by Rostislav Ishchenko for Actual Comment
Translated by Ollie Richardson & Angelina Siard
Russia keeps its most powerful grouping of troops in the western direction. Just according to official figures the equivalent of ten divisions under the control of three army HQs – not counting the grouping in Crimea, airborne divisions and forces of special operations, and also two (Baltic and Black Sea) fleets, the Caspian flotilla, the revived Mediterranean squadron, and the grouping in Syria – is concentrated in the space from the Caucasus to the Baltics. I think that I wouldn’t be mistaken if I said that over half of the fighting capacity of Russia is concentrated in the Western strategic direction. And the Ministry of Defence continues at a fast pace to increase forces in this direction. At the same time it is necessary to take into account that in recent years the Russian army gained the highest mobility, i.e., the grouping can be quickly additionally strengthened by transferring forces and means from other regions.
It is clear that this happens not because Sergey Shoigu decided to play with toy soldiers and not because Dmitry Medvedev has to spend budget money, and especially not because Vladimir Putin, showing external peacefulness, secretly plans bad things. The deployment of such a grouping of troops that is especially fully completed during war-time, as well as supplying them with the latest weapons systems and constructing modern military camps and training grounds from scratch, is an extremely expensive luxury for a country that is under sanctions and its economy showed only the first signs of growth and can be easily brought down back — to stagnation. Respectively, if such expensive actions are made, then it means that from this side Russia feels real military danger.
But what is this danger?
Our “dear partners” don’t strongly exaggerate when they claim that neither any European NATO army taken by itself, nor all of them taken together are able to resist the Armed Forces of Russia. It is also not a problem to prevent, with the help of the Air Force and the fleet, the transfer of troops from the US by closing, during a special period, access for convoys to European Atlantic ports. The US isn’t able to deploy in Europe a contingent much bigger than the existing one. And this isn’t even because it is expensive – some countries are ready to pay extra for the deployment of the American troops on their territory, but because of the difficulties in supplying a large group (and without a supply of everything necessary, the army is non-operational).
In general, the existing fighting potential concentrated by Russia in the western direction is enough in order to reach not just Kiev and Lvov, and even not just Warsaw, but even the Atlantic. Even if it isn’t in a week but in 2-3 months, and not without problems and losses.
So why is its further strengthening and improvement happening? After all, by 2025-2030, having not increased in number much, the Russian group in the West must increase its potential two-fold (and perhaps even more) only due to the completion of rearmament and the mastering of new control systems and the principles of conducting combat operations. And here we aren’t even taking into account the nuclear arsenal, which makes any attack on Russia suicidal.
Let’s start with smaller things that are closer to home. Recently Mikhail Denisenko – calling himself the Patriarch of Kiev and all Rus-Ukraine – stated that the expected reception from Constantinople of Tomos of Autocephaly will allow the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate not just to sharply increase its numbers at the expense of parishioners of Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, but will make it “the only lawful Ukrainian church”. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, in his opinion, will be forcibly renamed into the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine. The most symbolic temples and monasteries – in particular, the Kiev-Pechersk and Pochaevskaya Lavras – will have to be expropriated from it.
It is clear that Denisenko won’t be able to solve this problem without violence. But violence means the start in Ukraine of a religious civil war. Groups of militants that will have to put the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate into a new framework now train themselves using Romanis, but are already ready to expand the area of terror to other ethnic minorities and to the Russian national majority, and also to use their acquired skills in the race for power among the Ukrainian clans.
I want to highlight that Denisenko himself, like most acting Ukrainian politicians and especially radical nationalist militants, can’t refuse terror, which provides the monopoly on power. They committed too many crimes in order to simply find themselves in opposition due to a loss of power. They risk going to prison, but taking into account that the international tribunals for war crimes more often than not use punishments that aren’t provided by national codes, so then it is possible that it can be the death penalty.
It must be kept in mind that Denisenko, irrespective of receiving Tomos, will realise his program of capturing absolute power in Ukrainian Orthodoxy. The legalisation of his public organisation [the unrecognised Kiev Patriarchate – ed] by the Constantinople patriarchy, the recognition of it as the canonical church would give him additional benefits, but time is limited — Denisenko, and especially his militants, can’t wait infinitely. It is necessary to solve this issue before the termination of the next electoral cycle in Ukraine, which, by the way, most likely can end ahead of schedule and without elections in general. While the conflicting political camps (Poroshenko, on the one hand, and his political opponents who formed an oligarchical anti-Poroshenko consensus on the other hand) are busy fighting each other and need support, the window of opportunity for a forceful solution to the question with church buildings and status starts to open. If there is a delay, politicians, having solved their problems, can be much less inclined to look through their fingers at the forceful actions of Denisenko’s “patriarchate”.
