by Tatzhit Mihailovich
In this article, I discuss the mechanisms driving the biggest threat facing all of us. I speak, of course, of the possibility of a nuclear war between the two superpowers.
Recently, I translated a short story by a Russian submariner – he missed a signal, and went through the launch procedure unable to tell whether they were launching ICBMs for real.
The story vividly describes _how_ the war would happen, but those technical details are relatively well-known.
[this is what the last 40 seconds of the old world would look like]
[and this is how the whole thing would go, more or less]
So I realized it is much more important to explain _why_ could the war happen – like in any murder, the motives behind it happening in the first place are more important that the specifics of the tools and ammunition used.
The story touches on the mentality a little bit: the author wasn’t able to tell whether Armageddon was in progress _because_ he knew that, when push came to shove, his comrades would end the world and not bat an eye.
This attitude isn’t limited to military men – here’s a an article about ordinary Russians reacting to an ICBM-looking trail and _half-megaton_ blast above their city, smashing windows and knocking out most cellular networks:
Simply put, Russians are less scared by nuclear war than Americans.
This mindset is somewhat shared by the political leadership – in fact, Russia has already started a massive nuclear rearmament effort. And, unlike the USSR, they have little else to use as leverage.
The reason this article is very important is that Americans and American government seem to be oblivious to what Russians think and where that might lead us.
The US government policy in the Middle East had essentially the same problem – thinking that Arabs would share the American view of the situation, and act like Westerners would. That thinking is so arrogant and bull-headed that it makes Donald Trump cringe(!), and even elicited under-the-table resistance from US military leadership(!!).
To sum it up, Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State blew up the Middle East; Hillary as President may blow up the world.
– 1. CRY WOLF: COLD WAR MAY BE AN OLD THREAT, BUT TODAY’S CIRCUMSTANCES ARE FAR LESS BALANCED
– 2. ‘IF PUTIN IS TOPPLED, HE WOULD LIKELY BE REPLACED BY HAWKS, NOT DOVES’: HOW A NUCLEAR STANDOFF MAY BE RE-IGNITED
– 3. ‘NUKES UNDERWATER, NUKES IN SPACE, NUKES LAUNCHED BY COMPUTER’: WHAT ARE THE DANGERS OF A NEW COLD WAR
– 4. ‘WE ARE AFRAID OF MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION, THEREFORE RUSSIANS MUST BE TOO, AND WOULD ACCEPT THE FATE OF NORTH KOREA RATHER THAN DROP THE BOMB’: DON’T THINK THAT OTHER CULTURES REASON LIKE YOU DO
– 5. ‘YOU DON’T KNOW IF THE OTHER GUY HAS THE GUTS TO PULL THE TRIGGER… UNTIL YOU’RE SHOT’: ONE CAN’T PROVE A MINDSET, BUT IT SHOULD DEFINITELY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
– 6. ‘MOST RUSSIANS STILL SING WWII SONGS AT PARTIES’ : HISTORY OF ALL-OUT WAR
– 7. ‘I USED TO BE A DESTROYER OF WORLDS’: WARRIOR’S NOSTALGIA
– 8. AN ALL-OUT WAR THAT GOES NUCLEAR
‘CRY WOLF’: COLD WAR MAY BE AN OLD THREAT, BUT TODAY’S CIRCUMSTANCES ARE FAR LESS BALANCED
There is plenty of talk about nuclear war these days – the Doomsday clock is at its lowest point in decades (in fact, it’s far lower than it has been for the majority of Cold War!), nukes are becoming a daily topic again, and there is no shortage of articles saying ‘we feel a new war coming‘.
However, most people treat all of the above with scepticism – the ‘nuclear scare’ has gone stale over the last 70 years. The reasoning goes ‘if the Soviet Union never used nukes, the more reasonable and far weaker modern Russia certainly won’t’. Any talk of a ‘resurgent Russia’, ‘new Cold War’, ‘Putin dismantling Europe’ is largely viewed as fear-mongering by military lobbyists and sensation-hungry journalists.
[this is how a lot of people view news reporting on ‘Russian aggression’]
Of course, all that is somewhat true – modern Russian leadership is indeed much less stern than the WWII veterans that stayed at the helm of USSR until the mid-1980s, and Russian military, whatever the Russian patriotic channels say, is but a shadow of the Soviet might.
[In war, just like everything else, you get what you pay for]
Putin’s half-hearted and purely reactionary military endeavors aren’t exactly Hitler material either, no matter how they’re painted.
However, the belief that ‘Russia is more reasonable than USSR’ that most people seem to have is due to an ahistoric, ‘Hollywood’ understanding of USSR’s decision making and circumstances.
There are a number of purely practical reasons why ‘global nuclear war’ was way lower on USSR’s list of responses than it is for Russian Federation.
For starters, USSR spent the first 3 decades of the Cold War 1.0 (so, you know, about 3/4ths of it) being way outmatched in the number of nuclear weapons, so the USSR was going to suffer much more should a nuclear exchange take place, and the leadership had three decades to learn restraint. Also, the WWII veterans that led USSR up until the Perestroika and collapse remembered the real cost of war all too well, and did not easily fall into empty jingoism and warmongering.
On the other hand, Russian Federation started with way more warheads than USA, so the new leadership always knew that, whatever else happens, nukes are the one thing they can rely on. And for the current generation of Russians, old wars are no longer personal memories of horror, but rather proof that Russia will always win in the end.
Second, USSR was much more powerful militarily, ideologically, and economically. Nukes were used as a deterrent, but USSR never needed them to protect itself from a conventional invasion, an engineered protest movement, or an economic blockade of some sort.
If USSR was still around, Ukraine 2014 would have ended just like Czechoslovakia 1968, and Russian ‘opposition’ would end up like the 1968 protesters. Sanctions would be laughed off – USSR’s planned economy had little need for foreign credit, Soviets made their own drilling equipment (and their own everything), and Soviet officials would be completely unfazed by travel bans.
Of course, modern Russia isn’t nearly as secure in all these aspects, which makes nukes one of their few remaining options.
Third, understanding the world shouldn’t just focus on where we are today, but where we’re going tomorrow, and why.
As someone who lived for decades both in US and in Russia, I feel that Americans really fail to understand the the the ‘pro-Western vs pro-Russian’ ideological debate that Russia’s been having since the 17th century.
The collapse of the USSR was a big victory for the pro-Westerners; but the fact that the West refused to treat them as allies and equals means means the downfall of that ideology and a return to the Russian/Soviet ‘besieged fortress’ mindset (this resurgent ‘readiness for war’ mentality is also very important, and I’ll focus on it later in this article).
A good analogy is Iran: If we learned anything, it’s that you can’t beat a culture into submission. US government’s aggressive foreign policy only continually pushed it to be more anti-American, more united, and more interested in obtaining nukes.
The catch is that Russia already has nukes. Stubbornly waging a ‘new Cold War’ is in fact forging America’s worst nightmare – a radicalized, nuclear-armed opponent.
If you would like an expanded discussion, I have recently written about the misgivings Russians have with US foreign policy.
Short version: Russians actually like most Western values… but what happened in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Syria doesn’t look like ‘Western values’ at all. Heck, most any politician in the USA who dares voice his own opinion, across the entire far-left to far-right spectrum, agrees with the Russians’ grim view of US government’s actions – from Dennis Kucinich and Tulsi Gabbard to Pat Buchanan and Ted Cruz, and even loose cannons such as Ron Paul and Donald Trump.
Before we to talk about the implications of that renewed animosity toward the West, it is worth mentioning this excellent analysis of the practical and diplomatic aspects of the new Cold War by a Sovietologist with 50 years experience:
‘The chance for a durable Washington-Moscow strategic partnership was lost… it was squandered and lost in Washington. And it was lost so badly that today, and for at least the last several years (and I would argue since the Georgian war in 2008), we have literally been in a new Cold War with Russia. Many people in politics and in the media don’t want to call it this, because if they admit, ‘Yes, we are in a Cold War,’ they would have to explain what they were doing during the past 20 years.
Here is my next point. This new Cold War has all of the potential to be even more dangerous than the preceding forty-year Cold War, for several reasons. First of all, think about it. The epicenter of the earlier Cold War was in Berlin, not close to Russia. There was a vast buffer zone between Russia and the West in Eastern Europe.
Today, the epicenter is in Ukraine, literally on Russia’s borders. It was the Ukrainian conflict that set this off, and politically Ukraine remains a ticking time bomb. Today’s confrontation is not only on Russia’s borders, but it’s in the heart of Russian-Ukrainian ‘Slavic civilization.’ This is a civil war as profound in some ways as was America’s Civil War.
My next point and still worse: You will remember that after the Cuban Missile Crisis, Washington and Moscow developed certain rules-of -mutual conduct. They saw how dangerously close they had come to a nuclear war, so they adopted ‘No-Nos,’ whether they were encoded in treaties or in unofficial understandings. Each side knew where the other’s red line was. Both sides tripped over them on occasion but immediately pulled back because there was a mutual understanding that there were red lines. TODAY THERE ARE NO RED LINES. One of the things that Putin and his predecessor President Medvedev, keep saying to Washington is: You are crossing our Red Lines! And Washington said and continues to say, ‘You don’t have any red lines. We have red lines and we can have all the bases we want around your borders, but you can’t have bases in Canada or Mexico.’ Your red lines don’t exist.’ This clearly illustrates that today there are no mutual rules of conduct.
Today there is absolutely no organized anti-Cold War or Pro-Detente political force or movement in the United States at all––not in our political parties, not in the White house, not in the State Department, not in the mainstream media, not in the universities or the ‘think tanks.’ I see a colleague here, nodding her head, because we remember when, in the 1970s through the 1980s, we had allies even in the White House, among aides of the President. We had allies in the State Department, and we had Senators and Members of the House who were pro-detente and who supported us, who spoke out themselves and listened carefully to our points of view. None of this exists today. Without this kind of openness and advocacy in a democracy, what can we do? We can’t throw bombs to get attention; we can’t get printed in mainstream media, we can’t be heard across the country. This lack of debate in our society is exceedingly dangerous.
The position of the current American political media establishment is that this new Cold War is all Putin’s fault––all of it, everything. We in America didn’t do anything wrong. At every stage, we were virtuous and wise and Putin was aggressive and a bad man. And therefore, what’s to rethink? Putin has to do all of the rethinking, not us.
I disagree. And this is what has brought the outrageous attacks down on me and my colleagues. I was raised in Kentucky on the adage, ‘There are two sides to every story.’ And these people are saying, ‘No to this story, the history of Russian and American relations, there is only one side. There is no need to see any of it through the other side’s eyes. Just get out there and repeat the ‘conventional mainstream establishment narrative.’
We in the United States cannot lead the world alone any longer, if we ever could.
