“What would a war between Russia and the USA look like?”
This must be the question which I am most frequently asked. This is also the question to which I hear the most outlandish and ill-informed responses to. I have addressed this question in the past and those interested in this topic can consult the following articles:
- Remembering the important lessons of the Cold War
- Making sense of Obama’s billion dollar hammer
- Why the US-Russian nuclear balance is as solid as ever
- Short reminder about US and Russian nuclear weapons
- Thinking the unthinkable
- The Russia-U.S. Conventional Military Balance
It would be pointless for me to repeat it all here, so I will try to approach the issue from a somewhat different angle, but I would strongly recommend that those interested take the time to read this articles which, while mostly written in 2014 and 2015, are still basically valid, especially in the methodology used to tackle this issue. All I propose to do today is to debunk a few popular clichés about modern warfare in general. My hope is that by debunking them I will provide you with some tools to cut through the nonsense which the corporate media loves to present to us as “analysis”.
Cliché No 1: the US military has a huge conventional advantage over Russia
It all depends by what you mean by “advantage”. The US armed forces are much larger than the Russian ones, that is true. But, unlike the Russians ones, they are spread all over the planet. In warfare what matters is not the size of your military, but how much of it is actually available for combat in the theater of military operations TMO (conflict area). For example, if in any one given TMO you have only 2 airfields each capable of sustaining air operations for, say 100 aircraft, it will do you no good to have 1000 aircraft available. You might have heard the sentence “civilians focus on firepower, soldiers on logistics“. This is true. Modern military forces are extremely “support heavy” meaning that for one tank, aircraft or artillery piece you need a huge and sophisticated support line making it possible for the tank, aircraft or artillery piece to operate in a normal way. Simply put – if you tank is out of fuel or spares – it stops. So it makes absolutely no sense to say, for example, that the USA has 13’000 aircraft and Russia only 3’000. This might well be true, but it is also irrelevant. What matters is only how many aircraft the US and NATO could have ready to engage on the moment of the initiation of combat operations and what their mission would be. The Israelis have a long record of destroying the Arab air forces on the ground, rather than in the air, in surprise attacks which are the best way to negate a numerical advantage of an adversary. The reality is that the USA would need many months to assemble in western Europe a force having even a marginal hope to take on the Russian military. And the reality also is that nothing could force the Russians to just sit and watch while such a force is being assembled (the biggest mistake Saddam Hussein made).
Cliché No 2: an attacker needs a 3:1 or even 4:1 advantage over the defender.
Well, this is one “kinda true”, especially on a tactical level. There is an often used as a general rule of thumb that being in the defense gives you a 3:1 advantage meaning that if you have 1 battalion on the defense you should could about 3 battalions on the offense in order to hope for a victory. But when looking at an operational or, even more so, strategic level, this rule is completely false. Why? Because the defending side has a huge disadvantage: it is always the attacker who gets to decide when to attack, where and how. For those interested by this topic I highly recommend the book “Surprise Attack: Lessons for Defense Planning” by Richard Betts which, while relatively old (1982) and very focused on the Cold War, provides a very interesting and thorough discussion of the advantages and risks of a surprise attack. This is a fascinating topic which I cannot discuss in detail here, but let’s just say that a successfully pulled off surprise attack almost totally negates the advantage in theoretical forces ratios for the defender. Let me give you a simple example: imagine a front line of 50 km in which each 5 km are defended on both sides by a one division. So each sides has 10 divisions, each responsible for the defense of 5km of front, right? According to the 3:1 rule, side A needs 30 divisions to overcome the 10 divisions in the defense? Right? Wrong! What side A can do is concentrate 5 of its divisions on a 10km wide front and put the other five in the defense. On that 10km wide front of attack side now had 5 attacking divisions against 2 defending ones while on the rest of the front, side A has 5 defending divisions against 8 (potentially) attacking ones. Notice that now side B does not have a 3:1 advantage to overcome side A’s defenses (the actual ration is now 8:5). In reality what B will do is rush more divisions to defend the narrow 10km sector but that, in turn means that B now has less divisions to defense the full front. From here on you can make many assumptions: side B can counter-attack instead of defending, side B can defend in depth (in several “echelons”, 2 or even 3), side A could also begin by faking attack on one sector of the front and then attack elsewhere, or side A can send, say, one reinforced battalion to move really fast and create chaos deep in the defenses of B. My point here is simply that this 3:1 rules is purely a tactical rule of thumb and that in real warfare theoretical forces ratios (norms) require much more advanced calculations, including the consequences of a surprise attack.
Cliché No 3: high technology wins the day
That is a fantastically false statement and yet this myth is sacred dogma amongst civilians, especially in the USA. In the real world, high teach weapons systems, while very valuable, also come with a long list of problems the first one of which is simply cost.
[Sidebar: when I was studying military strategy in the late 1990s one of our teachers (from the US Air Force) presented us with a graph showing the increasing cost of a single US fighter aircraft from the 1950s to the 1990s. He then projected this trend in the future and jokingly concluded that by roughly 2020 (iirc) the USA would only have the money to afford one single and very, very expensive fighter. This was a joke, of course, but it had a very serious lesson in it: runways costs can result in insanely expensive weapon systems which can only be produced at very few copies and which are very risky to engage].
Technology is also typically fragile and requires a very complex support, maintenance and repair network. It makes no sense to have the best tank on the planet if it spends most of its time in major repairs.
Furthermore, one of the problems of sophisticated high tech gear is that its complexity makes it possible to attack it in many different ways. Take, for example, an armed drone. It can be defeated by:
- shooting it out of the sky (active defense)
- blinding or otherwise disabling its sensors (active defense)
- jamming its communications with the operator (active defense)
- jamming or disabling its navigation system (active defense)
- camouflage/deception (passive defense)
- providing it with false targets (passive defense)
- protecting targets by, for example, burying them (passive defense)
- remaining mobile and/or decentralized and/or redundant (passive defense)
There are many more possible measures, it all depends on the actual threat. They key here is, again, cost and practicality: how much does it cost to develop, build and deploy an advanced weapon system versus the cost of one (or several) counter-measures.
Finally, history has shown over and over again that willpower is far more important that technology. Just look at the absolutely humiliating and total defeat of the multi-billion high tech Israeli Defense Forces by Hezbollah in 2006. The Israelis used their entire air force, a good part of their navy, their very large artillery, their newest tanks and they were defeated, horribly defeated, by probably about less than 2000 Hezbollah fighters, and even those where not the very best Hezbollah had (Hezbollah kept the best ones north of the Litani river). Likewise, the NATO air campaign against the Serbian Army Crops in Kosovo will go down in history as one of the worst defeats of a huge military alliance backed by high tech weapons by a small country equipped with clearly dated weapon systems.
[Sidebar: on both these wars what really “saved the day” for the AngloZionists is a truly world-class propaganda machine which successfully concealed the magnitude of the defeat of the AngloZionist forces. But the information is out there, and you can look it up for yourself].
Cliché No 4: big military budgets win the day
That is also a myth which is especially cherished in the USA. How often have you heard something like “the billion dollar B-2” or the “6 billion dollar Nimitz class aircraft carrier”? The assumption here is that if the B-2 or the Nimitz costs so much money they must be truly formidable. But are they?
Take the three hundred million dollar plus dollar F-22A “Raptor” and then look up the “deployment” subsection in the Wikipedia article about the F-22A. What have we got? A few Russian T-95 (date of introduction: 1956) bomber intercepts and one Iranian F-4 Phantom (date of introduction: 1960) interception. That, a few bombing runs in Syria and a motley assortment of overseas deployments for PR reasons. That’s it! On paper the F-22A is an awesome aircraft and, in many ways is really is, but the real life reality is that the F-22A was only used on missions which an F-16, F-15 or F-18 could have done for cheaper and even done it better (the F-22A is a crappy bomber, if only because it was never designed to be one).
I already hear the counter argument: the F-22A was designed for a war against the USSR and had that war happened it would have performed superbly. Yeah, maybe, except that less than 200 were ever built. Except that in order to maintain a low radar cross section the F-22 has a tiny weapons bay. Except that the Soviets deployed infra-red search and track systems on all their MiG-29s (a very non-high-teach fighter) and their SU-27s. Except that the Soviets had already begun developing “anti-stealth” radars and that nowadays the F-22A is basically useless against modern Russian radars. None of that negates that in terms of technology, the F-22A is a superb achievement and a very impressive air superiority fighter. But one which would not have made a significant difference in a real war between the USA and the Soviet Union.
Cliché No 5: big military alliances help win wars
One more myth about wars which is cherished in the West: alliances win wars. The typical example is, of course, WWII: in theory, Germany, Italy and Japan formed the “Axis powers” while 24 nations (including Mongolia and Mexico) formed the “Allies“. As we all know, the Allies defeated the Axis. That is utter nonsense. The reality is very different. Hitler’s forces included about 2 million Europeans for 15 different countries which added 59 divisions, 23 brigades, a number of separate regiments, battalions and legions to the German forces (source: here, here, here and here). Furthermore, the Red Army account for no less than 80% of all the German losses (in manpower and equipment) during the war. All the others, including the USA and the UK, shared the puny 20% or less and joined the war when Hitler was already clearly defeated. Some will mention the various resistance movements which did resist the Nazis, often heroically. I don’t deny their valor and contribution, but it is important to realize that no resistance movement in Europe ever defeated a single German Wehrmacht or SS division (10 to 15 thousand men). In comparison, in Stalingrad alone the Germans lost 400’000 soldiers, the Romanians 200’000, the Italians 130’000, and the Hungarians 120,000 for a total loss of 850’000 soldiers. In the Kursk battle the Soviets defeated 50 German divisions counting about 900’000 soldiers.
[Sidebar: While resistance movements were typically engaged in sabotage, diversion or attacks on high value targets, they were never designed to attack regular military formations, not even a company (120 men or so). The German forces in the USSR were structures into several “Army Groups” (Heeresgruppe) each of which contained 4-5 Armies (each with about 150’000 soldiers). What I am trying to illustrate with these figures is that the magnitude of the combat operations on the Eastern Front was not only different from what any resistance movement can deal with, but also different from any other theater of military operations during WWII, at least for land warfare – the naval war in the Pacific was also fought on a huge scale].
The historical record is that one unified military force under one command usually performs much better than large alliances. Or, to put it differently, when large alliances do form, there is typically the “one big guy” who really matters and everybody else is more or less a sideshow (of course, the individual combatant who gets attacked, maimed and killed does not feel that he is a “sideshow”, but that does not change the big picture).
Speaking of NATO the reality is that there is no NATO outside the USA. The USA is the only country in NATO which really matters. Not just in terms of numbers and firepower, but also in terms of intelligence, force projection, mobility, logistics, etc. Every single US commanders knows and understands that perfectly, and while he will be impeccably courteous to his non-US colleagues in Mons or during cocktail parties in Brussels, if the proverbial bovine excreta hits the fan and somebody has to go and fight the Russians, the Americans will count solely on themselves and will be happy of the rest of the NATO members get out of the way without delay.
Cliché No 6: forward deployment gives a major advantage
Day after day we hear the Russians complaining that NATO has moved to their borders, that thousands of US troops are now deployed in the Baltics or Poland, that the US has deployed anti-ballistic missiles in Romania and that USN ships are constantly hugging the Russian coast in the Black and Baltic Sea. And it’s all true and very deplorable. But where the Russians are being a tad disingenuous is when they try to present all this as a military threat to Russia.
The truth is that from a purely military point of view, deploying US forces in the Baltic states of sending USN ships into the Black Sea are very bad ideas, in the first case because the three Baltics states are indefensible anyway, and it the second case because the Black Sea is, for all practical purposes, a Russian lake where the Russian military can detect and destroy any ship within 30 minutes or less. The American are quite aware of that and if they decided to strike at Russia they would not do if from forward deployed ship but with long-range standoff weapons such as ballistic or cruise missiles.
[Sidebar: the notion that Russia would ever want to attack any of the Baltic states or sink a USN ship is ridiculous and I am in no way suggesting that this might happen. But when looking at purely military issues you look at capabilities, not intentions.]
The range of modern weapons is such that in case of war in Europe there will probably not be a real “front” and a “rear”, but being closer to the enemy still makes you easier to detect and exposes you to a wider array of possible weapons. Simply put, the closer you are to Russian firepower, electronic warfare systems, reconnaissance networks and personnel, the greater number of potential threats you need to worry about.
I would not go as far as to say that forward deployment does not give you any advantage, it does: your weapon systems can reach further, the flight time of your missiles (ballistic and cruise) is shorter, your aircraft need less fuel to get to their mission area, etc. But these advantages come at a very real cost. Currently forward deployed US forces are, at best, a trip-wire force whose aim is political: to try to demonstrate commitment. But they are not any real threat to Russia.
Cliché No 7: The US and NATO are protecting East European countries
On paper and in the official NATO propaganda, all of Europe and the USA are ready, if needed, to start WWIII to defend Estonia from the revanchist Russian hordes. Judging at how the tiny Baltic states and Poland constantly “bark” at Russia and engage in an apparently never-ending streams of infantile but nonetheless arrogant provocations, folks in eastern Europe apparently believe that. They think that they are part of NATO, part of the EU, part of the “civilized West” and that their AngloZionist patrons will protect them from these scary Russkies. That belief just shows how stupid they are.
I wrote above that the USA is the only real military force in NATO and that US military and political leaders all know that. And they are right. Non-US NATO capabilities are a joke. What in the world do you think the, say, Belgian or Polish armed forces are in reality. That’s right – both a joke and a target. How about the glorious and invincible Portuguese and Slovenians? Same deal. The reality is that non-US NATO armed forces are just fig leaves hiding the fact that Europe is a US colony – some fig leaves are bigger, other are smaller. But even the biggest fig leaves (Germany and France) are still only that – a disposable utensil at the service of the real masters of the Empire. Should a real war ever break up in Europe, all these pompous little European statelets will be told to get the fuck out of the way and let the big boys take care of business. Both the Americans and the Russians know that, but for political reasons they will never admit this publicly.
Here I have to admit that I cannot prove that. All I can do is offer a personal testimony. While I was working on my Master’s Degree in Strategic Studies in Washington DC I had the opportunity to meet and spend time with a lot of US military personnel ranging from Armored Cavalry officers deployed in the Fulda Gap to a Chief of Naval Operations. The first thing that I will say about them is that they were all patriots and, I think, excellent officers. They were all very capable of distinguishing political nonsense (like the notion of forward deploying US carriers to strike at the Kola Peninsula) from how the US would really fight. One senior Pentagon officer attached to the Office of Net Assessment was very blunt about that and declared to our classroom “no US President will ever sacrifice Chicago to protect Munich”. In other words, yes, the US would fight the Soviets to protect Europe, but the US will never escalate that fight to the point were the US territory would be threatened by Soviet nukes.
The obvious flaw here is that this assumes that escalation can be planned and controlled. Well, escalation is being planned in numerous offices, agencies and departments, but all these models usually show that it is very hard to control. As for de-escalation, I don’t know of any good models describing it (but my personal exposure to that kind of things is now very old, maybe things have changed since the late 1990s?). Keep in mind that both the USA and Russia have the use of nuclear weapons to prevent a defeat in conventional warfare included in their military doctrines. So if we believe, as I do, that the US is not willing to go nuclear to, say, save Poland then this basically means that the US is not even willing to defend Poland by conventional means or, at least, not defend it very much.
Again, the notion that Russia would attack anybody in Europe is beyond ridiculous, no Russian leader would ever even contemplate such a stupid, useless, counter-productive and self-defeating plan, if only because Russia has no need for any territory. If Putin told Poroshenko that he did not want to take over the Donbass, how likely is that that the Russians are dreaming of occupying Lithuania or Romania?! I challenge anybody to come up with any rational reason for the Russians to want to attack any country in the West (or elsewhere, for that matter) even if that country had no military and was not member of any military alliance. In fact, Russia could have *easily* invaded Georgia in the 08/08/08 war but did not. And when is the last time you heard Mongolia or Kazakhstan fearing a Russian (or Chinese) invasion?
So the simple truth is that for all the big gesticulations and vociferous claims about defending the Europeans against the “Russian threat” there is no Russian threat just like the USA will never deliberately initiate a nuclear slugfest with Russia to defend Chisinau or even Stockholm.
