Translated from the Russian by Robin
For the second year in a row, almost uninterrupted military exercises are taking place in Russia. The number of troops involved is comparable to or even greater than the number of participants in the largest exercise held by the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact military alliance – even though the Soviet armed forces totaled 3.5 million in 1991 and today the Russian Federation’s armed forces barely number 1.5 million.
Strategic bombers are constantly on patrol. These aircraft have not only reverted to old areas of combat duty, but are also developing new ones. The navy is being strengthened at a rapid pace. To ensure a global presence for military aircraft and warships, a network of bases is being prepared, including in Latin America. When the Russian leadership asserts that it is not in talks about bases, that is most likely true.
Thus Vietnam’s Cam Ranh Bay, which is used to refuel Russian bombers, cannot be called a Russian military base because it has no such status. But in effect it is. In fact, it is so effective that the United States demanded in a panic that Vietnam stop Russia’s bomber-refueling flights, only to meet with a refusal. Such a refusal detracts from the superpower’s prestige. The outcome was predictable, but the situation was so distasteful to the United States that it took the risk.
Actually the attempt to prevent Russia from using Cam Ranh to refuel its aircraft is not the United States’ only attempt to counteract Russia. The Black Sea is regularly visited by NATO ships, with the obligatory participation of U.S. warships. NATO’s naval exercises in the Black Sea have also become a regular practice. No sooner does one group of ships leave the region than another shows up to take its place. In the Baltic states, the presence of NATO ground troops has been increased.
Characteristically, it was U.S. troops and equipment that were sent there. Plans have been announced to strengthen the NATO forces in Poland by rearming the Polish army and by transferring additional troops there from other countries in the bloc (most likely they will also be Americans). There is also talk of a deployment of U.S. troops to Bulgaria and Romania.
At the same time, the two sides are conducting media campaigns to intimidate each other. In the United States, the topic du jour is the provision of lethal weapons to the Ukraine, which is supposed to dramatically enhance the combat capability of the helpless Ukrainian army (sort of like giving the Aegis Combat System to a Zulu).
Russia, for its part, is filling the media with information on electronic warfare devices that can be mounted under the fuselage of a plane or in the cockpit of a helicopter and used to disable any electronic system within a radius of hundreds of kilometers, destroy any quantity of airborne missiles, and maybe even make bullets fly backwards. Another favorite theme of the Russian media is the immense superiority of any given Russian arm over its foreign counterparts.
All this indicates that Washington and Moscow are seriously considering a situation where the armies of the two nuclear superpowers come into direct contact. On the one hand, there is a hasty buildup of arms and moving of troops to the front lines, where possible. On the other hand, each side is trying to psych the other out to undermine its will to resist before weapons are even used. To that end, they talk up the latest super-powerful weapons that can kill “seven at one blow.”1
It’s small wonder that Russia appears much more active in this regard. The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), which took into account the capabilities of NATO and the Warsaw Pact (after which all members of the Warsaw Pact and three former Soviet republics became members of NATO), placed restrictions on the signatories’ number of key armaments. As a result, in terms of tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery pieces with a caliber of more than one hundred millimeters, and attack helicopters, Russia’s armed forces are significantly outnumbered by their probable enemy in the European theater of war, without taking into account the United States’ ability to quickly transfer additional troops and equipment to Europe.
Russia’s suspension of the CFE Treaty doesn’t change the situation. Thousands of pieces of military equipment cannot be delivered to the troops overnight, just as it is impossible to provide trained crews instantly. Therefore it is necessary to frighten the enemy with quality.
That all this is not a joke is evidenced by the fact that, since January 2015, the word war is increasingly being used by world leaders. Note that it isn’t just U.S. senators who were damaged in Vietnam, such as McCain, who are talking about it, but major European leaders.
Hollande spoke of the threat of war when he and Merkel rushed to Putin to beg for a truce in the Donbass. A Russian invasion is the subject of discussions, expectations, and the almost perverted lust of the Baltic political elites, who are all abuzz about reports that after the Ukraine they will be “Putin’s next victim.” Polish politicians talk about war as if it were a likely occurrence, with a former minister of foreign affairs advising his fellow citizens on live television that, if Russia decides to go to war, they should pack their bags and flee to Australia.
All this is extremely dangerous, not only because Ilf and Petrov were spot on when they wrote that if everyone expects a fire, then the Rookery2 is bound to burn. Constantly keeping an army in a high level of combat readiness comes at a steep material and emotional cost. Moreover, if soldiers of two superpowers get close enough to see one another (i.e., to shoot at one another), the risk of an incident will increase. Finally, at some point military preparations escape politicians’ control and begin to dictate the agenda.
No one wants war but everyone is getting ready for it. Just in case, additional forces are being deployed, an information war is being waged, attempts at financial and economic sabotage are being launched, and allies are being recruited. So far, it all amounts to a flexing of muscles designed to show that both sides are ready for anything. But as such a game advances, it leaves less room for maneuver. At some point, you have to take responsibility for your words, actions, hints, and promises to allies. Otherwise you will lose face and be defeated without going to war. As the confrontation escalates and the saber rattling grows louder, it becomes more difficult to retreat and to save face.
We live in a state of military alert. Sometimes such circumstances are inconsequential; a compromise is found or one side concedes in time. More often than not, it is impossible to back down, and there is no room for compromise. Today, the confrontation between Russia and the United States has gone too far for either side to give way without suffering catastrophic consequences. There are no available resources to ensure a compromise; thus it must be achieved through a third party, but there are no willing parties. We are at a decisive point in the confrontation: it is clear that only one side will survive, but it is not clear whether the United States will give up without a fight or risk starting a military conflict.
So far they have never left the battlefield without having tried all means. At some stage, it might occur to them that provoking a conventional (non-nuclear) conflict will frighten Russia, because it will show Moscow that the United States is not afraid of a direct military confrontation with it, and nuclear Armageddon will be avoided, because Russia will have to back down.
