This article was written for the Unz Review
“Do you think his assessment is accurate?” was the subject line of an email I got from a good friend recently. The email referred to the article by Paul Craig Roberts “One Day Tomorrow Won’t Arrive” which claimed that “the US military is now second class compared to the Russian military“. The article then went on to list a number of Russian weapons systems which were clearly superior to their US counterparts (when those even existed). My reply was short “Basically yes. The USA definitely has the quantitative advantage, but in terms of quality and training, Russia is way ahead. It all depends on on specific scenarios, but yes, PCR is basically spot on“. This email exchange took place after an interesting meeting I had with a very well informed American friend who, in total contrast to PCR, insisted that the USA had total military supremacy over any other country and that the only thing keeping the USA from using this overwhelming military might was that US leaders did not believe in the “brutal, unconstrained, use of force”. So what is going on here? Why do otherwise very well informed people have such totally contradictory views?
First, a disclaimer. To speak with any authority on this topic I would have to have access to a lot of classified data both on the US armed forces and on the Russian ones. Alas, I don’t. So what follows is entirely based on open/public sources, conversations with some personal contacts mixed in with some, shall we say, educated guesswork. Still, I am confident that what follows is factually correct and logically analyzed.
To sum up the current state of affairs I would say that the fact that the US armed forces are in a grave state of decay is not as amazing by itself as is the fact that this almost impossible to hide fact is almost universally ignored. So let’s separate the two into “what happened” and “why nobody seems to be aware of it”.
What happened
Let’s begin at the beginning: the US armed forces were never the invincible military force the US propaganda (including Hollywood) would have you believe they have been. I looked into the topic of the role of the western Allies in my “Letter to my American friend” and I won’t repeat it all here. Let’s just say that the biggest advantage the USA had over everybody else during WWII is a completely untouched industrial base which made it possible to produce fantastic numbers of weapon systems and equipment in close to ideal conditions. Some, shall we kindly say, “patriotic” US Americans have interpreted that as a sign of the “vigor” and “superiority” of the Capitalist economic organization while, in reality, this simply was a direct result of the fact that the USA was protected by two huge oceans (the Soviets, in contrast, had to move their entire industrial base to the Urals and beyond, as for the Germans, they had to produce under a relentless bombing campaign). The bottom line was this: US forces were better equipped (quantitatively and, sometimes, even qualitatively) than the others and they could muster firepower in amounts difficult to achieve for their enemies. And, yes, this did give a strong advantage to US forces, but hardly made them in any way “better” by themselves.
After WWII the USA was the only major industrialized country on the planet whose industry had not been blown to smithereens and for the next couple of decades the USA enjoyed a situation to quasi total monopoly. That, again, hugely benefited the US armed forces but it soon became clear that in Korea and Vietnam that advantage, while real, did not necessarily result in any US victory. Following Vietnam, US politicians basically limited their aggression to much smaller countries who had no chance at all to meaningfully resist, nevermind prevail. If we look at the list of US military aggressions after Vietnam (see here or here) we can clearly see that the US military specialized in attacking defenseless countries.
Then came the collapse of the Soviet Union, the first Gulf War and the Global War on Terror when US politicians clearly believed in their own propaganda about being the “sole superpower” or a “hyperpower” and they engaged in potentially much more complex military attacks including the full-scale invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. These wars will go down in history as case studies of what happens when politicians believe their own propaganda. While Dubya declared victory as soon as the invasion was completed, it soon became clear to everybody that this war was a disaster from which the USA has proved completely unable to extricate themselves (even the Soviets connected the dots and withdrew from Afghanistan faster than the US Americans!). So what does all this tell us about the US armed forces: (in no special order)
- They are big, way bigger than any other
- They have unmatched (worldwide) power projection (mobility) capabilities
- They are high-tech heavy which gives them a big advantage in some type of conflicts
- They have the means (nukes) to wipe-off any country off the face of the earth
- They control the oceans and strategic chokepoints
Is that enough to win a war?
Actually, no, it is not. All it takes to nullify these advantages is an enemy who is aware of them and who refuses to fight what I call the “American type of war” (on this concept, see here). The recent wars in Lebanon, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq have clearly shown that well-adapted tactics mostly deny the US armed forces the advantages listed above or, at the very least, make them irrelevant.
If we accept Clausewitz’s thesis that “war is the continuation of politics by other means” then it becomes clear that the US has not won a real war in a long long time and that the list of countries willing to openly defy Uncle Sam is steadily growing (and now includes not only Iran and the DPRK, but also Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Venezuela and even Russia and China). This means that there is an emerging consensus amongst the countries which the USA tries to threaten and bully into submission that for all the threats and propaganda the USA is not nearly as formidable enemy as some would have you believe.
Why nobody seems to be aware of it
The paradoxical thing is that while this is clearly well understood in the countries which the USA is currently trying to threaten and bully into submission, this is also completely ignored and overlooked inside the United States themselves. Most Americans, including very well informed ones, sincerely believe that their armed forces are “second to none” and that the USA could crush any enemy which would dare disobey or otherwise defy the AngloZionist Empire. Typically, when presented with evidence that the USAF, USN and NATO could not even defeat the Serbian Army Corps in Kosovo or that in Afghanistan the US military performance is very substantially inferior to what the 40th Soviet Army achieved (with mostly conscripts!), my interlocutors always reply the same thing: “yeah, maybe, but if we wanted we could nuke them!“. This is both true and false. Potential nuclear target countries for the USA can be subdivided into three categories:
- Countries who, if nuked themselves, could wipe the USA off the face of the earth completely (Russia) or, at least, inflict immense damage upon the USA (China).
- Those countries which the USA could nuke without fearing retaliation in kind, but which still could inflict huge conventional and asymmetric damage on the USA and its allies (Iran, DPRK).
- Those countries which the USA could nuke with relative impunity but which the USA could also crush with conventional forces making the use of nukes pointless (Venezuela, Cuba).
And, of course, in all these cases the first use of nukes by the USA would result in a fantastic political backlash with completely unpredictable and potentially catastrophic consequences. For example, I personally believe that using nukes on Iran would mark the end of NATO in Europe as such an action would irreparably damage EU-US relations. Likewise, using nukes on the DPRK would result in a huge crisis in Asia with, potentially, the closure of US bases in Korea and Japan. Others would, no doubt, disagree :-)
The bottom line: US nukes are only useful as a deterrent against other nuclear powers; for all other roles they are basically useless. And since neither Russia or China would ever contemplate a first-strike against the USA, you could say that they are almost totally useless (I say almost, because in the real world the USA cannot simply rely on the mental sanity and goodwill of other nations; so, in reality, the US nuclear arsenal is truly a vital component of US national security).
Which leaves the Navy and the Army. The USN still controls the high seas and strategic choke points, but this is becoming increasingly irrelevant, especially in the context of local wars. Besides, the USN is still stubbornly carrier-centric, which just goes to show that strategic vision comes a distant second behind bureaucratic and institutional inertia. As for the US Army, it has long become a kind of support force for Special Operations and Marines, something which makes sense in tiny wars (Panama, maybe Venezuela) but which is completely inadequate for medium to large wars.
What about the fact that the USA spends more of “defense” (read “wars of aggression”) than the rest of the planet combined? Surely that counts for something?
Actually, no, it does not. First, because most of that money is spent on greasing the pockets of an entire class of MIC-parasites which make billions of dollars in the free for all “bonanza” provided by that ridiculously bloated “defense” budget. The never mentioned reality is that compared to the USA, even the Ukrainian military establishment looks as only “moderately corrupt”!
[Sidebar: you think I am exaggerating? Ask yourself a simple question: why does the USA need 17 intelligence agencies while the rest of the world usually need from 2 to 5? Do you really, sincerely, believe that this has anything to do with national security? If you do, please email me, I got a few bridges to sell to you at great prices! Seriously, just the fact that the USA has about 5 times more “intelligence” agencies than the rest of the planet is a clear symptom of the the truly astronomical level of corruption of the US “national security state”]
Weapons system after weapons system we see cases in which the overriding number one priority is to spend as much money as possible as opposed to deliver a weapon system soldiers could actually fight with. When these systems are engaged, they are typically engaged against adversaries which are two to three generations behind the USA, and that makes them look formidable. Not only that, but in each case the US has a huge numerical advantage (hence the choice of small country to attack). But I assure you that for real military specialists the case for the superiority of US weapons systems in a joke. For example, French systems (such as the Rafale or the Leclerc MBT) are often both better and cheaper than there US equivalents, hence the need for major bribes and major “offset agreements“.
The Russian military budget is tiny, at least compared to the US one. But, as William Engdal, Dmitrii Orlov and others have observed, the Russians get a much bigger bang for the buck. Not only are Russian weapon systems designed by soldiers for soldiers (as opposed to by engineers for bureaucrats), but the Russian military is far less corrupt than the US one, at least when mega-bucks sums are concerned (for petty sums of money the Russians are still much worse than the Americans). At the end of the day, you get the kind of F-35 vs SU-35/T-50 or, even more relevantly, the kind of mean time between failure or man-hours to flight hour ratios we have seen from the US and Russian forces over Syria recently. Suffice to say that the Americans could not even begin to contemplate to execute the number of sorties the tiny Russian Aerospace task force in Syria achieved. Still, the fact remains that if the US Americans wanted it they could keep hundred of aircraft in the skies above Syria whereas the tiny Russian Russian Aerospace task never had more than 35 combat aircraft at any one time: the current state of the Russian military industry simply does not allow for the production of the number of systems Russia would need (but things are slowly getting better).
So here we have it: the Americans are hands down the leaders in quantitative terms; but in qualitative terms they are already behind the Russians and falling back faster and faster with each passing day.
Do the US military commanders know that?
Of course they do.
But remember what happened to Trump when he mentioned serious problems in the US military? The Clinton propaganda machine instantly attacked him for being non-patriotic, for “not supporting the troops”, for not repeating the politically obligatory mantra about “we’re number one, second to none” and all the infantile nonsense the US propaganda machine feeds those who still own a TV at home. To bluntly and honestly speak about the very real problems of the US armed forces is much more likely to be a career-ending exercise than a way to reform a hopelessly corrupt system.
There is one more thing. Not to further dwell on my thesis that most US Americans are not educated enough to understand basic Marxist theory, but the fact is that most of them know nothing about Hegelian dialectics. They, therefore, view things in a static way, not as processes. For example, when they compliment themselves on having “the most powerful and capable military in the history of mankind” (they love that kind of language), they don’t even realize that this alleged superiority will inevitably generate its own contradiction and that this strength would therefore also produce its own weakness. Well-read US American officers, and there are plenty of those, do understand that, but their influence is almost negligible when compared to the multi-billion dollar and massively corrupt superstructure they are immersed in. Furthermore, I am absolutely convinced that this state of affairs is unsustainable and that sooner or later there will appear a military or political leader which will have the courage to address these problems frontally and try to reform a currently petrified system. But the prerequisite for that will probably have to be a massive and immensely embarrassing military defeat for the USA. I can easily imagine that happening in case of a US attack on Iran or the DPRK. I can guarantee it if the US leadership grows delusional enough to try to strike at Russia or China.
But for the time being its all gonna be “red, white and blue” and Paul Craig Roberts will remain a lone voice crying in the desert. He will be ignored, yes. But that does not change the fact that he is right.
The Saker
PS: As for myself, I want to dedicate this song by Vladimir Vysotskii to Paul Craig Roberts and to all the other “Cassandras” who have the ability to see the future and the courage to warn us about it. They usually end up paying a high price for their honesty and courage.
Excellent article, thanks.
I would add ‘America’s Biggest Bomb’ is its fiat currency, the petro-dollar.
And Russia and China have been carefully nullifying that threat too.
You nailed it, right there.
When that bomb goes off , then everything else goes with it, including the U.S. military industrial complex.
Dear Saker–Thank you for posting this..Following is an admittedly old example (just one) of the US’s gross overkill when it comes to weapons cost, development and usage: going all the way back to the “Manhattan Project” that resulted in the “atomic” bomb, which cost us something like Two billion dollars (in 1945 dollars, or so we are told). Some years ago, a remarkable book came out called “First into Nagasaki” which recounted the story of an old-time news correspondent (I believe his name was George Weller?) who was in Japan immediately post-bombing. From him (and I realize this ws an educated guess) I learned that the value of real estate damaged/destroyed by the bombing of Nagasaki was aprox. 20 million dollars–ironically, Nagasaki was the Far Eastern city with the largest Christian population at that time. Interestingly enough, that city had already been bombed with conventional weapons prior to the “atomic” bombing…..So, what we have here strictly in money terms is a city wrecked by conventional weapons and an “atomic” bomb that cost aprox. $600,000,000 (this does not include the development costs for the B29 bombers, either) and the value of destroyed real estate in Nagasaki was one-thirtieth of the cost of the weapons… how on earth do we afford war? ?
Thanks Saker, for an excellent article.
@Chad,
I like to add another -conventional- example.
Trump ordered the bombing with Tomahawks of an old airport in Syria, after a clear fake nerve gas attack in Syria (anyone who has done military service could see it wasn’t nerve gas, with aids touching patients with their bare hands).
59 cruised missiles were launched, of which 21 hit their target and presumably over 30 lie at the bottom of the Mediterranean.
This has costed the US some 80-90 million dollars, and the inflicted damage looked to me not much larger than 1-2 million dolars. The runway was used again the next day.
We could sarcastically state ‘your tax dollars at work’, but the mechanism of the petrodollar makes it possible to just create new dollars out of thin air. Now, that is their real achilles heel (@Struth already mentioned that).
That may also be the danger – crumbling Empires may take strange decisions.
The purpose of the defense budget is to waste it.
@ pandos
Correctomundo! War is America’s version of Japan’s ‘building bridges to nowhere’ program. Growing the economy by government credit expansion. Combined, of course, with the objective of forcing the world to accept the dollar fiat status quo.
Debt and death – old bedfellows.
the purpose of the defense budget is to steal it
War is not always about economic competition.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a number of military values.
Like weapon factories, ship repairs, depots, railways and roads logistics hubs.
That very “real estate damaged/destroyed by the bombing of Nagasaki was aprox. 20 million dollars” was just a pretty bonus, collateral damage to enjoy, additional to the main target.
Nagasaki/Hiroshima were also medical experiments to observe the effects of nuclear radiation and blast on unprotected civilians. Other motives include showing the USSR who was boss, testing that the weapons could be delivered without killing the aircrew, and testing that the weapons actually would work.
Correspondence shows that the US deliberately delayed the Yalta accords at the end of WWII until the bomb was ready, dropped them 4 days after the Japanese had surrendered. The US, UK then sat down with Stalin at Yalta and came to terms much more favorable to the west. Look it up.
The Japanese died to give the US the upper hand in negotiations with the Soviets, who until then were the boss at the table (the allies met in Crimea, not London) because at that point everyone knew that the Russians had broken the Wehrmacht, not the Yanks. The rest is ‘history’.
Don’t talk nonsense. The Yalta conference was in februari 1945. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were in august.
[Additionally, At Yalta, in early February of 1945, the two main topics were the partitioning of Germany (once they were defeated) plus the resolution of the rest of Europe, much of which was already occupied by Soviet armies. It wasn’t about what the western allies could make Stalin do, it was about what they could get Stalin to agree to. The second part was the defeat of Japan, and the agreement was, in return for Soviet assistance to defeat Japan on their home islands and in Manchuria, the lands that Russia lost to Japan in the war with Japan (1904-5) would be returned to Soviet rule. This would be the the Kurils and Sakalin Island. The prospect of a Nuclear weapon to be used against Japan was NOT discussed until the Potsdam Conference, and by that time, President Roosevelt had passed away and President Truman had taken his place in the negotiations at Potsdam, which included the threat/ warning that the US had perfected and successfully tested a nuclear weapon (JULY 1945).~mod-DG]
@ Wim
You are wrong. I use Yalta as a summary for those three meetings.