As the question concerning power in Ukraine can be solved without waiting for elections, in the summer-winter of the current year Denisenko should also hurry and meet this deadline.
I.e., a multilayered conflict can appear in Ukraine, when the intra-Kiev civil conflict will be superimposed on civil war between Kiev and Donbass, and also religious war will start to flare up on top of all of this.
In this situation neither Russia, nor the western neighbors of Kiev from the EU can remain on the sidelines. However, the European Union is already going through a rough patch – contradictions between the poor South and the rich North constantly amplify, the contradictions between the pro-American East and the pro-European West of Europe are superimposed on this. In every individual state of the EU the conflict between nationalists, who demand an urgent restoration of relations with Russia, and globalists, who want to continue the confrontational policy of sanctions, smoulders and gradually inflames. The intervention of some EU members in the Ukrainian crisis can lead to an aggravation of all these contradictions to the limit and raise the question already not about the unity of the West, which was buried by Trump during the last G7 summit, but about the unity of the European Union itself and about the stability of separate national regimes of European countries.
Having become, willingly or unwillingly, the initiator and the catalyst of the disintegration of Ukraine, Europe risks repeating its fate during the next cycle of history, having caught an incurable infection from the corpse of Ukrainian statehood. Both Russia and the US have interests in Europe that are too serious in order to let matters drift, therefore intervention and the collision of interests will also be inevitable.
At the same time it should be kept in mind that not only in Ukraine, but also in the majority of European countries the acting political elites in a similar kind of crisis situation can’t refuse power without having exposed their lives and freedom to the most serious risk. And here we absolutely don’t even take into account the factor of foreign culture (Afro-Asian) migration, which will certainly significantly contribute to the destabilisation of both certain states and the European system in general.
We are in a situation when the world that is habitual to us can fall like a house of cards across all the space from the Atlantic to the Narva and Don. Any attempt to stabilise the situation at an early stage of the crisis before the EU has finally turned into Somalia, Afghanistan, or Ukraine will demand from Russia to immediately extend a hand to Germany as the economic and political center of Europe, and without involving Germany’s potential the fight against the European crisis will unambiguously turn into a Sisyphean task.
Germany is a weak country militarily, and its importance in controlling Europe is understood not only in Russia, but also in the US, which, should the European crisis start, will become an objective opponent of Moscow in the fight for the right to define the future of the continent. I.e., it is necessary for Russia to breakthrough and provide a corridor to Germany from the flanks. At this time there must be enough reserves should there be a need to support intermediary efforts aimed at preserving Germano-French unity. There will be a need to act quickly, anticipating the geopolitical opponent in three strategic directions at once (the main one: the Western direction and the accompanying Southwestern and Northwestern flanks). The number and qualitative predominance of the grouping must ensure, first of all, the suppression of any resistance of illegal and semi-legal formations. Secondly, it must nip in the bud any thoughts about possible official resistance inside all state structures. And, lastly, is mustn’t allow the US to involve in the conflict the troops that are already placed in Europe, because of the senselessness of such an action.
In this case it is not about aggression, but about ensuring the radical interests of both Russia and the European Union, preventing Europe from slipping into a long bloody crisis that destroys the economy and the population in the huge once prospering territories. Moreover, the existence and increasing weight of this grouping serves as a good argument forcing any provokers to think three times before realising their criminal plans.
And nevertheless we can’t but take into account that a considerable part of the European elite dirtied itself by committing crimes (both war crimes and crimes against humanity). Being people who easily go back on their word, they are capable of not believing any security guarantees and making an attempt to resist up to the end. That’s why the grouping must not only look menacing, but it must be really capable of achieving objectives in the shortest possible time. The effectiveness and also low resource intensity of any operation directly depends on its brevity. The shorter the blitzkrieg is, the more effective it is, and the lower the losses and expenses are. The best blitzkrieg is the one that didn’t take place, when everything was decided only by the projection of force.
The demonstration of force and the quiet readiness to use it acts in our case as the best diplomatic argument. But it is necessary to understand that if in Germany or the US this argument is clear to all and was properly evaluated long ago, then for example, in Ukraine, owing to the progressing marginalisation of both society and the political class, there isn’t even anyone to evaluate it. Owing to the general geopolitical situation that developed around this country, which the West, by its actions, artificially attached key importance to, it is precisely Kiev where the launch button for an all-European conflict is, and, by all accounts, within the framework of existing political and diplomatic possibilities it is unlikely that it will be possible to peacefully deactivate this charge.
There is a whole layer of information I never even thought about. Brilliant! Thank you very much
This article needs to be highly qualified with a number of relevant facts and considerations:-
NATO military personnel: 3,500,000.
