'New world order' being formed before our eyes, Russia’s deputy defense minister tells RT

We are currently witnessing the formation of nothing less than a “new world order,” with the existing international legal system fracturing and states taking sides in a fresh Cold War, Russia’s deputy defense minister has told RT.

Colonel General Aleksandr Fomin spoke to the network ahead of the 9th Moscow Conference on International Security, scheduled to take place on June 22-24 in the Russian capital. The event brings together military officials and security experts from different countries, with some 49 nations having already confirmed their participation.

The upcoming conference is an explicitly non-partisan event, and the countries are invited to partake regardless of their current relationship with Russia, Fomin stated.

“At the forum, we give the floor not only to partners who share our approaches to solving major world problems, but also to opponents, countries with which cooperation today is at bare minimum or equal to zero,” Fomin said.

Discussions like those at the Moscow forum are particularly important during challenging times, the official added, as the world’s political and security landscape is currently experiencing historic shifts, with the ‘old’ world order crumbling apart.

"Today we are witnessing the formation of a new world order. We see a tendency for countries to be drawn into a new Cold War, the states being divided into ‘us’ and ‘them’, with ‘them’ unambiguously defined in doctrinal documents as adversaries."

“The existing system of international relations and the security framework is being systematically destroyed. The role of international organizations as instruments of collective decision-making in the field of security is being diminished,” Frolov said, without specifying examples.

Over the past few years, particularly under former US president Donald Trump, multiple international agreements ceased to exist. Effectively, only one major accord between Washington and Moscow – the New START treaty – remains, after President Joe Biden agreed to extend it for another five years.

The emergence of new weapons systems, as well as the efforts of some nations to bring warfare into areas that have never seen it before, further accelerates the emergence of a “new world order,” Frolov noted.

“Fundamentally new types of weapons that radically change the balance of power in the modern world are emerging, with warfare getting into new areas – into space and cyberspace. This, of course, leads to a change in the principles and methods of war,” he added.

Source: https://www.rt.com/russia/525561-new-world-order-emerges/

Share:

Read More

Here’s why the US isn’t going to nuke anyone from orbit anytime soon

Mikhail Khodarenok

is a military commentator for RT.com. He is a retired colonel. He served as an officer at the main operational directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces.

Low-orbit space planes have been named as a possible carrier of American nuclear warheads. While theoretically possible, at current technology levels such weapons would be significantly more trouble than they are worth.

According to the director-general of Russian arms manufacturer Almaz-Antey, Yan Novikov, the US has orbital bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Variants of the Boeing X-37 orbital test vehicle, launched in 2010 and officially used for scientific purposes, can theoretically carry up to six warheads, Novikov claimed during a virtual educational forum in Russia in May.

In the words of Kyle Mizokami, who wrote an article on this for Popular Mechanics, “this isn’t even a good idea”. While Mizokami’s take is titled “Don’t believe Russia”, and its main thrust is apparently that Mr. Novikov is hyping up the US orbital nukes threat to boost the sales of Almaz-Antey’s surface-to-space missiles, he does have some good points that explain why the dangers of orbital bombing are more than a little exaggerated.

First off, putting nukes on an X-37 to then launch them from orbit will require extensive modification to the weapons, which will only allow two or, at best, three, to be taken on board – not nearly enough for an effective surprise attack. And to carry an element of surprise, it would have to approach Russia from a very specific direction to avoid the radars of early-warning systems – and even so, it won’t be able to hide from visual detection.

Aside from the lack of surprise, there is a long list of problems associated with space planes carrying nuclear payloads.

“The idea of placing strategic nuclear weapons in low Earth orbit isn't new. It emerged with the first successful launches of the Earth's artificial satellites,” ex-chief of the General Staff of the Air Defense Forces, Honored Military Pilot, Colonel-General of Aviation Igor Maltsev says. 

According to him, for a number of reasons, space projects like this never went beyond concept or, at best, preliminary design. Why was that the case?

Technically, the goal of putting these weapons in space is achievable, says Igor Maltsev. Anything can be launched to space. But when the idea is to create a strategic weapons system in orbit, there are a number of challenges that have, so far, prevented any significant progress along these lines.

