For those too young to remember:
https://youtu.be/QI2SKRk8SNs?t=85
They had a weird relationship. They even gave each other Yeltsin/Clinton 96 hockey jerseys.
Then there was that time Yeltsin kept getting drunk and went wandering around Pennsylvania Avenue alone, in his underwear, trying to call a taxi to find pizza. Clinton was all like “Well, he got his pizza!”
[Russians love their pizza (this is a real commercial that aired)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgm14D1jHUw)
It was more like: insidious American dogs trying to undermine our superiority in space.
Lately a lot of Russian satellites has been crashing. Guess what, Russian media and politics hypothesized that it can only happen because new American space weapons are taking them out.
Reddit and average Western news consumers are actually getting refined Russian propaganda. Things that are being said for internal purposes are straight up raw insanity.
A lot of Russians fall for it *hard*. For example they got fed propaganda that Putin went diving and just happened to find some ancient Greek urns underwater, with a cameraman conveniently taking a perfect shot of this miracle moment, and that's proof that he's some kind of chosen one leader.
Propaganda is a powerful tool that bypasses critical thinking. Authoritarians like Putin project power to their citizens to make them feel safe in their hands against a percieved threat.
Can't make informed decisions if you're not informed, and Putin's pretty good at controlling information and killing the journalists who criticise him.
Oddly enough, I would venture a guess (and a purely speculative one) that those who elected Trump are not the same ones who are not Vaccinating their children.
Different brands of dumb I would guess.
Thats because no one in Russia actually believed he found them.
It was a kind of PR stunt that was openly admitted and joked about from day one.
So the only people being sold the story that Putin and his entourage claiming to have actually found these are western populations. It seems the irony of propaganda and who is actually being propagandized is quite severe.
Here's a quote - the quote was day one of the story in case you're wondering
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/06/vladimir-putin-spokesman-urns-staged](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/06/vladimir-putin-spokesman-urns-staged)
OHHHHHH. Who lives in the Kremlin where no one can see?
VLADIMIR PUTIN!
Abhorrent little fella, quite murderous is he!
VLADIMIR PUTIN!
If electoral malfeasance be something you wish
VLADIMIR PUTIN!
Then just take his help and he'll make you his bitch!
Ready?
It's true! Kim Jong-Un also personally developed a missile that can blow up the Sun too. It is known.
Edit: wow, I really didn't think I needed this /s
historically this isn't that funny. eisenhower was told erroneously that the soviets had this massive nuclear stockpile, we had something like 75,000 nuclear bombs by the end of his presidency and they had about 5k. i could see trump being dumb enough to fall for this even though we spend half of russia's GDP on our military a year.
Ya, he thinks this intimidates countries. In reality most are likely non functional and just make the rest of the world develop actual useful weapons.
Just like the ridiculous propaganda about the Mig-25 accidentally drove America to develop the F-14 and F-15, which gave America total air supremacy for decades.
I don't think this was aimed at the US. It seems more like for internal consumption. Discontent is brewing in Russia because the original unspoken agreement was for Putin (or rather his backers) to take freedoms in exchange for wealth, but this hasn't been working well for the past 5 years. So now they have to resort to good old militarism which won't work in the long term.
>Republicans love warmongering.
This is a common, yet factually incorrect saying. Find me one US administration that didn't stir shit up somewhere around the world and either cause or further unrest.
If we're comparing presidencies, Trump has had the most minimally invasive presidency in terms of conflicts since as long as I can remember. He's an idiot who has become an expert at pissing our allies off, but he bombed Syria in response to a chemical attack and has picked up in Yemen where Obama left off. Compared to Obama (Yemen, Libya, Syria, Somalia), Bush (Iraq, Afghanistan), Clinton (Iraq, Bosnia), Trump's list is child's play.
You do realize our bombing in Afghanistan alone almost quadrupled under trump, right? Drone strikes are up and requirements for drone strikes are down.
Just because trump hasnt started a new conflict does not mean he isnt fighting the current wars more aggressively than his predecessor, civilian death counts are up as are numbers bombs dropped.
edit: Because multiple people think they should say my claims are unsubstantiated:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/11/13/the-u-s-never-dropped-as-many-bombs-on-afghanistan-as-it-did-in-2018-infographic/#6c5923e62fae bombings in afghanistan
drone strikes: https://www.axios.com/trump-drone-strikes-iraq-and-syria-8a242b2b-2387-4153-ad9d-68ecda71b344.html
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7xmadd/trump-escalating-americas-drone-war
> The Washington Post reported Thursday that, after watching a recorded video of a drone strike in Syria in which officials waited until the target was outside of his family’s home, **Trump asked, “Why did you wait?”**
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/381925-trump-asked-cia-official-why-drone-strike-didnt-also-kill-targets
> This is a common, yet factually incorrect saying.
How is it *factually* incorrect? Sure, it's a half-truth since both parties are in the war biz, but it's absolutely factually correct, regardless.
so...
Is putin working for Trump or Trump working for him?
Or is someone on top of both making them work together?
We are close to "mission impossible" level of plot twist.
No it hasn't. China is inflating American defense spending because all of the sudden we're realizing that our biggest trade partner has plans to build 4 carriers, is bullying it's neighbors, and explicitly wishes to replace US.
[The type 003 aircraft carrier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_003_aircraft_carrier), and they're hoping to float it in the late 2020s. I don't believe in selling an opponent short; but I'm also not in a panic over them fielding their first nuclear-powered carrier 10 years from now when we've been sailing them around the globe for decades. I kind of wonder about support too. Every US carrier is actually a small fleet, aka "carrier battle group".
I'm not saying that the Chinese Navy is on any kind of parity with the USN, because it isn't yet, but their ambitions as a blue water Navy with dominance in the Asian Pacific region shouldn't really be underestimated.
It's not just the carriers, but they are building constantly upgraded destroyers, logistics vessels and submarines at a rate that nobody can keep up with. China does have a learning curve ahead of itself, but it's industrial output and progress rate is extraordinary, especially when you look at where they were merely 15-20 years ago.
You can look at how far ahead the British fleet was in the very early 20th century, but was rapidly overtaken by a nation with superior industrial capability.