So if all of the above are just clichés with no bearing on reality, why is the western corporate media so full of this nonsense? Mainly for two reasons: journalists are mostly “Jack of all trades, master of none” and they much prefer to pass on pre-packaged propaganda then to make the effort to try to understand something. As for the talking heads on TV, the various generals who speak as “experts” for CNN and the rest, they are also simply propagandists. The real pros are busy working for the various government agencies and they don’t go in live TV to speak about the “Russian threat”. But the most important reason for this nonsensical propaganda is that by constantly pretending to discuss a military issue the AngloZionist propagandist are thereby hiding the real nature of the very real conflict between Russia and the USA over Europe: a political struggle for the future of Europe: if Russia has no intention of invading anybody, she sure does have huge interest in trying to de-couple Europe from its current status of US colony/protectorate. The Russians fully realize that while the current European elites are maniacally russophobic, most Europeans (with the possible exception of the Baltic States and Poland) are not. In that sense the recent Eurovision vote where the popular vote was overturned by so-called “experts” is very symbolic.
The first Secretary General of NATO did very openly spell out its real purpose “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” The Russians want it exactly the other way around: the Russians in (economically, not militarily, of course), the Americans out and the Germans up (again, economically). That is the real reason behind all the tensions in Europe: the USA desperately wants a Cold War v.2 while Russia is trying as hard as she can to prevent this.
So, what would a war between Russia and the USA look like? To be honest, I don’t know. It all depends on so many different factors that it is pretty much impossible to predict. That does not mean that it cannot, or will not, happen. There are numerous very bad signs that the Empire is acting in an irresponsible way. One of the worst ones is that the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) has almost completely ceased to function.
The main reason for the creation of the NRC was to make sure that secure lines of communications were open, especially in a crisis or tension situation. Alas, as a way to signal their displeasure with Russia over the Ukraine, NATO has now almost completely closed down the NRC even though the NRC was precisely created for that purpose.
Furthermore, forward deploying, besides often being militarily useless, is also potentially dangerous as a local incident between the two sides can rapidly escalate into something very serious. Especially when important lines of communications have been done away with. The good news, relatively speaking, is that the US and Russia still have emergency communications between the Kremlin and the White House and that the Russian and US armed forces also have direct emergency communication capabilities. But at the end of the day, the problem is not a technological one, but a psychological one: the Americans are apparently simply unable or unwilling to negotiate about anything at all. Somehow, the Neocons have imposed their worldview on the US deep state, and that worldview is that any dynamic between Russia and the USA is a zero sum one, that there is nothing to negotiate and that forcing Russia to comply and submit to the Empire by means of isolation and containment is the only thinkable approach. This will, of course, not work. The question is whether the Neocons have the intellectual capability to understand that or, alternatively, whether the “old” (paleo-conservative) Anglo US patriots can finally kick the “crazies in the basement” (as Bush senior used to refer to the Neocons) out of the White House.
But if Hillary makes it into the White House in November, then things will become really scary. Remember how I said that no US President would ever sacrifice a US city in defense of a European one? Well, that assumes a patriotic President, one who loves his country. I don’t believe that the Neocons give a damn about America or the American people, and these crazies might well think that sacrificing one (or many) US cities is well worth the price if that allows them to nuke Moscow.
Any theory of deterrences assumes a “rational actor”, not a psychopathic and hate-filled cabal of “crazies in a basement”.
During the last years of the Cold War I was much more afraid of the gerontocrats in the Kremlin than of the Anglo officers and officials in the White House or the Pentagon. Now I fear the (relatively) new generation of “ass-kissing little chickenshit” officers à la Petraeus, or maniacs like General Breedlove, which have replaced the “old style” Cold Warriors (like Admirals Elmo Zumwalt, William Crowe or Mike Mullen) who at least knew that a war with Russia must be avoided at all cost. It is outright frightening for me to realize that the Empire is now run by unprofessional, incompetent, unpatriotic and dishonorable men who are either driven by hateful ideologies or whose sole aim in life is to please their political bosses.
The example of Ehud Olmert, Amir Peretz and Dan Halutz going to war against Hezbollah in 2006 or Saakashvili’s attempt at ethnically cleansing South Ossetia in 2008 have shown the world that ideology-driven leaders can start absolutely unwinnable wars, especially if they believe in their own propaganda about their invincibility. Let’s is hope and pray that this kind of insanity does not take over the current US leaders. The best thing that could happen for the future of mankind would be if real patriots would come back to power in the United States. Then mankind could finally breathe a big sigh of relief.
“Surprise Attack: Lessons for Defense Planning”
This link in the text is broken: 404 page.
Fixed. Thank you.
Russia has great problem with the fact that they have to do more than just selling oil and gas. Get decent effective civil production and better infrastructure. So be powerful nation one should have something more than weapons, oil and gas.
You sound very knowledgeable about Russia. When did you visit and for how long?
Michael, I am currently visiting Russia and the above comment has a lot of merit. Had President Putin implemented true reforms and had he invested in infrastructure and development of business in his first two terms. The Ukraine crisis would not have happened in the first place. Russia with all of its natural resources should be one of the top economic leaders. Instead, outside of Moscow and St. Petersburg, it looks more like Detroit. Collapsing infrastructure and decaying buildings, lack of competent and competitive manufacturing describes the real Russia. Visit cities like Volgagrad, Saratov, Voronezh, and others and you’ll get the picture. I can go on, but this post would turn into a book.
While Mr. Putin’s foreign policy is admirable, his domestic policies has been disasterous for Russia. Mr. Putin needs to clean house and hire competent people who have a long-term vision for Russia.
Unfortunately, the term “reform” has an unpleasant Orwellian connotation since it normally refers to the implementation of neoliberal economic policies based on the Washington Consensus. These policies have the effect of extracting the wealth of the target country with on-site management by a local oligarchic class. The Soviet Union was the second largest economy in the world. This was largely destroyed by reforms implemented by Chubais, Gaidar, Yeltsin, etc. and overseen by advisors such as Jeffrey Sachs. Putin has to some extent resisted and reversed some of these “reforms” for which reason his removal is sought.
The Soviet economic and financial structures were well suited to resist neoliberal “warfare”. Russia should reverse as many of the changes since the nineties as possible if they seek to have a broad-based comfortably affluent society.
The term reform shouldn’t automatically have negative connotation. What happened in the 90s were not reforms but rather systematic division of Russia’s natural and commercial wealth in the hands of the few. To but it bluntly it was theft on a grand scale. Hodorkovsky, Abromovich, and the rest of the “oligarchs” where nothing but small time apporatchiks in final days of Soviet Union. How could they possible have the wealth to become “owners” of some of the biggest state companies?
What President Putin needs to do is clean house of corrupt yes men and appoint young energetic forward thinking competent professionals who can take the country away from corruption and set it on course of rebuilding its decaying infrastructure and manufacturing base. These people exist and are ready to accept this task.
If the country continues down the current path, it will remain a mediocre economy. At this stage most young well educated people are finding ways to leave. Russians at this stage are beginning to lose hope that Russia can overcome this recession and reform itself. That does not bode well for the future. Should some reforms take shape this trend will be reversed.
This undertaking will not be easy as corruption is permiated throughout the Russian society. Courage will need to be in high supply.
If President Putin wants to really go down in history as the greatest Russian statesman, then he has no choice but to undertake this difficult task. Otherwise, he will be just another president who couldn’t finish what he started.
The jewish oligarchs you mention, “Hodorkovsky, Abromovich,”… that bought the sovjet industry up at plundering prices were finanched form London. Putin have lead them keep some of their wealth if htey pay taxes. Other have got their taken away and in the strugle some of them fled Russia and live now in London or Israel.
To be short, you direct your attack against the wrong one, when you make Putin responsible. I instead focus on the progress that have been during Putins time in office – and hte broad basis of small and middle size companies, that makes Germany and other free economies rich, are not founded in one day – like Rome wasnt. Be realistic and happy by the direction.
But a industrial basis is arising:
Combine Harvester now in Germany and Holland
Irish cityjet get its first russian build passengerjet
Air France to fly Sukhoi Superjet 100
The new Lada Veste looks like a Corean car
I agree with you that some progress is being made. What most people in the west who support Russia fail to understand is that the scope of the internal corruption in the Russian system is so vast that it prevents from real progress from being achieved.
Most cities outside Moscow and St. Petersburg are old and decaying. The roads and other infrastructure are in disrepair. This is mostly due to corruption.
Real entrepreneurs are having hard time finding capital for their start ups. When they do it is usually at unreasonably high interest rate. Once their business is operating, taxes and opressive regulations make it difficult to survive. Along the way the entrepreneur must pay bribes to get things done.
Ultimately, the man at the top is responsible for his team. In Russia, when the state cracks down, and by cracking down I mean hold authority accountable and jail wrong doers. people will fall in line. Maybe it’s time Mr. Putin break out the whip.
I am sure that the western press will jump all over him for doing so, but who cares what the west thinks. Russia will rise as a result much faster. And perhaps some day may be one of the best countries to live in. It certainly has the potential.
Isn’t the Russian Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev, more in charge of day-to-day domestic policy and the President in change of foreign policy?
Putin’s first go at Prime Minister barely lasted a year (1999-2000); not enough time to identify and effect major changes in policy direction.
I’m no expert on the system, but how responsible is Putin for domestic inefficiency compared to Medvedev? Even his last term as PM (2008-2012), before returning as President, might have reauired a deal not to greatly disrupt Medvedev’s policies. And of course Medvedev, as President, not to disrupt his. (Although being the man who lost Libya might sting Medvedev a little as a very un-Putin outcome.)
Ultimately, Putin is responsible as he appoints his cabinet posts.
There’s nothing in the Presidential Administration of Russia suggesting direct control over domestic economic policy. The PM implements domestic policy. The Prime Minster nominates Cabinet members and makes recommendations which the President may accept or not.
The Prime Minster is appointed by the President, on the approval of the State Duma.
So essentially you’re suggesting Dmitry Medvedev be fired, Putin made a mistake in appointing him, and the State Duma erred in endorsing this appointment.
Since the PM is the head of government, that’s also like dismissing the government he appointed, which formally happens anyway if Medvedev is forced to resign, and a new Prime Minister must then be appointed with the approval of the Duma.
Therefore giving the West an outsized score against Russian government stability and Putin, polarizing its anti-West versus soft-on-West factions, and creating the sort of chaos sanctions are supposed to achieve leading up to Putin’s ouster.
Medvedev’s no Potemkin but still a vetted loyalist trying to run the domestic economy while under seige by the world’s most wealthy and powerful nations. It would be nearly impossible to discern mismanagement from unusually poor circumstances based on performance, although keeping the economy afloat under such circumstances is an achievement.
Medvedev has also made fighting corruption his first priority, vital for making the nation efficient and ready for hybrid war. Russian private capital is infamous for rather loose interpretation of legit business, easily on the level of Western crony capitalism, the main difference being the theatre of polish and pretense to integrity is not as well-developed.
Therefore Medvedev has enemies in both pro and anti Western factions, but doubly damned in Western crony-capitalist eyes if he was actually doing an honest job of fighting corruption, since the black economy is the blackwater Western dark ops fish swim in. If Russian officials and personalities aren’t as on sale as European ones, they may not like that, but its also a major hit to the espionage playbook.
Medvedev also can’t tell private wealth to stop withholding private investment in the white economy if they choose to respond that way, and domestic investment is the only counter to sanctions against foreign investment. He can, however, rely on free market competition to apply such pressure.
Losing Libya as President is the only gaffe Medvedev clearly made, but even then, that became more a problem for Europe than Russia.
Putin’s strategy of prioritizing Russian unity while keeping the economy going seems to be working with Medvedev. The long war, could be very long indeed if the Russians don’t break themselves.
Since the ultimate responsibility for his cabinet lays at Mr. Putin’s feet, then yes, he should fire Mr Medvedev. As the old proverb goes: the buck stops….
It has been over 15 years since the Putin administration been in power. Granted Rome wasn’t built in a day, but the pace of progress here is too slow. We live in the 21st century.
Russians are smart and hard working. If given a chance, the country could relatively quickly become envy of the world. It has so much to offer. Unfortunately, so far, it has been mismanaged.
The U.S. has been fostering an anti-free market, anti-entrepreneurial economic culture since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Russia needs displace or convert its comprador class to a Eurasian one dependeint on a white market economy, but the criminal gangster class has been strangling the white market economy. Some observers can’t help but notice corruption is a problem, regardless of political motives.
One of the strongest social weapons against Russia is co-opting the elitny. As long as they sense their socioeconomic status comes from the West, not Eurasia, and corruption, not square dealing, then long term economic sovereignty will always be hostage to those who want to sell it to the highest bidder.
Can’t blame it all on Mevedev. He just inherited the mess. Only a move towards publicly controlled banking can shake the rot at the root.
Medvedev does has enemies in both pro and anti Western factions but storm clouds are gathering.
Putin is being pushed to abandon his conciliatory approach to the West and prepare for war. Alastair Crooke
BEIRUT — something significant happened in the last few days of April, but it seems the only person who noticed was Stephen Cohen, a professor emeritus of Russian studies at New York University and Princeton University.
Putin carries, at one end of his balancing pole, the various elites more oriented toward the West and the “Washington Consensus“ and, at the pole’s other end, those concerned that Russia faces both a real military threat from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and a hybrid geo-financial war as well. He is being pressed to come down on the side of the latter, and to pry the grip of the former from the levers of economic power that they still tightly hold.
What is so important is that if these events are misread in the West, which is already primed to see any Russian defensive act as offensive and aggressive, the ground will already have been laid for escalation. We already had the first war to push back against NATO in Georgia. The second pushback war is ongoing in Ukraine. What might be the consequences to a third? … Alastair Crooke, published on World Post
“Washington Consensus“ http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidtrade/issues/washington.html
Putin is being pushed to abandon his conciliatory approach to the West and prepare for war. Alastair Crooke
BEIRUT — something significant happened in the last few days of April, but it seems the only person who noticed was Stephen Cohen, a professor emeritus of Russian studies at New York University and Princeton University.
Putin carries, at one end of his balancing pole, the various elites more oriented toward the West and the “Washington Consensus“ and, at the pole’s other end, those concerned that Russia faces both a real military threat from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and a hybrid geo-financial war as well. He is being pressed to come down on the side of the latter, and to pry the grip of the former from the levers of economic power that they still tightly hold.
What is so important is that if these events are misread in the West, which is already primed to see any Russian defensive act as offensive and aggressive, the ground will already have been laid for escalation. We already had the first war to push back against NATO in Georgia. The second push back war is ongoing in Ukraine. What might be the consequences to a third? … Alastair Crooke, published on World Post
“Washington Consensus“ http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidtrade/issues/washington.html
The key words being, “Prepare for war” – and only prepare for war. The very idea that direct hot war will happen, is nonsense because nukes are still on the table. Every realistic military planner surely knows this.
Russia and Eurasia are large enough to survive such devastation, if survival is possible. Western civilization, far less so.
Russia wouldn’t retaliate against the Euros too heavily; its right next door, but the loss of central governance and armed might would be devastating. Russia won’t occupy; they don’t have the manpower or inclination now, and during/after such a war, certainly won’t. They could, however, secure Russia.
However, imagine Europe, its armies already in a decadent state, devastated by war, and the civilian element subjected to an EMP wiping out all modern electronics. Then consider that African and ME migrants probably wouldn’t stop pouring in, and imagine them less inhibited to using open force, against a Western Europe no longer able to support civil order, let alone organized high-tech armies, still led by a quisling elite hiding in secure bunkers.
North America can be permanently crippled by the removal of coastal cities with their great commercia and naval ports, and a few key inland centres. The Russian might use nukes, without necessarily destroying the world with fallout. Consider an EMP burst a given. Yet, also consider tectonic weaponization, everything from the Cascadia fault, through Yellowstone, to the La Palma, Canary islands caldera gopher nuked just to see if it would work.
There was a Cold War I treaty forbidding such targets, and I forget the technical name for such warfare, but devastating North America while minimizing the radiation was surely studied by Soviet-era planners.
What worries Western imperial planners isn’t war, but peace.
If Russian internal economic development happens, and Russian democracy happens, then the Anglo-Zionists will face a vigorous, vibrant society not unlike their own hosts 100 years ago – but without the imperial baggage and Anglo-Zionists sucking it dry.