Direct quotes from the principal attendants of Yalta/Potsdam meeting are here: http://www.dannen.com/decision/potsdam.html
Here is Soviet Marshal Georgii Zhukov’s version:
“I do not recall the exact date, but after the close of one of the formal meetings Truman informed Stalin that the United States now possessed a bomb of exceptional power, without, however, naming it the atomic bomb.
As was later written abroad, at that moment Churchill fixed his gaze on Stalin’s face, closely observing his reaction. However, Stalin did not betray his feelings and pretended that he saw nothing special in what Truman had imparted to him. Both Churchill and many other Anglo-American authors subsequently assumed that Stalin had really failed to fathom the significance of what he had heard.
In actual fact, on returning to his quarters after this meeting Stalin, in my presence, told Molotov about his conversation with Truman. The latter reacted almost immediately. “Let them. We’ll have to talk it over with Kurchatov and get him to speed things up.”
I realized that they were talking about research on the atomic bomb.
It was clear already then that the US Government intended to use the atomic weapon for the purpose of achieving its Imperialist goals from a position of strength in “the cold war.” This was amply corroborated on August 6 and 8. Without any military need whatsoever, the Americans dropped two atomic bombs on the peaceful and densely-populated Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”
Georgii Konstantinovich Zhukov, The Memoirs of Marshal Zhukov (New York: Delacorte Press, 1971) pp. 674-675.
Yalta is a summary term for the three ‘Argonaut’ conferences: Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam. The first was followed by delay as the yanks raced for the atomic bomb, the ultimate lever to apply to the Russians.
Apologise if you like, because you are wrong about The key event and foundation stone of US imperial savagery.
http://www.dannen.com/decision/potsdam.html
september 1945 US wrote that it needed 466 atom bombs for destruction of about 250 USSR cities…H and N town were illustrations to Soviet Union…and this worked!
USSR vacated Iran, and went to full speed to make their own gadgets ASAP!
(one must remember the rules of unintended consequences, Comrade.)
I have seen the original request – it is now online.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes. Japan surrendered on terms they offered before the war crimes were committed.
@ Fraank
Correct. Deliberate mass murder for political leverage.
Everyone should know these first had accounts about the decision.
http://www.dannen.com/decision/potsdam.html
Yes, although one thing has nagged me now for some time, and it’s horrific to contemplate.
What if – and this is just if – part of the “deal” that Hirohito made, was for the atomic bombs to be dropped (read: tested) to save Japan from further destruction by a conventional war and possible invasion?
Hirohito and his generals would not have known of the destructive force of those bombs and may have agreed to the deal out of ignorance.
Little did they know what awful pact they had just made with the devil.
And leverage to hold over them if they ever threatened to sue the Anglo/Zionists for the despicable war crime that was committed.
You want to sue us? Go ahead, then we will expose your Emperor for the deal he made.
It would be devastating for the Japanese people to see their revered Emperor exposed that way.
To me, that is the only thing that makes sense as to why they haven’t sued the pants off the Anglo/Zionist war criminals.
Japan was seeking peace and Truman knew it. ALL the top military brass said that the nuking was unjustified from a military perspective. But war propaganda lives on and on and on……the main target was women, children, the wounded, and seniors. Japan was kaput, but Truman ignored the views of the generals and used the nukes for geopolitical advantage against the USSR. For full documentation see Gar Alperowtz’s Atomic Diplomacy. The US had basically run out of targets and the nuking did no more damage than previous conventional attacks..and Japan did not surrender due to the nuking but due to the fact that the Soviet had declared war on them.
“In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President’s Chief of Staff–and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff–minced few words:
[T]he use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . .
[I]n being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”
To see the exact same views expressed by ALL the top military brass, see:
https://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec.htm
There are scores of quotes but here are few more:
“LeMay: The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.
The Press: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic bomb?
. . .
LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
(See p. 336, Chapter 27)
On other occasions in internal histories and elsewhere LeMay gave even shorter estimates of how long the war might have lasted (e.g., “a few days”).”
“In his memoirs President Dwight D. Eisenhower reports the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used:
During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. . . . (See p. 4, Introduction)”
And here is McArthur upset because it was unnecessary and targeted civilians:
“On the 40th Anniversary of the bombing former President Richard M. Nixon reported that:
[General Douglas] MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants. . . . MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off. .”
Etc. see the article.
Easy when you got the machine the just makes up money out of thin air.
Let me preface my diatribe by saying all military spending is essentially wasted human potential. Used to bludgeon other human potential. But that would make me a hypocrite, or at least, a willing hypocrite. But one way or another we all are. That, however, is not relevant to this discussion. Which proves the real utility in engaging in it…
In my humble opinion this article is heavy on self-assurance without providing tangible facts for mental digestion.
I will agree, 100%, that there exists pockets of excellence in the Russian and Chinese approach to military weapons. For example, the Russians produce an excellent set of missile systems, including defensive. However I have never really seen the S-300, -400 nor the even more fear-inducing -500, used in real combat conditions. I assume multiple iterations are needed because, well, excellence can be improved upon and never, ever, due to deficiencies. Especially in real world test cases.
The US, China, and Russia both can field, or are working on, sophisticated ram-jet missiles and aircraft. I would emphasize though that anyone who knows anything about the US should assume they have the best in anything manned or unmanned, outside of defensive missiles. This includes space. Do you really think the concept of a SR-72 is something new? Refer to numerous articles of massive, unexplained repetitive pulse sonic booms that go back many decades throughout the US media.
In the looming robotic and hyper-sonic age, there will only be a few classes of weapons needed to assure M.A.D. And nothing will be stopped by S-500s nor mass-produced tanks of excellent quality. Drones and hypersonic weapons mass-produced by robots make the whole idea of fighting and discussing it useless.
The future, as all military is a continuation of politics, will simply be militarized economic politics. Digitally-linked markets and their stability will be the final ultimate weapon. Stability will be increasing rare when broad asymmetric forces, militarily or economically or socially, are fielded in a hyperconnected world. The subclass of digital currencies such as bitcoin fall into this.
I will concede your small battle because I know the war has nothing to do with these considerations. In fact, I’m almost sure most military spending is not for the wars they truly expect to fight, but to buy time to the next stage of development and to rob poor countries.
P.S.
Bush declared victory at the correct time. They obtained the poppy fields of Afghanistan, secured a bridgehead into the middle east, and did it breathlessly. Holding Iraq and Afghanistan while avoiding loss of life, and inspiring democracy, was never the measure and we both know that.
The S-300 was in fact used in combat conditions. A few years back a Syrian S-300 blew out of the sky an Israeli F-16. A few weeks ago an old Syrian S-200 (produced in the 1960’s) damaged an Israeli F-35, with the Israeli military stating that the plane probably will never fly again. Last year Israel fired three Patriot missiles against one Syrian drone, and all three missed. Now compare that to the performance of the S-300.
Nils is correct insofar as the US military up till now usually fulfilled its primary mission, which is to make the world safe for Anglo-Zio-Capitalist predators. The brutal amputation of historic Kosovo from Serbia was the price which Albania demanded in exchange for permission to build a gas pipeline through Albanian territory. The serial rapes of Iraq, Sudan and Libya were all succeded in the tranfer of those countries mineral and monetary wealth to AZC enterprizes: “Mission accomplished!”. But “our irresistible armed might” has failed signally in the attempted rape of Syria; not because the victim resisted strongly (Serbia did that too) but because Russian technology and Russian intelligence (I mean, human intelligence — not mere MI) outclassed those of FUKZUSA; which is the point at issue.
> But “our irresistible armed might” has failed signally in the attempted rape of Syria
still not proven.
That very might dared not to tread into Syria as they did into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Yemen.
While this fear perhaps is tale-telling per se, still we can not say the might failed in Syria as it did not tried to engage there.
If only Hillary was not ousted from her presidency we perhaps would already saw how it is going really
@Arioch: “..we can not say the might failed in Syria as it did not tried to engage there.”
In 2013 NATZO tried to engage in Syria a la Libya — but was beaten by superior Russian tech. Remember that snazzy little Israeli nuclear-ready submarine (gift of Germany to make amends for the Shoar) was given the honor of firing the first 2 cruise missiles? Both missiles went off course. The entire NATZO fleet was shocked to find its missile guidance systems jammed, so they abandoned the whole idea of doing a Libya or a Serbia or an Afghanistan on Syria. Which is the point at issue.
Dear Nils,
I agree that one should not be too optimistic about the capabilities of US’s adversaries or too pessimistic/optimistic about the decay in the US’ armed forces. Money does matter, and even if 2/3 of the money is wasted or stolen, they will still be no 1 in the list of military expenditure. And if they wasted 2/3, this represents a potential that will be exploited when US wakes up and see that they no longer are the sole superpower. They will be able make their spending more effective if they feel the pressure. But like Saker points out, that will take a major defeat to make them elect leaders that are willing to stand up to the thieves and bureaucrats.
But there is no doubt that the US might has been decaying for a long time. They were on peak in WWII, much thanks to their production capacity. Wealth is not zero’s printed on paper (or in a data base in a bank) but real goods or services that people can use. China does now hold the position USA held in the 40’s. Russia has understood this and is trying to do what the neocons warns against in the West, rebuilding the industry, making real wealth. But more importantly, Russia is rebuilding their identity, the sense of national pride, a feeling of belonging. But more importantly, they are rebuilding their moral foundation. Right and wrong, good and evil, what is true and not, these concepts must have a foundation. In the US you could not be elected sheriff without showing your allegiance to religion. –Some of those elected were even believers, that is, they had a foundation for their morality which were defined outside themselves, and thus could not be changed and turned with the wind. In this respect, Russia today resembles USA in their hay day.
My point is that money and weapons are important. But money and weapons does not win a war. Determination when coupled with sufficient strength does. And likewise, superior weapons will not help if the people wielding them have lost faith in what they are doing.
Look at the state of USA today. A polarized and fragmented society where people defines themselves by the minority they belong to, not by a sense of national belonging. How can such nation produce anything but mercenary soldiers fighting for their pay-check? Add to it an elite that keeps all the growth in the economy, that is unwilling even discuss a restructure of the economy that would give ordinary people (those who will be drafted as soldiers) a meaningful job with a reasonable income, and you see a nation in decay. I have not mentioned the violence and social unrest, but that plays a part too.
I see things from a Scandinavian perspective, perhaps you do too, Nils. But what I see is a Russia where all the arrows points upwards, and an EU and USA where almost all the arrows point downwards. That tells me that USA’s role as superpower is declining, and weapons cannot change that.
Nils,
So you mention, “rape for resources”, “unexplained sonic booms”, “digitally connected markets”, “crypto currencies”. A whole new vision of the future world – Perhaps empathetically planned for “ZUSA as a nation state” ??. Or are we trying to move away from nation states as a concept all together – a rape of who for whose benefits?. Are we (ZUS -Americans) the part of people/elites who plan to perpetuate it or one of its potential victims?
Your views are not within scope to what Sekar is exploring and hence are irrelevant, Battle you refer to is not between nations but between different class of people who inhabit this planet. How this will unfold no one can say with certainty.
Meanwhile, America is busily gathering “DNA material” from Russia–towards what sinister end, one can only wonder.
Perhaps, the USA seeks to develop “ethnic-specific” bio-warfare weapons similar to what Israel and Apartheid South Africa developed.
Washington’s Barbarity Reaches New Heights?
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/11/01/washingtons-barbarity-reaches-new-heights/
Nothing really comes as surprise from neocons, and one can always expect new lows, almost as they are going through the chain of mutations, which would soon end with complete inability to use their brains and walk on two… They are sick.
Those diseases won’t work at all if Russians would keep serious amounts of vitamin c at hand. Read the book “Curing the Incurable” written by Dr Thomas Levy, 440 pages of ‘wow’ based on his own experiences and those of Dr Frederick Klenner, Dr Robert Cathcart, etc., of which around 40 pages of sources and links to studies and proof.
Cheers!
Perhaps the world needs a GMO foreskin detector. If no foreskin is present, human eggs will not fertilize. Better yet, puberty reverses itself and the balls fall off. Aren’t GMO dreams wonderful?
Neither Israel nor South Africa was able to develop these ethnic-specific weapons.
There are ways to judge such matters of relative military potential. US Forces do not seem to exist to defend the homeland: Projected force is the US’s sole defensive doctrine, while Russia has historically fought and defended the Motherland for centuries, and rarely uses force projection.
The US now, as policy seeks to create wars for a plethora of “policy” goals related to US resource and business dominance.
Since Russias’ unforgiveable looting of the Yeltsin years and the impressive comeback under President Vladimir Putin there has been a ressessment resulting in NATO parking Troops, Armour, Air & Naval power close to Russias borders, for Psychological as well as practial reasons.
The Psychological reasons need no explanation, while the practical reasons perhaps do. Superficially the NATO Build up is tactical madness, but, the placement of these troops imposes restrictions upon Russias’ freedom to Act in its allies’ interests: The Russian Federation now requires to have sufficient force “permanently in place to deal with aggression. But for Kaliningrad the situation might be more difficult.
Having watched how the “Western coalition” have responded to Russias’ Syria intervention; the evident levels of frustration culminating in foolish provocations that have merely rebounded by removing the mask provided by the Mockingbird media propaganda., along with the equally evident malice whereby the “coalition and their terrorist proxies choose to murder as many civilians as possible, and are now setting up the Kurds for war as a gambit in order to steal as much oil as possible (for Israel?), It is obvious that the coalition do not want to embark upon a conventional war with Russia.
Western powers rely on Air power for the reason that high casualty rates would spark unrest and shine a light on illegitimate governments, policies, and their wars to benefit Corporations.
I would say that if war broke out with The Russian Federation, it would be that the Western World would be the instigators of that war, and it would be Nuclear.
I believe that while Western Armour, and military equipment are up to the task, the wicked US corporatist Government has thrown away, quite literally the backbone of its Marine Core and the high morale with it. What is left would struggle against any competent adversary; let alone Russian Forces (which would deny the West air superiority). After all, what is left? The occupation forces in Germany and elsewhere? Base life for the last 70 years?
For me it is not a matter of whether Mig & Sukhoi & Tupolev are better than their US-NATO counterparts, Or the Armata vs Leopard and Abrhams it is the hearts of the Human beings in conflict and the baggage they carry. I have seen the pictures of “coalition soldiers in IRAQ, dancing, naked and drunk/drugged around a fire celebrating …..something. Degeneracy and jaded materialism has replaced our Christian heritage, while speaking out about Satanism is a “Hate crime”. All of this has eroded the morale of the ordinary civilian population and its soldiery. While a resurgent Christian Russia KNOWS what he is fighting for: The lands of his Fathers.
No Contest.
The biggest problem with the US military’s performance is that they’ve been betrayed by traitors.
No, I’m not saying that they are loyal to Russia or that Russia is secretly and deviously subverting them. The traitors are in the Military Industrial Complex. It starts with active duty officers who get high enough in rank and get positions at the Pentagon where they are writing the requirements for weapons. If they were true patriots, the only thing that would matter is what does the job that needs to get done.