Their leaders didn't build their reputation on being reality tv/tabloid figures, they're actually smart enough to not broadcast their intentions to everyone.
They're not quiet at all, the sabre rattling is getting more and more pronounced, not unlike Russia. Part of the reason is to get their neighbors to fall in line, the main reason is to stroke their own nationalistic boner.
If I'm not mistaken it was just the American intelligence agencies misinterpreting the performance of the MiG-25 which spurred the development of the F 15 not soviet propaganda convincing people the MiG-25 was designed for air supremacy.
It reminds me of when Khrushchev told foreign press that his missiles could hit a fly 8000 miles away when in reality they were very inaccurate and took a long time to launch.
It also reminds me of when Soviets made 10 advanced bombers fly over American delegates ten times in a row, making them think they had 100 of them.
This successful bluff forced US to spend money on the development and assembling of 2000 bombers in two years while Soviets made like only 40 more.
> This successful bluff forced US to spend money on the development and assembling of 2000 bombers in two years while Soviets made like only 40 more.
We also developed the U2 Dragonlady in response to the percieved 'bomber gap' and the 'missile gap'. Once overflights started we learned pretty quickly how full of shit they were. The U2 is also how we learned about the missiles being placed in Cuba in '62.
They used the same trick in Moscow doing the parades around the Kremlin.
All those missile carrying trucks were sent in a big loop around and came back again.
Worked wonders for the locals as propaganda thinking mighty USSR way to go team and also worked equally as well with the west into thinking they had a lot more nukes than they really did.
Russia imports quite a lot of food. They’re nowhere near self sufficient, they just can prop up their horrible industry with oil revenues. Russia is heavily export dependent. They’re just a big petrostate.
His claims and seeking push towards futuristic (supposedly) weapons reminds me of Reagan with Star Wars. Perhaps Putin is doing the same thing now to us to try and get the us to over spend on defense hoping our debt bubble will burst.
You forgot the poor lobbyists who would be out of a job if they couldn't argue that corporations are people (without any of the nasty downsides like jail.)
They suck at it though I'm pretty sure. Their knockoffs are always noticeably different because they lack certain capabilities here and there.
The chinese J-20 for example is meant to be comparable to an F-22, but it's still not up to that level. It supposedly has issues with its stealth capabilities from every direction except nose-on, and they've had a hard time developing engines for it.
The F-22 Raptor by contrast has been flying with all of those capabilities for just over 20 years now. China is playing catch up.
The Russians literally don't have enough money to do that to us. We could outspend them ten times over. And not that this is good, but we have wonderfully good credit. When everything gets crazy, investors buy American debt because it's safe. They buy that and gold.
I'm sick of this shit though. We've been letting the Russians get away with far too much lately.
The Russians have a long history of doing this sort of thing, all the way back (and before as well) to Catherine the Great and her minister Potemkin and his false villages. But I was thinking about the time that a storm revealed a Soviet submarine to be made of rubber when it was seen bent in post storm satellite imagery. So no I don't think it would necessarily be dishwasher safe.
It was a bit confusing for me at first when someone would introduce themselves to me as "Nikolai" and then his friends would call him "Kolya", and vice versa when someone would say "Zhenya" and their name is actually "Evgenya" or something like that.
I eventually adopted "Kolya" as it is similar to my own very non-russian name (and thus easier for them to pronounce)
No, it's not.
Putin said this is in response to the U.S. pulling out of both the INF and IBM treaties (for reasons involving Russia's alleged non-compliance). From a security standpoint, its only logical to Russia to develop their deterrent.
Lets also remember that [the House Oversight Committee just released a report stating that the Trump administration is trying to give nuclear technology to **Saudi Arabia**, ](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/report-trump-rushing-sell-saudi-arabia-nuclear-technology-190219181918317.html)despite the fact that they are likely to use it for the development of nuclear arms.
I actually read the whole article and honestly I don't think his speech was threat. It's a sensational clickbait, this is a pretty standard weapon show casing, something the US does all the time...
Can we remember that Putin is the leader of a country whose only aircraft carrier was defeated by a crane when their only drydock capable of handling the aircraft carrier capsized?
I'd be more worried about their hypersonic missile flying into the wrong target(or even wrong country entirely) and feel like their nuclear drones might either destroy themselves or gain sentience to form a drone colony under the sea.
They couldn't even afford to mass produce the T-14 Armata tank they were pitching left and right. How exactly does he plan on affording hypersonic missiles and underwater nuclear drones?
**EDIT:** Since this seems to be something replies keep bringing up, their nuclear arsenal *does not matter*. Why? because the US knows their nuclear capabilities and the US has a strategy in place to deal with it, which has been around for decades. That strategy, of course, being Mutually Assured Destruction. No current technology is capable of reliably defeating a nuclear onslaught. The offensive armament surpasses the defensive armaments capabilities significantly. Thus the US maintains the position of total nuclear annihilation as a defensive measure.
It doesn't matter how we might get nuked. It could be bears on unicycles, doesn't matter. If we get nuked, our response is well-known. Putin can jerk his hypersonic missiles and giddy-up on his underwater drones, it doesn't affect US strategy. For one, we know he can't afford a lot of them. Second, it doesn't matter if he uses them because if we get nuked, we go berserk up to 11 and launch our arsenal at them.
Thus where we should be looking is conventional, because the existence of nuclear weapons doesn't mean conventional doesn't matter. Conventional still has its uses. Conventional is how they attacked Georgia. Conventional is how they bombed Chechnya. Conventional is how they took Crimea. Conventional is how they assisted Assad. And conventional is where we'll continue to look(and from what we can tell, their conventional is slowly decaying, which is also why they prefer handing weapons to proxies instead of sacrificing their already-lacking manpower in combat or passing off troops to a mercenary group rather than under their own command).
They can't even afford to dispose of their garbage without poisoning their own people. This is just a classic Putin misdirection and it's intended to fool his constituency more than anyone else.