I think that in such a case the United States will soon be faced with a choice: to surrender Europe to Russia or start a nuclear war itself. NATO’s quasi armies, although they have a significant quantitative advantage, are no match for the armed forces of the Russian Federation, and the United States does not have enough troops in Europe to seriously affect the course of events.
In short, the most reliable way to avoid war is not to start thinking about it and preparing for it. We have already passed that stage. The only thing left is just not to start a war, although that is a very complex matter.
1 Refers to Seven at One Blow, the Brothers Grimm story of a tailor who kills seven flies with one swipe.
2 Refers to a communal apartment depicted in The Little Golden Calf.
Does Russia not have sufficient operational depth along its borders to let NATO cross into its territory and then use tactical nuclear weapons against
the advancing troops? Given that Russia can hold its nerves and not strike first, this scenario seems to make a shooting war unlikely. NATO, knowing
that, seems to be posturing more for the sake [no pun intended] of making
the leading circles around Putin nervous and, at the same time, encouraging
the liberal-minded fifth column.
To all the Anonymouses… if you go to the trouble of writing a comment and want to engage in the conversation please give yourself a name. It is very confusing when multiple people use the same ‘anonymous’. Are you one and the same or many?
Also try to select a name not already in use.
For example, I am “Sasha’, but a few days ago up popped a second ‘Sasha’.
So to the person who wrote this comment – would you like to find another name or call yourself ‘Sasha 2’?
Do they leave radiation such that you wdn’t want to use them on your own territory?
Nuclear contamination of parts of its borderland would be a price that Russia would need to pay for winning a war against NATO, so much is true. On the other hand, paying such a price would only boost Russia’s legitimacy in this war and legitimacy is what its all about. Plus, Russia might be able to use neutron bombs (hydrogen-based fusion bombs without any plutonium or uranium casing), which leave less long-lasting radiation than ordinary plutonium-based fission bombs.
Maybe… Russia and America will join forces to suppress the Israeli nuclear faction, no population wants anything to do with war, unless they are part of “Government”. Perhaps this governmental control of the human species has had it’s time and should be abolished in favour of a system that works for us all, instead of the few pushing for war, which incidentally has never solved anything EVER!
I doubt the Israelis would allow lucifer to submit to such a task.
“Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.” “To be or not to be.” “A falcon, towering in her pride of place.” (Shakespeare).
So it has come to this, has it? Have we crossed the Rubicon? The towering falcon or saker surveys the scene. What does she think? What will she do? What will we do?
Then there’s the black swan. She’s already here, courting with the swan of clay. Go ahead, make my day. You have the gun. I have the sun. More at thelovegovernment.com.
I guess my answer might be just wishful thinking, and that I will still be in denial of nuclear confrontation when its happening, but this is not crossing the Rubicon. There will not be nuclear armageddon. We can’t allow ourselves to resign to that thought. Not even momentarily can we allow ourselves that thought to enter into our soul and take up residence there. Never.
I’m no longer religious but will always remember:
“Matthew 7:13-14King James Version (KJV)
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
Whether we have a soul or are just a smart animal – we are unfortunately mostly bad, to greater or lesser degrees [apart from those who are regular saker followers, of course :-)].
It therefore seems that, rather than never, “it” is a near certainty.
This is how the First World War began. Nobody wanted it, but the political options just got narrowed down through bluster and brinksmanship – and we all know what followed. Dangerous times indeed.
The Brits were livid at Germany’s attempts to build rail links to Bagdad as this would challange their empire which depended on thre rule of the seas.
It took some planning and betrayal to create the conditions for the eventual destruction of the (then) newly formed German state. It was and is called ‘the Balance of Power’, as one European nation or another was perceived by the Brits present a challange – alliances were formed for its destruction. It took two world wars in the German case.
This new alliance between Russia and China – The New Silk Road – presents a similar delemma for the West. These new alliances may prove too strong to destroy. The US Navy is in the same position as were the Brits a hundred years ago. The loss of Crimea was a serious blow, the USN already had construction contracts for work there.
Do you links about USN construction contracts in Crimea? Thanks.
US Navy cancels charity projects in Crimea
The US Navy has discontinued charity programs in Crimea, canceling the renovation of a public school and children’s hospital. Russian media and bloggers suspect the programs were meant to butter up locals for a possible US settlement there.
Until quite recently the US military has been allocating American taxpayers’ money to reconstruction of public offices on the Crimea Peninsula, while it was still autonomous within Ukraine.
I think that the Lituanians are up to stage a false flag-operation against Russia very soon. I beleive that Dalia Grybauskaite is crazy enough to help US to make this operation possible. Of course she leaves the country before the russian retaliation and leaving the lituanian people to suffer.
The US is leading its EU vassals into a psychological regression, into Cold War v2, like putting on an old coat without noticing that it’s dripping poison. This is more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis (so-called) as now there is no operating MAD doctrine to temper pulling the trigger.
Russia, backed by China, in Ukraine and Syria have drawn a line that the West should not cross. Eurasia will not lie down to die. It will resist, and it has most of the worlds people at its back.
We face one of two futures: either the US and its vassals retreat from confrontation, or the US starts a war that destroys the northern hemisphere of the world and sets back human development.
For my children’s sake I hope that the US looses its nerve and backs down but am very pessimistic seeing the current state of lunacy in the US elites that believe their propaganda and disinformation.
if the US loses Europe it will never go to war. Europe is fast shaking her shackles. Germany I mean.
Most talk of war from the American side have come from armchair generals. those who have stayed in a trench and under fire, will never want a war! But then the U S system works like this, “We will fight till the last European or last Green card holder, which occurs first!
Most talk of war emanate from the American side. They have have come from armchair generals fattened on dollars fed by the weapons industry and banksters, Those soldiers that have stayed in a trench under fire, will never want a war! War is after all a racket, said Marine Gen. Samuel Butler. the biggest profiteers of war are the banksters and weapons makers. But then the U S system is a racket and its military will fight till the last European or last Green card holder, which occurs first!
I’m constantly amazed at how the prospect of war between the US and Russia gets casually bandied about both in the mainstream and alternative media. And in that narrative nuclear war at best gets mentioned in passing, with the implication that it’s not relevant or worse, that it might be winnable.