… globalization and other developments have occurred that ended the mono-polar, US-dominated world. That world is over. A multi-polar world has emerged before our eyes, not just in Russia but in five or six capitals around the world. Washington’s stubborn refusal to embrace this new reality has become part of the problem and not part of the solution.’
2. ‘IF PUTIN IS TOPPLED, HE WOULD LIKELY BE REPLACED BY HAWKS, NOT DOVES’: HOW A NUCLEAR STANDOFF MAY BE RE-IGNITED
I think a discussion I just had (in my previous piece on nuclear war) outlines one possibility rather well:
American idiot: America and Russia won’t be going to war with each other anytime time soon you retard.
Tatzhit: Yeah, it seems unlikely now. Two years ago, it seemed impossible. How much time until it seems likely?
[discussion about dates]
New Zealander: … It is possible, even likely, that Putin would be taken down from within before it got to a nuke strike without a pretty damn serious set of conditions to justify such a pointless and self destructive action.
A more disturbing scenario is the following:
Ethnic Russians get defeated in Ukraine (it’s heading that way, and would likely lead to a large-scale cleansing campaign), or Russia gets humiliated in Syria (Syria/Assad is basically on its last legs – almost every man who could fight is either dead, fled, or in the army), or the plunge in oil prices plus Western sanctions manage to destroy Russian economy.
US seems to hope this would shatter popular support for Putin, and he would be either replaced by US puppets like Miloshevich/Yanukovich/Shevarnadze, or Russia would disintegrate like Libya/Syria/Yugoslavia.
This doesn’t account for the fact that Russia has very low popular support for pro-Western opposition (i.e. 65,000 members and supporters of various opposition parties voted in 2012 elections for United Opposition Council. For comparison, in the US, Green Party alone has over 200,000 members).
To put it bluntly, 9 in 10 Russians view pro-Western politicians as hated clowns [snip].
Also, Russian government and society are far more centralized than tribe/ethnicity/religion split Middle Eastern and Balkan countries. [In other words, Russia doesn’t have that many fault lines that could be exploited to dismantle it.]
In short, if Putin is deposed due to perceived failure to stand up to the West [or if the balance of power in government shifts while the figurehead stays the same], he would likely be replaced by hawks, not doves. They would then obviously proceed to play a game of ICBM chicken with US, because really that’s the only major card they can play.
This process has already started, more or less – remember how Russia recently unveiled plans for ‘underwater ICBMs’, that are essentially impossible to detect or intercept?
… This whole scenario can very well end in two nuclear superpowers pushed into a Mexican standoff with constantly escalating stakes.
New Zealander: Look mate, I appreciate your passion and you do have some points, but your last line ‘two nuclear superpowers pushed into a Mexican standoff with constantly escalating stakes’, do you think we have not been there before? and yet we are all still here.
Tatzhit: Yeah, because USA managed to talk the Russians out of it. You think it’s gonna work a second time?
Maybe this will help explain my position a little more:
New Zealander: Well, that’s one way to look at what occurred, but in reality the USA managed to call them out on it by wielding a very large stick rather than talk them out of it, so yes, it would likely be the outcome if it came to it again as the USA still has that same stick.
Anyway, good to see someone take an interest in such matters, but don’t go cashing in that life insurance policy just yet.
Tatzhit: Heh, I dunno about that. USA had a much larger stick than the Russians for three decades (parity in nukes was only achieved in late 70s), and that didn’t impress them at all.
No, I’m pretty sure by late 1980s Russians realized they were at this standoff for 40 years and no one shot, so they decided to lower their guard and be friends. They really thought they should try to accept the American way – hence, you know, voluntarily dismantling USSR, putting neoliberal economists in power, dramatically scaling back international presence, and all that.
In return, they got economic ruin of the 90s, continued economic pressure (remember that 1970s ‘anti-USSR’ Jackson-Vanik amendment was not repealed until 2012, when it was instantly replaced by Magnistky bill and soon after, US&EU sanctions), US-backed ethnic cleansing of the pro-Russian Serbs, continued NATO expansion to East Europe (sure, the Baltics voted for NATO – because they’re apartheid states where [many] Russians, even local-born, are banned from voting), and as a final straw – a US-backed coup in Ukraine, which led to the pro-Western half of the country basically shitting on the needs&wants of the other half.
Russians are coming back to the Soviet mindset FAST, and it’s not gonna be pretty when they get there.
[I’ll leave any semi-accurate comparisons of today’s Russia with Weimar Republic, Russian Empire circa 1914, Japan 1905, etc. up to the readers – such mental exercises make for entertaining conversation, but the historical context is too different to make any solid conclusions.]
– 3. ‘NUKES UNDERWATER, NUKES IN SPACE, NUKES LAUNCHED BY COMPUTER’: WHAT ARE THE DANGERS OF A NEW COLD WAR
From a technical standpoint, we can all predict what would a renewed Cold War imply – even more proxy wars around the globe, more WMDs, possibly a renewed Iron Curtain.
That increases the risks, because it probably entails a massive nuclear proliferation on the part of Russia. In other words, more red buttons that need to be pressed as soon as any alarm goes off – because US missiles are now right on Russia’s borders, not across the ocean.
The reasoning is very simple: there are plenty of experts in Russia who are saying that, since Russia’s voluntary withdrawal and reduction of nuclear arsenals has completely failed to convince USA/NATO to adopt a similarly pacifist/isolationist stance, Russia should go back to what worked before, i.e. holding them at gunpoint. And since matching the US empire in conventional firepower is completely unrealistic, Russia should logically go all out on the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine.
Nukes underwater (that one Russia is already building), nukes in space (cue this article), nukes built to intercept US nukes (since USA refused to cooperate and unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2002, anyway), more systems designed to automatically launch nukes, stationing nuclear weapons in countries Russia would like to protect (just like the US does), etc. etc.
In fact, many argue that such measures may not be simply a smart geopolitical move, but a necessary condition for survival – massive nuclear rearmament as the only way to prevent Russia being decapitated in a rapid nuclear strike and/or dismantled in a US-led invasion (and these fears are far from baseless).
If you check out all the links above, you will see that the Russian leadership seems to be rapidly heading down that path already.
4. ‘WE ARE AFRAID OF MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION, THEREFORE RUSSIANS ARE TOO, AND WOULD ACCEPT THE FATE OF NORTH KOREA RATHER THAN DROP THE BOMB’ : DON’T THINK THAT OTHER CULTURES REASON LIKE YOU DO
There is one thing missing from this fact-based analysis: the mindset of the men with their fingers on the big red buttons.
The American public tends to think that the rest of the world is populated by similarly pragmatic, individualistic, and Hollywood-raised people. Because of this error, Americans always get very surprised when the natives respond to ‘democracy’ with jihad or, say, a communist uprising.
The same is true of the current situation:
Americans think that Russians are just as loss-averse as they are, so while there is a good chance of retaliation, nukes would never fly.
Therefore, nuclear escalation won’t be a real problem – at worst, Russia will become another Cuba/North Korea type country, too bothersome to invade but otherwise completely harmless.
And, as I’ll try to explain below… that is not entirely true.
5. ‘YOU DON’T KNOW IF SOMEONE HAS THE GUTS TO PULL THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOU’RE DEAD’:
ONE CAN’T PROVE A MINDSET, BUT IT SHOULD DEFINITELY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
Before we proceed with a discussion of the fabled ‘Russian soul’, I need to point out that, unlike the historic facts and recent news I discussed up to this point, ‘mindset’ is a much more elusive concept. Sure, I can try to pin it down by focusing on a relatively narrow topic of ‘attitude to all-out war’, or even ‘nuclear war in popular culture’. I can present a few translated stories, or popular songs, or recent examples when people acted based on this mindset, to support my interpretation of what Russian leaders and military men are going to think as the world slides closer to Armageddon.
However, another article may present counter-arguments that sound equally compelling, especially to someone who does not know the culture.
When dealing with people’s beliefs, intentions, and potential future decisions, we really don’t find out for sure until the moment comes and we find out if the big red buttons get pressed or not.
So, I’ll give you my opinions and examples, take it for what it’s worth. I can’t guarantee that the mindset I explain will prevail, or even that nuclear escalation itself will continue and won’t be defused (if, say, Hillary miraculously loses next election and we get isolationist Trump or socialist Bernie).
I can only guarantee that this mindset exists, that it’s strong in Russia, and definitely worth keeping in mind.
6. ‘MOST RUSSIANS STILL SING WWII SONGS AT PARTIES’ : HISTORY OF ALL-OUT WAR
We won’t get bogged down in details of Russian history and national identity: first off, everyone knows Russians fought&won against every great conqueror from Golden Horde to Napoleon to Hitler, and second, the fine historic details don’t matter – what matters is that Russians believe their nation survived by standing up to empires that were far more powerful, via great effort and sacrifice (more on this subject here). I suppose the best way to demonstrate this belief is through popular culture, and situations from recent memory when this belief played a crucial role.
For example, here’s a WWII song. Easy to remember, depressing by Western standards but quite OK for East Europe.
The catch is that it remains an extremely popular party song today. For Russians, singing WWII songs is a completely normal thing (as well as songs about other wars). On the other hand, I can’t remember a single American party where anyone would play WWII songs, much less sing them.
Exhibit A: ‘SINGING WAR SONGS MAKES COLLEGE STUDENT A CELEBRITY IN 2011’
Ok, so those old songs can be explained by memories and tradition.
But the next one, below, is only a few years old. The guy who sings it used to be a college student and became crazy popular because he sings stuff like that. In short, war songs are not a fading memory, but a permanent part of culture.
[in these two, I could not fix the subs, so translations are not as good]
Exhibit B: ‘WHEN WAS THIS POEM WRITTEN?’
Here’s a famous poem that is fairly representative of the ideas discussed – talking about Russia’s history, it’s unique ‘mindset’, and the implications (it also claims Russians are ‘Eurasian’ and not European, i.e. the aforementioned ‘Pro-Westerners vs Pro-Russians’ debate, and the skipped part talks about siding with Chinese against Europe, but thankfully we don’t need to discuss those subjects).
‘Scythians’ by Aleksandr Blok
Tr. Alex Miller, with corrections/editing by yours truly
You are but millions. Our unnumbered nations
Are as the sands upon the sounding shore.
We are the Scythians! We are the slit-eyed Asians!
Try to wage war with us—you’ll try no more!
For you – whole centuries. For us —a single hour.
Like willing serfs, obeying and abhorred,
We held the shield between two hostile powers—
Old Europe and the raging Mongol horde.
For centuries you’ve watched our Eastern lands,
Fished for our pearls and bartered them for grain;
Made mockery of us, laid out your plans
And oiled the cannons for the great campaign.
The hour has come. Doom flies on beating wing.
Each day augments the old outrageous score.
Soon not a trace of dead or living thing
Shall stand where your empires thrived before.
O Ancient World, before your culture dies,
Whilst failing life within you breathes and thinks,
Pause and be wise, as Oedipus was wise,
And solve the age-old riddle of the Sphinx.
