Putin Prepares, For Russia To Win A Nuclear War

How are individual nations doing under the influence of the US Unified Command Structure? also...Firefighters, Military Officers, Journalists, Architects, Religious leaders are all organising to professionally oppose the 'big lie' of the official 9/11 story
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 18454
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

Post by TonyGosling »

Russia feeds off Trump trade war while US corn-belt farmers suffer
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... rs-suffer/

David Millward 17 FEBRUARY 2019

For more than 30 years, Joe Peiffer has worked as a lawyer looking after farmers in Iowa, in the heart of the US corn belt.

He was raised on a farm and during the Eighties was a law clerk in a bankruptcy court during the last major US agriculture crisis.

Now he is watching history repeat itself with a wave of bankruptcies across the farm belt.

The number of Chapter 12 bankruptcies – a mechanism that allows family farms to restructure their debts – surged last year as the country paid the price for overproduction at a time when a rejuvenated Russia supplanted the US as the world’s leading wheat exporter.

Russia has muscled in on markets such as North Africa and the Middle East, which were once the preserve of the US. Thanks to its ability to undercut the US, Moscow is cementing its economic as well as diplomatic presence in the region.

The days of the collective farm and antiquated rusting equipment are long gone. Instead, the country’s farmers are boosting production with the aid of an iconic American company, John Deere, which opened a manufacturing plant in Domodedovo, 28 miles south of Moscow, in 2010.

Not only are American grain farmers battling against Russia’s lower production costs, but they are also falling victim to Donald Trump’s trade war with China, which saw Beijing impose 25pc tariffs on US goods including corn and soya beans.

While arable farming has taken the biggest hit, there is growing concern among meat producers about the rising demand for plant-based substitutes, whose sales increased 22pc to $1.5bn (£1.1bn) last year.

A report last year by the Congressional Research Service – which provides information for members of the Senate and House of Representatives – is pretty depressing reading.

It predicted that net farm income across the country as a whole would be substantially below the 10-year average and 31pc less than the record high of 2013 when it reached $135.6bn.

Farm expenses were forecast to increase by 4.2pc compared with 2017 and farm debt was predicted to hit a new high. In Iowa the picture is grim. In 2013 only four farms in the state sought Chapter 12 protection. By 2017, the latest year for which figures are available, the number had soared to 18.

“It is like, here we go again,” Peiffer says. “In some respects, it is tougher than it was in the Eighties when the price of real estate dropped and farmers could come out of bankruptcy and repay the entire value of their farm through a bankruptcy.

“Today land prices and rents have not dropped and there is really not enough profit raising corn and soybeans, which are the main crops here in Iowa.

“I am seeing a lot of financial stress, with many farmers unable to procure crop input financing, which they need for the 2019 crop to pay for seed, fertiliser, rent, fuel and labour.

“We are finding many banks have decided they are not going to make loans to their existing farm borrowers for 2019 inputs.

“Many cannot get financing and those who can have to go to secondary sources, which are far more expensive. Distressed farmers are paying 12pc interest rather than around 6pc and also having to pay additional fees on top.

“Stressed farmers are having to pay a lot more and that impacts on their ability to make money.”

Elsewhere, the figures are equally stark. An analysis by the Wall Street Journal showed that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, recorded twice as many bankruptcies last year than in 2008.

A separate analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minnesota reported 84 farms filing for Chapter 12 bankruptcy.

“Bankruptcies have been spiking and the reason is because prices are low, and have been low, going on four years,” says Ron Wirtz, the bank’s regional outreach director, who has investigated trends in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Montana, South Dakota and North Dakota.

“When prices are low, farm finances will be under stress, and the longer prices are low, the more farms will be affected.”

The halcyon days of only a few years ago are becoming a distant memory.

“In 2013 prices were high for corn, wheat, soybeans and dairy, which led to overproduction as smaller operators chased yesterday’s market,” says Dec Mullarkey, managing director of investment strategy at Sun Life Investment Management.

“Bankruptcies in Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin have doubled since 2008. As we come into spring and farmers need access to funds ahead of the planting season, that is when failures could bubble up as banks become cautious.

“Now Brazil and Russia have come online and they are forcing prices down. They also have the advantage of lower production costs.” The pain is being felt by smaller businesses rather than the big conglomerates. In any case, the family farm is a dying species, with the number having fallen from six million just after the Second World War to two million today.

“The human cost is very significant,” says Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union in Washington.

“There are increasing stress levels that have built up over time. There are a lot of reports suggesting mental health helplines are receiving a level of calls that are at least reaching, if not exceeding, that of the last farming crisis in the Eighties.

“Farms are dispersed and you have increasing isolation out there. Small manufacturing businesses have gone, which means there aren’t off-farm jobs for farmers or their spouses.”

Mr Johnson believes Donald Trump’s administration should shoulder much of the blame for the problems farmers face.

“The administration has picked trade fights all over the world and it is agriculture that has borne the brunt of those battles.”

It is a view shared by Ray Goldberg, professor of agriculture at Harvard Business School.

“It has occurred suddenly because of the policies that have taken place when our president decided to get tough on trade. In the process of doing it, he obliterated long-term relationships in the food sector.

“Once you lose these relationships, they are very hard to get back.

“The people who are affected are farmers because we are an exporting nation in agriculture.”

With the 2020 presidential election looming, Republican strategists are already showing signs of nervousness at the political damage a farming slump could do to Donald Trump’s re-election prospects.

In 2016 an estimated 75pc of farmers voted for Donald Trump and it was their backing in swing states like Wisconsin that helped propel him into the White House.

A Farm Futures poll last August showed that his support had dropped to 60pc, with 24pc saying they would not support his re-election.

They were particularly alarmed about trade, with only 8pc agreeing with the president’s assertion that trade wars were “easy to win”, while 40pc said the trade war had done permanent damage to agriculture.

Brandon Barford, a partner at Beacon Policy Advisors in Washington DC, has noticed that Trump is sensitive to the threat posed by a slump in farmers’ support.

“While we have traditionally thought of Trump’s behaviour as being bound by the movement in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, he has also been known to alter behaviour and policy based on farmer and farm-state members of Congress voicing their displeasure to him directly.

“Farmers are suffering even more now, so Trump is likely to use auto and auto parts tariffs to try to force the EU to include agriculture in the talks, to once again help to show his farming base that though it is bad now, he is fighting for them.”

To use current political parlance, the optics of a farming crisis hitting some of his most loyal supporters are potentially disastrous.

“Politically this could be significant,” adds Mullarkey.

“Agriculture is a significant lobby. There will be a rising number of hard-working people losing their livelihoods and that is a story that will grab the headlines.”
User avatar
Posts: 18454
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

Post by TonyGosling »

Russia Says U.S. Able to Carry Out ‘Space Strikes’
April 25, 2019
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/04/ ... kes-a65375

The United States is capable of attacking Russia from space, a senior Russian general said Wednesday.

U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled a plan in January calling for the development of space-based sensors to shoot down missiles before they can threaten U.S. soil, among other capabilities. Moscow warned the new U.S. missile defense strategy would unleash a dangerous arms race in space, saying it amounts to a relaunch of the Cold War-era "Star Wars" program.

Russia Asks U.S. to Drop Plans to Deploy Missiles in Space
“It’s possible that [U.S.] space assets could be used to launch a preemptive strike against Russian and Chinese targets,” senior Russian general Viktor Poznikhir said.

Speaking at a security conference in Moscow, Poznikhir blamed the U.S. missile defense systems for enabling the country to deliver a “surprise missile and nuclear strike on Russia.”

Russia is responding to the perceived threat by arming its strategic offensive forces with the Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile and the Avangard hypersonic missile, he was quoted by the state-run TASS news agency as saying.

President Vladimir Putin had said the Avangard would be deployed in 2019 and noted that the Sarmat — known as “Satan-2” in the West — was in the final test phase.

Pentagon officials contend that U.S. missiles defenses are too few to be able to counter a first-strike on the U.S. homeland by a major nuclear power, like Russia or China. Washington hopes those countries will instead be deterred from attacks by America’s nuclear arsenal.

Reuters contributed reporting to this article.
User avatar
Posts: 18454
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

Post by TonyGosling »

Russia threat: Putin shows off missile ‘60 times more powerful than Hiroshima bomb’
RUSSIA has successfully launched its most advanced intercontinental ballistic missile from the Kremlin’s newest nuclear-powered submarine, the defence ministry has confirmed.
PUBLISHED: 19:40, Wed, Oct 30, 2019 | UPDATED: 21:27, Wed, Oct 30, 2019
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/11 ... tin-latest

The ministry has released footage of the ‘Prince Vladimir’ (Knyaz Vladimir) vessel shooting out the destructive Bulava missile in the White Sea, near the northwest coast of Russia. The test of Russia’s military power was carried out while the Borei-class vessel was submerged in the ocean. The test-missile successfully hit a target thousands of kilometres away in the region of Kamchatka.


Antarctica fury: China assert dominance as Trump and Putin left furiou

Syria crisis: Trump’s plan to tap Syrian oil provokes furious
The advanced weapon is understood to be comprised of six independently targeted warheads - each with the equivalent to 150 kilotons of TNT.

The combined 900 kilotons of explosive chemicals is believed to be 50 to 60 times stronger than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima by US forces in 1945, which was around 15 kilotons, Forbes reports.

The advanced weapon can also strike targets up to 5,000 miles away.

How Far Does £1 Million Go in Retirement?
How Far Does £1 Million Go in Retirement?
(Fisher Investments)
The defence ministry said in a statement: “For the first time, the strategic submarine Knyaz Vladimir test-launched the sea-based Bulava ballistic missile.�

Russia has successfully launched its latest weapon in the White Sea (Image: GETTY/RussiaN defense ministry)
The ministry added “its combat training units arrived at the training ground at a set time, which was recorded by means of objective control�.

The submarine is the first upgraded 955A model to be produced in the Borei class of Russian nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines.

According to the Russian-state TASS news agency, the vessel will enter service with Russia’s Northern Fleet at the end of this year once it has completed trials including weapons tests.


The advanced weapon is understood to be comprised of six independently targeted warheads (Image: Russian defence agency )

The advanced weapon can also strike targets up to 5,000 miles away (Image: Russian defense agency )
The vessel’s name which translated to ‘Prince Vladimir’ was named after the Russian leader Vladimir the Great who ruled between 980 and 1015 A.D.

The newest acquisition to the arsenal of Russian weapons comes amid growing tension between Moscow and the west.

Earlier this year, the US pulled out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty accusing Russia of violating the terms of the agreement, something the Kremlin denies.

donald trump

The US has pulled out of the INF treaty (Image: REUTERS)
The landmark treaty prohibits Russia and the US from possessing, producing or test-flying a ground-launched cruise missile with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometres.

Russia’s defence minister Sergei Shoigu has warned the US president may have trigger a new world arms race.

Mr Shoigu said: “The US withdrawal from the INF jeopardises the system of global strategic stability and may trigger a new arms race, remarkably not only in the European region, but in the Asia-Pacific region as well.�

READ MORE: Putin praises Trump for US strike on ISIS leader after Kremlin doubts

Vladimir Putin

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said he regretted the US decision to withdraw from the INF (Image: REUTERS)
Speaking last week, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said he regretted the US decision to withdraw from the INF treaty.

Mr Putin said: “I think it was a mistake and that they could have gone a different path.

“I do understand the US concerns. While other countries are free to enhance their defences, Russia and the US have tied their own hands with this treaty.


Nuclear warning: Trump’s INF withdrawal may trigger arms race [INSIGHT]
Erdogan defies Trump and Putin as Turkey and Kurds resume feud [ANALYSIS]
Trump vows to obliterate ISIS amid revenge attack fears [VIDEO]


Russian ’billions dollar’ S-400 defence weapon demonstrated -VIDEO

Putin risks China backlash and Trump fury with huge weapons deal
nuclear weapons

A graphic of countries with the most nuclear weapons (Image: EXPRESS)
“However, I still believe it was not worth ruining the deal; I believe there were other ways out of the situation.�

He also urged Donald Trump to back a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty to replace the one which is due to expire in 2021, in order to prevent a race to acquire strategic nuclear weapons.
User avatar
Posts: 18454
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

Post by TonyGosling »

Putin says Russia will target nations hosting US missiles
October 24, 2018

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during a joint with Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte meeting with Italian businessmen including attending by video link the opening of a high-voltage electric engine plant of the Russian Electric Engines company in the Russian city of Chelyabinsk, in the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2018. Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte is holding talks with Russian officials on his first trip to Moscow. (Sergei Chirikov/Pool Photo via AP)
MOSCOW (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin warned Wednesday that if the United States deploys intermediate-range missiles in Europe, Russia will have to target the nations that would host them.

The stern statement follows U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement over the weekend that he intends to opt out of a 1987 nuclear arms control pact over alleged Russian violations.

Putin said he hoped the United States wouldn’t follow up by positioning intermediate-range missiles in Europe. Such a move would be a repeat of a Cold War showdown in the 1980s, when the U.S. and the Soviet Union both deployed intermediate-range missiles on the continent, the Russian leader said.

“If they are deployed in Europe, we will naturally have to respond in kind,” Putin said at a news conference after talks with visiting Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte. “The European nations that would agree to that should understand that they would expose their territory to the threat of a possible retaliatory strike. These are obvious things.”

He continued: “I don’t understand why we should put Europe in such a grave danger.”

“I see no reason for that,” Putin said. “I would like to repeat that it’s not our choice. We don’t want it.”

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Wednesday that the Western military alliance’s members blame Russia for developing a new missile in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, but he doesn’t expect them to beef up nuclear arsenals in Europe in response.

“I don’t foresee that allies will deploy more nuclear weapons in Europe as a response to the new Russian missile,” Stoltenberg told reporters at NATO headquarters in Brussels.

