7549 and Counting 22790 Views January 26, 2023 Speeches, Statements and Interviews The Saker The Essential Saker IV: Messianic Narcissism's Agony by a Thousand Cuts Order Now The Essential Saker III: Chronicling The Tragedy, Farce And Collapse of the Empire in the Era of Mr MAGA Order Now Tagged Col. Douglas Macgregor
Andrei M.’s analysis: Abrams and Leopard 2’s meet overwhelming artillery, rockets and missiles.
Result: burned tanks, dead Ukies and NATO ‘advisers’.
There’s math and science that will be applied to tanks, be they 30, 50 or 100.
Martyanov explains it all.
Thanks for the interesting information.
Info on Boris’ family. Stanley is his father.
In July 1965, the family moved to Crouch End in north London, and in February 1966 they relocated to Washington, D.C., where Stanley had gained employment with the World Bank.Stanley then took a job with a policy panel on population control, and moved the family to Norwalk, Connecticut, in June.
It’s valuable how Andrei Martyanov illuminates military techniques to the average viewer. A thousand articles in newspapers over a decade wouldn’t give one a clue about how military maneuvers with heavy fighting equipment are executed.
In a simple manner he brings what news media tends to gloss over again and again.
A person might read again and again articles over his life and have no clue what journalist are writing about except what conclusions they want to peddle about military issues.
A short video provides us a clear picture on how military and it’s equipment are used. I guess that is the difference in getting an subject matter expert who doesn’t bullshit his viewers into conclusions but instead educates so that the viewer can forever understand how military equipment is used in war.
He equips us with knowledge to navigate the jumble of facts and words that the media and politicians and TV talking heads bombards us with on daily basis and arrive at the truth.
So now the German Foreign Minister is admitting ( stupidly) that Germany is at War with Russia. What a sick puppy. I can’t wait until Russia takes the War to those countries sending weapons. They deserve what’s coming anf further I don’t see NATO as ablock wanting to be involved. Those cowards will count themselves lucky not to be the first struck & will pull their stuoid heads in very quickly.
It’s all right to have Ukarine lose its manpower -they won’t want casualties on theior own soil !
I really find it disappointing when commentators which seem to be smart otherwise, still talk about western european leaders as “cowards”. In what sense is Baerbock a coward? She has been selected by the elite of the Empire of Evil to play the role of german foreign minister. The same goes for Habeck, Scholz, Macron, Rutte and all the others. These people are actors. Actors are neither brave nor cowards. They play a role and that’s it. They don’t have any agency. This is the consequence of the bipolar world that the USA and the Soviet Union have created in the 1940s. Consider Germany. First the USA selected the guys who would get media licences. Then they selected the people who would be allowed to form parties. Then they infiltrated those parties and placed easily blackmailable people everywhere (Epstein strategy). Finally, they promoted feminism and all the other isms to create a pool of “natural traitors” which could be promoted into leadership positions. A woman will never fight for her nation if she has the option to cosy up to the foreign imperial overlords. That is just a natural instinct. There is nothing wrong with this instinct as long as people with this instinct are not artificially promoted into positions where this instinct has deadly consequences. After 80 years of systematically undermining the german society the Empire of Evil is in full control of the country. Therefore it seems absolutely nonesensical to ascribe cowardice or stupidity or whatever other negative characteristic to the people who occupy the positions which give them formal control over the levers of power in Germany. Those people are only supposed to play their role. They don’t take decisions. Why then repeat this idiocy of the “stupid, lazy and cowardly” elites of western Europe?
Agreed, it’s the working and middle-classes (admittedly fast disappearing) who are the cowards, voting in trash, accepting of foreign wars on weaker states, making them complicit in the crimes of their governments.
Baerbock, who incidentally spent her sabbatical period being groomed as a CIA Agent in America (much like most of these cunts at the heart of Europe.gov), is a TRAITOR.
Germans would love to be resurrected, liberated, from their Anglo-Zionist masters. Anyone voting for slime like Baerbock deserves everything coming their way.