Russian military personnel: 770,000.
US military expenditure for the coming year (real figure): $1,136 billion, well over 20x Russian military expenditure. That doesn’t take into account all of Washington’s satraps, like the UK, which has a larger military budget than Russia.
Russia is in a far worse position overall than in 1941:-
In 1941, Russia faced just Germany, which was already heavily committed against Britain. Now Germany is just one of Washington’s many satellites.
In 1941, Russia had great strategic depth. Now hostile forces are camped out all along Russia’s borders, with forces on the doorstep of St. Petersburg.
In 1941, Russia had a clear numerical superiority in all areas, manpower, tanks, artillery, aircraft. This no longer applies.
In 1941, Russia was a closed book to enemy intelligence. There was no Russian fifth column. There is now a treasonous and subversive faction in Russia, openly funded and orchestrated from Washington, with foreign media ownership.
In 1941, there was no extensive campaign of economic and propaganda warfare of long duration in place. This has now completely changed.
All this needs to be taken into consideration.
Conversely, 3.5M Nato manpower vs 0.77M Russian manpower isn’t that relevant. Qualitatively, the Russian armed forces superior in the metrics that matter; logistics, tactics, communication, capability, and most importantly e-war systems.
Nato for one doesn’t have a cohesive unified command structure and unified tactical training regime, nor does Nato have the ability to deploy a force capable of competing with Russia forces with required pace/speed. IMO a Nato conventional intervention on or near Russia territory would face categorical defeat with a matter of days.
US and Nato states vs Russian military expenditure irrelevant. US/Nato MIC equipment is hugely overpriced, and represents rich revenue streams of western oligarchs – point is, huge budgets and high equipment costs doesn’t translate into qualitative superiority.
You do make a fair point with regard to the 5th column existing within Russia’s elite. This is the Russian Federation’s biggest risk in my opinion.
– Excessive Nato/US military expenditure is irrelevant; cost effectiveness, capability, reliability, and efficiency is what matters.
– Russian military technology is largely superior to US/Nato technology – especially with regard to electronic warfare + integrated battlespace information management
– Russian command structure, morale, training, and tactics are superior to US/Nato
– Nato/US lack the ability to deploy at pace required to compete with Russian forces near her borders
– The one advantage the empire has is it’s 5th column inside the Russian elite
If Russia goes into action, the Fifth Column will be put in house arrest or sent on vacation to Siberia to count trees. Most will be fleeing if they can.
The point is that Russian military doctrine is based on defense, something that NATO does not wish to publicize, presenting Russia as a “threat”. Russia has more than enough men and high tech for defense. Two years ago a Pentagon general openly stated that in a conventional war NATO could not defeat the Russian military. In fact, the opposite would happen.
This is not 1941. Numbers of personnel do not tell the real story. The Bundeswehr is a shadow of its former self after decades of neglect and budget cuts. It is reported that most of its tanks are “not fit for combat” due to needed repairs and lack of spare parts. What combat experience the Germans have was obtained in Afghanistan and the lessons learned there are not likely to be relevant to a European battlefield against the Russian Army. The entire Luftwaffe can only muster a handful of modern aircraft fit for combat. The German navy is in even worse shape, being unable to field a single combat ready submarine!
But perhaps more importantly, this is not the Germany of 1941. Rather than a strongly nationalistic and militarized society, the population of today’s Germany is largely anti-war, particularly when it comes to a conflict with Russia. There is a very real possibility that, regardless of the exhortations of their puppet leaders, the German people will just refuse to participate in any war with Russia.
The French may be in slightly better shape militarily, but it is not a given that the French government will go to war with Russia and the French public is even less inclined to support such a war. As for the rest of NATO, they are completely and totally irrelevant militarily speaking, save the USA.
This. And thanks to the good heavens for that. Short of being invaded, 99% of Germans would *never* think of attempting yet another attack on Russia. Very few Germans these days would be willing to “die for Merkel”, and *definitely* none would be ready to die for Trump. I don’t know a whole lot of Russians, but I have an inkling that things might be different over there, if only because Putin makes for a more respectable leadership figure.
Germans these days are no longer interested in “blood and honor” or acquiring “lebensraum” in the east. They worry about their pension funds, separating their trash correctly, and getting the most out of the solar panels on their roof. And this is a very good thing.
Yes, we do have a few Neonazi and/or football hooligan nutcases as well in Germany, but for the most part they are happy to bully and occasionally beat up a helpless Muslim immigrant or a long-haired “lefty” in a back alley at night. Absolutely disgusting if you ask me, and you might even some of these people to actually be happy to fight Russians, but I don’t see any of these jerks crawling through the mud near Stalingrad. They like to beat up helpless victims, not well-armed defenders.