Putin rejected Trump’s claim that Russia has breached the INF treaty, alleging it was the United States that violated the pact.

He charged that U.S. missile defense facilities in Romania hold intermediate-range cruise missiles with just a quick tweak in computer software.

The Russian leader added that he hoped to discuss the issue with Trump in Paris when they both attend Nov. 11 events marking 100 years since Armistice Day.

“We are ready to work together with our American partners without any hysteria,” he said. “The important thing is what decisions will come next.”

The INF treaty signed in 1987 by U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev prohibited the U.S. and Russia from possessing, producing or test-flying ground-launched nuclear cruise and ballistic missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers (300 to 3,400 miles.)

The pact was lauded as a major safeguard for global security since they eliminated shorter-range missiles that take only a few minutes to reach their targets.

Trump said he planned to pull the U.S. out of the treaty due to the alleged Russia violations and also because China, which wasn’t part of the pact, has intermediate-range missile capability.

Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, spent two days in Moscow this week to discuss the move with Putin and his top lieutenants. Bolton said Washington hasn’t served a formal withdrawal notice, but he voiced strong skepticism the treaty could be salvaged.
User avatar
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 3230
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

Post by Whitehall_Bin_Men »

Important Statement by Putin on Russia’s Super Weapons
The Vineyard of the Saker 7205 Views December 25, 2019 57 Comments Translated by Sasha and captioned by Leo.

Source: Vesti – Агрессор будет УНИЧТОЖЕН! Срочное Заявление Путина о СУПЕРОРУЖИИ России! Последние новости
https://thesaker.is/important-statement ... r-weapons/

December 24, 2019 – “Russia will continue to develop its nuclear forces until the world starts working on a new agreement on nuclear weapons control.” That was promised today by Vladimir Putin. The president chaired a session of the extended Collegium of the Ministry of Defence today. One of the chief results of 2019 – the share of new weapons in the nuclear triad is 82%. The army already received the “Avanguard” hyper-sonic systems, from which no aggressor will be able to protect themselves in the foreseeable future. This is exactly what the country’s weapons should be – the best in the world. Yevgeny Reshetnyov reporting.

Besides the stocktaking for the passing year and setting the goals for the future, the session of the Collegium heard strategic declarations from the Commander in Chief.

Vladimir Putin: “We’ve always tried to catch up. The atomic bomb was created in the USA. And the Soviet Union was only catching up. Neither did we have the means of delivery of nuclear weapons. We didn’t have the strategic air force. The Soviet Union had to catch up. The first intercontinental missiles too were not created by us. The Soviet Union had to catch up. Today we have a unique situation in our recent history. It is us who they try to catch up with.”

“No country in the world,” Putin declares, “has hyper-sonic weapons, more so the one capable of reaching across continents.” Russia has the airborne “Kinzhal” systems which are already in active service. The army has already received the “Peresvet” laser combat systems, whose name, after the legendary bogatyr warrior, was chosen by a popular vote. This week the “Avanguard” missile system will commence combat duties near Orenburg. This is the newest design and we are proud of its success in starting the active duty.

The Russian military has also demonstrated the “Avanguard” to the American inspectors, thus adhering to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, while the USA, by the looks of it, continue on the road of destruction of the agreements, which were reached with such difficulty.

Putin: “The degradation of the weapons control system is a cause for a serious concern. I’m not only referring to the breaking by the United States of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty under totally artificial pretexts that have no grounds whatsoever. As of last November, Washington also created uncertainty as to its participation in the Open Air Treaty. Unclear is also the future of Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty. I must add that all this takes place along the strengthening of the US global anti-missile defence capabilities. We see it, and understand. In view of this, we must continue to develop our army and navy.”

The US military budget will exceed $750 billion dollars next year. It is comparable to the combined defence effort of the rest of the world.

Sergei Shoygu – Russian Minister of Defence: “While the military budget of the US and other continues to grow each year, the Russian military budget has remained practically unchanged for the past few years. While in 2018 we were 7th among the leading countries in our military spending, this year we are 8th and next year we will drop to the 9th place.”

However money isn’t always the decisive factor, if taken into account that Russia, with its moderate expenditure, introduces a unique new air defence system “Vityaz’”. There is also no competition for the hyper-sonic missile “Zircon”, which will be deployed on combat vessels and on shore. The “Sarmat” missile – the military is preparing the flight tests – will replace the most powerful in the world silo-based strategic missile “Voyevoda”. All these latest developments were first announced by Vladimir Putin last year during his address to the Federal Assembly, which became a sensation. Back then, the president announced another super weapon. The cruise missile with unlimited range “Burevestnik”. Today the president confirmed that the work on it is on schedule.

Putin: “How are we able to, must be able to, and will be able to remain in the lead? By using our brains. By intellect. By a better work organisation. By minimizing theft and sloppiness. By concentrating our effort in the principle directions which will secure for us a high level of the country’s defence.”

The Aerospace Forces will receive over a hundred modern flying units. As an illustration, the spacious atrium of the Ministry building became an exhibition ground for models of the advanced weapons. Everything most recent and modern that the army has is here today, from knives to combat vessels, satellites and fighter planes. The president visited the exhibition with interest although the Commander in Chief has already seen many of the samples in action at the training grounds. The work on creating the “Sarmat” missile system continues. The new design for the paratroopers is this parachute for jumping in tandem, if you don’t count the dogs. The military dog as of today has done 12 jumps. During the visit, Putin heard many times: “This is the weapon that equals the best in the world.” Later the president noted: “We need it to be better than the best.”

Putin: “This is not a chess game where sometimes we can be content with a draw. This is the military organisation of the state. The hardware must be better. We can achieve that. We do achieve that in the key directions of development. This must be the case for all the components.”

Next year the Navy will receive 14 ships, 3 submarines, 18 gunboats and auxiliary vessels. There are so many ships being built that journalists wonder if there’s enough imagination to come up with names for all of them. These are either the names of outstanding military and political figures of the Russian State, or the names of our cities.

Nikolai Patrushev – Secretary of the Security Council of Russia: “We indeed have modern weapons today. We’ve learn to use it. We do it effectively. And we spend minimum of resources.”

The share of new weapons in the nuclear triad has reached 82%. This is reassuring, taking into account that NATO and the US don’t abandon attempts to surround Russia with missile systems. The chief task will be solved having this in mind – by the end of next year, the share of modern weapons in the armed forces will have to be no less than 70%. Many branches of armed forces have already reached this level, but the main goal which the Commander in Chief voiced today is not just to reach certain levels

but to remain at these set levels. Modernization and delivery of new modern types of weapons to the army must be ongoing. Yevgeny Reshetnyov, Mikhail Alterkopeh and Viktor Mamayev, Vesti from the Ministry of Defence.

At the Collegium, the president spoke about the historic memory which Russia will defend. He commented on the recent resolution of the European Union parliament which places the blame for starting WWII on Hitler’s Germany and the Soviet Union. During the building of the Russian Armed Forces, we must have in view the position of those countries which demolish the monuments to the Red Army soldiers. Attempts to rewrite history are made by the followers of those who negotiated with Hitler before the war and applauded his ideas. As an example the president named the Polish diplomat Józef Lipski, who was the ambassador to Germany until 1939.

Putin: “Hitler informed the Foreign Minister and then the Polish ambassador in Germany he openly told them that he had an idea to deport the Jews to Africa. To the colonies. Imagine that. 1938. Deport the Jews to Africa to die, to be destroyed. To which the Polish ambassador answered that if he would do that, they’d build a magnificent monument to him in Warsaw. He associated with Hitler in his anti-Jew, anti-Semite views completely. And moreover, he promised to build him a monument in Warsaw for persecution of the Jewish people. I must stress here that it is exactly people like this who back then negotiated with Hitler, are exactly these sort of people today that demolish monuments to the Red Army soldiers who liberated the European countries and nations from the Nazis. These are their followers. Unfortunately not much has changed in this regard. And we must have that in view when building our armed forces as well.”

The conversation about the attempts to distort history was continued at the head of state’s meeting with leaders of the Federal Assembly. The Speaker of the Duma promised that the Russian MPs will do everything in order to deliver the truth about the events 80 years ago to their colleagues in PACE and to the parliaments of European countries.

Vyacheslav Volodin – Speaker of the Duma: “Having in mind that at the time Poland de facto associated with fascist Germany, and saw it possible to destroy an entire people by deporting them to Africa, and supported Hitler in it, the Polish leadership would do better to issue an apology for what took place then and for the fact that they have been trying to conceal that, while redirecting the blame to others, inventing something and accusing. This would be at least honest on their part.”

Putin: “I already spoke about this. I only wish to add that the Soviet Union gave assessment to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. It did it honestly and openly. No one did it but us. The legal basis for cooperation with Nazi Germany of many European states was built starting from 1934. And the absolute majority of leaders of these states had personal meetings with Hitler, and put their signatures under the appropriate documents. Stalin, no matter what you think of him, never stained himself with personal contacts with Hitler. He never met him. While the leaders of many European countries did just that.”

The Essential Saker II The Essential Saker III: Chronicling The Tragedy, Farce And Collapse of the Empire in the Era of Mr MAGA
Order Now

The Essential Saker II The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire
Order Now

russian armed forces

Leave a Reply

Click here to get more info on formatting





Post a comment

Craig Mouldey on December 25, 2019 · at 5:43 pm EST/EDT
I hope Russia’s new weapons are as good and reliable as they say. I also hope they never are forced to use them. Given the reckless, arrogant attitude of so many in the west, particularly the core elements of the empire, I’m afraid some of them think Russia is bluffing and their weapons systems don’t work.
Likewise with history, and a history which really isn’t that far back, the war years in Europe. Are these leaders really this ignorant and stupid or are they playing the NAZI propaganda game ‘tell a lie once and it remains a lie. Repeat a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth’?
If the current trajectory continues, with the empire continuing its bellicose threatening of essentially every country, war cannot be avoided. Einstein is reported to have said essentially ‘I know not what weapons will be used during world war 3. But world war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones’.

Anonymous on December 25, 2019 · at 6:23 pm EST/EDT
It’s a propaganda. Nothing more. Germany believed in a wonder wepon to save them, and we know the result.
Russia is faced with a strategic dilema, surrounded, outnumbered, with no buffer zones, and Navy. Demographicly is no good either, underpopulated, half of the country is empty, targets are concentrated. If those issues are not solved there are no super weapons. Nukes keep Russia safe for now, but for how long … In near future we definitly will see the militarization of space by USA, can the Russian couter this ?

Reply on December 25, 2019 · at 7:03 pm EST/EDT
Merry Christmas.

‘Why Can’t the Most Lethal Military in History Win its Wars?’

Marko on December 25, 2019 · at 7:55 pm EST/EDT
Well, you pose valid questions. However, Putin has stated on numerous occasions that he sees no future and/or use of the planet Earth without Russia (I may be paraphrasing a bit). That was said after someone had asked him if Russia would be able to defend itself from another Western onslaught and Russia what would happend if Russia was in danger of being overcome.

I am sure if push come to shove Russia will find a few determined people to launch all the armed nukes and detonate the rest in their silos which would invariably bring destruction to the planet.

Satanists from the West are preparing something. We see Polish, Ukrainian and Georgian fodder being groomed, Orthodox Church is under attack from Croatia, even Serbia, through Montenegro to Ukraine where new NATO Orthodoxy is being created, new winter uniforms being tested, materiel being brought to Russia’s borders and most importantly road networks and other infrastructure are being upgraded across the Balkans which has always been a historical bottleneck for previous invaders. Serbian President has even initiated some sort of NATO Balkan mini Schengen including Serbia, NATO Albania and NATO North Macedonia with a motorway being built from Albanian port of Drac through Serbia and further up North. Serbia is to build that road out of her pockets with the only purpose of that road being ease of access for NATO. Serbia also signed all the NATO protocols allowing for unhindered access of NATO through Serbia and exemption from prosecution. Together with the fact that all other Balkan countries (apart from Bosnia which is a NATO protectorate) are already in NATO, the Balkan rear has been brought to heel.

Alabama on December 25, 2019 · at 8:15 pm EST/EDT
I’m glad you have such confidence in the U.S. space program, lately it has not had much success, so that would lend its self to a game of catch up as the public debt bomb is also demanding future attention. Spread yourself to thin and problems mount faster than they can be addressed.

This country has a mountain of troubles about to cascade downward, and any one of them could toss a monkey wrench into the space weapons programs financial ambitions, not to mention the technical aspects of space wars.

We strive to reach peace not b/c it is easy, but b/c it is hard.

The Saker on December 25, 2019 · at 8:44 pm EST/EDT
You might want to use your head before posting, really!
Hitler spoke of A “Wunderwaffe” while listening to the Soviet artillery pounding Berlin. Hardly the situation Putin or Russia are in.
You might also want to watch the videos of US generals in Congress admitting that they have nothing to counter these weapons (unless, of course, they also “Putin agents” like, apparently, anybody with an IQ above 100…)
Re-read your post: all it is is a sequence of slogans, nothing more.
Frankly, you should go back to your TV and not comment on issues you truly and most obviously nothing absolutely nothing about.

The Saker on December 25, 2019 · at 8:46 pm EST/EDT
Oh, and one more thing: when is the last time the US won a war against an adversary which could fight back? In contrast, the USSR defeated about 80% of the entire Nazi war machine.
Just saying…

Depth Charge on December 26, 2019 · at 5:23 am EST/EDT
They keep citing the Gulf War but in reality 80% of Saddam’s forces fled north into Iraqi urban centers waiting (and ready to fight) an attempt at regime change there and then. Only two Republican Guard divisions really locked horns with the ‘coalition’ and they (for example Tawakalna) were outnumbered 15:1. The other six RG divisions waited in the playground for the fight but the bully/ies did not show up.