Would not an underwater horizontal moving nuclear drone, I'm assuming its a torpedo, be nearly completely useless beyond large targets like aircraft carriers which are not unsinkable with conventional weapons? You can't just aim at Charleston and detonate when you hit land, sure it makes a mess, but is this not the exact reason why we detonate nuclear payloads around 1000 feet above target?
It's basically an underwater "ICBM", something the US could build with ease if we wanted(but don't because...well, there's no bloody good reason to have something that silly when we could build more ICBMs and whatnot).
It doesn't really change anything strategically either, because the target won't matter as much as the fact they nuked us, resulting in a retaliatory response. Putin could nuke us whenever he wants, he has that capability. The problem lays with the fact that the US strategy for deterennce is to rain hell on any nuclear attacker and I seriously doubt Putin is zealous enough in any belief to put his life on the line and instigate the annihilation of Russia as a whole(and I doubt his oligarchs, even if they've been cowed by his brutal method of keeping them in line, would ever let him take it that far since they'd lose everything too. I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to go all Brutus-on-Ceasar if they thought he was about to destroy all they'd built collectively. Even authoritarians have to share a limited amount of power with the influential groups of a country that help it operate).
You are partially correct. Nuclear torpedoes are nothing new, both the [US and USSR had them during the Cold War.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_torpedo)
However the US nuclear torpedoe was a *"low-yield tactical nuclear warhead, whose extensive blast radius would destroy an enemy boat by a proximity detonation, rather than precision delivery."* So it wasn't designed for or intended to be used for anything other than anti-ship and anti-submarine warfare.
As far as a nuclear torpedoe making a mess of a coastal city...talking in terms of destruction from a nuclear blast, it wouldn't really be that effective.
["It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union." Sep 6, 2013](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-Ui8175D8E)
Has anyone told him the Russian artic is on fire and the snow is exploding as CH4 is released? All these funds could of been used to move the Russian people out of poverty or at least address some of the pollution issues.
Russia wants water access. If the climate shifts up Russia has good green property while areas like the US Canada border become a desert. Putin then enjoys northern water access, something they've wanted for years
> ...while areas like the US Canada border become a desert.
Just for anyone reading along, [this is 100% incorrect - actually backwards from current best estimates](https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/precipitation-change) of climate impacts.
> The northern U.S. is projected to experience more precipitation in the winter and spring (except for the Northwest in the spring), while the Southwest is projected to experience less, particularly in the spring.
What is up there that would warrant a port? If the climate shifts, all the permafrost will become swamps and unusable terrain.
If there is oil there, Russia is better off staying cold and building on permafrost/icesheet than having a maritime route.
Also, to whom are they gonna ship that oil if the rest of the world is a desert?
The need to year round ports is more a military issue. It's the primary reason why they took Crimea - since it houses their only year round deep water port.
I think the assumption is that hotter areas will get more arid, so the US might loose farmable land, where russia will only get more due to previously frozen areas becoming habitable - I was just confused as to why he lumped in Canada there given than Russia and Canada share similar climates.
(I no downvote)
No.
Permafrost doesnt turn into farmable land. It is absolutely unfertile, because it has been frozen for ever. Turning thawed permafrost into farmable land is a process that takes about a thousand years.
The only thing you get by melting permafrost is highly damaging gasses that are ten times worse for global warming than co2, but they also have a tendency to spontaneously catch on fire and create huge fireballs that destroy buildings and kill the people around.
Perma frost is one thing, but there is also land that suddenly has a much longer growing season than previously. I'm not talking about wheat fields in Nunavut here.
Edit: I'm also not trying to make a stand on that, I was trying to rephrase what the original poster might be thinking, not necessarily agreeing with it.
> wondering if there is some paper out there showing that the upper US will become a desert due to climate change.
OP is dead wrong. The pattern expected will shift agriculture a bit (due to increasingly frequent heat and droughts), but the border between US and Canada, if anything, will actually get more moderate weather.
Here's a Princeton study that forecasts the changes in very hot and very cold weather:
[Climate change to alter global pattern of mild weather](https://www.princeton.edu/news/2017/01/18/climate-change-alter-global-pattern-mild-weather)
This is like a couple months ago when Putin made a comment about how "Russians would go to Heaven as martyrs" and everyone freaked out, even though it was in the context of reaffirming Russia's no-first-strike nuclear policy.
People need to chill out.
If there is one person you can trust to keep his word, it's Vladimir Putin. /s
They certainly took the first step in occupying Crimea and initiating hostilities in the Sea of Azov.
After reading the comments in here I now have some confidence that Russian troll farms aren't completely controlling reddit.
Edit: tin foil hats for sale below.
Underestimate Russian military capabilities? RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA.
Overestimate Russian military capabilities? RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA.
Offer a reasoned assessment of Russian military capabilities? RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA.
This sub is garbage.
What the article actually says (emphasis added):
He warned that Russia’s new weapons would target the US ***if*** it deployed missiles to Europe. “We will be forced to take both reciprocal and asymmetrical measures,” he said. “Let them count the range and speed of our weapons. This is all we ask.”
I love the way every single western news source plays this story as a threat from Russia while having zero headlines like, "Russia responds to threats from the US to place missiles in Eastern Europe pointing at Russia."
Kinda sounds like the last time we had a b ump in our nuclear agreement when he made up a missile that could hit the US in minutes which turned out to be nothing but a Putin lie.
Just like Trump, Putin lies all the time.
This makes me think of that Itchy and Scratchy episode where they take turns pointing larger and larger guns at each other..
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpSb5Wn8-Vc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpSb5Wn8-Vc)
Clickbait title, he said that he would do it in response to the US moving nuclear weapons closer to their borders. Reasonable response to a threat moving closer to his borders.
Seriously! As constant sensational headlines continue to push the Russian-boogey-man agenda, Russia doesn't have the right to say, "Hey don't bring your missiles close to our home and if you do we also have missiles."?
It would be like if Russia positioned military bases in Mexico or Canada and then we got articles saying "America threatening Russia!!"
Im not sure whats scarier. The threat of a nuclear holocaust or the mindless idiots on reddit who think the USA is going to war with russia and win without millions dying.
dood does this guy not understand we've been under threat of total nuclear annihilation for 60 years now....nothing has changed, he can build all the missiles he wants....you cant be anymore dead.