The likelihood of a conventional war leading to the use of tactical nuclear weapons is high, especially if either side starts winning the conventional fight decisively. From there it’s a very short way to an all-out nuclear exchange.
Amazing as it is, humanity seems to be forgetting just what nuclear war means or how close we are to it every minute of every day. It’s simply incredible to me that this needs reminding. But anyways here it is.
The US and Russia both have 1800 to 2800 strategic nuclear weapons deployed on hair-trigger alert. In addition to this Russia has some 2000 tactical nuclear weapons and the US around 300. Both countries also have around 5000 operational nuclear weapons that could be deployed.
The median yield for Russian strategic nuclear weapons is approximately 800 kilotons, or about 40 times the yield of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. Everything and everyone within a circle of 250 to 350 square km would be burned in a massive firestorm that would go on for hours. In addition every structure within a 5-8km radius of the blast would be obliterated. In the following days there would be radioactive nuclear fallout over thousands of square km. This is the effect of one bomb. Imagine multiple MIRVs over a single area. It only takes a fraction of the deployed Russian nuclear forces to completely destroy 90% of the population and infrastructure of the US concentrated both coasts and the Great Lakes region.
There’s a lot of hype about ABM systems, but the reality is that the ones deployed by the US are really intended for a single primitive missile coming from places like North Korea, and there is a lot of debate about effectiveness. There is simply no ABM defense against the kind of sophisticated arsenal that Russia has – including submarine-based and mobile truck and rail-based ICBMs with MIRVs, decoys, etc. There is nothing protecting Europe and the US, period.
In the aftermath there would be few survivors and no energy infrastructure, in fact no infrastructure to speak of. The division of labor would be utterly destroyed. There would be no institutions, no production, no law and order. It would not be a return to the stone age, it would be much worse – at least cave men had a viable environment for hunting and gathering. When the leadership eventually made it out of their bunkers they will probably have wished they had perished in the initial exchange. Speaking of this leadership, there will probably be a breakdown in law and order within moments of knowing that a retaliatory strike was on its way.
It’s possible that the neocons are insane. At the same time fundamentally they are cowards living and loving the kind of lifestyle that would make the sun-king blind. Are they willing to risk it all on the slim chance that the US might be able to absorb a nuclear exchange? With its much larger geography and less complex economy Russia would probably do better at survival, but not by much.
There would be no winner in a nuclear war. The systems of detection and response are simply too sophisticated and the uncertainties and the stakes are too high to even rationally contemplate trying to win. It would be the end of western civilization, if not the eventual extinction of humanity.
I dont dispute your points but there is one more thing to consider. There a now tactical nukes with tuneable warheads. These are the upgrades to the W54 Davey Crocket bombs developed in the 50’s.
So now the freaks in DC have the option of nukes with payloads of hundreds of tons enstead of Kilotons. So, a limited nuclear exchange becomes ‘reasonable’. I’m not sure Russians agree.
Perhaps for fuller illumination the definition of war should not be restricted to things that go bang.
Your illustrative scenarios are widely acknowledged, but when you can conjure for a limited time a fiat currency, a fiat economy and a fiat “politics” allied to narratives of utility subject to confirmation bias, then in some circles there is an attraction towards the misguidance of “chutzpah”.
Israel with its Samson option likely in some respects also follows the temptations of chutzpah.
In 1992 and 1993 there were very interesting conferences in Obnynsk, Seversk and other locations.
These conversations have continued periodically.
So perhaps “there will probably be a breakdown in law and order” before the time you suggest in your scenario.
If not, then it should be understood that some do not resort to or are inhibited by chutzpah.
If this blog archive in the period before December 2013 is investigated in relation to anonymous an approximation of the following will be found.
The questions are whether a drowning man suits your purpose, or if not, how to drown a drowning man with the minimum blowback.
The questions have largely remained valid throughout.
Anonymouson March 25, 2015 · at 6:53 pm UTC
“Perhaps for fuller illumination the definition of war should not be restricted to things that go bang., etc”
Anonymous, if you are trying not to be understood, you have succeeded. I always wonder why you bother to post since your goal isn’t communication.
Penelope, he might not explained very well, maybe he should make an effort in this, but to me their views are very interesting and repeatedly has provided links of great interest, at least for me.
I would like him to continue coming.
Perhaps an investigation of Sadaam Hussein’s chutzpah projected to Iran re nuclear weapons, its use by others whom it is strongly suggesteed were present at the party, and the consequences thereof might prove illumination.
Perhaps an iteration in some respects on whatever happened to Stepan Bandera, or Patrice Lumumba, or Mr. Diem?
Perhaps Christian Appy’s work – the oral history on Vietnam – and “American Reckoning ” may illuminate on matters of chutzpah.
Then ponder why RI conference 250314 including its purpose, content and inclusion of Messrs Cohen and Mearsheimer.
Re the earlier Nation roadshow featuring Messrs Cohen and Mearsheimer.
Not the RI roadshow also featuring Messrs. Cohen and Mearsheimer.
In broad Mearsheimer as conservative wanted control/influence remotely; various lectures available on Youtube re “American exceptionalism” and interventions, right to protect/humanitarian or otherwise may illuminate.
As previously noted on this blog, there was a very interesting conference that took place in Moscow in May 1993 which included representatives of the Mitsubishi Foundation.
This was following a conference in 1974 between related parties which included in its survey Nahodka and Trans Siberian developments/upgrades.
The discussions were not continued partly as a consequence of the efforts of aging red experts apparently paying regard to some misnamed entity that had just lost a war.
Dear friend, thank you very much for the suggestions on lectures and links to interesting articles. I’ve read some of the articles, but I have not yet had time to see everything about Christian Appy and Mr.Mearsheimer ( perhaps in the Easter holidays; I am short of time, with my job and a small minijob ).
Concerning the article on the inevitability of war US versus Russia expressed by Mr. Cohen, do you think so, is it inevitable?
What can we do the people we are here to protect us if necessary?
Some hold that knowledge is a process of questions.