If Eurasia rises, everything the Anglo-Zionists have done to hamstring Western civilization, impoverishing and disempowering its peoples to consolidate power, would then be reduced to cutting their own throats. They can’t easily roll back the clock; they’ve committed themselves to NWO despotry.
So every effort is being made to replay Cold War I and force Russian military expenditure and political repression at the expense of the civil economy and civil culture. This will continue, until, like the Soviets of the past, the Putin nationalists own-goal themselves into giving up, and the more it does not appear to be working, the more histrionic will be the impotent rhetoric.
The difference is, the Soviet leadership gave up an empire their principles had little personal stake in, founded on an ideology that didn’t work. This time around, the Russians are being maneuvered into surrendering their country, economic freedom, and democracy. Unlike communism, which didn’t work, nationalism, market economics, and civil rights and responsibilities, are proven workable ideologies.
Some may call that a charade, but its for now still a Russian charade owned by Russians from the top on down, not an Anglo-Zionist charade.
There is no reason to expect hot war; that’s just puffery because Putin and Russia haven’t yet flinched.
Putin doesn’t have to go over the top with military preparations, just make realistic ones keeping MAD in play. What he needs to win is Russian economic patriots being able to meet the New Silk Roads halfway and realize adversarial MacKinderism’s worst nightmare, a true Eurasian heartland economy, a peacetime one, but inherently able to defend itself. Owned by Eurasians, towering over the North American heartland.
That is a fair criticism, but he is not alone. If you look at the GDR the de-industrialisation has left mass-unemployment and decaying infrastructure. There are derelict factories and crumbling buildings everywhere even in Dresden and you don’t need to look at Sachsen-Anhalt or Thuringen.
The US also has pitiful infrastructure – every tunnel dates from the New Deal, ceramic tiled. The electricity grid in the US is primitive and it is hard to credit $300 million jet fighters in a country that has Obamavilles and 32% graduating students living with their parents while burdened with debt.
So I think this has been a global problem of Elites siphoning money into luxury rather than ensuring states are run for the common wealth…….German schools are decrepit, roads and bridges collapsing, yet Merkel switched State spending towards welfare which is attracting the third world to enjoy life.
In most western countries infrastructure is old and need updating. However, Switzerland can be used as an example. If you have travelled to any city in Switzerland you get the sense that the government is competent. Everything works like it’s designed to. Everything is designed efficiently.
When a country is neutral, it spends its treasury on improving lives of its citizens. Sweden and other non aligned countries come to mind.
Switzerland is unique; its main industry has long been banking. To say they know a little about the game is an understatement.
However they recently had to decouple the Franc from the Euro and have come under fire for being a tax evasion haven.
America appears to want to dominate the offshore banking trade.
Attacks on Swiss banking and loss of Swiss Bank secrecy was couched in tackling tax evasion, but the real deal was removing its competitive edge for market share of tax evaders.
Its interesting to note that the U.S. has a $19 trillion dollar debt, and the offshoring industry is estimated to be worth $18-$21 trillion dollars.
My reference to Switzerland was not intended to showcase their industries. It was intended to use is as an example of how to govern for the benefit of the people.
In Russia, government operates to enrich themselves at the expense of the people. While most people in Russia survive on their meager salaries, the bureaucratic fat cats are skimming off the top plenty of money to afford themselves villas in the French Riviera.
The scale of corruption is so large that it will take drastic measures to eliminate or reduce it by some relevant measure. This corruption permeates down to the lowest level of society. For instance, teachers’ salaries in most cities averages $11,000 roubles per month (approx. $170), The minimal cost of surviving is $10,000 rpm. As a result, teachers are charging students bribes in order to get a 5 or A as their marks/grades. Imagine being a straight A student and then one day your teacher gives you a B, although your work was exemplary, and then tells you that in order get an A mark you need to pay him/her. Unfortunately, bribes are part of everyday life in Russia.
It’s not a myth that in order to set Russia on the right course it needs a strong ruler. Someone who will enforce the laws and jail people for corruption. Hold government employees accountable for their action. Only then will you see any meaningful changes.
Yes Russia is under attack and it will continue to be under attack because she is weak. Don’t fool yourselves that just because her military is stronger, it will defend itself. The attack the West has in mind is not military, but from within. Educated Russians are disheartened at the pace of progress in the country. Ordinary Russians are beginning to lose hope that their government can make their lives better. This is a condition that can invite another revolution. If a Maidan like revolution does happens, only the Russian government is to be blamed.
It is no wonder that Putin has implemented the National Guard.
Don’t fall for the ‘strongman’ meme trap. Individuals have power when synced with like-minded individuals in peaceful, organized, intelligent activism. Lula was an excellent strongman; democratic Brazil can’t survive without him, and that’s a critical failure on his part.
A strongman with the power to end corruption arbitrarily also has the power to perpetuate corruption and protect the corrupt, or just as bad, leave a vacuum of power upon leaving power. Its far easier for corrupt core factions and their minority popular supporters to control politicians and parties in a strongman democratic system like the U.S., Canada, or Britain, than a proportionally representative democracy like Russia.
The move from Yeltsin to Putin was like night and day – and democracy did that. The patriotic Russian elites have an accurate gauge of popular sentiment and viable ideas, as long as the candidate selection system – parties and movements behind independents – is healthy.
Putin may be perceived as a strongman, but its not helpful to hope for a deity to cover for or wash away ongoing sin. Everyone must be faithful to the ideal and be a part of it.
Corruption can only exist as long as it has popular support, which is why responsive democracy is needed. If a party rep is corrupt, it should be easy and safe to expose this and vote in a new rep. If a party is corrupt or captured by the NED, it should be possible to reform or start over in a new party, or elect an independent. This then is reflected in the people selected to be elected to power, and those appointed to power by the elected.
As mentioned in the earlier post in this thread, the elitny culture in Russia is somewhat opposite in conduct to that of the West, though sharing the same antisocial tendencies.
It has only now become popularly understood that Western elites are hopelessly corrupt; the insulating middle class illusion has dissipated with the middle class. Western capitalist elites have always presented themselves as ‘one of us’; a regular person who made it higher up the socioeconomic ladder by honest hard work, a little luck. Maybe a little nudge-wink, but not blatant corruption. Now they too, want to be elitny.
Suddenly (well not suddenly; the removal of fair economic regulation and concurrent corruption of regulation favouring corrupt practices happened over decades) the social ladder has been whisked away. Things were never perfect, but there was so much wealth stolen during the North American conquest, the elites could gorge themselves at home and abroad, yet allow the formation of a domestic middle class.
Russia seems to be in the position of having a faction of its ruling elite and civil populace sufficiently opposed to corruption that a man like Putin can rise to the top. If there’s a problem with Medvedev, prove it, because corruption is rejected almost as an organized political movement.
Political health will remain precarious until the need for corruption in civil society is ended, separating the needy from the truly antisocial.
Which means linking patriotism with civil activism against corruption, without becoming a self-destructing witch hunt. It also means initiative towards indigenous economic growth, which can’t happen with pervasive corruption constantly bleeding off new growth.
The strongman ideal is a dangerous one. The People should never hope to be absolved from responsibility to act. Historically, the great successful leaders who appeared to be strongmen, never were truly alone in action.
Everything you say is the same in the U.S. except ten times worse. Need proof? Look to Orlando and San Bernardino. Or that 1% of the population has $500 trillion. How about that student debt? Isn’t that special? And the elephant in the room that everyone ignores or denies – 9/11 an inside job. One could go on forever talking about the problems in the United States of America.
British General Says A Nuclear War With Russia In 2017 Is “Entirely Plausible”
As for the debunked myths – if there really starts a war with Russia, it won’t be harmless for all of us, no matter who has more of that and less of whatever.
Great analysis, and interesting to compare to Stephen Cohen on the John Bachelor show. He is saying the Russians are freaking out and could react by setting the Donbass army loose on Mariopol or Odessia. I’ve heard it said he is allowed on the MSM because he is controlled opposition, but if the crazies continue to force policy in Washington, the Russians do have reason to worry. I wonder if there is growing pressure from Russian policy elites to take a more proactive approach or are the Russians pursuing a strategy of “sitting back and letting your enemies destroy themselves” (Sun Tsu).
Stephen Cohen on the John Bachelor show is here
That’s what I would do…sit back and let the enemy destroy itself. What is being missed here in the discussion of Russia and corruption and what Putin needs to do is the facts that America is in even worse shape and even more corrupt than Russia. this corruption is easily visible in the current elections which are being controlled not by the people but by unelected Super Delegates that answer to corporate interests. Accusations of rigging in many republican primaries as well… Flint’s poisoned water problem is a reflection of just how bad the currents state of infrastructure in the US has become. Americans focus more on transgender bathrooms than Nuclear accidents in their own country – which is a sign of decadence, always a bad thing… Americans only manufacture weapons now, another bad sign. NASA programs have all been cancelled. No good science anymore, another sign of decadence… and much of what America builds as far as weapons go do not live up to expectations. It is also far cheaper for Russia to move troops around inside their own nation than it is for America to spread their army out all over Europe (very long way from the American homeland) and many of these little states are letting America foot the bill for all of this while contributing very little. I think America will collapse into bankruptcy if this isn’t reversed… True Putin has some work to do, but at least he is showing signs of being willing to do it…in America? They seem to be ramping up for the final run into bankruptcy and every time a American citizen tries to bring up a serious internal issue we get ‘Transgender bathroom discussions’ instead that only serve to distract…. another bad sign, problems do not vanish simply because they are hidden from view.
Brilliant article, Saker. I think the rest of the world and the inhabitants of the USA have much concern over this 2016 presidential election, as it may well affect the future of the species.
I have to thank you for taking us through this type of military analysis which is so alien to civilians.
Do you have any idea how far behind China is, in relation to the US and Russia, in conventional and/or nuclear capabilities?
Allthough agree on many points, some of them are farfetching… I assume due to lack of info about europe?
The european countries of nato has around same number of active military personel as Russia.
BUT usa is arrogant, so their pride they will swoop the european to side instead of proper coordinations.
And if even coordination, it is around 20 diffrent nations to coordinate. With many diffrent languages cultures etc.
Equipment wise: europe part of nato has aprox 1/2 of usa in equipments (excluding naval, where usa has alot more then europe part of nato).
Russia is far superior in anti-aircraft technology
Far superior in rocket technology
Far superior in radar (and anti-radars) and satelite technology
Average intelligence in russia is far more logical inclined, while (no offence) average intelligence in usa is closer to a sewer system.
But usa has capitalism, so they buy intelligemce (which will work at starts of wars, untill currency collapses. Alot riding on China entrence yo the war, and for usa high cost technology military to bankcrupt usa, just like usa was able to bankcrupt ussr during 1980-1990 due to high military cost+oilprice attacks).
Russia has history of not start wars, but to end them.
Agreed, Russia does not start wars but ends them. So Russia should just relax, and build more armata tanks and nuclear missiles.
When the crazies on her border finally cross the line then Russia can put down the vodka bottle, crush those riffraff and then resume her intellectual deliberations with the bottle.
Based on the Napoleonic and Second World wars, Russia seems to like letting the enemy advance deep into her territory, even allowing them to occupy Moscow in the case of Napoleon, before crushing them. But this technique has been rather detrimental to Russian civilians so maybe its not the best method.
a lot of generalizations here! any links or numbers or even your own experise or vantage point to support any of these? military capacity and capabilities?
on other side of the coin re sewer IQ rates, where is this from? yes there certainly is a huge bubble to the left on the bell curve if one watches what MSM features (off course what does that say about the viewer?); USA and some others have been beneficiaries of an immense brain drain from all cultures, countries, competencies since the 50’s—most assuredly including Russian and Chinese and India.
quote from an American education expert:
“The US has never been first in the world, nor even near the top, on any international tests. Consistently over the past half century, American students have typically scored near the median at best, but most often being in the bottom quartile. The historical record indicates that American elementary students are only average at best, their performance degrading year by year until high school seniors perform last in almost all international tests. The International Science Studies that began in high schools in the late 1960s and early 1970s found that 14-year-olds were below average and seniors scored last of all countries. In the International Mathematics tests that began in the 1960s, American high school seniors scored last of all nations. In the 1982 International Mathematics Study, high school seniors placed at the bottom on almost every test. In terms of the PISA tests, American students – placing last – are simply following the pattern that has been consistent for the past 50 years or more.”
And a quote from one news report: “In October of 2013 a new global report issued by the OECD found that Americans ranked well below the worldwide average in just about every measure of skill. In math, reading, and technology-driven problem-solving , the United States performed worse than nearly every other country… The US would have looked even worse if China had been included in this study. In basic literacy – the ability to understand and use basic written text – 80% of Americans reached only a level 2 out of 5. And in math and numerical proficiency, using numbers in daily life, they are worse … and 10% scored below level 1. Technological literacy and ability were worse too. In problem-solving in a technological environment and the use of “cognitive skills required to solve problems”, the Americans were at the bottom.” And that bottom is in math, vocabulary, language usage and technology, with Chinese students far surpassing the Americans even when using a language that is not their own.
China is estimated to spend around $6bn a year on its space programme. Although that is almost $1bn more than Russia, it is still a fraction of the American space budget, which is around $40bn a year. Despite its large budget, the US made only 19 successful space launches in 2013, compared with China’s 14 and Russia’s 31.
Three main reasons for which NATO is not attacking Russia right now
Russia’s nuclear arsenal and general NATO weakness would be good reasons not to attack Russia, but the third reason, needing Russia and Iran to clean up the mess in the Middle East, is unlikely.
According to adversarial MacKinderism, the Middle East should be made a mess and kept a mess to prevent the formation of the world heartland, that vast patch of central Eurasian plane surrounded by mountains and crossed by rivers that from a natural super-economic zone. If Europe, China and Iran can’t be divided now, the ongoing drain on resources needed to fight corruption and build peacefully will be spent trying to put out bushfires on their outer rimlands.
North America, BTW, is another world heartland; the Great Plains from Canada to Mexico. Unlike the Eurasian, its fully connected and running, albeit under increasing corruption as the elites siphon more wealth than it can spare.
It would make a great video game but the cost in real human suffering suggests NATO shouldn’t be playing it at all.
Its not even NATO, really, but the international banking system which compels states to not issue sovereign currency, but instead, issue government bonds to private banks, pretending to ‘borrow’ money from private banks. The real relationship, is that the private banks are borrowing the wealth of the people to sell back to the people as money; a colossal fraud. America/NATO is the chosen enforcer of this international system.
As real as Mackinderian thought is, its been one-upped by a greater and more deadly game, hybrid financialization, harnessing Mackinder’s dynamic of tension for profit over meaningful resolution.
Banksters can play West against East indefinitely, until the planet and species breaks.
Is the grecco-russian friendship over ?
Alexander Dugin was denied entry onto Greece.
Does the Greco-Russian historical friendship rely on Tsipras’ NeoSocialists, Mitsotakis’ NeoLiberals or any other string puppet they throw in the way? I think not.
And you forget that this was a hit below the belt, an edict made by some bureaucrat at the Thessaloniki Airport, following some EU decision, based on a similar thing happening in Hungary a few years ago.
In reality, the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs vetoed that and Dugin is now welcome to come to Greece.
Just held for 8h, then allowed to procced
Former NATO chief Richard Shirreff launched his new book “2017 War with Russia” in London on Wednesday .
“The United Kingdom may become engaged in a nuclear war with Russia within a year over post-Cold War policies, a former NATO chief warns.
Richard Shirreff said on Wednesday that the situation in Crimea has destroyed the post-Cold War settlement between Russia and the West and paved the way for a massive conflict that could be sparked in a matter of months.
Shirreff made the remarks as he launched his new book “2017 War with Russia” in London. He predicted that Moscow would take control of territory in eastern Ukraine and open up a land corridor to Crimea to attack Baltic states in order to counter the threat from NATO to its national security.
The former British army general also said Russia will first invade Latvia in May 2017 and this would spark a war between the West and Russia.
“The chilling fact is that because Russia hardwires nuclear thinking, this would be nuclear war. We need to judge President [Vladimir] Putin by his deeds not his words. He has invaded Georgia, he has invaded the Crimea, he has invaded Ukraine,” Shirreff said.
“He has used force and got away with it. In a period of tension, an attack on the Baltic states is entirely plausible,” he added, noting that the West and the military alliance should provide a suitable deterrence to Moscow.
He further noted that permanent NATO presence is needed in the Baltic states.