The issues include, primarily, the effectiveness of this weapon and its control efficiency. A surface-to-air intercontinental missile can be launched at any time and can hit any pre-selected target. All you have to do is press a button and the missile is off on its way to hit the target, in accordance with the preset flight mission. However, a space missile system is dynamic, it’s always in motion. 

You can’t set it on target in advance, Igor Maltsev explains. Since the system is dynamic, it needs to be constantly adjusted to hit the right target, as it moves. If there’s no adjustment, the space bomber can still launch its warhead to hit a pre-selected target, but only from a particular point in space.

“The need for such a dynamic control system is the main obstacle to placing nuclear weapons in orbit,” says Col. Gen. Maltsev.

Say a satellite was designed to hit Moscow. The operator pushes the launch button, but the space vehicle is still very far away, as it’s constantly moving at a speed of 28,000kmh. 

The second problem is the target accuracy of a nuclear warhead. It will no doubt be inferior to that of ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. There are plenty of examples when returning space crews landed in Siberia instead of Kazakhstan, Col. Gen. Maltsev points out.

To sum it up, there are problems related to orbital nuclear weapon control systems that are hindering progress and preventing space militarization. “I don’t see how these problems can be addressed in the foreseeable future. Dynamic systems are very sophisticated and expensive. They are going to be a dozen, a hundred or even a thousand times more expensive than similar weapons currently used by Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces,” explains Col. Gen. Maltsev.

Another important consideration is the sustainability and safety of nuclear weapons deployed in space. While the warhead of an intercontinental ballistic missile is stored in a special well-protected missile silo, a space vehicle can easily be approached and tampered with. It can be brought out of operation by a number of means, including an EMP, or electromagnetic pulse.

“As for maneuverable reentry vehicles and hypersonic glide vehicles employed by the Russian Armed Forces, they are only used in ground-based missile systems, their flight missions and trajectories set in advance, and their flight progresses strictly according to the mission objective. This accounts for the high target accuracy of these weapons, compared to hypothetical space-based systems,” explains ex-deputy head of the General Staff’s Main Operations Directorate of the Russian Armed Forces Lt. Gen. Valery Zaparenko.

“As for detection and escort of space bombers by Russia’s Space Missile Defense capabilities, I can say that the Don 2N passive electronically scanned array (PESA) radar is able to detect a spherical object with a diameter of 5cm from a distance of 1,000km. An object the size of an Х-37В space vehicle will be detected by a Voronezh-type early-warning radar from a distance of several thousand kilometers. All previous flight missions of this vehicle have been registered by the Russian Space Forces’ equipment. So there is no chance that this so-called space bomber can succeed in approaching any defended Russian target unobserved,” adds Lt. Gen. Zaparenko.

And Russia will retaliate with a nuclear strike of its own anyway.

It will be carried out both by the aerospace defense system and the so-called Dead Hand. The Perimeter system (or rather, its modern iteration) will accomplish a full-scale retaliatory nuclear strike even if the Russian government and the military are crippled or completely paralyzed.

At this point, we can only speculate about how Russia’s Dead Hand operates, since there is no factual data on it. There is reason to believe that it consists of command posts, command ballistic missiles, receivers and an autonomous command and control system. All these terms are largely provisional.

After the system approves the use of strategic nuclear weapons (this process is fully automatic), it sends out a command rocket or rockets with a special warhead that transmits a launch command to all the nuclear delivery vehicles with corresponding receivers. ICBMs and SLBMs are then launched automatically.

The Perimeter system makes its decision based on data from numerous sensors installed across the country that monitor seismic and radiological activity, as well as atmospheric pressure, for signs of nuclear blasts. Even in times of peace, this system can determine where in the world a nuclear device went off with an almost 100% accuracy.

Still, the description above is very general and not that close to how the Dead Hand operates in reality.

So in the end, it doesn’t really matter whether or not the US is going to have nuclear space bombers, because a devastating retaliatory strike will be carried out no matter what.

Source: https://www.rt.com/op-ed/525493-us-space-nukes-boeing/

Share:

Read More

Latest creepy shit from Joe Biden

 

Share:

Read More

Russia's S-500 Space Warfare System Almost Combat Ready - What to Expect?