Perhaps a more thorough review of all of the Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov blog including entries of 26/3/15 will help you formulate and explore other questions.
As to Messrs Cohen, Mearsheimer et al, datastreams have their uses especially for those of a non-binary disposition.
Another possible area that may not appear of present use but where catalysts may be found would in the works of Margarete Buber-Neumann, Germaine Tillion and Tzvetan Todorov, if understanding that the utility catalysts is often found in transcendence is respected.
This woman, Germaine Tillion was very interesting:
Specially this quote:
Thanks a lot, friend for your recomendations. I am still studying, please do not go far.
About Tzvetan Todorov I see that he studied with Roland Barthes, who was another of your recommendations. Fortunately, he has many books published in Spanish. I’ll stick with the reference for when I have more free time (this is the biggest problem). Anyway, these three references you are giving me, may be considered anti-Stalinist.
I see that you really want me to give Grandpa Stalin.
elsi @ 1.05 pm UTC March 28
Perhaps someone is using your name on the Solzhenitsyn and Sakarov blog 280315 ?
She appears to be of a McCarthy state of mind, and doesn’t understand that not only is knowledge a process of questions, but that opinion is never made by some in public fora with or without attribution.
Some are not counting the cars on the New Jersey Turnpike or pledging alleigance to the wall.
This may illuminate the notions of half-lives, means conditioning the ends, whatever happened to Stepan Bandera and others, and why transcendance.
Reading this long article that is more abundant in the inexorable path to continuous and total war and the implementation of fascism as a new world order, I repaired in that allusion to the Haganah organization as left-wing self defense force versus Irgun as extrem right-wing force.
Assuming that I am not well versed in the history of the State of Israel, except for the movies and a few more, and having read something about the origins of Haganah from self-defense organization against pogroms on Jews in Czarist Russia leading to the creation of the IDF, and considering its initial intention of self defense with the aim of causing minor damage to the population, I wonder what remains today of the “initial mood” and “left spirit” in the current IDF ( I guess nothing at all ).
Whereas that warmonger Netanyahu leads us to disaster everyone knows, even any housewife, I wonder if there is any sector in the IDF that could, if necessary, maintain some sanity.
I also find very interesting, as learning applicable to future self-defense organization of any sign, the initial organization of Haganah as self-defense force, not ignoring that had the invaluable help of the British Army.
The post by Anonymous is quite clear…
Penelope, I agree with you. This guy is familiar to me too and he always talks circles within circles with tthe latest slang…
Perhaps mathematics appears opaque.
A circle is an encompassing closed system and hence by definition has content.
Perhaps a more appropriate metaphor is helix in the singular, the plural and interactive.
“if you are trying not to be understood, you have succeeded.”
Perhaps a more valid formulation would read – If you are trying not to spoon feed me, then you have succeeded”?
Or if you were more explicit in notions of perceived entitlement the formulation could read – If you are trying to make me not understand you, you have succeeded.
“I always wonder why you bother to post since your goal isn’t communication.”
Perhaps the above is a function of your limited definition, limited experience, limited imagination and limited understanding of communication.
This trend is quite marked; previous examples including but not limited to those who previously opined that RT and Russian propaganda was so inept they should appoint an American advisor – not realising that they already had some in house (until recently) for reasons you probably don’t understand and likely no one will offer you guidance upon – since American advisors apparently know best in the real world.
Perhaps testing the hypotheses in the light of recent “events” and likely future “events” may add illumination.
@ Anonymous @6:53
I have no idea what you are trying to convey. I read your post twice.
Please collect your thoughts and then write.
Carmel by the Sea
It is a message for the professionals.
On matters ideoligical you may find some interesting hypotheses to test on the Solzhenitsyn and Sakarov blog reply to elsi 260315.
What do you see when you turn out the light?
2 cents, thank you for the summary. As Russia’s position is largely self-defense, we must focus on stopping the US aggressor. What are the possibilities?
–How much can massive European demonstrations accomplish?
–US citizen demonstrations are unable to influence the govt, but might influence some fraction of the military to act against the govt.
–Could an effective counter-coup in Ukraine remove a pretext and trigger?
–Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better, because it takes worsening to frighten people.
I don’t see the logic that we are already at the point of no return. Indeed, it is unlikely that the author thinks so, either–or he wouldn’t bother to write about it.
Thanks for saving me the bother of a post to Anonymous, Penelope.
It’s got the toneless quality of a bot, but may be an human with autism. Either way, no content, so worthless.
Some people understand it and can engage with him. If you don’t, just move on.
K.K. you’re too authoritarian…let the locals have their say.
Especially when Ann says about the people she doesn’t like that they are trolls.
Perhaps consider it this way?
Datastreams are always useful.
Their uses include but are not necessarily restricted to testing hypotheses on levels/modes of ideological immersion.
Perhaps Nora of the gosh darn disposition could comment on the events in Ferguson or other matters of “looting”.
I think only one of your options listed is realistic really, the potential for a collapse of the Ukrainian regime by conflict among the western backed oligarchs and fascistafascist battalions. In such a way as that nobody can say it is a collapse by Russian action, instead it should be self evident that the instability is inherent to the regime itself. Mind you that should be obvious to everyone already.
“If we win here we will win everywhere. The world is a fine place and worth the fighting for and I hate very much to leave it.”
And in the end he shot himself…
Monuments have many uses especially for those who aspire to become los caballeros de la rosas.
Argentina and Chile come to mind but not exclusively so.
“As Russia’s position is largely self-defense”
Would it appear that you wholly understand or perhaps in large regard understand the strategic orientations,plans and purposes of the Russian Federation, its population and representatives?
It would appear that you are not a stranger to the when did you last beat your wife school.
You also appear to assume knowledge and answers.
Some have heard that webs can be red.
Perhaps you can help some understand more on the questions of :
1 What ever happened to James Jesus and his orchids?
2. Did Ulysses return home ok?
3. What ever happened to Nora of the gosh darn disposition?
I wish that humanity was not always to blame in these discussions. Its a handful of criminals who are making money on the production and sales of lethal weapons. Its not humanity.