That sphinx is Russia – sad and yet elated,
And weeping black and bloody tears enough,
At you with longing she has looked and waited,
With love that turns to hate, and hate—to love.
Yes, love! For you of Western lands and birth
No longer know the love our blood enjoys.
You have forgotten there’s a love on Earth
That burns like fire and, like fire, destroys.
We love cold Science passionately pursued;
The visionary fire of inspiration;
The salt of Gallic wit, so subtly shrewd,
And the grim genius of German nation.
We know the hell of a Parisian street,
And Venice, cool in water and in stone;
The scent of lemons in the southern heat;
And fuming pyres of soot-begrimed Cologne.
We love raw flesh, its color and its stench.
We love to taste it in our hungry maws.
Are we to blame then, if your ribs should crunch,
Fragile between our massive, gentle paws?
Come join us then! From horror and from strife
Turn to the peace of welcoming embrace.
There is still time. Keep in its sheath your knife.
Old West, we can be brothers to your race.
But if you spurn us, then we shall not mourn.
We too can think deceitfulness no crime,
And countless generations yet unborn
Shall curse your memory until the end of time.
For the last time, old world, we bid you come,
Feast as an honest brother in our walls.
To share our peace and peaceful toil, as one…
Once only the barbarian lyre calls.
This poem wasn’t written this year, or this century. It was written as World War I was drawing to a close, and former allies were planning to dismember a disintegrating Russia. They didn’t heed the warnings, and fledgling Soviet state was attacked by ~16 foreign powers soon thereafter. Obviously, that turned out about as well as invading Russia usually does (not to mention began the whole Russians-distrust-America thing).
EXHIBIT C: ‘HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO COME BACK TO PATRIOTIC WAR MENTALITY?’
Here is another obscure piece of history that is very relevant to situation at hand:
The early Communists – who were internationalists, and fought Russian nationalist Whites in the 1918-1922 Civil war – weren’t too hot on the whole ‘Russian spirit’ thing, nor the ‘patriotic all-out war’ concept.
Back in the naive early days, Communists believed future international struggles would be largely ideological and that common people of all nations would soon see the light and establish communism on their own. Wars would become obsolete and impossible, because working-class soldiers would refuse to die for their capitalist overlords (and by the way, this was one of the reasons the aforementioned Allied invasion of Russia failed).
That nonsense lasted for about two decades, but then USSR got a rude awakening through a series of smaller conflicts (notably with Japan and Finland), culminating in the 1941 Nazi invasion .
Lo and behold – Soviets came back to the tried-and-true ideology of the ‘Great Patriotic War’, talking about ‘Russian spirit’, the whole nine yards. Even the (previously suppressed) Orthodox Christianity was back on the menu within three months of the war’s start!
And, as we know, that ideological about-face worked exceedingly well – it wasn’t the numbers or production that won the war (Nazis controlled far more population and industry than the Soviets did, especially after summer 1941), but good old-fashioned culturally motivated determination (see the description of this video).
That determination was not forgotten when WWII was over, and became an integral part of the Soviet ideology, and then was largely inherited by the Russian Federation.
The key lesson to be learned here is that defining features of national character don’t get erased in a couple decades, and come back rather rapidly when ‘triggered’.
EXHIBIT D: ‘SCRATCH A MODERN IT SPECIALIST AND YOU’LL FIND THE SAME WARRIOR SINGING THE SAME SONGS’
Yes, Russians have become somewhat ‘Americanized’ in the past couple decades – and one could try to argue that the Russian Federation, with its lack of official ideology and a largely apolitical population, has lost the ‘beehive attitude toward war’ mindset – but such changes have happened many times before, and are always rapidly reversed when push comes to shove.
No need to go back into history for more proof, or even go back to Afganistan and Chechnya  – take the still-smoldering Donbass war (or any other post-Soviet civil war, really).
One simply needs to read some memoirs by volunteers in such conflicts to see that you don’t need to dig very deep into a modern-day IT specialist or college student to find a Russian soldier straight out of Stalingrad or Kulikovo Pole (this memoir is quite typical of any post-Soviet conflict, actually – a random man, often without military experience, simply buys a train ticket, shows up and says ‘give me a rifle’).
[Donbass self-defense militia.
Yup, those men don’t look impressive. And a lot of them are not. But a great many are – they stood up to an army and won, after all. A huge feat even if Russia did help under the table.]
[And hey, here are those people singing 1970s Soviet songs about the times of old, while readying for combat in 2014. Need more proof they’re motivated by age-old mentality?]
7. ‘I USED TO BE A DESTROYER OF WORLDS’: WARRIOR’S NOSTALGIA
Yet another layer to this whole ‘mentality’ discussion is the fact that USSR did spent 40 years in a Mexican standoff with most of the world, and what it left behind weren’t just the weapons of war, but the men trained & ready to use them, and sons raised by these men.
There is a certain level of nostalgia about the past imperial might present throughout Soviet space, and going back to familiar patterns is easy.
Maybe, if the West stopped poking the bear for another generation or two, hipsters and the like would’ve completely taken over Russia – but that didn’t happen, for better or for worse.
Here’s a fairly representative example – just some reminiscing by a former chemical warfare officer. Men like these often formed the backbone of various volunteer militia units.
I STILL CAN
I still know how to poison water wells, use gerbils to spread infection, how to put on a gas mask in under two seconds.
I can jumpstart a machine for making poisonous smoke, tell adamsite from phosgene, iprite from zomane, CS from chloracetophenon by smell and appearance.
I know the ‘symptoms’, the ‘lethal factors’, the ‘delivery methods’.
I can go without sleep for three days, or wake-up every 60 minutes, or sleep standing up; can keep that up for 10 days or so.
I can go without water or food, while running or marching in full NBC kit, meaning a rubberized suit and gas mask; only stopping occasionally to drain sweat from the mask – our masks don’t have an automatic sweat valve, and eventually it accumulates and starts getting in the nose.
I see well at night, can deal with frostbite and heatstroke. I don’t get panicky if my teeth start wobbling and my gums start bleeding. I know what to do.
I know edible grasses and plants; I know that, if you chew long enough, you can even eat moss.
I can swim – during a calm or a storm, with the current or against it, with fins or without, with a heated diving suit or naked. I can swim like that for a long time.
I can leave my family behind for months, can go to ‘defend national interests’, can suddenly depart and leave for some godforsaken place.
I can live in a frozen room with 10 other people, with families – mine and somebody else’s – sleeping under multiple blankets fully clothed.
I can shoot – in the heat, when the barrel overheats – and in the cold, when fingers can stick to bare metal.
I can organize firing positions on the roof of house so that machine guns control the entire block, I can plan out a raid or an ambush, I know how to properly throw grenades or kill a man with one blow – humans are so easy to kill.
I can still do all these things…’
Now that we have established that Russians do have a tradition of fighting ‘people’s wars’ and that this mentality resurfaces whenever a challenge presents itself, we can move on to the final section:
8. AN ALL-OUT WAR THAT GOES NUCLEAR
We can come back to the story from a Russian submariner that started it all. Here’s a small excerpt:
Near-WW III experience
Today, I want to tell you about how I fought in WWIII. Let’s be honest here – all of you, despite being highly educated, well-read and quite cultured, don’t really understand how it will happen.
You doubtlessly watched a lot of movies about battles, sieges, raids and wars, and I can imagine what you think when you hear the word ‘war’. Low-flying planes, sirens, alarms on radio and television, overloaded trains and convoys of refugees, men with stern faces and women waving handkerchiefs to the departing ships. That’s your first image. If you start thinking more deeply, then it’s about grief, hunger, misery, disease, and more grief. But. All of these images in your head – they are about past wars. A truly modern war will be quite different: you’re sleeping, and then you are dead. And the war is already over, more or less, although you did not even know it started.
[the rest of the story is very interesting, profanity-laden and funny, but I had to move it into a separate post for brevity]
As discussed, this story highlights two important things: first off, the world as we know it can be ended within 30 minutes, at a press of a button, and secondly, both the author and his comrades would take it so calmly, he wasn’t even able to tell whether they were ending the world or not.
Hopefully, I explained some of the reasons they think like that, even though it’s really hard to put a finger on the attitude to nuclear war specifically.
I suppose the only other thing I can present about that is another Russian ‘folk song’ – that one, about nuclear war specifically. It’s variously known as the ‘Hymn of the Strategic Rocket Troops’, ‘Song of the Rocketmen , or simply ‘Mushroom Cloud Song’. It’s obviously an unofficial joke, but it’s known to most Russians I met, and also sometimes sung at parties. Innumerable versions exist, the one I translated is somewhat more depressing than average – so I suppose it can also serve as my closing statement:
MUSHROOM CLOUD SONG
Last ICBMs fly off into the sky,
Nothing left to do but sit and wait.
And although NewYorkers still got time to cry –
In Tel-Aviv and London it’s too late
Maybe we hit someone who did not deserve,
Please forgive us if that is the case,
Shelter doors are making their final swerve –
Now expect incoming to our base…
Blanketing, blanketing, phosgene gas spreading thin
Trying to find a hole in my mask and suit.
Everyone, everyone tries to think happy things,
When the ICBMs are finishing their route.
Flashes on horizon make a splending view,
Mushroom clouds are nicely stratified.
Buddy was just running next to me and you
And in seconds, he has been deep-fried.
Our jets are racing to the West,
Can’t find Paris on the burning plain
Eiffel Tower couldn’t take the test –
H-bomb threw it into boiling Seine
Blanketing, blanketing, sarin gas spreading thin
Trying to find a hole in my mask and suit.
Everyone, everyone tries to think happy things,
When the ICBMs are finishing their route.
Mushrooms looming everywhere I can see,
Radiation counter stuck past ten.
Tanks are burning just like Christmas trees –
Why we even bothered making them?
Atmospheric detonation in the sky,
Sand is slowly melting underfoot.
Pity I am low on oxygen supply,
Lungs don’t like radioactive soot!
Blanketing, blanketing, sarin gas spreading thin
Think it has found a hole somewhere in my boot.
Everyone, everyone tries to think happy things,
Sarin can be absorbed through skin exposure route.
Glowing rain pours down from a black cloud,
Floods a country by the name Zaire.
Third world comrades really hoped to sit this out
But we all still share atmosphere!
Radiation limits all exceeded,
No one walking on the blackened plain
Just cockroaches – smiling, unimpeded
Dancing graceful through the acid rain.
Blanketing, blanketing, phosgene gas spreading thin
And what goes around surely comes around.
Everyone, everyone tries to think happy things,
Maybe a few of us will hide out underground.
Here is a different version of the same song, done in a more modern style and with a video
(and here is how it would be sung at house parties)
Not much to add here – hopefully this long and meandering article leaves you, the audience, with a better understanding of how and why the world might end in relatively near future.
