Obama only accepts "yes men/women" as his advisers so it's not like he's going to get a balanced briefing on things or balanced options on matters. Obama hates Putin, that much is known, but I doubt Obama is willing to risk war over that. Obama has wanted to be and continues to strive to be known as a "peace president". Obama wants to be able to say he got America out of the Bush wars, didn't start any new wars, and if possible to close Gitmo and make some kind of peace deal with someone (at the moment he's working on Iran) so he can claim as a major legacy him being an advocate for and bringer of peace. The neo-cons in the Republican Party are much more inclined to risk war with Russia (or almost anyone else) than is Obama. Hillary may well be an unknown factor in such matters as the Clinton way is often to direct policy in accord with what would be favorable for them financially and/or politically. Hillary has come under at least a bit of fire for helping bring about a deal that was in Russia's favor. That may or may not be a clue as to how Hillary would lean. While I don't agree with all of Bush the Seconds foreign affair policies, at least during his time in office post-9-11 his policies and agenda were pretty well known and followed. With Obama that's not been the case. Obama has been all over the place with his foreign policy while making it clear he's ashamed of America and considers America to always be the problem and he's been willing to risk American lives and American security to show that. History indicates that affairs between nations, especially when involving matters of finance, power and war (which often all go together) are often dictated or moved along by wealthy power players and in more modern times, the press (media) have played a larger roll.
What year goes by without something that could be considered a "major event" occurring in or regarding Israel? None. The same could be said of other nations as well. Famine is coming where? There is virtually no time when there isn't famine in some part of the earth. What we do know without a doubt is that the return of Christ is closer now than ever before.
I understand the "weeks" are understood to be referring to years. What I don't understand is where the idea of there being a huge gap of "weeks" (years) between 69 and 70. Why are the first 69 weeks (of years) consecutive but suddenly there is an indefinite (and huge) number of "weeks" (of years) that don't count until one day the 70th week of years finally occurs?
This is the key point. If we are to take Scripture literally then why are the 70 weeks not literal? Where is it stated that the 70 weeks will consist of 69 consecutive weeks which will be followed by hundreds of weeks that don't count until at some unspecified time the 70th week will finally begin? Unless or until this key point can be settled much of the rest is left hanging.
It's difficult to tell just what's really going on in the Middle East. As reported in the news our own government is either misleading or outright lying to us with regards to just what our forces are doing and accomplishing (or failing to accomplish) in the Middle East. If Israel launched strikes against the Syrian army which hampered their fight against ISIS that would be to Israel's potential hurt rather than good. That fact should prompt some thought over the matter. While I have no doubt Israel very much opposes Russia sending air defenses to Iran, and they might want to signal such in a strong way, I wouldn't link that to what's occurred (or is occurring) in Ukraine. Israel upset Obama by refusing to condemn Russian actions with regards to Ukraine. Israel stated what was going on between Russia and Ukraine was a local, distant matter which had no impact upon Israeli interests. There is so much disinformation coming out of the region, coupled with lies and propaganda by virtually every nation involved, it's difficult to know with certainty many of the details. My guess, and that's all it would be at this time, is Israel may show disapproval of the arms deal with Iran in some manner but I don't think they would link that to Ukraine nor do I think they would do so in a manner which would directly or indirectly help ISIS.