How about no one? There are other ways to prevent that. No need to waste all that money in the military, and make others do the same. A better way is to stop invading other countries and trying to control the world and instead help them develop so they don't become dependent on others. I know, scary. They might all become socialists or something. Then help countries in a region cooperate between themselves economically and militarily. Doesn't mean they have to like each other. But if there is a military threat, they can more easily deal with it and other challenges.

 While bases may be costly for taxpayers, they are extremely profitable for the country’s privateers of twenty-first-century war like DynCorp International and former Halliburton subsidiary KBR. As Chalmers Johnson noted, “Our installations abroad bring profits to civilian industries,” which win billions in contracts annually to “build and maintain our far-flung outposts.”

 Meanwhile, many of the communities hosting bases overseas never see the economic windfalls that US and local leaders regularly promise. Some areas, especially in poor rural communities, have seen short-term economic booms touched off by base construction. In the long-term, however, most bases rarely create sustainable, healthy local economies. Compared with other forms of economic activity, they represent unproductive uses of land, employ relatively few people for the expanses occupied, and contribute little to local economic growth. Research has consistently shown that when bases finally close, the economic impact is generally limited and in some cases actually positive—that is, local communities can end up better off when they trade bases for housing, schools, shopping complexes, and other forms of economic development.

 So Russia has invisible nuclear submarine with nuclear weapon on the board.Thay can blow up wast or east coast


Thay will decide which one,rather east i think,Than China army will invide USA from one side and Russia  from second
Hackers will turn off electricity and will shuted down all systems before attack

somebody can give me the picture? i really want to know the truth.

The fallacy of the official Western party line is obvious even to a layman, albeit a sharp one. Listen to an excellent analysis of the MH17 tragedy and lies surrounding it by a concerned French citizen Thierry Andre Laurent-Pellet. He conducted his own investigation, covering pretty much all incongruities and lies in the official pre-reports and the investigation in general.

Russia already has another warm water port in Sochi (Krasnodar Krai). Also, they have rights to use another warm water port, Sukhumi (located in the Republic of Abkhazia). The issue is that both these ports are located in the Black Sea, thereby making them vulnerable to a possible Turkish naval blockade in the Strait of Bosphorus.

Merkel is doing Russia's bidding as usually, since she's being blackmailed with her Stasi file.
Many of the "refugees" have been sponsored by the Russian secret services, to inflate a crisis and shift European public attention from Ukraine to this.

Chris Bambery:
What gradually goes unreported as well is that Moscow has been attempting to open up dialogue between the Assad regime and the Western-backed opposition, the non-jihadist opposition. There have been some talks which Putin has encouraged. It was also revealed in the British media that three years ago Moscow proposed similar deals – a deal whereby potentially Assad could have stood down and a new coalition government involving a Baath party could have been formed, as a solution. The Americans and the British rejected that, because they believed they were on the verge of over throwing Assad. So what the Russian are doing here is rather more complex than what the Western media is also indicating. They are intervening, yes, they help Assad, but they are also trying to find a political solution to the civil war in Syria.

RT: The US is now blaming the Assad regime for allowing extremists to get into Syria. Is that how you see it?

Gregory R. Copley: Not at all. In fact we’ve consistently reported from the ground, from inside sources there that the uprising against the Assad government was externally sponsored, predominantly by Turkey backed by Qatar, at that time by Saudi Arabia, and supported by the Obama White House. This is an externally generated war; there is no question about it. What is significant is that the continuation of this war to remove President [Bashar] Assad has generated the refugees. Most of them have flown through Turkey and are then being pushed into Europe by the Turkish government. So this is quite a significant strategic development, and Turkey is the cornerstone of this and yet it is supported by the US. The clear answer to resolving the war against Islamic State is to curtail Turkey’s support for the groups which make up Islamic State and for the IS’s direct contacts with the Turkish government itself.

they are trying to rebuild the Russian empire from the tzars, not the USSR.

USSR was such a big failure that even KGB people don't want to redo it.

 With the US military having withdrawn many of its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, most Americans would be forgiven for being unaware that hundreds of US bases and hundreds of thousands of US troops still encircle the globe. Although few know it, the United States garrisons the planet unlike any country in history, and the evidence is on view from Honduras to Oman, Japan to Germany, Singapore to Djibouti.

Like most Americans, for most of my life, I rarely thought about military bases. Scholar and former CIA consultant Chalmers Johnson described me well when he wrote in 2004, “As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize—or do not want to recognize—that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, our citizens are often ignorant of the fact that our garrisons encircle the planet.”

To the extent that Americans think about these bases at all, we generally assume they’re essential to national security and global peace. Our leaders have claimed as much since most of them were established during World War II and the early days of the Cold War. As a result, we consider the situation normal and accept that US military installations exist in staggering numbers in other countries, on other peoples’ land. On the other hand, the idea that there would be foreign bases on US soil is unthinkable.

While there are no freestanding foreign bases permanently located in the United States, there are now around 800 US bases in foreign countries. Seventy years after World War II and 62 years after the Korean War, there are still 174 US “base sites” in Germany, 113 in Japan, and 83 in South Korea, according to the Pentagon. Hundreds more dot the planet in around 80 countries, including Aruba and Australia, Bahrain and Bulgaria, Colombia, Kenya, and Qatar, among many other places. Although few Americans realize it, the United States likely has more bases in foreign lands than any other people, nation, or empire in history.

Oddly enough, however, the mainstream media rarely report or comment on the issue. For years, during debates over the closure of the prison at the base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, nary a pundit or politician wondered why the United States has a base on Cuban territory in the first place or questioned whether we should have one there at all. Rarely does anyone ask if we need hundreds of bases overseas or if, at an estimated annual cost of perhaps $156 billion or more, the United States can afford them. Rarely does anyone wonder how we would feel if China, Russia, or Iran built even a single base anywhere near our borders, let alone in the United States.