This came as Moscow and NATO have been at loggerheads in recent years over the eastward expansion of the military alliance.
Earlier this month, a US-NATO missile system went live in Romania. Officials said the system was aimed at protecting NATO members from threats of short and medium range ballistic missiles. Russia, however, described the move as a clear violation of key clauses of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
NATO also began a military exercise in Poland on Wednesday that involved some 1,500 troops. Polish defense minister announced that he will ask for permanent NATO presence along his country’s eastern border during the upcoming NATO summit in Warsaw.
Further NATO drills will be held in the Baltics and Poland later this year with a significant participation of US troops.
In Georgia, the alliance began a two-week military exercise on May 11. The drill is aimed at preparing the Georgian army for joining NATO’s quick reaction force, known as the NATO Response Force (NRF), and strengthening Georgia’s potential for territorial self-defense.
The US deployed a group of eight tanks from its base in Bulgaria to Georgia to join the exercise. Some 650 US troops as well as 500 Georgian and 150 British soldiers are also involved in the drill.
Georgian Defense Minister Tinatin Khidasheli said in January that the drill shows Georgia supports US policies in the region.
Moscow called the Georgia drill a provocative step to intentionally destabilize the Caucasus region.
The Kremlin has beefed up Russian military presence near its borders with Eastern Europe and in surrounding countries where NATO has stationed troops.”
Shirreff is a joke. And, for those who remember the real British Army, a bad one. His views on the Russian forces and government will be entirely derived from what the US has told him.
To be fair, though, the guy is just selling a book. It can only do harm if anyone takes him seriously which is, as he must be aware, not going to happen.
You have to bear in mind that NATO exists entirely on the basis of a threat which not only never existed but which any army officer with an IQ in three figures, or the nineties, knew was non existent.
Decades of Cold War propaganda were designed entirely for internal consumption together with the hope that some of the more idiotic elements of the CPSU would divert expenditure from worthwhile projects into defending against an attack which was as unlikely to occur as they were to launch an attack themselves.
The situation is now reversed: the US and its ‘allies’ are spending themselves to death by building masses of every sort of materiel, from missile systems to Jeeps and small arms, whose only purpose is to keep draining the taxpayers’ pockets (today and for generations to come) for the benefit of the Military Industrial Complex. Russia and China need just to sit still, stay sober and watch while the Empire commits suicide. The only dangers are madmen in Washington, on the one hand, and Fifth Columnists in Eurasia allowing the Empire to get away with, for example, Syria(s).
On the credit side the propaganda mills which dictated to public opinion increasingly throughout the Cold War, are losing their power. Nobody believes a word they read in the Press or hear on TV.
Probably best if Russia went the short way round to attack the Baltic States, rather than starting from the Crimea. The Baltic States are actually next door to Russia. Did Shirreff really say that?
Modern warfare boils down to resource potential and the ability to effectively leverage and project these resources where necessary. Saker, your analysis only explain how Russia can compete in a limited space and short time frame engagement. The overwhelming advantages the NATO/US possess in finance and essential resources become decisive, only in protracted and longterm war over great distances. This is the war they will bring to Russia. How long can Russia endure if subjected to a multi-front war over a protracted period of time? Especially if all her allies and potential supporters have been decimated.
Look at Syria today, look at the seemingly endless supply of cannon fodder being employed against Assad, and Assad has the advantage of air superiority and allies who can assist with logistics. Russia will have to fight such a war, without those advantages, because her allies are being neutralized today, and I doubt NATO will permit the Russian space forces to reign unchallenged the way they’re being unmolested in Syria. Comparing individual assets like the F-22 vs. Su jets is a futile exercise because it purposely misrepresents how these assets operate in reality. In the wars of the future, all US/ NATO combat assets will operate, as they do today, in concert. It doesn’t matter if there are only three F-22 jets in the theater, they can be a force multiplier if they are networked with supporting NATO land, sea and under sea based combat assets, pre-positioned within striking range of their target. The concept is called combined arms warfare in the tactical perspective, and full spectrum dominance in the strategic perspective. Cont’nd…
@ ability to leverage nearly limitless financial and human resources
NATO is making use of proxies precisely because (1) the US and the other member-states are short of financial resources and struggle seriously with public budget- and debt problems (2) the populations of its member-states, with the exception of the USA perhaps, are not prepared to go to war against Russia and lack in any case the spirit needed to sacrifice for their country (which accounts for the military of most of these countries as well) .
The amount of NATO members has also become way too large, with too many different priorities and sensibilities to reconcile (think of US vs Europe, or Greece vs Turkey) which make it very difficult to manage the whole thing and react adequately when the situation requires it. Moreover the US president doesn’t always act in resonance and accordance with the moves of his own administration and the policies of Europe, which is not a good sign either.
Unity makes strength, disunity weakens.
Their armies can’t go to war unless approved by parliament, congress or whatever the assemble is called.
The west is bankrupt and collapsing….and the technological edge you describe only works while the comm net is up and running….cheers
I would have agreed with you if what you have said is close to reality. For how long now has the USA waged an economic war against Russia? Between USA and Russia, whose companies are laying off workers? Whose companies are folding up? Between America and Russia’s economy, who is buying more golds? Whose currency is under panic? Who is scared of the end of oil being sold globally in one currency? Between both countries, who is finding new opportunities in the East and who is losing allies in the Middle East? You made your assumptions based on Wall Street sponsored propaganda that US economy is alright. In war, Wall Street doesn’t matter. Like Saker rightly said, it doesn’t matter how many fighter jets you have if they are not capable of doing their job. I suspect you think American fighters (or weapons) are the best because Lockeheed Martins said so. In case you still don’t understand, here is a link:
America’s best tank, M1A2 Abrams, supposedly the 3rd best tank in the world fell behind Germany’s Leopard 2A6, and also to the older version, Leopard 2A6. The so called best US drone was roasted by the Chinese. The Iranians caught it ‘alive’. So what’s the essence of having 10,000 drones in Chinese territories if the Chinese are capable of roasting them all? I guess for Chinese drone ‘roasting’ practices huh?
@Wilfried, Hamis and WRFB
Fair points you all make. Either I’m buying into NATO/US propaganda or you fellows bought RT propaganda and the magic show the western and resistance media outlets put on to misdirect observers from the reality of things. Two realities your answers don’t explain away:
1) the NATO/U.S side doesn’t have to pay their forces, whether western or non-western, they print their own currency. This is akin to central banks loaning money they conjure out of thin air, it costs them relatively nothing.
2) the resources required to wage endless wars by the west aren’t actually bought, because they buy them with the same mechanism they pay their forces with. For instance, England and France essentially control the mineral wealth of most of their African ex-colonies. They do this with a clever mixture of voodoo accounting techniques and coercion. Every state that transacts in the dollar and Euro essentially transfers their wealth to them in return for the right to commerce. The US controls global shipping across the oceans, and can essentially plunder or restrict the shipping of enemy states in the event of open warfare. The British did it in every war when they controlled the seas, the Americans did during WWII, what stops them from doing this today, and what will be the “resistance” powers’ counter to such lawlessness? Or do you suppose agreements on a piece of paper is insurance enough of the global order that exists today and it’s rules? The Americans with their confiscation of Iranian assets are signaling what’s to come in a lawless global order. To me, the realignment of the global order is about the US/NATO refusing to permit regional powers the right to retain power within their traditional spheres of influence. Usually the hegemon in bygone days sets up a global order that permits junior rivals a certain space to operate, as long as they don’t interfere with the hegemon’s lion’s share of the pie. The U.S in this era believes it’s strong enough to be an absolute hegemon without those traditional accommodations. The resistance axis/ rivals of the U.S in this power struggle, are attempting to enforce the old rules that benefited them. The conflict is coming to a head, and we’ll soon find out if the US, the hegemon as well as the revolutionary insurgent against the old order, possesses this power they claim a right to. Or if the retainers of the old power system are strong enough to prevent this. We are in uncharted waters and I don’t see how any astute observer can pretend the fantasy rules still apply.
I think it might take rather more than a bit a piracy to defeat the allied forces…..you make some good points but if the west was so strong, then why did they back down from Iran a couple of yrs ago? Why did they not enter syria? If they are so all powerful? On the contrary its a toppling edifice , held up with smoke and mirrors, demoralised troops, generals and population. Disunified and disgruntled.
The fact that they can print their money is irrelevant, all nations print their own money…. Its what value that money has that matters nationally and internationally And the ZUD Dollar is in the process of being discarded…..and devalued. Look at pound sterling….. Over say the last 70 yrs…..methinks the hat wearing fantasists works for the US rather than the RF.
At the end of the day its minds battling minds, who has the stronger motiveation and willpower and of course technology is the edge.
Whatever happens, we have got, the s400 and they have not.
This is not wishfull thinking,rather the reality.
Numbers mean nothing When technological advancements are considered. How many horses will a modern car match…..
1) People don’t want money for money’s sake; they want it for the stuff it buys, and that puts a limit to how much printing they can do before the money becomes valueless.
Elites basically never pay for things themselves, but there’s still a limit to what their underlings can pay for. There’s no such thing as omnipotence.
2) Is ocean control even possible in a war with modern rockets & surveillance? Even the fanciest battleship is a sitting duck to a rocket many km away. Either way, how doesn’t directly attacking Russian ships start a war? Perhaps the most likely scenario would be terrorists, so USA doesn’t get involved, but then they can’t stop Russia from attacking the terrorists. If a war between USA and Russia could be contained to the sea, it still seems like it would hurt USA more – Russia has a lot of inland resources, while USA has been busily outsourcing everything to Asia.
1. Very true, but when you’re the world’s reserve currency, you can essentially mooch off everyone else’s GDP while simultaneously holding their wealth hostage.
China’s debt bomb is around USD$5.5 trillion on a $USD8.2 trillion dollar economy.
Note that China’s debt is rated in U.S. dollars, because that’s what it means to be the world reserve currency of choice; U.S. dollars are generally the standard to which all other currencies are compared.
People are worried enough about the Chinese debt bomb that there has been some capital flight (usually into U.S. dollars), indicating that China has printed the limit of what the Renminbi is worth.
America’s debt bomb is something like $USD19.2 trillion on an $18 trillion dollar economy. Nonetheless foreign demand for U.S. dollars is steady. People have no qualms about converting their surplus wealth into U.S. dollars.
While its certainly true that people want what money can buy, some lifestyles are more cash intensive than others. A retiree living on a couple of bucks a day has nothing in common with someone ‘needing’ hundreds to thousands a day to maintain their socioeconomic position.
2. Terrorist incidents like the recent bombings near the Russian bases in Syria are intended to nickel and dime Russia in a quagmire.
Among the first targets in a direct war between NATO and Russia will be the surveillance and communication abilities. Military planners are counting on major mobile assets like ships toughing out the opening shots of war.
So, for example, the U.S. basing ships in the Black Sea isn’t quite as foolish as it appears if they’re planning on taking the first shot. War is not going to be contained to the sea or anywhere else; once blind, the remaining nuclear assets on both sides should have ‘dead man switch’ protocols telling them to launch, ending the world. Direct war between the U.S. and Russia is should be unlikely to happen.
Mostly, the U.S./NATO is trying to exacerbate the divide between Russian nationalist hardliners against the pro-Western factions and force Putin to choose. So far, Putin has been able to ignore the sabre rattling and avoid triggering, by himself or by any panicky faction, any kind of polarizing political collapse.
The real objective, ultimately, is less likely war but Russian democracy and modernization, breaking the Russian spirit by sabotaging the economy and financial system, making Russians give up their sovereignty internally to division, corruption, and economic blackmail.
(Refer to first post for context)
This isn’t WWII where concentration of massed forces is the only way to achieve fire superiority. Concentrating your forces today in a confined space means death with the precision firepower available to modern armies. A few well spaced out but highly coordinated precision assets can be highly effective, while simultaneously presenting a very low profile target for enemy counter fire. The reason all governments fear the cordon sanitaire, is because it doesn’t just limit drastically the target government’s economic potential, it also limits its resource base. In the case of the Russian war machine, it’ll also limit it’s ability to maneuver in order to escape destruction. Russia isn’t the USSR. That means crediting the Russian federation with the combat capabilities and past achievements of the USSR distorts the real potential and abilities of the Russian government/war machine today.
You cannot logically claim the US/NATO war machine, with its ability to leverage nearly limitless financial and human resources is weak (think of all the third world mercenary armies being combat tested across the globe today, who will be jobless and available for recruitment for new wars should their NATO masters provide the necessary incentives). While simultaneously claiming that Russia, a shadow of the USSR, without its ability to leverage a similar financial and human resources base, is somehow stronger and impervious to attack. Let’s remember that the German war machine lost the war in the east during WWII because of logistics. They simply overextended themselves beyond their ability to effectively supply their forces. When they reached the limits of their logistics, the German army simply became a defenseless target in hostile territory. NATO is logistically much more capable than the Wehrmacht ever was. The Saker is making the same erroneous assumption he warns others against. When you compare Russia to NATO, you speak of firepower, not logistics potential. Cont’nd…
Isn’t this wanderer the one who claims Ukraine is Monaco, Disneyland and the City of London all rolled into one?.
Can speak in all sorts of fancy copy and paste, but in the end it is the Human Will that conquers all, and the Russian Will has conquered every wannabee johnnycomelately.
Greetings to Rota.
Meanwhile in Sweden russophobia keeps running high, blaming Russia when a mast going down!
Great analysis Saker, and very pedagogic for those civilians like me that are ignorant in these topics.
I am very glad that you remembered the highly ingenious and heroic Serbian defence against NATO in 1999
(Refer to previous 2 posts for context)
All throughout those NATO states, there exists networks of nucleus organizations. That’s the visible system the casual analysts ridicule and laugh at. But beneath it all, exists the reality that it’ll take an effort well within NATO’s potential, to conscript and flesh out these skeletal organizations with cannon fodder. Were Russia to attack in the conventional sense any of those NATO frontline states, she’ll face ever increasing resistance from these networks until she’s confronted with the same dilemma Hitler faced,namely how to sustain the war effort over extended spaces and a protracted period of time. It isn’t necessary at all to risk Chicago for Warsaw, if Poland doesn’t quit because the Polish rear/ support base is every NATO state as far back as Washinton. Taking Warsaw won’t end the war, and therefore accomplishes nothing. The Russian government knows this, hence the incomplete blitzkreig in Georgia in 08.08 and Ukraine today. Logistics and resource potential are the keys to winning modern conventional wars. The US/NATO axis grows stronger in this respect with every advance they make unchallenged into the post-Soviet space, and inversely, Russia grows weaker with every retreat. And if they don’t stop these missile defense/ first strike systems from being set up close to the Russ heartland, Russia’s nuclear deterrent won’t count for much in the scales, because the enemy possesses the same deterrent, with the added advantage of not being hemmed into a corner. Russia’s nukes will have a thousand dispersed targets to strike, NATO only one, and a concentrated and well studied one at that.
Russian is well aware of protracted war that could end badly.
For that very reason we will not witness a such confict.
Should there be a war and Russian’s will to resist I can guarantee you that British islands would turned into ashes in the opening hours. The consequence could spell the capitulation of Europe.
Poles, and other small fractions could still resist but they would be dealt with conventional means.
And in respect to U.S is a question mark…
Russia won’t attack / invade its neighbors unless legally invited. On the other hand, if Russia is militarily attacked on its own territory, I bet it will exorcise the crazies out of the basements. This will prevent any protracted war as it will either result in
a) cancelling all attacks on Russia followed by a ceasefire, or
b) turn the warring parties to ashes in the subsequent shoot-out.
All this assumes that the US can attack Russia without China intervening, or attack China without Russia intervening. But China is the only thing that keeps Russia from being encircled by US garrisons; and Russia is the only thing that keeps China from being surrounded. It is very improbable that a US-Russia war can be contained to only Russia; China will be drawn in.
Even in peacetime we can see some tendencies. Russian engineering is good at weapons design; but lacking in production. China is very good at production, but Chinese design leaves something to be desired. Right now, the US is antagonizing both Russia and China. If this results in cooperation between Russian weapons design and Chinese manufacturing capacity the West has a problem.
Have you even considered the Russian geophysical military options?