But, instead, these officers are already lining up their post military retirement jobs with the defense contractors. And at this stage in their life, they are providing a great service to their future employers by writing the requirements such that a) a particular company has the lead on building that weapon, and b) the requirements are written to maximize the profits of their future employer.
Then, the defense contractor bilk huge amounts of money from the defense department with massive cost overruns. The weapon that already seemed outrageously expensive will cost at least double before its delivered. Its also highly likely that at this point the design and manufacture of the weapon is so poor that it can not pass honest tests to confirm that it meets the requirements. Its become a constant feature of the procurement cycle that the military is having to change the tests to make them easier, or generally cover for the contractors poor performance.
When this reaches the Congress, who are supposed to control the purse strings, this when we hear the bought-off Congresspersons owned by the defense contractor telling us that its too late to change horses in mid-stream, that the project must go forward, that the weapon will be really great once they work out a few kinks, and that fixing this broken thing so that can pass even rigged and simple tests will cost a lot more money which simply must be paid at this point.
We’ve seen this over and over. The huge amounts spend on the F-35, and the huge operational costs yet to come, are just a recent and prominent example.
Huge amounts of money have been wasted and stolen. And if this money had been properly applied, they could have a lot more equipment and a lot better equipment. This is why there are now many areas where Russia and China are better. And all that means to the American traitors is that now they have a sales pitch that says that even more money must now be allocated because the Russians and Chinese are making better stuff that the junk for which America just paid billions.
And yes, I call these people traitors because they are putting their personal interests, their company bonuses and future employment ahead of what’s best for the nation. A patriot things about what’s best for the nation. A traitor thinks about what’s best for themselves.
The 3-variant F-35 programme is an excellent example. We’ve already seen the operational problems resulting from design (need for low fuel temperature being just the one), along with a pretty mediocre ordnance payload.
It will be “interesting” to see how costly this platform is once it gets used by the various planned buyers, and comparing the “hours flight time vs. hours hangar-time” equation may well indicate the West has constructed “quite” the expensive “Hangar Queen”, esp. in contrast with current Russian aircraft, that are tough enough (and well-designed enough) to operate off almost un-paved strips. (Of course, the much-maligned TU-95 “piston-engined” bomber CAN land on grass, and can take-off from grass (mind you, without payload) – something that the US B-52 (and all later bombers) cannot do (without damage). In Australia, many of my colleagues (well-educated, “well-informed” via our National Media) still think the TU-95 IS piston engined – including a few TV “Presenters” who have mentioned this on-air. They’ve never heard of Kuznetsov, and have CERTAINLY never heard of the NK-12’s 14,700 hp capabilities.
Tu-95 has twin shaft turboprop engines, not piston ones.
Add to it, that with today advances in air defense, AVACS and anything – the bombers are not bombers any more. They do not drop bombs (except for over tiny defenseless victims chosen to be spectacularly lynched by NATO).
Tu-95 can carry bombs still, but Tu-160 can no more, AFAIR.
What called strategic bombers today are actually mostly a mobile rockets launch-pads.
This also asks what is the target? Is it mobile or not? Is it a city like Moscow, Hanoi or Washington? Or is it some Toyota or Armata rushing to find and take cover?
If the target is stationary, if it can not escape – then bombers are not very needed, you can vaporize New York or Beijing by good old silos-positioned ICBM. Submarine-based ICBMs work too.
What is challenging is how you address agile targets that try to avoid being targeted.
And that means there should be reconnaissance / guiding team, either as spec-ops foot soldiers or as drones. And that means the moment they spot the target there is maybe dozen minutes or two before that information gets uselessly obsolete by actively maneuvering target. You point the target and within few minutes it must go boom.
Within few minutes.
That naturally means the rockets launch-pad should be very close to the war theatre.
I guess ICBM take about an hour, give or take, from launch in Siberia to bang in Norfolk. Too far away, too long for mobile warfare.
So here we come to the Tu-95. Equipped with old-style turboprop it can barrage at the edge of the enemy air defense for hours, waiting for the target information, then it dives in, launches the rocket or two and dives out of the enemy airspace before their air defense can do a thing. And the rocket, launched from minimal possible distance, reaches the designated target in minimal possible time.
This tendency is not about “strategic bombers” only. When we talk about CAS assault aircrafts we usually think again about two superpowers: A-10 in USA and Su-25 “Rook” in USSR ( Su-34 “Duckling” of Russia ). But, again, they were designed to be used by highly capable armies (flying tankers, for example) within highly intensive conflicts, where overwhelming firepower may decide the outcome. The rest of the world in XXI century takes an opposite approach to CAS aircrafts: it exactly returns to the piston engines and ultra-light small fuselages, optimizing for hours in idle barraging flight time.
The better and more affordable gets air defense, the less and less niche aircrafts have for direct assault. The more and more they are repurposed as flying launchpads. And that means all those superpowered supersophisticated jet engines at Tu-160 and B-52 are more liability than asset. And “old school” turboprops of Tu-95 providing for fuel/hours efficiency is its major feature.
The US has 158 long range bombers, mainly 1950s vintage B52s. There are some B1s, and 19 stealth flying wings (6 operational, cost $2,200.)
Russia 130.
This part of the Triad seems to be dying out.
If America starts another war, it may set the region on fire yet again, but if it takes on Iran or N. Korea it will be signing its own death warrant. The military, financial, economic and diplomatic repercussions are incalculable.
A few years ago politicians forced the US Air Force to take 200 twin engine transport aircraft it didn’t want and which it had no use for. I can’t remember the name of the aircraft. They were forced to take them because they were produced in some important political districts. These were just stored in hangars at great expense and never used. They were eventually given away completely free to countries like Thailand and anyone else who wanted them.
There is similar endless waste in the UK. L85 rifle, the worst in the world, Nimrod AEW, 65,000.ton white elephant aircraft carriers. The UK spends nearly as much as Russia and has very little to show for it.
By 1929 the USA had reached the limit of capitalism (private, central bank) line. Profits-chasing had resulted in more production capacity in nearly every category than the market could support, and these fighting for survival by slashing prices (and profits).
What emerged from this (I’m referencing a remark Carroll Quigley dropped in Tragedy and Hope) was the realization that, in order to keep the system going, excess revenue which would otherwise be re-invested in even more overproduction, would have to be diverted into “pyramid building,” leaving the nominal, formal economy to operate on shorter rations. Thus the massive Works Progress Administration of the 1930s which created electrical utility infrastructure in the south and supplied the electricity used from the dams it built.
From there to the absurd-seeming “inefficiency” and nearly unbelievable corruption (read Catherine Austin Fitts’ “Dillon Reed and the Aristocracy of Stock Profits”) seen everywhere today was a natural progression.
By itself, this is too simplistic to account for the problem. But it’s one aspect that’s seemingly never noticed but should be.
There were many unrequitted consumers, they simply had no purchasing power. At the time only a few had electricity, refrigerator, radio or vacuum-cleaner.
Purchasing power was monopolized in the hands of the oligarchy.
educated professional people with advanced degrees and zero “family money” (inherited money) in 1950 era USA had radio, electricity, and ice (delivered at a cost). they typically had two autos (if needed), but these were fairly cheap and simple, and not new – these were “rich” people. They could afford music lessons and private school…but TV and refrigeration was too expensive. Cities had rail-based trams and pretty good public transport. Long distance travel was by ship or rail. I remember. And I speak of the West Coast – not really genuine Auhmurka – that’s the East Coast and the Big Money…as FDR said..everybody knows…
“Besides, the USN is still stubbornly carrier-centric, which just goes to show that strategic vision comes a distant second behind bureaucratic and institutional inertia.”
There is of course a long historical tradition of this in the US military. See Gen Billy Mitchell and the development and doctrines for the bomber, which leads directly into the vulnerability of battleships to attack from the air. A point which Gen. Mitchell was trying to make years before 6 battleships got sunk at Pearl Harbor.
Its not just the US military. The French and the Brits were just as bad between the World Wars. Britain had a theorist (Col
Hart) who laid out how mobile warfare would be conducted. His ideas were rejected by the Generals who thought they’d refight world war 1, and his career was sidelined. During the war, he was working interviewing captured German officers, and was told time and time again that they had read and studied his books in developing the Blitzkrieg tactics.
A characteristic it seems of stultified organizations where the bright ideas from the junior leadership are not tolerated by those who’ve back-stabbed and politic’d their way to the top of the heap.
There was a point where American politics was starting to demand that some of the $Trillion plus spend on ‘defense’ be put back to use for ordinary Americans in the economy. This was in Obama’s first term of office. And of course, the great fake progressive Obama was firmly against this. Yet, the momentum was building in Congress.
This is when ISIS burst upon the scene. The convoys of shiny, clean, white pickup trucks driving through the Syrian and Iraqi deserts unseen by any US satelites or spy planes or drones and with no warning from the NSA monitoring their comms. ISIS burst upon the scene taking Mosul, and there were some high-profile terrorist attacks by ISIS. And, lo and behold, all talk of cutting the defense budgets was off the table and the American taxpayers were told to fork over more, more, more.
With what we now seem to know about support for ISIS in Syria, from at least allies of the US if not direct from US forces, that’s an interesting moment to look back upon. What was the Obama administration willing to do in order to keep the money flowing to the war machine? Gen Flynn’s DIA memo from about that time is an interesting reference.
Please note that the atack on mosul was forecasted by stormcloudsgathering.com at least a couple months in advance.
to top that, mossul, a 900 000 thousand people town with 2 army regiments (infantry and artillery if i recall correctly) with over 20 000 soldiers, with access to all kinds of equipment, fled from 1500 isis fighter on brand new pick up trucks.
and, of course,while fleeing they forgot protocol, and did not destroy any equipment nor weapons depot.
those 1500 isis on pick ups wouldnt be able to take my peacefull european 200 000 people,10 000 soldier hometown. how did they take mossul?
Add their battle helicopters.
In 1960-s American helicopters were chasing Vietnamese like rats.
That were first rough generations of battle helicopters.
Vietnam was assisted with both China and USSR, both manpower and technology, and still those helicopters proved very successful.
In 2014 Mosul we had much better American helicopters and “bearded savages” with “no support” from major powers. And – not a single salvo fired.
@ Arioch
Not saying you meant it so, but pick your phrases. There is a very nice chap in my parish, a doctor, who came to the UK in a boat, from Vietnam. A Christian family, half starved and their country bombed flat and poisoned by Americans in ‘copters chasing ‘rats’?
No sin-filled episode of slaughter and genocide can be reduced to a throwaway like that. They were fellow humans and your neighbor.
A remarkable film about Vietnam is Clint Eastwood’s ‘Gran Torino’. Seen it?
That movie has little to do with Vietnam. The hero is a Korean war vet, and the people he is trying to protect are, if I remember correctly, Cambodians. Very tenuous connection with America’s involvement
in Vietnam,.
“in Afghanistan the US military performance is very substantially inferior to what the 40th Soviet Army achieved (with mostly conscripts!)”
Where can I read more about this?
actually, pretty much any interview with Afghans confirms that. Also you can easily check this fact: the Soviets held all cities and all major roads during the day (at night the roads were mostly controlled by the insurgency). Just look at what the US military actually succeeded in controlling. Just read about any halfway decent book about the Soviets and what they did or did not do (including what they built) and then compare with what the US has done and its really night and day.
Cheers,
The Saker
Thanks.
I found those quotes above (Russia controlling the cities) in a post of you on globalresearch in the meantime, wikipedia has a different version (Russia controlling 20% of the country), but wiki is not a reliable source. Anyway you have an avantage as you can read russian for the detail, for the moment I haven’t found substantial/reliable material in French or English for this period but will continue to search. Cheers.
Concerning US’ poor performance in Afghanistan you may wish to refer to the 37th Quarterly Report from SIGAR or their 2nd ‘Lessons Learned Report’, both available for download (PDF) at:
https://www.sigar.mil/ and
https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/quarterlyreports/2017-10-30qr.pdf
Although these reports do primarily address and document the failure of building up the Afghanistan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF), one should keep in mind that 9 years ago (37 Quarters to be precise) this building up of ANDSF was considered necessary just because of the failure of ISAF, Enduring Freedom and over 100 000 US boots on the ground to provide for that security.
Meanwhile US funded ANDSF expenses have reached ten-fold the original estimated costs of USD 7 B to become USD 70 B, which is partly due to ‘ghost’ enrollment but also due to ‘procurement’, while ANDSF’s real-life’ losses are unsustainable (quote from the report) and only 58 % of Afghanistan’s 400-odd districts are under government control and that most probably only during the day time.
The failure of ISAF and EF in the period before 2008 was due, apart from failed force projection, to the multi-national presence in Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT), about 10, each under the flag of a designated NATO ally. This concerns a more general and additional consideration to The Saker’s and PRC’s assessment’, notably the US’ obsession with forming alliances which is fine as a cloak for hiding their imperial ambitions, but which also becomes an inherent weakness when it comes to concerted action. We (will) see the same when matters become serious for the assembled NATO members on their posts in the Baltic and the Black Sea. In fact, it is only in the air that such an alliance can work in concert, but even then this is a question of ‘sorties’.
> Russia controlling the cities
> wikipedia has a different version (Russia controlling 20% of the country)
and where is a perceived contradiction ?
cities are always a hyper-condensed centers of population/production/spending/logistics/command-n-control and everything
they are tiny focal point upon the landmass, twice so landmasses like Syria and Afghanistan where most map share are inhabitable deserts and mountains.
So, sure, pro-Soviets government controlled minor part of map area, and it controlled focal points of population-production-logistics (cities)
Saker,
It is fair to focus the majority of the blame for the ineffective way that America has conducted military operations since World War Two on the Military-Industrial Complex. But there are two other legs to this stool of corruption, incompetence, and character.
Corruption:
You have written enough about this in your commentary.
Incompetence:
Since you cited Clauswitz in your commentary, I will do the same: “Objective” is the first and foremost of the principles of war.
In 1811, Napoleon was clearly out-generalled by the Crown Prince of Austria at the battle of Wagram. Regardless that the French forces had been poorly arrayed at the start, and maneuvered too slowly, thereby suffering excessive casualties, Napoleon changed course under fire during the battle and eventually maneuverd his forces into a position to overwhelm the Austran forces. Later, when asked why he did not avoid battle until he could get his forces into better disposition, Napoleon replied: “When you have come to take Vienna, Take Vienna!”.
Since Truman’s decisions to contain, rather than conquer the communist forces in Korea, and to avoid attacking China directly, (There was an army of over a million Nationalist Chinese, ready to fight, that was garrisoned in Taiwan.) the US Presidents have chosen containment over conquest. They prefer permanent military presence over short-lived military expeditions.
America’s armed forces are more in the business of building an empire than they are in winning wars. More than a little of the “waste” has gone into bribing and compensating the “hosts” for the imperial force.
Character:
In 2004 a U.S. Congressman named John Murtha made a passionate argument in the House of Representatives. He stated that the US Army was broken and that the US Marine Corps was almost broken. He called for the total withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan and Iraq so they could rest, re-equip, retrain, and reorganize. Because he had served at length in the US Marine Corps and had been decorated for service in Vietnam, his fellow Congressmen from both parties made honorable mention of his lifetime of dedication during their speeches. Then his proposal was resoundingly defeated. John Murtha did not run for re-election, and passed away soon thereafter.