If you think that Germans deserve what is coming their way, then think about this: By the end of the 90s Russia was on the brink to get the exact same treatment that Germany has been getting for the past 78 years, namely total domination by a foreign elite. The only thing that saved the Russians were two things: i) an army which controlled the largest nuclear arsenal of the world; ii) a KGB that was still functioning and which had the instruments to regain influence in Russia; iii) the largest natural ressources of all countries in the world (which guarantee economic survival even in the darkest periods). If the first two forces had not been there to bring Putin into power and if the ressources had not been there to give him a fighting chance, then Russia would have been devoured in much the same way in which all of western Europe is being devoured. And we could laconically comment on such an event by saying “A country which votes for a drunkard like Yelzin deserves what is coming its way.” Would you find that ok? Or do you think that the Germans deserve it more because the Russians and Americans have colluded to strip Germany of any and all instruments which could allow it to regain its sovereignty? Or do you think the Germans deserve it because for them it would be far more difficult to get independent because they have essentially zero natural ressources and could thus always be blackmailed by Russia and the USA?
It takes very little logic to determine the best choice of alliances for Germany, considering the proximity of Russia and its natural resources which have for decades at least been the source of energy and industrial power for the Germans. It is no flip of the coin. The US has Zero to offer and most certainly fracked gas in very limited supply is no option and will quickly evaporate as the US economy circles the drain. The German population is simply in the same cauldron as is the US population, sitting ducks just waiting for all of their feathers to be plucked, as is the entire populations of Europe controlled by a compromised and captured class of elites herded by the US into the killing Schute called the EU. There is no easy way for them or for the US citizens, but if we don’t resist and escape these dead end governments, then we are all hopelessly enslaved dead men walking.
Hard to say. The USA’s propaganda machine warps our perceptions every now and then. One can argue that it creates the illusion that these politicians you mention aren’t puppets and/or that the countries they ostensibly represent, especially Germany, are sovereign and independent.
In a similar light there is the tendency to attribute Baerbock’s declaration of war with sone sort of ‘revenge’ for losing WWII, as if Berlin hasn’t been controlled by the USA (and UK?) since 1945 (not to dismiss the possibility that Baerbock’s own ancestry is Nazi).
Case in point is the commentariat on a Jimmy Dore video from the RSS feed (you’ll have to look deep enough to find it. The video itself clearly states that the whole endgame is for the US to pit Germany and Russia against each other. Clearly some haven’t watched it, instead jumping in to accuse Germany of revanchism while conveniently ignoring the US military bases on its soil.)
I have already pointed out in my reply to WTFUD (see above) that Germany has not been a fully sovereign country since 1945. And there is a good chance that it won’t ever become one again. At the end of the 90s Russia has managed to avert becoming a fully occupied country which is exploited by foreign elites. Why has that happened? Certainly not because the normal Russians are particularly brave. It has happened because the elite Russians had both the means and the incentives to regain their independence. Means: they had an enormous army with the largest nuclear arsenal and a corresponding military industrial complex with all the important know how and production capacity; they also had the remnants of the KGB and other intelligence services which had not yet been completely infiltratet by the western powers; and they had an undestroyable economic base guaranteed by the ressources which they could extract from their enormous landmass.
The gigantic amount of ressources provided by the Russian landmass was important not only because it was part of the ingredients that allowed Putin to prepare Russia for the reconquista of its full sovereignty. It was also important in terms of the incentive structure for the Russian elite. The control of Russia’s ressources guarantees that Russia’s elite has the means to be an important player on the world stage. Of course they can squander this advantage. But as long as they avoid shooting themselves into their own knees they will be enourmously rich and powerful players. If they sell out their control over these ressources in exchange for some short run gains, then the satanists who control the West would eventually beat them down into full submission in the same way in which they have done with the elites of western Europe.
Compare this with Germany. In 1945 there was no german controlled intelligence service anymore, there was no german controlled army anymore, there was no german controlled military complex anymore (sure they could build weapons which were no danger to the US, but Germany has not developed any new types of weapons since 1945; instead all its rocket technology has been stolen by the USA and Russia) there was no access to ressources anymore which the Americans and the Russians could not easily close off.
Now what could the Germans ever hope to gain from an attempt to reconquer their sovereignty? They know that the country is full of powerful traitors whose positions (in terms of wealth) are 100% controlled by the USA. Just as the USA has created Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs to attack those countries from within (giving them all kind of priviledges in their trade with the West and support in other forms) the USA has created media giants and all kind of export giants which depend 100% on the US-system. Germany has become completely blackmailable.