If things would really go the way you mentioned, which is quite impossible seen the internal (dis-)organisation of the NATO forces in Europe (of half a dozen in my family having served, of which three officers in the air force, they all complained about the ridiculous and crap organisation), then Russia will no doubt use a smart and less costly solution against its aggressors. Unfortunately there would no doubt be some Russian victims, like some beach loving tourists in Biarritz, or visitors of the Notre Dame de Paris…
Super tsunami, anyone? Running from 500 to 1000 km inland, gone eastern USA, gone western Europe. War over. Good riddance. Hopefully for the US and to a somewhat lesser extent the whole northern hemisphere that one won’t set off the Yellowstone super volcanoe…
Saint Andreas fault?
You seem to mean GLADIO. The basics of that are even on the Wiki now.
Those ‘assets’ were only ever used against their own people. How they will fare against a real invasion (that will never happen) remains to be seen. Arbitrarily victimized, trusting citizen civilians are easy to backstab; an occupying hostile army, far less so.
Backstabbeed citizenry, btw, make lousy soldiers for the backstabbers.
Latest News: Montenegro: Nato’s newest and last member?
Well Saker I sortof agree with you mostly but I would direct your reading to Revelations 6 and Isaiah 2 wherein you will find the unthinkable happens because the rich and powerful can hide in bunkers…they think.
Besides which can I pose a question:
Is nuclear winter the cure for global warming.?
“Is nuclear winter the cure for global warming.?”
That would be a good question for Stephen Schneider , Stanford “scientist”/opportunist who promoted both the icing over (1970’s) and the boiling over (1990’s and forward) scenarios, as each in turn became the lucrative path to pursue.
Seek the truth? Hell no! Follow the (grant) money!
He’s dead, but there are a lot more just like him still living.
You ended an excellent analysis with the hope ” The best thing that could happen for the future of mankind would be if real patriots would come back to power in the United States “. Appreciate such hope, since ‘hope’ sustains the dream.
The AZ cabal (of all ‘false’ shades like neocon, neoliberal, etc.) owning the global order (through capture of political-economic-social power in USA, Rest of 5Eyes, west Europe, Japan seems to be tempted to launch a surprise war / surgical strike (with many targeted objectives, significant ones being re-launching the economy through war, and capitulation of last real opposition forces in Russia and China). It seems, US Army is now preparing for major deployment (which may be in west Asia, east Asia, Russian border, Venezuelan border):
It is high time that, Russian and Chinese leadership sit down for a long-term planning (if possible, involve leaders from Iran and Kazakhstan). As I say, ‘caution’ guards against destruction.
I do not think that it will end with a major BOOM nor a nuclear apocalypse, as much as you like to imagine them “crazies”, they are not mad at all. After enjoying luxury and wealth for centuries, a life in an underground bunker is not something that will rejoice them.
they will continue to use their host (the west) with the help of their lackeys and they will continue to accumulate wealth and gold and to do that they need as many bogeymens as they can to distract the herd (refugees, russia, ISIS, climate change, islam …. ). they will continue to do that untill the host “die” and then they will either find a new host (Russia ??? China ???? …. ) and if they cant do that they will simply vanish in the shadows and erase all their footprints with a few false flags to plot for their next scheme.
and we will be left with a world drowned in corruption, decadence, filth, poverty, wars and madness.
we are all guilty for this downfall and it will be god’s punishement for our ignorance, greed and lack of courage.
We may not have any choice about living in “a world drowned in corruption, decadence, filth, poverty, wars and madness.”
However, as individuals we need not be ignorant, greedy, and cowardly. Those are personal decisions.
If Russia doesnt get a more backbone, or eventually usa/zionists will as most bullies that get away with murder, just increase the stakes.
So montenegro wont be last nato member.
Both ukraine, Georgia and maybe more countries will be swallowed into nato eventually.
Agreed that Russia needs to “grow a pair”. The erratic policy in Syria is proof, who will take seriously a nation which protects an ally by only sending a very small contingent, and then retreating to engage in diplomatic discussions with terrorists while gains on the ground are being reversed. This is bullshit not a “huge diplomatic victory”. If Russia is the only hope left to decent people, then we are beat already. Tue that they need to sit with the Chinese and conform a military alliance, then other countries will join.
But probably only because I’m dumb.
As we know: He is “always right” …
Cannot hear that anymore.
More music on the Titanic …
Excellent and interesting.
” But the most important reason for this nonsensical propaganda is that by constantly pretending to discuss a military issue the AngloZionist propagandist are thereby hiding the real nature of the very real conflict between Russia and the USA over Europe: a political struggle for the future of Europe: if Russia has no intention of invading anybody, she sure does have huge interest in trying to de-couple Europe from its current status of US colony/protectorate. The Russians fully realize that while the current European elites are maniacally russophobic, most Europeans (with the possible exception of the Baltic States and Poland) are not. In that sense the recent Eurovision vote where the popular vote was overturned by so-called “experts” is very symbolic.”
My feeling for a while is that there has been pressure from EU countries to abandon Nato – and that this is the backdrop for a lot of stupid comments by Nato (and by Eu leaders who feel their anti-Russian credentials need to be maintained.
The fact that Soviet forces were overwhelmingly instrumental in defeating the Wehrmacht in the land war in eastern europe 1941-1945, is basically incontestable. Although this is generally ignored by the western media.
However we should not underrate the part played by the Anglo-Americans in this conflict. The US and British Empire forces played a not insignificant part in the defeat of Germany in theatres including North Africa, Italy, France and western Germany itself. Add to this the British and American air offensive 1942 carried out by RAF Bomber Command and the US 8th Airforce based in the UK which smashed German cities, particularly in the Ruhr to rubble, and later with the development of long range US fighters, the Mustang, Thunderbolt and Lightning virtually eliminated the Luftwaffe. In addition to this there was the successful naval war in the Atlantic against Germany U-boats, and Arms shipments to Russia – in which my Uncle took part – along the coast of Norway, up and over Lapland and docking in Murmansk and Archangel. These brave seamen were under constant attack by U-boats and aircraft and casualties were very high.
Perhaps more important was the war against Japan conducted by the US mainly in the Pacific, The British/Indian/Australian and New Zealand forces in Burma, Malaya, and Papua New Guinea. It would be true therefore to say that the defeat of Japan was due to the Anglo/Americans and also the Chinese Communists under Mao. In its way the Battle of Midway was the crucial point in the war against the Japanese as was the British/Indian battles of Imphal and Kohima in Burma where the Japanese invasion of India was halted.
Who remembers these game changing battles any more? They still counted however.
Yeah, we all remember how you “smashed German city” of Drezden killing millions of civilians including children and destroying the objects of Wold’s cultural inheritance. Bravo, yeah…
And your point is? Civilians died. Perhaps you want to overlook the near 1million rape victims in Germany… or are you suggesting we gloss over that?
FDR was a great leader and politician. He also had some practical strategies, and tons of good luck. He also picked George Marshall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Marshall, who iirc chose Eisenhower and other successful commanders; and he had Churchill for an allie. Not only that, he was to have Russia bear the chief burden of casualities and destruction. America was left in a unique position then in 1946.
But now in 2016, There is no more Light Sweet Crude Oil boom in the future.
Instead, there are now 7,000,000,000 +++ people on earth wanting to eat 3 meals a day, and a LSCO bust in the future. There is no FDR, who values human life, or America; Putin is no FDR, Clinton is no FDR, and Trump is no FDR. Even if there were an FDR, he would be stimied by all the little ideological party pigs feeding at the trough of pig slop we all know as ,”Bizness as Usual”.
My suggestion is inner dis-armament; living more, with less; and producing your own food (or at least becoming some kind of producer while not consuming anything from corporations).
Logical and founded points saker, thanks. I just want to add that the US is in an extremely vulnerable geographical situation most cities are coastal cities and therefore vulnerable. A nuclear war in Europe against Russia means that Russia will first strike also US as president Putin said clearly during the Krim crisis. (we won’t strike only the dog who bites us but also his master)
A nuclear against Russia means a total destruction of US. Every logic thinking brain know that.
You are right that it is frigtenning if the war takes. Nevertheless the war must happen. It is a must to come out of the crrent mess and rottening structures created by the western Capitalistic system. First and foremost it has destroyed everywhere the harmony of everything.
Do you really think there is a peacefull way to solve the problem ? I absolutely don’t think so. Hence the most catastrophic war must happen and it will happen.
interesting point Secreat Agent, can you share with us the point by S.Cohen?
assuming the worst case scenario is th emost likely (Killary president in 2017) they definityely have to solve the Ukraine crisis by then and atl least secure a large easrtern chunck (Novorissia) free of US ABM/ICBMs. The asymaetrical response to Poland will apparentyly involve Belarus (and of course kaliningrad), would mak sense to do the same in Ukraine and avoid any NATo presence east of the Dniepr
Theatre as propaganda, the Maidan history:
Why, Saker (and especially, Sanjin)WHY?
Why this face-off between old allies (1770s, 1860s, 1941-1945) threatening global destruction?
The professional analysis is always welcome, and so interesting that without professionals like you and the men you learned from, we wouldn’t know up from down, practically speaking.
But why is all this necessary in the first place. Why?
I have a pretty fair idea what the answer to that question is, which I’d like to share, before the missiles fly, in fulfillment of Sanjin’s wish for the Great Cleansing, the Final Flush.
Sometimes these wars are all too real, but their actual causes are well concealed. Yes they are hidden, yes they are a game played on the human race, as Homer relates in the Illiad. By who?
Well by the Gods of Olympus, that’s who! Zeus and Athena and Neptune and that whole psychotic crew. The occult masters of darkness, you trained dogs, Breedlove, Petreaus, etc, the fake “Illuminati” who are all laughing at you! And near three hundred million dumb Americans that don’t know when they are being clowned, being played, by Luciferians that have already made most of you their mental slaves.
“Bite the hand that feeds you?” In this case, you Generals, Colonels and Majors definitely should!
Here is what they think of you, their trained “dogs”, their obedient “pets”:
Call this stupid WAR game off, and if it’s more harmless masonic games you like, well, go “Play Ball!”
Oh, you want your medals, that’s what’s dear to you, when your DOG tags are no longer around your neck?
Well, that’s where they really mock your dumb, dumb military asses, especially you not so bright brasses: http://thesaker.is/moveable-feast-cafe-2016-04-30/comment-page-1/#comment-233359
Be sure to scroll down to the examples of American vs Russian military medals, and then we’ll go from there.
We’ve been discussing Earth (Army) Air (Airforce) Water (Navy) and Fire (Thermonuclear).
But there’s one more, that’s supposed to be above the other 4 symbols of the material world: Spirit, where the real rubber meets the real road. More in the Cafe on this, later in the day. That will explain a lot to those who are also still asking “Why?”
Back to “Yalta-2.0” and “NATO leaves Europe”:
EU seen on track to extend economic sanctions on Russia: sources
31 minutes ago
NATO, Montenegro to sign key accession accord
By Slobodan Lekic
Stars and Stripes
Published: May 19, 2016
Bulgaria’s Govt Backs Montenegro Accession to NATO
Politics » DEFENSE | May 17, 2016, Tuesday // 17:28|
– See more at: http://www.novinite.com/articles/174515/Bulgaria's+Govt+Backs+Montenegro+Accession+to+NATO#sthash.ZeQeHf1J.dpuf
Russia and Serbia just Signed a Military Cooperation Plan for 2016
Oh, good enough.
But aren’t we talking about such a “Serbia” now …?
Serbia election: Pro-EU Prime Minister Vucic claims victory
24 April 2016
“Serbia must recognize Kosovo to join EU” – EP official
Ulrike Lunacek has said that she is “not an enemy of Serbia” and that she is “certain Serbia will not join the EU without recognizing Kosovo.”
Source: Tanjug Friday, May 13, 2016 | 09:45
@Scott: We discussed that last year: Montenegre may look ridiculously small and unimportant, but it isn’t!
Without it, Serbia has no Sea access in case of a war.
That was the final puzzle stone to surround Serbia. Ok, not the very final one, which is Macedonia.
But as you hear from the news (and wrote yourself last year) the AZ Empire is “working” on Macedonia.
Then the way is cleared to attack Serbia and Russia.
I bet that the fact that – as you just posted – Serbia is finally willing to apply for a protection (err “partnership) deal with Russia has to do with this very fact, see the timing.
As the enduring image of the Angel of Death in a Black Robe passes and all living things wither and die in it’s wake, so too, everywhere the Empire places its malignant gaze do all things wither and die.
To wit; A Spanish NATO pilot confirmed that NATO jets were “destroying the country, bombing it with novel weapons, toxic nerve gas, surface mines dropped with parachute, bombs containing uranium, black napalm, sterilization chemicals, sprayings to poison the crops and (more)”, going on to call it, “one of the biggest barbarities committed against humanity.”
Parenti “To Kill a Nation, The Attack on Yugoslavia”
“The Americans are simply unable or unwilling to negotiate…” This statement in the above article sums up the nature of the current beast to a “T”! It follows that the only way it’ll come down is that it must be brought down. How that will happen is anyone’s guess atm. I dont believe its a foregone conclusion that nuclear war will eventuate, just that as it meets more and more resistance Empire will eventually stumble and fall on its own blade. We must indeed be thankful that today Russia and China are leading the way for all freedom loving people.
In Macedonia, as the politicians are slowly made to yield, the people are more and more outraged. Every attack on the Macedonian identity is applauded; vandalism, humiliation, destruction is all condoned with a smirk as the coup careens on. We’re made to witness in silence a garish parade of sickening caricatures of “mediators”, lackeys, shameless barefaced liars parading as well meaning emissaries of democracy – if only the Macedonians could get it right! The Empire now is completely naked – all of his ugly, despicable maneouvers are on display and everyone has clearly taken sides. This is the good in an otherwise hellish situation.
One thing the Macedonian enemies do not understand – there is something known as the Macedonian Kletva, or Curse; those who raise their hand against this inviting, peaceful and highly cultured people often end up in the grave they have dug for their intended victim. “Do not dig the grave for your neighbor, lest you fall in yourself!” The world is a graveyard of those who have fallen at the last hurdle. They fail to understand that when they attack those who are defending that which they love, they stand in danger of the very power which they have put themselves in service to, returning unto them. Energy travels in a straight line, and if not engaged by a like energy it must eventually return to its sender. So dealing with power-mongers takes a great deal of insight into human nature, intelligence/intuition, and endless reserves of patience.
And what happens with the referendum? Majority of Montenegrins want a referendum!!
I heard once that in montenegro there was a law to regulate referendums, that sais that if a minimum of Montenegrins sign petition, referendum must be done. What happened with tath law? Was changed on instance of Western pressure?
You are totally wrong. You have mistaken reach for logistics. If anyone is going to invade Russia, it needs to enter Russian territory. When you enter Russian territory, you will meet Russian fighters and you are not going to back out and expect them to come for you since you are invading right? In this process, you are going to confront Russian fighters face to face right? So how the hell do you intend to defeat 1,000 Russian fighters with just 10 fighters in let’s say Kaliningrad? Oh you are going to bomb them? And the bomb won’t affect your own fighters who are facing them on the battle field? Oh and did you say something about concentration of forces? 1 may be a little number, but when you add it up with a lot of other 1s, it makes up a big number. US/NATO is concentrating a lot of forces in the Baltic. This makes them game for the Russian military. Do not assume that Russia does not have reach because they don’t have military bases across the globe. Military bases is old school and waste of money. Russia already have the fastest planes and fastest missiles so why expose their troops to risks at a base in Brazil when they can get get the job done by a submarine in the Black Sea?
“What would a war between Russia and the USA look like?”
War between America and Russia (not to mention against other multipolar states like China, Iran, etc) is ALREADY happening.
Right now, it is primarily based upon America’s attacks against these nations using proxy states; USA-sponsored terrorist groups; financial speculation attacks; Colored Coup D’etats; and massive propaganda and Soft Power war.
This is the nature of America’s Hybrid War.
The crazies are seeding another decade of chaos everywhere in the surrounding regions of Russia.
Even in the arctic and Far East, the probes are calling cards of further conflict for Russian ambition.
The shrewd Russian counter-moves with Vietnam, India, iran and with other ASEAN nations and with ME nations, seems very low on the horizon measured against the NATO threat, but Russia is building alliances for military, for oil and gas customers and partnerships, for investors in Russian industries (partial privatizations), and for strategic positioning in South China Sea, Sea of Japan, Mediterranean and Indian Ocean.
These Russian steps are deep, resilient and will manifest with the EAEU free trade agreements (even one coming with Israel), with SCO economic relationships and with the logic of banding to fight terrorism.