About the same time and continuing until 2007, Lt.General Sanchez was commander of US Ground Forces in Iraq. In 2004, Sanchez became so concerned by the obvious signs of a widespread breakdown in discipline and ethical conduct among his forces that he commissioned the US Army’s Medical Corps to conduct a survey of his forces in an effort to measure the psychological state and ethical composition of his officers and NCOs. So upset was he by the findings of this initial survey, that he commissioned a repeat of this process in 2005 and 2006. Each year the results got worse. General Sanchez recommended that the US withdraw from Iraq and conduct a major re-training and reorganization of the US Army, so that it would be better prepared to fight another war, or -if appropriate- to re-enter Iraq. General Sanchez was subsequently replaced by General Petraeus.
I fear that the moral character of our officers and NCOs is a reflection of what is the general character of Americans today.
As for your allusions to the Russians, and the way they compare favorably to their American counterparts:
I am extraordinarily impressed with the character and professionalism of the servicemen who took control over Crimea in 2014. The same is true of my impressions of their conduct and achievements in Syria.
The Russians are far more capable of bringing decisive force (another principle of war) to the critical point of the battle than the Americans are.
But the leadership of Russia displayed hesitation (incompetence) in Ukraine, exhibiting the same traits as Truman in Korea. Perhaps Kiev was “a bridge too far”; but, “when it was time to take Kharkov, Take Kharkov!”.
It was not time to take Kharkov or Mariupol, not even Slavyansk which was abandoned in Strelkov’s retreat.
2014 compared to 2017 is an enormous difference.
The Militia quickly served as a bulwark, the border was taken and Russia didn’t have to take what would have led to massive sanctions and a guerrilla war and a huge drain on the economy.
Militarily it was and is very easy for the Russians to take anything in Ukraine.
They would prefer different outcomes than owning 10-20 million welfare cases, war costs, and sanctions against all their exports and imports.
Novorossiya project was quickly abandoned because it was too costly.
Look at the mess they inherited in Crimea. Multiply that by 10x. For 25 years and more Ukraine spent nothing on infrastructure. Every utility, road, and the general state of the society was devoured by corruption. Russia would own a depressed and broken hunk of Ukraine.
Several more years from now, they just might be given Novorossiya as Poland and Hungary take the other pieces.
Read the Open Line dialogue of Zakharchenko today and the basic infrastructure problems he has in the DNR. And they are doing great compared to Ukraine.
Kharkov needed to rise up and fight for its freedom.
Donbass is what it is because its people fought, bled, suffered and died.
Russia isn’t in the rescue business.
Freedom has always had a price.
That is always the excuse that I read. But I don’t buy it. In 2014 Ukraine was in turmoil (worse in the countrywide control sphere than even today). Russia wouldn’t have needed to send mass numbers of troops into the country. They could have recognized a “government in exile” as the legitimate government of Ukraine. And opened up the borders to volunteer fighters from Russia to aid them. Certainly many Russian volunteers did go to Donbass. But it was always hard for them.For much of the time they got opposition from the Russian authorities and had to almost sneak in. I had Russian friends that helped in that fight tell me how difficult it was to get through the border. They also could have armed the Ukrainian anti-junta forces.And used their influence (at the time there was a lot) with the Ukrainian military officers to get them to support the opposition.Once the Ukrainian junta and their Western backers were able to gain firmer control it was time lost.As for the fear of guerrilla war.Maybe to some extent in the West.But it would be Ukrainian pro-Russian forces fighting it,not Russian (think the NAF).It would have ended pretty quickly.You seem to think the Poles and Hungarians are going to get large chunks of Ukraine in the future.I don’t see that.There is a possibility that Hungary “might” get a small region south of the Carpathians that is mostly Magyar speaking.But that is a very small area.And as for Poland,there is no Polish ethnic area in Western Ukraine.The Polish minority pre-WWII is almost gone. That region is the most Polish-hating region of Ukraine.I don’t see them joining Poland.And if the Poles are smart,they should fear the very idea of that.
As for the economic problems you talk about.You seem to think the Ukrainians would just stand by and Russia would have to do everything.Ukraine has a lot of resources.And the Ukrainians are an educated industrial population.They were one of the jewels of the USSR. Certainly they would need some aid from Russia. But when you add up the aid Russia gives to the tiny Donbass. And the amounts they will probably be giving for years. I doubt that with a freed Ukraine,the amounts would have been much different. China also, if I remember correctly had committed to huge investments in the Ukrainian economy just before the maidan coup while Yanukovitch was President (ten billion I believe). Investments that never happened because of the coup.With a freed Ukraine,cleansed of the oligarchs,and fascists.Under a pro-Russian government.And joining the Eurasian project,with investments from China and Russia. It wouldn’t have taken too long,to have overcome their problems.That possibility was lost by the reluctance to do the right thing in 2014.And now we are forced to contrive excuses to explain that failure.
> Russia wouldn’t have needed to send mass numbers of troops into the country.
…and that is what West eagerly demanded Russia to do. All the shitstorm in Western MSM media, all the spectacular inhuman crimes by Western puppets in Kiev.
It is not always the best idea to go where your opponents want you to go. Sometimes you have an ace up the sleeve and can pretend being tricked. But usually it is bad idea.
> They could have recognized a “government in exile” as the legitimate government of Ukraine.
1. What government? consisting of whom exactly? if anything, Russian denied direct request from Yanukovich to hold his panties by Russian servicemen.
2. So did you want Russia to occupy Ukraine or to do a token gesture by blessing some self-assigned “friends of Syria” ^W^W^W oops, self-assigned Ukrainian government? When you occupy some nation you set their puppet government IN SITU, not in exile. Those are mutually excluding concepts.
> And opened up the borders to volunteer fighters from Russia to aid them.
Russia did.
> But it was always hard for them. For much of the time they got opposition from the Russian authorities and had to almost sneak in. I had Russian friends that helped in that fight tell me how difficult it was to get through the border.
Consider it a filter that only skilled smart guys could pass.
> They also could have armed the Ukrainian anti-junta forces.
Russia most probably funded anti-junta forces to fight as many weapons from Ukrainian depots as they needed. It proved enough to hold ground, when those forces organized into army of itself.
> And used their influence (at the time there was a lot) with the Ukrainian military officers to get them to support the opposition.
1. Speculation and wishful thinking on both “enough influence” and mere existence of any significant number of “military officers” wishing to gamble against the coup.
2. I back then was a frequent visitor of Ukrainian policemen forum. There were a lot of cries how the coup is criminal and how it will destroy both Ukraine and their personal lives. There still was not a single voice to stand against the coup, using their organization and skills and equipment. NONE.
3. back in 2013 (not 2014) there were a lot of Ukrainians calling for Russian army to invade Kiev and squash EuroMaidan before “they maidowns would force as Ukrainians to go at war with Russia and you Russian traitors would hold the blame for that”. NONE of them ever considered themselves giving an inch of struggle against the EuroMaidan coup.
4. Last but not least – there was no organized opposition to EuroMaidan. Thanks to pro-American Yanukovich, all the political movements that could be seeds were destroyed preemptively as his competitors. Remember 22-FEB-2014 – in Kharkov there was an emergent Assembly of Public Representatives of Ukrainian South-East. That assembly removed all the authority from Kiev until the president elections. And that is ALL they did. That assembly was visited by many hi-profile officers form Russian government ready to back them. That assembly was listening to simple people shouting about time lapsing and catastrophe coming. And they decided to do nothing than a token waiting for Poroshenko election. That assembly though provided Crimean Republic the grounds to declare independence before Poroshenko was elected. And it was the only positive thing from ALL the Ukrainian “opposition” despite Russian government being there between them to support them.
5. There is anecdotal evidence that Russian government concluded three surveys in South-East with devastating results: all the economically and socially active Ukrainians in South East considered Russia a much more enemy than any junta. Russia would impose laws, would suppress bribes and tax evasions, would literally destroy all their lives. After three independent surveys confirmed it Kremlin had to come to reality and out of ideological wishful thinking about “parade invasion”.
> But it would be Ukrainian pro-Russian forces fighting it,
Those that were not existing. Why would Ukrainians of town 1 fight against Ukrainians of town 2 if not for loot ? They would rightfully say “You Russians want this war – then you go and fight, not we”.
How many of strong men fled Donbass instead of fighting for THEIR OWN homes?
To fight for other Ukrainians’ homes there would be 100 times less volunteers.
> It would have ended pretty quickly
Really? “Bloody Stalin” started rooting out guerilleros in 1944. When he died in 1953 it was still work in progress. I wonder what “quickly” means for you.
> Once the Ukrainian junta and their Western backers were able to gain firmer control it was time lost.
And it was already done back in 2004 if not in 1990s.
> The Polish minority pre-WWII is almost gone. That region is the most Polish-hating region of Ukraine.I don’t see them joining Poland. And if the Poles are smart,they should fear the very idea of that.
Ditto about Russia. We fear the very idea of that (russophobic regions joining Russia).
> You seem to think the Ukrainians would just stand by and Russia would have to do everything.
Exactly. All EuroMaidan was about getting European salaries and pensions by ousting Yanukovich.
They demanded it from Brussels.
Under Russian occupation they would demand the same from Moscow.
> Ukraine has a lot of resources.
So they can just sustain themselves without Russian occupation.
> And the Ukrainians are an educated industrial population.
They were, 25 years ago, when Ukrainians ruled USSR.
Even then their economy was sustained by the endless money stream from Russia, Belorus and Kazakhstan.
Now when their economy is trashed by 25 years of looting and mismanagement, the required money to sustain them would much exceed rated they enjoyed in USSR era.
Add their increased demands: it would no more be enough to have to just better income than in Russia (that they had in USSR and it proved not enough) but it should be on par with EU core countries rates, Germany, France, etc.
> They were one of the jewels of the USSR.
They were.
> Certainly they would need some aid from Russia.
Oh, of course! “some” aid they were taking all these 25 years was not enough, now they would need just “some” more than “some”, but Russia is the richest state in the world that never should dare to calculate, right?
> But when you add up the aid Russia gives to the tiny Donbass.
> And the amounts they will probably be giving for years.
> I doubt that with a freed Ukraine, the amounts would have been much different.
Sure, sustaining 4 millions not striving at Germany-level incomes and public infrastructure levels “would not be much different” from sustaining 40 millions that do not agree on anything less than that. Sounds legit.
> China also, if I remember correctly had committed to huge investments in the Ukrainian economy just before the maidan coup while Yanukovitch was President (ten billion I believe).
They did, some of those investments even arrived into Ukraine already.
> Investments that never happened because of the coup.
Some of them did. Did China occupied Ukraine to squash the junta and retrieve their money? I think they did not. Stupid Chinese, not knowing what benefits them…
> With a freed Ukraine, cleansed of the oligarchs, and fascists.
when you meet an army of tooth fairies to clean those stables once and for all – call me again
because once USSR did cleansing in Western Ukraine, in Baltic States.
and now they demand Russia to pay for those “crimes”.
“Cleaning Ukraine of oligarchs and fascists” is considered punishable crime by Ukrainians, one for which Russians would be endlessly demanded to “repent and repay”.
I think, let’s Poland do this cleansing instead. Then Russia would think about supporting the cleansed Ukraine.
> Under a pro-Russian government.
….when some flying saucer bring one – call me again.
There were pro-Soviet governments in 1940 Baltic states, in 1970-s Afghanistan, in 1950-s Czechoslovakia and Hungary. There were. Now Russians are demanded to “repent and repay”. Should we really be eager to add more books into our case?
> And joining the Eurasian project, with investments from China and Russia.
Ukraine was offered and it declined the offer.
> It wouldn’t have taken too long, to have overcome their problems.
Just kill half the Ukrainians and manage to sort white sheep from black, and manage to do it in a way non of those left holds any grudge. Easy.
> That possibility was lost by the reluctance to do the right thing in 2014.
Year, the magic wand was criminally lost by Surkov.
> And now we are forced to contrive excuses to explain that failure.
What failure?
Ukrainian failure is not Russian failure.
Let Ukrainians get adult and explain it.
As I’ve written about before,there is a schism inside Russia between the “Russian World” side. That believes Russia includes all the Rus peoples.And that a safe Russia is only possible with a strong Russia. And the other side of “Little Russia” people who believe if they cover their heads,and appease their enemies,maybe,just maybe,they will be left along.Who think they should not concern themselves with the Russians in Rus lands. I support the first group.While it appears you belong to the second group.
I won’t do as you tried to do and go line by line of my post to comment on.But only offer a rebuttal to the main parts of your comment.
In setting up a government in exile,you don’t need strong leaders for it.Do you think when the Soviets set up governments in exile for the countries they were liberating during the last part of WWII ,that they picked only well know figures to serve in it. No,they picked from those “at hand”,to serve the purpose until they found others later.The purpose of such a government is to put a legal face to the freeing of the country.Like a snowball rolling down hill. It grows bigger as it comes down the hill.There is nothing that attracts as success.And as to you speaking on forums to Ukrainian police.Do you think people in fear of their safety are going to say publicly they would join in a revolt.Once the revolt comes,then you see who joins or not.When the revolt is successful you are “overloaded” with volunteers. You talked of the nationalist partisans in Galicia,yes,the Soviets took years to fully defeat them.So far we’ve had this crisis in Ukraine for 3 years.I’d have rather it been fought against nazis in Galicia. Instead of against innocents in Donbass.
As to your other economic point. I can’t be clearer than to say there are things more important than money. Safety,security,homeland,family,are all more important than money.And Ukraine represents all of that to the Russian World.But the bottom line is.If you don’t believe in the unity of Rus. Then no matter what I say will have no affect on your thinking. So I’ll conclude here.
Arioch, great post, a true and clear eyed assessment of the Ukraine tragedy. When Ukrainians are ready to solve their problems, and commit the sacrifice necessary, then no doubt Russia would be supportive. Sadly I don’t see any signs of this, just the opposite. The talent that could leave has left already for Europe, Canada, or the US. Rot and decay is gaining ground.
@Arioch
That was an excellent post. The difference between reality and theory. The difference between having real inside knowledge from within a culture and a region as opposed to pedantic knowledge from outside with no real understanding of the language, culture and internal political and societal dynamics that can only be understood from personal direct experience.
In short, Ukraine was a bear-trap, a tar-baby and poison-pill that Russia, succinctly avoided tripping, touching or ingesting. Let the EU and Western Ukraine choke on each other, let the EU swallow the poison pill it had help prepare for Russia. Notice how the EU has reneged on all pretenses of integration: they want the resources of Ukraine not the people and the social-welfare liabilities.
Very good comment Arioch , nor very good people those ukrainians , they are free riders . They ruined the CCCP and now I think that they will ruin the EU , along with other ex soviet free riders like the baltics , poland , rumania …
Uncle Bob,
I very much agree with your assessment.
Well argued, well said, and all correct the way I see it. We can admire Putin and Russia without falling into the trap of declaring that Putin can make no mistakes. The Ukrainian handling was a major blunder despite repeated attempts to rationalize it away. You either have a backyard that you protect or you don’t. And protecting it might carry a cost and its own set of risks. If you choose to forego your backyard, you run the risk of vandals lining up right outside your windows. Your overall approach (help and equip an insurgency, don’t let the western puppets acquire legitimacy and comfort, etc.) are all smart ideas that should have ben considered. These approached can be turned “on” and “off” at will. If the Ukrainians had then showed no fight, or a desire to go over to the other side, the “off” button could have been pressed. Instead, legitimacy was conceded to the illegal Government, and thus to de facto Nato presence, right from day one. The fact is the Russians were caught napping and were not expecting their “partners” to become so brazen. But all that is now history. The future will now evolve out of a bed of problems.