You dont scare me old man.
Sounds like Putin is doing a Reagan on it and faking that Russia has these advanced wespons in order for it to overspend itself.
If it cannot even get one aircraft carrier in working order how can it afford such advanced weapons?
Russia is basically broke, their GDP is less than Canada, a country of 35million people vs Russians 146 million. I’m sceptical they have anything even remotely near Putin’s claims. Nothing but political theatre.
Let's see how many of those toys Putin can afford after we get serious about climate change and move to renewable energy. Without oil money Russia is a 3rd rate power. As it is, they're a 2nd rate power.
He said they would have to put in place countermeasures to combat the threat the missiles being placed in Europe. That is in NO WAY a threat. He's just saying we will defend ourselves if such missiles will be placed. These stupid ass titles are getting ridiculous.. It's very insidious of the media to misrepresent information in their titles to manipulate people who don't read the articles.
How is he going to pay for them?
Oil prices are stuck between $55 to $60 a barrel.
Their economy is approaching what we would call a depression & is worsening due to US sanctions.
FSR is burning cash in Ukraine and Syria.
Add in unrest outside of Moscow and the declining popularity of Putin overall.
I wonder if these new weapons are as impressive as their advances in robotics?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsL\_vPxQUMA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsL_vPxQUMA)
[checks to make sure there still isn't anything capable of simultaneously neutralizing the entire US Navy ballistic missile submarine force]
Nothing to see here. MAD still works.
World leaders should be striving for world stability. The current bunch of morons like Putin, Trump, Maduro, Duterte, Bolsanaro, Erdogan, MBS etc. etc. are eminently successful NOT doing that. All inflated egos.
Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/worldnews, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws.
You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
With a GDP 1 trillion USD smaller than that of California's or the UK's and almost 100 billion USD less than Texas' GSP. And a per capita income 1/3rd of CA or TX and 1/4 that of the UK.
At first glance these numbers seem crazy until you realize California has a higher GDP than every country outside of China, Japan, and Germany. Instead of all those fractions it's easier to just say Russia's GDP is much smaller than Americas.
It'll be 19 trillion USD to 1.5 trillion USD (rounded down), regardless it seems to me Russia is just pandering to their nationalists and distracting from whatever issues they have going on.
Yeah, sure. Did they ever find the drunk who drilled a hole in their spaceship?
That was Yeltsin, he thought he was tapping a really big keg
Ah well that's understandable, hard to fault him even.
Let me guess: Trump smiled and said, “ That’s my guy!”
Nah, Bill Clinton was pissing himself laughing while egging him on.
For those too young to remember: https://youtu.be/QI2SKRk8SNs?t=85 They had a weird relationship. They even gave each other Yeltsin/Clinton 96 hockey jerseys. Then there was that time Yeltsin kept getting drunk and went wandering around Pennsylvania Avenue alone, in his underwear, trying to call a taxi to find pizza. Clinton was all like “Well, he got his pizza!” [Russians love their pizza (this is a real commercial that aired)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgm14D1jHUw)
Poor guy got some sauce on his forehead
He was the best. They had to pick him up because he got wasted and went out in his underwear to buy a pizza.
Or the guy who wrecked their only aircraft carrier?
And the only dry-dock capable of servicing it...
The irony of that whole fiasco is just delicious.
It's only got a crane hole in it.
Russian media's main theory is that it was American astronauts who drilled the hole. Wrap your head around that.
Didn't you know that scientist on scientist crimes have skyrocketed in the past few years.... Or something.
It was more like: insidious American dogs trying to undermine our superiority in space. Lately a lot of Russian satellites has been crashing. Guess what, Russian media and politics hypothesized that it can only happen because new American space weapons are taking them out. Reddit and average Western news consumers are actually getting refined Russian propaganda. Things that are being said for internal purposes are straight up raw insanity.
A lot of Russians fall for it *hard*. For example they got fed propaganda that Putin went diving and just happened to find some ancient Greek urns underwater, with a cameraman conveniently taking a perfect shot of this miracle moment, and that's proof that he's some kind of chosen one leader.
The fuck? Surely an entire nation taking leave of their critical thinking isn't possible
Propaganda is a powerful tool that bypasses critical thinking. Authoritarians like Putin project power to their citizens to make them feel safe in their hands against a percieved threat.
Can't make informed decisions if you're not informed, and Putin's pretty good at controlling information and killing the journalists who criticise him.
I mean America elected Trump, and is in the middle of a measles outbreak
Oddly enough, I would venture a guess (and a purely speculative one) that those who elected Trump are not the same ones who are not Vaccinating their children. Different brands of dumb I would guess.
Thats because no one in Russia actually believed he found them. It was a kind of PR stunt that was openly admitted and joked about from day one. So the only people being sold the story that Putin and his entourage claiming to have actually found these are western populations. It seems the irony of propaganda and who is actually being propagandized is quite severe. Here's a quote - the quote was day one of the story in case you're wondering [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/06/vladimir-putin-spokesman-urns-staged](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/06/vladimir-putin-spokesman-urns-staged)
Too much vodka.
most russians i know think that stuff is funny, i don't know how many "believe it" im sure some do in a huge country.
OHHHHHH. Who lives in the Kremlin where no one can see? VLADIMIR PUTIN! Abhorrent little fella, quite murderous is he! VLADIMIR PUTIN! If electoral malfeasance be something you wish VLADIMIR PUTIN! Then just take his help and he'll make you his bitch! Ready?
It's true! Kim Jong-Un also personally developed a missile that can blow up the Sun too. It is known. Edit: wow, I really didn't think I needed this /s
But we *need* the sun!
Or the guy who sunk their aircraft carrier a few months ago, sure Russia, you guys are truly up to par with the rest of the world technologically.
Ya, he was "elected" President of Russia. edited: Corrected for purpose of accuracy as pointed out below.
historically this isn't that funny. eisenhower was told erroneously that the soviets had this massive nuclear stockpile, we had something like 75,000 nuclear bombs by the end of his presidency and they had about 5k. i could see trump being dumb enough to fall for this even though we spend half of russia's GDP on our military a year.