Suppose Germany did manage to kick out all the US controlled traitors and to regain sovereignty. What would this sovereignty look like? Well we would go back 120 years to restart the events of the 20th century again. The US, UK and France would make peace with Russia and would convince the Russians to ally with them to beat down Germany, just as it had happened before WWI. The Russians would probably do so again, because Germany is its closest competitor and thus Russia’s first potential enemy. So we would have another two-front war against Germany. Once Germany is defeated the US and UK (with France half involved, half pretending to be on the sidelines) would turn once more against the Russians. Russia made a very very very big mistake prior to WWI when it decided to ally with France and Britain against the Germans. They did not realize that eliminating the Germans made it more easy for the US and the UK to control Europe to their own detriment. The elimination of an important player in the middle, which could never become a real danger to Russia because it was too dependent on foreign natural ressources, would put the European dominated world on a path to the unipolarity that we have seen for the past 40 years.
And the best of all of this is that the citizens of the USA think of themselves as the great benefactors of the Germans. “We have brought them freedom.” “We have brought them democracy.” “We have protected them from the Soviets.” This is what the typical boomer in the USA thinks. They never hear from anyone that their country has enslaved Germany. Why would they care about the real destiny of Germany given that they themselves have given away the control over their own country to a foreign elite? If you don’t realize that you are exploited yourself, why would you realize that the same people who are exploiting your own country are also exploiting other countries?
That’s the whole idea, yes. The whole elephant in the room… that conveniently gets left out for some reason – every time RT does a news item where someone in Berlin does/says something stupid with/about Russia, such as Baerbock’s recent declaration of war, someone in the comments e.g. laments that Germany wasn’t wiped off the map in 1945. This is in stark contrast to Putin, Lavrov and Zakharova who already know, and have said ad nauseam, that today’s Germany is controlled by the USA – so then, why does said commentariat not share the same wisdom?
Has World War III Begun?
That’s a serious question and deserves serious consideration by investors. A wave of analysts and commentators have warned that the war in Ukraine could spin out of control and escalate into World War III.
One variation on that theme is that the war could escalate into a nuclear war with tactical nuclear weapons deployed. Most point a finger at Russia as the party that will launch a nuclear strike out of desperation at a failing campaign in Ukraine.
Actually, the opposite is true.
The Russian campaign is not failing (it has been on hold for several months awaiting the right conditions to launch a winter offensive). You just don’t hear about it in the mainstream media, which is essentially a propaganda outlet for Ukraine.
And the party most likely to use nuclear weapons first is the U.S. in order to save face and destabilize Russia once Ukraine is on the brink of collapse.
Many people have a hard time believing that. They’ve been told that Putin is the devil incarnate and would probably like to destroy the world. We like to think that in modern times we’re sophisticated and above falling prey to propaganda. Unfortunately, it isn’t true
The fact is the U.S. did wage the only nuclear war in history from Aug. 6–9, 1945 and had a successful outcome. I’m not getting into the morality of it here, one way or the other. I’m just being objective.
Either way, another nuclear war could not be contained and it would be tantamount to World War III. It amounts to the same thing.
But my point is different. It’s not that we may be headed to World War III; it’s that we’re already there. The issue of when wars in general and world wars in particular begin and end is not as clear cut as many believe. There are many examples.
When Does a War Officially Begin? It’s Complicated
When did World War I begin? There were many precursors including the Agadir Crisis in Morocco (1911), the Italian-Turkish War (1911–12) and the Balkan Wars (1912–1913).
Clearly, the First World War was in a countdown phase as early as 1911.
More specifically, did World War I begin with the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914? The Austria-Hungary declaration of war on Serbia on July 28, 1914? Germany’s declaration of war on Russia on Aug. 1, 1914?
The fact is the beginning of World War I (then called the Great War) was a series of blunders. There were many other mistakes in addition to those just mentioned. Of course, the U.S. did not enter World War I until April 6, 1917.
The end of World War I was also a muddle. Most students recite Nov. 11, 1918, as the day the war ended. That’s not quite right. That is the day an armistice was signed and the shooting stopped. But an armistice is a ceasefire, not a peace treaty. The actual Versailles Treaty that ended the war was signed on June 28, 1919.