I won’t discuss the implications because I think they’re obvious – ‘end the neocon’s reign in US politics before they end humanity’s reign on this planet’, and all that.
Another good way to put it – if the War on Terror brought us 50 times more terror, where would the current push towards war with a nuclear superpower get us?
 Georgia 2008 – slap on the hand for an invasion and murdering/wounding dozens of Russian peacekeepers, Crimea 2014 – an ‘invasion’ that involved less shooting than an average evening in Atlanta due to being overwhelmingly supported by both local population and the ‘defending’ UAF units, Syria 2015 – moderate-sized aerial intervention on the side of the elected government, four years after a dozen other countries threw their support behind religious extremists
 Once again, refer to the military spending graph.
Note that the US government spends more on the military today than at the height of the Cold War, even though the biggest official enemy (ISIS) has an army at least a hundred times smaller than the now-defunct Warsaw Pact.
Also note that Europe, as well as a lot of Middle East and Asia, are US satellites that host US military bases, so the disparity in military capability is in fact ~twice larger than the graph would suggest.
 As a side note, I bet if USSR was still around, a lot of Middle Eastern insurgents would parrot communist or Maoist slogans to get Russian/Chinese weapons, rather than the islamist rhetoric that gets them Saudi/Turkish arms nowadays… but I digress.
 This opinion was based on the Russian Civil War, mostly, where far more militarily competent Whites lost simply because they had no ideology to offer (other than supporting a dead tzar that they themselves had overthrown), and the soldiers of foreign powers arrived disillusioned from trenches of WWI and very often sympathetic to the Bolshevik cause
 By the way, the Germans and Austrians did almost go Communist, but eventually the Reds were defeated in what amounted to slow-boiling civil wars, and Nazis took over
 Contrary to popular belief, Soviets didn’t ‘lose ten men for every German’, but more like 3 for every 2.
Official Goebbels-era German casualty stats are indeed very low at 3-4 million, but more modern estimates put the count at about 5-5.5 million. Once we add combat deaths of Romanians, Finns, Hungarians, and other Nazi allies, the overall Axis losses in the East Front are about 6-7 million, compared to Red Army losses of about 9-11 million. It is still worth noting that Soviets lost a much greater proportion of the population than the Axis powers, most of it was much earlier in the war, and it didn’t discourage them.
 Check out the ideology in that link. As I said, history is about what you believe…
Note that the author’s opening statement talks about the same ‘Russian idea of resistance’ that I’m discussing here, and claims that it has been revived yet again
Extra links from very Western sources:
Long and interesting article that I will need some time to digest. But one immediate question comes to mind: if Russians are less afraid of nuclear war than Westerners, isn’t that mentality the fundamental problem?
It’s only a problem if US government insists on bullying them ;)
Say, in a domestic abuse situation, you could prevent murder by disarming the wife… Or getting the husband to stop beating her
Ain’t gonna happen but you are ‘crying wolf’ in tandem with the REALITY SETTERS.They want the slaves to live on so they can live on in the controlled blood shed.This nuclear boogeyman is needed to prolong the war economics for the self served on both side.This wet dream of nuclear Armageddon is delusional!More ‘we them’ meme,stop drinking the koolaide my friend!
Although (for brevity) I did not focus on “what should be done” in depth, I obviously advocate for de-escalation and cooperation.
“Nuclear boogeyman” is a reason to ratchet down the war rhetoric, not the other way around.
Although the author, Tatzhit, himself has answered your question, may I add my two-bit. Russian history is one of constant aggression from outside, the Mongols, Turks, and then the “West”. The last mentioned, it seems, simply cannot, repeat simply cannot, stop hating/disliking/loathing (take your pick) Russia and have been the aggressors since Napolean, through to Germans, now down to US and Nato. Now if you happened to be at the receiving end of gratuitous kicks over a long period of time, would you not at some stage say to yourself, “the next time I see this ….. approaching me, I will run up and kick him down before he can even raise his leg”.
Yes the controllers want endless strife they need it like oxygen hence they wont end it!They will settle for one or two millions killed every year.Know history repeats itself!
Typical distortion of history by Russians. So Napoleon and Hitler invaded Russia. How many land has Russian invaded, and cleansed? Does it still have to keep big army, conscripts all the young man, live in a dump even flushed with petrol money rings a bell?
If Russian touch nuke today, then there will be no Russia tomorrow.
I see a Russophobe has darkened our door. I suspect a Ukie,Pole,Balt, or maybe Turk from the level of discourse from you. But here is like it is. Russia doesn’t do “cleansing” very well. If they did they wouldn’t be in the mess they are today. And if they did, much of Eastern Poland today would still be Rus instead of being Polonized over the centuries. As for your threat,I think the point of the article was to mention that Russia accepts that the fight would be hard. But if the day comes she will certainly take you down first. So I guess it will all depend on how much you value your life if you think to test that out.
I guess Crimea was always over 90% Russian!
It isn’t 90% today. Its over 90% “pro-Russian” ,not the same thing. Ethnically its around 60% Russian,24% pro-Russian Ukrainian. And 12% mostly pro-Russian Tatar. With the other 4% various,pro-Russian nationalities. One doesn’t have to be in Russia,ethnically Russian to be pro-Russian. Donbass,being a case in point as well. While Russians make up a large percentage of the population. Most of the Russian-speaking population (over 80% of the population) of whatever ethnic group there is pro-Russian. Many of the NAF and LDPR leadership have West Russian (Ukrainian) names. Besides,the difference between “Russians” and “Ukrainians” is purely dialect and history. Ethnically,its a false concept,with no place in reality.
Bob, it’s best ignored. During the Cold War the evil Soviets actually subsidised their allies in Eastern Europe, who then lost their free health, education, cheap housing etc, and their dignity, as they became ‘Free’ to entertain Western sex and paedophilia tourists and the nutritional delights of McDonalds. In contrast the USA has ruthlessly and relentlessly exploited its ‘back-yard’, Latin America, for 200 years, miring the region in continuing poverty, installing scores of fascistic butchers and killing millions. The situation in the USSR’s ‘satellites’ was immeasurably better. The victory of the USA in the Cold War (during which they were always the relentless aggressors) was the victory of raw Evil. And it set the scene for a rapid descent to economic, ecological and geo-political catastrophe, now swiftly gathering pace.
You are right there. What the countries in Eastern Europe don’t realize is they weren’t “France or Germany” before WW2. They were more Albania today back then. They weren’t even today’s Ukraine economically. If you take that level of development.And add on the immense destruction of WW2. Also remember that unlike Western Europe,the US didn’t give them aid to rebuild (that aid was helping the US as well. And was to stop them from turning Communist). And they had no colonial Empires to loot for funds like most Western European countries did. Then you see what they faced after 1945. Then you can judge the social achievements created by those “horrible Soviets” in Eastern Europe. Most of Latin America would have loved to have a “master” that “actually” did something for them except loot them. Not a single Latin American country until Cuba (and they faced the wrath of the US to harm them),was able to give their populations anywhere near the social advantages people in Eastern Europe had during the Soviet years.Today,only the EU grants keep many of them surviving. And every year the “best and brightest” immigrate away to find a life in other countries.There was even a Polish article the other day saying now is the worst immigration crisis in Polish history. Where something like 4 million Poles have left. Most of them the young and educated. Which are the “future” of any nation. And that is only one example of those countries. Many of the rest are even worse off.The Baltic states alone have lost almost a quarter of their populations. Poland was able to get more EU funds than any other. Yet still can’t build an economy under the capitalist system they have. That is able to keep their people from needing to immigrate to find a decent life for themselves. Ukraine went from one of the most developed countries in the Soviet Union. To the rubble economically we see today,in only 23 years. Where even Western economists say it will take them 10 years or more to even reach the level they had in 2013. It would be generations (if ever) under their current system to reach the level of economy they attained in the Soviet Union.
I was teaching English in Czechoslovakia (Olomouc) in 1992. It was sad (to me—already perfectly aware of the iniquities and inequity of US life even then) to see how many people were under the thrall of their conviction that the Western capitalist system was going to confer wonders on their country’s economy and their personal lives and well-being. In vain I tried to point out what seemed to me like the advantages of the system still in place but being eagerly ushered out the door: basically free medical care and education, transportation (especially for students), opera tickets for something like 2 krone, guaranteed care of some kind for the elderly etc. There were of course definite problems with the economy, the enviornment, etc. But my point was: Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Don’t romanticize capitalism. But capitalism was romanticized and canceled out any appreciation of the actual, concrete benefits of the socialist system; no notion of retaining those social benefits.
The free market was going to improve everything. It was just logical.
Maybe it has. I don’t know. I haven’t been back to the (as of June 1992) Czech Republic.
“How many land has Russian invaded, and cleansed?”
You enlighten us, please. Amusingly, speaking about ‘cleansing’, or rather depopulation, that is more or less what has materialised in quite a few Eastern European states post Western liberation. Not Russia’s fault, mind you.
Tell me when Who inhabited Crimea before Russian, Where are they now? Tell me about the far east:
Do some google about how saintly Russians are,
Reading Saker’s post about winning 31.5 of 33 wars over past 3000 hundred years. I am sure all of them defensive.
removed. Back up your facts or don’t post your MSM drivel here thanks.Mod TR
If you studied Crimean history you’d know it was a football passed around by many different peoples. The last (but certainly not the first or longest ruled) before the Russians returned was the Tatars. Who while there, enslaved and/or assimilated the others living there. And who supported themselves with a huge slave capturing and selling system. As well as raiding and looting,from Poland to Romania to Russia. The Russian takeover was greeted by a “sigh of relief” in most of Europe.The Russians,as I said are horrible at “ethnic cleansing” since there are Tatars there today. As to your ” Far East” statement. The same answer applies. The Russians didn’t “ethnically cleanse” that region. They settled there among the small numbers of people that lived there. They were first drawn to the “East” as you might want to learn.Because of the Eastern peoples raiding Russian territories for loot and slaves. Russia’s wars are almost all either for protection,or to redeem territories stolen from them in the past. Unlike in the West where those wars were for conquest. I don’t see the British taking over India for worry of India attacking the UK. Nor was India ancient British land to redeem. The same is true for the Spanish,Portuguese,French,Dutch,or British,in their Colonial Empires.
Russia returned that 4.7 sq km parcel of land in 1993. http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/951156.shtml
Global and the BBC are just stirring up trouble as usual.
Every comment you make will go to the trash. Stop trolling. If you cannot back up your comments with actual historical facts – then the comments will not be posted.
Firstly you could start with
“The Chinese call Manchuria the Northeast or the Northeast Provinces. Before the 1860s the Manchuria area also included those territories north of the Amur River (Heilong Jiang) that China’s Qing government ceded to Russia by the Sino-Russian Treaty of Aigun (Aihui) in 1858 and the Sino-Russian Treaty of Beijing in 1860…….”
