by Dmitry Orlov, posted by permission of the author
General Mark Milley, America’s highest-ranking military officer, has recently gone public with a revelation of his: the world is no longer unilateral (with the US as the unquestioned world hegemon) or bilateral (as it was with the US and the SU symmetrically balancing each other out in an intimate tango of mutual assured destruction). It is now tripartite, with three major powers—the US, Russia and China—entering a “tripolar war.” That is the exact term he is reported to have used at the Aspen Security Forum on November 3, 2021.
This seems strange, since neither Russia nor China is eager to attack the US while the US is in no condition to attack either of them. The US has just got defeated in a two-decade conflict against a fourth-rate adversary (Afghanistan, that is) in the most humiliating way possible, abandoning $80 billion of war materiel and forsaking thousands of its faithful servants in a hasty withdrawal that amounted to a rout. It is about to suffer a similar fate in Syria and Iraq. Its navy just got humiliated in a minor skirmish with the Iranians over an oil tanker. Clearly, the US is in no shape to attack anyone.
So what could Milley possibly mean? He may not sound smart, but he is the most powerful man at the Pentagon. Of course, Milley-Vanilley could just be lip-sinking to some stupid music coming out of the White House (which is currently stocked with some choice imbeciles). This would make sense, since throughout his career Milley carefully avoided anything that smacked of actual military action and therefore carried within it the possibility of defeat, instead choosing to concentrate on such things as producing a report on the impact of climate change on the U.S. military.
Here is Milley captured during one of his prouder moments, standing next to Russia’s General Valery Gerasimov, who saw combat—and victory—as commander during the Second Chechen War. Gerasimov then authored Russia’s hybrid war doctrine (the Gerasimov Doctrine), which allows strategic and political objectives to be achieved through nonmilitary means but with military support and military-style secrecy, discipline, coordination and control. In comparison, our General Milley is something of a cardboard cutout general, with a string that makes his lower jaw move up and down leading to some place within the Washington swamp of political think tanks and defense industry lobbyists.
The Gerasimov Doctrine bears an uncanny resemblance to the Chinese doctrine of unlimited war, indicating that Russia and China have harmonized in their defensive strategies. These doctrines are designed to amplify China’s and Russia’s natural advantages while placing the US at a maximum disadvantage. It is not immediately clear whether Milley is capable of understanding such matters; quite the opposite, it is likely that his job security and career path critically depended on his inability to understand anything above his pay grade. Nevertheless, since he happens to be the mouthpiece for the whole ungodly mess, we need to at least try to take his words at face value and try to think of what his “tripolar war” could possibly mean.
The Russian hybrid war doctrine and the Chinese unlimited war doctrine both give an advantage to countries with strict, centralized control structures (China and Russia, that is) while severely disadvantaging the US, which has a diffuse and internally conflicted power elite split up between two parties and among lots of competing government agencies and private entities with lots of opportunities for both internal and external espionage, infiltration and media leaks.
Russia’s advantages are in advanced weapons against which the US has no countermeasures, such as hypersonic missiles and radio warfare systems, and in a huge and only partially explored resource base, of energy resources especially. China’s advantage is in a huge and highly disciplined workforce that produces a vast array of products which the US must continuously import to prevent its entire economy from shutting down because of supply chain disruptions. On the other hand, both China and Russia find themselves at a disadvantage in facing the large and well-oiled machine the US has developed for its habitual meddling in the affairs of other nations and the undermining of their natural sovereignty. An array of mechanisms, from cultural exports to ad campaigns associated with popular brands to social media initiatives designed to corrupt the minds of the young, exists in order to exert US influence on other nations.
The Chinese and the Russian responses to this threat are almost diametrically different: whereas China builds firewalls and uses strict social controls to contain the threat, Russia’s strategy is to allow the foreign infection to run wild and to let their nation’s innate immune system create antibodies against it and neutralize it. Russia draws its red lines at outright bought-and-paid-for enemy propaganda, inciting armed rebellion, advocacy of terrorism, propaganda of sexual perversion among children, etc. In this way, Russia can not just compensate for this disadvantage but turn it to its own advantage: while the West is becoming increasingly undemocratic and authoritarian with its endless political correctness, social biodiversity requirements and the pursuit of better living through non-reproductive mating, hormone therapy and genital mutilation, Russia remains a free land with a wholesomely conservative social outlook that is quite attractive to people all over the world and is becoming increasingly attractive to many people in the West as they become painfully aware of the wages of sin.
Why concentrate on hybrid/unlimited war instead of an outright nuclear or conventional military conflict between the US and China and/or Russia? That is because both conventional and nuclear military conflict between any of these three nations is an insane, suicidal choice, while those in charge of defining military strategy are specifically not selected for their suicidal tendencies. Neither Russia nor China is known for their wars of aggression, and while the US is extremely well known for its homicidal, violent tendencies (having carried out 32 bombing campaigns on 24 countries since World War II), it is fundamentally a bully, only picking on weak countries that pose no threat. Based on publicly available information, both Russia and China are now quite far ahead of the US in weapons development, to a point where any possible direct US attack on either of them would be self-disarming at best and suicidal at worst.
In the best case scenario, the US launches an attack which is successfully repelled: bombers and rockets shot down, ships sunk, US military bases and port facilities destroyed, possibly US command and control centers also destroyed, as quite pointedly promised by Putin. The US then lays prostrate and at the mercy of its opponents. If its cooperation still leaves something to be desired, some combination of deplorables, despicables, imponderables and indecipherables will be organized just enough to make a bloody mess of what’s left of US government structures and power elites, which will then be replaced with an international peacekeeping force (as an optimistic case) or just left to persist in durable disorder, misery and international isolation.
The worst case scenario is the tired old mutual assured destruction, nuclear winter and end of life on Earth, but it is unlikely for a number of reasons. First, of the US nuclear deterrent triad only the submarine component remains viable, and even it is quite tired. None of the Minuteman missiles has been successfully tested in a long time, and these are ballistic missiles which, once the boost phase is over, follow a perfectly predictable inertial trajectory, making them easy targets for Russia’s new air defense systems. Of the Minutemen that manage to get out of their silos and launch in the general direction of Russia or China, it is unknown how many of their nuclear payloads would actually detonate since these are all quite old and haven’t been tested in a long time either. The US no longer has the ability to make new nuclear charges, having lost the recipe for making the high explosive needed to make them detonate. But that may be a moot point, since at this point no ICBM is likely to be able to penetrate Russian air defenses. As far as Chinese air defenses, it is notable that Russia and China have integrated their early warning systems and China now has four divisions of Russian S-400 Triumph air defense systems and is planning to add more.
Turning to the airborne part of the US nuclear triad, its mainstay is still the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress, the youngest of which is almost 60 years old. It cruises at 260 knots at an altitude of 34000 feet and is the opposite of stealthy, making it easy to shoot down at a stand-off distance of several hundred kilometers. Since this makes it perfectly useless for dropping bombs, all that remains is cruise missiles, which fly at a positively poky 0.65 Mach, again making them easy targets for modern air defenses. There are also some newer stealth bombers—very few and, it has turned out, not too stealthy, putting them essentially in the same category as the Stratofortress, and the cruise missiles they can launch are also those same old subsonic ones.
Lastly, there are the strategic nuclear submarines, which are the only part of the US nuclear triad that is still viable. They remain effective as a deterrent, and they do have the ability to get up close to launch a sneak attack with a good chance that at least a few of the missiles will get through the air defenses, but they can’t possibly hope to get around the inevitability of retaliation which will cause unacceptable, fatal damage to the continental US. This makes them useless as an offensive weapon.
Add to this Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine, according to which any attack against Russian sovereign territory or Russian sovereign interests, whether conventional or nuclear, would open the door to a nuclear retaliation, launched upon warning, and Putin’s solemn promise to counterattack not just against the locations from which a strike is launched but against the centers of decision-making. Considering that Russian missiles are hypersonic and will reach their targets before those of the US reach theirs, and that Russia has the means to shoot down US missiles while the US is unable to shoot down Russian ones, if the US were to launch an attack, those who launched it would be dead before they could find out whether their attack succeeded in causing any damage at all or whether they had just suicided themselves for nothing. All of this adds up to an inevitable conclusion: under no circumstances will the US attack either Russia or China, using either conventional or nuclear weapons.
There are experts who are of the opinion that a world war could spontaneously erupt at any moment without anyone wishing it to do so, just as the world slid into World War I due to a confluence of unhappy accidents. But there is a big difference: the military and civilian leaderships of the warring sides in World War I did not have hypersonic missiles pointed directly at their heads. They thought that the war would be fought far away from their palaces, headquarters and stately mansions. They were, in some cases, quite wrong, but that was their thought originally: why not test our industrial prowess while sacrificing the lives of several million useless peasants?
Now the situation is quite different: any substantial provocation is an automatic self-destruct trigger and all sides know this. Of course, there will be minor provocations such as the US Navy steaming around in the Taiwan Strait or the Black Sea close to the shores of Crimea, but then they do have to earn their keep somehow. In turn, the Russians and the Chinese will periodically up the ante a little bit by shooing them away with a harshly worded radio message or a few shots fired across their bows. But both sides know just how careful they have to be because any serious error will require immediate deescalation and may entail major loss of face. And that, as the saying goes, would be worse than a crime: it would be a mistake.
The provocations of which the US is still capable are likely to grow more and more feeble over time. The US has lost the arms race against both Russia and China and is unlikely to ever catch up. On the other hand, neither Russia nor China is the least bit likely to attack the US. There is no reason to do so, given that they can get what they want—a gradual fading out of US influence—without resorting to large-scale military action. Maintaining a strong defensive posture while projecting power within their expanding spheres of interest would be quite enough for either of them. Thus, all that’s left for the US is hybrid warfare: financial warfare in the form of sanctions, aggressive dollar-printing and large-scale legalized money laundering, informational warfare played out on the internet, medical warfare using novel pathogens, drugs and vaccines, cultural warfare in the form of promoting and defending conflicting systems of values and so on, with military activities limited to the use of proxies, fomenting putsches and civil wars, actions of private military companies and so on.
If Milley is pinning his hopes on being able to provoke a conflict between China and Russia, he is likely to be disappointed. These two very large neighboring countries are synergistic. China has tremendous productive capacity for producing all manner of finished goods but has limited natural resources, is insular and has limited capacity for interacting with the rest of the world except through trade and commerce. Russia, on the other hand, has virtually limitless natural resources but, with a smaller though highly educated population spread out across a vast and somewhat inhospitable terrain, is forced to concentrate its efforts on certain strategically important sectors such as energy and food exports, high-tech weapons systems, nuclear energy, vaccines and energy-intensive products such as fertilizers, plastics and metals where their access to cheap energy provides them with a competitive advantage.
One of Russia’s major strengths is a culturally ingrained ability to understand people from other cultures and to maintain cordial relations even across great cultural divides and enemy lines. Russia has a unique ability to offer stability and security, both through careful diplomacy and by offering advanced defensive weapons systems. The Chinese have been aggressively buying into economies around the world, investing in major infrastructure projects to further their trade, but are sometimes found lacking in diplomatic finesse and in their understanding of local sensibilities, alienating their partners by directly demanding a controlling share in their investments. The Russians, on the other hand, understand that you have to at least kiss a girl before offering to pay her college tuition.
Such finesse tends to be interpreted as weakness by certain Westerners who, over the course of many centuries of fratricidal warfare and genocidal colonialism, have been conditioned to only respect brute force and to understand relationships only in terms of dominance or submission. With the sudden departure of the US from the world stage, many smaller European nations are now actively looking for a new master to lord over them. Both the Chinese and the Russians are likely to leave them disappointed; while Chinese commerce and Russian security (including energy security) will be on offer, they will be on their own and forced to earn their own keep and their oaths of fealty will fall on deaf ears. The Eastern Europeans especially might find it impossible to ingratiate themselves back into the Russian world; the Russians have had their fill of them and their duplicitousness. Their other option will be to go to work for the Chinese.
Russia and China complement each other and are more likely to work with each other rather than against each other in their dealings with each other and with the rest of the world. This is certainly not the case with the US, vis-à-vis either China or Russia. During the 1990s and the naughts, while China was rapidly transforming into the world’s manufacturing hub while Russia was recovering from the setback it had been dealt by the Soviet collapse, the US was able to position itself as the world’s indispensable consuming nation, redirecting a lion’s share of the world’s resources and manufactured products to feed its appetites in exchange for printed dollars (continuously expropriating the world’s savings while exporting inflation) and using the threat of military action against anyone who would challenge this arrangement. But now the situation is different: most of China’s trade is now not with the US but with the rest of the world, Russia is fully recovered and developing slowly but surely, the share of the US in the world’s economy has shrunk, the appetite for printed dollars in the form of US government debt has declined greatly, and as to its former full-spectrum military dominance, see above.
