAAAAAAANq0/X3YZHyImt6Q/s1600/SJ%2BGlubb_Fate%2Bof%2BEmpires.png



Some would be tempted to split hairs and claim that the USA will not follow historical precedent, noting that America’s outburst period was spent not consuming the remnants of a pre-existing empire, but on acquiring vast swathes of largely uninhabited land across a single continent. “America is exceptional”, they may claim, “she’s different” they may object. Glubb pre-emptively pours water on that notion, noting:

"The United States arose suddenly as a new nation, and its period of pioneering was spent in the conquest of a vast continent, not an ancient empire. Yet the subsequent life history of the United States has followed the standard pattern…the periods of the pioneers, of commerce, of affluence, of intellectualism, and of decadence"

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/10/25/article-review-the-fate-of-empires/

[Anthropos]

Even in very pro-Western media there has actually been talk for years now about waning global American power and influence. I think that's what has motivated some people to issue propaganda like what we see in the original post. When America is not looking anymore at total dominance there are some who try to get the world angry with other powers in the world, and displaced from reality. But that's not the way to go, in my opinion. Sound foreign policy should be based on good relations; not on desinformation, fear-mongering, insults, etc.

[Longbowman]

Not anymore. London can go as far as I'm concerned.

You live close enough. You would still probably die. And really mate, 8.5 million people, plus 7 million in the Metropolitan zone, just so Russia can be on top? That's treacherous.

[Longbowman]

John Glubb, who studied the different stages all empires go through , from its birth to its decline, concluded that all lasted exactly 10 generations or 230-250 years, and his description of the decline stage coincides with the USA , which according to this theory would exist just 10 years more as an hegemonic imperial power able to maintain its tentacles over the world.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-juEXqBfswRA/UOnraQts02I/AAAAAAAANq0/X3YZHyImt6Q/s1600/SJ%2BGlubb_Fate%2Bof%2BEmpires.png



http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/10/25/article-review-the-fate-of-empires/

I'm sorry, but this is utter nonsense. What happened in 180AD that ended the Roman Empire? I had always thought the Roman Empire lasted until the Fall of Rome in 476, if not the fall of Constantinople in 1204 and finally 1453 and then Trebizond in 1461 and Epirot in 1479. Hell, Venice was unconquered until 1797. Even the hegemony of the Empire was strong beyond 180, and it rose again in the 500s under Justinian. This 'theory' is unmitigated rubbish and also doesn't account for the reasons of 'collapse;' the British Empire peaked in 1923 and whilst it stretched its resources, its fall from superpower status wouldn't have happened without the exceptional event of WWII. Will there be a WWIII? Also, Russia survived the Romanovs; the fact the Romanovs were kicked out doesn't really change the fact Russia only got stronger, and America was a loose federation until the 1860s really and certainly no superpower until even the 1900s. Yeah, I'm not going to continue criticising this, it has far too many holes for me to list them all. Just some pseudo-intellectual academic being all cryptic and prophetic. 'Thou shalt have only 10 generations, ye sons of Washington.' Not worth reading.

[Dombra]

You live close enough. You would still probably die. And really mate, 8.5 million people, plus 7 million in the Metropolitan zone, just so Russia can be on top? That's treacherous.

Loki will die slowly from the radiation :eek:

I am almost okay with bombing London as it is the beacon of the multiracial world

[Longbowman]

Loki will die slowly from the radiation :eek:

I am almost okay with bombing London as it is the beacon of the multiracial world

Said the Swede.

[Virtuous]

Wow. Much secret.

[Tooting Carmen]

Loki will die slowly from the radiation :eek:

I am almost okay with bombing London as it is the beacon of the multiracial world

Even compared to Paris, Toronto, Vancouver, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Sydney, Melbourne, several Brazilian cities etc?