2 cents, you’ve certainly generated thoughtful comments. One more from me….
we won’t be back in the ‘stone age’ what a stupid title…not your fault…stone age brings to mind a land of stones…that’s ridiculous…its the ‘agricultural age’ and there’s not much wrong with that.
Unfortunately, the criminals would again start their trouble if we as a race don’t change the system.
No more accumulated wealth. No more government reaching into private lives. Strong barriers to prevent the economic part of society from enslaving humanity.
These are things that have to be thought out before its time, so that when its time, we will know how to proceed.
Thanks for telling these grim truths. I too am amazed at the rhetoric on both sides. War with Russia is the end, that’s it. No one left to tell the story, I can’t fathom the kool aid being passed around these days as if it’s nothing. It’s as if we have nearly all gone insane.
Just contrast their frustration in the slow grind of uke with their fast results in splitting Yemen.
“… it is clear that only one side will survive,…”; “Russia will have to back down”; “… Surrender Europe to Russia…” etc, etc,….
Rather presumptuous statements, imo. The writer seems to have a rather singular scenario frame.
In spite of Russian military exercises, which keeps forces focused and trained, and lets off some steam, the Russians have maintained a clearly stated policy that they wish to trade as equals in a global system without exceptionalism.
The US, and their ‘western world’ vassal states, on the other hand are effectively bankrupt and without any viable economic policy within their dominant ideological paradigm. Their drift is towards war as a last resort via trade and financial sanctions rather than deep systemic and attitudinal change necessary to live, work and trade as equals in a multipolar world. There is a deep malaise and dangerous psychosis at work in a descending spiral down from unipolar empire status.
It is clear Russia has a strategic disadvantage in the English speaking main stream media information war zone but otherwise it appears to be ready and able to deliver about equal destructive outcomes to the US and EU/UK (read NATO) as it would likely receive from them.
The tone of this article fails to demonstrate the flexibility and subtle nuance required to see the fundamental cultural and economic forces at work. While the US economy is heavily dependent on foreign energy and labour (Middle East and China respectively) and focused on financial manipulation and military industrial complex ‘products’ the Russians have surplus energy and convenient markets and infrastructure at hand. The cultural mismatch boils down to US bluff and bluster (and bullying) compared to Russian stoic patience before unannounced action/response — without anyone’s ‘permission’.
It is a very dangerous game of blink between two states of mind — perhaps symbolised as between two bears (if we count China’s panda) and a pack of wolves (5 eyes plus various yapping hyenas). The US blinked on Syria (and is now trying to recover with its ISIS strategy); blinked on Vietnamese refuelling bases (as the writer points out); and just blinked on China’s new Asian investment bank initiative (suggesting they could ‘work together in partnership’).
All the bluff and bluster aside, it seems fairly clear that if the US government want a war with Russia/China, down to the last Ukrainian/European, to solve their economic malaise, then they just need to push a couple of buttons and head for the bunkers. Conversely, all the Russians need to do is keep their defensive systems at the ready and ensure they target the top 1% cohort running the US government in their first wave of nuclear response — wherever they be on the day.
Then, like the 60s and 70s, we can all get on living in a tense peace while the US work out how they are going to pay their I.O.U. bills without an ‘exceptional’ fait reserve currency at hand — and without too many friends, or contracts, in the surge of EurAsian development from Lisbon to Beijing (largely funded by the Great Bank of China, powered by the Great Engineering of Russia, and driven by the Great Consumption demand of Europe). It’s largely a ‘win-win-win’ except for an unemployed post-exceptional war-machine stuck in its 20th century hegemonic dreams of empire.
“Rather presumptuous statements, imo. The writer seems to have a rather singular scenario frame. ”
The writer is not alone.
Perhaps the keys lie in modes of linear thinking and lack of experience/responsibility in strategy.
All this war talk … So where is the UN? Yankee-moon in town? Or does he only pipe up when it’s a 4th rate emerging economy needing mosquito nets? Let’s move the UN headquarters to somewhere like Timor Leste — it would be cheaper rent, about as useful or relevant, and about as valued by the US hegemony.
The UN has joined the League of Nations. Now obsolete.
Beyond question the UN should be moved out of New York and restructured.A neutral country is where it should have always been.It was put in the US,because the US insisted on it as a price to join.And ever since it has been worthless for solving problems (causing as many as it solves).I would argue it has as bad or maybe even worse of a track record than the League of Nations.And for the same reason.The great nations won’t give it authority over “themselves”. It’s alright for the UN,when teamed with the great powers to order around small weak states.But solving problems that touch on what the great powers consider their “interests”,and no way will they allow that
It seems to me that Putin or Lavrov needs to talk to Merkel and Hollande and lay the cards on the table.Explain that the World is on the brink of WW and suggest that they,possibly joined by China, call for a “grand conference” (Congress of Vienna,or Berlin style) to bring the sides together,without the junta invited.And try to solve this crisis.Certainly that would mean leaving the junta fanatics out.But that wouldn’t be the first time that great world powers have done that.And I don’t consider the junta as a legitimate government anyway.The key to this crisis is to set the clock back to 2013 at least.End,fascism in Ukraine,and the threat of a WW in the World.At least it is worth a try.Otherwise things are not looking good to avoid nuclear war.The author is right.If one side is winning a conventional war, the other will go nuclear to avoid losing.And then the other will respond,and there we will all be.
Where or when has Vladimir Putin, as President of RF, ever backed down, or not gone all out with nukes at the ready?
He is not a man who will not use whatever he has to do whatever he must.
The American need for Russia to blink is an obsession.
Putin does not blink. Nor do Russian people. Nor do the circle of Putin’s support.
No major military or defense official in RF blinks.
The US and EU/NATO jackals who want war will get a devastation.
As for a third party to intervene and separate these two gladiators, I think President Xi will stop it from going to guns. That is, if there is a space for him to make China’s will known.
China will have to join Russia. That is outside every Western calculus. They don’t see it as a reasonable response to a war with Russia. However, China understands that they will be next in a heartbeat. And they are not even half as strong as Russia. Ergo, they will have to blink and stay number two to the Hegemon. In fact, at that stage of things, Japan will be put in charge of controlling China again. Just as it was in WWII.