You are playing with numbers, a dangerous thing to do. You mentioned that NATO has 3.500.000 men. How many of them are combat troops and where are they located ? Perhaps spread out all over the world ? You mentioned the US military expenditure of 1.1 trillion dollars. And where does all that money go ? Paying US corporations for absurdly overpriced weapons ? Maintaining 700 combat bases and 300 supply bases outside the US ? How much do they cost to maintain ? How much of that money is used for wages and pensions ? Look at the latest Russian high tech. Does the US has something like that ? US combat planes better than the Russian ?
Yes, the Russian military budget is smaller than the US. However, the Russian Military Industrial Complex is in Government hands while the US is in private hands. This means the Russian military gets more for less money spent while the American military gets less for more money spent. The corruption in the US Military Industrial Complex is well known. Finally, you mentioned that the Russian military has 770.000 men. You forgot to include the reserves.
Finally, forget about American allies in Europe. In case of a conventional war against Russia, the US could, perhaps, count on the UK and, perhaps, on Poland. Since I live in Europe I can assure you that you will not find any enthusiasm for war against Russia. Europe fought two world wars on it’s territory and there is no mood for World War Three, something that Washington and Wall Street are having trouble understanding. Trump better disband NATO, as it’s existence is pointless. It’s a different matter, of course, if Trump wants to use NATO to prevent Europe, especially Germany, from joining the Russian-Chinese economic camp, which in the end will be inevitable.
Yes, it’s not 1941. Now Russia has this ‘never again on our own territory’ concept central in its’ planning and operations. Russia: aerospace/missile superpower. Russia doesn’t have to try to control things by boots on the ground n Europe, and so man power is not the dominant card.
Russia has 2-3 million reserve, NATO has 0 reserve, Russia overall has better missiles, tanks, aircrafts and lots of nukes next to the doorstep of NATO.
Worse than 1941? Nope, more like 1939.
You need far more troops (several orders of magnitude more) to attack than to defend. I don’t know the exact ratio. Perhaps a military person can provide it?
Also, if Russia ever needed troops, wouldn’t they be able to count on their Chinese ally?
They aren’t military allies and probably never will be.
If Russia needed troops, they would be done for.
Their military is built for very rapid, surprising movement of forces on interior lines of logistics and defenses, using the landmass and its characteristics in various topographies.
Russia would go to tactical nukes and then theater-sized strategic nukes at that point.
By the way, Serbian Girl, congratulations on the World Cup Serbian victory in the first round.
One defender to every ten attackers………..as per mid 70’s military doctrine.
If this military doctrine is still applicable, with NATO troops at 3.5 M and Russian troops at 770K, then NATO is way short for Barbarossa 2.0
Truly breath-taking perspective, like many things, most forcefully by the ringing of the truthfulness a free mind can feel from it (after years of the hollow perception management “news” under the auspiciousness of the empire.
In comparison to the empire’s ponzie scheme, fiat currency accounting “situational IQ superiority, the actual physical economy in Russia is very strong, the only thing the movers and shakers of the empire excel at is fleecing the little people, who are being squeezed to death by the … bankers et al.
The crash is coming soon for the empire; the longer Russia can stall out the situation in the Ukraine, diffuse, and promote reasoned knowledge of the likely outcomes, and otherwise promote all-but armed aggression, the better it will be for everybody.
The religious machinations, the full significance and intrigue a little beyond my understanding, but aligns very strongly to 2500 year old tactics of the enemies of humanity, many, many times. This fog further convolutes the situation, in such quagmires the enemy of humanity plies its machinations.
The situation is much like the early days of 1914, but this time the Russian military force is much, much comparatively stronger and under an order of magnitude of better leadership in all aspects of the executive management of the system of governance.
The empire is in death-spasms, and is thus in a very dangerous state, to the citizens and to everybody else.
The painful truthfulness of this makes me recognize my own denial reflex (however much I’ve worked on purging it!)
But the European Union is in the state of incapability to make decisions, and will remain so as the parasite and other neurotically narcissistic financial elite factions cling to power, stuffing as many under water to prop them up from drowning, as they can; they’ll be extremely stubborn in clinging to their exceptionality; we know by recent history that they will kill every last person to support their claim to specialness and extraness.
See comment to Saker article Can the EU become a partner for Russia http://thesaker.is/can-the-eu-become-a-partner-for-russia/#comment-532255
So, once again, timing is critical.
And again, all humanity is lucky, due to the competence of the Russian leadership.
From under the stiletto heal of the empire, in the trenches, thanks for the perspective.
Basically, the shit and the fan are operational.
This isn’t a war against NATO.
It is a rescue operation.
If you read military histories, you will learn that Operations are Russian strong suite. No one has been better at them for 75 years or more.