You could then talk about the Sino-Japanese war and then the 2nd World war …..
“Under the protection of the Soviet army, the underground Chinese communist guerrillas there united with communist forces from North China to form the United Democratic Army. Equipped with Japanese arms turned over to them by the Russians, the communist force occupied much of Manchuria. Nationalist progress in taking over the major Manchurian cities was slow. The United States, the major supplier of arms and equipment to the Nationalists, at first had discouraged the Nationalists from military intervention in Manchuria, opting instead to sponsor negotiations aimed at peacefully resolving the differences between the Nationalists and communists. These talks failed. By June 1946 the Nationalists had occupied Changchun, but by then the communists were well established in the countryside. Nearly 500,000 of the elite Nationalist troops found themselves surrounded by communists in Changchun, Shenyang, Jinzhou, and Yingkou. By the end of 1948 most Nationalist forces in Manchuria had been defeated—a prelude to the Nationalists’ loss of the entire Chinese mainland to the communists in 1949…….”
So again – please gives historical facts or your trolling will go to the trash.
@Anonymous on December 29, 2015 · at 1:43 am UTC
Typical distortion of history by Russians. So Napoleon and Hitler invaded Russia. How many land has Russian invaded, and cleansed? Does it still have to keep big army, conscripts all the young man, live in a dump even flushed with petrol money rings a bell?
If Russian touch nuke today, then there will be no Russia tomorrow.
While Pope Francis and Queen
Elizabeth have both sadly urged
their flocks to “Enjoy their final
Christmas,” Ron Paul’s cooler
head will hopefully prevail, as
he talks sense to anyone who will
He strongly emphasizes how “The
Clash of Civilizations” rhetoric is war
propaganda created by criminal
members of the US Government.
Video: (under 17 mins)
Ron Paul: Neocons Are Our Greatest Domestic Threat
@Anonymous on December 29, 2015 · at 1:43 am UTC
Here is one of the teenager street bully behaviour example. Have you ever saw somebody from another country around the world to act like this?And you are talking about the “Typical distortion of history by Russians.” You should start to study the world history before you will make any statement
“Westerners”, as you put it, or to be more correct – US Empire and it’s vassals – is a street bully, a teenager trying to intimidate an armed and fully confident adult (Russia), trying to play a “game of chicken” with him. You complain that it’s the problem of the adult that he isn’t scared of that teenage bully, but ready to use weapons for self-defense? How stupid is this?
It is US made coup in Ukraine, not Russia in Canada.
It is US that supplies money, instructors and weapons to Ukronazi regime in Kiev (first Russian capital) so it can continue killing Russians living in Eastern Ukraine. Not Russia in Puerto Rico.
t is US that is building “anti-missile defense shield” against Russia in Europe, pretending it’s against Iran (ridiculous claim since Iran does not have such missiles, nor nuclear weapon).
It is US Empire that have bases all over Russian borders and continue to increase it’s military presence there (just recently US tanks “paraded” in Narva – city that was part of Russia more than Texas is part of US). Its not Russian tanks on US border.
etc. etc. etc.
Please check your facts – no US tanks have paraded in Narva. We had Dutch Leopard 1 tank at our Independence Day parade in Narva (24 Feb 2015).
You are right. It was US military combat vehicles (link) with US flags, US soldiers (link) and NATO tanks (military arm of US Empire) paraded in Narva. But no US tanks.
That is certainly changes everything.
‘The chance for a durable Washington-Moscow strategic partnership was lost…
An interesting article here from Reuters
…But despite these efforts, divisions inside the ruling coalition are growing and many of the reforms are stalled. If the leaders fail, it will be a deep embarrassment to Washington, the EU, and the IMF which sacrificed relations with Russia to support these people…..
…..Yet despite intense efforts by the White House the project is now in danger of unraveling…..
….Just months after Ukraine’s revolution, Biden’s own son Hunter Biden took a post as a director of a Ukrainian gas company. The New York Times said “the credibility of the vice president’s anti-corruption message may have been undermined” by the role. Biden says he and his son do not discuss business….
…. Losing Yatseniuk would be a blow for U.S. policy in Ukraine. In a leaked recording of a telephone call between Nuland and the U.S. ambassador to Kiev, she described him by the affectionate nickname “Yats.” Washington sees Yatseniuk, a fluent English speaker, as the lynchpin of Ukraine’s reform effort….
Scanning the Reuters world news headlines each day, the war talk by US politicians and officials seems to be fading away. Perhaps the tide has turned? US seems close to admitting defeat in Ukraine. No doubt they will just walk away and leave it as a failed state.
” Washington sees Yatseniuk, a fluent English speaker, as the lynchpin of Ukraine’s reform effort….”
Hahahahahahahahahaha! No disrespect to Scott,but that one beat out his humor post for a laugh. Seriously folks,you can’t make that stuff up. Anyone thinking “Yats” is the “answer” to beat corruption,has more than one screw loose.As to the “walking away”,it won’t happen. The US won’t do that. They would after Ukraine totally collapses,if the NAF was knocking on the RADA’s doors maybe, “a la Saigon” . But not in the situation today. They have invested too much “prestige” into the coup. The embarrassment would be too great. If that is what we are thinking, its time to rethink that.
I often think lately that all Scott has to do is repost Reuters headlines, though too often in the past, Reuters version of reality is what becomes reality. That Reuters have run an article like that seems to mean that things are changing. Russian reality forcing its way into/overwhelming the US matrix?
“Washington sees Yatseniuk, a fluent English speaker, as the lynchpin of Ukraine’s reform effort…”
Sounds as if the Pindos are busy implementing some language reform in their Ukro colony, supposedly making English compulsory everywhere. On this basis, a slob and grovelling imbecile fluent in English does sound just about right. I suppose Yats’s stature among the Maidanites is at an all time high.
Haha,high is the right word. They’d like to hoist him “high up” on a lamppost from what I hear.
The US never walks away from failed states. Especially not ones they’ve caused to fail.
After “failed state” comes “exploited population” and that is not left to anyone else.
It is clear from the actions and words of American military, active and retired, and some Intel officers and analysts that the US leadership is not monolithic. There are rational men who understand Russia, its needs and its actions and will work with Russia if the administration is changed from the Liberals to a the Realist (Trump).
All you need see is General Flynn sitting at the table of RT 10th anniversary party, right next to Putin. There are many talking head generals (retired) from AF and Army (I have yet to see any Navy Admirals) who speak well of what Russia is doing in Syria. And who are intimidated by Russian capacity (S 400, in particular). And who resent what the US has done with ISIS and AQ support, and who are repulsed by Turkey’s instance shoot down of the Russian jet bomber.
There is a fissure in the Pentagon and some of the Intel agencies (there are 16 of them). Though a President and his men/women can make a lot of chaos, the notion that a nuclear war will be easy to get to, that the ascendant steps are low, that the process is a whim or mistake is fallacious.
In fact, all the upgrading of nuclear forces will enhance the MAD status, not water it down.
War can accelerate toward the use of nukes, but the war has to be hard fought and outcome clearly leading to loss for one side to choose to escalate to nukes.
The notion of direct, out of the blue launch of nukes has always been unrealistic.
It will more likely come as escalation, and before it gets to ICBM sized nukes, we will see the use of tactical nukes, artillery shells or small, short range missiles.
Clearly, nukes could be used if across the steppes of Ukraine came a significant NATO force. However, that would not be possible in any scenario except the breakdown of all EU and NATO control of its members.
There simply is no scenario that goes directly to a massive exchange of nukes.
All very valid points, thank you for that.
Yes, there are some voices of reason, and yes, the “sudden massive nuclear escalation” scenario is very unlikely (although not completely impossible – remember various scares with early warning systems misfiring, and all that).
I suppose I just wanted to point out that, for now, insanity is still winning, and it’s pushing us closer to war, even if we still have a good number of steps until we get there.
Long and obviously fascinating article, films and more, but who has time . . .
Short and sweet and to the point is more my line, (and that of Anatoly Liberman 1886)
You will never grasp her with your mind
or cover with a common label,
for Russia is one of a kind –
believe in her, if you are able . . .
Who has time?
An article dealing with the chance of my children and their children sacrificed to a mushroom cloud screams for me to take the time to read it.
What is the alternative? Watch ”Price is Right” or old ”Dallas” reruns on television?
The world is in the shape it is in because people like you lack the ”time” or mentality to know what the H3ll is happening.
I only respond because you are encouraging others to ignore one of the most well researched and factual article that I have found.
Boiling down the issues to a few lines. It seems that the Zionist neo-con cabal in Washington who effectively control US and, thereby Europe’s, foreign policy are tightening a noose aroundthe necks of both Russia and China. This hybrid war consisting in economic, low intensity and proxy warfare so far. The idea is to drive these states into a corner so their continued existence will be unviable. Risky strategy: surrender or war.For the purpose of elucidation by some more level-headed US leaders let’s have a couple of quotes from the Kennedy family. First Edward Kennedy on the Wolfowitz doctrine. To wit: “it is a call for 21st century American imperialism that no other nation can or should accept.” And his illustrious brother John. ” … do not leave our adversary a choice between humiliating retreat or a nuclear war.” Well our neo-con friends not only just want a humiliating retreat but an abject and humiliating surrender.
Since Russia has never voluntarily surrendered to anyone, then the likely outcome of continued American pushing Russia into a corner seems to be a thermonuclear exchange.
And all due to a self-important, stupid, and arrogant group of ideologues sitting in their air-conditioned offices in the beltway. Who would have thought it. It’s a tragicomedy in the making.
Yes, tragicomedy but very dark humor. I have several well employed very intelligent friends who tell me we must vote for Hilary as in Hillarious because we need a Democrat to nominate the upcoming 3 supreme court openings. The lawyer points out a supreme court decision of 1906 which was very labor friendly, limiting work weeks and many other intolerable conditions that he says would even likely be overturned if a Republican gets elected, the communist says we must vote Democrat to beat back the reactionary right that would overwhelm things if we don’t ( as in friend #1 above ), and another also says it’s all about the supreme court nominations .? I tell people you could nail me to the cross and I wouldn’t vote for Hillary. I’ll support Bernie for now, but, if it comes to Hillary I like to call her Killary, like I like to call Obama Obummer or Obomber ! well, would I vote for Trump ? at least he’s a wild card, who know what he actually thinks or would do, at least with K(H) illary we know she’s lying almost all the time, or would flip on a dime. I think she is going to have her hands full in a general election, though, the minority ethnic groups and women will be gravitating to her, I’ve also read the Independent vote will determine it, Sanders has like 80% of the Independent vote, Hillary around 20, so, would I vote for Trump ? Hmmmm ?