And yet General Milley wishes to fight a tripolar war against two poles that won’t fight each other and aren’t spoiling for a fight with the US either; they just want the US to pack up, go home and no longer darken the horizons around Eurasia. As I took pains to explain above, the US is in no position to challenge either or both of them in an all-out military conflict, or to risk engaging them in a way that runs a major risk of provoking one. What can a giant, sprawling, lavishly funded, corrupt and dysfunctional bureaucracy do under such circumstances in order to justify its existence? The answer is, I believe, obvious: engage in petty mischief, a.k.a. hybrid warfare, but in doing so it finds itself, as I have already explained, at a disadvantage.
The list of petty mischief is long and makes for tedious reading. The best that can be done with it is to make comedy with it. Take, for instance, the imbroglio, worthy of Boccaccio’s Decameron, of Tikhanovskaya the cutlet fairy and phantom president of Belarus, who recently joined the club of bogus replacement leaders, alongside Juan Random Guaidó, phantom president of Venezuela, having failed to seize power from deeply entrenched Byelorussian president Lukashenko, and who is now cooling her heels in neighboring Lithuania. Having recognized the abject failure of Tikhanovskaya’s power grab, the Petty Mischef Department attempted to organize a scandal around a Byelorussian sprinter during the Tokyo Olympics, whose name is… Timanovskaya! You see, they thought that nobody would notice the single-character substitution. The ploy failed, and Timanovskaya is now cooling her heels in neighboring Poland.
There have been other, much larger-scale attempts at petty mischief, similarly ham-handed and similarly spectacular in their failure.
1. There was the attempt to force the entire world to submit to a relentless inoculation campaign (in the works since 2009) in the course of which an interplay between genetically engineered pathogens and genetically engineered vaccines against them would be used to make fabulous profits for Big Pharma while simultaneously selectively genociding the population of certain unfriendly or otherwise undesirable countries. End result: China has largely fought off the pathogen and has produced its own vaccine while Russia has produced several vaccines, the most popular of which has been proven safe and effective and has been turned into a major profit center by being exported to 71 countries and earning Russia more export revenue than arms exports.
Meanwhile, not only are Western vaccines proving less than 50% effective (much less than that for Johnson & Johnson) but thousands of people are actually dropping dead or becoming severely ill from them. Most alarmingly, young, freshly vaccinated athletes are dropping dead from heart attacks right in the middle of a game—dozens of them! The only possible response to this by the authorities—the only one they are capable of—is to double down, requiring everyone to get vaccinated again and again. The marketing strategy of “if our product makes you sick, we’ll give you more of it” is hardly ever effective and, in due course, it is producing open rebellion in many places, shutting down entire industries and generally playing havoc with societies and economies. Mission accomplished!
2. There is an ongoing attempt to force countries around the world to pay a carbon tax for their carbon emissions while those nations that engage in the cargo cult of building solar and wind generation capacity are exempted from it. Lots of expensive climate models kept supercomputers humming and international climate conferences were convened, at which people could wring their hands and wallow in maudlin self-pity over the ever-looming imaginary climate catastrophe. But then came a major complication: both Russia and China managed to turn the situation to their advantage. In the case of China, the case is simple: what allows China to manufacture and export products which the rest of the world loves to import is its use of coal and just a temporary reduction in the use of coal was sufficient to demonstrate that any such constraints would hurt the US through supply chain disruptions more than they would hurt China.
In the case of Russia, the situation is even simpler: from the point of view of carbon dioxide emissions, Russia is the greenest country on earth, deriving the largest share of its electricity from carbon-free nuclear and hydro and low-carbon natural gas. It also has 20% of the world’s forests which, in case of global warming and increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, would spread rapidly north across the tundra toward the Arctic circle, soaking up prodigious amounts of carbon dioxide. Thus, the US, and the rest of the West with it, have negotiated themselves into a cul de sac of their own creation, being forced to cause damage to their economies by pursuing misguided decarbonization policies which nobody would have asked them to pursue otherwise. Again, mission accomplished!
3. Yet another attempt at petty mischief is in the area of human rights and democracy. The notion of individual human rights was rather successfully deployed against the USSR, warping the minds of several generations of Russian intelligentsia into being ashamed of their own country (and almost completely unaware of much ghastlier crimes against humanity carried out by the collective West). The Chinese, on the other hand, were barely swayed from their traditional (be it Confucian or Communist) perspective that balances privileges against responsibilities and leaves very little room for such frivolous notions as individual universal rights. But in recent decades the Russians have managed to claw their way back to a more balanced understanding of their own history and a greater awareness of the multiple atrocities perpetuated by those who would criticize them. The rank hypocrisy of those who would use such tactics has also become glaringly obvious through such outrages as the illegal imprisonment of Julian Assange and the exile of Edward Snowden.
The story of Maria Butina, a spectacular individual who is now a member of the Russian parliament, has also made an impression. She was falsely accused of being a foreign agent based on the now discredited Steele Dossier which Hillary Clinton’s camp had concocted in order to slander Donald Trump. Butina was imprisoned for 18 months, spending much of that time in solitary confinement (a treatment that equates to torture). She was forced to plead guilty to a bogus charge before a kangaroo court judge before being released and allowed to return to Russia. She described her ordeal in a best-selling book and anybody who has read it has absorbed, along the way, an important message: there is simply no such thing as the American justice system. A major reason why Butina had been singled out for such treatment had to do with her last name, which differs by just one character from Putin’s: there’s that single-character substitution again! With a name so similar to that of that horrible dictator Putin, of course she’d be found guilty! I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a certain dim-witted miscreant ensconced in the bowels of the CIA or the State Department who comes up with these harebrained ideas by actually scanning documents for similar-sounding names.
As far as democracy, the concept is valuable but applies differently to each nation, based on its unique values and traditions, but the image of it served up in the US, where about half the electorate feels that they were cheated during the last presidential election, or the EU, which is lorded over by unelected pompous nobodies at the European Commission, or the way it was misapplied in Afghanistan, Iraq and other nations invaded and destroyed by the West, has done much to discredit the concept. Joe Biden, who is now working on convening a virtual assemblage of nations he deems democratic, making a list and checking it twice, making sure to exclude anyone he doesn’t deem sufficiently democratic, is too senile to grasp the simple fact that he has lost any right to appeal to the concept of democracy given the way he got elected and what he’s done to Afghanistan.
The image I will leave you with is of a transport plane piloted by the demented Joe Biden and co-piloted by that giggling twit Kamala Harris, with some number of leaders from supposedly democratic nations (who have failed to absorb the lesson of Afghanistan) clinging to its landing gear, and with General Millie-Vanillie sitting in the cargo hold cleaning his gun, getting ready to fight World War III against both Russia and China.
You, SIR, are truly Genious. Thank you for your every single word. Awesome view of current geopolitical situation.
This has made me feel a whole lot better than I have for some time now but my concern remains what happens to the people of north America at the hands of the vast north American industrially mischievous?
and the Jewish people…to what are they now to devolve?
Are we now to suffer endless at their hands or will the American people finally rise and put an end to Zionist depredations
A major concern is that the Zionists after having bled the US white are aware of its diminished military capabilities and will accelerate their plans to start a war with Iran while the balance of power still favors them.
The quality of this article is off the charts. D. Orlov’s analysis is lucid, immensely well-informed, often brilliant, and ultimately reassuring about the prospects for humankind’s survival. And his crisp style is a pleasure to read. This is the kind of material that every American, hell, every adult in the Western world should be reading. My deep thanks to Andrei for making this possible.
Patrice, good to ‘see’ you. Kindly cross-post if you would like. Dmitry wanted a wide distribution.
All the very best.
Thank you, Amarynth. Most kind of you. We are certainly extremely keen, as usual, to give superior materials like this (so often found on The Saker’s site) the widest possible distribution. In the hybrid war forced upon us, we all have to do our part to push back against the pervasive imperial disinformation.
Please, if you can, convey my special thanks to Andrei and Dmitry.
And all the best to you. Onward, friend. We’ll see better days.
All the mischief needs to be exposed.
Exactly the quality of response I had in mind. I did not say it better myself but I am glad someone has
What an important piece of critical journalism! As the previous commenters have noted, there’s more truth and light in this piece—and optimism— than in just about the whole output of the Western media piled together. The sheer power of this article highlights the chicanery of corporate media and general mass communications in “the West”, including social media, usually wasted on infantile spoiled neurotics.
Orlov in high gear! When he comes out of the weapons section to his more natural plate of meat and potatoes, cultural analysis, he is rocking like the word artist and thinker he is.
And there is plenty of meat and potatoes to make a small feast.
In sum, if Rod Serling was still alive and working, he’d make an episode of Twilight Zone based on this Hybrid War the Tripolar nations are preparing for us.
“Imagine if you will . . . ”
“When he comes out of the weapons section…”
Larchmonter445, being considered the most experienced in the topic of weapons on this blog, can I ask you to write your comparison of NATO / Russian weapons in realistic war scenario?
My view is that NATO is closing technological gap in hypersonics by crouching to borders of Russia. Also, by using expandable proxies, as missile-fooder, and relying on sheer size of its arsenal. Can Russian industry produce enough weapon systems to parry continuous attacks?
Or, is it possibble that present escalation is just elaborated ruse payed by Western oil industry to force EU into bying “Freedom gas”? (Statements of NATO representatives looks more like haggling for biger share in the loot, than war rethoric). Money involved so far fits well into range of amount that BigOil pays for lobbying.
Since every info is tainted with overwhelming amount of disinformation, only educated guess can bring us closer to the truth. So I’m, respectfully, asking you for just that.
The statement you open with: “Larchmonter445, being considered the most experienced in the topic of weapons on this blog”, is not accurate at all. Likely, a score of people know more in detail and experience about weapons, including, obviously, Saker and Auslander.
The one military weapon I have touched up close and personal is the M1 rifle. I have owned AK-47 and SKS, but civilian models. Such is my experience with military weapons, though I’ve read a lot about some weapons.
I defer to Andrei Martyanov for his expertise in comparing and analyzing Russian versus US weapons systems. Generally, he indicates Russian superiority in all things relevant except SSBN submarines, which the US still has a slight advantage, but perceptible. Numbers of subs of this type matter only as a deterrent. Though that gap will soon be changed as Russia produces more subs.
According to Martyanov, what matters is Salvo potential. A single platform that can launch 8-16-32 missiles is better than a group of platforms that can only fire 6-8, even though the total may be equal. In modern battle, Salvo firing is what decimates the targets, as I understand the military theory/practice.
Russian artillery and missile launching is built for such firing as you probably have seen MLRS which launch 40 at a time. This how the Ukies were obliterated in the cauldrons of 2014 and 2015. Using thermobaric munitions, all life is ended at the target, and all vehicles of any type are destroyed in place.
So, attacking such Russian firepower, as the Ukies, UK, Poles, Baltics, nazis, banderistas, are itching to do is clearly suicidal. Similarly, Russian naval defenses are built on massive fire power (Black Sea and Crimean defenses). The NATO lake wet dream would end in about 3-5 minutes if NATO begins a war with vessels afloat in the Black Sea.
Russian military weapons production seems to be comfortably producing what the MOD wants and needs. They are producing for export, so their domestic needs must be fulfilled.
Again, with the Salvo potential of what they have already in defense or ready to deploy in advancing operations, the firepower is overwhelming.
Either NATO has hypersonic missiles or it doesn’t. In any case, the Russians have defenses that can handle what the West has operational. Russia is not sweating. NATO and the US are sweating, in fact, are suffering nervous colitis over the formation of Russian troops 200 miles from a border. They know that if they blunder across a Putin redline, the losses will be catastrophic to them.
This Western propaganda situation is to cover the collapse of US society, US military hegemony, US economic hegemony, EU cohesion, EU economy, NATO relevance, and the unipolar global dominance. All those realities have no excuse to explain their demise other than failure.
Meanwhile, the Eurasian Integration goes forward. Russia-China alliance is tighter than ever. Russian gas is more vital than ever. The US is desperate to distract from its incompetence. NATO is desperate to distract from its irrelevance. The Ukies and Poland and Baltics are deep into psychotic Russophobia.
Notice, the Russians aren’t countering the Infowar babble. They stand locked and loaded. They have shown the land, sea, air weapons they will use in response to an attack. The Bear is up on its hind legs and growling.
The West needs Russia to act first. They won’t. A redline has to be crossed before the Russians will go to war.
Thank you for comprehensive answer. Let others judge your expertise on weapons. As I suspected, in the age of disinfo, educated guess is the most reliable tool.
“The West needs Russia to act first.”
That is what baffled me. WHY? If they want to attack they will (after mandatory False-flag).
Is it possible that UKUS couldn’t get support from allies/vasals against Russia so they need resolution of UNSC to compell them ? To get it, they first must stripe Russia of Veto privilege.
If that doesn’t work out they can try to force EU representatives to sign mandatory support against Russia on Summit for Democracy.