Putin has used imagination and agility to project Russia as a world power, while its economy has shrunk and the Russians suffer. Imagine when it begins to grow, its ruble stabilizes, oil and gas prices near $50, and Syria is freed of war. The view of Russia will be dominant around the globe.
This is what NATO/EU and US fear most. Threatening Russia merely will enhance the image of Russia’s peace-making and economic cooperation for developing nations. The West cannot win.
War is not an option. It may be a predilection for the crazies, but there is no appetite for even a small regional conflict. Look at Ukraine. The best the NATO crazies can do is send snipers and old, worthless equipment while its “trainers” futilely work with sociopaths in Nazi costumes.
Look at Turkey at its own borders. The toughest unit in NATO (other than the US) is terrified to engage with Russia in Syria. Israel dares not mess with Russia in Syria.
Russia is not to be messed with. Poking the bear is a zero sum war. You can stab her in the back, but you cannot pick a fight head-on, much less surprise attack her. The crazies in their basement bunkers playing WW3 can’t find a path to victory. GAME OVER.
@Larchmonter445, just to let you know, the Oil price is already approaching 50$
(WTI is at 48.20 and Brent at 48.80 USD)
No offence saker but as someone interested in military stratergy but hoping for peace, im not sure i share your views.
1. US bases, you say worldwide, but most of them are in the the N Hemesphire, within a 2000 mile flying distance to the RF from all directions except north. who`s to say they couldnt sneek in some nuke armed B2`s, ICBM`s into afganistan, s korea, japan even kuwait let alone E Europe to attack any target in RF. What are these respective gov`s going to do about it? nothing even if they knew about it.
2. They could use these bases as stepping stones bringing equipment through quickly when needed via verious routes, but limiting the ability for RF to strike the various bases they are coming from.
3. Yes most of non US NATO is week but the UK & France has a formidable nuke deterent & Japan could follow soon. These countries have some good conventional kit too and large armies.
4. RF has some good conventional kit too but hasnt built nearly enough to replace most of its pre 90`s stuff.
5. Who`s to say the US hasnt down played the cabability of its star wars defence platform, together with the next START treaty and the ecconomic war whatever the RF has left could be theoretically taken out to the point where the US might be willing to risk it.
6. Most of the US deterent is sub based and the arctic cap of the RF is difficult to defend against these due to its size.
7. I could see many surrounding countries taking bites out of RF after a US attack, i.e Turkey would move up taking crimea & surrounding SW territories, China maybe parts of Siberia etc..
The next major flashpoint i see is when Clinton gets in and decides to invade Syria, i have no doubt she will do this. The question is what will Russia do?. It still has its small airforce there and as Saker says the RF military is not built to operate more than a 1000km away.
Like i say this is just a theoretical nightmare senario i would hate to see happen as i would like to see both US & Russia make peace & fight terrorism together. It would be good if the Saker could reply to the points I raised.
LoL. America will never sincerely “fight terrorism” for the very reason that the United Snakes is the world’s premier terrorist nation.
Americans simply don’t have the honesty to admit what their war cirminal nation really is.
Al-Queda, ISIS, et al. are all ultimately Made in America.
Hi Saker: Is the first quote in the article another cliche? I respect this man’s intelligence and clarity so I pay heed to what he says.
what first quote are you referring to?
Alal vera, great article.
If you’ll allow me one reservation:
The Russians fully realize that while the current European elites are maniacally russophobic, most Europeans (with the possible exception of the Baltic States and Poland) are not.
Really? How do you know that? I hope you’re right; the Pew opinion surveys tell a different story, and they may well be biased.
“biggest fig leaves (Germany…)” Germany isnt the biggest fig leaf, the polish military is larger than the german military because it was downsized during the 90s up until 2012 so much that its now so small in size it couldnt defend a medium sized german town.
At maximum Germany could muster one armoured brigade and one infantry brigade and thats about it.It will stay that way many years into the future.
Here’s the Most Dangerous Thing About US Missile Defense in Eastern Europe
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160518/1039814980/us-missile-defense-biggest-danger-analysis.html#ixzz4984GVjX1
I frankly found some of Saker’s article intellectually soft. For example, his last sentence:
“The best thing that could happen for the future of mankind would be if real patriots would come back to power in the United States. Then mankind could finally breathe a big sigh of relief.”
This is sheer fantasy. As if Wall St. and international finance doesn’t exist; as if the Pentagon–industrial armaments-security complex doesn’t exist. As if the whole raison d’etre for referring to the US empire as the “Anglo-Zionist empire” doesn’t exist. And anyway, what exactly would “real patriots” have in mind for the US empire if by magic they had the upper hand in determining foreign policy?
Myths or no myths, what exactly is the point of the immense investment in encircling Russia with missiles along her Western borders. Just for propaganda’s sake? Doesn’t apparent aggression mean actual, real aggression and eventual intent to use the armaments? What is the point of provoking China in the South China sea? “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means.”
The A-Z empire isn’t “irresponsible”; it is an empire determined to dominate–regardless of any “real patriots.” Armed confrontation is inevitable. The US is being used by that which is determined to dominate at all costs.
John, Saker’s statement
““The best thing that could happen for the future of mankind would be if real patriots would come back to power in the United States. Then mankind could finally breathe a big sigh of relief.”
is no more “fantasy” than Leonardo Da Vinci’s drawing of helicopter-like craft and other flying machines were “fantasy”. https://youtu.be/nkgIvK93FRk
The main difference is that Saker’s expression of a wish or an intention is more necessary to bring into fruition today than Da VInci’s drawings and flying craft models were, in their time.
Necessity, being the Mother of Invention, is not a force to be sneered at or given short shrift. It has a way of activating mind and spirit to create that which did not exist before, but that whose existence was necessary.
Your descriptions of the “present” reality strike me as better than anything I could write. But “what is”, gramatically, is called the Indicative Case.
What would, could or should be, but is not yet, is called the Subjunctive Case. That is where ALL creativity and morality resides, grammatically, psychologically, spiritually speaking, in terms of determining the future reality. ALL of it! None of it is in the Indicative case except as a starting point to move forward from there.
The Indicative case is a dead description of what is. It is no prescription for what must be created, what needs to be made manifest, no matter how tall an order that may seem to be, in the mind of the first human being that conceives the right idea for the right problem, at the right time in history.
I’m sure that when it’s put that way, and you let your imagination of what is both possible and necessary loose (then it;’s not fantasy!) you can discover where human beings in the past, against seemingly impossible odds, did exactly what I am referring to here, step by creative step, rarely in a sudden flash. What did Edison say? Invention is 10% inspiration, 90% perspiration! Not easy, Necessary. Big, big penalty for not mobilizing the will, courage, True Care (Love) and creativity needed.
That’s why the enemy attacks the human mind, especially the right brain, the Sacred Feminine to maintain us in Mind Control slavery. Sounds silly, I know, but I’m not kidding in the least:
Leonardo had it. Every Creative genius had it. They lived, they live today, not in the Indicative Case, but in the Subjunctive Case!
Sorry, my friend, I don’t share your regard for the US. I see one long trajectory of predatory behaviour and a depressingly banal commercial huckster mentality; combine that with a pseudo-religious evaluation of themselves and their so-called “destinty” and you get the nightmare of their actual existence and their actions on the world stage. The world needs a long vacation from the US–and from Israel.
The point is can you imagine the USA being cleaned up short of being defeated in Thermonuclear War?
I see a lot of people here trapped in the zero zum game of sports mind control, lusting for the defeat of the Dallas/USA Cowboys at the hands of the Chicago Nyet, Nyet MOSCOW Bears.And others fearing the Bears will get sold out and betrayed before the kick off
That’s what you’re resigned to?? God help humanity if your imagination stops there!
It’s more complicated than that, a lot more moving parts. A lot more potential breaking points that can bring change. Like 2008 2.0
Which may even arrive prior to Election Day 2016
I can imagine the game getting cancelled, the dollar turning to toilet paper (pinch the base of the Pyramid on the reverse side, and wipe with Novum Ordnum Saeclorum) and enough Americans breaking free of mind control to escape nuclear incineration at the hand of their pyschopathethic controllers by a hair on their chinny chin chins.
If people can’t imagine such an outcome, and apply mind, spirit and body in that direction, why should this whole planet not be cancelled by a higher power (so to speak), as a failed experiment in putting human consciousness to the test?
Where does that test start? Clue: That location is NOT outside of you, dear reader, wherever you are on the surface of planet earth.
No, I can’t envision it being cleaned up because, in my view, “American” doesn’t correspond to a real identity, but rather is whatever current circumstances in the land make it. Example: Saker identifies with his Russian heritage, and in particular with that which actually constitutes the “soul” of “Mother Russia,” namely its Orthodox Christianity. This is a real identity. Outside of a real identity, rooted in what transcends the sphere of earthly becoming, you just have some variety of individualism, which is an illusion. Modern men, of which the American is the very model and culmination, is a rootless entity.
America is a hodgepodge and a babel of false ideals, in my view; a bastardized combination of English puritanism and the ideals of Locke, Hume, the “Enlightenment,” and the French Revolution, mixed in with all the forsaken identities of immigrants from all over the globe. It’s essence is “business,” “opportunity,” material “progress,” and all that is really nothing at all, humanly speaking. It’s the logic of an ant heap absurdly combined with the false ideals of secular autonomous man, who is at once a very vocal “believer,” in something or other, de facto an empiricist and a materialist–a “believer in “science” and “progress” above all, and a kind of hedonist as well (“life,” “liberty,” and “the pursuit of happiness”). The American-modernist rejection of traditional man is a kind of proof of this false identity. His technological superiority is only fragmentary and essentially illusory. For me, the model of authentic human beings are the founders and the great saints and sages of the world’s traditional civilizations, as they were before the modern onslaught that began around the time of the Renaissance with the “discovery” of America and the beginning of European colonialism. At that time, European man had already lost his true identity and become a locust stripping the world of all that makes life worth living and meaningful. Possession of a laptop and the ability to fly in a jet offer absolutely no decisive superiority over of what a Buddha or a Christ represent, which is timeless, placeless, and decisive–the “one thing needful.”
Excellent summary of the spiritual emptiness of the West in general and America with its inflated ego from “winning” WW II making it shallower, and uglier, with less culture.
But you keep avoiding my question. Let me put it another way:
That which you describe in Europe or America IS (present , indicative case).
It’s clear you’d flush it all, if you could, or have it nuked for being so sinful, but lacking the power to do so, you sound resigned, a mere spectator.
Suppose just for the sake of philosophical exercise, you pass from the Indicative case way of being into the Subjunctive case way of thinking and being and acting, as though you were almost God, or King, with a lot of power, but in the form of knowledge and control within the boundary conditions of the Universe, ie natural law. Lots of power, but not finger snapping, presto its done, power.
What would your program be to bring about what should be brought about within the constraints of what could be brought about, though it may take decades and be difficult to do? Granted that it would be impossible to you now, with no power, but imagine a lot of power. Can you imagine the steps that would make a significant, lasting, beneficial change?
Of course, I would have no program, because such things pertain to the sphere of Divine activity in the cosmos. However, one can note that there is no collective human substance there to accomplish something legitimate. It would be like trying to plant seeds on cement. That’s why the Bible, along with other traditional texts speak of an end of a human cycle. What comes “after” is a “new heaven and a new earth,” and hence a new humanity. A new cycle begins, and it too will decay in time. The last stage of a cycle represents the exhaustion of the lowest possibilities of a given cycle. “New Agers” as well as Christian Zionists imagine that it is they who will pass over into the new cycle. That is not a possibility. Rather, at the end of the cycle, there is a “discrimination” between the “sheep” and the “goats,”–the Quranic “those of the left side, those of the right side, and those who are brought nigh,” respectively those whose subsequent destiny is “samsaric,” and for some even “infernal”; those who are eventually “saved”; and those who pass to the celestial regions immediately, having been sanctified in this life. At this late date, the only solutions are individual and not collective. In other words, the individual can choose “the one thing needful,” but the collectivity, mankind as a whole, is no longer a receptive substance for Revelation, the only thing that could redeem it. The whole raison d’etre of modernism, modern societies and modern men, is to bring about the end of the cycle by their increasingly destabilizing and destructive activity. In other words, modern collectivities cannot be saved, but there are individual exceptions, “remnants.”
As you may surmise, I try not to have personal opinions on such matters, but try to base myself on traditional data.
…the side that feels the lesser urge for peace will naturally get the better bargain.
It is not necessary to say US and NATO.
It is enough to say NATO [ or f* nato criminal organization ]
It would be the same like saying EU and Portugal.
You write: “I don’t deny their valor and contribution, but it is important to realize that no resistance movement in Europe ever defeated a single German Wehrmacht or SS division (10 to 15 thousand men)”
Actuallly, depending on definition of “resistance movement”, it did: one example is 264th Infantry Division (Wehrmacht), that was completely destroyed in November / December 1944 by Yugoslav National Liberation Army (“Partisans”). There are more examples …
Not to forget that Yugoslav resistance tied up up to 500.000 axis troops …
“also is that nothing could force the Russians to just sit and watch while such a force is being assembled (the biggest mistake Saddam Hussein made).”
– But what could Russia do if USA was building up and preparing an invasion? Defeat the current forces and then occupy all of Ukraine, Poland, Germany, France, UK and all other NATO countries? It seems like even If Russia could defeat NATO in Europe, what would they do then? Occupy all those countries.. that seems impossible.
“…But what could Russia do if USA was building up and preparing an invasion … ?“
Russia could do many things. Destroy invasion forces on the move, US ships on the Atlantic carrying troops and hardware to Europe for an example.
Occupation of Europe wouldn’t be necessary.
I believe your analysis on forward deployment is erroneous and agree with Stephen Cohen’s conclusion here:
“Batchelor and Cohen consider whether today’s eyeball-to-eyeball military confrontation is reminiscent of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when nuclear war was barely averted. Cohen thinks it is becoming even more dangerous partly because whereas Soviet missiles in Cuba were, as was said in 1962, ‘only 90 miles’ from America, NATO forces in the Baltic states are only steps from Russia; and because while in the 1962 Cold War crisis there was only one tripwire, in and around Cuba, today there are several US-Russian confrontations, from the Baltic states, Ukraine, and Turkey to Syria…
“Cohen reports, as he did last week, it is being remembered in Moscow that the last time such hostile military power amassed on Russia’s frontiers was in June 1941, when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union. Both Cohen and Batchelor are astonished by a yet unconfirmed report that the Obama administration is pressuring Berlin to add a German contingent to NATO’s presence on Russia’s borders today. If so, says Cohen, Washington, unlike Moscow, has no historical memory—unless it actually wants war with Russia.”
Worth listening to in its entirety.
See also Alistair Crooke here:
“In mid-April, General Alexander Bastrykin, the head of Russia’s Investigative Committee (a sort of super attorney general, as Cohen describes it), wrote that Russia — its role in Syria notwithstanding — is militarily ill prepared to face a new war either at home or abroad, and that the economy is in a bad way, too. Russia, furthermore, is equally ill prepared to withstand a geo-financial war. He goes on to say that the West is preparing for war against Russia and that Russia’s leadership does not appear to be aware of or alert to the danger the country faces.
“Bastrykin does not say that Putin is to blame, though the context makes it clear that this is what he means. But a few days later, Cohen explains, the article sparked further discussion from those who both endorse Bastrykin and do precisely mention Putin by name. Then, Cohen notes, a retired Russian general entered the fray to confirm that the West is indeed preparing for war — he pointed to NATO deployments in the Baltics, the Black Sea and Poland, among other places — and underlines again the unpreparedness of the Russian military to face this threat. ‘This is a heavy indictment of Putin,’ Cohen says of the revelations from this analysis. ‘It is now out in the open.’
It’s really freaking sad when the monstrous cold warriors driving US policy for decades now seem sane, reasonable and even high minded, by comparison to the demons who seem to be running it now
Thanks for another great essay, Saker.
Is there any plausible scenario for a purely conventional conflict between US and Russia? Doesn’t any fighting almost guarantee a nuclear power?
If anyone payed much attention to the presidential campaign, they may have noticed how many candidates openly claimed they would declare a no fly zone in Syria and shoot down Russian aircraft that did not heed it. And now, they openly talk about shooting down Russian planes for “harrasing” us navy ships. I don’t think any of them are dumbest enough to do it. But you never know. And since the Donald Cook was close to Kaliningrad, I assume it was also close to Shore to ship missiles that could sink it. I’m sure the captain is aware of that and will act accordingly. But again, you never know.