In reality a ‘coalition’ of 32 countries attacked a country of 18 million and even then did not have the balls to finish the job and fight the main event.

Declare victory and leave, LOL.

zoobal on December 25, 2019 · at 9:11 pm EST/EDT
To Anonymous
Remember show Syria was “surrounded ” and Natzo could not even see how Russia Fights. Electronic warfare blinded their asses 300km up and down . Be foolish to wage a war against Russia and it will be mincemeat everywhere . Hasbara GMO brain is not going to catch up anytime soon.
Sheeshah is done ….
Natzo cannot see or hear and did not stop Russia from listening and warning Erdogan . Hypersonics will never allow a fleet to get close. Sheeshah is looking for dupes to fight but there are none .Do you know anything about Debaltsevo ? Debaltsevo means that they will be no Orcland and Idlib (Syria) will be mincemeat soon just like the hordes of Yankee jihadistes at Aleppo.

Tiu on December 26, 2019 · at 3:16 am EST/EDT
You’ve been watching CNN again haven’t you?

Dsn on December 26, 2019 · at 8:45 am EST/EDT
Russia has more advanced space tech than anyone else, that’s why ONLY Russia takes humans to the ISS

Mikhail on December 26, 2019 · at 11:04 am EST/EDT
…turn off your TV set for a year at least, and get better info… ;)
Happy New Year, BTW..! :)

francis m reps on December 25, 2019 · at 6:51 pm EST/EDT
A small ; but rather “glaring” omission in President Putin’s presentation about the Hitler , Ribbentrop pact lies in the Historical Fact that Hitler would never have Invaded Poland { based on a flimsy Nazi “False Flag” excuse of a Polish incursion into Germany } if Hitler did not have Stalin’s assurances that the Soviet Union would not interfere. The Nazi Invasion of Poland from the West was coordinated with the Soviet Invasion of Poland from the East. World War Two was the result of a ” Falling out betweenThieves”…… between Germany and the Soviet Union. If Hitler did not get the green light from the Soviets to Invade Poland as well as Soviet promises not to assist those Western Nations that the Nazis were planning to invade ; does any intelligent person really think that Work War Two would even have started ?. Keep in mind that the so called “Great Patriotic War” was started at the time that the Soviet Union was occupying a portion of a Poland , in cooperation with the Nazis ; way before Operation Barbarossa. A Tragedy lies with the innocent victims of the psychopathic leaders of “both” Countries

Стивен on December 25, 2019 · at 11:51 pm EST/EDT
You have a few “glaring” omissions of your own, try

Polish-Soviet War (1919-21) Polish invasion of the Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania.
German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact (January 26, 1934)
Anglo-German Naval Agreement (18 June 1935)
Annexation of Czechoslovakia by Germany, Poland and Hungary (1938-9)
German–Danish Non-Aggression Pact (May 31, 1939)
German–Estonian Non-Aggression Pact (June 7, 1939)
German–Latvian Non-Aggression Pact (June 7, 1939)
and finally
German–Soviet Non-Aggression Pact (23 August 1939)
after a refusal by France and Britain to enter into a anti-Nazi alliance with the Soviet Union.

Poland was an aggressor with dreams of a “Greater Poland” and karma caught up with it.

Anaam on December 26, 2019 · at 12:44 am EST/EDT
Exactly right Steven. Poland (political class) has a track record being the perennial backstabber that gets backstabbed itself through its own utter stupidity, petty ambitions, and misplaced sentiments. They suffer from the self delusion that they were victims and persecuted, when, in fact, they weren’t victims but losers in a fight to achieve illegitimate gain at the expense of others.

Look at the absolutely idiotic way Poland is once again whoring itself and it’s young men to potentially die just to curry favor with a larger power (in the futile hope that their own petty ambitions will be fulfilled by their big brother). When the time comes for Poland to receive their reward for serving the latest big brother, they’ll be get the same thing they always got: abandonment and betrayal (like Neville chamberlain et al); ie. Well deserved Karma.

Fog of War on December 26, 2019 · at 9:31 am EST/EDT

Its nice to have opinions but one must also pay attention to historical facts. Both Poland and the Soviet Union invaded what we now call ” the Ukraine “, which according to many is not even a valid country. The Soviets had a clear agenda to invade the Ukraine, then Poland, and finally march west. They are not innocent saints as Putin is trying to portray. Poland and Russian anonymity goes back centuries, Poland invaded Russia at some points and Russia eagerly ” partitioned ” Poland at other times.

As the saying goes ” those without sin cast the first stone. ”

” Poland’s Chief of State, Józef Piłsudski, felt the time was right to expand Polish borders as far east as feasible, to be followed by a Polish-led Intermarium federation of Central and Eastern European states, as a bulwark against the re-emergence of German and Russian imperialism. Vladimir Lenin saw Poland as the bridge the Red Army had to cross to assist other Communist movements and bring about more European revolutions. By 1919, Polish forces had taken control of much of Western Ukraine, emerging victorious from the Polish–Ukrainian War. The West Ukrainian People’s Republic, led by Yevhen Petrushevych, had tried to create a Ukrainian state on territories to which both Poles and Ukrainians laid claim. In the Russian part of Ukraine Symon Petliura tried to defend and strengthen the Ukrainian People’s Republic but as the Bolsheviks began to win the Russian Civil War, they started to advance westward towards the disputed Ukrainian territories, causing Petliura’s forces to retreat to Podolia. By the end of 1919, a clear front had formed as Petliura decided to ally with Piłsudski. Border skirmishes escalated following Piłsudski’s Kiev Offensive in April 1920. “

Curious on December 27, 2019 · at 8:57 am EST/EDT
Don’t make assumptions

https://www.stalkerzone.org/myth-peddle ... falsehood/

joaopft on December 25, 2019 · at 8:03 pm EST/EDT
Putin is right, and it is well known that it was the Munich Accord (between Hitler, Chamberlain and Daladier) that precipitated the 2nd World War. Churchill explains it, and Hitler’s memos confirm it. After Munich, Hitler became convinced that France and Britain became spineless. That the Western powerd had little desire desire to open war with Germany, and preferred that Germany and Russia destroyed each other. Hitler even gambled that the invasion of Poland would not spark open war with the West. Only when the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was signed, the French realized Hitler wanted to avenge the Versailles humiliation, before setting his sights on either Britain or Russia.

Actually, while the panzer divisions were occupied with Poland, France could have acted on its declaration of war and attack the (in 1939) lightly defended border with Germany. Why have the French failed to do it, and instead went on with the “strange war”? It was strange because there were no shots fired before the Nazis struck France, in 1940.

Makedonia on December 25, 2019 · at 8:21 pm EST/EDT
Only a formal alliance between Russia and China and other friendly Nations can guarantee their security. I wrote this as a comment in another article. It seems most here believe that a formal alliance between the two is not necessary but I am still not convinced by their reasons. All I see is things getting worse and worse which could tragically lead to serious conflict. They key is to prevent this from happening. Continually turning the other cheek and being overly diplomatic only encourages the for.

Makedonia on December 25, 2019 · at 11:17 pm EST/EDT
Excuse the error of the last two words of my comment. Should be …encourages the for more.

Makedonia on December 26, 2019 · at 12:13 am EST/EDT
Oops mistake again. Should be … encourages the foe more. Sorry guys.

augusto on December 26, 2019 · at 8:16 am EST/EDT
Yeah, i partially agree with you on the ‘need of a formal alliance’ between the dragon and the bear.
But if this is deemed by both as an unnecessary step – it indeed might be just for the time being.
Figure out that nothing prevents them from signing a secret memo of understanding that the alliance will be inked at once IF a major event or a major agression turns real against any of them.

Georg on December 26, 2019 · at 6:45 pm EST/EDT
@ augusto

“… the alliance will be inked at once IF a major event or a major aggression turns real against any of them …”

A “major aggression” these days means: a sudden all-out nuclear attack. One is talking here about seconds and minutes, hardly a time-frame for “inking” any alliance, wouldn’t you agree?

Not to mention the obvious, that a chief purpose of any public, undisguised formal alliance is prevention of aggression.

Anonymous on December 26, 2019 · at 12:08 am EST/EDT
Of course it is a propaganda.
Soviet Union did have a need to go around and “trumpet”, we have this and that, they kept it a secret ( or at least tried). because they had no need, a nation was well placed strategically with buffer zones like East Germany, Baltic states, Georgia, Kazakhstan … They are all gone now, and they changed hands. it’s a such a precarious and disastrous loss for Russia, that future generations will pay the price should the WW3 break out.
I am not saying that those Russian wonder weapons do not exist, I am saying that they would not have desired an effect to win the war (other than destroy some targets ). german had V rockets, Me 262. Did they saved them ? No. because they strategic situation was hopeless, outnumbered, they were loosing buffer zones … Today Russia’s saviour is only Nukes, and propaganda.
If the war comes, there won’t be any opportunity to relocate the industry beyond Ural, there won’t be beneficial to rise new armies from peasants, because WW3 will be fought only with professional forces. do you really believe in rolling western tanks across the Russian plains. it will not happen, they will bomb everything in numbers (from the air and sea and space ) until nothing is left, after that we might see the tanks. but before they will try to ignite an internal bomb – minority muslim population.

One of the reasons why Putin is friendly and polite with the West, because he’s knows that well, and as long as there is 5th column inside Russia, Russia will not be attacked, that’s why he’s not getting rid of them. Someone else mention here an alliance with China, and he’s right, but it will never happen, because nor Russia nor China want it.

Why Can’t the Most Lethal Military in History Win its Wars?’

The last patriotic war was WW2, and if WW3 comes, that would be the first patriotic war since WW2.

Anonymous on December 26, 2019 · at 12:31 am EST/EDT
Soviet Union did have a need – Soviet Union did NOT have a need.

I apologize for mistake, and please forgive me for my broken English

Dr. NG Maroudas on December 26, 2019 · at 1:12 am EST/EDT
@Anon (the one who apologized for his broken English).

Rather you should apologize for your broken logic. The Anglo Zio Capitalist armies only “won” Western Europe in WW2 because they were only fighting 20% rump of Hitler’s Wehrmacht armed with laughably non-nuclear missiles and manned by press-ganged schoolboys; 80% bulk of Wehrmacht men and materials having been chewed up by the fearsome Russian bear. Since then “our irresistible armed might” of EU$A has lost wars against little countries like Korea, Iceland, Cuba, Vietnam, Lebanon, Iran, Syria and Crimea.

Your AZC propagandists dare not cross swords with Russia except in their dreams of grandeur. You are suffering from Napoleonitis. Sleep well. If real modern nuclear war comes to a shopping mall near you, you will never even wake up from that sweet dream.

Anonymous on December 26, 2019 · at 4:43 am EST/EDT
Sleep well. If real modern nuclear war comes to a shopping mall near you, you will never even wake up from that sweet dream.

I will keep dreaming. I feel very safe, today and in the future. In fact I might quicker run out of water than smell your nuclear waste.

nobody on December 26, 2019 · at 1:21 am EST/EDT
Which(WWII) the USA did NOT win, once again that must be reminded to you. The Soviet Union won it, both in Europe and the Pacific.
So once again, try to answer the question: Why the “strongest military in the world” cant win a single war?
No wonder you are Anonymous. All you got is propaganda yourself. All your points are fake and easily refuted.

Nussiminen on December 26, 2019 · at 1:20 am EST/EDT
”/…/ the Polish leadership would do better to issue an apology for what took place then and for the fact that they have been trying to conceal that, while redirecting the blame to others, inventing something and accusing. This would be at least honest on their part.”

Polish nationalism and honesty/decency are mutually exclusive, period. Nazi concentration camps, CIA torture dungeons, and Vatican sponsored ”trade unions” show convincingly what Russia is up against. Good that Russia and her leadership understand history and have the resources to keep the enemy in check.

Now, watch Gownopolska throw endless temper tantrums for being (correctly) found out inventing things and accusing others. Refined amusement guaranteed!

Harry_Red on December 26, 2019 · at 1:31 am EST/EDT
Maybe the Saker or others who are knowledgable on weapons systems and their production can answer some of my questions:

When a new weapon like the Kinzhal or Avangaurd is added to the arsenal, how long does it realistically take for it to be mass produced and introduced into the armed forces in the required quantities needed for strategic or tactical deployment ? Including the training of personnel needed to deploy these weapons ?

Is it an issue of a few months or more like 2 to 5 years (short to mid-term planning) for example ? Or are these weapons announced after they have been fully deployed in sufficient quantities ?

Anonymous on December 26, 2019 · at 2:55 am EST/EDT
I think the doctrine of ‘mass produce’ is old school… but let’s hear from the experts! Love Saker or others to share their views here !

Auslander on December 26, 2019 · at 4:27 am EST/EDT
‘Mass production’ is a misnomer, Russia builds what she needs and continues to build what she needs in the way of disposable ordinance. She will not produce ten thousand Kinzals unless she needs them, but she will build Kinzal as the forces expand and ordinance is consumed in training and testing.


Harry_Red on December 26, 2019 · at 6:15 am EST/EDT
Sure, “mass production” is definitely not the right term in this case :-) …..still curious at the quantity required and the time-line to produce them, especially in the case of such advanced systems. I find logistics in these cases very fascinating.

Auslander on December 26, 2019 · at 11:27 am EST/EDT
Can’t even guess guess as to time line, such info is secret. I do know the factories are locked down tighter than Aunt Ksenya’s chastity belt.