Afterwards, UKUS can launch attack on Russia via EU proxies. That will crush any possibility of EU-Russia cooperation, leaving conveniently Brexited Albion out of the conflict. With possibility of being mediator at some point.
Beware of major false flag around Dec08!
i) to try to get Russia excluded from the Security Council on the grounds of war of aggression – and yes, the west is guilty of that in spades already.
ii) to try to once again spilt the potential close commercial relationship between Germany and Russia – the original raison d’etre for NATO
iii) to distract from the west’s poltico-economic-moral collapse.
Great article. What a lesson at so many levels! That reminds me the positive ending of “the sneetches” by dr Seuss: After many stars swapping and all their money gone with Monkey Mc Bean, the sneetches without a star and the sneetches with a star come together and won’t be fooled no more.
Of course, I am relieved by hearing the state of U.S weaponry, especially B-52’s! Hard to believe with that sky-high budget going to the “Defense” and the U.S weapons business. I guess, the sense of entitlement and lack of stimulating competition… the laziness and decadence of Roman orgies comes to mind. That is what happens when financial speculation dictates the shots. I would like to share a paragraph from the Chinese oracle, the I Ching. Hexagram 7: the army. “Ground water is invisibly present within the earth. In the same way the military power of a people is invisibly present in the masses. When danger threatens, every peasant becomes a soldier; when the war ends, he goes back to his plow.He who is generous towards the people wins their love, and a people living under a mild rule becomes strong and powerful. Only a people economically strong can be important in military power. Such power must therefore be cultivated by improving the economic condition of the people and by humane government. Only when there is this invisible bond between government and people, so that the elle are sheltered by their government as ground water is sheltered by the earth, is it possible to wage a victorious war”. I can’t help from being nostalgic of a “golden age” when/where the machine was not running the show. That might come back sooner than later! Thank you for the news.
at 08:47pm on Nov.14, 2021:
Dear Sir, you stated your relief about the decrepit U.S. weaponry, even though the (usa) outspends most other countries on hardware and(software) i.e. humans as a resource, and also no forgetting the secret budgets for military black ops, the overall budget could possibly be 3.5 trillion ($). Anyway, please always remember that Russia designs and manufactures weapon systems to do the job, whilst the (usa) designs and manufactures weapon systems to turn a profit.
hi, Tikhon. The arms are no more produced to make a profit, because they are not competitive on the global arms markets. They are “forced” on countries dependent on US “protection”, like Saudi Arabia & vassal states of Europe & elsewhere.
@nietzsche1510 who at 09:42 wrote
Please don’t tell that to the (usa) military industrial complex – They will suffer from great dyspepsia😂😂😂
Its the old shell game – 3 handed poker going on.
Take WW2 – War in Europe and Pacific but USSR stayed out of the Anglo/Japanese one.
Smart move by Stalin and his team. You don’t open a war on 2 fronts which what a dilettante from Austria did.
And with the US, UK and EU collapsing over this pandemic vaccine racket no war is possible.
Would US UK or EU troops be in any condition to fight or the public support such a war ? No.
Master chess players Putin and Xi and others arent stupid enough to make a bad move in all this.
The sleuths in the background will be trying to figure out at way to get Russia and China and others fighting so they can coming under cover and clean up, aka Soros. And this is what Stalin was always wary of.
All this appears to be a dual attack on both Russia and China on 2 fronts going on using different methods.
Perhaps even designed to create confusion & chaos as to the true nature of the attack and outcome.
A multi-angled assault with calculated multi-angled alternative outcomes all acceptable to the instigators.
Milley has little credibility with the US military particularly its officers and many of the rank & file.
Nor does anyone in the Biden Administration. They also totally distrust the CIA.
I suspect given orders, like in the current Black Sea situation, many US military commanders in control of ships, planes, troops etc… will question orders and refuse to carry them out. Or screw them up. Or have communication or technical problems.
This is what happened in the WW2 German Eastern front campaign and in the West too and HQ didnt know about it. The great Field Marshall Rommel particularly wouldnt follow orders he thought wrong, nor Kesselring. For that they were held in high regard by their men. You don’t do stupid things.
But Milley’s comment is a reflection of the fact the current US Democrat Biden rulers are the 60s War protest generation who want to destroy US military power and to change its shell to their own domestic enforcement tool. But for other reasons the MIC CIA is keeping them in office – temporarily- (installed them via election fraud) because they hated Trump’s world peace ‘lets be pals with Russia’ and try and do a better trade deal with China.
This carbon tax agenda is going to be used as an excuse to attack both China & Russia for not complying with the global climate agenda, that is also being improperly used for other purposes. The theme will be they must be attacked for destroying the planet. The tax also a way of bankers lining their pockets at the expense of average people.
As the writer says all of this is mischief.
In summary we are left with one conclusion.
The enemy of mankind in the current world situation is the ruling elites in the EU & UK and their minions in the US. It really is time for action against them.
“This carbon tax agenda is going to be used as an excuse to attack both China & Russia for not complying with the global climate agenda.”
The US and the entire West are in no position attack Russia or China let alone both.
Especially not on technical, ecological and moral grounds. Russia is the “greenest” country on Earth, with a whopping 20% of the world’s forests and a majority of nuclear and hydro electric power plants. China manufactures more solar plants than the rest of the world combined, and is developing safe Thorium nuclear-electric power.
Comment to Santiago:
“…domestic enforcement tool… Trump’s world peace…”
Agreed. I have a question. My dear roommate conspirator told me about a “secret” move soon to come of part of the U.S army , “the good guys”, enrolling Trump for leader of the take over, with, among others, the idea of restructuring the law away from the present “maritime” one, which is all about business. So… the million $ question is: who would finance a coup like that to bring an end to the ruling of the financial “elite”? Maybe this plan is less ambitious than my dear dream (if we live as a civilization, to have the people to be sovereign, and, for that, to be in charge of the emission and management of the money, as well as emitting the law and applying it, as well as regulating army and police…. That means to have a government that really reflects the sovereignty of the people. Radical change… possible but not very likely). And, as a side note, Trump doesn’t strike me as caring for the people who follow him in his adventures, like the employees and investors of the TajMahal. He was the only one to get out of that one richer.
OK, no need to rent, but I read somewhere that “ on ne corrompt pas le peuple, mais on le trompe souvent” (the people is not corrupted but is often cheated).
A little off subject. Still, I wonder… I guess, I am pessimistic about where we are gearing ourselves and optimistic about human nature, after all.
Yes some of your points are valid amigo.
They wont need to finance any coup – it can be done by the peoples actions.
At some point soon the uprising will start.
The main flaw with this analysis is relying too much on a militaristic analysis. Those who control the Empire have a long history of setting up wars such that they win power no matter who wins the battles. They also have a long history of entering a nation even when that nation hates them, and somehow getting control of it. I’d bet on Putin’s chosen successor suddenly dying, followed by a frenzied shuffling, then someone takes over… who somehow loves another country more than Russia, and is on the same page as the Empire… or perhaps steps up to take the place of the US within the framework of that Empire.
Our mutual enemy only has to win once, and they have all the time in the world since no one is going to invade the shores of the US while nukes exist.
Well put. Empire is cunning and duplicitous, with centuries of experience at both. It would be a fatal mistake to underestimate it.
I doubt that Vlad or Xi underestimate the regime. I only hope if the US remains a threat by the time Vlad and Xi are gone, that their successors are just as loyal to their countries and just as clever.
Regarding China, the successor issue is more probable to be solved in a positive manner because the CCP has the system in place to choose the most meritorious man for the job.
The problem is Russia because there are West-worshipping elites in Russia’s higher govt. positions and right now, they’re silent and pretend to be patriots but when the time comes, they’ll side with the globalists. Hopefully, the grand masters Putin and Patrushev have an ace up their sleeves to solve this issue.
that thought is relevant. Certainly the empire is cunning, and it may surprise. It is wiser not to underestimate the empire. The empire specializes in semiotics, communication and pop culture that conquers the masses. History is written in the future!
Sim, vc toca numa questão fundamental, ou seja, a capacidade que o império tem de produzir, mesmo em plena decadência, narrativas que anestesiam e obliteram a capacidade de discernimento das massas. Essa capacidade é grosseiramente subestimada na Rússia. A sua mídia está muito aquém das necessidades de uma potência como ela é. Produzir narrativas é tão importante como produzir mísseis hipersonicos. Uma narrativa consistente pode ser a diferença entre usar tais mísseis e não precisar usá-los. Também é muito estranho a tolerância com a quinta coluna que sempre o império poderá acionar quando a oportunidade se apresentar.
Yandex translation. Mod:
Yes, you touch on a fundamental issue, that is, the ability that the empire has to produce, even in full decay, narratives that anesthetize and obliterate the ability of discernment of the masses. This capability is grossly underestimated in Russia. Your media falls far short of the needs of a power house as it is. Producing narratives is as important as producing hypersonic missiles. A consistent narrative can be the difference between using such missiles and not needing to use them. It is also very strange to be tolerant of the fifth column that the empire can always trigger when the opportunity presents itself.
I doubt General Millie-Vanillie knows how to clean a rifle.
Thanks Dmitry Orlov! Great analysis (Just brilliant)
That was a good read. Thank you Mr Orlov.
Superb essay, a joy to read. Not just the analysis, but the quality of the prose.
Dmitry, as always, an absolute joy to read – every time! Thank you.
Your writings has been the first light in the darkest hour, long time ago.
Thank you, Dimitri!
“The US has just got defeated in a two-decade conflict against a fourth-rate adversary”
This, unfortunately, is not true – the US weren’t defeated in Afghanistan, they were unable to win. What’s the difference?, you may ask. That’s a very good question, and I’m glad that you’ve asked it.
You see, the US forces were never beaten in Afghanistan so decisive (like the Brits were) that they were dictated terms by the other side. Their political masters decided to withdraw at time of their choosing and under their own terms. Indeed, the withdrawal could’ve been more organized, and no so hastily executed, but it wasn’t equivalent to a “defeat”. After all, originally the US went in the Afghanistan to take out bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda (which they, presumably, did a decade ago); the rest was just mission creep.
Now, if someone believes, that the US forces doesn’t have the capabilities and logistics to stay in Baghram indefinitely – well, that’s his or her mistake. What US lacked was the political will to stay longer.
BTW, this is more or less what happened when the USSR was in Afghanistan three decades before, but the Soviets withdrew in a more organized manner, and they left behind more or less functional Afghan government, which was able to remain in power for three more years.
You make some good arguments George but I beg to differ.
What US lacked was the political will to stay longer.
The US fought an irregular war or insurgency for 20 years in Afghanistan, not a conventional war. Waiting and wearying out the enemy is one strategy employed by insurgents. Loss of political will on the part of the enemy is the aim. The US — as did the Soviets before them — did just that and withdrew. That counts as a defeat.
The Anglos fought a different type of war in the 19th century, a conventional one, where victory or defeat was more clear-cut.
When Brezhnev ordered the Red Army to move into Afghanistan, the Soviet high command were apprehensive because they knew they could be caught in a quagmire for years; in the event, they were.
The US military also knew they could be in for a long time but politicians thought otherwise. They tried to pass the buck to the Afghans so that they could get out early — as did the Soviets — but the installed Afghan governments and their forces were not up to the task. In the end, for the US, the stated mission changed to ‘nation-building’ — camouflage term for efforts to make Afghans the owners of the insurgency. Same thing is happening in Iraq.
“That counts as a defeat.” – I guess we have a different definitions for “defeat”. I agree that from PR point of view that withdrawal was a disaster, but from pure military point of view – nothing special to cry about.
“The US military also knew they could be in for a long time but politicians thought otherwise.” – yep, as I said – lack of political will. In all fairness, it was Trump, even before current administration, who floated the idea it’s time for the US military to withdraw and to stop wasting resources. Still, cutting loses and leaving is far cry from a “defeat”.
“the stated mission changed to ‘nation-building’” – and that was the main problem from strategic point of view. If they stuck with their original mission objective, they wouldn’t have a PR disaster at their hands.
but from pure military point of view – nothing special to cry about.
Well I don’t know — the Talibs made the enemy military withdraw; they gained billions worth of military equipment; they achieved their political objective (I hold the view that militaries serve political ends.) Sure, they didn’t destroy or capture the enemy; no formal surrender ceremony like the one on USS Missouri in 1945 took place. Now, way I see it, war is a contest of wills — if you make the enemy bend to your will, you’ve won. The Talibs did just that four months ago by making the US withdraw. It doesn’t matter if the decision to withdraw was brought about by force of arms in the field or if the decision was made in an office thousands of miles away from the battlefield; or what the rationale behind the decision was or whether the withdrawal was orderly or not; the fact is the military objective of making the enemy withdraw has been achieved. And consequently they, the insurgent Talibs, have achieved their political aim of gaining control of the government of Afghanistan
Having said all that, ironically the Talibs have to now mount a counter-insurgency campaign of their own.