Is there any plausible scenario for a purely conventional conflict between US and Russia? Doesn’t any fighting almost guarantee a nuclear power?
I don’t see how. In theory, maybe. But I don’t see a US-Russian conflict staying conventional for much time. But we are in uncharted territory here. It all depends on many many assumptions.
The US military does not have a culture of direct confrontation. It is not prepared for a one on one situation. It has always used proxy tactics as its primary dogma, manipulating and arming native factions.
Remember, it took America and its allies 13 years to topple Sadam Hussein. 12 years of seige warfare. Sanctions did all the work. Millions died due to a weakened infrastructure, via sanctions. It was only after more than a deacade of this that the US felt confident enough to engage directly against an already defeated foe. And even then they relied on bribed elements within Iraq to do most of the dirty work.
This was also seen in Syria where the US was left literally speechless for days after Russia began its bombing campaign.
The US does not have a military culture\doctrine of direct confrontation. Abscent years of softening by NGO’s the US is incapable of acting “on the go”.
So if a direct confrontation were to unfold tomorrow, it would take the US weeks, if not months, to begin to react.
How events would unfold after that is another subject.
Few data points about relative capabilities of European militaries, including the Russian one:
1. Russia stopped almost entirely buying new fighter aircraft from 1992 to 2008, building for herself a total of 2 (two) fighters during that time. Since 2009, a program of intense building has been put in place and is proceeding in spite of the economic crisis.
However, if you count the numbers, you will find that as far as fighter aircrafts newer than 25 years-old are concerned, Russia has presently… less than France alone. That should change within 2-3 years, but Russia is not there yet.
30-odd years old fighters – which Russia still has aplenty – may have some life still in them, and may be counted for some tasks, especially when the opposition has neglectible anti-air assets – think Su-24 or -25 against Syrian rebels. But in a war against more modern aircraft, they are not a significant factor and would be downed easily.
Ditto most of Russia’s long range bombers – Tu-95, Tu-22M – which may be of service against countries without air defense or to send “political signals” by patrolling close to Western European Atlantic borders, but would disappear very rapidly in a war against countries with modern air defense. Such as most Western European nations, and for sure the largest ones. If Italy e.g. had to deal with Russian Tu-95s making not a patrol but an attack – yes this is politically extremely improbable, but we’re speaking relative capabilities here – they wouldn’t need help from any other NATO country to down them.
2. Russian land forces are the largest on the continent, that’s clear enough. It doesn’t follow that power of others is neglectible, far from that.
Take the Polish land forces as example. They got at a minimum 25% as many main battle tanks as Russian forces – this, if Russia’s T-80s are really and fully operational, which is an open question – and at least as operational and trained. Remembering that training is a crucial part of preparedness.
Actually, Polish land power relative to population is approximately similar to Russian. That is, Poland has ~3,5 times less population than Russia, and it could be disputed whether its land power is 4 times less (looking raw number of tanks) or a bit more or a bit less depending on the measurement.
3. Logistics is key, you underlined it rightly. Now it should be understood that this is true for Russians as much as it is for Americans, Europeans or anybody else:
Russia’s naval logistics is lesser than France’s, which is itself roughly equivalent to British.
Russia’s land logistics is definitely better… but would still be strained supporting a large combat force far from Russian borders. Remembering density of road network in Western and Central Europe, compared to what it is in Russia, it would probably be simpler for land forces of European countries such as Germany, Italy, France, and definitely Poland, to support intervention of their forces on Poland’s Eastern border, than it would be for Russia.
4. Dispersion of forces is another key factor, again you’re very right. Speaking of which, Russia is spread over nine time zones, its naval forces are spread over two oceans and three smaller seas, its land forces are spread over at least three major theaters – depending on how you count.
While part of France’s and Britain’s forces are spread overseas – less in proportion than Russia’s however – the crushing majority of Germany’s, Poland’s, Italy’s and other’s forces are… home. And their homes are much smaller than Russia’s.
Russia’s situation as far as military dispersion is concerned is intermediate between USA and Europe… closer to the US situation.
5. Defense of Baltic countries wouldn’t be more than marginally helped by battalion or brigade-size NATO land force located there, that’s right.
Incidentally, this scenario is politically a big pile of horse manure, you’re totally right. Russians would have to elect an absolute total craze to the Kremlin for it to become even marginally realistic. Agitating around this kind of scenario is a clear manoeuver by some Atlanticist circles to farthen the political distance between Western Europeans and Russians. In actuality, this scenario must be threat N°30 or 40 in the list of most threatening risks in Europe… if even that!
That being said, if Russians ever chose a retarded politician, sent him to Kremlin and threat N°40 did materialize, defense of Baltic countries would not be immediate, for obvious logistical reasons. It would have to be after-the-fact, that is either:
– Direct military liberation of Baltics
– Or a possibly easier option of occupation of Kaliningrad – indefensible against NATO for the same reason that Baltics are indefensible against Russia, and then swapping one for the other at the negociating table
Though it is probable that America would help, in truth European members of NATO wouldn’t need US help to accomplish one or the other. With possible exception of space intelligence assets, US ones being extensive while French ones are somewhat limited.
Most probably, US would send a limited force and “lead from behind” using their influence on NATO power structures to gain influence on the cheap.
One more point, about the risk of nuclear war. This one is largely overestimated.
In truth, cases of limited war between nuclear-armed countries have already happened. Think:
– Soviet Union – China border war 1969
– Pakistan – India war in Kargil region 1999
One could also add the case of Kippour war 1973, when only one side had nuclear weapons granted… but it’s the other one which attacked!
No reason to expect a war between US and Russia, say in Syria, to escalate to nuclear use. Nothing in nuclear doctrine of either country would point to such a risk. It doesn’t mean that such a war wouldn’t be destructive – it would be – nor would have no dangerous consequences elsewhere and in the long term – consequences would be aplenty. Just: it would not be nuclear.
And yes, the risk of election of Clinton looms large. Some people around her have explained that there would be “no flight zone” in Syria, enforced by the US, and if Russia disagrees for reason of Syrian sovereignty and consequence is a war then so be it.
It will be impossible to avoid nuclear consequences in a war between Europe, Russia and/or the USA. Even if all sides would refrain of using nukes, there are hundreds of nuclear power stations to keep under control continuously. However, in a shoot-out between countries the civilian infrastructure – in particular electricity supply – will be downed quite quickly. Looking at NATO’s war crimes of the past 30 years, NATO always bombed civilian infrastructure early in the conflict (energy supply, medical facilities, media stations, schools). There is no reason to assume that this scorched-earth-mentality would be any different when it comes to Russia.
My conclusion is therefore that a war against Russia will result in the depopulation of the earth due to acute and long-term consequences of dispersed radioactive waste. Think of several dozen nuclear reactors blowing their guts sky high in loss of coolant accidents. This would cause a global extinction no matter where these reactors would be located.
Interesting article. I have a few sidenotes.
I believe that you underestimate the importance of the alliance in World War II. Yes, the Russians did most of the fighting. But the Western powers imposed a de facto “continental blockade”. Also, only the Western allies were capable of bombing Germany.
I beg to disagree on South Ossetia. As I understood it the plan was to overwhelm the Russians in South Ossetia – what given the numerical and material superiority of the Georgian forces should have been possible – and then to close the mountain passes and tunnel so that the Russians would find it very difficult to get back in. In those circumstances Russia would have been pressured to accept some kind of face saving compromise. The plan failed because the Georgian troops did much worse than expected. Of course the big unknown is whether Putin would really have allowed himself to be humiliated in such a way.
Also I can’t see the 2006 Lebanon War as just “unwinnable” for Israel. For me it was a classical example of generals fighting the previous war: in this case the 1982 invasion in Lebanon.
One question: what has happened at the US military colleges that we now see generals like Breedlove: have they been taken over by the neocons.
Amazing article. There so much posturing from the White House, one might assume that appearance rules over reality. Every four years it does. Certain leaders, Clinton at the forefront, are so craven they use the threat of total destruction of society everywhere as a campaign technique.
Wanderer you should try to be a little bit realistic. There is now way Russia is going to fight a war against the US and ignore the UK and France. Out in says Russia the dog that bites and its master are one and the same. England, France and Belgium do not have what it takes to “command” their ex-colonies in Africa while at the sane time engaged in a hot war against Russia. The presidents of Egypt and Nigeria and South Africa came to lower with popular support from the West, but as we can all see, they are siding with the East and not afraid to show that. Yeah the South African President is suddenly corrupt, el Sisi of Egypt no longer has what it takes to rule Egypt and air disasters are happening here and there but be rest assured that Egypt is secretly taking delivery of President-Ss and a lot of attack helicopters from Russia. In fact, Egypt got $25billion loan from Russia and that money will be spent on Russian weapons. In Nigeria, terrorists, militants and segregationists (they are all the same) are getting roasted by the military while the media tells everyone exactly the opposite. Corruption is being nailed in the head but instead, they tell you that the ‘Nigerian Dictator’ is silencing opposition members (same thing Putin is doing in Russia right?). These are the economic giants of Africa and except there is a change of leadership before this ‘war’ we are talking about happens, Frbace and UK might be faced by rebellion from their ex-colonies who would take the path of the big 3 of Africa. The US can print as much papers as they like, but if the Russians decided to ever bless the Saudis with weapons and accept them into their alliance, the US economy is done. The petrodollar will be done. The US will be left with just one ally that matters in the middle east.
“The US will be left with just one ally that matters in the middle east.”
Yes, and they are both possessed with a messianic national identity that proclaims that they are the Divinely Selected.
Israel is God’s Chosen People.
And America is the Exceptional nation and people.
America and Israel are truly a match made in Hell.
And Hell is exactly where USA and Israel will drag the world in a spasm of planetary (nuclear) war if they don’t get their way.
Call it the Sampson Option.
Excelente analisis Saker !!
If Hillary Clinton does indeed make it into the White House, she will bring along Victoria Nuland as her Secretary of State. Clinton already has the endorsement of Robert Kagen, Nuland’s husband and founding member of the Project for the New American Century. This will be the most scary constellation of bona fide crazies since the G.W. Bush / Dick Cheney disaster.
The argument is cogent and clinical. Russia has a local superiority in any conventional war in her backyard, as demonstrated in Georgia and Ukraine.
President Obama had over-reacted on Putin’s grabbing the Crimea. The Russian Empire took over the Crimea about the time USA was born.
Any attempt to base policy on demonization of Putin is deeply flawed.
As regards Russia , Obama has been singularly disappointing.
Decisions based on ignorance of history are invariably flawed.
Not sure he overreacted. A big reason for the Ukraine coup was the hope to gain Crimea and deprive Russia of a strategic base. It didn’t work out and the Anglo-Zionists were furious. They didn’t count on Putin’s speed and decisiveness.
There will be no war in the Eastern European theater until the EU gets reliably weaned off from Russian Gas supplies. Russia may just turn the heat and lights off if annoyed preferably right before winter.
NATO deployments are token trip wires as in not substantial for defense or offense. Yet, deployments seem synchronized with operations launched by non-NATO partners: Israel, Turkey, Saudi, Qatar and Jordan com plete with their supported jihadis in Syria.
New dual purpose radar and ABM shield installations in Romania and Poland can fire nuclear capable missiles at Russian CCC. These are in violation of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. This is a real threat that must be neutralized at any slight provocation with nuclear capable Iskander and Kalbr missiles.
“Russia may just turn the heat and lights off”
Yes, it may, it may … but … it has not. For the other side of that same “until the EU gets reliably weaned off from Russian Gas supplies” coin reads: “until Russia gets reliably weaned off from its Gas supplies to the EU”.
Any other wisdom?
Yes, an EMP can bring down: Power, communications, road transportation, etc in tandem with shutting the lights and heat off by disrupting natural gas supply preferably before winter.
At the same time torpedo attack the Aegis naval platforms sitting in Rotta, Spain. Take over and/or check mate the straits of the: Dardanelles, Bosporus and Gibraltar. That is just for starters. This is the opening salvo.
Unlike many of the posters, I don’t see the present confrontational military posturing by the US and NATO as part of a strategy intended to ultimately lead to military conflict. To my mind, it is more likely that the primary preferred aim of this strategy, as well as the imposed economic sanctions, is to pressure Russia to such as extent as to trigger a color revolution resulting in the removal of Putin.
As far as I am aware, the US military simply does not have the capacity to fight a large scale land war with Russia. Obama has stated this as well. If a war is to be fought, it appears from US reactions that the US intends for this war to be fought by European NATO. The Eastern European countries, backed primarily by Germany, Britain and perhaps (presently non-NATO) Sweden, would have to serve as the front line.
Indeed. That makes a lot of sense. But who really knows…
Oh, yeah! People from Israel, rise up!
‘War minister!’ Hundreds rally in Tel Aviv to decry Israeli PM’s defense chief pick
” Hundreds of protesters gathered in Tel Aviv on Saturday to protest the far-right turn the government has signaled by choosing Avigdor Lieberman as Defense Minister. Activists say PM Benjamin Netanyahu is putting Israel on a path of war.
Demonstrators came together at HaBima Square in Tel Aviv, saying that by appointing Lieberman to head the military, Netanyahu had created the “most right wing government in the history of the State,” Israeli media reported.
“We think this government is a disaster for our country,” the Jerusalem Post quoted one of the organizers as shouting. “There is no future or vision.”
Protesters held up Peace Now signs and waved green left-wing Meretz party flags as they chanted slogans with Netanyahu’s nickname: “Bibi you failed, Bibi go home,” and “We don’t want more victims, Lieberman is a minister of war.”(…)
(…) Lieberman is known for his controversial suggestions, such one advocating “cutting off heads” of Arab-Israelis not “loyal” to Israel.”
Editorial from Haaretz:
Israelis Will Pay Dearly for Their Prime Minister’s Reckless Appointment
“Netanyahu has demonstrated that he is prepared to drag the country into a potentially disastrous military adventure, to remove all moral constraints and to encourage blatant racism for the sole purpose of staying in power.(…)
(…) His call for the declaration of a state of emergency in Israel, “like in France after the attack in Paris” is especially worrisome: Lieberman would like to suspend freedom of expression in favor of freedom to shoot.
It was only a month ago that Netanyahu (in the name of Likud), described Lieberman as a lazy amateur, “a petty prattler” who wasn’t even fit to be a military analyst. Now Netanyahu is entrusting the defense establishment to a man for whom “the only projectile to ever whistle past his ear was a tennis ball.”
Yes to “The best thing that could happen for the future of mankind would be if real patriots would come back to power in the United States.”
I hope and pray, but doubt. I would love to believe it could happen, though.
On point six, forward deployment is an advantage in a first strike.
As mentioned, the real fight is with longer ranged weapons. Forward deployed troops, should they survive, can move in more quickly to sweep up whatever remains of an opponent’s forward deployed troops/front lines.
There will be lines; they just won’t be secure lines traditionally enjoyed by confronting armies. Just as in Syria today, there are front lines and defined territories, but the territories are highly permeable.
So it is an aggressive move, and implies the threat of a first strike.
As for Outer Mongolia, its an early example of a ‘colour revolution’; the Russians, in the process of expelling White Russian forces there, also arranged for Mongolian independence from China to become a Soviet satellite state.
While today the hostility of the Poles and Lithuanians seems unfounded, they do have real history with Russia that colours their thinking.
Thinking that changing the U.S. alone will make a difference is short sighted. The Americans aren’t necessarily the enemy so much as the enforcers and pawns (many more willing pawns than others) of the toxic international financial system. That is the real enemy; defeat it and everything else comes together.
The return of patriots to the U.S. government isn’t happening. They would need to take the Presidency, Senate, and Congress, the civil bureaucracy of Empire, and then, confront the Security State – virtually simultaneously.
This isn’t possible under the present ‘majority rule’ electoral system, in which a mere 30% of voters decides (assuming 60% eligible voter turnout) the government and everyone else is shut out.
The inevitability of Hilary Clinton shows how noxious popular party partisans are; all they care about is power, not the morals and issues of a candidate.
The Security State is the enforcement arm of the NWO; it can’t exist without it. Trump could be everything the patriots wanted him to be, and it wouldn’t be enough without world conditions also being right for humanitarian revolt against the international bankster system.