The Saker on December 26, 2019 · at 10:23 am EST/EDT
As far as I remember,
The Kalibrs have been mass deployed on many platforms already.
The Zircons are currently being deployed with the Russian Navy.
The Kinzhals are deployed already in at least three locations: Crimea, Kola Peninsula, Russian Pacific Coast.
The Avangards are have just begun deployment.
The Bastions are deployed in Crimea and the Baltic (iirc)
The Sarmat is being loaded up in silos.
The Pereswets are also already deployed (to protect road mobile ICBMs)
The Burevestnik is in a late stage of testing
So except for the Burevestnik, they are all in various stages of actual deployment

And, please keep in mind that the Russian nuclear triad (I am talking pre-Avangard) is already 80% made up of new modern systems and is far more modern than the US one.

The truth is that right now, at the start of 2020, Russia is fine ready for any war the Empire might consider while the US can’t even deal with Venezuela (nevermind Iran, China or Russia).

In purely military terms, it’s over for the Empire (and we didn’t even discuss the conventional ground and aerospace forces!).
My 2cts

Harry_Red on December 26, 2019 · at 12:59 pm EST/EDT
Thanks for that interesting list Saker. So it seems that the time between testing and deployment is pretty rapid relatively speaking, obviously with a considerable amount of time and resource spent in the development stages.

MC on December 26, 2019 · at 1:54 pm EST/EDT
I love your comments, Shaker! Your information — so important and fascinating — just reaffirmed my belief in Russia, the saviour of hope. Thanks.

Bosnian Croat on December 26, 2019 · at 2:16 am EST/EDT
All this is important, but a few days ago Putin said the important thing I mentioned before – now one of the most important tasks is to raise the wages and incomes of the population. Russia must reach the European Union average in these categories.

Auslander on December 26, 2019 · at 2:26 am EST/EDT
I’ve read VVP’s speakings on the subject of modern armaments wherein he in essence reiterated what he said earlier this year. He is not bragging, he is stating fact as a warning to Foggy Bottom and her hopeless minions in europe, nippon and oz.

One thing I have discovered is when President Putin states that this weapon system or that weapon system is ‘under final development and testing and will go in service at ‘x’ time’, in my opinion the reality is the weapon systems are already entering service, the troops involved in their operation having already been trained and are going active. SehSha can not help but be aware of this fact.

Russia and her populace has not forgotten the horrors of two wars and a culture devastating revolution in one century. We are still digging up soldiers from both sides in this berg from the last war and tragically during the explorations and diggings we also find victims of the revolution. President Putin has been very clear that Russia will never again be the scene of war, and what he is stating is that if someone wants to go to war with Russia, that someone will have devastation and destruction the likes of which they have never seen. Will Russia go nuke at the outset of an attack? I doubt it, and if one bothers to look at the map, Russia has on the ‘west front’ buffers through which advancing armies will have to pass before they get to Russia herself, Byelorus, Orcland and Tribaltica. Finland doesn’t count and Turkei knows she is looking down the barrel of a gun very close across the Black Sea.

My thoughts are if hostilities do start, the east, south and left coast of SehSha will be visited by enough conventional armed cruise missiles to destroy the all important civilian transportation hubs and utility complexes that feed the seething cities in same. In three days, if that long, the cities will be without food, water, electric, sewer and natural gas and that will be the end of SehSha as the populace rapidly devolves in to ‘sauvez-vous!’ as they fight each other for sustenance. Of course the military bases will also be visited, but in all probability the main attack will be against civilian infrastructure which in and of itself will sow discourse and panic in the echelons of the armed forces as the military is torn between doing their duty to Foggy Bottom or leaving to succor their families which are in a panic stricken frenzy to save themselves.

One can only hope that sane heads, if there are any, in Foggy Bottom and Five Points will prevail and stop this headlong rush to war. Europe and nippon don’t count in the least, all this turmoil and danger is coming directly from Foggy Bottom. However, I did review during research for my books an interview General Dunnsford had with some aging fop in either Senate or Congress couple years ago, back when some idiots were demanding a ‘no fly’ zone for Syria and above the Russian air force efforts. The look on Dunnsford’s face when he told the moron that to do so would lead to instant war with Russia and it wasn’t in his realm of responsibility to initiate that war said it all….as did the face of recipient of that statement. Fear instantly came to my mind.

Bottom line, all we can do is hope and pray for peace…..and prepare for war, which is exactly what President Putin is doing, praying and bargaining for peace while preparing the iron fist of Russia in case these efforts come to naught.

Author http://rhauslander.com/

Never The Last One, paperback edition. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521849056 A deep look in to Russia, her culture and her Armed Forces, in essence a look at the emergence of Russian Federation.

An Incident On Simonka paperback edition. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1696160715 NATO Is Invited To Leave Sevastopol, One Way Or The Other.

subhuti37 on December 26, 2019 · at 12:06 pm EST/EDT
Absolutely right. IMO, when Dunsford offered his opinion with the look on his face that you describe, I think that was when the Deep state decided to make sure Hillary would not be elected. The press tone towards her changed after that statement of his.

Also, all Trump supporters should note that Trump’s platform re military was, 1. We should not fight so many wars, and 2. That the military is ‘underfunded’. Translation: I wanna kill lots of people everywhere just like the rest of you, but after 15 years of failure to conquer Afghanistan, 13 year failure in Iraq, the US military is exhausted and needs a rest. And rebuilt. After that we can foment wars again.

And that is pretty much what his actions indicate. On the other hand, some idiots might think that since Trum is a Putin puppet, that Putin is really trying to destroy Russia by manipulating Trump to withdraw from INF, and stage military buildup and provocations on Russia’s border, as did Hitler. Putin wants Trump to attack Russia. That is the logic of those who think Trump is a puppet of Putin.

Auslander on December 26, 2019 · at 2:11 pm EST/EDT

The look on Dunnsford’s face was pure fear, he had looked in to the abyss and it shook him to his very soul, and the politician who asked him the question quite clearly saw that look and his face also showed fear, real fear. On such small moments in time disasters are sometimes averted.


harry on December 26, 2019 · at 1:26 pm EST/EDT
@Auslander: “SehSha can not help but be aware of this fact.”

What is SehSha, please? Are your average readers really supposed to know such things?

Auslander on December 26, 2019 · at 2:04 pm EST/EDT

США, pronounced ‘SehSha’, USA. My average readers in general know this term that I use. Perhaps once in a while I should put in my scribblings ‘SehSha, США, aka USA’.


Anonymous on December 26, 2019 · at 2:05 pm EST/EDT
Also please what are SehSha, Foggy Bottom and Five Points? Thanks.

Nussiminen on December 26, 2019 · at 2:34 am EST/EDT

Correct, and it should be added also that an essential part of their petty ambitions actually amounts to being a despicable lackey in the service of the great and glorious West. With Putin at the helm of Russia, Poland can forget about her own land-grabbing designs there (Ukraine looks way more promising in this regard). So for Poland it is the despicable lackey show for now, such as signing up for grossly over-priced American ”freedom gas”, LOL.

Nussiminen on December 26, 2019 · at 3:56 am EST/EDT
”We didn’t have the strategic air force. The Soviet Union had to catch up. The first intercontinental missiles too were not created by us. The Soviet Union had to catch up.Today we have a unique situation in our recent history. It is us who they try to catch up with.”

Putin, you get out of Crimea without further ado. Or what does Craig Murray have to say on the subject?

Chairman Meow on December 26, 2019 · at 4:47 am EST/EDT
Heres how the Australian state broadcaster reported Putin’s statement,

“President Vladimir Putin claims Russia is the only country in the world that can deploy hypersonic weapons, which places it ahead of its arch-foe, the United States, for the first time in modern history.

Key points:Hypersonic weapons travel more than five times the speed of sound, and may evade surveillance
Mr Putin said Russia found itself in a “unique” position in its modern history
Australia and US researchers are helping both countries bridge the technological gap…”

and how they spun Russias reasoning,

“Mr Putin said NATO’s presence near its western borders and the US withdrawal earlier this year from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treatywere some of Russia’s top security threats.

He argued that because of this strategic context, Russia must have the best weapons in the world.

“It’s not a chess game where it’s OK to play to a draw,” he said.

“Our technology must be better. We can achieve that in key areas and we will.”

This strategic imperative was picked up by a US Congressional research paper on hypersonic weapons from September, which noted that if Washington didn’t respond, it would mean American missiles could “simply be intercepted” in time.”

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.abc.net. ... e/11826940

George Kovachev on December 26, 2019 · at 5:07 am EST/EDT
If the history is any indication, when the russians are pushed, they tend to push back. HARD.

That reminds me of a joke:

During an episode of unprecedented stupidity (more stupidier than usual), the american politicians decided to launch a war against Russia. However, one of them (slightly smarter than usual) said:
– Hey, a lot of other people waged war on russuans. Perhaps it’s a good idea to ask them when to start the war.

They asked the french, and the french answered them:
– Well, we attacked during the winter, and they kicked our asses out of their country in a relatively short order. It’s not a good idea to attack them during the winter.

Then, they asked the germans, and the germans answered:
– We attacked during the summer, and they kicked our asses back to Berlin. It’s not a good idea to attack them during the summer.

The americans decided to ask the chinese – being so cozy with the russian lately, they could probably offer more recent insight on the matter. The chinese answered:
– The best time to attack is right now.

Pleased with the answer, the americans continued with their preparations, until the same smart guy decided to ask:
– But why now? The other guys said it’s a bad idea to attack the russians.

The chinese answered:
– Well, the russians are continuing the development of Siberia, soon they’ll start doing the same with the Arctic. They’ll need a lot of P.O.W. for the work force…

Nussiminen on December 26, 2019 · at 8:23 am EST/EDT
Haha, good one even though obese Pindos would require a considerable amount of training. LGBTQ Euro-trash would seem even less apt 😁

Kapetan Brina on December 26, 2019 · at 10:01 am EST/EDT
Im really hyped about Peresvet laser…anybody have any info how this weapon works?
Could its laser beam reach space..to take down satelite or something.
Im sure Russians will find decent name for all ships and systems but please consider the name of forgoten soldier:
4 times hero of Soviet union,
Marsal Georgij Konstantinovic Zukov

If anybody is still waiting to see ww3, please go to see your doctor…
Surovaja Russ can come to your home anytime ;)

mundanomaniac on December 26, 2019 · at 12:26 pm EST/EDT
4 times hero of Soviet union,
Marsal Georgij Konstantinovic Zukov

He was a trained furrier before joining the Army. He was a humble master of recon, skill and
common sense and on October 8. 1941 he was endowed with the western front defending Moscow, after
coordinating the defense of Leningrad, and one year later co-invented and organized “Uranus”
the strategic cauldron of Stalingrad.

Unfortunately his “Memories and Thoughts” are not available in English. Maybe by a Russia Printer?

Wikispooks on December 26, 2019 · at 11:20 am EST/EDT
I rate President Putin as a statesman, pre-eminent among the current crop of world leaders and especially so among those of the Western so-called ‘Community of Nations’, not one of whom can hold a candle to him. The fundamental reason for this (it seems to me) is that ALL western leaders – bar none – are so clearly the mere puppets of a nascent ‘Globalized Deep State’ (GDS), selected only for the reliability of their loyalty to its official narratives and major policy prescriptions. The GDS itself is probably better characterized by the much older term: ‘Judeo-Masonic Conspiracy’ (JMC) which has hardly looked back in its insidious progress since about the middle of the eighteenth century. which

Putin is certainly not immune to JMC power, blandishments, seductions and threats either. He (and Russia if it is to remain a truly sovereign state) knows that he cannot afford to be, since he clearly has a pretty good understanding of its influence on the defining events of the past 300 years or so himself.

Unfortunately, in order to ‘rally his troops’ so to speak, all this leads him to some egregious interpretations of that history. I am referring in this case to his remarks about Poland viz-a-viz its 1930’s Jewish population. The Polish authorities certainly did feel oppressed by them, as did the Germans and Tzarist Russia before them (think ‘Pale of Settlement’ eg) – but all of them with ample reason. Stalin himself woke up to it at around the same time and started purging them, as have hundreds of states principalities and city states throughout the past 2,000 years – until post WWII of course, when the JMC police finally succeeded in making almost any reference to the facts (other than to present World Jewry as history’s eternal victims) totally taboo. Putin himself has very publicly opined that 80%+ of the Bolshevik leadership was Jewish too, but given the vastness of the genocide they perpetrated against ordinary Russians, their churches and pastors he appears to be largely immune to its implications for Russia’s future.

It is notable than none of the comments before this post (that’s 38 at time of posting. Make any reference to this elephant in the room either. It ‘aint going to go away though. If nothing else Putin’s amazing political gymnastics over the Zionist State should make that obvious.

Stefan Ratkiewicz on December 26, 2019 · at 5:07 pm EST/EDT
Very well said and a nadir at the historical truth that has been intentionally manipulated to protect the disgusting perpetrators. I am not against the fall of the Soviet Union but by the way it collapsed. I was never a fan of Stalin but I don’t disagree with his plan for the last purge.

William H Warrick III MD on December 26, 2019 · at 1:35 pm EST/EDT
I did a search and the only stories were in real Alt Media sites. Nothing in the MSM. Its a total Blackout and the previous Anti-War Democrat Party wants war with them AND China at the SAME TIME! They think wars from Space will make us victorious, meanwhile China shot down a orbiting satellite several years ago and we need Russian rockets to get to the Space Station. That is how clueless they are. This is exactly what Reagan’s CIA director William Casey said when he took office. Barbara Honegger was there. She spoke at 7th Annual Dallas JFK Conference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm2JlqA ... e=youtu.be

William H Warrick III MD on December 26, 2019 · at 1:42 pm EST/EDT
There was nothing on the opening of the rail link on the Kerch Strait Bridge either.