You don’t seem to understand that everything and mostly everybody in Ukraine is more or less corrup(ed). Everything not bolted or welded down gets stolen and sold for some nickles and dimes. Even almost worthless merchandise like second hand clothing enroute to Ukraine from western Europe gets stolen or swapped out (and sold for profit) somewhere halfways and then drenched with water to make up for the loss weight of the freight. This happens even when the mrrchandise and freight was paid for with money from Uki mafia ,oops, ‘business men’. The thiefs don’t give a damn whom it belongs to.
Workers, even when good friends of friends, may well steal the little bit of value a family has in their flat appartment when they’re supposedly changing a window frame. Then on top they have the balls to ask you a second time to prepay for the purchase of the window frame, and when you investigate what happened with the first sum you find out that the worker used it to finance his recent marriage party. No kidding.
When workers in Russia strike for whatever changes or improvements they generally stick together and will usually keep going until there’s acceptable result. O.t.o.h. Ukrainian workers will get divided when the boss offers some small change to all or, even better, to the most insisting of ’em and all principles go overboard immediately.
VVP and his crew know all about it and quite probably have better plans in mind than anyone of us could immagine at this time.
You seem to not remember that Russia in the Yeltsin years was much like that. But instead of having a Putin arise (yet), Ukraine suffered over a decade and a half longer with mini-Yeltsins ruling them. As Putin himself has said ,Ukrainians and Russians are one people.Just as with Russia ,Ukraine can be freed and restored.It will be harder because the rot was allowed to get deeper,and for a longer time.But it can be done.Look at Belarus.Where the rule of the oligarchs was never able to come about.Ukraine can be,with its much larger population and resources,restored to be a valued part of the Russian World.It will take time and hard work,but it can be done.
Why don’t you volunteer for a year or so just to see with your own eyes? Many Ukis, also in my family, are so goddamn indoctrinated and f up that you cannot even hope to have a constructive conversation with these people. Before anyone would even manage to bring one percent of positive change Ukraine will already have fallen appart. It has always been an artificial construct, and it’s hard on its way to auto-de-construct.
The good and wise in Ukraine will work toward a common ‘Rus’ goal and probably end up with and/or in (Novo)Rossia. The rest will unfortunately be(come) the people of what the Saker calls a “Rump” Ukraine that will go down with western Europe and their good Yankee friends.
You may love lemmings and want to stop the poor animals from leaping in the ocean but would you? It would be not more than wishful thinking but in reality a waste of time, money and energy. Let them leap and jump, they obviously liked jumping during Euro-Maidan.
Its problematic to believe personal information from relatives. A lot would depend on what part of Ukraine your relatives are from,their politics,their personal history. I have friends in the Southeast that consider themselves Russian. And hoped the NAF would free their Oblast. But are forced to “keep their heads done”, since Avov neo-nazis occupy and terrorize that Oblast. I remember 3 years ago,that the junta soldiers themselves (and US poll companies) reported that 80% of the Southeast (Novorossia) didn’t support them.And certainly that was true especially of Donetsk and Lugansk (the entire Oblasts),not just the tiny region free today.Was very hostile to the junta.I find it difficult to believe that 3 years of junta propaganda.And in the midst of war and economic collapse has changed those peoples minds to today support the fascists.A more likely truth is that,like most people,fear keeps people in line.And if the junta fell tomorrow (as it should have in 2014),those people would be free to speak their true feelings.
Hi Uncle Bob,
All I wrote was about Ukrainians, that is people educated in and speaking mostly Ukrainian. Those from the east, south-east, south, south-center and south-west are russophones and indeed mostly pro-Russian. I consider these people Russians and they usually don’t show the symptoms I wrote about earlier.
Most of what I wrote about I witnessed personally. I was in the area south of Kiev for many months during several stays, also during the first month of Euro-maidan and do speak Ukrainian. No hearsay from me… :-)
Cheers!
Good to know now. The areas you mentioned as being more pro-Russian make up the biggest part of the country. And around 75% or more of the population. I’d think that much is more than enough to build a new government with (or even a new country). The West Ukraine if they don’t want to be part of it. Could of course form their own mini-nazi state.It wouldn’t be very viable.But that is OK too.Saving the majority is better than leaving all the people to the West.
“Yeltsin” never existed. His real name was Boris Jeltzman, and he was a Khazarian (as was revealed by an Arabic newspaper). That mofo worked for the Khazarian Mafia, and his job was to help the Satanic RothSchilds to defeat, dismember, loot and exterminate Russia.
I tend to agree with Russia’s approach but for different reasons.
War has at its’ roots economic infrastructure differences.
The Russian government may well decided to use the Ukraine to bleed monetary resources from the West, and later on the Ukraine will fall back into Russian territory with a well learned lesson and a populace determined to not aspire to the ‘west’ again.
Play the long game.
Ukie nazis make fine illustration for third parties to see stark futures and enables the people to see in advance their choices and the outcomes. After this illustration of tender embrace of loving empire what people would willingly submit ?
logic would seem to suggest the Comrade President P and Ivan overall with Chin seek a desired Peace and Prosperity. The conflict with empire, therefore, is correctly seen as attempt to achieve this. The goal is not war or even winning a war, but to shape a desirable Peace. War, conflict of violent natures, is a method(one of a set of methods) to achieve this goal. Is not a goal in itself, nor is Victory.
Similarly, for empire, war is a way of life, as empire worships the false gods of money. For empire Life has a negative value. They see a forest as worthless, but dead trees as value…for example. And Peace as total destruction. Is simple.
As seat of Anglosaxon Pirates is known locus overall goal of Kateonic Resistance to empire must necessarily focus on changing the nature of Murka…hence RT et sec.
If conflict goes on in same course is clear that Murka shall change. Question is in what way…
Is possible that Murka may even see Ivan and Chin invited to do Police work in Murka…History shocks the ignorant…but wise man never surprised.
Whilst I’m sure any attack by US Forces on either Russia OR China would be equally final for the US (Sino-Russian mutual defence treaty, anyone??), I’d also safely wager than an unprovoked, “pre-emptive” US attack on DRPK might well have the same result. China has made it pretty clear that, in case of such an attack, they would “support” the DRPK, and I have really no doubt that there has been enough correspondence behind the (diplomatic) scenes to ensure this would be the case, to the extent that I’d think it almost nigh-on impossible that DRPK would strike first. OK, the DRPK might lose another big chunk of its already small population as a result of a US strike, but if allowing this to happen ensures the help of their nearby “Friends with Benefits”, the net loss of life may well be considerably less. Certainly, having China (and by extension possibly Russia too) “batting for YOUR side” will mean “the Opposition” may well be in for a very nasty time indeed.
TL:DR? Summary might be:
DRPK Strikes first: No support from China, effectively tiny Country vs. the entire might of the USA – casualty balance much in favour of the USA, probably end of DRPK as we know it.
US strikes first (as the current rhetoric suggests may be likely): DRPK supported by China (probably from a military standpoint); US engages China (“defence”, you know!), Russia “joins in” (it is in Russia’s interests that China does NOT get destroyed by the US), and the casualty balance may well be reversed.
Best option for everyone – just let things settle down a bit (“jaw-jaw’s better than War-War”), since if there “is” a major conflict, the direction of “progress” may prove very unpredictable, and potentially bad for us all.
In 1948 the Army and Marine Corps increased the number of officers 10 times, in order that if WW3 broke out they could increase the number of divisions and have enough officers to staff them. The problem with this is that the majority of an officer;s career is spent in staff positions, not command. As a result those who arise to the top are psychologically suitable to be bureaucrats. The promotion system relies on the superior rating the officers under him . The US generals are Ass kissing bureaucrats as a result. Combine this with Group Narcissism, where any criticism of the army or USMC is met with hostility and the critic is “anti-military” or Unamerican. The US lost the Vietnam war and no serious criticism was made.Psychology becoming more or less the State religion, the generals justify their corruption in procuring weapons.
Women and LGBT are another cause. If an officer deals with these issues seriously, his career will no nowhere. The only way to make general is to be a good liar, the people with ethics leave and go into other lines of work. Given the huge sums spent on the military it is one of the most incompetent in history.
Few details in regards to NATO aggression on SR Yugoslavia.
• The aggression started with approximately 460 aircrafts and finished with just over 1000 aircrafts.
• The aggression lasted 78 days.
• The force ratio was 600 (NATO) : 1 (Serbia). Taking in to account economic factors it was 860 (NATO) : 1 (Serbia).
• During 78 days it was dropped 15 – 20 tons of depleted uranium mostly on province of Kosovo and Metohija but also on other regions of Serbia. Radiation equivalent to 8 Hiroshima bombs.
• Most countries have map of factories and storage facilities that have hazardous materials (mercury,…). All of the sites indicated on the map of Serbia have been targeted and mostly destroyed.
• Total loss of men in the army is around 1000. Total civilian loss is over 3000.
• The F117 was destroyed by NEVA anti-aircraft system of 2nd generation. Also B2 bomber ‘Spirit of Missouri” was destroyed using the same system. The B2 crashed in today’s Croatian territory.
• Total recorded hits / distraction of NATO aircrafts is just over 60. Total distraction of unmanned aircraft is over 350.
• During the air campaign there was a ground offensive attempted from Albania. The ground force consisted of Albanian regulars, UCK terrorists from Kosovo, mujahidin (ISIS) from Middle East. Total number of men estimated 3000.
• All commanding and logistics was handled by NATO.
• US Airforce was providing air support.
• After initial attack the Serbian border guard units pulled out on the 2nd position where the offensive was stopped and held at that location until the reinforcement arrived. Not long after, the lost ground was regained and held until the end of the war.
Correction: NATO lost 137 aircraft and 25 choppers, including one F-117 and one B-2. This does not include the number of aircraft damaged. The Serbian military always states that it shot down 60 NATO aircraft. However, that is done for political reasons, so as not to embarrass NATO. During NATO’s aggression against the FR of Yugoslavia, there was an excellent website titled “Veniks Aviation”, run by a Russian, who gave the true number of destroyed and damaged NATO aircraft. He even included photographs of coffins with dead NATO pilots being handed over to NATO representatives.
@Aleksandar: could you please email me?
thanks
The Saker
Thank You, Saker, for this analysis. I have 2 questions:
1) From PCR´s article: [ One Sarmet is sufficient to take out Great Britain, or France, or Germany, or Texas. It only takes a dozen to wipe out the United States.]
Does he mean main infrastructure, or ´wiping off the face of the earth´? Because when looking at http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ it seems overestimated.
2) What would be price (retaliation) after destruction of a carrier battle group for an attacker?
> What would be price (retaliation) after destruction of a carrier battle group for an attacker?
Who is attacker? As China recently demonstrated, any submarine can emerge in the middle of ACG order with impunity.
So, imagine, suddenly an air carrier goes down in nuclear blast. Escort ships sunk too or are irreparably polluted and are sunk after crew evacuation.
And that is it. A sudden nuclear blast amid the sea – and calm breeze again.
Whom to retaliate against? Russia ? China? Korea? Israel? Pakistan? Iran? Or any random nation war with which would help Hillary to get elected?
1) The Sarmat cannot wipe off an entire country or even a US state. Not literally. It has anywhere from 1 to 15 independent warheads so, at most, it can hit 15 targets. Now depending on how you pick 15, or even 10 or 6 nuclear strikes on a European nation state or a US state is more than enough to basically turn it into, well, something very different. Let’s take Texas. Now remove all of the following: Amarillo, Austin, Corpus Christi, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston, Laredo, Lubbok and San Antonio. That’s 10 cities. And about 10 million people (every 3rd Texan). Is what’s left still “Texas” as we know it? One single Sarmat really could do that.
2) Depends on the attacker but I would expect the USA to go “full berserk” and to destroy at least one city in retaliation. Which, at the end of the day, would only serve to make the USA look even weaker (and even more hated).
Good question, thank you.
The Saker
> to destroy at least one city in retaliation
…after hacking up some investigation as thorough as “17 intelligence agencies” can do.
IOW it would be just venting their rage at some random defenseless city
….then there would come out some third party and say “Ahem, actually those were we who sunk those ships, here are photo and video we made, that city’s nation had no connection to it”
Actually, sounds like a plan. If i was a neocon….
A more likely scenario is a US civil war in which nuclear weapons are used.
It’s well known fact that e.g Finnish infantry conscripts have much better trained system and tactic operating in forests landscape than US army 2-5 y professionals. I have talked with several Finnish trainers and members of voluntary part time soldiers who have wittnessed how clumsy US Army tactic really is.
Then there is common misunderstanding of numbers of soldiers. When you read about let’s say 100 000 US Army soldiers in fact you should see a force of just 5 000 combat front line and 95 000 rear area pig soldier army. How long you fight with 5 000 fighters? 50% losses ( 500 battle deaths) and you have lost. Trained reserves from ghetto and trailer park? Here’s the thing: no smart moral middle class white American fellow will waste his life in army system.
> How long you fight with 5 000 fighters? 50% losses ( 500 battle deaths)
this maths goes beyond me
Probably he thinks this way : 500 KIA and 2000 MIA and wounded. Usualy, the losses other than deaths, are three times bigger.
“Most Americans, including very well informed ones, sincerely believe that their armed forces are ‘second to none’ and that the USA …” They believe that about everything. Healthcare, internet speeds, everything. Transportation, beauty, “IQ,” whatever the topic. Try to convince an American that a high speed rail is better than 10 lanes of standard oil/heavy traffic. Bring lunch.
The top 30% of income earners in the US must sign a contract that doesn’t allow them to see certain truths. It’s a Western thing though. The Germans believe incredible bullcrap about themselves (how else do you get Mangela for 15 years). North of the US, you’ll find the same delusion, and it’s even more pathetic because they truly aren’t number 1 in anything.
One thing I think you leave out: The US has the best deception machine on the planet. They could pretend they found a country of purple people in the pacific and the next day, RT would report it as an amazing discovery! They could pretend they had astronauts playing golf on the moon and, well, you get the picture. Being the top deceiver, the father of lies, matters more than hardware.
The point of The Saker’s analysis is that being “number 1” has limited impact on a successful outcome (with Lebanon and Serbia as examples.) Same witb posessing the latest gadgetry. He seems to suggest that this “number 1ness” concept is part of the military-security complex propaganda (with heavy assistance from Hollywood.) So you’re point about Canada doesn’t make sense.
I think he means that the Canadians “USA style” self image is based entirely on their physical proximity to the USA and its “cultural” influence. I believe Trump recently dented that with a quip about not actually having to defend Canada if the USA doesn’t want to.
Complacency is a very dangerous state of mind. I used to work on the railroad and time to time the company would display videos of railway employees cut in two, limbs severed and so on. This was an effective method of understanding the dangers of my job and to be aware of complacency in order to avoid serious self injuries.
When we look at the USA it is in dire straits, for it lives in the illusion of supremacy over everything and that idiotic saying the most exceptional country in the universe. You see the jews have the same problem, they still believe in the myth of being under the sole of the enemy and always being the victim in every circumstance that they can invent. They to will lose due to their complacency.
The USA continues to waste so much money on a useless method of control by way of the military industrial complex. The only winners are people who sell these comic book ideas to people who glorify themselves as invincible heroes who cannot do anything wrong and continue to hold onto the illusion of how great they truly are. But they have forgotten that they are on a screen and that many individuals are watching them fail continuously through their own arrogance of superiority.