There’s nothing new about blurry lines on when wars begin and end. The Korean War stopped with an armistice signed on July 27, 1953, but it’s still technically not over; there has never been a peace treaty.
The most interesting case (and the one most pertinent to the war in Ukraine) is the beginning of World War II.
When Did World War II Really Begin?
Most Americans reflexively date this from Dec. 7, 1941, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. That’s the right date for U.S. entry, but of course, the war began on Sept. 1, 1939, when Germany invaded Poland. The U.K. and France declared war on Germany on Sept. 3.
Yet did World War II actually begin much earlier?
Japan invaded Manchuria on Sept. 18, 1931. They established a puppet regime there called Manchukuo led by Emperor Puyi (the infamous “Last Emperor” of China, and a descendant of the Qing Dynasty). This was followed by a full-scale invasion of China by Japan in 1937 and the horrific Rape of Nanjing in December 1937.
Of course, the European and Pacific theaters of World War II were different and geographically separated, but it is at least arguable that World War II began in China in 1931 or 1937 at the latest. I lean to that view personally.
And let’s not ignore the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) in which Germany bombed Guernica, Russia financed the Popular Front and mercenaries formed the International Brigades, including the American Abraham Lincoln Brigade. The spectacle of the U.S. and Russia fighting Germany on Spanish soil was a neat preview of World War II.
The influx of foreign fighters to the war in Ukraine offers a modern parallel.
The Case for the Start of World War III
So the case for fuzzy beginnings and endings of wars is clear. What’s the case for saying World War III has already begun based on the situation in Ukraine?
The first point is the number of nations directly involved. It’s nonsense to say that NATO members are cheering on Ukraine from the sidelines. Those countries are directly involved in supplying weapons, intelligence, money, ammunition and boots on the ground.
Polish troops are operating as mercenaries in Ukrainian uniforms. U.S. and U.K. special operators are inside Ukraine supplying intelligence, weapons training and help with logistics. (These special operators are often hired as contractors by the CIA and MI6 to disguise their connections to U.S. and U.K. intelligence.)
Poland and Lithuania are supplying sophisticated Leopard tanks to Ukraine. The U.K. is preparing to supply their most sophisticated tank — the Challenger II, as well. The U.S. is providing Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Stryker armored vehicles.
The U.S. is also supplying HIMARS (long-distance guided missile artillery) and Patriot anti-missile batteries. The West is providing Ukraine with ammunition, cash, drones, satellite imaging, signals intelligence (SIGINT) and human intelligence (HUMINT).
Russia has been no slouch when it comes to enlisting allies and mercenaries. The Wagner Group, a privately owned mercenary army, has been on the front lines near Soledar and Bakhmut.
Russia is getting drones from Turkey and Iran. Fighters are arriving from Syria. China is providing financial support and offering technology that helps Russia to build its weapons and continue its missile attacks.
Up the Escalation Ladder
Physical warfighting has occurred in Poland (a misguided Ukrainian missile), Belarus (also a misguided Ukrainian missile), Russia (drone attacks on airbases inside Russia with nuclear weapons nearby) and Germany (the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines). There have also been naval battles on the Black Sea.
Of course, a long list of countries is providing support for Ukraine by participating in U.S.- and EU-led financial and economic sanctions.
The countries now directly involved in the war in Ukraine with weapons, money, intelligence, mercenaries or financial sanctions include the U.S., the U.K., Germany, France, Poland, Lithuania, Canada, Australia, Ukraine, Russia, China, Syria, Iran, Turkey, Japan, Romania, Belarus and Moldova. These countries span four continents. The economic ramifications are global. If this is not a world war, it’s not clear what is.
The Third World War is here. It may be at the 1937 stage rather than the 1941 stage. Let’s hope that status prevails. It likely will not.
Importantly for investors, this war is not close to a conclusion. It is far more likely to expand in terms of affected nations, financial sanctions and kinetic warfare.
The danger of escalation to a nuclear exchange is real and growing. Will anyone stop it before it’s too ..
I have for some time put the start date of WW3 to ’91, the precise moment being a unified Germany as a first recogning Slovenias sesession from Yugoslavia.
An alternative date can be put at the fall of the Berlin wall in ’89. I was for certain ‘helped’ along, and not a purely organic event … better understood after the concept of color revolutions and regime changes, became public knowledge.