“…the US forces were never beaten in Afghanistan so decisive (like the Brits were)… ”
Taliban ofensive was anounced well into Trump presidency, but was postponed during negotiations. Obviously, US has better analysts than Brits had. Ther hastily retreated only when Taliban said “enough is enough”, and rolled out.
If they stand the ground, they would be beaten.
Of course internal struggle in the US was the real reason for such unlikely military defeat, but, then again, when (in the whole history) wasn’t?
“If they stand the ground, they would be beaten.”
May be yes, may be no – we’ll never know it.
Anyway, it seems that most of the commenters are mistaking an overt withdrawal, even so poorly executed, for a military defeat (although I agree that it was a PR disaster).
But here is a question: does anyone noticed how shortly afterwards (may be even before that) this ISIS-K outfit showed up, essentially overnight, and started making troubles for the Talibans? And yes, there were some american casualties along the way, but they were far fewer than they would’ve been if this ISIS-K is a genuine article hell-bent on fighting infidels and the Great Satan.
« To be or not to be »… defeated.
The withdrawal of the Empire from Afghanistan brings to my mind the case of that high level executive who, having somehow learned he was going to get “fired” by the corporation the coming Friday, chose to resign just before leaving the office, at 5 p.m. on Thursday…. which he most discreetly did. The following Monday, everyone in the business knew and concluded, quite rightly, the man had indeed been fired.
Like Sun Tse did (“The Art of War”), Asians know an enemy can well be defeated without a fight: “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
@George: “US went in the Afghanistan to take out bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda”
What planet are you living on? Osama bin-Laden and his Wahabist headchoppers were imported into Afghanistan by Carter. The bin-Laden clan are best buddies with the Bush crime family; they were guests at the Bush ranch on the eve of 911; secretly flown out next day, the only civilian plane allowed in U$ air space. Al-Qaida is a CIA folder for Wahabist terrorist outfits (ISIL, ISIS, etc) all bought, armed and paid for by Uncle $cam and his Saudi money-wells. Whateve the Man from Uncle went to Afghanistan for, it was certainly not to “take out” Uncle’s favourite assets.
Of course they were. They were assets against the soviets until they’ve became liabilities after they turned on their former masters.
“There are experts who are of the opinion that a world war could spontaneously erupt at any moment without anyone wishing it to do so, just as the world slid into World War I due to a confluence of unhappy accidents.”
These “experts” know much technics but little history. Planning for WW1 began in 1890 with a report that the next generation of Royal Navy warships were going to run on oil. There was no oil in the British Empire, so Great Britain would have to steal some by liberating some oppressed country. If By 1900 there was a slogan in the British Foreign Office: “Oil = Mesopotamia; Serbia = Gateway to Mesopotamia.” The first division of the British army in WW1 was despatched not to aid “Plucky Little Belgium” but to grab the Iraqi oil port of Basra on the Persian Gulf. Read Engdahl’s “Century of War”.
“Nothing happens in politics by chance; everything is planned” — FD Roosevelt
To be clear, I am disgusted with this Pursuit of Empire at the cost of others lives and happiness. I believe most Americans are. It is time to route out the evil in government perpetuating these wars and attempting to rape and destroy this nation from within. However..
With all due respect, this article paints the US military capabilities as greatly diminished, tired and feeble? The military budget remains vast, and while much is wastefully spent, firms such as Raytheon, Lockeed Martin, and so many other defense contractors are certainly developing technologies that are every bit as capable as those in possession of Russia and China. I find Mr. Orlov’s depiction of a ragged rabble left to pick up the pieces of a destroyed country to be a rather amusing fantasy. If that will be true for the US, it will certainly be true for any adversary in direct conflict with the US military.
The entire text was written to justify itself to Americans and Europeans. Why? Whatever good you do and no matter how hard you try, if you don’t follow the line set by the colonial west, it won’t be forgiven. So there is no need for explanations. Look proactively at your own interests and the interests of oppressed peoples as a member of the UNSC. The colonial west decided to do the new UN for its own interest, and it does not justify that to anyone. Try to restore your borders first, because without borders there is no nation. Hybrid war is only possible if you allow it. Help the others oust the colonialists. And they, without blood nose, will not leave. Fantasies about how they will be ashamed or accept defeat on their own do not stand. The rest of the world is a colony for them and that’s the only way how they see things. The west keeps ITS RED LINES, colonial lines. This is only thing what keep them together. Otherwise they would kill each others. Some nations are accustomed to slavery, so if there is no support from you for the activists of the East, there will be no liberation. Serbs are ready to drive the titoists/ustasoids into the past. The same way as Russians in MaloRussia and NovoRussia. We need logistics, No more talks and empty words. Action. Or you will leave this to your kids and granchildren to settle. If you dont respect yourselves, why than the west would do such thing. This is not SuTzu, but rather conformism..
The EU wont go down so easy. They will try to form a united power base and cause mischief and grab areas around Lebanon, Syria, parts of North Africa and Egypt.
Also there is no guarantee, China won’t turn into a new hegemon, a nightmare of unprecedented proportions – a surveillance tyranny controlling big areas. Also, Russia beware. China will make its move on the far east sooner or later.
“Russia beware. China will make its move on the far east sooner or later”. You can live with that delusion if you want to, but please keep that absolute and total delusion to yourself.
Thank you for this great article Mr Orlov. It is indeed reassuring to read about the improbability of a direct military confrontation between the US and China/Russia, especially during this period of heightened tensions in the Taiwan strait and the Black Sea region.
I am currently living in Shanghai and I can confirm Mr Orlov’s thesis that what I would call ‘Western cultural terrorism’ has a hard time to grow and spread in China.
To my great pleasure, the central government in Beijing has taken this year a number of very unambiguous measures to reign in a certain creeping ‘liberalism’.
For example it is no longer allowed for TV, movie and online-content to display and promote so-called sissy boys, that is effeminate men. Moreover, schools should promote and encourage competitive and physical sports like football to strengthen the development of the typical hetero male characteristics of boys: physical strength, combativity and competition, team spirit etc. The use of video games has been limited to three hours per week for minors (through the use of facial recognition technologies etc.). All of this is of course anathema to the West.
China is indeed pursuing a totally different course than Russia in the defense against this woke imperialism. I don’t know which way is better but what I can say is that I explicitly don’t use a VPN and it is great to be shielded by way of the great Chinese firewall from a big chunk of the degenerate trash that is Western ‘culture’. Yandex search engine, The Saker, Moon of Alabama and a great number of other alternative media are perfectly available without VPN, I am not living in a ‘digital exile’.
China has its issues but compared to the raging madness that has engulfed the West, it is an island of stability and harmony. Most people here are what in the 1980’s West would have been considered normal. Patriotic, hard-working, conservative and family-friendly values (NORMAL family of course! = husband and wife plus children).
Excellent analysis, Dmitry! Your sharp insights and humour are soothing. Thanks a lot!
That was theory par excellence.
Bravo Mr. Orlov! Not only a well written piece, but one replete with delicious put-downs worthy of a certain playwright with oodles of wit, but transparently and objectively perspicacious in analysis and true to boot. Thankyou, it was a pleasure to read!
What a breath of fresh, optimistic air Mr Orlov’s writing is. I fear, however, that the pessimists, such as Andrei, are more often proved correct. But we shall see. We need them both.
Je ne sais pas ce qu en pense le saker mais de mon point de vue l auteur sous estime grandement les capacites militaires americaines. Les usa sont devenus moins forts qu il y a 20 ans mais etre moins fort ne veut pas dire etre faible. En lisant l article on a l impression que les usa sont devenus totalement impuissants comme le royaume uni ou la france. Ce n est pas le cas. Dire le contraire est une vue de l esprit deconnectee de la realite factuelle.
I don’t know what the saker thinks about it, but from my point of view the author greatly underestimates the American military capabilities. The USA has become weaker than it was 20 years ago, but being weaker does not mean being weak. Reading the article one gets the impression that the usa have become totally powerless like the united kingdom or france. This is not the case. To say otherwise is a mind view disconnected from factual reality.
This comment is disconnected from the factual reality of what I wrote.
You downplayed the US army capabilities far too much.
You wrote this “since at this point no ICBM is likely to be able to penetrate Russian air defenses”.
This is untrue and disconnected from reality.
Plus you said that B52s are not a threat anymore and easy targets. Putin said that those very same old B52s carry strategic weapons and represent a challenge for Russia.
The quote directly from Putin s interview a few days ago:
“Here is a part of the answer to your previous question about where and how our strategic missile carriers fly. They use the B 52, which are pretty old aircraft but it is not the carriers that matter. The point is that they have combat strategic weapons onboard, which is a grave challenge for us”.
I am sure you know more about this than Putin himself.
To sum it up reading your article one gets the impression that the mutual assured destruction is almost over and the US is almost completely toothless. This is not true. Conventionally the US army can not win close to russia and China that’s true. But if we escalate to a strategic nuclear exchange then the US can destroy both Russia and China just like Russia can destroy the US. China can not do what Russia can do right now because its startegic nuclear arsenal is around 10-20% of the US and Russian ones. Plus in terms of submarine tech China is behind both Russia and the US by at least one generation. Currently China can not produce anything close to a yasen or a virginia class nuclear attack submarine.
This is the factual reality. If you want to confirm what I wrote here please go to Andrei Martyanov s blog. He wrote plenty of articles about these issues. He is a former soviet navy officer.
Plus I would add that the Ohio class submarines are not older than the Russian delta IV class submarines and that the B52s are not older than the Russian TU-95s. For example if a B52 which flew for the first time in 1955 is old then a TU-95 which flew for the first time in 1956 is old also. Again these are facts easy to check.
Are you assuming that in the event of a submarine-launched attack on the mainland China, Russia won’t help China to locate the US/UK subs? Most probably they will. I’m making this assumption based om the current level of Russian-Chinese strategic partnership.
I have no doubt that Russia and China will help each other.
However the problem is that the Ohio class submarines carry trident slbms with a range of 11000 kms. Those submarines can strike from the other side of the pacific ocean. Finding them in the immensity of the ocean is extremely difficult.
Same thing for the Russian borei class nuclear submarines which can strike at the US while sailing under water more than 9000 kms away from US cost line with the bulava slbms they carry.
/Same thing for the Russian borei class nuclear submarines which can strike at the US while sailing under water more than 9000 kms away from US cost line with the bulava slbms they carry./
What are your bets that Russia would stand back and watch while the Chinese mainland is attacked with nuclear missiles?
Thanks for an outstanding article. It really made my day, if not much longer ;-)
Just some thoughts.
The main line is that the scenery changed, and what now? I think that there is still much danger ahead, for several reasons. Take for instance the repeated fluffy speak in many statements, just some examples (just fill in the blanks):
‘We have to make […] pay a price.’
‘We have to confront […].’
‘We have to contain […].’
‘We have to dominate […].’
‘We need to give a message to […].’
‘We have to give an answer to […] aggression’.
‘We have to show […] our strength and determination.’
Isn’t this the kind of talk one would rather expect from someone lying on the couch at a psychiatrist praxis?
Thereby, the “old” rules mazy not apply so much anymore. The ‘controlling’ sea lanes, gunboat policy, the Mackinder philosophy and all that jazz – they are darn old. Unfortunately the people really pulling the strings in the background are also darn old, and I don’t even want to know what they are having for breakfast or any other occasion.
Finally, who exactly is taking operational decisions in DC? It wouldn’t surprise me that they even don’t know themselves. Come on, ripping an election for everyone to see in broad daylight, all that to get… Pedo Joe and Heels Up Harris? Imho this hazyness in DC is the main danger. When someone in the world wants to talk business, who to talk to? That worries me the most.
@Rob: “When someone in the world wants to talk business, who to talk to?”
Who do I phone if I want to talk to the USA? (with apologies to Kissinger’s quip, “Who do I phone if I want to talk to Europe?”
What a sane tour-de-force! Mr. Orlov, you are a commentator of note. Here in the UK the rabid scribblers of the tabloid press are ginning up and manufacturing consent for war in the Ukraine. The SAS and Parachute Regiment are to be despatched to back up the Nazis (you cannot make this up). This puts one in mind of the jingoism surrounding the Suez adventure in 1956, and as I recall that led to geopolitical convulsions and personnel changes in the West. They should follow the Montgomery Dictum: ‘Rule 1 page 1 in the book of war : Do not march on Moscow. It’s been tried – twice. It’s no good, it doesn’t work’……I shall watch the kesseling and eradication of the faux-SS Azov brigade with great interest…..
Who was he Russian General running the Syrian war?
(Machine translation, sorry)
Admirable analysis, as always. And what follows from this is that Russia and China, attentive and well-prepared, are just waiting for the US to weaken and slowly die. Meanwhile, the US desperately feeds the pretense of separating for itself a piece of meat from which it can suck blood (that is, we, the colonized countries). As the world slowly renews itself from the East, the West turns into a periphery full of misery and decay.