I’m not Russian, but today Mr. Trump admitted that everything what is in the media is a lie! Finally somebody openly said the truth. He is the only candidate who doesn’t want to have a war around the world and he openly admitted too that he will make a very good friendship with Mr. Putin! What else the world can ask for in these days of madness and insanity. This is the only man representing US who doesn’t want to send innocent Americans to be killed. He has a plan to restructure America and give jobs to American’s. It is much better to have a job than from the desperation as an unemployed to be recruited as a solder? Isn’t it?
Jill Stein, of the Green Party, explains clearly why Bernie can never get anywhere. Check her out. Great interview by a young woman journalist.
I will never vote for Hillary. I would vote for Jill Stein.
She explains quite a few other features of our two-party-hegemonic system very clearly, in particular, how any progressive voices are smothered. The same will happen to Berline, and then he’ll join in the Hillary chorus.
Per Stein, the only way to get traction is to cahllenge the two-party system. Among other things Stein is taking teh Presidential Debate outfit to court. She would wipe the floor with the other “debaters.” I would love to see a debate with both Trump and Stein (and other candidates). They could really hammer something out!! She is very smart and quick on her feet.
I, too, would consider voting for Trump. Just to see what would actually happen. Never thought I would think or say this.
Couldn’t be any worse than the known quantity of warmonger Hillary and her odious consort.
And, a Trump victory might actually invigorate some true progressive forces within the Dem Party.
Obama has castrated the Dem Party more than they already were, because he is African American–co-opted the AA community and all of the leftist sympathizers. Hillary would finish the job by co-opting all the feminists and other women.
The essential danger today is the widespread distrust that we Westerners have for our mainstream news sources. They have told too many lies for us to believe a word they say anymore. How would we (at least, we skeptics) react to a public report of a CIA warning that Russia would definitely nuke Germany tomorrow morning at nine o’clock? The sheep might accept it, but the rest of us would shrug. And we would be right. Too. Many. Lies. Remember that air accident when they blamed SUM TING WONG…? So do I.
Much food for thought; thank you Tatzhit. I found these lines particularly clarifying:
“Maybe, if the West stopped poking the bear for another generation or two, hipsters and the like would’ve completely taken over Russia – but that didn’t happen, for better or for worse”
Exactly. And my take is that this outcome was an irrefutable blessing, not just for Russia. Hatred of your self-confessed mortal enemy means that you have the guts to do what you must. The West and its arrogant neoconservative and neoliberal dregs have to be dealt with mercilessly. The Soviet victory over Nazi Germany and its allies was, at bottom, a reckoning with the West.
No button will be pressed, and, no missile will fly, without God allowing it to happen, and what if God allowed it? Are you reconciled with God and ready to die? That is all that matters for time and eternity.
s.a.top. no offense intended to you, except that your philosophy is definitely a loser’s cry.
I think God loves fighters for the right – not necessarily with the sword, but yes, with the word….
Why? Vision 2020 policy.
And before Vision 2020 there was Vision 2010, which began under Clinton as an extension of GHW Bush’s New World Order. Both called for enslaving the world under the Outlaw US Empire’s boot, no less different than Hitler’s Third Reich vision. Now, that shouldn’t be too hard to understand.
Interesting article and I concur that the history of western (US) intervention has been littered with miscalculations mainly based on stupidity and hubris, for example the west up till the point Russia proved them wrong believing only they possessed the capacity for launching cruise missile strikes at great distances, not to mention the senile old fool McCain “guaranteeing” Russia wouldn’t intervene in Syria. These satanic scum basically have sh*t for brains and the same goes for their innumerable so called “think tanks”.
Going on to something else I just read a report on Sputnik Int. of female ISIS members murdering a woman for breast feeding her baby thereby “offending public decency” and a man being beheaded by ISIS for smoking a cigarette. The more I see of these people the more they remind me of the Cambodias killing fields and Pol Pots Khymer rouge. Same basic mentality and ideology. At least the Khymer rouge kept their sick ideology and atrocities within the confines of Cambodia but the ISIS vermin if they had their way would bring their terror to the whole of humanity. They, and their international backers must be stopped at all costs if humanity is to survive because they are enemies of all humanity.
The full article can be read below :
Another easier way to destroy the US gov(not the people..at least the 99 pct crowd),bankrupt them.
If China,India,Iran+RF and other shangai coop countries decide together to refuse any single payment in dollar anymore as of let’s say01/01/2016…forget about the US,Saudi,Qatar,Turkey and the EU.
But they will need first to destroy first their own fith columns traitors crowd which are probably not so many in terms of numbers?
But who will have this courage?
Putin must clean the R Central bank once and for all.
We are heading to a 20 usd oil according to some sources..that also means ”they” took the decision to fight untill the end(as decided since the maidan or even before).
Their multi trillions ponzi scheme of derivatives fake debts is going to fall apart,they need a very bigggggggg diversion for the sheeps.
Well, the looong, close contact of the author with the US and western MSM and its inhabitants has for sure damaged and irreparably karpov-ised his brains.
We knew from him that the Urss was much weaker and then much stronger than today´s Russia.
we were led to know that it is the russian ‘mindset’ the cause of the present mistrust of 8 out 10 russians show. towards the good old Usa.
We also became damn aware it is not the natoism, the 800 military bases around, the many NGO s color revolution attempts that produced this “lack of fear” of nukes in Russians.
But simply the end of the old generation who felt in their skins the horror of war…so the distance, the absence of live memory is what explains any readiness from the ”ivans’… right?
But by this SAME bastard logics… it is exactly the yankees who despite beeing always DISTANT from the bloodsheds, protected by two oceans and seeing the bullets by TV, having just lost fifty thousand in Vietnam and making a one trillion war machine each year who are the PACIFIST side and lot more fearfull of the nuclear holocaust that the Ivans.
It is too much BS from this second emigre – as the Saker and Dmitry Orlow might easily confirm if they got the stomack to read it to the last line.
1. I did take a deliberately “Western civilian” viewpoint in this article, for it to be more understandable to a Western audience.
2. You may have been misled by my tone – I’m not actually saying most of the things you’re implying. In fact, I clearly state the opposite in many, many places:
“Russians actually like most Western values… but what happened in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Syria doesn’t look like ‘Western values’ at all.”
“One of the things that Putin and his predecessor President Medvedev, keep saying to Washington is: You are crossing our Red Lines! And Washington said and continues to say, ‘You don’t have any red lines. We have red lines and we can have all the bases we want around your borders, but you can’t have bases in Canada or Mexico.’ Your red lines don’t exist.’ ”
3. My implication was that Yankees, “protected by two oceans and seeing the bullets by TV”, don’t have the stomach for a real, two-sided war, so they think Russians don’t either.
I never called Americans pacifists (that’s blatant nonsense) or Russians aggressors (ditto), but explained that US government insane foreign policy, that has already resulted in such huge “blowback”, may blow up the world.
Yes, I didn’t spell all these things out point-by-point and over-and-over, the way today’s kindergarten-level “news” do, because instead of taking one fact and making a hundred different statements from it, I was busy doing the work real journalists used to do – proving one simple statement in many different ways, and let the audience make their own conclusions. The statement is, more or less – “We’re sliding closer to nuclear war because of US foreign policy”. Heck, it’s pretty much in the title of the article, as well as in the intro and in the closing statement.
Now, take a few deep breaths, and
I understood your article wasn’t anti-Russian. But just trying to point out some things the West thinks.
If Hillary is going to blow up the world, as the author says, then it makes pragmatic sense to back Donald Trump. Even Putin has praised him: Outstanding, a talented man, he wants to work with Russia. “How can we not welcome that?” Vladimir Putin noted.
Since someone has to win the US Presidency, and it may boil down to a Hillary-Trump contest, we might as well give the world the best chance of surviving.
Not sure how ‘national character’ applies in a multi-ethnic society – and the largest nation on Earth, to boot.
But there is a certain ‘fatalism’ that is closely aligned with the East, rather than the West in Russia I think. (With the possible exception of Iberians/Celts who also have ‘stubborn/fatalistic tendencies in the same vein.)
‘Que sera, sera.’
Meanwhile, the more pragmatic streak prevails: the UNSC resolution (as per Alexander Mercouris’ evaluation) has given China the go-ahead to pursue an active anti-terrorism policy in line with its aims:
Maybe things that go bang are someway away yet.
Yes, eimar, you’re right in that of the Iberian Celts have a fatalistic sense of existence, I do not know if it’s rather a certain realism derived from a clearer vision of reality of which others are not able or prefer not to see ( as says senior strategist, self-induced blindness ). This is especially true with Galicians, the people of the Northwest, whose blood runs through my veins at 50%, who always seemed to me very compassionate, sensitive and spiritual people, since ancient aware of the inevitable existence of good and evil and how to counteract bad influences…..
Luar Na Lubre – “Canto De Andar”:
Luar na Lubre – “Memoria da Noite”:
I wish you a happy new year full of good times, health and peace, and that the “things that go bang”, really left out. ( ¿Dónde andará, senior strategist? En Moscú, en Kazán….quién sabe…. ).
One issue that hasn’t be addressed from the America side is that certain elements of the American high command believe that they can survive and even win a strategic nuclear war, though much of the the USA and indeed the world may be reduced to a radioactive wasteland.
The reason why these people are so confident is that the United States has DUMBs, Deep Underground Military Bases, some of which are virtually self-contained underground cities, which supposed can survive a nuclear war and support life for years if not decades.
In fact, it is thought that America also has DUMBs not only beneath the ground but also under the ocean floor as well, and that there is also a trancontinental underground mag-lev rail network that connects these DUMBS, at least in the continental USA.
The idea is that the American political and military elite could emerge from their DUMBs after a nuclear Armageddon and essentially take over the world, given that most of humanity and other nations would have been too decimated to resist.
Yes, this idea sounds clincallly insane, but then again insane is what most of the American elite are.
IF true, such underground cities would not survive because of the insanity of the people living in them. They would tear themselves apart in such a state of confinement.
Plus,since the Russians,I’m pretty sure know there locations. I’m figuring they have some “special” bombs just for them.
The crazies are in charge of the US government, and that makes the US policy crazy and unpredictable, like someone whacked out on drugs, and can’t be reliably negotiated with or trusted at all. That means Russia has to keep a finger on the button and always be ready to push it if the US freaks out, which it might at any time. Maybe tomorrow. In the meantime the pressure keeps rising and abuses by the US get worse, and ‘checks and balances’ and law is out the window, as well as any US sense of reality.
Maybe tomorrow — you just can’t know with psychopaths. I think the Russians understand this as well as I do.
@blue on December 29, 2015 · at 3:00 am UTC
and this is the reason why Mr.Lavrov MUST to play the game “With psychopaths only by the nice way”
“ As a side note, I bet if USSR was still around, a lot of Middle Eastern insurgents would parrot communist or Maoist slogans to get Russian/Chinese weapons, rather than the islamist rhetoric that gets them Saudi/Turkish arms nowadays… but I digress”
Digress? Like these far right zionazi stooges would have any interest in hitting up their targets for support.