To overcome their weakness the rest of the world watches and learns how to defend and fight Goliath, no matter what the USA throws at them. All these useless wars and their egos won’t let up and go home. Pity that the USA is falling apart at the seams and the simpletons won’t address the true issue. In the meantime the MIC keeps pushing for more profits because the old lady continues to sing without an audience. Just imagine if all that money was spent on making America Great Again? Today many nations are in fact standing up to this bully and standing their ground. I know that I would be embarrassed by product failures such as the F35 turned out to be. The USA must feel pretty good about itself by blockading Cuba, wow what a challenge.
Unfortunately Greed, Corruption, Power and Control have been the four pillars that have held up the table top in this case the USA. Those pillars of support are disintegrating away, all the while the controllers are totally immersed in the illusion of greatness and are withering away. The USA can spend, spend and spend some more but to no avail as they have indeed lost the ability to lead. Sixteen years in Afghanistan fighting guys wearing sandals, but of course we need those precious minerals don’t we. What about those poppies they sure make us a lot of money don’t they. What about all those bundles of USA dollars that just disappear. Just like the Trillions Of Missing Funds that was admitted to by Rumsfeld on September 10, 2001. Good thing that missile struck the pentagon right where all the evidence was kept. It sure is a coincidence that so much effort is maintained to cover up the incompetence and criminality that is rampant in the USA military structure.
Don’t worry my friends self inflicted wounds are hard to heal especially if one neglects to learn the dangers that are involved.
(I corrected the words in all caps that violate the blog rules,MOD.)
The Russian GDP-nominal versus GDP-PPP is suggesting rate of 1:3. When Russian weapons are almost totally 100% Made in Russia and when salaries to soldiers are paid with rubles then clearly US budget is not 10 times but some 3 – 3.5 times bigger than that of Russia. Then Russia is land warfare power while US is sea power. In land warfare Russia might have relatively bigger military budget than USA.
Yair. bye bye Babylon!
You are right the propaganda machine has totally brainwashed the American people (minus a handful) into that thinking. I actually think its worse than in nazi Germany. I think there were a lot of Germans that secretly didn’t buy into the “master race” thinking.But that there are fewer people in the US that doubt the “exceptional” ideology. Its just taken as fact ,that the US military is supreme. No facts needed,its just accepted.And anyone that would question that is considered “nuts”,or some kind of “Putin-bot”.
As for the US in WWII,you are right there as well. Since 75-85% of German forces and equipment was destroyed fighting against the USSR. Even with Germany’s factory problems. If they hadn’t been at war with the USSR. The Anglo-American forces would have had to face an added German force of millions (5-6? million) of Germany’s best troops.And fully equipped with all the weapons lost in fighting the USSR.I strongly doubt they could have defeated that force.And if they did,it would have taken many more years to do it.I read on here once someone say that the US would have used the nuclear bombs they developed against Germany and won the war.Maybe so,but its important to remember the Germans were working on a nuclear weapon as well.And without the war against the USSR using up so much of Germany’s resources.Who knows but that they might have developed one as well.So counting on that to win WWII would be problematic at best.
Uncle Bob might read Klemperer’s I Will Bear Witness…indeed many veteran Germans knew.
As far as I know, Germans never worked on a nuclear bomb before the end of WWII. They were believed to do so, only to find out afterwards, that they were after nuclear power stations instead. The US push for the bomb relied on the fear of the top scientists involved in the Manhattan project. It is a prime example of “fear breeds evil.”
Then let me enlighten you:
“The German nuclear weapon project (German: Uranprojekt; informally known as the Uranverein; English: Uranium Society or Uranium Club) was a scientific effort led by Germany to develop and produce nuclear weapons during World War II. The first effort started in April 1939, just months after the discovery of nuclear fission in December 1938, but ended only months later due to the German invasion of Poland, after many notable physicists were drafted into the Wehrmacht.”
“A second effort began under the administrative purview of the Wehrmacht’s Heereswaffenamt on 1 September 1939, the day of the Invasion of Poland. The program eventually expanded into three main efforts: the Uranmaschine (nuclear reactor), uranium and heavy water production, and uranium isotope separation. Eventually it was assessed that nuclear fission would not contribute significantly to ending the war, and in January 1942, the Heereswaffenamt turned the program over to the Reich Research Council (Reichsforschungsrat) while continuing to fund the program. The program was split up among nine major institutes where the directors dominated the research and set their own objectives. Subsequently, the number of scientists working on applied nuclear fission began to diminish, with many applying their talents to more pressing war-time demands.”
“The most influential people in the Uranverein were Kurt Diebner, Abraham Esau, Walther Gerlach, and Erich Schumann; Schumann was one of the most powerful and influential physicists in Germany. Diebner, throughout the life of the nuclear weapon project, had more control over nuclear fission research than did Walther Bothe, Klaus Clusius, Otto Hahn, Paul Harteck, or Werner Heisenberg. Abraham Esau was appointed as Hermann Göring’s plenipotentiary for nuclear physics research in December 1942; Walther Gerlach succeeded him in December 1943.”
“At the end of the war, the Allied powers competed to obtain surviving components of the nuclear industry (personnel, facilities, and materiel), as they did with the pioneering V-2 SRBM missile program.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_weapon_project
Remember I said that without the war with the USSR the Germans would have had more time and resources to devote to these projects. So its not impossible that they too would have developed a nuclear bomb during the war. Also at the same time the Soviets had a atomic bomb research program working.After the war they benefited from some of the German scientists that fell into their hands at wars end .As well of course from their own work. And from the stellar spy operations they ran among disgruntled nuclear scientists in the West.Which was why Stalin knew the US had developed the bomb before Truman told him at Potsdam.And why only a few years later the USSR exploded their first bomb.Had they not been devastated by the war.Its fairly likely they could have developed it much quicker.
The fairytale is that the German boffins knew how. they did not,but they might have learned. they chose to not know…but was this choice will, or accident? or?
is diversion…
knowing how is miles from doing when it comes to gadgets.
they could know. they could not make.
You do remember that the first usable jet planes and missiles were build by the Germans in the war. I’ve also seen a few of the first hybrid helicopters that they build too.In fact ,the US and Soviet jet plane and missile programs benefited enormously from the German scientists,models, and plans captured at the end of the war. There was a literal race between the two countries to grab as much of the German technology and workers as they could for their use.I strongly doubt Germany couldn’t have developed the bomb if they hadn’t been bogged down in war with the USSR.
two ways to make.
one way makes them one at a time. takes many years, but is cheap. Is a frugal slow isotope separation method for U
other method uses reactor and is fast. also very obvious and expensive…and still takes at least 5 years with what nazis had in 1940. Is Pu method.
Both methods were not sufficient to stop Red Army soon enough.
Ergo they could not, objectively could not, actually produce a single gadget.
Good idea read basic physics, Comrade.
https://www.amazon.com/German-Atomic-Bomb-History-Research/dp/B002UBXKYK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1509885454&sr=8-1&keywords=the+german+atomic+bomb
fyi Comrade… is simple to know…simple to look. why reveal ignorance of obvious history? is mystery…
Because atomic research in Germany did not equal bomb research and because I do account for the fact that history is written by the winner. Recent publications of previously secret interrogations of German nuclear researchers show that these researchers did not know how to make a nuclear bomb. However, they were much interested in nuclear reactors as they were seeking an unlimited energy supply for the German factories and the Wehrmacht.
I know that Germany was and still is full of ingenious people. After the war, the US robbed the country blind. It grabbed Germany’s most valuable patents, more than 20’000, and its top scientists in the thousands (many were NAZIs – it did not matter a yota). For a full generation the US infused itself with the German ingeniousness. Look how that boosted its space program, to mention just one example.
The Soviets benefited in a similar way from the exchange of scientists. However, the USSR put priority on denazification – thereby upholding a commitment the allied forces made – whilst the US chose to turn a blind eye.
I’ve lived in the US for about 12 years (am originally from Serbia). About 5 years ago (after Snowden leaks) I realized that Americans are not brave at all, nor are they confident.
What they have instead in mania (a caricature of happiness) – which makes them loud and together with Hollywood BS propaganda that’s often enough to persuade foreigners like me (who give Americans far too many benefits of the doubt – for the same reason normal people find it very hard to believe that psychopaths like Hilary would lie so outrageously – and psychos know that – hence their strategy).
Having been around the world a few times I think Americans have been brainwashed more than any other nation to blindly follow (and protect by lying to others if need be) their masters – imaginary or otherwise. And they are definitely not at all brave, nor are they confident at all. They are actually probably the biggest pussies I have ever seen (on average). In 12 years I spent here I think I’ve met 1-2 brave men.
There is a quote from 100 or so years ago – I think it’s still a very accurate description of most Americans:
The American is marked, in fact, by precisely the habits of mind and act that one would look for in a man insatiably ambitious and yet incurably fearful, to wit, the habits, on the one hand, of unpleasant assertiveness, of somewhat boisterous braggardism, of incessant pushing, and, on the other hand, of conformity, caution and subservience. He is forever talking of his rights as if he stood ready to defend them with his last drop of blood, and forever yielding them up at the first demand. George Jean Nathan and H.L. Mencken, The American Credo, 1920
Edward Jay Epstein has just issued a book about Snowden’s thefts, which punched a huge hole in American defenses. “How America Lost Its Secrets ” (Alfred A Knopf, 2017)
In fact, Snowden stole 1.4 million files, with some sub-folders containing 30,000 pages, of all our weapons systems, using a security access flaw that made passwords unnecessary. Since the Russians and the Chinese have an intelligence sharing arrangement, Snowden’s stolen files are now held by both countries and our weapons’ capability and software is transparent to them and can be manipulated / defeated at will.
Snowden downloaded the government snooping stuff in the last few days before his departure and these were always designed to earn him PR credit. Also, he never intended going anywhere other than Russia — he wrote associates under various alias that he would be kidnaped by the US in South American would only be safe in either China or Russia.
For all the bluster, I suspect no one in the Pentagon trusts the operational effectiveness of any American weapon system — ships / missiles / planes — in a fight with the Russians, or Chinese, as the software that manages the systems can be deranged.
Some six months after Snowden’s arrival in Moscow, Vladimir Putin deliberately twitted Americans about Russian capabilities. Such bad form !
> using a security access flaw that made passwords unnecessary.
why not fixing them then ?
In 1976 NATO got all USSR air force f-o-f passwords: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Belenko
It took few years to refit all the jets with new HARDWARE responders, but it was done.
Today one does not even have to physically change pieces of equipment, one has to make new version of programs with changed access tokens. When it was that Snowden defected? more than enough time already passed
LZ would like to see some evidence for the astonishing and unsupported claim that “In fact, Snowden stole 1.4 million files, with some sub-folders containing 30,000 pages, of all our weapons systems, using a security access flaw that made passwords unnecessary. ”
If Sam is present at a crime, say the rape and murder of a child, or of a million children, and the guilty people make records of their crimes, is Sam stealing when he testifies as to the actions of the criminals and when he exposes he films and records that they themselves made of obviously criminal acts?
But deeply, is the claim even true that Snowden took stuff on weapons systems? Proof, if you please, or even material evidence.
Please, Friend, enlighten the folks…
If so, is there something wrong with stealing?
I say that the Crime is concealing the evicence of rape and murder. And otherts? Will they say it’s a crime to expose crime?
Seems some think so…
concealing evidence of crimes, war crimes especially is clearly a crime in itself…is called in Law “misprision of felony” see this:
”
18 U.S. Code § 4 – Misprision of felony
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)”
Snowden, it seems, is not a thief, but simply obeyed the federal law.
Is unclear who is in error, Epstein and RC, or simply one of them…
The point is that the Russian Military Industrial Complex is Government owned while the US Military Industrial Complex is in private hands. This means that the Russian military gets more for less money spent while the US military gets less for more money spent, and by this I mean with respect to quality. Yes, the US military budget is many times bigger than the Russian. However, where does all that money go ? It covers 700 combat bases and 300 supply bases just outside the US, all the bases inside the US, plus a heap of other expenditures. Russia has, wisely, concentrated on defensive missile systems, which unquestionably are the best in the world (S-300, S-350, S-400, S-500 and others). It has produced a limited number of combat aircraft, but at the same time concentrating on quality, getting the SU-30, SU-37, SU-35, SU-57, MIG 35. For NATO to attack Russia in a conventional war, it would require complete air superiority, which would be impossible with the mentioned Russian missile systems. This would mean NATO armored units and infantry would attack on their own, with NATO tanks being easily destroyed with Kornet and Grad missile systems. It’s impossible to defeat Russia in a conventional war, and Pentagon generals some time ago admitted this. Unfortunately, as some analysts have pointed out, there are still some crazies on Wall Street who have watched too many Hollywood movies and who think that Russia can be defeated by a sneak attack. It cannot.
I would argue for a long-term conventional war what matters is not how many weapons you have in the depot, but how fast you can produce new units, because anything you have your enemy would be destroying day and night.
What happened in 1943 was that Japan was hopelessly outproduced by USA and Third European Reich by USSR.
Yeah, German engineers could come with some very sophisticated designs, including Enigma, rockets, radars… Jets, again.
But sorry, if your jet flies for about 10 minutes, and after this moment of triumph it gets landed and dozens of “obsolete” piston-propelled counterparts destroy you with the runway itself – it does not change the tides.
T-34 was an interim compromised design of 1939 with some shortcomings impossible to fix.
There already were blueprints for fixed T-44, and some few of them even got produced in 1945.
That repaired design served as bases for hugely successful T54/55/62 lineup.
Still Kremlin said firm “no”: we do not want few selected tankers to have a great new wonderweapon, we want every field troops grunt to feel support from tanks nearby, even those tanks were of worse performance per piece.
Same goes with submachine guns, PPSh-1942 design was very cinematographic, but was not the best in price/performance terms. In sieged Leningrad engineers managed to create significantly cheaper and significantly better PPS-1943 SMG. But… it was a year to late and Kremlin prohibited to retooling all the already set factories and to disrupt still too slow SMG flow to the armies.
This approach was taken to such extremes that in 1970-s there were developed designs of a semi-ad-hoc ersatz CAS aircrafts, that isolated shards of USSR would be able to independently produce after NATO Reich armies would invade and cut the state into isolated parts.
So, for example in T-14 vs Abrams or T-90 vs Abrams scenario what bothers me is production capacities, and for what I learned so far USA can no more produce Abrams engines. They can do hulls, turrets, cannons – but it would be a 60-tonnes horse-driven carriage in the end.
When the accumulated depots of tanks would be blasted (even by tactical nukes) what matters would be factories. And Russia retains production capability. Probably so do Germany and France. Does USA?
Some experiences from the Second World War can be used, some cannot. When it comes to mass production, it is important for some weapons. However, not for all. During the Second World War, tens of thousands of combat aircraft were produced. That is not possible any more, because current aircraft are more sophisticated and require more time to be built, and they are also far more expensive. Also, pilots flying jet combat aircraft require far more time to be trained than their predecessors of the Second World War. On the modern battlefield, high tech and quality come first, although the infantryman and his assault rifle will play an important role for a long time to come.
> because current aircraft are more sophisticated
they are, but the base level of worker education and factory tooling raised too.
relative to the time – those aircrafts we smirk today at were high-tech back then
> and require more time to be built
Even if it is so – it effects both sides of war.
> high tech and quality come first
sure, blitzkrieg attempt. But what if it failed?
Blitzkrieg against Russia/USSR worked good for its first phase (Polish invasion, Napoleon, Hitler).
It just time and again proved not good enough.
And then logistics and sustained overproduction kicked in.