The “mischiefer-in-chief”, the Anglo-Zionist crowd, will continue to wreak havoc as long as “their” currency, “their money”, their tool of power & coercion all over the world, the US Dollar, is not dethroned along with its sidekicks, the EU Euro & the UK Pound. This is the war Humanity should prepare, engage & win if it wants to survive.
Basically, the case is made that the US has made itself impotent against Russia and China while its internal bureaucracies are working to destroy the governmental structures of the country.
If Russia goes to war against the US the result will be, with a little persistence by the US, the destruction of the governmental structures of the country after which it would be left to stew in its own juices. I would think that all of the above is the policy of the NWO which would see this as an immense opportunity to impose its own governmental system on the West and Europe as well.
It is not any different from the strategizing you have put forth for a Russian war with Ukraine which is meant to redound to US benefit which is meant ultimately to benefit the NWO.
I see in all of this just a long term, systematic effort to destroy the historical governmental systems of the Western states in favor of the NWO by numerous mean as opportunity permits. Therefore, I think the analysis above does point towards a war with Russia and China to produce the kind of result analyzed above as opportunity permits.
The “vaccines” are deadly and that is no joke. Their imposition can only work wonders in delegitimizing the governments issuing them. I can see no reason for such action by any state that values its own integrity. Therefore, the purpose is to dissolve the states of the West as we know them through terror. Additional help would be like frosting on a cake.
The ultimate result would be a very nasty totalitarian NWO over the Americas and Europe which would then seek to seriously engage with Russia and China. A state that would stop at nothing to win and would then be very serious about the quality of their weapons systems.
I suggest that if it comes to a shooting war that the worst thing China and Russia should do with a prostrate US is leave it to stew in its own juices. The same for Europe as well. The future political forms of the US and Europe need to be watched and managed very carefully to prevent the NWO horror developing now from achieving a final victory over the West and subsequently the world.
Re: “𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘞𝘖 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭.”
Yes! Well said JW.
I am frustrated to see so many sharp minds dismiss all current “gaffes” of western bureaucracies due to mere incompetence, corruption or inbred ignorance. They work consciously and zealously to dismantle the West from inside at same time as to trigger an apocalypse on the outside. They (key deep state members) were preselected for this role from infancy from the same accursed bloodlines and are with the program. And they place those who have control files in all sensitive positions to ensure progress in the program.
In 1950, Bankster James Warburg declared to the US Senate: “𝘞𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝙗𝙮 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙨𝙩 𝙤𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙩.”
As you note, all governments are losing legitimacy during this pandemic. For this reason alone, this op was a success from their perspective. Rockefeller Foundation’s 2010 Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development anticipates this precise development; a loss of trust in governments will move events towards a supra-national state endgame, from Lockstep to Clever Together. The Masons plan meticulously, decades ahead – we merely have to read.
All governments will not only be brought down by this Cabal, they will be detested by their own populations. And already by autumn 2021, we can see loss of trust has been created on an unprecedented degree in all political, medical, religious authorities. Complete disillusionment.
Another reason besides dividing bureaucracies and the people for these lockdowns, is to pauperize the West. How can a global NWO serf superstate be erected with one rich “city on the hill” remaining, to make the rest envious and restive? Or to risk that it considers itself above NWO rules? All must be leveled in deprivation, begging for scraps to feed on.
Unfortunately, it may not be as sanguine as in your last paragraph. There exist Zionist factions in every state, without exception. How strong are they really in Zone B leaders Russia and China? Like a tape worm or sleeper cell, they can be devilishly patient, and wait for right moment to change historical course. We would be foolish to rely on mere humans, even of civilizational states. Imagine the global psychological terror and loss of hope, if we lose them to the dark side! Russians, having been betrayed enough times precisely in this fashion, may change the calculations of the satanic NWO, so we will see soon enough what they have up their sleeves. Very dangerous times indeed. Pray!
Although there will be no war, there will be economic consequences. Zone B countries should prepare a Marshal plan for Zone A.
Trojan War (dates uncertain)
Trojan War (dates uncertain)
First Messenian War (c. 735–715 BCE)
Lelantine War (c. 720–680 BCE; dates uncertain)
Lelantine War (c.720–680 BCE; dates uncertain)
Second Messenian War (c. 660 BCE)
Greco-Persian Wars (492–449 BCE)
Peloponnesian War (431–404 BCE)
Lamian War (323–322 BCE)
First Punic War (264–241 BCE)
Second Punic War (218–201 BCE)
Third Punic War (149–146 BCE)
100 BCE–100 CE
Gallic Wars (58–50 BCE)
Norman Conquest (1066)
Crusades (1095–1291; sporadically thereafter)
Gempei War (1180–85)
Barons’ War (1264–67)
Hundred Years’ War (c. 1337–1453)
War of the Eight Saints (1375–78)
Hundred Years’ War (c. 1337–1453)
Thirteen Years’ War (1454–66)
Wars of the Roses (1455–85)
Ōnin War (1467–77)
Count’s War (1534–36)
Araucanian Wars (1541–58)
Livonian War (1558–83)
Eighty Years’ War (1568–1648)
War of the Three Henrys (1587–89)
Eighty Years’ War (1568–1648)
Kalmar War (1611–13)
Thirty Years’ War (1618–48)
Powhatan War (1622–44)
Bishops’ Wars (1639; 1640)
English Civil Wars (1642–51)
First Northern War (1655–60)
War of Devolution (1667–68)
King Philip’s War (1675–76)
War of the Grand Alliance (1689–97)
King William’s War (1689–97)
Second Northern War (1700–21)
War of the Spanish Succession (1701–14)
War of the Emboabas (1708–09)
Carnatic Wars (1746–48; 1749–54; 1758–63)
Queen Anne’s War (1702–13)
Yamasee War (1715–16)
War of the Polish Succession (1733–38)
War of Jenkins’ Ear (1739–48)
War of the Austrian Succession (1740–48)
King George’s War (1744–48)
French and Indian War (1754–63)
Silesian Wars (1740–42; 1744–45; 1756–62)
Seven Years’ War (1756–63)
Lord Dunmore’s War (1774)
Rohilla War (1774)
American Revolution (1775–83)
First Maratha War (1775–82)
War of the Bavarian Succession (1778–79)
Cape Frontier Wars (1779–1879)
French Revolution (1787–99)
French revolutionary wars (1792–1801)
Cape Frontier Wars (1779–1879)
French revolutionary wars (1792–1801)
War of the Oranges (1801)
Tripolitan War (1801–05)
Second Maratha War (1803–05)
Third Maratha War (1817–18)
Napoleonic Wars (1803–15)
Black War (1804–30)
Peninsular War (1808–14)
War of 1812 (1812–15)
Creek War (1813–14)
War of Greek Independence (1821–32)
Padri War (1821–37)
Naning War (1831–32)
Pastry War (1838–39)
Mexican-American War (1846–48)
Crimean War (1853–56)
Bleeding Kansas (1854–59)
American Civil War (1861–65)
War of the Triple Alliance (1864/65–70)
Seven Weeks’ War (1866)
Selangor Civil War (1867–73)
Franco-German War (1870–71)
Acehnese War (1873–1904)
Red River Indian War (1874–75)
Serbo-Turkish War (1876–78)
Anglo-Zulu War (1879)
War of the Pacific (1879–83)
Gun War (1880–81)
Sino-French War (1883–85)
Serbo-Bulgarian War (1885–86)
Sino-Japanese War (1894–95)
Spanish-American War (1898)
Philippine-American War (1899–1902)
South African War (1899–1902)
The War of a Thousand Days (1899–1903)
Acehnese War (1873–1904)
Philippine-American War (1899–1902)
South African War (1899–1902)
The War of a Thousand Days (1899–1903)
Boxer Rebellion (1900–01)
Moro Wars (1901–13)
Russo-Japanese War (1904–05)
Pig War (1906–09)
Mexican Revolution (1910–20)
Italo-Turkish War (1911–12)
World War I (1914–18)
Baltic War of Liberation (1918–20)
Russian Civil War (1918–20)
Russo-Polish War (1919–20)
Rif War (1921–26)
Chaco War (1932–35)
Italo-Ethiopian War (1935–36)
Spanish Civil War (1936–39)
Sino-Japanese War (1937–45)
Phony War (1939–40; no actual hostilities)
Russo-Finnish War (1939–40)
World War II (1939–45)
Greek Civil War (1944–45; 1946–49)
Arab-Israeli wars (1948–49; 1956; 1967; 1973; 1982)
Korean War (1950–53)
Algerian War (1954–62)
Vietnam War (1954–75)
Six-Day War (1967)
War of Attrition (1969–70)
Yom Kippur War (1973)
Dirty War (1976–83)
Afghan War (1978–92)
Iran-Iraq War (1980–88)
Falkland Islands War (1982)
Persian Gulf War (1990–91)
Bosnian conflict (1992–95)
Kosovo conflict (1998–99)
Afghanistan War (2001–14)
Iraq War (2003–11)
Syrian Civil War (2012– )
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Spanish philosopher George Santayana
Recently a very smart guy gave a public presentation on a highly fascinating topic. I will avoid the subject matter in this forum but will risk posting the presentation link at the bottom of this post so that the reader can verify the point I am about to make.
Here is the point. Whenever someone in America tries to verbally communicate using basic technical language that would otherwise be recognized and understood by the majority of non-US middle school students, the speaker must apologize! Example: try to explain to the average American that photosynthesis removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and you instantly lose their attention. That big word “photosynthesis” evokes the painful memories of traumatic experiences in the taking of tests and quizzes that they were forced to endure in public school classrooms. Other terms such as “vector” or “exponent” will lose their comprehension entirely.
If you will bother at all to view the video referenced below in its entirety, notice how Dr. Malone begins by asking forgiveness for talking “a little bit technical” on a subject covered in basic biology class. He repeats this apology throughout his presentation. This behavior is typical. The average American has no patience for technical concepts, and no curiosity to independently study technical subjects despite having instant and cheap access to the vast knowledge stored on the InterThingy.
Anyone who has attempted to propose discussing important subjects with random Americans in any venue, such as family gatherings, social events, business round tables, parties, social clubs, airport waiting areas, pubs, etc. learns this same lesson: Americans are profoundly, fatally technically ignorant in the broadest sense. True, you can find a few domain experts that can recite technical language in their profession. The dental hygienist can identify each tooth, but can tell you nothing about the citric acid cycle. The mechanical engineer knows something about the flash point of diesel fuel, but nevertheless believes crude oil originates only from the decayed bodies of dinosaurs. And so on.
There are a few exceptions of course but not enough to hold the country together for much longer. America will
soon reach a flash point after which will emerge a new society best understood by watching the science-fiction documentary entitled “Idiocracy.” It is funny up to the point where one realizes that these godless freaks have access to nuclear weapons and the propensity for bearing false witness against their neighbors.
What possible solutions could be brought to bear against the problem of The Monkey And Its Hand Grenade?
Here is the link referenced above: https://3speak.tv/watch?v=pandemichealth/ptizyohg&utm_souce=player_brand
Thanks for that Link to Dr.Malone’s lecture. A very competent exposee of the problems with RNA vaccines. Worth viewing from beginning to end.
A welcome reminder that the U$A is full of competent specialists in first class institutions. The ship is sound, the crew are honest, but the captain is a Yeltsin — a drunken accomplice of predatory criminals. Here’s hoping that the U$A finds its Putin, to steer the ship of state back on course.
To Dr. NG Maroudas
I totally concur with you on that one! There must be lots of US Americans who absolutely abhor what is happening to their country and the entity that is doing that to them. (Forget Russia!) The problem for them is that they cannot co-operate among themselves as the whole American “culture” has been based on competition, not co-operation. And this is going to be their downfall. They will not be able to organize themselves into a cohesive, challenging force to the Cabal, which is highly organised and determined. Take the so-called Dr Fauci for example – everyone now knows what an absolute criminal he is and he is STILL in his job and position – NOT behind the bars! What hope is there for the US Americans if just THAT is allowed to continue and there no resistance to such depraved criminality!
Yes, “the U$A is full of competent specialists.” Our good Dr. Malone is an example. But at what alter do they burn their incense? To what kingdom do they devote their collective energies to build? What plagues America is well beyond whatever solutions its many specialists can devise with their clever devices, potions and methods.
What plagues America is best described in Dostoevsky’s Demons: “systematically to undermine the foundations of the existing order, to bring about the disintegration of the social structure and the collapse of all moral values, which would cause general demoralization and confusion. Then the broken, decaying society, sick and in full ferment, cynical and godless, but thirsting for some guiding idea and for self-preservation, could be taken over when the banner of revolution was raised…”
It will be fascinating to watch who salutes that “banner of revolution” once raised. Personal outlook: It will not be Woke, but the even-more-evil thing that sanitizes Woke out of existence in its first great move forward.