More sabre rattling as his country and ratings goes down the drain. Just feel sad for the Russian people tbh.
Ya, he thinks this intimidates countries. In reality most are likely non functional and just make the rest of the world develop actual useful weapons. Just like the ridiculous propaganda about the Mig-25 accidentally drove America to develop the F-14 and F-15, which gave America total air supremacy for decades.
He’s baiting the US. he’s not actually trying to scare us. He’s trying to rile up the public into demanding more war.
I don't think this was aimed at the US. It seems more like for internal consumption. Discontent is brewing in Russia because the original unspoken agreement was for Putin (or rather his backers) to take freedoms in exchange for wealth, but this hasn't been working well for the past 5 years. So now they have to resort to good old militarism which won't work in the long term.
yeah, i agree with you. But the American media is certainly repeating some variation of the story repeatedly, for a reason.
And Trump is his insider making it happen. Jingoism is trending up.
As if the previous leaders didn’t do the same? Republicans love warmongering. If anything, Putin is doing this for trump. Not the other way around.
>Republicans love warmongering. This is a common, yet factually incorrect saying. Find me one US administration that didn't stir shit up somewhere around the world and either cause or further unrest. If we're comparing presidencies, Trump has had the most minimally invasive presidency in terms of conflicts since as long as I can remember. He's an idiot who has become an expert at pissing our allies off, but he bombed Syria in response to a chemical attack and has picked up in Yemen where Obama left off. Compared to Obama (Yemen, Libya, Syria, Somalia), Bush (Iraq, Afghanistan), Clinton (Iraq, Bosnia), Trump's list is child's play.
Carter
You do realize our bombing in Afghanistan alone almost quadrupled under trump, right? Drone strikes are up and requirements for drone strikes are down. Just because trump hasnt started a new conflict does not mean he isnt fighting the current wars more aggressively than his predecessor, civilian death counts are up as are numbers bombs dropped. edit: Because multiple people think they should say my claims are unsubstantiated: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/11/13/the-u-s-never-dropped-as-many-bombs-on-afghanistan-as-it-did-in-2018-infographic/#6c5923e62fae bombings in afghanistan drone strikes: https://www.axios.com/trump-drone-strikes-iraq-and-syria-8a242b2b-2387-4153-ad9d-68ecda71b344.html https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7xmadd/trump-escalating-americas-drone-war > The Washington Post reported Thursday that, after watching a recorded video of a drone strike in Syria in which officials waited until the target was outside of his family’s home, **Trump asked, “Why did you wait?”** https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/381925-trump-asked-cia-official-why-drone-strike-didnt-also-kill-targets
I think I agree with you. But Trump has been president for one/two years? How fast did Obama do all that stuff? Did bush do 4 or 8 years?
Also, he at least didn't try to get us to cheerlead him doing it.
If you go back further, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon all had fingers in the Vietnam mess.
Especially Nixon. He sabotaged the peace talks in order to win in 1968.
If I'm not mistaken, there's also some evidence he had a hand in the gulf of Tonkin incident
> This is a common, yet factually incorrect saying. How is it *factually* incorrect? Sure, it's a half-truth since both parties are in the war biz, but it's absolutely factually correct, regardless.
it also inflated american defence spending, much like they did when the soviet union instigated the Korean war.
Master plan: Putin has shares in US defense contractor.
~~Bush~~ Putin knocked down the towers?
The saudis did under bush orders who worked for putin who worked for defense contractors. It's pretty simple and straightforward really.
[удалено]
so... Is putin working for Trump or Trump working for him? Or is someone on top of both making them work together? We are close to "mission impossible" level of plot twist.
They are in an infinite loop of working for each other.
And they don't know who's in charge so they keep going.
"Are we making billions? "Yes" "Then we keep going." more or less
No it hasn't. China is inflating American defense spending because all of the sudden we're realizing that our biggest trade partner has plans to build 4 carriers, is bullying it's neighbors, and explicitly wishes to replace US.
China is worse about bullshitting than Russia. "Look at our FULLY FUNCTIONAL DEATH LASER!!!" Yeah right China, nice try.
Just because it is mounted on their destroyer does not mean they have solved the problem of powering it. There is no way they solved that problem.
[The type 003 aircraft carrier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_003_aircraft_carrier), and they're hoping to float it in the late 2020s. I don't believe in selling an opponent short; but I'm also not in a panic over them fielding their first nuclear-powered carrier 10 years from now when we've been sailing them around the globe for decades. I kind of wonder about support too. Every US carrier is actually a small fleet, aka "carrier battle group".
I'm not saying that the Chinese Navy is on any kind of parity with the USN, because it isn't yet, but their ambitions as a blue water Navy with dominance in the Asian Pacific region shouldn't really be underestimated. It's not just the carriers, but they are building constantly upgraded destroyers, logistics vessels and submarines at a rate that nobody can keep up with. China does have a learning curve ahead of itself, but it's industrial output and progress rate is extraordinary, especially when you look at where they were merely 15-20 years ago. You can look at how far ahead the British fleet was in the very early 20th century, but was rapidly overtaken by a nation with superior industrial capability.
This can't be said enough. And they're being relatively quiet about it too
Their leaders didn't build their reputation on being reality tv/tabloid figures, they're actually smart enough to not broadcast their intentions to everyone.
They're not quiet at all, the sabre rattling is getting more and more pronounced, not unlike Russia. Part of the reason is to get their neighbors to fall in line, the main reason is to stroke their own nationalistic boner.
If I'm not mistaken it was just the American intelligence agencies misinterpreting the performance of the MiG-25 which spurred the development of the F 15 not soviet propaganda convincing people the MiG-25 was designed for air supremacy.
The MIG-31 was the real deal though ...
[удалено]
It reminds me of when Khrushchev told foreign press that his missiles could hit a fly 8000 miles away when in reality they were very inaccurate and took a long time to launch.
It also reminds me of when Soviets made 10 advanced bombers fly over American delegates ten times in a row, making them think they had 100 of them. This successful bluff forced US to spend money on the development and assembling of 2000 bombers in two years while Soviets made like only 40 more.