Shoigu and Putin and the General Staff have this planned for years, exercised for several years, almost continuously, and are ready for action.
A few phone calls and NATO and the US will stand down.
Ishchenko is always superb in his analysis. This prediction of a possible Operation Blitzkrieg is splendid news for long-suffering Donbass.
Today, there was a report in China news sources of President Putin and President Xi speaking on the phone, a report remarkable for the timing. China is in a tit-for-tat trade war with tariffs, US is monkeying around with EU with tariffs, and the EU is China’s biggest trading partner. Russia ready to rescue Europe from its own problems is carrying water for China. Thus, that phone call was more than congratulations for the World Cup victory. Strategies were discussed.
Everything is plausible, every scenario. All made possible by the mental cases in Kiev and their sponsors in the US State Dept and EU.
Greeting to all.
Ishchenko Is observing processes from such an interesting angle. It is quite possible that everything will play out the way he covered in this article.
One thing I don’t understand is why Russia always has to put down fires someone else stokes.
Good point! I suppose one can’t choose their neighbors, one can only build a good way of dealing with them.
See my comment yesterday: http://thesaker.is/can-the-eu-become-a-partner-for-russia/#comment-532198.
Yes, Trump buried the unity of the West “during the last G7 summit,” which was in all likelihood the last G7 summit. And as of today we learn that Trump told that last summit that Crimea is Russia.
https://de.sputniknews.com/kommentare/20180615321179764-trump-krim-gipfel-g-sieben/. And he told Macron that he must know about counter-terrorism: “”You must know about this Emmanuel because all the terrorists are in Paris,” which is, of course, true because it is part and parcel of France’s role in colonial NATO. And we know that Poroshenko has to beg for an audience with Trump and gets 10 minutes. Poroshenko’s diplomats don’t get into the White House even through the janitors’ entrance. And Trump removed the “nuclear umbrella” over Euro-NATO members so the Ukraine cannot even function as a trip-wire. And Ishchenko is entirely correct concerning the insights of the ”dear partners” concerning the military balance for forces.
And Ukraine is cooking: “…the world that is habitual to us can fall like a house of cards across all the space from the Atlantic to the Narva and Don.”
“Any attempt to stabilise the situation at an early stage of the crisis before the EU has finally turned into Somalia, Afghanistan, or Ukraine will demand from Russia to immediately extend a hand to Germany as the economic and political center of Europe, and without involving Germany’s potential the fight against the European crisis will unambiguously turn into a Sisyphean task, “ but Ishchenko tempers or qualifies this with “At this time there must be enough reserves should there be a need to support intermediary efforts aimed at preserving Germano-French unity.”
And that is precisely the point: as I said yesterday, Konrad Adenauer needed Charles De Gaulle. The Russian President is obviously signaling that he knows the gambit and will play it. But he is not relying on it: the needed military contingency planning is fixed, or how would Trump put it? Locked and cocked?
The hand is already extended to the Franco-German combination, strategically in the most crucial way – as I indicated yesterday—and, of course, economically. Some small detail and anecdotally: BWM is setting up a plant in Kaliningrad, and has no complaints – as other German companies do – about fulfilling the Russian localization requirements. And where is BMW in Germany? In Bavaria, of course. And it is from Bavaria that the legal-political challenge to Merkel’s refugee policies are now escalating. Refugee policy is only the issue of opportunity and convenience. The challenge is far broader and deeper. Germany seen from the outside may look like the political and economic center of Europe, but in reality the Merkelists have deindustrialized Germany. Germany needs Russia to save its industry, to return to producing real capital equipment instead of luxury consumer goods for the rich, wherever they happen to live and survive. The political face of the challenge to Merkel’s energy policies is likewise in Bavaria. It was the Bavarians who blocked the formation of the “Jamaica” coalition with the Atlanticist, viciously Rsussophobic and energy-policy delusional Green party.
“Germany is a weak country militarily, and its importance in controlling Europe is understood not only in Russia, but also in the US, which, should the European crisis start, will become an objective opponent of Moscow in the fight for the right to define the future of the continent.” – I do not see “the US” becoming inevitably or mechanically an “objective opponent of Moscow in the fight for the right to define the future of the continent.” But this is certainly how the Atlantic Council, German Marshall Fund, Carnegie Foundation and Chatham House read the situation, and since they read it that way, they fully understand what Ishchenko says. Nevertheless, in practical, operational terms, it is also wrong to say that Moscow will be fighting the US “for the right to define the future of the continent.” The future of the continent will be decided by the Europeans. That fight is going on now, it is not waiting for their Ukrainian illiterates and autists to blow their last fuses.