I disagree. I get the point you are trying to make, but the anlaogy is poorly targeted. At best only a few of the crew are honest and do their work well.
Here’s hoping the U$A ship of state finds itself foundered on the rocks, beaten to a shattered mess by the tides of history, never to rise again and terrorise our planet.
The original design of the ship may have been sound, but most of the crew were poorly trained and led, and have largely become a bloody disgrace, the officer class are without a moral compass or the wits to use one if they happened to find it amongst the filth and lies they grovelled in. As for the state of the ship itself, endless itterations of corruption and greed have turned the original design into an unweildy and unseaworthy monstrosity of a vessel and the same corruption and greed has also meant that maintenance has been inadequate for the service it has done and it is a rusting decrepict hulk long overdue for the scrap yard.
With that off my chest, congrats to Dmitry Orlov on a superb read. Well crafted writing, we are in your debt.
Great essay . Right on in many respects.
Your right on the mark !
The Snake will Eat it,s self and all that goes with it , until the last bite.
Orlov makes a very important point.
While the United States is falling behind militarily, economically and otherwise – it still leads the world in agitprop and destabilization. The US is really very good at that. As the Saker has pointed out, the utilization of Ukraine for political theater is very, very clever and very difficult to counter. It is especially difficult to deal with due to – what is really – a controlled media in the West.
Here in the United States, however, the media/propaganda network is weakening considerably. Large numbers of people simply don’t believe them anymore. CNN just announced that they were going to fire a lot of the staff and reporters since more and more people refuse to watch CNN. Even more importantly, CNN does not seem to understand that they are losing viewers – not because their reporters are not telegenic but – because more and more people recognize that CNN is a disinformation platform. It doesn’t matter whom they hire. No one believes them. The same is true with other networks.
The United States may slowly be approaching a “Soviet Union” moment.
I don’t see that changing since the country is ruled by an out of touch oligarchy. The oligarchy cannot fix the problem since they don’t understand that they are the problem.
A beautiful think-piece by Orlov. Let’s think about it further.
First of all, with respect to Orlov’s first three paragraphs, one not so minor point needs to be corrected: No, Milley did not say “tripolar war”, he said “tripolar world”. I believe it was CNN or ABC which twisted the words toward “tripolar war”. – I know I should source that statement, and I can — with a little work – but for now I will just leave it that way. — Secondly, Milley had a specific audience at the Aspen Institute, so, whereas we look over the fence and snatch up the words, we are actually watching a dialogue, and such dialogues transpire in plays, like Shakespeare plays, or movies. We cannot understand the words apart from the dialogue, Milley was not orally presenting a think-tank monologue nor was he speaking to those of us, off stage, as in a soliloquy.
The world has changed, it is now tripolar, which, as Milley said, introduces far higher degrees of “complexity” than ever before, 40-70 years, and this complexity requires that the US talk with the other poles, and the requirement in talking is “unambiguous communication”. That’s Milley.
Well, well!! That is quite enough to start with because Milley’s direct audience, i.e., the one with which he is in dialogue, will split, depending on whether they have any idea of what he is talking about or not. I’ll return to that (“circle back”, ha!).
On the basis of “tripolar world” and high level complexity, I posit a thesis, or hypothesis if you prefer, about what Milley is saying.
We know, maybe, the “three body problem” in physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem,
“In physics and classical mechanics, the three-body problem is the problem of taking the initial positions and velocities (or momenta) of three-point masses and solving for their subsequent motion according to Newton’s laws of motion and Newton’s law of universal gravitation. The three-body problem is a special case of the n-body problem. Unlike two-body problems, no general closed-form solution exists, as the resulting dynamical system is chaotic for most initial conditions, and numerical methods are generally required.”
That’s physics, but politics does not deal with dead point masses. Politics is human. Nevertheless, the tripolar world is a dynamic system, which only looks chaotic from the standpoint of expected “closed-form solutions”.
We can define the tripolar world as consisting of Russia-USA-China, but the dynamics of the system generate myriad other tripolar dynamics.
Consider, for example, the Taliban in Afghanistan, their opposition to ISIS-K (a component of the US-CIA tool-kit, about which, from the standpoint of system dynamics, no more need be said because in such matters the question is not how loudly we can complain about it, but whether the tool-kit functions and can function for its intended goal), and then Russia, and then, as a third element in the tripolar system, the US or some elements of the US factions, which want to continue “over-the-horizon” strikes against ISIS-K. Well, the neighboring countries politely decline to host US facilities for such strikes, and that has nothing to do with “taking orders from Moscow”, which is not to denigrate shared interests. The “stans” don’t want to give the US such capability because they do not want the Taliban coming to them, but if they harbor the US forces, they make themselves a target for the Taliban; Pakistan doesn’t want to make a deal with the US on such a thing, because if the US attacks Afghan-territory from Pakistan, then the Taliban have the right to carry out strikes in Pakistan. It is all a simple matter of reciprocity, and if the web of reciprocity is broken, the entire region and all of its nations suffer. In other words, with the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, all of the neighbors and even more remote countries and regions are each and all responsible for the interlocking web of reciprocity and, what is more, they are each and all now also empowered to take that responsibility. Yes, waiting for the “solution” is like sitting on pins and needles, but the point is that the entire dynamic has changed.
And all of that is Trump’s policy. – And “Biden” carried through with that policy, and some people say he had no choice in the matter, but that is wrong: Depending on who is calling the shots, “Americans” always have the choice to do something supremely stupid. The fact that “Biden” (I use quotes because this is not a “person”, it is a green screen upon which the dynamics of a “committee” are projected) did not do something supremely stupid reflects a shift in strategic thinking at myriad institutional levels of the US apparatus. Not all at once, and not everywhere, but a shift nonetheless.
But at the committee-level of thinking, maybe, just maybe the US has a chance to get its foot back into the door, so General Milley flies out to Helsinki to meet Chief of the Russian General Staff, General Gerasimov. Quite peculiar because the Russian Foreign Ministry had already said “no” several times and in various contexts, but Milley supposedly talked to Gerasimov again about this “over-the-horizon” idea, at least that was reported to have taken place, and Milley was reported to have claimed that the Russians were considering the idea, to which Deputy Foreign Minister – Deputy, not Lavrov – Ryabkov replied that “the Americans hear what they want”. If it is the case or if it is still the case that the Americans hear what they want, then the Americans have not yet learned how to talk, in which case it is rather strange that Gerasimov would meet Milley at all and it is even stranger to fly to meet him on neutral territory. A short telephone call could have been equally instructive if indeed the Americans do not know how to talk.
It is all rather murky or at least paradoxical and, frankly, I find it hard to believe that Milley went to meet Gerasimov to talk about over-the-horizon strikes against ISIS-K, so I also think there is good reason to suspect some “optics management”, but the main thing is that States-side there was no scandal. Just imagine it: US Chairman JCS meets Chief of Russian General Staff to ask for permission to do something (if that is what it was all about, or if that is all that it was about)! We Americans don’t ask anyone for permission to do something!! Right? – That world is no more. We are in the tripolar world, Milley is operating in the tripolar world… including with the Chinese.
Well, there was no such outcry. What does that tell us? – I propose that it tells us that many people in Milley’s audience, whether they were at Aspen or not, have already accepted what Milley articulated as “we are entering a tripolar world”, and when such meetings take place between the US-side and the Russian-side, it is not merely one side, i.e., the American side, which “communicates unambiguously”.
Strictly speaking, Milley and Gerasimov are not really “counterparts”, and that is not only because of their combat experience or lack thereof. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Milley has an advisory function for the president but he does not have any operational command authority. In fact, none of the officers on the JCS have operational command authority. The JCS is, in other words, not a “General Staff”, and General Gerasimov has operational responsibility, whereas Shoigu is the military-political advisor to Putin. (With that in mind, let’s consider carefully what it really means when Putin announces publicly that he rejected a Defense Ministry proposal to run Russian maneuvers alongside the current US/NATO shenanigans in the Black Sea.)
The public JCS message for some time now has been unambiguous: our policy is war avoidance. So some will say, “Hey, but that doesn’t jibe with what we see going on!” — True, quite true: hold your breath just a bit longer and consider the dynamics, please.
In parallel with Milley’s remarks – again, “tripolar world”, not “tripolar war” – we should consider the several public appearances of Air Force General John Hyten, Deputy Chairman JCS. On one occasion – again, I know I should source this, those who are interested can ask or look it up themselves (Martyanov has covered some of this, J.E. Dyer has also covered it)– Hyten described in some detail a recent US wargame with China, in which the US lost. Hyten did say that he would leave out a lot of classified stuff, but his first general statement was that the Chinese side had destroyed all of US electronics, surveillance, communications, targeting, etc. within minutes, because the US thought centralizing their communication nodes was super-intelligent, but it really only meant setting up a “sitting duck” for the Chinese to take out easily.
Of course, the interesting thing about such a statement, unclassified as it is, is that it reveals what the US thinks it knows about Chinese EW capabilities, and what it thinks is known was given to the China-team in the war game, and they were free to use it against the US-team. That tells us that not all US war games are faked. The timing of a public discussion of such wargames can hardly be fortuitous.
On the other hand, at least as far as the “public” is concerned, no mention is made of what even we know – at least in part or if only in part – about the corresponding Russian capabilities. In fact, said Hyten, “we” have taught our adversaries how to take aim at a lot of sitting ducks. One of the particularly amusing – for me, at least – details was when he said (verbatim, from memory) “we couldn’t fit the F-35 into any of our scenarios”. – So, perk up your ears, all you foreign F-35 scam-victims: the chances for reliable maintenance of your fancy junk in the future don’t look good. Bye, bye F-35, hello SU-75 / Checkmate.
Hyten’s language is an eye-catcher because it may well reflect inclusion in the overall JCS view of modern warfare of other contributions of late. When the new Marine Commandant, General David Berger, took on his new job in 2019, still under Trump, he published a “Mission Statement” which really shook people up (if they noticed his statement at all, and quite a few who did notice it will have kept their mouths shut): The whole Marines combat mission had to be revised, he claimed, because the Marines, as an expeditionary force, have to be shipped – usually as part of a Carrier Battle Group — to within landing distance of some combat zone, but that is no longer possible because the CBG can’t get closer than 800-1000 nautical miles of any landing site involving a peer adversary without risking being sunk by hypersonic missiles and cruise missiles. As Andrei Martyanov would tell you, that is a rather simplified sketch of the situation, because the reality is far worse.
In any case, if we are talking about “sitting ducks”, and if the JCS is talking about “sitting ducks”, the logical message would seem to be, “Don’t let our ducks quack so loudly that someone might think they are about to do something stupid. That would be a very unfortunate misunderstanding, but at the same time, the politicians will tell us they do need some PR quacking because they can’t do their job otherwise, so we have to make sure the politicos understand that we control the limits of the quacking”.
This sort of “control” is actually far easier than it might seem. – Marry the notion of a “tripolar world” with the quip Putin made at the last Valdai conference: “Align necessities with possibilities”. That is a mission assignment from the top strategic level all the way down to the theater and tactical levels. To mention only one specific example, Anthony Blinken is now on record threatening Iran, if Iran does not behave and go back to the JCPOA under Blinken’s conditions – Blinken’s conditions, not “US conditions” – “we have other options”. Well, no, he does not have any such options. Everyone knows it. In the “tripolar world”, diplomacy has to be smart, which means it has to recognize the interplay of the force-fields and accept their dynamism, and there is no option to reach for the military sword to enforce anything. Which is to say, that is not an option if you are smart enough to survive. Does Israel want to survive? What do you think Israeli PM Bennett, spending 5 hours and more in Sochi with Putin, thinks of this babbling fool? And then ask the Israeli military whether they think Blinken is going to order, or whether he can order, whether he has the power to order the US military to attack Iran.
The three-body problem just staring at you there. The elegance of the manifestations of the three-body problem nowadays is that the consequences we used to talk about as per “the law of unforeseen consequences” are glaringly obvious to all the players except the idiots, and the number of idiots is much smaller than it used to be.
In the transitional period we are in, such babbling fools as Blinken is are useful, albeit not in the old sense of the “useful idiot” used by an adversary: they are useful because they demonstrate the utter depravity of their bravado in a world in which they are the dinosaurs, soon to be extinct. The transitional period is therefore not merely a coming change of regime, it is a change in the US strategic consensus. It is already “TINA”: There is no alternative. It just takes time to digest and work out the details. Will the real emergency of the “Biden committee” be in the foreign policy field or in the domestic policy field? – I don’t know: both are in fierce competition.
Not letting the ducks quack too loudly is the job of the operational commanders, the others are “television generals”, as Trump disparagingly calls them, but they have an important function because they throw communications and messages outside the wall of the “Biden committee”. Still, the real responsibility lies with the operational commanders.
On another occasion, Hyten said: “We do not want war, in fact, we are tired of war. We hope diplomacy works”.