China is the key to peace.
There should be no doubt that the United States is far more powerful than Russia is today; but the United States has been wasting its military resources, as it obsesses over rebellions in Islamic lands (by Sunnis in some countries; and by Shiites in others). So, there could be a window of opportunity for Russia to decisively defeat the US military early in a war between them; but this window will close given enough time. Ultimately, Russia must take the initiative and strike at the US military before it makes the pivot from imperialism and repression of rebellions across the periphery, to global intensive warfare against a world-class foe like Russia. It is the same hard choice that Japan had to make in 1941.
Basically, the American ground combat forces have been splintered into small light combat units, and have been trained almost exclusively to fight small wars with impunity. They haven’t trained in large-scale mobile warfare in years. Bradley fighting vehicles have practically vanished from the tables of organization and equipment. Strykers are limited in both their ability to traverse rough terrain and water obstacles, and in their fire support role in mobile combat. The Abrams tanks are still among the best main battle tanks in the world; but the US Air Force doesn’t have a transport plane that can carry one. I really can’t even guess how many months it would take for US Army armored combat-ready units to appear on a battlefield in Eastern Europe.
The Air Force barely practices aerial combat at all. Besides, the USAF preference for stealth over speed and firepower limits their ability to attain air superiority over a battlefield. The A-8, A-10, F-15, F-16 and F-18 production lines are shut down while the F-35 is still not combat-worthy; and the oxygen problem in the F-22 has not been solved yet. The Air Force will have to rely on stealth and stand-off bombers, and cruise and ballistic missiles to carry the battle over the Russian heartland. If the S-400 and the coming S-500 systems are as good as the Russians claim, a US air war against Russia cannot be effective.
The US Navy, with its Marines included, is the most powerful fighting force on earth; and it will remain so far into the future. However, it is reasonable to expect that Russian combined air and naval forces can keep the US Navy out of the Baltic and Black seas and hold off attacks from the Arctic. But, if the US Navy concentrates its power and sets out to take Russia’s Far East, I don’t see how Russia can prevent it. (Geo-politically, I don’t see how Japan could prevent the United States from using its bases in Japan to support this angle of attack.)
So, unless Russia can strike a crippling blow against the US Navy at the very onset of a direct war between the two powers, it is necessary for Russia to rely on proxy warfare and diplomacy, in order to breakup the American hegemony. I expect that the Russian military is fully aware of this, and are striving to come up with a solution.
Until now, the mighty US forces fought wars with far less formidable opponents. An they effectively lost all of them. Now the mighty Marines are flying out of Jemen… The US is plundered now, you cannot compare the situation with that back in the 1930-40’s. Just cut the mighty army off the carbohydrates and the mighty Marines will have to fight with swords if there is enough carbon to manufacture them. One once says, the Abrams is great, but is as strong as the fuel tankers that have to follow it… There are too many items to count with when it comes to a war apart from their will to fight… REal crap is not a movie… Cheers!
One must not forget the morale factor. US armed forces of today are a far cry from the ones that fought as recently as during the Vietnam war, let alone the two world wars and the Korean wars. Back then, the US deployed conscript armies that had a sense of what they were fighting for, though already greatly diminished during the Vietnam war. US forces could take losses and keep fighting.
The gulf war already saw US forces that were so adverse to taking losses as to make force protection, as the military calls it, a priority so big that it totally changed the nature of warfare. And these forces actually came out of the cold war, having been trained and equipped to face Russia in its Soviet incarnation. Then, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could only be fought because the losses were considerably spread out in time and geographically.
The US, like most of the West, have also abrogated the age-old concept of a comradeship of heterosexual men breeding the best warriors. Western armies have become providers of career opportunities touting a politically-correct, feminized, and hedonistic corporate culture that is quite the opposite of the conditions under which men fought and died throughout the millennia.
Imagine a bunch of American 20-year-olds, women and open homosexuals among them and all of them wanting to attend college right after doing their service, imagine this bunch of people showing up in the Russian far east or anywhere else in Russia, taking heavy losses against well-motivated Russian troops and still fighting. Inflicting heavy losses early on is what Russia needs to do in the event of a NATO attack. It is doubtful that NATO “troops” will then continue fighting.
I agree with all your points. The American advantage over Russia exists primarily from the aspect of its naval power. America is still separated from the desolation of war by vast oceans. But this advantage cannot be offset by Russian superiority elsewhere. So Russia must come up with the means to deliver a series of crippling blows to the US Navy at the very onset of a direct war between the two. Until then, it must avoid direct war with the United States unless of until America attacks first, or the provocations made by them become insufferable.
There are two types of Naval vessels – boats and targets! Russian submarines are referred to as “black holes” by NATO for a very good reason. The loss of life in an attempted US invasion of the Russian Far East would be catastrophic, and what would they do once they landed? Not much! Winter is about the only time that an army can march westward through the Far East and Siberia. I don’t think that the US Marines have had much experience of a Siberian winter.
Frankly, they are so out of touch with the real grind of war, they will probably descend into chaos. They are spread far too thin and know next to nothing about Chinese satellite capabilities: they are very good at keeping advances under wraps.
Plus, US bases around the globe has earned them a lot of local enmity: saboteurs can wreak havoc.
The US generals really are psychotically deluded – the Russians are not.
Here’s just how psychotic they are:
Arthur Brina, very interesting comment that Russia’s Far East is indefensible. You mean from bombers, right? Cuz ground forces & their re-supply don’t seem too viable.
Overall the US excells at the projection of power due to her navy and extensive overseas bases. But surely those big ships are vulnerable.
Oh, it’s insane– how can US start a conventional war w Russia knowing she’ll go to nuclear if she’s losing? Too crazy, I think the US just wants Russia to THINK it’s crazy enough to go to war.
What does US want Russia to DO, exactly, to avoid war? Permit ethnic cleansing in Ukraine?
Penelope, I agree with your observations. My comments are in reaction to the author’s point that every one is getting ready for war. Here and in other commentaries, it has been noted that both Russians and Americans are talking openly of the possibility of war.