Russian President Vladimir Putin has elaborated on progress in the country’s military’s modernisation efforts in an address televised on Russia’s Rossiya 24 channel. The most widely re-reported part of his statement covered one of Russia’s most highly anticipated new defence products, the S-500 long range air defence system, regarding which Putin announced: "In the Aerospace Forces, about 70 percent of anti-aircraft missile regiments are re-equipped with modern S-400 systems, the next step is the supply of S-500 complexes to the troops, tests of which are already being successfully completed.” Putin further noted regarding other areas of modernisation: “All types and sorts of troops should develop in a balanced and systematic manner, fully taking into account modern trends in the military strategy and tactics of the world's leading military powers… The army and the navy are receiving the latest weapons and military equipment with high dynamics, thus, the potential of the nuclear triad has been seriously strengthened, the combat capabilities of the navy have been expanded, including through the ships with Kalibr cruise missiles, the Zircon shipborne hypersonic missile system is at the final stage of state testing.” 

The S-500 has seen its entry into frontline service delayed by many years, with widespread speculation among analysts that this was a result of a change in required specifications during development on request of the Russian military due to the growing perceived threat posed by enemy space, stealth and hypersonic assets. The air defence system is not expected to replace the S-400, which is currently in serial production for both domestic use and for export, and was developed primarily to engage high value targets at extreme ranges such as satellites, space aircraft, hypersonic missiles, intercontinental range bombers and support aircraft such as E-3 Sentry AWACS jets.

This contrasts to the S-400, which although capable of engaging many kinds of high end target, is better suited than the S-500 to combating large numbers of lower end targets such as cruise missiles. The S-500 has a reported engagement range of 600km - approximately triple that of the longest range Western air defence systems such as the American THAAD and the U.S.-Israeli David’s Sling - and is expected to retain very high mobility through use of mobile launch vehicles, radars and command centres as the S-400 has. The air defence system is expected to enter service before the second half of 2022, and will provide an effective means of responding to emerging U.S. armaments currently under development such as the B-21 stealth bomber and the SR-72 hypersonic space plane - as well as other American space planes under development. 

Source: https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/russias-putin-reports-s-500-space-warfare-system-almost-combat-ready-what-to-expect

Share:

Read More

ＪＢＰＷＡＶＥ：Ａｅｓｔｈｅｔｉｃ | Jordan Peterson & Akira The Don | Full Album

 

Share:

Read More

At last, the myth of ‘institutional racism’ is collapsing

The response to No10’s review into racial disparities in the UK has been truly disturbing. Labour, the radical left, the broadsheet press and the BBC — some of whose talking heads have spent the entire day looking and sounding bewildered — have reacted with horror to the suggestion that the UK is not actually a racist country. ‘What do you mean Brits aren’t a disgusting, hateful throng?’, the great and good have essentially cried. This could prove to be one of the most revealing moments in the contemporary culture wars.

The review is a brave one. It doesn’t so much cut against the grain of received wisdom as drive a juggernaut straight through it. It says that of course there is still racism in the UK, especially on social media. But institutional racism? Structural blocks to ethnic-minority engagement in education, work and public life? Nope. That just isn’t there. This shibboleth of chattering-class thought — that Britain is a structurally foul country, holding back its ethnic minorities — has collapsed under scrutiny. The semi-religious conviction that has gripped the elites since at least the 1999 Macpherson report into the police’s handling of the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence — the idea that Britain, from top to bottom, is stained with the original sin of racism — just isn’t reflected in the facts.

The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, headed by Tony Sewell, does something that feels almost revolutionary in the midst of today’s misanthropic conviction that Britain is a racist hellhole. It tells the truth. The truth that children from ethnic-minority backgrounds are doing just as well as, or are outperforming, white kids in compulsory education. Children with Black Carribean heritage are the only ones doing worse than white kids. The success of minority groups in the education system has ‘transformed British society over the last 50 years into one offering far greater opportunities for all’, the review says. It is testament to the extent to which the fact-lite fatalism of depressive identitarians has colonised public life that it feels shocking to read a positive assessment of life for ethnic minorities in the UK.