[Empecinado]

I'm sorry, but this is utter nonsense. What happened in 180AD that ended the Roman Empire? I had always thought the Roman Empire lasted until the Fall of Rome in 476, if not the fall of Constantinople in 1204 and finally 1453 and then Trebizond in 1461 and Epirot in 1479. Hell, Venice was unconquered until 1797. Even the hegemony of the Empire was strong beyond 180, and it rose again in the 500s under Justinian. This 'theory' is unmitigated rubbish and also doesn't account for the reasons of 'collapse;' the British Empire peaked in 1923 and whilst it stretched its resources, its fall from superpower status wouldn't have happened without the exceptional event of WWII. Will there be a WWIII? Also, Russia survived the Romanovs; the fact the Romanovs were kicked out doesn't really change the fact Russia only got stronger, and America was a loose federation until the 1860s really and certainly no superpower until even the 1900s. Yeah, I'm not going to continue criticising this, it has far too many holes for me to list them all. Just some pseudo-intellectual academic being all cryptic and prophetic. 'Thou shalt have only 10 generations, ye sons of Washington.' Not worth reading.


In this essay, the term ‘empire’ is used to signify a great power, often called today a superpower

He does not speak on powers. He speaks only on Superpowers. That controlled or influenced decisively other states or peoples. International supremacy. He does not says it is the only definition of empire, but that's the kind of society that studies, and called it Empire in the essay. He could have called it "Potato", actually the name is not important.

The essay speaks about peoples who became international superpowers controlling, conquering and/or absorbing other peoples, not of regional or local powers (Egypt, Japan, China, Incas), regardless of their cultural significance.

And it is not prophetic nor mathematical, he himself clearify in the preamble of the test that does not seek a "mathematical" accuracy on dates, because the processes of rise and fall are gradual processes; but highlight the similar process of about 10 generations (or 250 years approx.), and the similarities of these processes in the rise/fall of such societies. It's something that makes it clear that the actual dates may be arbitrary or debatable, but what does not change is the cycle of approx 250 years, or 10 generations. Decade up or down, does not alter the central idea which seeks to draw.

[Longbowman]

He does not speak on powers. He speaks only on Superpowers. That controlled or influenced decisively other states or peoples. International supremacy. He does not says it is the only definition of empire, but that's the kind of society that studies, and called it Empire in the essay. He could have called it "Potato", actually the name is not important.

The essay speaks about peoples who became international superpowers controlling, conquering and/or absorbing other peoples, not of regional or local powers (Egypt, Japan, China, Incas), regardless of their cultural significance.

And it is not prophetic nor mathematical, he himself clearify in the preamble of the test that does not seek a "mathematical" accuracy on dates, because the processes of rise and fall are gradual processes; but highlight the similar process of about 10 generations (or 250 years approx.), and the similarities of these processes in the rise/fall of such societies. It's something that makes it clear that the actual dates may be arbitrary or debatable, but what does not change is the cycle of approx 250 years, or 10 generations. Decade up or down, does not alter the central idea which seeks to draw.


i

I referred to his errors in defining those periods as periods of being superpowers, too.

[Empecinado]

I referred to his errors in defining those periods as periods of being superpowers, too.

He explains the reasons there. Was influenced by Arnold J. Toynbee, and due its formation as Arabist, it must have been also influenced by Ibn Khaldun, who was the first one to develop a complete theory about the nature of power and the rules that govern the birth, rise, rise, decline and fall of states and political regimes.

The resaltable of the Glubb's approach is the focus on human nature, and how societies grow/degrade similarly in similar circumstances, and the changing "zeitgeist" between generations. This is not only suitable for superpowers, also for families, companies and even sport teams:

1. There is a patriarch and ambitious founder starting from scratch. Founded a company in a garage as Bill Gates. Spurred by a normal childhood works tirelessly.

2. His children inherit a fortune and company and an education inspired by the father, discipline and ambition are moderated but not lost. It is the generation of stability, if there is an expansion or decline is very slight.

3. The next generation is already spoiled, whimsical, disconnected from the real world. The grandson melts the money in casinos, and the granddaughter becomes a Paris Hilton.

With sports teams often something like that happens. The spark occurs in a team that has long winless or has never won. The players and coach are mostly young and ambitious. If they succeed many times it is natural to relax, you lose confidence and aggressiveness and ambition. The first losses are considered accidental and is not given importance. But then become chronic. In the end, the only solution is to hire ambitious young players and back again.

[Longbowman]

He explains the reasons there. Was influenced by Arnold J. Toynbee, and due its formation as Arabist, it must have been also influenced by Ibn Khaldun, who was the first one to develop a complete theory about the nature of power and the rules that govern the birth, rise, rise, decline and fall of states and political regimes.