The octopus needs nearly all its arms cauterized at once, which can only come through stronger democracies elsewhere via systems like proportional representation and a general abandonment of international central banking.
Especially, the replacement of government bonds masquerading as debt to private banks (which is really, the private banks borrowing the wealth of The People to sell back to them as money), in favour of sovereign money and primacy of public, locally owned banking over private.
Until then, international tensions will continue to be milked by bankers for more debt which in turn can be used to compel more international tensions, while an international ‘Security State’ will congeal to enforce it.
Good comment. I would also add that there are ways to resist the banksters both at the national and personal level. At the personal level, a debt boycott is an effective strategy, pay off any outstanding debt for which you may be liable, and avoid taking on more. A consumer boycott of non-essential items is also an effective resistance strategy. I also am pleased to see anti-market strategies such as local food production, consumption sharing and cultivation of skills which permit independence from relying on market based services.
Absolutely true. Avoid debt, embrace thrift, reject consumerism.
Most people have to now anyway, and for those that don’t – yet – its good practice for living in the future economy.
“All the others, including the USA and the UK, shared the puny 20% or less and joined the war when Hitler was already clearly defeated”
You mean in 1940? When the North Africa campaign started? When the Battle of Britain was won?Stalin was still sleeping with enemy then.
Selective memories for some here….
1940, when Hitler was planning Operation Barbarossa, not cleaning Britain’s/Allied clocks for good like he could have.
All that effort going into Barbarossa should, from a strategic standpoint, have gone into ensuring Britain could never serve as a staging point for re-invading the Continent with American help like in WWI.
There are other measurement to calculate how important western and southern front were for Germany. Greater Germany used about 58% of munition production targeting air war and ~12% for sea war. Only 30% of German war production went to land warfare. Studies made by Zaloga and Erikson are suggesting that German armor losses were 32% in west and south while 68% in east. But if we took air war then clearly with just short period being the exception, Luftwaffe took heaviest losses when fighting against western allies. Germany produced total 100 000 aircraft in 1938-45. Just about 10 000 – 11 000 of them were lost in eastern front combat. Also Germany used only 12-13% of anti aircraft artillery in east during period from late 1943 to end of the war. And average ~22-24% of Luftwaffe fighters were in east during last 20 months of the war.
It’s quite realistic to suggest that just about 30% of German munition production was targeting Eastern Front warfare. Generally – land warfare during military history has been much more backward and primitive compared to that at sea (and in air since 1939). Army weapons of WW2 were cheap, easy and fast to produce and if lost fast and easy to replace. Losing aircraft carriers were much more devastating.
So Germany used about 30%, USA and UK about 20-25% and Japan just about 15-17% for land war of their munition production. What really mattered for them was air and sea power. Soviet Union was only country using more than half of munition production for relatively primitive but cheap land warfare. Partly that’s why it took such horrific casualties. (Japanese army losses were about 65% non-combat).
There is no doubt that about 80% of those German soldiers who deceased lost their poor lives in eastern front. But on contrary Germany war machine (using munition production as measure) was mostly destroyed by western allied air and sea power. People should not forget that in early 1944 about 76% of German fuel didn’t come from Romanian oil fields or any other oil fields (Germany/Austria/Hungary). 76% of their oil was synthetic ( 95% of aviation fuel).
I guess you got these estimates from Phillips Payson O’Brien’s interesting and ground breaking study “How The War Was Won”. I’ve always wondered why military industrial perspective of WW2 was lacking such a long time until O’Brien combed the huge available data. German munition figures were really amazing. For instance they used some 4.5 billion RM for concrete shelter construction just in 1943 – as much as producing 40 000 panzers, assault guns, tank destroyers and self-propelled guns. According of German statistics some 80% of that huge shelter construction was targeting western allied air war (or securing U-boats).
Then there was V-1 and V-2 programs hogging at least 2 billion RM but as O’Brien later in his book revealed German V-weapon figures the total cost of building these pointless revenge weapons was likely about 3 billion RM. V-weapon was 3rd most expensive munition program during the war. Second most expensive was Manhattan ( 2 billion dollars). Number one was B-29 (at least 3 billion dollars). Note that one should not trust much on exchange rate of RM and US Dollar. Instead it’s better to compare V2 or concrete shelter construction programs to production cost of bf-109, Ju 88 or panzers and not forget how high the development cost Luftwaffe aircraft were. Unlike many historians Phillips Payson O’Brien was also underlining hidden development cost of many WW2 aircraft and U-boats. On the other hand army weapons, even tanks had relatively low development cost compared to Navy and Air Force weapons.
Irony, comedy, farce, tragedy or interesting (it’s your choice) but it’s true that Germans really defended Courland until the bitter end because Admiral Dönitz wanted safe test area for his revolutionary new generation XXI U-boats. It also underlined the fact that Hitler really prioritized air and sea warfare over land war (though he just like Germans and Russians too have not idea of modern super battlefield warfare).
There are two main reasons why Germany and Soviet Union took so terrible heavy losses during WW2. First both had dictatorship regime with no need to buy support from people for war itself. Second – both Hitler and Stalin were men of the past with no idea what modern warfare would look like. For Hitler and Stalin war would be modernized WW1. Of course there were similar old school men in west (especially army men). However Churchill and especially Roosevelt (note: both Navy men) supported more advanced warfare. It’s interesting how both USA and UK cut heavily armor production programs. There were plans to build US Army with over 200 divisions. Roosevelt cut these budgets with tough hand and gave the money for Navy and Army Air Force. In spring 1945 US Army was just 91 divisions (though division was about 3 times the size of Red Army average division). When cutting army demands it made possible for Britain to keep more men in aviation and navy munition production. It’s worth to remember that most skillful labor force in UK, USA and Germany was reserved for more advanced aircraft and navy production. And it’s interesting to know that in 1944 Germany had as many workers building aircraft than America had. Germans build almost totally only small fighters while American not only produced much more aircraft but these planes were much more bigger and expensive. Those who are claiming that bombing Germany was futile have not checked all facts.
Depends on which bombing you’re referring to.
The terror bombing against Germany was futile and the Americans disagreed with it, preferring precision strikes against industrial-military targets. Mad Bomber Harris got it in his head that area bombing German civilians would win the war.
German production went up and up till the end of the war; Mad bomber Harris was wrong and also a murderous idiot. To compare, the Japanese also didn’t surrender under mass bombing of civilians; it seems to a ruling elite, civilians are totally expendable regardless of which side they are on. It was Russia’s entry into the Pacific war convinced the Japanese to surrender.
Anyway, USAAF Schweinfurt raids under LeMay and Williams (August-October 1943) almost took out German ball bearing production. Allied casualties were heavy, but relative to losses pointlessly bombing civilians they were far more effective and could have ended the war early had they persisted.
USAAF General Carl Spaatz ‘oil plan’ raids in May-August 1944 destroyed German synthetic oil production and all but grounded the Luftwaffe.
However, the United States hadn’t entered the war in 1940. France yielded all the fuel the German war machine could have needed to finish Britain. It was the defeat in France that spurred Britain to up the ante with civilian bombings, despite an earlier agreement between Britain and Germany to limit civilian casualties.
Postwar, researchers found that the terror bombings were a failure.
Going by munitions numbers seems to be really reaching for cherries to pick. German production rose throughout the war, even when they were losing the most. Ships and aircraft are more resource intensive by nature, and ships and aircraft don’t hold ground. Soldiers do.
The Germans were finished after Kursk, before the late war Allied attacks on German industry and synthetic oil finished a war machine already reduced to using teams of oxen and horses. The lack of fuel and lubricants meant most of Germany’s late wartime, coal-driven production sat idle.
Then finally, as Stalin would have said, no man, no problem, and Germany had run out of cannon fodder while Russian momentum was just getting started.
If in 1940 the Nazis declined to attack Russia, German forces would have pushed Allied forces back into the sea, or never gave them the chance to land in the first place.
Good analysis. In fact even the British Empire was tricked by Col. Beck, the Polish FM into giving them a worthless guarantee which Britain could not honour without the USSR and Poland rejected this option leaving Ribbentrop free to deal with Molotov and negate British policy; which itself was SIMPLY a peevish response to Hitler seizing Prague in March 1939 and humiliating Chamberlain.
Poland is indefensible in European warfare. It wants however the US bases from Germany to boost its economy. Rammstein in Germany puts $1.5 billion a year into the local economy and many rural areas exist simply on US Dollar spending. Poland wants that economic development.
NO Europeans want conflict with Russia. The game being played by Deep State in Washington is exposing Merkel as a puppet particularly as Erdogan builds the kind of dictatorship which should be incompatible with NATO membership and fawns over him, just as Adenauer was forced by the US in 1961 to import Turkish Gastarbeiter to alleviate Turkey’s internal problems.
NATO is a US overlay turning the EU into an Economic Subcommittee in Europe. The demands for a NATO Schengen to permit US Forces free movement across national borders is incompatible with national sovereignty. Germany trying to marry its army with Czechia and Netherlands is desperate attempt to hide inadequate spending and resourcing.
Germany has 4.5 million men <30 and just imported 1.2 million predominantly young Arabs <30 to create an internal military imbalance. Putting 25,000 of these imports into 67 military bases including the Luftwaffe base in Erding is hardly conducive to NATO being effective
“Poland is indefensible in European warfare.” That is a strange assessment. Poland exists for 1000 years and over that period of time won over 100 wars.
Best proof: it still exists while over 20 other tribes / ethnicities / states from that region are extinct. It effectively outlasted a lot of its enemies over the course of the last millennium. Most of them are so gone that most people cannot even name them properly.
@Pax: Where would Poland be without A) Stalin’s Red Army and millions of Soviets fighting and B) without the German lands east of Oder/Neisse which had been german for 800 years?
And then: Typical polish cherry picking, as always: For Stettin (originally planned to be part of the Soviet Zone and from 1949 on GDR) which was West of the river Oder the Oder-Neisse line was not good enough and it got occupied by Poles in July 1945, against the will of Stalin. The beautiful west-Oder island of Usedom also almost got annexed by Poland, had it not been for the Soviets who needed it as vacation resort for their Soviet Zone generals and of course the Rocket factory in Peenemuende..
March of Stalin’s Artillery［medley］
There wouldn’t be a Poland now without the Russians who rescued your ass and died in the millions (27!!!).
But as always you Poles continue to hate Russia.
Let’s partition Poland once and for all: All of modern day so called “Germany” gets turned into Soviet Communist Germany and the border to the Soviet Union must be east or west, no: In the center! of Poznan.
Polish and german languages will be outlawed and the childs shall finally find it easier to learn Russian immediately after birth.
The Ukrop Nazis get relocated to Antarktika.
As nobody is against it it is been formed into law by this key stroke.
Happy World 2.0 :)
Falling in love with techno war is very human attitude. However as we do remember the facts of Vietnam War sending maximum 540 000 soldiers of techno military power to South Vietnam gave Americans just about maximum 70 000 combat soldiers. And even of those combat soldiers not nearly all were capable for real action. Actually Americans had never more than 40 000 combat soldiers ready to be sent to jungles and hills of South Vietnam.
Now things are even more amazing for most civilians. In Gulf War hardly more than 5% of so called “allies” were combat soldiers. So even if you had ½ million soldiers “ready to fight” in reality you hardly have more than 25 000 grunts sent to be slaughtered by determined defenders.
There are lots of reasons to calculate this evolution. One is ignored. Our culture doesn’t appreciate sacrifice and dying for fatherland. Idea of techno war is a fig leaf to hide that fact.
If we could only expect rationality from the people destroying the country, but 40 years of dysfunctional education has left us with a challenged population unable to tell the difference between problems and solutions, we are out of time.
A compelling simplified analysis that manages to cover most of the bases without trying to turn over every stone. In truth, I believe that each new generational war provides many surprises that the experiences and lessons from the previous war fail to address. It is, if nothing else, a failing of human nature.
However, I truly believe the outcome as expressed so succinctly by Albert Einstein is inevitable.
“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
Judging from he language used you suffer form severe personal bias against the people of central and eastern Europe and it is clouding your judgment in the assessment of their military capabilities.
I would expect that from an American analyst since they tend to have bias towards counting expeditionary capabilities as the only capabilities that matter, but not here.
Polish military doctrine assumes that in the case of attack form Russia it will not receive any help from its allies (they consider the alliance with the USA as “worthless” – this is the language of the Polish officials, Google it).
Poland’s military doctrine assumes Russia would initially defeat Polish FoF capabilities in a matter of 2 to 4 weeks (the reason for them to exist is to make that victory very costly) and then the protracted war of attrition would ensue where the occupying forces would be slowly bled to death making occupation of Poland economically ruinous.
Poland has more armor than Germany, France and GB combined. It designs a stealth tank that is a specific response to the Russian long-range anti-armor missile capabilities (most dilettantes think that a stealth tank is funny – it is funny unless you have to go against anti-armor missiles with 300km range). How many they manage to manufacture is another issue.
Finally it has over 250k people trained as “asymmetric warfare specialists”. This is not your regular guerilla force made of civilians.
Finally what you don’t seem to get is that you cannot “provoke” Russia. Russians see kindness and compromise as weakness. Also, their threshold for what is offensive versus just “manly” is a whole lot higher than for any Western Europeans. Polish understand Russians a whole lot better on a common cultural ground than you or anyone else of non-Slavic heritage could.
First: “Judging from he language used you suffer form severe personal bias against the people of central and eastern Europe and it is clouding your judgment”
“Russians see kindness and compromise as weakness”.
Now I can say… Judging from the language you use, you suffer form severe personal bias against the people of Russia, and it is clouding your judgment.
For the most part I agree, but regarding your claim that “the NATO air campaign against the Serbian Army Crops in Kosovo will go down in history as one of the worst defeats”, I would not be so sure. Yes, the Serbs shot down an “invisible” F-117, but at the end of the day they suffered many losses in infrastructure, many civilian victims, and finally they surrendered and lost Kosovo. Now there is a huge American base there (Camp Bondsteel). So if that was a defeat for NATO, well… I think NATO would gladly agree to be “defeated” this way in every campaign.
Let’s is hope and pray that this kind of insanity does not take over the current US leaders.
> Lets Hope
One thing I would like more people who have a forum to discuss more loudly is the fact that neither side could win a nuclear war anymore, even if they managed complete destruction of the enemy in a surprise attack and received not one retaliatory hit. Both sides now have an operational “Dr. Strangelove” style doomsday machine in the form of their nuclear power generators and the accumulated nuclear waste. Should you even just release a biological weapon that significantly cripples Russia, all of their reactors will go Fukashima within a few weeks with nobody to keep the spent fuel contained. The same is true of the US, only times 2. Dropping nuclear bombs on these reactors will prove even worse. Sure, an H-bomb contains way more bang for the fallout buck than a pure plutonium bomb, but if that H-bomb vaporizes a spent fuel storage, even dry, the long term affects will be disastrous and incurable. In the 50’s and 60’s it might have been possible to conceive of a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the US and somebody might “win”. Today nobody can because the waste radioactive material needs to stay in containment. Any event that resulted in a massive failure to contain the waste radioactive materials built up over the last 50 years will result in the planet being uninhabitable by even the proverbial cockroach for 100’s of thousands of years. Even plants that don’t get hit will experience a domino affect as the workers who keep them safe die off or run out of reasons to go to work. Sure, the workers might toil away for a few weeks without pay or food, but eventually they will stop showing up. The backup generators will run out of fuel. Something will go wrong. With Fukashima we learned that a nuclear reactor can completely blow up in less than 24 hours after it loses the grid if the backup generators fail. And fail they will, even to get them diesel fuel requires a large interdependent supply chain that won’t exist anymore after the nukes go off.
Einstein was right when he said “I don’t know what weapons will be used in WW3, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones.” Or at least he was right when he said it. Fast forward to 2016 and Einstein didn’t know the half of it. There will not be a WW4. Earth will look like Mars. And I haven’t even gone to the nuclear winter concept. You don’t need to anymore.
Very informative, thank you. While for historical reasons I’m quite cautious vis-a-vis the Ivans, the anti-Russian scaremongering is really obvious and partially outright infantile.
“The Red Army accounts for no less than 80% of all the German losses (in manpower and equipment) during the war. All the others, including the USA and the UK, shared the puny 20% or less and joined the war when Hitler was already clearly defeated.”
This deserves to be recalled, against all disinformation.