The review also points out that the pay gap between ethnic-minority workers and white-majority workers has shrunk dramatically, to just 2.3 per cent. For workers under the age of 30 there is barely any racial pay gap at all. Brilliant. That’s great progress. It also points to the explosion in diversity in law, medicine and other professions. It isn’t all a bed of roses, of course. No one benefits from Panglossianism. There is still overt racism, especially in the cesspit areas of the internet, the review says, and some communities still feel the burden of ‘historic racism’, which could potentially hold them back. But we can work on these problems, now that they’ve been properly identified and named.

The review has told, and illustrated with facts, a good story: the leaps forward made by ethnic-minority groups in the UK. People are celebrating these revelations, surely? Not a bit of it. The liberal commentariat, the left and the vast race-relations industry have responded with fury to the review. It’s a ‘let down’, it’s a ‘disgrace’. Tony Sewell, according to writer and activist Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, is a ‘token black man’. Others have denounced Sewell as a modern-day Uncle Tom. These vile racialised assaults on a black man who simply disagrees with the dominant narrative of ‘institutional racism’ prove the review’s point that racism can still be found on the internet.

Why are the cultural elites so furious with the review? Because they are so heavily invested in the idea that Britain is an institutionally racist country. They need this myth. They benefit from it. It guarantees funding to their organisations, clout for their spokespeople, influence for those who can claim the mantle of racial victimhood. They see the review — rightly — as a direct challenge to the social and political power they have built on the back of the myth of institutional racism. They loathe Sewell because he has pulled the rug out from under the feet of the powerful identitarian lobby. He has pricked their politics of grievance. He threatens to derail the gravy train. Their fury is driven by naked self-interest disguised as concern about racism.

This is why Sewell is being talked about almost as a heretic. His review’s questioning of the idea of institutional racism is being treated as an act of sacrilege, a sinful assault on orthodoxies carefully nurtured and promoted by identitarian sects. In suggesting that social class is more important than race, this Tory government has done something more radical and destabilising than the moronic new left could ever hope to achieve — it has exposed the hollowness, the divisiveness and the pretensions of the identitarian set, and suggested that economic factors such as class deserve more of society’s attention and resources. ‘Class?! How dare you’, the dumb left says.

‘Institutional racism’ is in many ways the founding myth of the new elites. It is the source of their moral authority. In depicting Britain as a racist country, they can position themselves as the wise, enlightened ones who must rescue and re-educate us all. Once, the elites viewed us as an underclass in need of moral correction; now they view us as a racist throng requiring unconscious bias training. No wonder they’re so angry today: this review has weakened the already weak foundations of their elitist claims to moral and social authority over the masses. The Emperor of Identitarianism now stands naked before us. And you know what to do: laugh.

Source: https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/03/31/at-last-the-myth-of-institutional-racism-is-collapsing/?fbclid=IwAR3VThejlDstqyN9ptOq9aGAuKDnLxk4xVgd7zc82yGUI5iUXrHfBp8NVkY#.YGdwtcHbEyd.facebook

Share:

Read More

Russia Calls Trump’s Impeachment Trial a FARCE as Serbia Elects New Orthodox PATRIARCH!!!

 

Share:

Read More

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Takes ‘Anti-Vax’ Stance in Violation of His Own Platform's New Policy

 Project Veritas released a new video today provided by a Brave Facebook Insider exposing Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s contradictory position when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines.

Here are some of the highlights from the video:

• Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook CEO in July 2020: “But I do just want to make sure that I share some caution on this [vaccine] because we just don't know the long-term side effects of basically modifying people's DNA and RNA…basically the ability to produce those antibodies and whether that causes other mutations or other risks downstream. So, there's work on both paths of vaccine development.”
• During a public live stream with Dr. Fauci in November 2020, Zuckerberg had a different take: “Just to clear up one point, my understanding is that these vaccines do not modify your DNA or RNA. So that’s just an important point to clarify.”
• Facebook announced last week that they are “expanding [their] efforts to remove false claims on Facebook and Instagram about COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccines and vaccines in general during the pandemic.”
• Facebook said it would remove claims that vaccines change people’s DNA.
• Facebook claims it wants people to “discuss, debate and share their personal experiences, opinions and views” as it pertains to the pandemic but will remove vaccine concerns from its platform that had once been expressed by their own CEO.

You can watch the video here:

Share:

Read More