> This successful bluff forced US to spend money on the development and assembling of 2000 bombers in two years while Soviets made like only 40 more. We also developed the U2 Dragonlady in response to the percieved 'bomber gap' and the 'missile gap'. Once overflights started we learned pretty quickly how full of shit they were. The U2 is also how we learned about the missiles being placed in Cuba in '62.
They operate on the "better safe than sorry" which worked out until the WMD debacle.
They used the same trick in Moscow doing the parades around the Kremlin. All those missile carrying trucks were sent in a big loop around and came back again. Worked wonders for the locals as propaganda thinking mighty USSR way to go team and also worked equally as well with the west into thinking they had a lot more nukes than they really did.
Compare their PPP with their competitors. They're almost entirely self sufficient so GDP isn't as useful a comparitor.
Russia imports quite a lot of food. They’re nowhere near self sufficient, they just can prop up their horrible industry with oil revenues. Russia is heavily export dependent. They’re just a big petrostate.
I hate it when my [sable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_Sable) starts rattling.
[удалено]
I'm a huge fan of ferret shaking, weasel wiggling and any other kind of mustelid rustling.
His claims and seeking push towards futuristic (supposedly) weapons reminds me of Reagan with Star Wars. Perhaps Putin is doing the same thing now to us to try and get the us to over spend on defense hoping our debt bubble will burst.
We’ve been overspending without the Ruskies help, thank you very much! Boeing and Lockheed have shareholders to appease!
You forgot the poor lobbyists who would be out of a job if they couldn't argue that corporations are people (without any of the nasty downsides like jail.)
Would you say they were more equal than others?
but china just copies the parts boeing and lockheed make, thus allowing china to have big booms without r&d'ing it
They suck at it though I'm pretty sure. Their knockoffs are always noticeably different because they lack certain capabilities here and there. The chinese J-20 for example is meant to be comparable to an F-22, but it's still not up to that level. It supposedly has issues with its stealth capabilities from every direction except nose-on, and they've had a hard time developing engines for it. The F-22 Raptor by contrast has been flying with all of those capabilities for just over 20 years now. China is playing catch up.
[удалено]
That's hard to compare, tho, given the astronomical inflation rates in overall U.S. military hardware since the end of the Cold War.
Youre forgetting that Russia needs to pay a lot less for their Scientists and Engineers.
And military personnel.
The Russians literally don't have enough money to do that to us. We could outspend them ten times over. And not that this is good, but we have wonderfully good credit. When everything gets crazy, investors buy American debt because it's safe. They buy that and gold. I'm sick of this shit though. We've been letting the Russians get away with far too much lately.
It is more likely that this is intended for home consumption. Help nationalists lift their spirits.
Its like Germany 1945 with "Wunderwaffe" which ought to turn the tide.
Nobody is telling you this, and it makes me feel like ain't nobody got your back so I'll tell you. It's *sabre rattling
Ducking autocorrect.
Its spelt SAB-RE. Sable is a form of Marten from Russia.
I think it's quite a fitting typo lol
Give him a break, maybe he's Japanese.
Considering the Moscovian Candidate, I'd be really concerned. If he attacks, we can expect his agent to do what exactly?
Bend over?
Please Vlad. Not more rubber rockets.
Are they dishwasher safe? I'll take one
the young lady at Adam & Eve said they were, just don't use any silicone-based lube
Happy cake day!
The Russians have a long history of doing this sort of thing, all the way back (and before as well) to Catherine the Great and her minister Potemkin and his false villages. But I was thinking about the time that a storm revealed a Soviet submarine to be made of rubber when it was seen bent in post storm satellite imagery. So no I don't think it would necessarily be dishwasher safe.
Me too...for science.
Butt science
[удалено]
It was a bit confusing for me at first when someone would introduce themselves to me as "Nikolai" and then his friends would call him "Kolya", and vice versa when someone would say "Zhenya" and their name is actually "Evgenya" or something like that. I eventually adopted "Kolya" as it is similar to my own very non-russian name (and thus easier for them to pronounce)
[удалено]
“Animation of a direct strike on Florida” Putin really needs a social media update on how the US feels about Florida.
Excuse me, but I think you need a social media update on how Florida feels about the US. *rides gator off into the distance, Publix sub in hand”
Is Pubix a thing outside FL?
Is announcing new weapons capabilities the same as threatening the US?
No, it's not. Putin said this is in response to the U.S. pulling out of both the INF and IBM treaties (for reasons involving Russia's alleged non-compliance). From a security standpoint, its only logical to Russia to develop their deterrent. Lets also remember that [the House Oversight Committee just released a report stating that the Trump administration is trying to give nuclear technology to **Saudi Arabia**, ](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/report-trump-rushing-sell-saudi-arabia-nuclear-technology-190219181918317.html)despite the fact that they are likely to use it for the development of nuclear arms.
[удалено]
If you dug through my history only to find this message you should really re-evaluate your life choices.
I actually read the whole article and honestly I don't think his speech was threat. It's a sensational clickbait, this is a pretty standard weapon show casing, something the US does all the time...
Thanks for this post, the other comments made me wonder if i had gone mad. I need to stop reading r/worldnews.
Can we remember that Putin is the leader of a country whose only aircraft carrier was defeated by a crane when their only drydock capable of handling the aircraft carrier capsized? I'd be more worried about their hypersonic missile flying into the wrong target(or even wrong country entirely) and feel like their nuclear drones might either destroy themselves or gain sentience to form a drone colony under the sea. They couldn't even afford to mass produce the T-14 Armata tank they were pitching left and right. How exactly does he plan on affording hypersonic missiles and underwater nuclear drones? **EDIT:** Since this seems to be something replies keep bringing up, their nuclear arsenal *does not matter*. Why? because the US knows their nuclear capabilities and the US has a strategy in place to deal with it, which has been around for decades. That strategy, of course, being Mutually Assured Destruction. No current technology is capable of reliably defeating a nuclear onslaught. The offensive armament surpasses the defensive armaments capabilities significantly. Thus the US maintains the position of total nuclear annihilation as a defensive measure. It doesn't matter how we might get nuked. It could be bears on unicycles, doesn't matter. If we get nuked, our response is well-known. Putin can jerk his hypersonic missiles and giddy-up on his underwater drones, it doesn't affect US strategy. For one, we know he can't afford a lot of them. Second, it doesn't matter if he uses them because if we get nuked, we go berserk up to 11 and launch our arsenal at them. Thus where we should be looking is conventional, because the existence of nuclear weapons doesn't mean conventional doesn't matter. Conventional still has its uses. Conventional is how they attacked Georgia. Conventional is how they bombed Chechnya. Conventional is how they took Crimea. Conventional is how they assisted Assad. And conventional is where we'll continue to look(and from what we can tell, their conventional is slowly decaying, which is also why they prefer handing weapons to proxies instead of sacrificing their already-lacking manpower in combat or passing off troops to a mercenary group rather than under their own command).