“Without grasping the dimensions of this globe-girdling Baseworld,” Chalmers Johnson insisted, “one can’t begin to understand the size and nature of our imperial aspirations or the degree to which a new kind of militarism is undermining our constitutional order.” Alarmed and inspired by his work and aware that relatively few have heeded his warnings, I’ve spent years trying to track and understand what he called our “empire of bases.” While logic might seem to suggest that these bases make us safer, I’ve come to the opposite conclusion: in a range of ways our overseas bases have made us all less secure, harming everyone from US military personnel and their families to locals living near the bases to those of us whose taxes pay for the way our government garrisons the globe.

We are now, as we’ve been for the last seven decades, a Base Nation that extends around the world, and it’s long past time that we faced that fact.

...

 The Costs of Garrisoning the World

As Johnson showed us, there are many reasons to question the overseas base status quo. The most obvious one is economic. Garrisons overseas are very expensive. According to the RAND Corporation, even when host countries like Japan and Germany cover some of the costs, US taxpayers still pay an annual average of $10,000 to $40,000 more per year to station a member of the military abroad than in the United States.

...

 The United States isn’t, however, the only country to control military bases outside its territory. Great Britain still has about seven bases and France five in former colonies. Russia has around eight in former Soviet republics. For the first time since World War II, Japan’s “Self-Defense Forces” have a foreign base in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa, alongside US and French bases there. South Korea, India, Chile, Turkey, and Israel each reportedly have at least one foreign base. There are also reports that China may be seeking its first base overseas. In total, these countries probably have about 30 installations abroad, meaning that the United States has approximately 95% of the world’s foreign bases.

His equipment has been confiscated, RT's editor-in-chief wrote in her Twitter

I've heard that there are some signs that points to greater Russian involvement in Syria:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/01/russia-puts-boots-on-the-ground-in-syria.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4696268,00.html
http://turkishnavy.net/2015/08/22/update-the-cargo-on-russian-landing-ship-nikolay-filchenkov/

If that's true, then the the IS and other extremists will have some tough times in the future.

Somebody wants the Saudis and their Arab neighbors to believe that Russia is intensifying its presence in Syria. That possibly explains a hysterical propaganda overload this weekend.

...

Russian military personnel have always been in Syria. Moscow has a base there. Furthermore, Vladimir Putin has hardly hidden the fact that his government has fulfilled defense contracts with Damascus. That would require trainers on the ground.

So why did Russia’s involvement in Syria suddenly become such massive news? Is it because relations between the Kremlin and Saudi Arabia are rapidly improving? Or maybe it's down to Washington's fears that Moscow may decide to take out ISIS, unilaterally, or with European approval, freezing America out?

Speaking on supporting Syria with armament, Putin said this concerns the contracts signed some five or seven years ago.

"We consider various possibilities, but now what you have mentioned [participation in military operations] is not yet on our agenda," Putin told reporters at the Eastern Economic Forum.

"We will hold consultations with our Syrian friends and the countries of the region," he said.

"Speaking that we are ready to do it today is premature, but we are providing Syria with a rather serious support and equipment and training forces with armament," Putin stressed.

Russia will not enter into negotiations on restructuring Ukrainian debt, said Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, and Kiev must repay the $3 billion it owes Moscow in full by the December deadline.

"The $3 billion that we invested should be returned to Russia at the end of the year. We want to invest the funds in infrastructure and other projects, important to Russia. We need the money, especially in the present circumstances...Therefore we demand from our colleagues to return the full amount of the debt in accordance with the schedule,” said the minister on Monday.

President Vladimir Putin has said that the further development of the Ukrainian crisis depended on the patience of the Ukrainian people, who might one day decide to end the “bacchanalia” performed by the Kiev regime.

“This does not depend on us, this depends on Ukraine itself and on the Ukrainian people – on how long the Ukrainian people will be able to put up with this bacchanalia,” Putin said when asked by reporters if he had an opinion on future development of the events in Ukraine.

Putin added that in his view the Ukrainian people had reason to be discontent.

“I consider it an insult to the Ukrainian people that their country has been put under foreign management – all key positions in the government and now in regional administrations are now occupied by foreigners. Is it possible that Ukraine is lacking civilized and honest people and qualified managers? I think there are such people in this country.”

Wake up mate, Europe is doing the very same thing since centuries, so I think they are ready for that . Well, no offence but maybe Ukraine is in Europe, but it still considered as a remote shithole by most westerners. Actually most of my english colleagues doesn't understand why the "ruskies" keep brawling between each other... and to be honest they doesn't even seem to be interested.

No military hardware, weaponry or people bearing arms have crossed the Russian-Ukrainian border during nearly a year of observations, said Paul Picard, the chief of the OSCE monitoring mission deployed at border crossing points in Donetsk and Gukovo.

“We have not seen any military equipment crossing the Donetsk or Gukovo checkpoints,” Picard said at a press conference in Russia’s southern city of Rostov-on-Don. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe observers have also “never seen people crossing the border with weapons. The border guard and customs strictly watch over this,” he added.

Most intensive shelling was reported from the Oktyabrsky settlement, where the military used arms and mortars of 82 and 120mm calibre

The Ukrainian military over past 24 hours violated the ceasefire regime four times and made five provocations, the militia of the self-proclaimed Luhansk People’s Republic [LPR] said on Saturday.

your word is no truth, you're a real propagandist
false shall be punished sooner or later, remember that