Hitler got Europe-best tanks in Munich 1938 (and the famous Beetle family car).
He got best on Earth army, trained and optimized in real operations.
Hitler overwhelmed USSR defenses in one swift blow.
“Tech and quality” did him very very good. For a while.
Some was with Napoleon’s invasion, supreme “tech and quality” let him march to Moscow.
What they both lacked was a capability to sustain their armies at the rate those wars consumed.
The most hi tech and sophisticated weapon would get broken or destroyed, it is almost a matter of time. And from that it would matter if the soldier has an instant replacement. Or does not.
You oversimplify things. Before Hitler attacked the USSR, he massed 3 million men, made up of Germans and allies. Some of those troops were good, some not so good – it’s impossible to have 3 million “Rambo” style troops. Some tanks were good – Panzer IV – some second rate – Panzer II and III -. You cannot accumulate 3 million men and expect the other side not to notice this. When Stalin’s generals warned Stalin that Hitler was going to attack, he forbade mobilization, giving Hitler the advantage in the initial attack. As for Napoleon, he amassed half a million men. His troops, armed with single shot muskets, were no better than Russian troops, also armed with single shot muskets. His cannon were no better than Russian cannon. The point is that at he beginning, he had more of them. The Russians instigated a fighting retreat, wearing out the enemy. It succeeded. The Army of half a million men was reduced to one thousand men when it returned back to Poland. .
Yes,and there were other problems the Germans faced. Primarily the nazi ideology itself. Even though the Germans had some great technology (for the time),it wasn’t throughout the military. If you look at countless videos and pictures,you’ll see that for a lot of their transport they still used horses.The reason for that ,I’ve heard,was that Hitler being a man of the WWI era believed that horses could still be used effectively.And made the decision against advise not to mechanize the entire military.He also,unlike his enemies,for several years refused to put the economy on a total war footing.And opposed the mass use of women in the arms factories.Which meant that many men needed at the front were instead working in the arms plants.Then also his use of thousands of troops (maybe hundreds of thousands) and resources in his round up of Jews and others.Took those troops and resources from other more actual war work.And possibly his most foolish move was not to do more to encourage the conquered populations to support Germany. In WWI the Germans had great success in that field in the East.But the nazi ideology considered the Slavs and others as slaves. And those peoples never had a big incentive to side in mass numbers with the Germans.Had he set up a “Russian government” and promised the Russians,Belorussians,Ukrainians,etc,freedom from Stalin.There is a good chance many more of them would have sided with Germany.Instead of the limited numbers that did.With the Poles,he could have set up a Polish state in the large area of Poland that wasn’t pre-WWI German territory.And there is a good chance many Poles, at the time would have “temporarily” accepted that.But as it was,his hatred of any Poles,made intelligent moves impossible.With France,instead of only an armistice,he could have signed a peace treaty with Vichy. And there is a strong possibility at the time most French would have accepted that.Would the Anglo-American allies have invaded a neutral France.Maybe so,but would the French have accepted that. Or would they have seen that as aggression and fought back.Who knows,but it would have been as good a bet for the Germans as what actually ended happening.
(As an example concerning the USSR. The Germans captured 5 million Soviet POW’s. Most of them Slavs,but also other minority peoples.A smart Germany would have, as I said before, offered those peoples a non-Soviet Russia.And tried to enlist them as allies.When Germany invaded the USSR. The Soviets released the ( many surviving) Polish military prisoners they held from 1939.They formed them into army units ,some totally under Polish control,the Anders army.Which was moved through Iran to the Middle East to aid the British.And others,a larger group, under Russian control. Who later was called the Lublin army.And formed the base for the military in post-war communist Poland.They both fought against Germany until the war’s end.The Germans instead were only able to get a few pro-German soldiers out of their mass of Soviet prisoners.But instead had to use needed manpower to guard those prisoners.They ended by murdering half of them.To me the nazi ideology cost Germany greatly in the war.No more so than in their inability to turn the numerous anti-Stalin Soviets to their side because of that ideology.)
“On the modern battlefield, high tech and quality come first, although the infantryman and his assault rifle will play an important role for a long time to come.”
Add to that designated marksmen and snipers. WWII SSSR sported 2000 female snipers and many more men, with great success:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko
I agree with your comments. I read somewhere that the US purchases their chips from China. They no longer can produce these items themselves since the great off shoring took place.
Is true. And there is fear in military that these are containing trojan horse feature. fear seems logical. also limited in scope because a big fight would not suit either Chin or Sam or Ru etc…
some may want to search for the “federal stock” in the US gov sites etc to see the federal stock book…a book listing the things that federal agencies may order according to federal stock numbers.
And then they might look into the sourcing…but yes, it’s not only chips…is hammers and shovels and wrenches and toilets and so forth…murka cannot supply itself at this time…much FSB (federal stock book) lists imported material. This was the case in 1990. Worse now. Stupid, corrupt? No, not really, simply ruined by time and greed.
“What happened in 1943 was that Japan was hopelessly outproduced by USA and Third European Reich by USSR”
https://archive.org/stream/FromMajorJordansDiaries-TheTruthAboutTheUsAndUssr/FromMajorJordansDiaries-TheTruthAboutTheUsAndUssr_djvu.txt
Je pons pas
johnm33: What a great find.
The style of the book “From Major Jordan’s Diaries” —1965, George Racey Jordan, USAF (ret.) — makes it eminently readable. I downloaded the e-book version from Library Genesis so that I could also view the photos, etc.
The astronomical sum (in 1940’s dollars) of over $11 billion in Lend-Lease aid supplied far more than just war munitions to the USSR. Only ~43% was war materiél and related supplies. There was also a concerted effort to obtain critical things like engines, generators and copper wiring, etc. for rebuilding Russia’s destroyed cities. In addition there were vast quantities of documents shipped to Russia on the Lend-Lease planes flown from North America to Russia by Russian pilots, including Patent Office documents of interest, American factory blueprints, and stuff from someone called Geiger, for example.
In fact the Lend-Lease project had priority over US military needs, by authority of the President, and in one case it took direct action from General Leslie Groves (in command of the Manhattan Project) to stop the shipment to Russia of an entire petroleum refinery that was already sitting dockside, awaiting ship-borne transit from the US.
My personal take is that Stalin and his top advisors knew who financed Adolf Hitler and Nationalist Socialism, and why. There would be no compunction in getting everything they could from Lend-Lease.
The American leadership and top military knew beforehand about the coming Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour (having already cracked the Japanese naval and diplomatic codes) but needed public outrage to sanctify a declaration of war against Germany and Japan. Stalin may have appeared to ignore the information on German Operation Barbarossa in the same way, and had decided to elicit sympathy support from the Allies (even at horrendous cost to the Russian people) with a plan to extract more than just war materiél in revenge.
Given the amount of documentary information obtained on the Manhattan Project from disaffected scientists and other sources, plus the uranian ores, miles of aluminum tubing, and other essentials for atomic work from Lend-Lease, it becomes clearer how the USSR was able to detonate its own atomic bomb by 1949. Yes they had their own atomic research, and yes they scavanged German atomic physics just like the Americans did, but their having a bomb just 4 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be considered extreme resourcefulness in using the opportunites afforded through Lend-Lease.
I have read that the lendlease diesel generator sets were used to power the engineering design portion of USSR bombproject…and also can confirm reading about all the transfer of engineering materials and documentation.
I dispute the claims moderately about the US intel knowing: “The American leadership and top military knew beforehand about the coming Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour (having already cracked the Japanese naval and diplomatic codes) but needed public outrage to sanctify a declaration of war against Germany and Japan. ” This is only partially true – it was Churchill that knew the most…and the Murkiz were to a significant extent manipulated by the UK…
Otherwise I aplaud
I am very interested in alien technology. Catherine Austin Fitz talks about breakaway civilizations and her friend Joseph P. Farrel loves to go on and on about this theory.
Basically, you could have different groups of aliens vying for control of the planet. Meanwhile, there is a push to become one big world all united. Except that the question remains: who will control it?
So we have these little scuffle all over the place using hybrid warfare and terrorism but never a big conflagration because no one really want to destroy everything. So, trying to have an intelligent analysis of the military capabilities of these forces is almost impossible. We do not even know who they are…
Who is Putin working for? What alien group did he ally with? Very tough questions. This is why he is concerned about DNA. Of course human dna is very valuable to these alien overseers. We need people to wake up and look at the bigger picture. Not worry so much about S 300 and north korea. That is my opinion anyway.
> he mentioned serious problems in the US military? The Clinton propaganda machine instantly attacked him for being non-patriotic, for “not supporting the troops”, for not repeating the politically obligatory mantra about “we’re number one, second to none” and all the infantile nonsense
Did anyone read the “Gone With A Wind” ?
Isn’t it almost verbatim one of their starting, introducing scenes about Rhett Butler?
Nothing changes under the Moon…
They steep themselves in delusion, to compensate for not having any real history or culture to call their own. They have no history, so they rely on fantasies of the present instead – i.e., being omnipotent and ‘the best’ right now.
For Americans, belief in military exceptionalism is a big cultural crutch, one that transcends both left and right. For example, ‘peacenik’ American liberals will be ostensibly anti war, but don’t let them hear you saying that anyone could challenge their weapons of war. Because that hits a nerve, and THEY rely on this fantasy too.
Fact is, the Abrams is a 40 year old tank next year. The T-14 is a state of the art tank, and even then, they covered up Abrams losses in its very first war against second-rate T-72s using third-rate ammunition. In fact, the T-90 would probably easily deal with the Abrams, and the T-90 is obsolete by Russian standards.
What does covering up losses do? Who does that help? It helps fantasy, but in the real world your enemies are going to know the truth.
Actually, the real brass in America probably knows that their LGBT troops with 40 year old weapons would be in trouble, this makes them more dangerous with regards to panicky WMD useage.
Could the use of psychtropic drugs for the ukraine troops against Donbass be an experiment by usa- cia to see if that could be enforced upon usa troops boosted by russophobic hysteria as a patriotic duty( but note severest trauma death etc amongst ukr troops returning back home
….?
You just nailed it!
At worst, PCR is half-right (in 2017). However, in perhaps 20-30 years time (circa 2037-2047) , PCR would either be mostly right or absolutely right.
American education and society are fast decaying. Their human capital eroded, regressing into outright idiocy (from SJW to systemic greed/corruption) – turning a parody movie Idiocracy (2006) into reality.
Just pay attention to signs of outright incompetence in their forces, it’ll be set to rise.
In the 1990’s US actions against Iraq, their Tomahawk cruise missiles achieved about a 50% hit rate. The same success rate was seen in the more recent action by Trump against the Syrian airbase supposedly associated with the CW attack. In 25 years, the quality of the US cruise missiles has not been improved. This reflects the US mentality that new is better than upgraded/repaired. It is not surprising that this attitude also greatly benefits the MIC bottom line – all that lovely costs-plus work in developing new stuff.
The US has been able to get away with this simply becuase of the size of its military and the fact that it only attacks weak opponents. Another example is their approach to accurate bombing – putting the ‘intelligence’ in the bomb rather than in the aircraft. Result – massive bomb costs, massive profits, massive logistics (look at YouTbe videos for the loading of B-52s / B-1s etc).
For the US war is a matter of choice. They do not face an existential threat (via conventional means). Russia, China etc do as there are US forces right on their doorstep and the US forgoes diplomacy for brute force. This also feeds into the US MIC philosophy of it is all about profits. This is also aided by the use of US as reserve currency, which the US controls to its benefit. Other countries have to put effectiveness first simply because they cannot affford to burn away resources.
Indeed, the bizarre need for military vastitude infers an equally vast fear. But, fear of what? From my own perspective Americans fear being isolated, thus the need to control just about everything. Fact is that it can be easily cut off from the rest of the world and just like the marooned British, on their quarantined island nation, cargo ships can and will be made to stop from arriving.
“There is one more thing. Not to further dwell on my thesis that most US Americans are not educated enough to understand basic Marxist theory, but the fact is that most of them know nothing about Hegelian dialectics. They, therefore, view things in a static way, not as processes.”
Yes! Saker has been on top of the ‘internal contradictions’ theme for years. The mechanics of history are being glossed stateside. History will not be denied for long. Over the long arc of history, history always wins. Russia’s moment approaches.
________
“If, as Nicolas Berdyaev claimed, “independent Russian thought was awakened by the problem of the philosophy of history”, America’s purveyors of wickedness glossed our version of the history problem by consigning us to a deep sleep of irresolvable terror.
No ideas emerge unscathed through the churn of history, the ultimate sausage-maker. America’s Cold War synthesis, painted as unabashed victory was attenuated, by design, into a false proposition. Consequently, Bolshevism must be reengaged, this time on domestic soil. (Commentator Ben Shapiro likens America’s current schism to a reenactment of the Weimar’s Brown Shirts versus Reds; though in fairness, the latter is well-evidenced, the former less so.) Borrowing a recent headline from Adam Garrie of ‘The Duran’, Antifa is a terrorist group in the blood-soaked Bolshevik tradition. Amen to that, Comrade.
Farce compounds tragedy. Charlottesville is nothing less than an early skirmish against an ideology (Bolshevism) that might easily have remained consigned to the ashcan of history –-had history been allowed to wash up onto American shores. Had history been allowed to happen. As it is, the past has unsettled business with us. Nothing in America can advance until the account is brought current. There will be blood.
[Christian evangelist Chuck Missler has postulated that America’s striking under-representation in biblical prophesy could stem from God’s ‘abandonment judgement’. No American Christian, including myself, can relish this interpretation. Our love of country notwithstanding, one must ask, Has God responded to our vacating Him by vacating us?]
Contrast this avoidance strategy with the Russian experience, an authentically suffered-through and digested historical epoch which delivered that nation, by dialectical necessity, to a more advanced version of itself.
In a climate hostile to resolution, facile bumper stickers preside. PNAC’s 1997 Statement of Principles serves as apt blueprint to our nation’s conceptual paralysis. Ripe with hubris and devoid of introspection, it forced a triumphalism upon the natural course of dialectical progression:
“Having led the West to victory in the Cold War…[w]e need to increase defense spending significantly…”
Huh?
“Refused her duly earned ticker-tape parade, America was presented instead, at war’s end, with the preposterous Neocon invocation to beat her sword into yet another sword. The interminable loop of permawar (itself an indigestible bit of ahistorical mischief) became America’s ‘way forward’. As for our supposed adversary, ‘terror’, it offers an inexhaustible emotional response to perils of the real, imagined and endlessly manipulated kinds. The Neocon catastrophe is now a matter of global record. The peace dividend was purloined by a unipolar will-to-power that metastasized into a monomania worthy of Ahab himself.”
https://fullspectrumdominoes.wordpress.com/2017/09/25/the-devils-still-here-and-hes-bringing-brimstone-back/
“I am absolutely convinced that this state of affairs is unsustainable and that sooner or later there will appear a military or political leader which will have the courage to address these problems frontally and try to reform a currently petrified system. But the prerequisite for that will probably have to be a massive and immensely embarrassing military defeat for the USA.”
So am I. Going back to bombing Somalia (Somalia??? Of all countries!!!) tells me you are right. In the meantime, people keep dying and we, Americans, collectively allow it by paying taxes and holding no one accountable for where our money goes, electing war-mongers whose salaries we willfully pay for, and willfully numbing ourselves with propaganda TV.
Massive, military defeat won’t do it. Massive, economic crash will. It appears to be in the works.