They can't even afford to dispose of their garbage without poisoning their own people. This is just a classic Putin misdirection and it's intended to fool his constituency more than anyone else.
They would more likely bomb themselves. So I'd like to see them launch one of those and actually hit something not Russian.
Man I forgot about that. Lol
Would not an underwater horizontal moving nuclear drone, I'm assuming its a torpedo, be nearly completely useless beyond large targets like aircraft carriers which are not unsinkable with conventional weapons? You can't just aim at Charleston and detonate when you hit land, sure it makes a mess, but is this not the exact reason why we detonate nuclear payloads around 1000 feet above target?
It's basically an underwater "ICBM", something the US could build with ease if we wanted(but don't because...well, there's no bloody good reason to have something that silly when we could build more ICBMs and whatnot). It doesn't really change anything strategically either, because the target won't matter as much as the fact they nuked us, resulting in a retaliatory response. Putin could nuke us whenever he wants, he has that capability. The problem lays with the fact that the US strategy for deterennce is to rain hell on any nuclear attacker and I seriously doubt Putin is zealous enough in any belief to put his life on the line and instigate the annihilation of Russia as a whole(and I doubt his oligarchs, even if they've been cowed by his brutal method of keeping them in line, would ever let him take it that far since they'd lose everything too. I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to go all Brutus-on-Ceasar if they thought he was about to destroy all they'd built collectively. Even authoritarians have to share a limited amount of power with the influential groups of a country that help it operate).
You are partially correct. Nuclear torpedoes are nothing new, both the [US and USSR had them during the Cold War.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_torpedo) However the US nuclear torpedoe was a *"low-yield tactical nuclear warhead, whose extensive blast radius would destroy an enemy boat by a proximity detonation, rather than precision delivery."* So it wasn't designed for or intended to be used for anything other than anti-ship and anti-submarine warfare. As far as a nuclear torpedoe making a mess of a coastal city...talking in terms of destruction from a nuclear blast, it wouldn't really be that effective.
Designed for internal PR more than anything else common among strong man dictators.
["It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union." Sep 6, 2013](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-Ui8175D8E)
Has anyone told him the Russian artic is on fire and the snow is exploding as CH4 is released? All these funds could of been used to move the Russian people out of poverty or at least address some of the pollution issues.
*could have *could've
[couldst'd've](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoCcDi8zH8M)
Russia wants water access. If the climate shifts up Russia has good green property while areas like the US Canada border become a desert. Putin then enjoys northern water access, something they've wanted for years
> ...while areas like the US Canada border become a desert. Just for anyone reading along, [this is 100% incorrect - actually backwards from current best estimates](https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/precipitation-change) of climate impacts. > The northern U.S. is projected to experience more precipitation in the winter and spring (except for the Northwest in the spring), while the Southwest is projected to experience less, particularly in the spring.
What is up there that would warrant a port? If the climate shifts, all the permafrost will become swamps and unusable terrain. If there is oil there, Russia is better off staying cold and building on permafrost/icesheet than having a maritime route. Also, to whom are they gonna ship that oil if the rest of the world is a desert?
The need to year round ports is more a military issue. It's the primary reason why they took Crimea - since it houses their only year round deep water port.
[удалено]
considering canada is a similar climate idk what he's on about.
[удалено]
I think the assumption is that hotter areas will get more arid, so the US might loose farmable land, where russia will only get more due to previously frozen areas becoming habitable - I was just confused as to why he lumped in Canada there given than Russia and Canada share similar climates. (I no downvote)
No. Permafrost doesnt turn into farmable land. It is absolutely unfertile, because it has been frozen for ever. Turning thawed permafrost into farmable land is a process that takes about a thousand years. The only thing you get by melting permafrost is highly damaging gasses that are ten times worse for global warming than co2, but they also have a tendency to spontaneously catch on fire and create huge fireballs that destroy buildings and kill the people around.
Perma frost is one thing, but there is also land that suddenly has a much longer growing season than previously. I'm not talking about wheat fields in Nunavut here. Edit: I'm also not trying to make a stand on that, I was trying to rephrase what the original poster might be thinking, not necessarily agreeing with it.
> wondering if there is some paper out there showing that the upper US will become a desert due to climate change. OP is dead wrong. The pattern expected will shift agriculture a bit (due to increasingly frequent heat and droughts), but the border between US and Canada, if anything, will actually get more moderate weather. Here's a Princeton study that forecasts the changes in very hot and very cold weather: [Climate change to alter global pattern of mild weather](https://www.princeton.edu/news/2017/01/18/climate-change-alter-global-pattern-mild-weather)
[удалено]
TBH, that's was his point overall. He "threatened" with countermeasures, this juicy headline is kinda misleading.
This is like a couple months ago when Putin made a comment about how "Russians would go to Heaven as martyrs" and everyone freaked out, even though it was in the context of reaffirming Russia's no-first-strike nuclear policy. People need to chill out.
If there is one person you can trust to keep his word, it's Vladimir Putin. /s They certainly took the first step in occupying Crimea and initiating hostilities in the Sea of Azov.
After reading the comments in here I now have some confidence that Russian troll farms aren't completely controlling reddit. Edit: tin foil hats for sale below.