“Putin’s half-hearted and purely reactionary military endeavors aren’t exactly Hitler material either, no matter how they’re painted.”
Nice play into the ZPC/NWO propaganda. Like your unsupported and misrepresented claims about Buk missiles shooting down MH17, rather than a Ukro Su-25 fitted with Israeli supplied Python missiles. Very clever.
The best way to solve the Ukraine situation is through “Mortal Combat” as you can see here:
gawd that was depressing, I’ll sticky it until after new years…
Here watch grand father frost celebrations..
Non-Slavic peoples of #Russia have their own folk winter traditions, such as the Chyskhaan of Yakutia.
Russia holds festivals featuring different folk characters akin to Grandfather Frost from across the country.
Tazhit, this is the best article I’ve ever read. thank you so much.
Thank you, that is high praise
No pasaran! )
Couch potatos has this to say about the Russian fiasco in syria…
U.S. sees bearable costs, key goals met for Russia in Syria so far
“All the available data shows us that the current level of military effort is completely insignificant for the Russian economy and Russian budget,” said Kashin, of the Center for Analyses of Strategies and Technologies.
“An attempt by Russia and Iran to prop up Assad and try to pacify the population is just going to get them stuck in a quagmire and it won’t work,” Obama said on Oct. 2.
On Dec. 1, he raised the prospect of Russia becoming “bogged down in an inconclusive and paralyzing civil conflict.”
“It can be carried on at the same level year after year after year,” he said.
Russian casualties in Syria have been relatively minimal, officially put at three dead. U.S. officials estimate that Russia may have suffered as many as 30 casualties overall.
President Barack Obama and top aides that Putin has embarked on an ill-conceived mission in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that it will struggle to afford and that will likely fail.
“I think it’s indisputable that the Assad regime, with Russian military support, is probably in a safer position than it was,” said a senior administration official, who requested anonymity. Five other U.S. officials interviewed by Reuters concurred with the view that the Russian mission has been mostly successful so far and is facing relatively low costs.
The U.S. officials stressed that Putin could face serious problems the longer his involvement in the more than four-year-old civil war drags on.
Russia is taking advantage of the operation to test new weapons in battlefield conditions and integrate them into its tactics, the intelligence official said. It is refining its use of unarmed surveillance drones, the official added.
“The Russians didn’t go blindly into this,” said the U.S. intelligence official, adding that they “are getting some benefit out of the cost.”
Russia’s intervention also appears to have strengthened its hand at the negotiating table. In recent weeks, Washington has engaged more closely with Russia in seeking a settlement to the war and backed off a demand for the immediate departure of Assad as part of any political transition.
In the past agression always came from the west.
Igor Strelkov about USA’s behavior
All well done, and thank you Mahailovich.
First, I myself pray for peace and prosperity for all, second: What’s missing from the article?
In war, as in diplomacy, the basis is (believe it or not!) the contract. Contracts depend on equalities of power and proportionality. The methods of one party match those of the antagonist, though this takes time to evolve. Each “crime” “authorizes” the reciprocal crime…
Assuming that Comrade Col P and the leadership of Russia act accordingly, Americans may look forward to being treated to methods similar to those that are being used against the Russians.
I’ll leave it to you all to imagine the specific forms…but with a disparate population and increasing economic troubles, well, look to the streets of Chicago, or any big American city – what do you see? There’s no need for Ivan’s hand in this, it’s axiomatic within the scope of American history and method. But Ivan may give things a nudge. I think that would be wrong, but he may.
In a more sinister, and safer, method, European straps may be blackmailed, as Comrade P has suggested, by “The West”. But any powerful state apparatus can do this too. And as Comrade President has said “We know everything”, he’s obviously contemplating doing the same – with, presumably, the goal of deconstructing NATO.
Such a terrible pity, but history does not believe in tears. Pax, brothers.
True,the US has some “very” bad internal problems. With a “nudge” they could be “massive” internal problems. If they really took off,the Kiev maidan would look like a Sunday church picnic. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the racial problems in these cities exploded over police violence. The reason they haven’t is all the protest leaders urge their followers to not use violence. The other day with the Tamar decision to not charge the police. The family and their lawyers urged peaceful protest. But if the family in an outburst of rage had shouted out for “revenge”. I don’t know what level the violence would have hit. And if the police had responded to that with killing. There might have been a nationwide “American Spring” situation. This country sits on a racial powder-keg. And there are “matches” being lit everyday. One day if something isn’t done,one of them,will set it off.
Probably wrong of me to imply that it’s an either/or – ie either US domestic “troubles” (with or without a “nudge”) or effective moves deconstructing NATO. More logical to expect both, and then some…
In EU racism is being used – but that evil strategy may well back-fire and permit a “nudge” that removes servile satraps and results in the expulsion of NATO occupation. Russian Dugin addresses this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lKrTC7QE3Q
Dugin also addresses America in yt videos…somewhat similarly, but in English. This suggests a strategy exists in this direction.
Interesting that the divide in the US isn’t really racial, though that’s exploited and it does exist. Rather it’s class-based and mostly, in the US, that’s economic class… Blacks and whites can get along just fine despite their mutual natural and fairly mild racism. That natural racism? Only saying what’s obvious. How do races get to be races? Preference over the centuries. But it’s pretty mild, unless exploited by capitalist finks, stooges, warmongers, etc. Which, of course, it is.
And interesting too that every family that’s wronged becomes a “5th Column”, at least potentially. A real powder-keg!
Miloshevich was not a US puppet. Under his leadership Yugoslavia, a small country of only 10 million, resisted the aggression of NATO, the biggest military alliance in history, for a decade without the help of any allies(except some help from Belarus in 1999 und Russian volunteers). That is why NATO overthrew Miloshevich in a violent coup in 2000 to install the US puppet Djindjic. Even when he was kidnapped and forced to take part in the NATO show trial in The Hague he kept resisting. His defense was so successful that he caused the failure of the NATO show trial. NATO killed him because they saw no other way out.
Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott in his book:
“It was Yugoslavia’s resistance to the broader trends of political and economic reform-not the plight of Kosovar Albanians-that best explains NATO’s war. Milosevic had been a burr in the side of the transatlantic community for so long that the United States felt that he would only respond to military pressure.”
I meant to say “replaced by US puppet [Djindjic] like Misloshevich [was], [by Poroshenko like] Yanukovich [was]”.
I see now the grammar makes it possible to interpret my statement in two ways – that these leaders were replaced by US puppets, or that they were replaced by US puppets. I meant the latter.
Sorry, got confused there. I meant “that these leaders were US puppets, or that they were replaced by US puppets”.
I’ve spent three decades taking nuclear weapons seriously and worrying about nuclear war, especially with nuclear weapons deployed in Germany. It was futile – I should have been laughing instead. The key point to understand is that nuclear weapons are a hoax, as explained by Anders Björkman. They don’t work. Except as psycho warfare against those who are unaware of the hoax. Which means sheeple everywhere, and governments of nations that aren’t more equal than others.
ICBMs don’t work either, they burn up on re-entry. all human space travel is impossible [Youtube], from Gagarin to the ISS. We can’t get people back to Earth, so space travel is one-way only.)
These hoaxes have been going strong for several decades. It’s not the current leaders’ fault. They’ve simply inherited these hoaxes from 1945 and the 1960ies.
What does it mean if nukes don’t work? It means the superpowers are less powerful, relatively, and strong conventional powers are more powerful, relatively.
If anyone sinks one of Uncle Sam’s arrogant aircraft carriers, using a missile or torpedo, then what? What are Uncle Sam’s options? He can’t “go nucular”. He can and must strike back not to lose face, but he crucially depends on his carriers and bases and missiles and bombers to strike. His entire arrogant, oppressive infrastructure and technology is vulnerable to counterstrikes of a technologically potent opponent. He doesn’t have a nuclear bullet to promptly destroy an adversary. He will, on the contrary, assemble an alliance of “willing” vassals, go through a lengthy build-up, and then do like in 1991, or in 2003. Or in 2015/16?
To summarize, war and the associated horrors are real, but it’s time to retire the nuclear scarecrow. People shouldn’t waste time worrying about nuclear doomsday. War is bad enough without nukes.
The nuclear scarecrow doesn’t work either to push people in the U.S. to pacifist action. War will never affect them as long as there is no draft in the U.S., and most people don’t care what crimes are committed by the U.S. as long as the TV tells them the cause is just and provides enough distraction.
To be fair, it works the same way in other countries, maybe a bit less so in Europe as the average level of education seems higher here, but then it’s just a question of adapting the propaganda to appeal to a less credulous audience.
You have been posting the same information/points over and over and over on the site. Not only has your post been edited but any further posts will go to the trash. You are now trolling this point.
Okay, TR, I understand you perceive these points about nuclear weapons as “trolling”, and I can see how you deleted parts of my post about the Trinity movie (which I’ve never before written about). Trolling is definitely not my intention. You’re of course right that I’ve been repeating these points. But then, many commenters here repeat their points … over and over and over.
I don’t doubt that when publishing your nuclear orthodoxy articles (like the current one) you have all the best intentions, but I’ve come to think it is scare propaganda, aimed against people’s minds, with adverse psychological effects, spreading pessimism and negativity.
I’ll refrain from further mentioning, on this blog, the Nuke Hoax Issue, which I think some see as heresy against the Nuclear Weapon Gospel.
The infernal machines work. No organization that has attempted to construct atomic explosives has ever failed to achieve success on the first try. The only “atomic secret” worth keeping was that “it” could be done – and that train left the station at Alamogordo long ago. Rockets? They work too. Guidance? Really! Even without GPS and terminal radar and all that – Believe me, brother, and face the horrible fact that humanity has been on the edge of the abyss since 1950. What Strangelove said in the famous movie was all true, “even the smallest nuclear power”. And we know of many very close calls…go read “missiles of October” at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Not only in Cuba, not only on Soviet sub B-59, but also on Okinawa (came to 60 seconds and guns drawn, literally). And those are only a few of the known close calls.
I will say that at one time I had hoped that the guidance systems were poor enough to give some prospects, but the maintenance manual for the guidance (made by AC Delco for Chevy lovers) used on the old Titans – that manual is public. I read it, and I’m a technical guy. It was a terrifying read, a bullet-proof inertial system that was rugged and solid. Even the old Titans were accurate enough, unless launched in a serious storm. The Soviet MRBM’s in Cuba would have worked too.
But – and this is important – you have touched, just touched a true thing. People today, in “the West”, and also in the Slavic and Asiatic regions, long longer remember what war is, they do not understand, and so they’re not afraid. That’s terribly dangerous. Eyes shut they’re on the edge of a cliff…
In Cold War 1 and 2 (Fleming divides the CW into two periods) the Soviets and many Americans remembered, and feared.
Now, delusional people abound, and delusional and medicated sociopaths hold powerful positions, and they’re desperate, fearing loss of power.