Points to factor in:
– Russian-NATO “deconfliction” talk, possible agreement on Baltic aircraft procedures.
– Dunford-Gerasimov meeting in Finland; Finland involved in setting up Baltic deconfliction.
“The best blitzkrieg is the one that didn’t take place, when everything was decided only by the projection of force.
“The demonstration of force and the quiet readiness to use it acts in our case as the best diplomatic argument. But it is necessary to understand that if in Germany or the US this argument is clear to all and was properly evaluated long ago, then for example, in Ukraine, owing to the progressing marginalisation of both society and the political class, there isn’t even anyone to evaluate it.” – Precisely correct.
When you say Germany needs Russia to save its industry, maybe in isolation, but how does this reconcile with Russia’s relationship with China? Surely China’s manufacturing prowess is a disincentive for Germany to join the Eurasian alliance?
This is one of the best (if not the best) analyses of the current European situation I have yet read. Many many thanks to the translators for this. I can offer the observation that, here in Northern Italy where I am currently visiting, there is no hint of an analysis like this in any public opinion nor in any media. The populace is completely ignorant of the magnitude of the events now unfolding.
Thank you for translating Ishchenko…we haven’t heard from him for awhile. He was especially incisive during the beginning of the Donbass conflict.
UK navy in very poor shape…problems with engines
” A number of Britain’s top-notch warships ended up spending more time docked than at sea due to their temperature-sensitive engines.
The six Type 45 guided missile destroyers which comprise “the backbone of the Royal Navy” spent the majority of 2017 at the dock awaiting an expensive refit, which is only expected to begin in 2020, The Daily Mail reports.
“HMS Dragon spent 309 days in Portsmouth last year, followed by HMS Daring with 232 days and HMS Diamond with 203. HMS Duncan spent the most time at sea, but was still in dock for 197 days. From January to March this year, HMS Daring, HMS Dauntless and HMS Defender have not left port,” the newspaper stated.
The problem reportedly lies with the destroyers’ engines, manufactured by Rolls-Royce, which turned out to be prone to failure in warm climes, resulting in ships temporarily losing propulsion and power generation.
Rolls-Royce reportedly insists that the British Ministry of Defense did not inform the company about the fact that the destroyers would have to operate in warm waters for prolonged periods of time, so the ships’ engines simply weren’t designed to operate in the heat.
The ministry intends to rectify this issue by fitting the vessels with extra diesel generators, with the installation procedure possibly requiring work crews to cut giant holes in the ships’ hulls, The Daily Mail adds.
Earlier in May, UK Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson called upon the British government to increase funding for the Royal Navy’s modernization in order to counter the alleged “Russian threat.” ”
Two points…installing an engine not fit for warm water…cos they did not know…”.Russian threat” surely involves only cold waters so they should be ok….!Doh…..
Kinda reminds me of the engine malfunction on the USN’s billion dollar Zumwalt destroyer that required it to be towed from the Panama Canal all the way up to San Diego! Maybe they should have equipped the bloody thing with oars? —-“row, row, row your boat”…..I’m sure this has the Russians shaking in their boots. “Stealth” destroyer, why sure, the photo showed a crowd of people on the beach all pointing at the thing. I guess They failed to collectively imagine its invisibility, that’s it. You can’t make this stuff up! **** Now, in the article where it talked about a religious civil war, this strategy may well succeed in the Ukraine where it apparently failed in Syria, where Muslims and Christians were fighting side by side against the invaders. Good Lord, help the people of the Ukraine.
I could imagine that a religious Orthodox civil war could mean many catholics deciding to emigrate to Poland and Polish authorities extending their areas of concern and perhaps operation perhaps police and military to protect western ukraine…this might then cause sufficient concern later for EU political action to offer support for refugees and maybe offer police and military support to assist Poland in west Ukraine.Maybe NATO would stick their toes in with forces using this situation as an excuse but really signifying their support for an at the moment non NATO member trying to be one(probably never to be an EU member in these circumstance))…offering further military support against “russian agression” of Russian culture people protecting their Orthodox religion.Maybe some refugees decide a quieter life is preferable in Baltic countries.
I could imagine that more Russian Orthodox Ukrainian citizens would decide enough is enough forseeing even further strife and become refugees going to Russia and Crimea (Donbass being too risky?) due to the values of close family concerns and relationships as they look after each other….Russia would use their
mobile forces to protect the countries boundaries in case of any false flags or provocations but might set up in Ukraine as a first response to protect refugees,some kind of local protectorates and or humanitarian corridors for refugees…hoping or at least saying will they get some kind of deconfliction process in operation. Whether this might goad Ukraine to commit foolish acts against remaining Orthodox persons and target them could be of thought…whether Russia might then respond in a stronger way to protect them which might influence or change Minsk it…as surely freedom of religion is a European value that the EU might be forced to recognise and enforce Minsk…or something stronger…Putting Poroshenko and associates in the hotseat despite his recent phone conversation with Putin.