Stefan Ratkiewicz on December 26, 2019 · at 3:18 pm EST/EDT
Who started WWII ? In a nutshell the Banksters. The same ones that financed the National Socialists ,the same ones that paid off Winston Churchill , the same ones that advised FDR and the same ones that supplanted Russia and murdered the Romanov’s. Why ? because war was the easiest way to make money but more importantly to Bankrupt the Governments , therefore rendering the Governments dependant on the Banksters for financing. The US withheld the longest , it wasn’t until the GWOT that the US become massively indebted beyond recovery. What we are witnessing now is a sort of Weimar Republic on steroids and it works because of the US reserve currency status and the Barrel of a big Gun. Therefore blaming Poland or Russia or Germany is a waste of time and one hell of a distraction. Yes President Putin was referring to Madagascar and who remembers the MS St-Louis it wasn’t heading for Africa. Pacts there were many and mostly useless all kinds were signed but to what end ? It sure as hell didn’t help Poland or Russia for that matter. The one pac that matters for the Ziocons is AIPAC.

Anonymous on December 26, 2019 · at 10:30 pm EST/EDT
Resettlement of Jews to Africa was initially a Zionist proposal as a temporary solution until their ‘return’ to Palestine. Similar plans envisaged their relocation in Australia and Argentina.
See “The Uganda Scheme” the plan in the early 1900s to give a portion of British East Africa to the Jewish people as a homeland. It drew support from Theodor Herzl, a prominent Zionist, as a temporary refuge for European Jews facing antisemitism” (actually ‘Russian’ Jews, fleeing ‘pogroms’).
The idea of resettling Jews in Madagascar is old and brewed in England in the soup of ‘British Israelism’ and the Lost Ten Tribes. For example:
“Samuel Copland in 1822 [A History of the Island of Madagascar] wrote that “The origin of the Madegasses, is, by the generality of writers, ascribed to the Jews: this idea is founded on the universal practice of circumcision amongst them, and from the title of “Descendants of Abraham” having been assumed by the inhabitants of St. Mary’s Isle, and the coast opposite. … the ark was in existence in Ham’s time, and for many ages after, and consequently his children had a model to work by. It is certain, that the children of Japheth peopled the islands in the Mediterranean, as early as Abraham’s time; and the children of Ham also were dispersed abroad, round the coasts of Africa; from whence, supposing them to possess the art of ship-building, they might easily transport themselves to Madagascar…. The thunders of Sinai have never awed their minds into obedience; nor has the persuasive voice of the Redeemer of mankind ever melted their hearts with divine love; yet, in the midst of an accumulating mass of error and superstition, we find them adhering, with inflexible constancy, to the grand principle on which all true religion is founded—the acknowledgment of one God, to the exclusion of idols… ”

The first proposal to send Jews to Madagascar belongs to the German Biblical scholar Paul de Lagarde (1827-1891), whose writings were a major influence on Hitler. Lagarde was driven by religious and political apocalypticism and his anti-Christianism was as fanatical as his anti-semitism. His ideas were embraced by British, Dutch, and Polish antisemites since the Great War. It was later touted by a wide range of politicians and anti-Semitic figures across Europe, some of whom subscribed to the belief that the Jews were the ancestors of the island’s Malagasy natives. Zionists caught up with the idea as well. In his book, “In the Shadow of Zion: Promised Lands Before Israel,” Adam Rovner discusses the Freeland League, an offshoot of the Zionist movement that in the 1930s attempted to advance Madagascar as one of several options outside of Palestine for Jewish settlement, especially as the atmosphere in Europe became increasingly hostile to Jews.
In fact it was a collaboration between Nazis and Zionists. Think of the ‘Lublin Reservation’ plan which was in fact a push to return the ‘Eastern’ Jews back to where they were coming from (the former ‘Pale of Settlement’). At the time the British newspaper ‘The Times’ noted that the German plan to create a Jewish state was cynical! Indeed, “The Lublin Reservation was slated to be “a Jewish state under German administration”!(@https://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Micr ... 205965.pdf). History should be re-written.


The European Saker In his own words: The European Saker falcon
I am a 'legal alien' currently living in the Imperial Homeland


Saker Analytics, LLC

1000 N. West Street
Suite 1200 #1588
Wilmington, DE
USA 19801

email thesaker:

email webmaster:

email moderation:
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
User avatar
Posts: 18454
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

Post by TonyGosling »

US-Russia nuclear war would kill 34 million people within hours and is increasingly likely, Princeton study concludes
Risk of catastrophic conflict has risen ‘dramatically in the past two years’, academics warn
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 09116.html

Jon Sharman
Tuesday 17 September 2019 19:26
More than 90 million people would be killed or injured in a nuclear war between the US and Russia if a conventional conflict went too far, according to a new simulation created by researchers.

Such a scenario has become “dramatically” more plausible in the last two years because the two countries have dropped support for arms-control measures, according to a team from Princeton University.

The simulation, the result of a study at Princeton‘s Science and Global Security programme (SGS), suggests 34 million people would be killed and 57 million injured in the first hours of an all-out nuclear conflagration – not counting those left ill by fallout and other long-term problems.

In the animation, electronic trails of ballistic missiles arc across the screen, before blossoming into a carpet of white discs.

Worldwide destruction would include the nuclear incineration of Europe, which the Princeton scientists claimed could be brought about by the escalation of a conventional war between Russia and Nato.

20 years of Putin
Show all 21
They say: “In hopes of halting a US-Nato advance, Russia launches a nuclear warning shot from a base near the city of Kaliningrad. Nato retaliates with a single tactical nuclear air strike.

“As the nuclear threshold is crossed, fighting escalates to a tactical nuclear war in Europe. Russia sends 300 nuclear warheads via aircraft and short-range missiles to hit Nato bases and advancing troops. Nato responds with approximately 180 nuclear warheads via aircraft.”

After that, hundreds of further strikes are made on both sides against military nuclear forces. In the video, Russia’s red streaks lift away from the ground moments before America’s rain of blue obliterates swathes of the country; then, Moscow’s bombs crash into the US from coast to coast.

Later, Washington and Moscow would both target population centres, with up to 10 missiles per city from their remaining submarine arsenals.

SGS claims the video is “based on real force postures, targets and fatality estimates”. The first simulated nuclear blast appears to occur just inside Poland, near Wroclaw and the borders with Germany and the Czech Republic.

Independent news email
Only the best news in your inbox

Enter your email address
Register with your social account or click here to log in

I would like to receive morning headlines
Monday - Friday plus breaking news alerts by email
Watch more
Iran rules out talks with Trump amid Middle East tensions
The Independent asked Princeton if there were any other scenarios modelled, such as one in which Nato launches the first nuclear weapon, and what if anything the researchers suggest may trigger the conventional war in the first place.

Zia Mian, a physicist from the SGS programme, said: “This scenario was developed on the basis of a conventional US/Nato-Russia conflict, with Russia launching a ‘de-escalatory’ nuclear weapon strike in accordance with its current policy.

“It was mapped out before the Trump administration announced as part of the Nuclear Posture Review US plans for development of a low-yield nuclear weapon and expanded the conditions under which the US might use nuclear weapons.”

Both the US Department of Defence and Russia’s UK embassy have been contacted for comment.

Sam Dudin, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, told The Independent that the mutually-assured destruction scenario envisaged by SGS would be unlikely to take place because US policy since 1950 has been to avoid direct conventional war with Russia. Moscow also does not want a war with Nato, he said.

Mr Dudin added: “From an operational perspective, it also seems that integrated air defence systems have disappeared from Europe. These systems would have a major impact on nuclear strikes launched from aircraft. The casualty estimates also seem to be low.

“Furthermore, several likely targets seem to have been missed out. Considering that France is a nuclear power, and British nuclear-armed submarines operate out of Faslane in Scotland, this seems like an oversight which demonstrates the American tendency to ignore allies.

“The terminology is quite typical of how the US thinks about Nato. Whereas the UK would talk about a Nato operation, as opposed to a UK-Nato operation, the US typically views Nato as something separate from them.”

Secret locations of US nuclear weapons in Europe accidentally leaked
SGS’ simulation comes as Princeton physicists launch a project to persuade fellow scientists of the need to reduce the threat posed by nuclear armaments.

Earlier this year Vladimir Putin signed a bill suspending Russia’s role in a key nuclear pact with the US, after Donald Trump pulled Washington out of the treaty.

The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty banned the production, testing and deployment of land-based cruise and ballistic missiles with a range of 310 to 3,410 miles.
User avatar
Posts: 18454
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

Post by TonyGosling »

SHOCK CLAIM: United States 'is plotting surprise NUCLEAR ATTACK on China AND Russia'
THE United States could be planning a surprise nuclear attack on China and Russia, a former US Army major has warned.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/76 ... ess-report

By Katie Mansfield
PUBLISHED: 06:18, Wed, Feb 1, 2017 | UPDATED: 09:29, Wed, Feb 1, 2017

US Congress has ordered a study into the “political and military leadership survivability” of China and Russia during wartime.

The report could be interpreted as a signal the US is preparing for a preemptive strike on the two nations, according to military analysts.

US intelligence agencies and Strategic Command, which is in charge of US nuclear forces, will carry out the study, a report says.

The US could be planning an attack on Russia and China, a former US Army major has claimed

That’s the reason for this study: to ensure we wipe out their command and control with a first strike

Retired US Army major Todd Pierce

Retired US Army major Todd Pierce told Russian state media Sputnik: “No other nation-state has any intent of attacking us except if they should survive our initial ‘preemptive attack’, they can be expected to retaliate the best they are able.

“That’s the reason for this study: to ensure we wipe out their command and control with a first strike.”

According to a conference report of the National Defense Authorization Act 2017 (NDAA), Congress has ordered a “report on Russian and Chinese political and military leadership survivability, command and control, and continuity of government programs and activities”.

The report called for the Director of National Intelligence to submit the study to congressional committees by January 15, five days before Donald Trump took office.

The NDAA said the report should identify where senior political and military leaders in China and Russia are “expected to operate during crisis and wartime” as well.

It should also assess the location of “above-ground and underground facilities important to the political and military leadership survivability, command and control, and continuity of government programs and activities”.

The report could be interpreted as a signal the US is preparing for a preemptive strikeGETTY STOCK IMAGE
The report could be interpreted as a signal the US is preparing for a preemptive strike

Donald Trump spoke on the phone to Vladimir Putin on SaturdayEPA
Donald Trump spoke on the phone to Vladimir Putin on Saturday

Mr Pierce said the report could be explained by the US wanting to explore the possibility of wiping out Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping in a sudden attack.

He insisted the study is not a defensive move but “typical American double talk when we are in the process of planning offensive military operations”.

Former CIA officer Phil Giraldi echoed Mr Pierce’s view that the study is part of a comprehensive assessment routinely made by military intelligence agencies.
Do these photos show America preparing for war with Russia?
Wed, January 18, 2017
A photographer has captured what he says is an F-16 jet practicing dogfights with a mysterious Russian fighter plane – before returning to Area 51.
Play slideshow
1 of 24

The underside of the Russian Su-27P Flanker-B aircraft
The Russian Su-27P jets past the moon
Side view of the Russian Su-27 Flanker
Sukhoi Su-27SKM Flanker, similar to Su-27P Flanker-B photographed at Groom Lake
The underside of the Russian Su-27P Flanker-B aircraft
Russian Su-27 Flanker turns towards the camera

Mr Giraldi said: “I think it's routine contingency planning as I see no evidence that it was initiated personally by any of the identifiable hawks.”

He added the US Department of Defense has prepared plans for all contingencies including the most improbable.

Mr Giraldi said: “I'm sure the Pentagon has even worked up a plan and assessment regarding what would happen if we were to invade Canada. Didn't work out too well in 1812.”
Inside China's Military Superpower
Sat, November 11, 2017
An inside view of the Chinese military over 120 years.
Play slideshow
Armed police soldiers lift timbers during a drill on August 24, 2016 in Chongqing, China. As the highest temperatures reached over 40 degree Celsius at 5 districts in Chongqing, officers and soldiers of an armed police crop took outdoor training
VCG via Getty Images
1 of 23

Armed police soldiers lift timbers during a drill on August 24, 2016 in Chongqing, China. As the highest temperatures reached over 40 degree Celsius at 5 districts in Chongqing, officers and soldiers of an armed police crop took outdoor training

Armed police soldiers lift timbers during a drill on August 24, 2016 in Chongqing, China. As the highest temperatures reached over 40 degree Celsius at 5 districts in Chongqing, officers and soldiers of an armed police crop took outdoor training
Armed police officers and soldiers of a frontier inspection station drill in the snow on December 21, 2016 in Heihe, Heilongjiang Province of China
Armed police officers and soldiers of a frontier inspection station drill in the snow on December 21, 2016 in Heihe, Heilongjiang Province of China
Armed police officers and soldiers of a frontier inspection station drill in the snow on December 21, 2016 in Heihe, Heilongjiang Province of China
Armed police officers and soldiers of a frontier inspection station raise tires during a drill in the snow on December 21, 2016 in Heihe, Heilongjiang Province of China
Armed police officers and soldiers of a frontier inspection station drill in the snow on December 21, 2016 in Heihe, Heilongjiang Province of China
Armed police officers and soldiers of a frontier inspection station drill in the snow on December 21, 2016 in Heihe, Heilongjiang Province of China

It comes as the Kremlin said a phone call between Mr Trump and Mr Putin on Saturday went well signalling US-Russia relations could thaw under the new US president.

But Washington has seen tensions with Beijing escalate over disputed islands in the South China Sea.

China said it has "irrefutable" sovereignty over the islands as the White House vowed to defend "international territories" in the strategic waterway.
User avatar
Posts: 18454
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

Post by TonyGosling »

RAND and the Malevolent Encirclement of Russia
Column: PoliticsRegion: Russia in the World
https://journal-neo.org/2020/10/13/rand ... of-russia/

Over recent weeks a series of events in the states surrounding the Russian Federation has erupted that certainly are not being greeted with joy in the Kremlin. Each crisis center of itself is not a definitive game-changer for future Russian security. Taken together they suggest something far more ominous is unfolding against Moscow. A recent RAND study prepared for the US Army suggests with remarkable accuracy who might be behind what will undoubtedly become a major threat to Russian security in coming months.