Everything -warships, warplanes, submarines, etc- have their vulnerabilities. I am afraid that the “chickens” who bluster in America about war, have no idea of its adverse consequences that could fall upon them.I fear that they think that cannot be hurt.
No one can know in advance whether the US Navy can defend any or all its carriers from submarines and anti-ship missiles. But one should not be certain that enough US ships would be sunk before Russia’s navy and air forces in the Far East would be destroyed.
The facts are that the US Navy is the force which has no peer, while the US Army is definitely inferior to Russia’s and the USAF is not designed for aerial combat the way Russia’s is. That is why I foresee that Russia must come up with a way to cripple the US Navy at the onset of war; for otherwise it cannot win a direct war with the United States. Russia must fepend on diplomacy and proxy warfare until then.
By the way, I am extremely sympathetic with Russia both in regards to the crisis in Ukraine and in its aspirations to end the uni-ipolar world order which has been imposed on us all.
Thanks very much for your very coherent comments. Its so nice to hear educated facts…its so much easier to take that what really amounts to scaremongering, even if its by friends.
Just observed: 101 years first world war; 100 years general relativity, and 99 years Karl Schwarzschild died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild
Just sad if people who have totally different interests than war like farmers, scientist, musicians (basically 99.9% percent everywhere) have to die in wars.
Does anyone know if audio high frequency targeted beams can break an aircraft windscreen from a satellite maybe,or laser?
Look into resonant frequency. Every object has a resonant frequency. All are different depending on object size, fixtures, material ect. Resonant frequency is the frequency at which an object vibrates if struck. The vibration or oscillations increase if a small amount of energy is introduced on perfect timing to each oscillation. Similar to pushing a swing. Sound waves at the perfect frequency will do this.
Mechanical parts in machinery aircraft ect sometime have early fatigue failure due to resonant frequency. Generally well tested for these days in aircraft and auto parts.
To use it as a weapon? As a one off single purpose perhaps?
An audio beam can’t work from a satellite — no air
The author begins the piece with alertest exaggerations of Russian military issues, including mischaracterising a Russian-Vietnamese refueling agreement as constituting a military base. He totally ignores the fact the Russians have a military that is using old equipment and been suffering decay for more than 30 years. They are modernising and reorganising, working to take an obsolete, poorly prepared military and build it back up into a force that can be depended upon to defend their country. They very much need to do this.
Besides ignoring the military reasons for Russia’s current military related activity, Ishchenko essentially ignores the geopolitical context. Russia is under massive attack from the ZPC/NWO and in a situation which is a cross between that of the 1980’s heightened cold war and the late 1930’s nazi preparations of conquest. He seems to be saying Russia should back off modernising their defenses because it creates tension with the USA. Creates a WW3 atmosphere. Nothing could be more self destructive for Russia than for them to effectively disarm right now. They need to get as strong as possible as fast as possible. The ZPC/NWO has repeatedly shown that they attack the weak and use disarmament agreements to weaken a victim before attacking. The stronger Russia gets, the less the chance the ZPC/NWO will actually attack, not the other way around. That’s why MAD worked so well.
Along with his mischaracterisation of Cam Ranh Bay, he appears to have internalised a lot of the western propaganda with regard to Russia and their policies, as “Anonymous” on March 25, 2015 · at 5:34 pm UTC pointed out at the beginning of their comment. The impression I get reading Ishchenko’s commentary is that he blames Russia as much as the USA for the current hostility. Most of what else I took issue with has been stated by others already, so I’ll stop here.
dear Bot Tak, thanks for your sane first sentence. this conversation is insane.
Interesting…within DAYS of Germanwings A320 crash, we have reports of usable data from the flight recorders….but from Malaysia MH17…over a YEAR later, nothing but stone cold silence….
” Remi Jouty, head of French air crash investigation agency BEA, said
‘We have just succeeded in extracting usable data from the cockpit voice recorder.
At this stage, clearly, we are not in a position to have the slightest explanation or interpretation on the reasons that could have led this plane to descend … or the reasons why it did not respond to attempts to contact it by air traffic controllers.’
Two minor side remarks here…
I have been watching some old documentary of the times before WWII, after March of 1935 when Hitler announced publicly that he will rearm Germany in contravention of Versailles treaty. Along with the scene depicting waves of armed German soldiers goose-stepping in a parade in front of “der Führer”, the narrator comments, “this was a sign that there would be a war … if you have weapons and an army – you use them”.
Which could be interpreted in a couple of ways. One is that a huge military may indicate an existing intention to start a war. Another, that arming that has grown beyond certain size by itself acquires a logic of its own and leads to a war with very little intervention of the politicians necessary, an extremely “unstable system” if you will.
Years ago I spoke to elders who very well remembered the exact general atmosphere among the urban public in continental Europe in the late 1930-s. Their recollection was, that while the politicians were all talking tough, the people on the street were completely dismissive of the possibility of a war, saying, “ah, the politicians are just rattling sabers, posturing as usual and making noise, what war, there will be no war”. And then the big war came.
Their recollection was, that while the politicians were all talking tough, the people on the street were completely dismissive of the possibility of a war, saying, “ah, the politicians are just rattling sabers, posturing as usual and making noise, what war, there will be no war”. And then the big war came.
That was how I felt in 2003. I thought the zionazis were blowing a lot of hot air, I didn’t think they would actually go through with their planned attack on Iraq.
But Iraq was not Russia, nor even North Korea – who thoroughly kicked pindo/puppet fascist arse in the early 1950s, as the Vietnamese & SE Asians did a generation later. Nuclear warfare adds a new dimension, the current western zionazi/nazi oligarchy is still faced with fighting against nuclear weapons, unlike their nazi/fascist predecessors planning an earlier scheme of world dominance, using “the master race” as their well sodded and duped cannon fodder. The Georgia initiated war in 2008 showed that the israeli-American way of war would stand up to the Russian way of war about as well as the nazi German and fascist Japanese did in 1945.