Putin is still supporting UN in some way to monitor the current stalemate over border areas Ukraine and Donbass to keep the sides separate….if such civil strife seriously engulfed Ukraine I think Russia would at least ask UN to step in in conjunction with RF forces….but would act whilst UN was deliberating.
Whether such events might be of sufficient impetus for peoples in eastern and north eastern Ukraine to reinvigorate once again past ideas of the Krivoy Rog …..and join up with Donbass….. I cannot imagine Russia doing more in the Ukraine with any forces unless Ukraine forces really let all hell loose. Nato forces seem to be closely available at or via Odessa to move north or extend some kind of protection cover northwards but cannot imagine them moving to far east adjacent to Donbass as Russia would treat this a threat to Donbass and Crimea.
UNSC would have to agree unanimously. That would never happen, the UN + Russia.
The last thing the RF MOD would want is UN troops from a dozen nations in the way.
You bring in UN when there is little chance of war or the war is over.
I’ve been suggesting for some time that Russia needs to deal with Ukraine on a more permanent basis. In other words, invade Ukraine, wipe out the neo-Nazi battalions, execute the oligarchs, topple the Kiev government, install a puppet regime – then immediately go home. Whatever happens in Ukraine then won’t be militarily important to Russia nor will anyone be able to threaten Donbass for a while.
This would leave things more or less quiet for a few years so Russia can concentrate on other matters.
The US and NATO couldn’t impede this operation due to the long logistical train and short-term time constraints. Russia could complete the Ukraine operation in a matter of a couple weeks, if not 72 hours, long before the US or NATO could react effectively. Since Ukraine isn’t even part of NATO, NATO would be legally tied up for weeks if not months, with extreme reluctance to go to Ukraine’s aid between Germany and France, let alone having the ability to actually impede a Russian advance in a foreign country. Only the US could react with air and sea power and that would risk WWIII, which the US will not do for Ukraine.
Probably Russia will wait till after the World Cup!
Question for Saker or Saker community: range/engagement distance comparison of Russian vs NATO weapons systems. From what I’ve previously understood about various Russian/Soviet weapons systems, Russian designers have for 70 years or more gone for greater engagement distances than NATO counterparts. That is, Russians begin engaging before NATO equivalents are capable. This has obvious implications.
There are several examples of this, one recent:
‘…the main armament will be a 57-mm. gun already used by the Russian Navy. Its rate of fire is 300 rounds per minute, its range — 16 km., and its altitude — over 4 km. The projectile can penetrate armor over 100 mm. thick. Because the firing range of its machine gun and automatic grenade launcher are 60-140% greater than that of the American Bradley IFVs and Stryker wheeled armored vehicles and anti-tank systems…’
So the question is, Does Saker have an article on this kind of theme of engagement distance design concept?
mark on June 15, 2018 · at 9:35 pm EST/EDT
Russia is in a far worse position overall than in 1941:-
In 1941, Russia faced just Germany, which was already heavily committed against Britain. Now Germany is just one of Washington’s many satellites.
[exceprt from a post by Stavros H on March 04, 2015; it seems like a good reply to that]
But, to come to the point of conversation, after these very obvious “material” reasons behind western enmity towards Russia, is it fair to claim that the “collective western mind” still holds a grudge against Russia for WWII???
My answer is this: ABSOLUTELY YES.
The Red Army’s victory over Euro-Fascism (it was not just Germany that was Nazi back then, it was actually most of Europe, even though the Germans were indeed the protagonists) between 1941 and 1945 fills the arrogant western consciousness with horror and dread. Out of the world’s bloody and brutal history, the Great Patriotic War stands head and shoulders above anything else. It is special not just in the very obvious military sense in that the battles were greater and bloodier than anything before or since, but also in the sense that a relatively poor and backward country that was in ruins just 10 years before, could take on the most sophisticated, most advanced and most brutally savage western army and defeat it. In a sense, WWII, is not just unnerving for westerners for what did happen during it, but also in the sense that what happened before, can happen again in the future for western imperial plans. WWII is also a source of great shame for Euro-cheerleaders. They love to present themselves as uniquely civilized and brilliant, but their conduct during WWII was more barbaric than darkest Africa.
The Anglo-powers are also deeply disturbed by WWII, for one extra reason. They full well realize that they could never have done what they Red Army did during 1941-5. They full well realize that they showed cowardice whenever it came to taking on the Nazis head on. They only attacked when they could massively outnumber the Germans on the ground, and crucially have total air superiority.