The Turkish-backed attacks by Azerbaijan against Nagorno-Karabakh, igniting a territory after almost three decades of relative stalemate and ceasefire, the ongoing destabilization of Lukashenko in Belarus, the bizarre EU and UK behavior surrounding the alleged poisoning of Russian dissident Navalny and most recently, the mass protests in Kyrgyzstan, a former part of the Soviet Union in Central Asia, bear the fingerprints of the MI6 of Britain, the CIA and an array of regime-change private NGOs.


On September 27 military forces from Azerbaijan broke the 1994 ceasefire with Armenia over the conflict in predominantly ethnic- Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh. The heaviest fighting in years ensued on both sides as confrontation escalated. Turkey’s Erdogan came out openly in support of Baku against Armenia and Armenian-populated Nagorno-Karabakh, leading Nikol Pashinyan, the Prime Minister of Armenia, to accuse Turkey of “continuing a genocidal policy as a pragmatic task.” It was a clear reference to the 1915-23 Armenian charge of genocide of more than a million Armenian Christians by the Ottoman Empire. Turkey to this day refuses to acknowledge responsibility.

While Armenia blames Erdogan for backing Azerbaijan in the present conflict in the Caucasus, Russian oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin, sometimes called “Putin’s chef” for his catering empire as well as his close ties to the Russian President, has said in an interview with a Turkish paper that the Armenia-Azeri conflict was provoked by “the Americans,” and that the Pashinyan regime is essentially in the service of the USA. Here it gets interesting.

In 2018 Pashinyan came to power via mass protests called the “Velvet Revolution.” He was openly and heavily supported by the Soros Open Society Foundation-Armenia which since 1997 has been active funding numerous “democracy” NGOs in the country. As Prime Minister, Pashinyan has named recipients of Soros money to most key cabinet positions including state security and defense.

At the same time it is unthinkable that Erdogan’s Turkey, still in NATO, would so openly support Azerbaijan in a conflict that potentially could lead to a Turkish confrontation with Russia, without prior backing in some form Washington. Armenia is a member of the economic and defense association Eurasian Economic Union together with Russia. This makes the comments of Prigozhin especially interesting.

It is also worth noting that the head of the CIA, Gina Haspel, and the recently-named head of Britain’s MI-6, Richard Moore, are both seasoned Turkey hands. Moore was UK Ambassador to Ankara until 2017. Haspel was CIA Station Chief in Azerbaijan at the end of the 1990’s. Before that, in 1990 Haspel was a CIA officer in Turkey, fluent in Turkish. Notably, although it has been scrubbed from her official CIA bio, she was also CIA Station Chief in London just prior to being named Trump Administration CIA head. She was also specialized in operations against Russia when she was in Langley at the CIA Directorate of Operations.

This raises the question whether the dark hands of an Anglo-American intelligence operation are behind the current Azeri-Armenia conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. Adding further gunpowder to the Caucasus unrest, on October 5 NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that NATO’s security interests are synonymous with those of Turkey, despite Turkish purchase of Russian advanced air defense systems. Washington until now has been conspicuously silent on the Caucasus conflict or Turkey’s alleged role.

And Belarus…

The eruption of the simmering Nagorno-Karabakh conflict near Russia’s southern border is not the only state where Washington is actively promoting destabilization of vital Russian neighbors these days. Since August elections, Belarus has been filled with orchestrated protests accusing President Lukashenko of election fraud. The opposition has been active in exile from neighboring NATO Baltic countries.

In 2019, the US government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) listed on its website some 34 NED project grants in Belarus. All of them were directed to nurture and train an anti-Lukashenko series of opposition groups and build domestic NGOs. The grants went for such projects as, “NGO Strengthening: To increase local and regional civic engagement… to identify local problems and develop advocacy strategies.” Another was to “expand an online depository of publications not readily accessible in the country, including works on politics, civil society, history, human rights, and independent culture.” Then another NED grant went, “To defend and support independent journalists and media.” And another, “NGO Strengthening: To foster youth civic engagement.” Another large NED grant went to, “training democratic parties and movements in effective advocacy campaigns.” Behind the innocent-sounding NED projects is a pattern of creating a specially-trained opposition on the lines of the CIA’s NED model “Color Revolutions” template.

As if the unrest in the Caucasus and Belarus were not enough to give Moscow migraine headaches, on September 29 in Brussels, Georgian Prime Minister Giorgi Gakharia met with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. Stoltenberg told him that, “NATO supports Georgia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty within its internationally recognized borders. We call on Russia to end its recognition of [Georgia’s breakaway] regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and to withdraw its forces.” Stoltenberg then told Gakharia, “And I encourage you to continue making full use of all the opportunities for coming closer to NATO. And to prepare for membership.” Of course NATO membership for Russian neighbor Georgia would amount to a strategic challenge for Russia as would that of Ukraine. The NATO comments add to the tensions facing the Kremlin recently.

Kyrgystan’s Third Color Revolution?

Then former Soviet Union Central Asian republic, Kyrgyzstan, has also just erupted in mass protests that have brought down the government for the third time since 2005, over opposition allegations of election fraud. USAID, a known cover often for CIA operations, is active in the country as is the Soros Foundation which has created a university in Biskek and funds the usual array of projects, “to promote justice, democratic governance, and human rights.” It should be noted that Kyrgyzstan is also a member of the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union along with Armenia and Belarus.

Then to increase the heat on Russia we have the bizarre charges by the German Bundeswehr intelligence and now the OPCW that Russian dissident Alexei Navalny was poisoned in Russia using “a Soviet-era nerve agent,” said by the Germans to be Novichok. While Navalny since has evidently emerged quite alive and out of hospital, the German officials as well as British, do not bother to explain such a miraculous recovery from what is reputed to be the most deadly nerve agent ever. Following the OPCW statement that the substance was Novichok, the German Foreign Minister is threatening severe sanctions against Russia. Many are calling for Germany to cancel the Russian NordStream-2 gas pipeline as response, a blow that would hit Russia at a time of severe economic weakness from low oil prices and corona lockdown effects.

Nor does Germany bother to investigate the mysterious Russian companion of Navalny, Maria Pevchikh, who claims to have rescued the “Novichok-poisoned” empty water bottle from Navalny’s hotel room in Tomsk Russia before he was flown to Berlin on the personal invitation of Angela Merkel. After delivering the poisoned bottle to Berlin in person, she apparently swiftly flew to London where she lives, and no German or other authorities apparently tried to interview her as a potential material witness.

Pevchikh has a long association with London where she works with the Navalny foundation and is in reported close contact with Jacob Rothschild’s friend, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the convicted fraudster and Putin foe. Khodorkovsky is also a major funder of the Navalny Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK in Russian). There are credible reports that the mysterious Pevchikh is an asset of MI-6, the same MI-6 that ran another ludicrous Novichok drama in 2018 claiming that Russian defector Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal were poisoned in England by Russian intelligence using the deadly Novichok. Again there, both Skripals miraculously recovered from the deadliest nerve agent and officially were discharged from hospital whereupon they “disappeared.”

A RAND Blueprint?

While more research will undoubtedly turn up more evidence, the pattern of NATO or Anglo-American active measures against key Russian periphery countries or against strategic Russian economic interests all within the same timespan suggests some kind of coordinated attack.

And it so happens that the targets of the attacks fit precisely to the outline of a major US military think tank report. In a 2019 research report to the US Army, the RAND corporation published a set of policy recommendations under the title, “Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground.” They note that by extending Russia they mean “nonviolent measures that could stress Russia’s military or economy or the regime’s political standing at home and abroad.” All of the above stress points certainly fill that description. More striking is the specific elaboration of possible stress points to “extend Russia,” that is to over-extend her.

The report specifically discusses what they call “Geopolitical Measures” to over-extend Russia. These include providing lethal aid to Ukraine; promoting regime change in Belarus; exploiting tensions in the South Caucasus; reduce Russian influence in Central Asia. It also includes proposals to weaken the Russian economy by challenging its gas and oil sectors.

Notably, these are the same areas of geopolitical turbulence within Russia’s strategic sphere of influence today. Specifically, on the Caucasus, RAND states, “Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia were part of the Soviet Union, and Russia still maintains significant sway over the region today…” They note that, “Today, Russia recognizes both South Ossetia and Abkhazia as separate countries (one of the few governments to do so) and is committed to their defense…. The United States might also renew efforts to bring Georgia into NATO. Georgia has long sought NATO membership;…” ix Recall the cited remarks of NATO’s Stoltenberg to encourage Georgia joining NATO and demanding Russia give up recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

The RAND report also highlights the tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan: ”Russia also plays a key role with Azerbaijan and Armenia, particularly over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh… the United States could push for a closer NATO relationship with Georgia and Azerbaijan, likely leading Russia to strengthen its military presence in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Armenia, and southern Russia. Alternatively, the United States could try to induce Armenia to break with Russia.”

In relation to current massive protests in Kyrgyzstan in Central Asia, RAND notes, “Russia is part of two economic ventures related to Central Asia: the EEU and the Belt and Road Initiative.” A pro-NATO regime change could throw a big barrier between Russia and China as well as within its EEU. As to economic pressures, the RAND report cites the possibility of pressuring the EU to abandon the NordStream-2 gas pipeline from Russia direct to Germany. The recent Navalny incident is creating growing pressure within the EU and even Germany to stop NordStream-2 as sanction for the Navalny affair. RAND notes, “In terms of extending Russia economically, the main benefit of creating supply alternatives to Russian gas is that it would lower Russian export revenues. The federal Russian budget is already stressed, leading to planned cuts in defense spending, and lowering gas revenues would stress the budget further.”

If we examine the growing pressures on Russia from the examples cited here and compare with the language of the 2019 RAND report it is clear that many of Russia’s current strategic problems are being deliberately engineered and orchestrated from the West, specifically from Washington and London. How Russia deals with this as well as certain future escalation of NATO pressures clearly presents a major geopolitical challenge.
User avatar
Posts: 18454
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

Post by TonyGosling »

Many interesting developments in Russia
https://thesaker.is/many-interesting-de ... in-russia/

July 21, 2021 63 Comments
[this column was written for the Unz Review]

The past week has been quite intense in Russia – lots of interesting developments took place, and today I will mention three:

Putin wrote a very interesting essay on the history of Russia and the Ukraine, which he followed up with a very interesting interview.
Russia just concluded final tests for truly formidable weapons systems like the S-500 and the Mach 8 hypersonic missile Zircon.
In its yearly aviation salon MAKS, Russia has just presented a 5th generation, single engine light multi-functional fighter the Su-75 “Checkmate” (shown here)

Sukhoi Su-75

These are all truly huge developments for Russia which we need to look into separately.

Putin’s history of Russia and the Ukraine

First, I highly recommend that you take the time to read the full article here and the full interview here (there is no point for me to use the space here to pepper you with excerpts), especially if you are not well-acquainted with Russian history or live in Zone A. Furthermore, being the “Putin groupie and fanboy” which I so-notoriously am (guilty as charged!), I won’t surprise anybody by saying that I agree with almost every word Putin wrote or spoke. And, frankly, all the facts Putin lists are really common knowledge for most people (unless they have been brainwashed by US/Ukronazi propaganda) and there is really no point for me to repeat “yes, this is true” and “yes, he is right” over and over again.

So all I propose to do next is to just to add a few comments of mine about this article+interview (I will assume that readers will have read them both; if not, I suggest completely skipping this section),

First, as I just said, there is absolutely nothing new in this article for educated people. But that is not Putin’s target audience anyway. Putin’s target audience are the younger generations (in the Ukraine, the West and even, alas, Russia proper!) who know very little, if anything, about history. And while this is also true of Russia, this is especially true in the Ukraine where people have been massively brainwashed since 1917 (as Putin explains this very well in his article).
The real reason why this article caused such a stir in Russia and *total* hysterics amongst the Ukronazi nutcases (who, again, are now predicting an imminent Russian invasion, what else?) is that while these facts were known for decades, but considered very politically incorrect to mention them lest the Ukrainians get offended: from the late 80s and until now, the Ukronazis taught a very different version of history, which includes coming from the Sumerian civilization, building the pyramids in Egypt, digging the Black Sea, founding the ancient Aryan civilization, etc. Even more crucially, the official Ukronazi narrative claims that Russians and Ukrainians are completely different people (Ukies are true, pure, Aryans while Russians are Ugro-Altaic Mongols). So what Putin did with this article is simply to (finally!) proclaim that the emperor is naked and the clueless Ukies ignorant of their own history.
This article also marks a rather dramatic change of tone from the Kremlin. In the past the Kremlin always tried to maintain a polite and respectful attitude towards the Ukies and their Wakanda-like delusions about history. Now this is over, Russia has finally and openly decided to declare to the Ukies (and the rest of the world!) that their founding myths are based on precious *nothing* and that Russia is done treating this utter nonsense as if it has any factual basis in the adult world.
I would like to offer one more commentary on Putin’s statements.

I believe that there has been a “war of words” waged by the Ukrainian nationalists against the Russians for many decades (I remember listening to the Ukie service of RL/RFE and I was always amazed at the completely open hatred – bordering on racist bigotry – of the Ukie propaganda; even when compared to all the other national minority services of RL/RFE which, I assure you, included a lot of bone fide nutcases in many of its services) and the Russian side was mostly quiet and demure lest the Ukies get offended. That is now over, in this war of words Russia will now use her verbal ammunition to debunk the Ukronazi pseudo-historical fairy tales. I very much welcome that!