These are just some dots to put on your radar screens: I don’t insist on my interpretation of them, and there is much more to add and much more to be said, but, as with any geometrical problem, everyone has to solve it themselves because you do not really have a solution if you did not work it through yourself.
And one “problem” is, as Dmitry Orlov and some commenters reflect, Milley has a certain public image. On top of that, Trump has even called him “a dumb ass”. Where some people will be inclined to agree with Milley’s public image and/or Trump’s characterization, I suggest as a consideration that, like in a Shakespearean play, who or what some players are, is actually a problem. Recognizing that there is a problem is, as it seems to me, far superior to trying to answer it without knowing the end of the story. The suspense of uncertainty is better than claiming to know something that cannot be known. Milley survived from the Trump administration into the “Biden” administration, and he pulled a number of what may well be stunts to “fit in”. Had he not “fit in”, he would not have survived; had Trump said anything nice about him, he could not survive, but Trump could not remain silent. I assume it is not necessary to document the stunts. I’ll just suggest, and only as a possibility, something an “intelligence analyst” would consider as a possibility, that Milley is sometimes as funny as William Barr claiming that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself.
There is much sense in this. I was put off a little by Orlov’s disparagement of Milley. He is it seems a “Tallyrand” capable of pleasing both sides but having enough wit and wisdom to understand the options. I too was well aware that he said world not war or at least that he used the term as we use economic war, diplomatic war etc- not essentially about missiles flying.
The thing is Milley showed a complicated side when he admitted ringing China about warning of any attack. Yes he broke rules but also could be portrayed as acting to save humanity and even the USA. He would know more than most in the USA about the real capabilities of China plus Russia (or at lest I hope so because as senior advisor I should hope he is the real expert or has a support team who are). Telling the world what he did was a subtle move to keep his job (Tallyrand) but showed a bit of smarts. Never underestimate the enemy, which i feel Orlov is doing.
My take is that saner heads in the US military recognise the real vulnerabilities and are urging caution and withdrawal. Their task is to convince the gungho politicians that this is wise. In short what Orlov describes accurately as the US strategy may in fact not be Milley’s and the fact that he is in fact more of a booking intelligence advisor than an operational commander may in fact indicate he is a wiser, saner headthann many others.
For those here who are very pro Trump, let me say I think he also was much wiser and saner than his public image. At least when it came to Russia he was trying to avoid conflict. He appointed Milley after all
Now, since Dmitry asked – well, ok, he didn’t really ask – you have a direct quote from Milley, or, more cautiously, a quote directly attributed to Milley, versus a quote which claims to summarize what Milley said. Is this a case of “the Americans hear what they want”? Nevertheless, I propose that you and others turn the items I placed on the “radar screen” on their heads, i.e., rearrange everything so that my musings do not start with Milley and “tripolar world” but they end there. Doing so, I suggest, would minimally indicate that attributing “tripolar war” to Milley makes no sense. At the same time, I caution that the discussion up to this point remains in the “Roman colosseum” where the “Christians” and the “lions” fight it out for the amusement of the “emperor” and his coterie. So, fine, Milley, the US JCS and the strategic consensus shift I indicated are out for war avoidance. Then there is the other side, the other POV, which will not be bothered by items on the radar screen and will still insist on the contrary standpoint.—Not very satisfying.
So I thought maybe it would be worth the effort to complicate things and while I was composing something in my mind, I found out that Rostislav Ischenko did all the work for me (English translation: https://ukraina-ru.translate.goog/opinion/20211116/1032667208.html?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=nui. Yes, I know, Google Is lousy. Here is a quote from the early part:
“It seems like a funny problem: far from great powers quarreled, and as a result of a scandal, more reminiscent of children in a sandbox, an equally funny crisis gradually emerged – 4-5 thousand migrants rushing through the Belarusian border to Poland and further to Germany.
“But, contrary to the formal logic, the crisis is growing, troops are gathering to the border, more and more harsh statements are being heard, the air smelled of gunpowder, and the European war, which the United States has been trying with enviable persistence to impose on Russia in recent years, and from which Moscow has once again cleverly dodged literally this spring, again looming on the agenda.
“Why does such an initially insignificant event lead to such dramatic consequences?
“The point is that any modern crisis is multi-layered. The interests of the direct participants form only the upper, most insignificant, layer. Further, any crisis begins to fit into the global agenda, characterized by tough, on the verge of a foul, confrontation between the great powers. The United States, Russia and China are maneuvering, trying to reformat the post-American world for themselves in such a way as not to break into a global nuclear war. That is, the direct clash of great powers (as it was before the Second World War inclusive) has been replaced by information, civil, regional wars, conflicts of secondary countries, internal and international crises of varying intensity and duration.
“From this point of view, each successive crisis is something like a strategic offensive or defensive operation of the era of the last world war. Its results can dramatically change the positioning of the parties: someone’s strategic position can be sharply worsened, and someone else’s can be just as dramatically improved. But in this case, the Supreme Commanders in Moscow, Beijing and Washington are not dealing with obedient executive generals commanding national armies, but with a host of independent and semi-independent, more or less loyal, adequate and executive allies who have their own interests and interact in the state. protector only to the extent that they consider it necessary to protect these very own interests.
“Therefore, any crisis in the modern world does not develop as planned by its initiators and, often, leads to unexpected consequences, since it is constantly exposed to multi-level and multidirectional forces of global, regional and local significance. Plus, it is superimposed on the internal political struggle in many states, where different elite groups sometimes assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed methods of resolving the crisis and its desired outcomes in diametrically opposite ways. At the same time, some of the great powers in certain periods regard some of their junior partners as consumables that it is not a pity to throw into the furnace of the war if they manage to drag a geopolitical adversary there and stay on the sidelines themselves. However, in a similar way – as a consumable – their senior partners and some junior allies, who are confident that for the sake of their parochial interests, the superpower is simply obliged to sacrifice its global ones, are considered as a consumable.
“All this creates a rather chaotic environment in which it is extremely difficult to determine the rational kernel of the crisis. It is impossible to resolve the crisis without solving this problem, because, without understanding its root causes, we will propose compromises that do not suit anyone.”
A little further on; he says,
“Here the United States appears on the stage, which has long been willing to organize a European war with the participation of Russia and see their chance in the history of migrants. How the conflict can be quickly brought to a state of full-fledged war so that the United States is left on the sidelines, I wrote in a previous article. But the United States would have failed if practically all the parties to the conflict, except Russia and Germany, did not see the war as not the worst way out for themselves.
“In the campaign against Belarus, the United States is making up Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Ukraine. Accordingly, potential participants in the anti-Belarusian Entente proceed from the assumption that they will defeat the weak, poorly armed and lacking combat experience of the Belarusian Armed Forces without any problems. If Russia does not take the side of Minsk, then they will simply win a major geopolitical victory, reformatting the entire Eastern European region and raising their importance. Then let the EU try to refuse to extend financial assistance to the Poles and Balts.
“If Russia moves forward, they [GG: i.e., the EU] will quickly fail. But the Poles and the Balts proceed from the fact that Russia will not be allowed to invade NATO territory (the Poles are justified, there is no complete certainty about the correctness of the Balts). Ukraine proceeds from the possibility of losing part or even all of the territories beyond the Dnieper, but for Kiev this is now not a tragedy, but success – fewer hungry mouths, more consolidated population.
“Therefore, almost all members of the anti-Belarusian Entente, in principle, do not see anything dangerous in the war, even hoping to derive their serious benefit from it. The West also believes that in the worst case, it will have to lose part or even all of Ukraine and the Baltic states, but the United States and the Russophobic part of the European elites will achieve their goal – the ties of Russia and China with the EU will be severed, the hands and resources of Russia will be reliably tied in Eastern Europe. and the US and Western Europe will have a free hand to pacify China.
And he even says,
“In fact, only Russia and Germany are trying to find a peaceful solution to the crisis. But this is the official state position. Both Moscow and Berlin have influential elite groups that have long wanted war, since 2014 (if not earlier). A group of Moscow hawks believes that in this way it is possible to return the ancestral lands almost instantly (at least in the European direction). Where to get resources for their restoration and development and what will happen to other areas of foreign policy, they are not interested. A group of Berlin hawks sees war as the only way to stop Germany’s drift towards an alliance (to begin with an economic one) with Russia and leave Berlin in a comfortable US orbit.”
Pretty wild, huh? Ischenko’s article is much longer and with a ton of complex detail. Does it make sense? – Of course it does. And it is the contrary of “That means that we’re going to have to put a premium, in my view, on maintaining great-power peace.” Let’s recall what Trump said about the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan: “This would not have happened if I were in the White House.” And what did he say about Chinese bomber runs over Taiwan? “This would not be happening if I were in the White House”.
This Polish border scuffle over 4-5 thousand Mideast refugees ties into Baltic NATO, ties into the already created realities of Belarus-Russian military-defensive integration, ties into the anti-Russian Soros-EU versus many on the EU periphery, versus Germany, and even France, ties into Ukraine, and in the endgame, who or what ends up as the “consumable”? – The USA, of course. The “Biden”-crats have a demonstrated capability of screwing everything up and miscalculating their own wisdom. There are so many loose ends, even Stoltenberg now says “there is no NATO consensus on Ukraine joining NATO”, as if his pissing on that stone is going to stop the conflagration the “Biden”-crats are creating. This is far more complex than a “Cuban missile crisis”. And the US Military is opposed to the “Biden”-crats. That is the landscape.
Whether people in the “Roman colosseum” are pro- or anti-Trump doesn’t interest me much. I merely place his remarks on the radar screen or on the chessboard because that is where they were made. Anyone is free to ignore them. Back in the Spring —was it February or March? – I “prophesied” in a short comment here that the EU and NATO could count themselves lucky if they survived a single year of Biden.
“Calling the Cold War a bipolar war between the Soviet Union and the United States, Milley said the nation is entering into a tripolar war with the United States, Russia and China all as great powers.”
“We are entering into a tripolar world with the United States, Russia and China,” he said. “We’re entering into a world that is potentially more strategically unstable than say the last 40, 50, 60, 70 years. That means that we’re going to have to put a premium, in my view, on maintaining great power peace.”
You’re putting too much emphasis on Milley’s statement. He’s not the one who makes the calls and even though there may be other military personnel who understand the dire situation of the US. Tbe MIC has the power when it comes to calling the shots.
The activities of the US in the E. Europe and the Black Sea don’t seem like that of a country who wants to have peace but rather the opposite. They’re trying to incite war in Europe with the aim of solidifying the position of the NATO which otherwise have no other purpose to exist. The same is applicable to the South China Sea. The US is hell bent on picking a fight. However, your assessment is wrong if you think that limiting Russia to E. Europe would stop them from supporting the Chinese in the event of an all out war in the SCS. The joint military exercises, patrols and enhanced economic corporation all point to the fact that they’d collaborate at least unofficially.
@man with no name
Interesting comment, still anchored in bi-polar thinking, however, and not only in the sense that Milley addressed.
From my side (as usual), merely a few think-suggestions. 1. Take in the full Milley-statement, not just the part that sounds nice and seems to summarize. 2. Military Intelligence works on an assessment-loop, OODA, Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. We run the loop not once or twice, but continuously. What we observer can change, so we have to re-orient. What we may have observed earlier may have served earlier orientation, but we need to verify that orientation for condition-now, and we need to identify what we really observe and what we perhaps filter from earlier orientations. In this case, we have General Berger, General Hyten, and then Milley: we can observe public statements (and I filtered a lot out which would likely change many people’s current orientation if it were seen), and the public statements are like the whirl of water around a periscope breaking the surface of the sea which a surveillance aircraft will see when scanning the ocean, so in this case we have three sightings and they seem to form a straight line: the submarine under the surface *seems* to be traveling a certain course. Your claim is that this course does not matter because you know – how do you know that? – that this submarine is not war-determining.
You claim that the MIC calls the shots. Fine. The MIC has to run the OODA loop just as we do. And that is why I deliberately chose to include General Berger’s remarks about not being able to find a scenario-slot for the F-35 in the wargame against China. You will agree, I guess, that the F-35 is a major money-guzzler and money-cow for the MIC. The US, according to Hyten, cannot use the F-35 in its own wargames, but, of course, the US is selling the F-35 to “allies”, e.g. to Norway, where they cannot find enough money to sustain and maintain their own coastal defense-installations because the F-35 has gutted their budget, and they will be buying/have already bought a machine they can’t use either. This merely indicates the ripple effects: extortion, bribery, political threats do not an “alliance” make, and the narrative that the “alliance”-relationships are rock-solid is cracking. It is no great feat of analysis to see it, so *what* Hyten is pointing to is not “news”, but his *saying* it is “news”.
I humbly, most humbly, suggest, and while so suggesting I am giggling my way to the next cocktail bar, that a lot of people still need to do some digestive work to appreciate the devastating humor of the Russian nickname for the SU-75, “Checkmate”. I would go even further: Would the Russians play such psy-war games if they did not know that the Hyten-thinkers across the Atlantic are “on course”? The Russian psy-war is obviously not directed at General Hyten. “Dialogues” transpire in weird and fascinating ways.