And this doesn’t have to do with percentages of the western populations. It’s a matter of degree. The point here being that the Soviet victory of World War II haunts the collective western psyche, so used to superiority and arrogance.
Re the very interesting discussion about US forces capabilities versus Russia…there is another factor to consider:
Russia speaks one language / has one mindset / has one unified operating system.
NATO has many languages…No …english-english is not the only language…there is american-english and english-english competing over the military airwaves…then too, a German speaking english who communicates with a Frenchman speaking english, is going to get some of the information-flow/logic/commands wrong…a perfect example is the joke video circulating on the internet where a German recruit is handed the microphone to listen to marine SOS calls …he hears “help…m sinking”…the German sits back philosophically and replies “Im thinking too” The German-English dialogue is full of “false-friends” which can add immeasurably to difficulties in critical moments.
European NATO countries each have 2000 years of cultural/historical histories which create very different dynamics – so NATO cannot ever guarantee that units of some NATO forces will always be supportive of US interests
NATOs operating systems are only as good as the unifier (the US) can handle it…and motivate it…ask yourselves why Europeans should go to war against other Europeans? The US made North Vietnamese brothers fight against South Vietnamese brothers….the US made North Korean brothers fight against South Korean brothers…East Germans were supposed to fight against West Germans…do you really think the US will not find itself stabbed in the back by the brothers who are sick of the meddling by an outsider?
There there is motivation:
Russian forces fight for Mother Russia…
NATO forces fight for the elites whom they detest, so they need to be bribed to fight……
The Muslims have been brought into Europe to destabilize Europe. The plan was for the Islamists to wipe out most of Germany. According to some links provided in the comments sections of the Saker yonks ago, special underground trains were provisioned across Germany with Muslim prayer rooms (cabled by Israeli companies) to facilitate the movement of Muslim forces, from one conflict zone to another in Germany. In France the plan was the opposite, the armed forces there were to simply enter the no-go areas and wipe out the Islamists.
So the NeoCons definitely plan for Germany’s destruction. Germans are just too efficient to be allowed to exist, even 2 world wars never sorted them out, today they still dominate Europe. But why should Russia save Germany? Only East Germany would be grateful, East Germany is full of Germanized Slavs and then there is this business of Prussia sounding suspiciously like Russia. But West Germany would still carry on as if Russia is the invader even if Russia saves their miserable lives.
In some circles the thinking is to just leave what happens in Europe to Europe, Russia will be fighting Europe one day, whether its against “Christian” NATO Europe or against a Sharia Law Islamist Europe, so in the meantime just leave the Muslims and ‘Christians’ in Europe to kill each other, no hurry.
mark on June 15, 2018 · at 9:35 pm EST/EDT
Russia is in a far worse position overall than in 1941:-
In 1941, Russia faced just Germany, which was already heavily committed against Britain. Now Germany is just one of Washington’s many satellites.
See again from
Stavros H on March 04, 2015 · at 9:34 pm
Keep also in mind, that the Germans were not alone on the Eastern Front. You have to also add the Finns, Hungarians, Italians, Romanians, Croatians and Slovakians. There were also many fascist volunteers from the rest of Europe, like the Francoist Blue Division, fascists from France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavia, Boznia, the Baltic countries etc etc etc. From some of these countries, there were also communists who fought with the USSR, but not in equal numbers. Another extremely crucial aspect of WWII that is often overlooked is that as Germany occupied almost the whole of Europe, they had at their disposal colossal productive resources. Put simply, Nazi Germany threw almost everything that Europe had against the USSR.
Hi, just a slight addendum: It is not just the nationalist wanting reestablish relations and tearing sanctions down. Please do not forget there’s a left wing party and left wingers in europe who are deeply concerned about the situation and eager to orient towards Russia 🇷🇺!
Yes indeed…good point…and this is so perplexing to the Atlanticists who simply cannot “get it” that the extreme-left and the extreme-right today, have common cause…i
In spite of the vilification of the extreme left as “evil-communists” and the extreme-right as “fascists” neither tags apply: Today’s so-called extreme-left are in reality “free-enterprise socialists” and the so-called extreme-right are in reality “free-enterprise nationalists”…
i personally feel good about these trends…you see this all over Europe…the extreme left feeling it is on the same wavelength as the extreme right as they are fighting against an atlanticist centre ground. which has proven to be extremely malevolent and against the interests of the European population as it is American biased..
I can see this in Russia. Putin respects the views of Zhirinovski as well as those of Grudinin…each has a contribution to make as they are fundamentally all nationalists. Few western journalists can understand the reasoning why the Kremlin supports the European ultra right and ultra left at the same time…its perfectly logical to me…
Wonderful and thought provoking article, thank you! And thank you to those commenting as well.