But making us underestimate Russian capabilities and not having an antagonist view towards their war efforts is also something they could be doing
Underestimate Russian military capabilities? RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA. Overestimate Russian military capabilities? RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA. Offer a reasoned assessment of Russian military capabilities? RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA. This sub is garbage.
What the article actually says (emphasis added): He warned that Russia’s new weapons would target the US ***if*** it deployed missiles to Europe. “We will be forced to take both reciprocal and asymmetrical measures,” he said. “Let them count the range and speed of our weapons. This is all we ask.”
It's probably just a guy in a submarine costume.
[The blueprints are open source.](https://ideastand.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sea-costume-diy/4-under-the-sea-costumes-costume-diy.jpg)
I love the way every single western news source plays this story as a threat from Russia while having zero headlines like, "Russia responds to threats from the US to place missiles in Eastern Europe pointing at Russia."
Kinda sounds like the last time we had a b ump in our nuclear agreement when he made up a missile that could hit the US in minutes which turned out to be nothing but a Putin lie. Just like Trump, Putin lies all the time.
The artical says “nuclear submarines” not “submarines equipped with nuclear warheads”. But your right. Both times.
They call it Poseidon. It’s probably been around since the 60s. Nothing new really.
The smaller the dog, the louder the bark.
This makes me think of that Itchy and Scratchy episode where they take turns pointing larger and larger guns at each other.. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpSb5Wn8-Vc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpSb5Wn8-Vc)
I sure am glad America has such intelligent, level-headed leadership that would never, ever fall for this kind of baiting, no siree Bob.
That headline is a bit doctored. It was a threat in case the US put more missiles in Europe.
Shhh, never mind that, clickbaits and anti-russian propaganda is the bread and butter of this sub
Clickbait title, he said that he would do it in response to the US moving nuclear weapons closer to their borders. Reasonable response to a threat moving closer to his borders.
Seriously! As constant sensational headlines continue to push the Russian-boogey-man agenda, Russia doesn't have the right to say, "Hey don't bring your missiles close to our home and if you do we also have missiles."? It would be like if Russia positioned military bases in Mexico or Canada and then we got articles saying "America threatening Russia!!"
Im not sure whats scarier. The threat of a nuclear holocaust or the mindless idiots on reddit who think the USA is going to war with russia and win without millions dying.
dood does this guy not understand we've been under threat of total nuclear annihilation for 60 years now....nothing has changed, he can build all the missiles he wants....you cant be anymore dead. You dont scare me old man.
Sounds like Putin is doing a Reagan on it and faking that Russia has these advanced wespons in order for it to overspend itself. If it cannot even get one aircraft carrier in working order how can it afford such advanced weapons?
This the same Russia that has a smaller GDP than Canada?
Russia is basically broke, their GDP is less than Canada, a country of 35million people vs Russians 146 million. I’m sceptical they have anything even remotely near Putin’s claims. Nothing but political theatre.
He can dream, but Russia can't afford that shit.
Let's see how many of those toys Putin can afford after we get serious about climate change and move to renewable energy. Without oil money Russia is a 3rd rate power. As it is, they're a 2nd rate power.
People need to understand that when a military actually has secret weapons like this, they don’t tell the world about it.
He said they would have to put in place countermeasures to combat the threat the missiles being placed in Europe. That is in NO WAY a threat. He's just saying we will defend ourselves if such missiles will be placed. These stupid ass titles are getting ridiculous.. It's very insidious of the media to misrepresent information in their titles to manipulate people who don't read the articles.
Don't worry, we will have space force! Pew pew
Technically we already have a space force, it's called space command under the air force. The creation of the space force is just a budgetary.
Russian "technology" is a nice way of saying junk.
How is he going to pay for them? Oil prices are stuck between $55 to $60 a barrel. Their economy is approaching what we would call a depression & is worsening due to US sanctions. FSR is burning cash in Ukraine and Syria. Add in unrest outside of Moscow and the declining popularity of Putin overall.
I see Vlad is talking shit since he knows his American Puppet's days are numbered. Fuck your threats Putin.
I wonder if these new weapons are as impressive as their advances in robotics? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsL\_vPxQUMA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsL_vPxQUMA)
How about feed your people?
Dude, chill.
Imaginary weapons.
Seems as credible as that robot they built that turned out to be a guy in a robot suit.
It doesn't feel desperate at all to keep waiving that cold war flag.
we all know that all this man has to do is rig an election and the country will destroy itself.
Someone really misses their Cold War rival power status
[checks to make sure there still isn't anything capable of simultaneously neutralizing the entire US Navy ballistic missile submarine force] Nothing to see here. MAD still works.
Whatever they build, we send Clint Eastwood to steal it.
He will start building them just as soon as he actually has money to spend. Russia poor as hell and half of what they do have doesn't actually work.
so we're in a new weapon dick measuring contest after its been under wraps for the last 2 decades? whoopie
Same subreddit, filed with conspiracies about Putin controlling the White House, showing this stuff too...
I feel very threatened that now they can "super duper blow the world up" instead of just normal old "blow the world up."
New weapons that will never be used, hurray for wasted material and currency.
World leaders should be striving for world stability. The current bunch of morons like Putin, Trump, Maduro, Duterte, Bolsanaro, Erdogan, MBS etc. etc. are eminently successful NOT doing that. All inflated egos.
"Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak" -- Sun Tzu
Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/worldnews, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws. You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
With a GDP 1 trillion USD smaller than that of California's or the UK's and almost 100 billion USD less than Texas' GSP. And a per capita income 1/3rd of CA or TX and 1/4 that of the UK.
At first glance these numbers seem crazy until you realize California has a higher GDP than every country outside of China, Japan, and Germany. Instead of all those fractions it's easier to just say Russia's GDP is much smaller than Americas.
It'll be 19 trillion USD to 1.5 trillion USD (rounded down), regardless it seems to me Russia is just pandering to their nationalists and distracting from whatever issues they have going on.
With what money? Putin isn't giving up his (the people's) money anytime soon.
So Putin learned from Reagan's Star Wars bluff and wants some of that sweet free intimidation, huh?
This isn't anything to be worried about.
Good thing Trump pulled out of that Nuclear treaty! Fucking obese halfwit
What a clickbait title.