So the MIC has to reorient, or at least the MIC will have to take account of (observe) Hyten’s remarks and watch to see if they really need to reorient, i.e., to determine whether a submarine is indeed following a certain course which means that they have to change, i.e., lose the F-35 but also lose their current relationship to the military. It might make for fun in a soap-opera if the good General simply said “we are junking the whole F-35 project as of now – period”, but that is not good management practice. The MIC obviously has certain resources, both material as well as human, and only an enemy of the US would like to see that capacity destroyed. I would like to encourage you to study General Berger’s full remarks, including on the issue of not being able to sight or detect and track hypersonic missiles because the US does not have the needed sensors. Researching by yourself is far superior to my handing you the links I have collected, because you cannot know what I might be filtering out. On the other hand, if you are sure that you already know enough and everything, no research is necessary. If we “observe” such remarks by Hyten and the fact that such discussions are taking place, and in the public realm, not – as usual – behind closed doors, we can orient toward a shift or a possible shift in the relationship between the US Military and the MIC.
The current relationship, which is the one you are counting on to continue, emerged under very specific economic, financial and domestic/foreign political conditions, which are no longer valid. I assume that is obvious. But these no-longer-valid conditions are merely background, some will understand the implications sooner than others, and some not at all. And I am not talking about us, because we are only observers: no, I am talking about the “power brokers”, e.g. people who have to figure out where to place their money on the basis of assessing which way the wind is blowing… or which course the submarine is traveling. These power-people have to assess, for example, the storm unleashed by the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, which – as I guess most people know – Julian Assange hit dead-center: The issue was not war, the point was to drain public money and redirect it into the coffers of the financialization-wizards, for which the MIC is/was merely a vehicle. So the MIC is now hurting with a big Afghanistan-wound, tons of sacks of prospective money disappeared into a big hole with a whooshing sound and, even as a mere vehicle, it has to assess whether the antics of “Trotskyist” Blinken – that is what the Russians call him – will open new Afghanistans for them, and that under “tripolar” conditions.
Not so easy, in fact, no way to continue business as usual. The “smart” power-people will realize rather quickly that, no, Blinken and the “Biden”-crats are not capable of throwing them a life-line, but that puts them in a squeeze-play, because especially toward the end of his first term, Trump blasted the MIC and the squeeze-play is festering right under their noses in the public remarks of people like Milley and Hyten. Policy is one thing, but it always has business implications.
So, if we want to say the MIC is calling the shots – and I say “we” because we can together think through the prospects for the success of any shots “they” want to call –we do have to assess what I just sketched. Actually, I should correct my initial remark that I think you are thinking bi-polar, because it is really unipolar: you seem to continue to believe that the MIC can do whatever it wants and make a profit from it. No, the world has changed, it is “tripolar” and that is a “fact” that impacts the “business models” of the MIC. If the collective “MIC” really thinks it can continue to plan its business on a unipolar basis, reality be damned, then, well, they are out of business: it’s that simple. The MIC is for sure not calling the shots for “Trotskyist” Blinken, he is not good for business. Let us re-evaluate Ischenko’s article from that standpoint. And then let’s figure out what the MIC has to figure out: If the MIC cannot make bucks with Trotskyists, what other option do they have, even if they thought it was unpalatable previously?
This is one more remarkable piece by subtle Dmitry Orlov. It makes for enjoyable reading and profound reflecting.
I notice that of late, many such unusually incisive pieces have come out of both Russia and China. I therefore gather the number of thinkers of repute has increased considerably in both those countries, who have had more than enough with the Empire’s persistent, objectionable attitude, unbearable behaviour and despicable initiatives towards their nation, their government and their people. One can feel unmistakable, intense anger between the lines throughout. In other words, the Empire’s prestige and influence appear to have reached an all time low, first and foremost in the eyes of the genuine Russian and Chinese elites. That I find to be a reflection of how the Russian and Chinese people have come to react to anything with the slightest nauseous smell of arrogant imperial hegemony. THAT I believe to be, presently, the most significant aspect of the imperial regime’s accelerating decline, NOT the military side of things so much time is generally wasted arguing over.
In a nutshell, considering the Empire with a critical mind, citizens of the world these days are no more fearful, let alone the least impressed by what they see and hear. Today, that predicament ought to be, I reckon, the greatest source of imperial geopolitical worries.
ALERTE INFO – Emmanuel #Macron a dit à Vladimir #Poutine que la France est prête à “défendre l’intégrité territoriale” de l’#Ukraine. (AFP)
Macron told Putin France will defend Ukraine territorial integrity.
And then Moscow?
This is where leads the ‘no action- no retaliation’ policy since 2014.
NATO asking Putin today to abandon his support to DPR/LPR.
Same demand coming from Germany after non stop US(Blinken) blackmail.
Only good news, Aeroflot would not be sanctionned(tbc).
RT France journos arrested by Polish Junta(now liberated after 9 hours in jail).
This all ‘migrants’ crisis looks even more as a ‘casus belli pretext’ (false flag).
Baltics asking to expell RF from all international organizations.
More sanctions coming for Blr/Rus.
US will expell 55 more Rus diplomats.
“Emmanuel #Macron a dit à Vladimir #Poutine que la France est prête à “défendre l’intégrité territoriale” de l’#Ukraine. (AFP)”? — Macron told Putin France will defend Ukraine territorial integrity?
That means president Putin must then knock out Macron the way he once did Sarkozy!…
La rencontre musclée entre V. Poutine et N. Sarkozy — “The muscular meeting between V. Putin and N. Sarkozy”
Macron’s message to Putin is more scary than it appears at first. Here, I fear that the tacit meaning of ’France’ amounts to BHL. This creature could well prove too much even for Putin.
As an aside, it was most fascinating to see what actually took place right before Sarkozy’s gaffe at the press conference. Even the news anchors were interpreting it as ’vodka diplomacy’ 😄
Thanks for your kind reply, Nussiminen.
I fear neither BHL, nor, least of all, little M. — President Putin can handle many such creatures simultaneously…
All my money on Putin! 😉
Je vous dis seulement ceci: Wow
Les merdias sont bien épouvantables comme la détermination féroce de l’Occident dont ceux-ci racontent constamment, mdr.
On a more serious note: Orlov’s piece is one of the very best to have been published on this forum. Wit, perspicacity, and humour permeate the entire text. Hats off!
One of the most intelligent mind when it comes to geo politics. Mr. Orlov, its a pleasure reading your work. God bless you.
“…in recent decades the Russians have managed to claw their way back to a more balanced understanding of their own history and a greater awareness of the multiple atrocities perpetuated by those who would criticize them.”
in other words they inoculated themselves against psychopaths and their onslaught.
they are masters of turning their victims goodness/ qualities against them – once you learn to stop that – they become much less powerful and tend to move to easier victims…like Poles, Brits, Germans…
The migrants false flag is only about NS2.Now both Poland and Ukraine(not even a EU member) will decide and give the green light to NS2 or not.Just blackmail. Poland + ukraine wants Eu money to let NS2 go ahead(for the compensation of the coming 4 billions yearly loss).Germany: 0 Poland/baltics/ukrainistan: 3 Well done Angela an own goal against your country.What do the NSA have as kompromats against Macron, Merkel, Maas, le Drian, Von der leyen, michel etc??Sexual scandals, corruption, fiscal evasion files? Easy for the US to blackmail these idiots forever. This crisis is over, they got what they wanted and unfortunately. Removed. Mod.
“several vaccines, the most popular of which has been proven safe and effective and has been turned into a major profit center by being exported to 71 countries and earning Russia more export revenue than arms exports”
Do you have link, where I could see that?
War–or the perpetual threat of war–is the only thing that holds the American Empire together as an entity.
Without it, the “United” States of America as a nation will unravel like the US war machine did in Afghanistan.
That is why the Americans are increasingly foaming at the mouth with their anti-Russian or anti-Chinese propaganda.
In their essence, the Americans are a war criminal empire, which has been at war for the vast majority of the USA’s bloodstained history since 1776.
But America tries to hide its murderous nature behind Hollywood-style delusions that it is a Beacon of Liberty and Shining City on a Hill–which is perpetually being “threatened” by Evil Doers Who Hate Our Freedoms!
The Americans simply cannot bear to face the truth that wars of aggression and global mass murder–disguised as a crusade for “Freedom and Democracy”–are the only things that really unite the United Sociopaths of America.
Only 15 Years of Peace In The History of the United States of America
”…. The US no longer has the ability to make new nuclear charges, having lost the recipe for making the high explosive needed to make them detonate….”
Is this really the case???
Yes. They also lost the ability to make new plutonium. All they can do is melt down, recast and re-machine existing bombs, which is something that has to be done periodically, producing fewer and fewer bombs after each cycle. The original bomb-makers are all dead or retired and their replacements have no idea how it’s done.
With all due respect, I must confess that I find it somewhat incredible that the US has forgotten its physics and the nuclear and other technologies. It may be that the defense firms drag their feet to sop up more taxpayer dollars but the theory of outright amnesia is not very convincing. So when you say “lost the ability” what exactly do you mean? Perhaps you will address this topic in detail in some future article with perhaps a brief reply for now.
With thanks from a regular reader of yours
It could have been a conversation that went like this, did you just disappear my secrets?
lol that last statement ‘their replacements have no idea how it’s done.’ reminds me of a conversation I had with one of our IT specialists about some banks who still have old, well ancient actually by today’s standards, vaults and such and pay a huge premium to keep and find Technologists who still understand the old ways and the pickings are growing painfully slim. We are truly living in a world that is changing so rapidly that like one guy said about cell phones once you have a cell phone you always have to have a cell phone. You can never go backwards to analog and such you just can’t. The infrastructure for it has gone and no one can or would be able to resurrect it if something drastic were to happen to our way of life today. How acute this must be for the military and its planners one can only imagine.
The question must be asked as to why the fairy tale about the “ pandemic “ is being sung by all 3 sides from the same hymn sheet if they are mortal foes .Rather curious to say the least !
There may be more to the Tripartite than we imagine…more pro than implosive-inside out
Here’s a quick answer: about covid, both Russia and China are preparing to fight off present and future US biowarfare attacks while the USanians are simply doing what they do best, which is to use any excuse to fight among themselves, accelerating toward their timely demise.
Interesting but ultimately an incomplete (and therefore not useful) overview.
Incomplete because there is no mention of the US economic stranglehold over international trade including:
1) The petrodollar
2) the US dollar as most used trade currency
3) The US dollar as central bank reserve
4) International institutions either directly controlled or with US veto power: IMF, World Bank, WTO etc
It is these institutions which enable the US to spend more defense dollars than any 5 or 10 other nations, and it is this economic depth which allows the US to fight and lose over and over again.
There does seem to be an assumption however, in that the ideologues in charge in the “indispensable” State are not suicidal. It’s obvious that ideology leads to or creates delusions, and delusional persons do really stupid stuff. They may not intend suicide, but they’re headed that way. Rather like a kid on PCP walking down the highway while imagining he’s at the bar.
Withal, I applaud the essay.
Even though there are elements within the US military, intelligence and administrative circles that share the author’s insights, those voices are marginalized and ignored. The sad reality is that the overwhelming majority of the American establishment, political elite and ruling oligarchs believe their own rhetoric, believe the unmatched capabilities of their weapons systems, and believe the unquestioned moral, physical and intellectual superiority of their tight little, self-isolated, deluded community of the best of the best of the best with Harvard degrees, Goldman Sachs resumes, 24-hour fitness club memberships, and a vast never ending library of memoirs and how to books from previous generation luminaries.
The good news is that they may never attack China or Russia.
Not because of logic, reason or even fear (which requires a certain degree of awareness)
No. Because the primary threat to the Oligarchs and their Washington/New York/Los Angeles lackeys is the American people. Therefore the primary focus of hybrid warfare will be directed against their own citizens (the remainder will be directed against the world for FUN and PROFIT). Wokeism. Viruses. Vaccines. Sexual Preferences. Drugs of Choice. 24/7 Propaganda. Color revolutions. Fiction versus Education. Pseudo-science versus science. Real dollar depreciation. Manufactured short term targeted price inflation/shortages. Real Shortages. Never ending mini-wars. Never ending celebrities, boy-band robots, tech giant icons, and important political hacks all observed and digested through a haze of fruit flavored nicotine, alcohol, cannabis, methamphetamine, MDMA, heroin, hallucinogens and doctor proscribed candy.
75 years of post world war II lies have resulted in a stunted, fearful, self-absorbed and selfish stock with limited skills, limited knowledge but overwhelming arrogance that is prone to violence.
The City of London/British divide and conquer strategy brought to a neighborhood near you.
Who needs the 4th of July when the fireworks are now everyday. Slow motion national suicide one lost patriot at a time.