People say “yeah, but we ain’t dead”. If that is valid reasoning then go get blind drunk and take a drive. If we do not learn from the close calls our luck will run out.
Only a mad man would chose to fight the Russians, they never give up, but they make great friends!
Pax, Pray for a miracle and for Peace, Brother.
No one doubts guidance. It works well.
Plain ballistic calculation worked in 1916 (Skagerrak), when German and English battleships destroyed each other at 14 km distance.
The rest is silence, as promised above.
Sub orbital guidance having to account for solar, planetary, and lunar tide stress as well as complex Coriolis effects, variations in Earth mass density and grav flux and vagaries of atmospheric effects even as the missile engines transit throttling and staging is vastly more complex than the fairly simple cannon ballistics of 1916, though the maths remain the same. Re-entry erosion effect and their derivative effects on aerodynamic deflections adds another complexity. With mechanical gyro, relays, mechanical Accelerometers, mechanical analogue computers and all that old time stuff, essentially V2 stuff from the Penemunde days, the Titan guidance was astonishingly good. I have had the guidance module from a Titan on the bench under my own hands. Yes, guidance works, even stuff designed in the 1950’s.
So do the explosives. These are almost trivial in terms of design. They can even be made somewhat directional as “shaped charges”…but little is said of that so I imagine it supposed to be secret as to how ones does that (it’s obvious how, but “secret”). Early work on that trick was done for the atomic rocket design “Orion” and it is public data. Orion was supposed to mass 10,000 tons and was not a staged design. It was direct to Mars from Earth surface. Look it up. The point is that the explosives do work. They’re real.
And re-entry presents no serious problem nowadays. Modern materials. But even in the 50″s they could hit the lagoon at Kwaj from Vandenburg in California – I know engineers who worked on the project “dynasoar” – a early variant of the shuttle design.
And I worked with guys who worked with von Braun, and who were on Johnston atol doing high altitude nuclear testing. They worked too, though there was, maybe, one dud that failed to detonate and fell back from 120 miles or so. One is inclined to speculate about whether or not the gadget was recovered…
There simply is no nuclear hoax. I wish there were, but that’s just wishful thinking.
The only problem now is that the multitudes no longer fear the infernal machines. They have forgotten war. For them it is not imaginable, it is unthinkable. Thus they themselves are delusional. If they saw things clearly the people in power would be forced to make peace. And mistakes happen, bad design happens, panic happens. We, all humanity and most living things, hang by a thread.
Delusional. Sleepwalking along the cliff. Perhaps dreaming that it’s all a hoax. It isn’t.
» I have had the guidance module from a Titan on the bench under my own hands. «
Never ceases to amaze me what rare kinds of expert birds show up on this blog. Even rocket scientists. Only problem is, if you’re a Hollywood engineer, it’s hard to write like a real one.
The rest is silence.
Dear Tatzhit Mihailovich,
thank you for providing an impressive look at the heart of Russia.
Germany’s heart is visible in a scene from 1 August 1914. At 19:00 hrs Count Pourtales, German ambassador to St. Petersburg, met Russian foreign minister Sasonow because he had to hand over Germany’s declaration of war. Pourtales, trembling, tried three times, finally covering his face and breaking down in tears. Only after the Russians consoled him could he finish his task. Pourtales previously had fought day and night to avert this.
The half of the Prussian general staff who quit their King in 1812 to join Czar Alexander had the same feelings as Pourtales.
Fortunately today – after a lost century – the time for imperial scheming is running out and people are seeing the truth.
As a side note – and without taking anything away from your main points – I would like to point out that the Soviet coup of 1917 was engineered from London and New York. Their “anti-Soviet intervention” was a hoax comparable to the current “anti-IS bombing” of the US. Hitler was foisted on an unsuspecting Weimar public by the same people. Here are some quotes from Sutton and Preparata on both.
I. Wall Street and the Soviet coup:
“”Dear Mr. President:
I am in sympathy with the Soviet form of government as that best suited
for the Russian people…”
Letter to President Woodrow Wilson (October 17, 1918) from William
Lawrence Saunders, chairman, Ingersoll-Rand Corp.; director, American
International Corp.; and deputy chairman, Federal Reserve Bank of New York”
[Antony C. Sutton: WALL STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION]
“The majority of the [American Red Cross] mission [to Russia], …, was made up of lawyers, financiers, and their assistants, from the New York financial district. The mission was financed by William B. Thompson, described in the official Red Cross circular as “Commissioner and Business Manager; Director United States Federal Bank of New York.”
“William B. Thompson, who was in Petrograd from July until November last, has
made a personal contribution of $1,000,000”
II. On the “anti-Soviet intervention”:
“In Russia, the Anglo-American death toll for what had been in essence a game of make-believe tallied up to approximately 500 lives out of a force of 18,000 men – in the West, instead, the United States had promptly expended 114,000 lives of the 2 million troops sent to France, in a deployment costing $36.2 billion.84 When it came to killing the Germans, America had been
ready to see 2 million of its soldiers die. But when the time had arrived to fight the 3–5 million ‘evil Communists,’ London and Washington committed together approximately 1 percent of the American contingent in France. And of their men, sent to overview the end of the Whites, the
Anglo-Americans had even been willing to sacrifice a handful, just in order to keep up appearances – to ‘show’ that, because a few of theirs had been cut down by Red fire, Britain and America had indeed come to ‘help the Whites.’ Which was the opposite of the truth. Siding ‘officially’ with the Whites, 500 Anglo-Americans soldiers were killed by the Reds in a tussle
in the polar north, which was part of an extraordinary double-cross of the White generals staged by the Anglo-American clubs for the benefit of the Reds themselves: such was the twisted beauty of imperial scheming.”
[Guido Giacomo Preparata: Conjuring Hitler – How Britain and America Made the Third Reich, p. 70]
“What Britain would do, with the help of America and the most heinous complicity of France and Japan, …, was to engage in a mock fight on the side of the Whites versus the Reds, committing very limited resources and men.
Thus what was in fact an operation of sabotage by neglect – a pretense to fight – was masked as a pro-White intervention, whose surreptitious objective was to instigate the Whites to combat under unfavorable conditions, deceitfully hamper their advances, prepare the terrain for their rout, and finally evacuate the Allied contingent by blaming the defeat on the putative inefficiency of the Whites. This would have turned out to be yet another indescribable disaster engineered by the western elites, not only for the terrible loss of Russian life it would have entailed, but especially for the murderous mendacity and duplicity displayed by the Western governments in provoking it, and subsequently justifying it to their electorates.”
“The first step in this terrible Anglo-American ploy was to isolate progressively the Whites with a diplomatic discourtesy: from Versailles, with studied aloofness towards their White ‘ally,’ and tacit encouragement for their Bolshevik work-horse, the Allies invited the two factions to meet
in Turkey with a view to negotiate. In Paris, and elsewhere, the Whites felt outrageously offended: this, they railed, amounted to granting the Bolsheviks ofﬁ cial status and treating them like equals! ”
“In the West the public, ever confused, did not quite understand why their governments were so slow in doing away with this nasty Bolshevik variable – Whites aside. Were not the Reds a plague on the capitalist West, they asked?”
“In a two-month epic exodus along the Trans-Siberian railroad, Kolchak hitched his six convoys to a locomotive bound to Vladivostok to escape from the creeping Red hordes – in one such convoy was the gold. Traveling in the front cars of the caravan were the French General Janin and the
Czechs, who so relented the pace of the advance as to allow the Reds to overtake the tail of the train. In the long 1,500-mile trek, 1 million men, women, and children would perish.
In January 1920, the British War Ofﬁce was proud to report that Kolchak had ceased to be a factor in Russian military affairs.82 The mission was accomplished: American and British troops evacuated Siberia. On January 31, two Czech ofﬁ cers boarded Kolchak’s car and informed the commander that he would be surrendered to the local authorities. ‘So the Allies have betrayed me?’ the White admiral calmly enquired. In February 1920, while facing interrogation by the Reds, Kolchak, this sad king of all dupes, would avow in a moment of placated distress: ‘the meaning and essence of this [Allied] intervention remains quite obscure to me.’”
III. On Wall Street’s sponsorhip of Hitler
Thanks to poster above. Of course Hitler was conjured. Generally the business has been since the first phase of the great war to the present day a series of sometimes overlapping and sometimes amateur/sometimes expert, often cruel and bloody, schemes designed to prevent an economic unification of Eurasia. Many people were motivated by emotion and class, but the driving force underlying all was economic. The Bolshevik affair was one that “went wrong” and with the process of the second phase, W2, resulted in near unification of Europe – a process halted by various interventions that generally fall under the rubric of “the cold war”. Some may wish to read about the Mackinder Thesis (wiki is a start and I urge people to read the thesis itself, as it informs and makes logical everything that’s going on). And the fact that the first phase (W1) was British policy is now public, see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/10991582/Revealed-how-King-George-V-demanded-Britain-enter-the-First-World-War.html
Brother Lumi, who has posted above, may want to know where that guidance module rested, where the bench and manual are (were) located: 31° 54′ 12.90 N
110° 59′ 56.47 W Anybody can lay hands on it, or could – it’s been many years. I am not a rocket scientist, a mere technical type who worked for many years under the friendly rule of a great bunch of engineers. Most of them are gone, I am old. It is pleasant to see that he found nothing to criticize, as I never lie. The best rocket scientist that I worked with was Carl Borgh, alas, gone. He designed turbopumps on the Saturn V engines, and with the end of that was laid off, and sold used cars for a bit, then bought a 19th century foundry. Wonderful guy. I could go on – but there’s no point…
Another interesting book on the topic: Conjuring Hitler – How Britain and America made the Third Reich, by G. G. Preparata.
(pdf free download)
Tatzhit, thanks a lot for your work and especially for this superb essay, I will read and watch all the interesting data when I find the time.
Happy New Year!
They tried to strangle the Bolshevik Revolution in the cradle….The bravest stories I ever read about were those of the partisan’s against their fascist state. From Greece to Italy….all betrayed by Western “Allies” Operation Gladio still in operation-they sure took all that nonsense seriously…right from the beginning.
Most people in Russia don’t consider it nonsense either. And any fealty to Russia in the rest of the World….is in memory of that “NONSENSE” Couldn’t read past that…..
Only a socialist revolution in the USA can prevent WW3….all the rest is smoke.
As long as capitalism exists so will the socialist alternative…..or mutual ruination of the contentding classes. Russia and China have to come to terms with their comprador’s….history marches on….two inter-imperialist wars….great depressions…..the solution to the riddle is a transition to a post capitalist world. That is the ONLY way a multi polar world will ever exist. Globalism is a linguistic magic trick…It is capitalism that we are dealing with. It batters down all Chinese Walls and remakes itself in it’s own image….if people don’t get that….they won’t get anything. All the rest is a lot of smoke and horse manure. Miss direction as the magician’s call it.