The resaltable of the Glubb's approach is the focus on human nature, and how societies grow/degrade similarly in similar circumstances, and the changing "zeitgeist" between generations. This is not only suitable for superpowers, also for families, companies and even sport teams:

1. There is a patriarch and ambitious founder starting from scratch. Founded a company in a garage as Bill Gates. Spurred by a normal childhood works tirelessly.

2. His children inherit a fortune and company and an education inspired by the father, discipline and ambition are moderated but not lost. It is the generation of stability, if there is an expansion or decline is very slight.

3. The next generation is already spoiled, whimsical, disconnected from the real world. The grandson melts the money in casinos, and the granddaughter becomes a Paris Hilton.

With sports teams often something like that happens. The spark occurs in a team that has long winless or has never won. The players and coach are mostly young and ambitious. If they succeed many times it is natural to relax, you lose confidence and aggressiveness and ambition. The first losses are considered accidental and is not given importance. But then become chronic. In the end, the only solution is to hire ambitious young players and back again.

Your post doesn't really address the point, which is that (eg) the Roman Empire was a superpower for several periods of time, and certainly not confined to 70BC to 180AD.

[Drawing-slim]

I don't care who rules the world as long as they're not idiots. Which is why the future looks very scary.

[Empecinado]

Your post doesn't really address the point, which is that (eg) the Roman Empire was a superpower for several periods of time, and certainly not confined to 70BC to 180AD.

The author doesn't refer to the Roman empire as a whole, but separates it in different ones. He considers the change of government such as drastic as to be considered independent "empires" (to some extent, at political and social level [of Roman human society] the change was huge. The Republic of Cincinnatus compared to the Empire of Caligula, is like night and day at political, economic and social level).

[TheForeigner]

This is propaganda and I don't think Stalin was anyone's puppet either. Putin and the others maybe.

[ALSh]

I don't care who rules the world as long as they're not idiots. Which is why the future looks very scary.

Kurt, the great nigger, in any case u will have the Albanian highlands to protect you :p

[Oneeye]

I'm sorry, but this is utter nonsense. What happened in 180AD that ended the Roman Empire? I had always thought the Roman Empire lasted until the Fall of Rome in 476, if not the fall of Constantinople in 1204 and finally 1453 and then Trebizond in 1461 and Epirot in 1479. Hell, Venice was unconquered until 1797. Even the hegemony of the Empire was strong beyond 180, and it rose again in the 500s under Justinian. This 'theory' is unmitigated rubbish and also doesn't account for the reasons of 'collapse;' the British Empire peaked in 1923 and whilst it stretched its resources, its fall from superpower status wouldn't have happened without the exceptional event of WWII. Will there be a WWIII? Also, Russia survived the Romanovs; the fact the Romanovs were kicked out doesn't really change the fact Russia only got stronger, and America was a loose federation until the 1860s really and certainly no superpower until even the 1900s. Yeah, I'm not going to continue criticising this, it has far too many holes for me to list them all. Just some pseudo-intellectual academic being all cryptic and prophetic. 'Thou shalt have only 10 generations, ye sons of Washington.' Not worth reading.

America didn't dominate in the global arena for many years after its birth anyways. Should have all least another hundred years :p

[LightHouse89]

good! bring the best down!

[LightHouse89]

I would not trust Russia to rule the world... Or the Middle East or Greeks.
I'd pick the Vatican over Russia any day... Any day.

If anyone should rule the whole world... Then I hope Jesus comes back and rules the world, I really really sincerely hope he is real and come back, I love him, so much.

why not me? uncle sam?

[Dombra]

Said the Swede.

I have been to London, there is place in Sweden like it. Streets packed with brown people as far as the eyes could see :stop00010: The Swedish immigrant suburbs are like ghost towns in comparison, even proportionally whiter . I have never seen as many non-Europeans as in London

[Sandman]

Therefore, probably John Cleese said that London is no longer English town. Western Europeans are in a drunken frenzy. When they no longer will be a majority in their own country, then they just sober .

[Sandman]

Attitude the Russians to Western countries is schizophrenic. They are jealous of the West's standard of living and would like to live in the West. But they are alien to Western values, thanks to which western Europeans live better than the Russians. Now the Russians analogy with Islamic immigrants. Islamists also like the Western standard od living, but hate the western lifestyle.

[Oneeye]

It's North Korea who the west should be more scared of...

More of how North Korea could possibly impact Chinese and US relations.