No western oligarch wants to be the “Lord of the Flies” (well, outside their personal mansion dungeons). As long as Russia and China and India and North Korea maintain an effective nuclear deterrent, the ZPC/NWO hierarchy are prevented from engaging in WW3.
Remembering Mr. Andersen?
It’s frightening and yes, you are quite correct.
Your post and your last sentence brought to mind these words: “in the twinkling of an eye”.
Carmel by the Sea
Yeshuat Hashem keheref ayin.
Forgot translation: “God’s salvation comes in the blink of an eye.”
I wonder why nobody asked for it.
Only a revolution against the capitalist masters in the West will save us now, and I fear Europeans are too busy watching ‘America’s next top model’ to care
The US strategic goal is not the physical destruction of Russia but its conquest, dismemberment and plunder. To this end they are ratcheting up the military, economic and propaganda pressure, mobilizing and building their “fifth column” and singling out members of the elite, especially the intrinsically corrupt kleptocracy, for turning, building toward one, two, many “color revolutions”. (If you haven’t already, take a look at this video:
Nemtsov Maidan Faiiled by Evgeny Federov, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4kK-xQqEW8).
Yes the psychopaths running the US are willing to threaten global destruction as blackmail. They have been doing that for 65 years. And yes it could get out of control and really happen. If we project this situation forward in time without limit, eventually it will.
Russia also has a strategy, laid out by Glazyev last July. Russia’s strategy is based on the understanding that the Empire of the Dollar Bill is crumbling, the Dollar’s position as the world reserve currency is crumbling, and that the US ability to pursue world conquest is rapidly crumbling with it.
It seems incredible that it has only been eight months since that was written. De-dollarization has been proceeding with amazing speed. US control over the world oil market has been collapsing. Just in this past week US efforts to keep the rest of the developed world from joining the China-sponsored Asian Development Bank collapsed completely, with even England joining and now Japan considering joining. And a global financial collapse is imminent.
As the Empire gets more desperate it grows more reckless – and the confrontation grows increasingly hair-raising. US/CIA efforts to force Russia into a war take on an urgency. An attack on South Ossetia or Transdnistria or even a blockade on Kiliningrad or a closing of the Bosphorus could be in the offing. But US power is ebbing fast, and with time it will get so snarled up with defending its control over its vassals its strength for pushing its assault on Russia is being sapped away.
Harrowing as the situation may be, time is on Russia’s side, and humanity has a chance.
Too many are blind to the fact that WW3–the war to destroy unipolarism–has already started using non-combat methods of engagement except in restricted proxy battles. Clearly, Putin, Xi and others would like to see unipolarism ousted via peaceful means, but the Outlaw Empire’s doctrine brings force rapidly to bear because it lacks other means. (Color Revolutions are a form of force/terrorism as we see in the examples of Georgia and Ukraine.) Just as clearly, the multipolarists have no problem with peaceful co-existence and see there is enough pie for everyone to share. Unfortunately, the Outlaw Empire is locked into the dogma it created during the 1890s, the so-called Open Door, and its corollary that resides within the “Law of Civilization and Decline,” which are wedded to the powerful mytho-religious Manifest Destiny and its Exceptionalism illogic. An exceedingly dangerous brew to be sure.
The main point is to defeat unipolarism prior to WW3 escalating to a hot war directly involving the main parties: Outlaw Empire, BRICS, Unasur, and NAM. As with WW2, there is no way the Outlaw Empire can win as it lacks the required resources to defeat the forces arrayed against it; and if it resorts to nukes, then everybody loses.
As PCR noted in his interview, the Outlaw Empire’s elite are composed of differing factions that have their own set of interests that don’t wholly mesh into one. I don’t think these interests are suicidal and back the use of nukes as they remain tempered by the MAD doctrine, as well everyone should. Any degree of Nuclear Winter would be many times more disastrous than Climate Change, which I believe the elites understand. And given the degree of complexity present within the interconnectedness of the global economy, a hot war threatens to totally collapse that rather fragile structure, which would also ruin the elites as their feast is directly tied to the success of that structure.
We shall see if Madison is proved correct afterall.
People tend to forget that nuclear winter would quickly be followed by an armageddon of nuclear power plants and chemical factories spilling radioactive and toxic materials. There would be hundreds of Fukushimas and thousands of Bhopals the world over. Despite all sorts of safety measure, nuclear power plants in particular are complex and unforgiving installations that cannot be run safely under conditions of social anarchy.
Operators need to go in and out, spare parts need to be delivered, electrical energy from the outside needs to be available at all times to be able to deal with reactor shutdowns. The war in Eastern Ukraine already led to fears for the safety of the Ukrainian nuclear reactors although all of them are located far away from the fighting zone. Now imagine a nuclear winter and all the chaos it brings with it.
Even a localized nuclear winter, if that is actually possible, affecting a country like Russia would lead to some of that country’s nuclear reactors going into meltdown. Like a row of dominoes, neighboring countries would be affected and so on and so on, If eventually all of the worlds nuclear reactors were to go into meltdown, then no human life, and possibly no higher life at all, could continue to exist on the earth’s surface.
Yeah, I think Rudolf Steiner was afraid of that scenario by the end of his life. He was always saying, if humanity doesn’t … basically ….change, then they may not make it. But the change he was talking about was due to a turning away from the spirit, like what Saker and others call ‘post-Chrisitan”. I don’t know why he always framed it that way.
Perhaps because without realizing there is a spiritual world, people don’t value their lives enough. Or perhaps if people realized that they re-incarnate, they would be more serious about not wrecking the planet.
Here is Germany’s chance to redeem herself for the WW2. She can NOT go to war as the American vassal.
Brief & interesting.
3/25/15 http://journal-neo.org/2015/03/25/rus-valyutny-j-soyuz-eae-s/ EEU & the New Currency
Dumb article, full of bombast, contradiction and exaggeration then suddenly it ends with a cop-out non explanation: ” The only thing left is to just not start a war, although that is a very complex matter…..” –>And????!!!! No elaboration? What the author ran out of space?- He just leaves the article hanging with a ‘pat’ statement.
Evaluation is a function of purpose.