Finally, I believe that the Kremlin is already working on “post-Ze” options. Frankly, this also comes not a second too soon! The Ukraine has been in free fall for years already, but even by Ukie standards the chaos and tensions which are taking place now have grown into full scale hysterics which is both truly amazing and very concerning (I will spare you all the details now, I have enough such articles already posted, but I will probably have to revisit this slow agony in the near future). I get the feeling that the Kremlin expects a truly bona fide Nazis leader to come to power by one way or another after “Ze” (Note: while “Ze” did end up catering to the Ukronazis, he himself is most definitely not “the real thing” – he only pretends). Maybe a “President Avakov” next (no Nazi either, by the way, just a man very skilled at using Nazis)?

The bottom line is this: the final collapse of the Ukraine is what the Kremlin is now openly waiting for next. And even if “Biden” wants to force “Ze” to abide by the Minsk Agreements, this will mean the end for “Ze” and a return to full/total power of the Ukronazis. Why? There are roughly three forces in the Ukraine right now, at least apparently:

The regime in power (“Ze” and his gang)
The opposition (mostly the OPZZh party)
The real hardcore Nazis (you can think of them as the Ukie version of the Hutu “Interahamwe” in Rwanda
The regime is in deep agony and simply not viable.

The opposition is divided, often politically discredited and lacks both a clear leader and a clear vision.

In sharp contrast, the Ukronazis gang is small, but very well organized, very well funded and very well led (most of the “street level” Ukronazi leaders are imbeciles like Liashko or, better, Tiagnibok, but Avakov is no idiot, he is good at working with his US patrons and with the truly crazy folks like Andrei Biletskii or Aleksei Danilov).

True, in the long term the political prospects of the opposition look pretty good, as they have a few (very few?) pretty sharp leaders, and their program recommends better relations with Russia, something truly vital (literally!) for the Ukraine. But I don’t see the opposition having the strength to take on the Ukronazis just yet: first “Ze” needs to go, the Ukronazis need to seize full control of power again, and then come up with some truly crazy * (that all Nazis are good for, as history has shown) which will break-up the Ukraine into various successor states. Only at that point will the current opposition have good political chances in the eastern and southern parts of the Ukraine. But the current situation is too complex and too fluid to take anybody’s guesses and predictions too seriously. Only time will truly show.

The S-500 and Zircon weapons systems have now been fully tested

The quick way to summarize this development is to say that both the S-500 and the Zircon have no comparable competitors anywhere in the world, not even vaguely comparable ones. Both the S-500 and the Zircon missiles are way, waaaay ahead of any other weapons system in their categories. Even better, the Empire has nothing, and really I mean absolutely nothing, it could oppose to either one of these weapons systems. And with not too much hyperbole, it would be fair to say that, once fully deployed, the S-500 will make most of the US/NATO aviation and tactical/operational and even some strategic missiles completely obsolete. As for the Zircon, it does the same thing to the USN’s surface fleet. To say that this is huge would be an understatement, especially since US/NATO force planners must now decide what to do about this, and that is no small task considering that is now becoming obvious that US/NATO force planners made some truly major mistakes in their assumptions about what the modern 21st century battlefield will really look like. Force planning deals with many immense technological and bureaucratic inertia and to “simply change course” is not “simple” at all: it typically takes decades!

I have no doubt that the US MIC propaganda machine will now talk a lot about US ‘hypersonic’ weapons and about 6th generation super-dooper aircraft. But let’s be honest here: the US hypersonic weapons program is in its infancy (at best) and is struggling. As for the USAF, it will take it many years to at least reduce the long list of major problems of the F-35, and even that is not a real solution: while I am sure that, given enough time, the USAF/USN will find a way to use this aircraft effectively (at least against non-peer adversaries), the only real solution to this ugly mess is to not only quickly revive the F-15 (in its F-15X form, which looks promising), but also to embark on the development of a 5++ generation aircraft while at the same time working on a real, truly 6th gen, successor (in the good sense of the word) for the F-35. This being said, if the F-35 proves anything, it is that the Pentagon and the US MIC are corrupt beyond what any words could express (from a purely corruption point of view the F-35 was a stunning success!) and this begs the question: can these guys even develop a halfway decent or even a good aircraft?! Or has the country which developed the superb F-16, A-10, 747 or the F-15 lost its ability to produce truly superb aircraft? I don’t know.

What do you think?

The brand new 5th generation single-engine Su-75 “Checkmate”

This is really THE news of the day! This is nothing short of earth-shattering. Let’s begin with a list of factoids I tried to collect from different sources: (since all this info was only unveiled a few hours ago, there might still be mistakes, so caveat emptor!)

Name: Sukhoi Su-75 “Checkmate”
High commonality with Su-57
Single engine (crucial!)
3D thrust vectoring of the engine
Top speed 2400 km/h (about 1500mph or 1300 knots or just under Mach 2)
Thrust vectoring engines
30M dollars typical cost
5,5 years development only (using supercomputers)
1500km combat range
STOL (shorter than Su-57’s about 400m)
Max load: 7.5 tons
Service Ceiling just under 17km
Max load: 8+ G
Ferry range 3000km+ (on internal fuel)
Advanced avionics and all glass cockpit
The Belka N036 AFAR antenna with a detection range of 350-400km
Long, medium and short range weapons for any targets
Can engage 6-8 targets (in air, land, water and air defenses) simultaneously
Will feature the long-range 30P6 air to air missile (range: about 160km)
AI support and guidance
Five air-to-air missiles carried internally
Onboard advanced EW defenses
The Su-75 has a canon carried inside its internal sections
The Su-75 can be configured as a single and double seater
There will be a pilotless version of the Su-75 (automated and remote-controlled)
The Su-75 has advanced datalinks allowing it to operate together with other aircraft or drones
Supercruise (not sure? Probably only in a future engine)
The aircraft is “open architecture” (so it can be adapted to specific needs)
Sukhoi expects to sell about 300 Su-75 in the next 15 years or so
The Su-75 can be adapted for naval carrier use
The target clients are the both the Russian Aerospace Forces (RuASF) and foreign clients (but only export versions for foreign clients).
Its first flight is scheduled for 2023 and adoption by the RuASF is, assuming a contract is confirmed, set for 2025.
Price: 25-30 million dollars depending on specific requirements

View of the Su-75’s glass cockpit

What do I make of these characteristics? Here are some of my thoughts (keep in mind that while I did some work with the Swiss Air Force, I am not an aerospace engineer, so take all I say with at least a pound or two of salt and wait for real experts to pitch in!).

First, this is a much needed aircraft for Russia which currently does not have modern single engine combat aircraft. Currently, the “core” aircraft of the RuASF are all big twin engines: Su-30SM, Su-35, Su-34, .etc. Even the much smaller “F-16 counterpart”, the Mig-29, has two engines. Even the (comparatively) smaller MiG-35 is a twin engine. These are all superb aircraft, but a single-engine aircraft would be much cheaper, not only to purchase, but even more so to maintain.

Second, Russia’s main weakness when compared to the US/NATO is primarily quantitative: while they are much inferior, US/NATO aircraft are produced in huge numbers the Russian industrial base and finances cannot match, at least not by producing very advanced but also very expensive aircraft a la Su-35S. The RuASF needs many cheap but highly effective combat aircraft and the Su-75 might well be “the” dream machine for Russia.

Third, a single-engine 5th generation aircraft for about 30 million dollars is an extremely attractive option, especially with its open architecture. Especially when its only competitor is the truly pathetic F-35 (which is really not much of a 5th gen aircraft, at least for the foreseeable future (especially since it has fundamentally flawed core-design issues, read all about it here).

By the way, the Russians are officially denying that they wanted to make a “Russian response” to the F-35. They say that the F-35 and the Su-75 are in completely different categories and when you look at such parameters are speed, maneuverability, max load or, especially, price, you can see that the Russians are fundamentally correct: it’s not just “just” that the Su-75 is a much superior aircraft, it is really in a completely different “punching weight” category.

Fourth, just like a truly effective air defense system requires different weapons systems all integrated into a single network and working together, so does tactical/operational aviation. These are the main categories the RuASF needs to fill: CAS aircraft (Su-25M), strike aircraft (Su-24M and Su-34), air superiority and interceptors (Su-30SM, Su-35S), advanced long-range interceptors (MiG-31BM) and a cheap, ubiquitous but very capable “dogfighter” for the frontline aviation which can deal with enemy aircraft while also supporting the ground forces: the Su-75. Russian did built some very good single fighters in the past, including the MiG-23 (criticized in the West, but loved by Russian pilots) and, arguably, the most successful fighter ever built, the MiG-21. So Russians know how to do that, they just have not done that in way too many years and the appearance of the Su-75 comes “not a second too late” for the Russian military which will finally have a truly “full-spectrum” of modern, indigenously built, combat aircraft.

Fifth, not only does the Su-75 have a lot of common systems with the Su-57, but it appears that the Russians are working on combining their long-rage radars (MiG-31BM, Su-57 and A-50M) with combat drones (like the Orion and the large S-70) with either “silent” (non-radiating aircraft) and advanced, but still smaller and cheaper aircraft, like the Su-75. Combine that with the most advanced air defense network on the planet, and you will see why US/NATO advocates are severely butthurt by all this :-)

Here is a good image showing how similar the Su-75 and Su-57 are externally:

There were some speculations that the Russians were working on a successor for their Yak-141 VSTOL combat aircraft (which the US Americans tried to copy as a basis for their F-35, “improved upon” and, eventually, miserably failed), but the Russians have appeared to be content with “only” STOL capabilities. Considering the catastrophic failure of the F-35B (and the non-deployment of the Yak-141) might be the wiser choice. If the Su-75 ever makes it on a carrier of some kind, short catapult-assisted take-offs is probably the wiser solution.

One last thing: for the first time in decades the Russians have (finally!) managed to keep things really hush-hush and there were almost zero leaks about the Su-75, and most of those which did happen were carefully orchestrated by the Russian authorities. I am not talking about the mass media like Argumenty i Fakty or Popular Mechanics. Even the specialized press had only a few good guesses about what this “soon to be unveiled and totally new 5th gen fighter” would look like. There were a few partial photos, some drawings, a few partial photos, all augmented by educated guesses. Not only that, but there is still a *lot* we don’t know, including on some really important topics like the Su-75 radar and longest range air-to-air missiles. So we can conclude that the Russian counter-intelligence services have finally gotten a good grip on the security situation and are now capable of keeping secret that which needs to be kept secret. Again, this is a much needed and very positive development.


This has been a long and important week for Russia which, I think, illustrates a few important things:

The Russians have clearly lost lost their very last illusions about the Nazi-occupied Ukraine and are now actively preparing the “post-Ze” period.
Putin feels the popular pressure and is embarking on a PR campaign in preparation for the next elections.
The Russian MIC is doing better than ever and the recent Russian high-tech successes show that Russia has gone into what they call a “high-quality separation” (качественный отрыв) from the West or Asia.
All in all, this is all good news.

The Saker

PS: just for fun, here is the (a somewhat silly) video of the presentation of the Su-75 at MAKS 2021 (I note with some amusement that neither the BBC nor CNN did not mention this event by a single word, at least as far as I know at the time of writing this)
User avatar
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 3230
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

Post by Whitehall_Bin_Men »

What War With Russia Would Look Like
January 10, 2022
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/01/10/w ... look-like/

Wendy Sherman thinks her aim in talks with Russian officials starting Monday is to lecture them on the cost of hubris. Instead she’s set to lead the U.S., NATO, and Europe down a path of ruin, warns Scott Ritter.

Ahead of the formal talks, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman met with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov on Sunday in Geneva and told him Washington “would welcome genuine progress through diplomacy.” (Russian Mission in Geneva)

By Scott Ritter
Special to Consortium News

If ever a critical diplomatic negotiation was doomed to fail from the start, the discussions between the U.S. and Russia over Ukraine and Russian security guarantees is it.

The two sides can’t even agree on an agenda.

From the Russian perspective, the situation is clear: “The Russian side came here [to Geneva] with a clear position that contains a number of elements that, to my mind, are understandable and have been so clearly formulated—including at a high level—that deviating from our approaches simply is not possible,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told the press after a pre-meeting dinner on Sunday hosted by U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who is leading the U.S. delegation.

Ryabkov was referring Russian President Vladimir Putin’s demands to U.S. President Joe Biden in early December regarding Russian security guarantees, which were then laid out by Moscow in detail in the form of two draft treaties, one a Russian-U.S. security treaty, the other a security agreement between Russia and NATO.

The latter would bar Ukraine from joining NATO and rule out any eastward expansion by the trans-Atlantic military alliance. At the time, Ryabkov tersely noted that the U.S. should immediately begin to address the proposed drafts with an eye to finalizing something when the two sides meet. Now, with the meeting beginning on Monday, it doesn’t appear as if the U.S. has done any such thing.

“[T]he talks are going to be difficult,” Ryabkov told reporters after the dinner meeting. “They cannot be easy. They will be business-like. I think we won’t waste our time tomorrow.” When asked if Russia was ready to compromise, Ryabkov tersely responded, “The Americans should get ready to reach a compromise.”

All the U.S. has been willing to do, it seems, is to remind Russia of so-called “serious consequences” should Russia invade Ukraine, something the U.S. and NATO fear is imminent, given the scope and scale of recent Russian military exercises in the region involving tens of thousands of troops. This threat was made by Biden to Putin on several occasions, including a phone call initiated by Putin last week to help frame the upcoming talks.

Yet on the eve of the Ryabkov-Sherman meeting, U.S. Secretary of State Tony Blinken simply reiterated these threats, declaring that Russia would face “massive consequences” if it invaded Ukraine.

“It’s clear that we’ve offered him two paths forward,” Blinken said, speaking of Putin. “One is through diplomacy and dialogue; the other is through deterrence and massive consequences for Russia if it renews its aggression against Ukraine. And we’re about to test the proposition of which path President Putin wants to take this week.”

Lessons of History

Moscow, June 23, 1941: Soviet soldiers on their way to the front. The sign reads: “Our cause is just. The enemy will be crushed. The victory will be ours! ” (Anatoliy Garanin .License: CC BY SA 3.0.)

It is as if both Biden and Blinken are deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to reading Russia.

Ryabkov has alluded to a fact already made clear by the Russians—there will be no compromise when it comes to Russia’s legitimate national security interests. And if the U.S. cannot understand how the accumulation of military power encompassed in a military alliance which views Russia as a singular, existential threat to its members’ security is seen by Russia as threatening, then there is no comprehension of how the events of June 22, 1941 have shaped the present -day Russian psyche, why Russia will never again allow such a situation to occur, and why the talks are doomed before they even begin.

As for the American threats, Russia has given its response—any effort to sanction Russia would result, as Putin told Biden last month, in a “complete rupture of relations” between Russia and those countries attempting sanctions. One need not be a student of history to comprehend that the next logical step following a “complete rupture of relations” between two parties that are at loggerheads over matters pertaining to existential threats to the national security of one or both is not the peaceful resumption of relations, but war.

Support CN’s Winter Fund Drive!

There is no mealy-mouthed posturing by Foggy Bottom peacocks taking place in Moscow, but rather a cold, hard, statement of fact—ignore Russia’s demands at you own peril. The U.S., it seems, believes that the worst-case scenario is one where Russia invades Ukraine, only to wilt under the sustained pressure of economic sanctions and military threats.

Russia’s worse-case scenario is one where it engages in armed conflict with NATO.

Generally speaking, the side that is most prepared for the reality of armed conflict will prevail.

Russia has been preparing for this possibility for more than a year. It has repeatedly shown a capability to rapidly mobilize 100,000-plus combat-ready forces in short order. NATO has shown an ability to mobilize 30,000 after six-to-nine-months of extensive preparations.

The Shape of War

Russian Air Force Sukhoi Su-24. (mil.ru/Wikimedia Commons)

What would a conflict between Russia and NATO look like? In short, not like anything NATO has prepared for. Time is the friend of NATO in any such conflict—time to let sanctions weaken the Russian economy, and time to allow NATO to build up sufficient military power to be able to match Russia’s conventional military strength.

Russia knows this, and as such, any Russian move will be designed to be both swift and decisive.

First and foremost, if it comes to it, when Russia decides to move on Ukraine, it will do so with a plan of action that has been well-thought out and which sufficient resources have been allocated for its successful completion. Russia will not get involved in a military misadventure in Ukraine that has the potential of dragging on and on, like the U.S. experience in Afghanistan and Iraq. Russia has studied an earlier U.S. military campaign—Operation Desert Storm, of Gulf War I—and has taken to heart the lessons of that conflict.

One does not need to occupy the territory of a foe in order to destroy it. A strategic air campaign designed to nullify specific aspects of a nations’ capability, whether it be economic, political, military, or all the above, coupled with a focused ground campaign designed to destroy an enemy’s army as opposed to occupy its territory, is the likely course of action.

Given the overwhelming supremacy Russia has both in terms of the ability to project air power backed by precision missile attacks, a strategic air campaign against Ukraine would accomplish in days what the U.S. took more than a month to do against Iraq in 1991.

On the ground, the destruction of Ukraine’s Army is all but guaranteed. Simply put, the Ukrainian military is neither equipped nor trained to engage in large-scale ground combat. It would be destroyed piecemeal, and the Russians would more than likely spend more time processing Ukrainian prisoners of war than killing Ukrainian defenders.

For any Russian military campaign against Ukraine to be effective in a larger conflict with NATO, however, two things must occur—Ukraine must cease to exist as a modern nation state, and the defeat of the Ukrainian military must be massively one-sided and quick. If Russia is able to accomplish these two objectives, then it is well positioned to move on to the next phase of its overall strategic posturing vis-à-vis NATO—intimidation.

While the U.S., NATO, the EU, and the G7 have all promised “unprecedented sanctions,” sanctions only matter if the other side cares. Russia, by rupturing relations with the West, no longer would care about sanctions. Moreover, it is a simple acknowledgement of reality that Russia can survive being blocked from SWIFT transactions longer than Europe can survive without Russian energy. Any rupturing of relations between Russia and the West will result in the complete embargoing of Russian gas and oil to European customers.

There is no European Plan B. Europe will suffer, and because Europe is composed of erstwhile democracies, politicians will pay the price. All those politicians who followed the U.S. blindly into a confrontation with Russia will now have to answer to their respective constituents why they committed economic suicide on behalf of a Nazi-worshipping, thoroughly corrupt nation (Ukraine) which has nothing in common with the rest of Europe. It will be a short conversation.

NATO’s Fix

NATO exercise in Germany. (Spc. Ashley Webster/Wikimedia Commons)

If the U.S. tries to build up NATO forces on Russia’s western frontiers in the aftermath of any Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia will then present Europe with a fait accompli in the form of what would now be known as the “Ukrainian model.” In short, Russia will guarantee that the Ukrainian treatment will be applied to the Baltics, Poland, and even Finland, should it be foolish enough to pursue NATO membership.

Russia won’t wait until the U.S. has had time to accumulate sufficient military power, either. Russia will simply destroy the offending party through the combination of an air campaign designed to degrade the economic function of the targeted nation, and a ground campaign designed to annihilate the ability to wage war. Russia does not need to occupy the territory of NATO for any lengthy period—just enough to destroy whatever military power has been accumulated by NATO near its borders.

And—here’s the kicker—short of employing nuclear weapons, there’s nothing NATO can do to prevent this outcome. Militarily, NATO is but a shadow of its former self. The once great armies of Europe have had to cannibalize their combat formations to assemble battalion-sized “combat groups” in the Baltics and Poland. Russia, on the other hand, has reconstituted two army-size formations—the 1st Guards Tank Army and the 20th Combined Arms Army—from the Cold War-era which specialize in deep offensive military action.

Even Vegas wouldn’t offer odds on this one.

Sherman will face off against Ryabkov in Geneva, with the fate of Europe in her hands. The sad thing is, she doesn’t see it that way. Thanks to Biden, Blinken and the host of Russophobes who populate the U.S. national security state today, Sherman thinks she is there to simply communicate the consequences of diplomatic failure to Russia. To threaten. With mere words.

What Sherman, Biden, Blinken, and the others have yet to comprehend is that Russia has already weighed the consequences and is apparently willing to accept them. And respond. With action.

One wonders if Sherman, Biden, Blinken, and the others have thought this through. Odds are, they have not, and the consequences for Europe will be dire.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
User avatar
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 3230
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

Post by Whitehall_Bin_Men »

Freemasonry, illegal in Russia since 1822,
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services ... 9000007641

How large the political Masonic organization actually became is difficult
to determine precisely. By 1914, and perhaps earlier, there were lodges
not only in St Petersburg and Moscow, but also in many provincial
cities, including Kiev, Samara, Saratov, Tiflis and Kutais.47 Kuskova
has described the organization as "enormous", maintaining that "by the
February Revolution all Russia was covered by lodges".48 While this may
be something of an exaggeration, the network was certainly extensive. According to Nekrasov, secretary of the Supreme Council from 1910 to
1913 and again from mid 1914 to mid 1916, "by the time of the February Revolution Masonry had 300-350 members in all".49 Who were these Masons? Unfortunately, those who broke their silence about the organization were particularly reticent about revealing the names of other
participants. Nevertheless, sufficient direct evidence is available to establish with confidence the identities of a number of individuals who were
active in political Masonry after 1910, if not earlier. Among them are representatives of various political parties from the Octobrists to the Bolsheviks, as well as a number of influential non-party people.50 Russian
liberals participating in the political Masonic organization, in addition to
the Kadets Obolenskii and Nekrasov and to Velikhov, included: 1) the Octobrist A. I. Guchkov; 2) the Progressists I. N. Efremov, A. I. Konovalov, Sawa Morozov and Count Orlov-Davydov; 3) the Kadets D. N.
46 Obolenskii, quoted loc. cit., p. 607 Nekrasov, quoted loc. cit. ; Kuskova to Vol'skii, November 10, 1955 .
47Stability", p. 14. See also Kuskova to Dan From the testimony of Chkheidze and Gal'pern in Haimson, "Th, February 5, 1957 . e Problem of Social
48Archive XIV/10. Kuskova to Vol'skii, November 10, 1955 . See also id. to Dan, March 29, 1954 , Dan
5049 Quoted loc. cit., pp. 230-31.
Stability", p. 14; Iakovlev, 1 avgusta 1914 The following list is compiled from the testimony in Haimson, "Th, pp. 231, 234 ; Obolenskii, quoted loce Problem of Social. cit., p.
606; Kuskova to Dan14, 1958; id. to Vol'skii, November 10, February 12 and June 6, 1957, 1955, February 26, 1956; Nikolaevskii to Vol'skii,, Dan Archive XVI/13, November
April 3, 1960Kotliarevskii, P. I. Pal'chinskii and I. I. Skvortsov-Stepanov were supplied by Utechinfrom his conversations with Kerenskii. Personal communication to the author.
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
User avatar
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 3230
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

Re: Putin Prepares, For Russia To Win A Nuclear War

Post by Whitehall_Bin_Men »

Russian crude being shipped to India under G7 price cap
Putin had claimed Moscow would not deal with countries observing the restriction
A crude oil terminal
https://www.ft.com/content/41237fe7-210 ... 17a79f7381

Chris Cook and David Sheppard in London December 16 2022
Print this page
Receive free Russian business & finance updates

We’ll send you a myFT Daily Digest email rounding up the latest Russian business & finance news every morning.

Russian crude oil is being shipped to India on tankers insured by western companies, in the first sign Moscow has reneged on its vow to block sales under the G7-imposed price cap.

At least seven Russian crude oil cargoes have been loaded on to western-insured tankers since the price cap started on December 5, according to Financial Times analysis of shipping and insurance records, despite President Vladimir Putin’s claim that Moscow would not deal with any country observing the cap.

Under the cap introduced this month, buyers of Russian crude oil can only access western services such as insurance and broking, which are the bedrock of the global seaborne trade in oil, if they attest that they have paid less than $60 a barrel.

If Moscow is willing to let buyers ship its heavily discounted crude on western-insured tankers to markets in Asia, it may ease industry concerns about shortages in the new year.

The FT identified the seven tankers using data on cargo from Kpler, a freight data and analytics company. It only includes vessels where there is high confidence that they are shipping crude oil that has not come from Kazakhstan, which shares export infrastructure with Russia.

The FT has also verified that they still have current insurance coverage from a western insurer. Two vessels reorganised their insurance in the past week, making changes that allowed them to engage in the trade.

Essential, the Singaporean operator of the Ruby Phoenix, one of the seven vessels, said: “We have from our counterparts the necessary attestation that the cargo in question complies with the price cap regulations.”

The owners of the other six ships did not respond to requests for comment.

The seven tankers, which in total are carrying about 5mn barrels of crude and departed from Russia’s Baltic ports, have listed their destinations as refineries in India, which has become one of the largest buyers of Russian oil since Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February.

Indian refiners Reliance and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, which shipping data suggest are buyers of some of the cargoes, did not respond to requests for comment.

The G7 price cap was designed to keep Russian oil flowing to avert supply shortages, but at a price of $60 a barrel or lower in order to squeeze the Kremlin’s revenues.

Putin said last week Russia “would simply not sell to the countries” that supported the price cap and indicated Moscow could retaliate by cutting production as it has done with natural gas supplies to Europe.

The Kremlin said on Thursday that Putin planned to sign a decree in the coming days setting out Russia’s response to the price cap. The Kremlin did not respond to requests for comment from the FT on the existing shipments.

The Big Read
Russia’s wartime economy: learning to live without imports

Putin has acknowledged that most Russian oil was already trading at or below $60 a barrel, saying “the ceiling they have suggested is in line with the prices we are selling at today”.

One western official said the initial signs were “promising” and suggested the price cap was largely working as hoped.

Another western official said they were confident they had seen a similar number of sales made under the terms of the cap since December 5 as the FT, and that they expected the volume to increase as buyers became more confident in how the cap worked.

The true figure may be higher: the FT has identified a further three vessels with western insurance carrying 1.6mn barrels of Russian oil, but where there is less certainty about whether the cargo is covered by the cap.

The cap currently only applies to crude oil. A similar mechanism for refined products such as petrol and diesel takes effect from February.

Russia has assembled a “shadow fleet” of about 100 tankers to circumvent western restrictions, but traders and shipbrokers believe the country is still short of vessels to maintain export volumes.

Russian crude oil has traded at steep discounts since shortly after Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, when many western buyers avoided it. The discount has increased since December 5; on that day, alongside the price cap, most European refiners were banned from buying seaborne Russian crude.

Urals, the main oil grade shipped from Russia’s western ports, is trading at about $42 to $45 a barrel compared with $82 a barrel for Brent crude, the international benchmark, according to price reporting agency Argus.

Preliminary data suggest that since the price cap started 11 days ago Russia’s seaborne crude exports had dropped, according to Kpler and Argus.

Matthew Wright, an analyst at Kpler, said: “In the first week after the price cap, things edged down a bit and they look quite subdued in the second. But it is still too early to draw any firm conclusions about the medium-term effect.”

Vitol, the world’s largest independent oil trader, said in November it expected Russian seaborne exports to fall by as much as 1mn barrels a day, about a fifth, if it struggled to access enough tankers.

Additional reporting by Polina Ivanova in Berlin and Chloe Cornish in Mumbai

Letter in response to this article:

A Russian’s personal view of the sanctions regime / From Mergen Mongush, Moscow, Russia
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Post Reply