Greetings all,
I broadly agree with PCR and the Saker here. Personally I have never been totally convinced that the US and it’s NATO and Western allies (henceforth referred to here as the WB or Western Bloc) are and have been as militarly dominant as their supporters would suggest. This does not mean that we should underate or underestimate the power that the WB nations possess and have possessed. As the Saker mentioned, the US did not suffer the devastion inflicted on its people and infrastructure by fighting a major industrial conflict within its territory in the 20th century (and please let me make it clear that I certainly don’t wish such damage or suffering to them or anybody else for that matter). This avoidance of damage obviously provided Washington and ultimately its close allies with a range of advantages in the decades following the end of the Second World War.
However it is worth reiterating what better and more informed persons than me have repeatedly pointed out; that the WB has also yet to meet a true peer competitor in the post-WW2 era…though the Korean War perhaps provided a glimpse (and a glimpse only) of what a true total war scenario could look like.
I have always felt that the WB invested a lot of resource in the media and academic realms to create, nurture and reinforce the idea that they were technologically superior, strategically dominant and virtually invincible. For example, during the 1990s especially when the WB was perhaps at its zenith, non-WB military technology was usually portrayed as being inferior and second-class. Rarely some items of non-WB kit might be given rough parity with WB systems…and even then it seemed that this respect was only given begrudgingly.
My recollection is that this assumption of superiority extended into all aspects of military and strategic power. At virtually every level that one could think of, the WB was considered to have the edge on all potential adverseries, real or imagined. This kind of thinking permeated not only the media but also into academia and fiction/entertainment. As trivial as this may sound, I reckon that you’d struggle to find many techno-thrillers where the non-WB side came out as the victors in any major conflict scenario.
So here we are today and the world has moved on; Russia has shattered some of the WB assumptions via the adroit use of her military assets in Syria. Others here have mentioned the further myriad factors that have contributed to the erosion of WB superiority, including corruption within the WB military industrial complex, exhaustion from fighting non-conventional wars in post-invasion Iraq and Afghanistan, economic/financial woes etc. Some many things are at play here and too many to list and comment on succinctly.
Personally I can’t remember a time since the dissolution of the USSR when Russia has looked more capable and resolute. The WB still wields massive military power and currently retains an ability to project naval and airpower to far corners of the globe that remains unmatched…though it has been said on this site and in other forums that Moscow has no interest in projecting power deep into every sea and across every continent. The Russian military seems to know its limits and harvests a plethora of strengths and advantages from this knowledge.
Like I said at near the beginning of this comment, I don’t seek to underestimate the power of the WB. But we do really seem to be living in a more multi-polar world and this century has barely begun.
I should add that I don’t have any military experience to draw on and thus I am very much on the outside looking in, so to speak. Needless to say that this is probably painfully obvious to those with real-world experience in such matters.
Best wishes to all.
You forgot to mention the Achilles Heal of war which is food production. Whereas in Europe the farmers become soldiers and food production decreases. In the case of Prussia, an economic embargo caused 400,000 deaths because of starvation, a similar event occurred in Czarist Russia in WWI. The US on the other hand, during the wars had food production done by imported Mexican farm workers, aka, the Bracero Program. This was an advantage that no other country had, not to mention that the US had neighbors who were vassals in the entire hemisphere.
You forgot to mention food production for the war effort. The US had imported Mexican and Latin American farm workers; moreover, farm production in the US is highly mechanized, and we have rich and vast farm land.
One strategic nuke on the Mississippi river delta, and there goes your farming advantage, and USA is cut in half, probably forever. In the next war you cannot count onn your “vassal states”
the world is much more aware now of who is who. The Times Have Changed, haven´t you noticed, have you been awake the past 25 years??
“Extreme Warming at the Poles this Week —-Arctic and Antarctic Temperatures to Rise to 20-30 C Above Average in Some Locations”
https://robertscribbler.com/
As President Obama said, “… there’s no greater threat to our planet than climate change,”
If Obama knows this, so do Putin, Xi, Trump, Merkel and Rothschild.
So, button up, Sakers. Fake news won’t cut it much longer.
HAARP? Thanks dear Pentagon?
Saker, although your posting was excellent (as usual), I think you ignored the key point of PCR’s posting that you’d referred to. And to a large extent, it merely repeated what you’ve said in previous postings from time to time. Likewise, I did not see even one comment that discussed anything other than specific weapons, strategies, etc..
Yes, Roberts did comment on some specific weapons and strategies. But that struck me as being only in passing. For example, he noted the obsolescence of B-52s in any attempt to nuke Russia. And yes he did refer to some apparently nasty weapons the Russians have.
But his key message was one he has often repeated: during the Cold War, the USA and USSR bent over backwards to prevent a nuclear war based on false alarm launch warnings. All the treaties, meetings, etc., were for the purpose of trying to build up trust to the point where each side would truly believe it was about to be nuked unless the evidence were undeniable. Roberts mentioned several times that on many occasions false launch warnings were received, but the common sense of American or Russian leaders quickly cleared up the problem and revealed it to be a false alarm.
His main point was that the USA has been exacerbating the distrust between the two countries since at least the Clinton regime. The chances for an unintended war to begin are now vastly higher than ever before.
So, all the discussion of quality v. quantity and of strategy, etc., is not particularly germane to Roberts’s key point. I wish you had brought that front and center, and that others had also grasped its significance.
That’s a good point. Adding to that, I think Roberts’ point is that the now destroyed trust, when coupled to American arrogance (firmly rooted in its delusions of grandeur) are a deadly cocktail that multiplies the danger.
This is especially so as it is forced to stand down in Ukraine, Syria, SCS, ECS, and elsewhere. There’s gonna come a moment when “We’ve gotta do something to get our mojo back, and teach those Russkies a lesson!” will be a call that will prove difficult to resist. The attack on Shayrat may have been a “pulled punch” response to just such a call. (In the event, it backfired rather badly.)
@Erebus
Very god point. PCR’s main theme is not equipment this versus equipment that, but the dangers of an unintended war flowing out of American ignorance, arrogance, and plain incompetence.
America today is steeped in self-idolatry, arrogance bordering on lunacy, paranoia of the true psychopath, Satanic immorality, an attitude of shooting first and thinking afterwards, and, last of all, a culture that openly talks and jokes about nuking countries without blinking an eyelid. The Nazis were mere boy scouts compared to the mindset of America’s leaders and so many of its people.
Overall you have a very valid point.
Nevertheless, the title of this article is ‘Do you think his assessment is accurate’ and focuses on a particular part of the article of PCR, triggered by e-mailed questions about it.
That doen’t mean that the key essence of the PCR article doesn’t deserve attention, it certainly does and has been attended several times on this blog.
Imho it cannot be attended enough.
During the Vietnam war Pentagon generals were making plans to viciously attack North-Vietnam. They were whistled back by president Johnson, who realized that it would mean war with China. Think back on ‘Operation Northwoods’ concerning Cuba (just compare it to 9/11), boiled out in the Pentagon and whistled back furiously by JFK.
Just compare that to the situation in Korea nowadays. We can laugh about the first responses of ‘die Trompete’ on Twitter, ‘we are sending an armada, it’s huge!’ (which meant one ship, first sailing in the wrong direction, avoiding collisions with unseen container ships and oil tankers), but I can imagine the uncertainty of NK during the large exercises at their border, simulating an invasion. Who can tell it’s just a cloak, and suddenly they are invading anyway?
We live in dangerous times with ‘selected’ presidents (Roosevelt once said ‘an American president is not elected, he is selected’, oops, and there was Trump) of which some may ‘believe’ in nuclear primacy. We may just hope that cooler minds prevail.
Just look at the eyes of Joseph Dunford, Chief of Staff of the Pentagon, when asked about a no fly zone over Syria (which means an exclusive bombing zone), highly preferred by Hillary Clinton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmE9Jj-rEVs
Are we living in times where military men are now braking down on stupid politicians ideas?
This issue of change in de-escalating is the heart of PCR’s article, you’re spot-on with that. But maybe it’s worth another article.
Cheers, Rob
The USA has a great propaganda machine, that is their number one advantage, they can take their message of delusion across the globe, and quite a lot of people believe it, even some in Russia. The american sheeple certainly are convinced of their invincibility. Daily they are bombarded on the telly of what kind of Superman and Superwoman politicians they have, their president, their secretariees of state, doctors, medics, etc. even their PR managers can defeat the nasty russkies in a 40 minute episode.
The themes of superheroes corrode the minds of their population from young to old.
They lost 4 special operation soldiers in the Subsaharan country Niger to a rag tag muslim insurgent guerrrilla. The american politicians and its people have torn their clothes and keep asking why those losses at the hands of Black Africans? It is said that the Spec.Ops team took the confrontation lightly, although the whole truth has not been revealed.
They probably thought that an 8 person team would conquer Niger, and their soldiers would be back home to their Heroes welcome in 40 minutes time. Their fake reality has been shattered, as they have forgotten the scenes of their brave spec forces captured by Iranian Navy.
But, it is also a testament as to how overstretched their War forces have become.
Guerrilla warfare is not well digested by western armies, ask the Taliban. It is a most proven effective defense, and Russia is well versed in this type of warfare, if it ever became necessary.
In a lighter mood I would recomend for those interested to watch a tongue-in-cheek reality program on RT Documentaries, titled “In the Army Now”. It follows two russian civilians, a male journalist, and a Russian Comedienne with the looks of a Supermodel as they enroll in different branches of the Russian Armed Forces to take a look at the Modern Soldiers. Nice and human look at their everyday realities, and also with a nice dose of humor.
please link url for ru docu In the Army Now
It is a 26 episode series, each episode goes by easily, informative and dynamic. The presenters make a nice dynamic duo and the officers and soldiers that they meet in their adventure are quite a likable and professional cadre. Easy to binge watch on a weekend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T-RuxvzfNA
thanks to you Comrade!
Where the US is underestimated is in its capability to corrupt people and essentially the elite everywhere even in Russia. The corruption allows them to control all the politicians of their dominions in Europe and elsewhere in the world.
But even more dangerous is their propaganda machine. Their propaganda machine with Holywood and their media is higly efficient and more dangerous than their navy, their air force and theirs weapons.
The new world order is daily producing new ideas, new scams which are briging confusion in weak people’s mind and are contributing to the collapse of former creeds and moral values. Most of the Young people are dreaming of the american life.
With those tools, they are implementing a fifth columm everywhere. If the CIA, the Pentagone and many others agencies were not so negative and stupid, they would have won the whole world without shooting a single bullit.
If they fail, it will be because with Israel pushing them daily for war, they are awakening people to the lies of their propaganda.
You can not win a war, when you don’t know, what are you fighting for!
One of the soldiers commenting on the Bergdal verdict mentioned something I have heard several times now – that the US soldiers only fight for each other and to come home, not for country, patriotism, for the Afgahns, etc. A mercenary army fighting people who fight for their families, their home, their future against foreign invaders. This is normal, but means they are always at a disadvantage in combat. I think those they train mostly fight for a paycheck. Makes Russia’s performance in Syria a very stark contrast.
A lot of them are seeking to get fast-tracked US Citizenship. You can get citizenship within 1 year, or even upon completing basic training, depending on your situation.
This is why you see so many Latinos in the army.
https://www.uscis.gov/news/fact-sheets/naturalization-through-military-service-fact-sheet
I was under the impression that the Russian S-500 missile defense system can shoot down with near 100% certainty all bombs including nuclear? I have not heard much about this as things have gone mysteriously quiet, but there are two things one might surmise: 1) The russians are very very happy with the S-500 series and as well the early stages of the S-600 missile defense system. One clear sign of that is that Russia might or will sell the S-400 series to Turkey. Russia would not contemplate this sell unless the new systems look to have a bright future. The S-400 series have been protecting northern Iran (mostly to stop the Israelis from any possible airborne attack from the north) since the USA took over Diego Garcia Island and installed serious bombing possibilities. I also believe Russia has the S-400 in Syria. 2) I would not be surprised if Russia has secretly been planting the S-500 series along strategic points on border- being they are mobile these could be installed in hidden areas but ready to go mobile if attack is picked up on radar. The real important point is that if this missile defense system works as well as marketed and that the S-600 series is even better than this changes the whole nuclear war game. For soon Russia and after even others can defend lands from all bombs including nuclear…meaning only an all out nuclear attack of many hundreds could bypass the missile defense systems. But that would mean the end of earth in just about any case scenario possibility. So, in the future, this type of defense will make only a carried nuclear attack (by human or by car etc but not shot through the air) mostly possible. And there is no doubt that Russian systems are much better than either the USA or Nato. The point being, I think in the coming years these missile defense systems will force nuclear members into a sort of chess stalemate of not mutual elimination but of mutual determent. Small weapons were the prinicipal reason the USA lost war in Iraq, and this one could have seen during the rave of the ‘Shock and Awe’ campaign so many americans still thinks was amazing. hezbollah as well understands the use of small weapons well. It is not always the biggest weapon that wins the war, but the right weapons used in the right way!
PCR is very pro-America. He deeply wants it to succeed. He does not fully realise the walls of lies and deceit which have kept Babylon/America in this exalted status have fallen – way back in 2003 , 1 in Tishri. If he did he would see that America cannot defeat its Creator any more than you or I could. Arms can be as good as Manasseh’s in ancient times but still be of no more avail, ultimately, than were these weapons against Nebuchadnezzar.
Its not possible for an enlightened US general to fix the ‘problem’ even if he wanted as much as PCR. It just cannot be done. Always, Mr Saker, remember people make up nations not humanoids – just people.
in total, from my understanding, USA has three points by what it still dominating the world.
1. Military — what saker already explain here.
2. $$ — won’t be alive longer
3. University — that’s one of the bigger point still. But if Trump and alike do keep the american people happy, it also won’t take any longer.
I can understand bascic Marxism, classwar and historic materialism (all wars are bankers wars).
I abhor Hegelian dialectics, which make things unnecessaryly complex. Say it the simple straightforward way, and do not mix short , medium and longterm in one sentence.
Saying some solution always holds it’s contradiction, will be true in the long term, but should not prevent men implementing it in the short and medium tem (decades).
The US economy is a monopoly eonomy, where the Billionaire’s friends club divides all markets between them, exclude competition and set monopoly pricing for maximum garanteed profits. This is basic economic theory.
The weakness of Billionaires capitalism is: no or insufficient competition! Trump needs to fire Raytheon and hire Almaz Antey for superior S500 missiles!
Just talk to Putin! :D
Robert McNamara is quoted saying that the Vietnam war was designed to be unwinnable.
Permanent war not victory. Yields profitable contracts for the MIC. In addition Cias drugsmuggling built up a handsome black budget. Permanent war maintains targeted countries(including Laos and Cambodia) underdeveloped and with operation Phoenix the US murdered many in the intelligentia.
In the Korean war as well. That war seriously injured the North’s prospects for developing into a competitive economy.
The anglophile part of the AA oligarchy furnished China with info about the US strategy to not bomb the Chinese mainland if they invaded. Therefore China did that and prevented a US victory. But that was the plan from the inner AA elites, who also were the originators of Marxism and its spread to both Russia and China. NWO not rival national states with a willing entrepreneur class and intentions to develop both their own societies and other interested parties. People like MacArthur didnt shut up but he probably didnt really understand the purpose. Or did he, for he was a very high freemason….
Communism only came to be as a means to divert Britains rival nations from a healthy economic development. Like China has now begun after they dumped classwar.
With regard to WWII, I believe there have been several studies that concluded that the average German soldier was at least twenty percent more effective in combat than the average US soldier.
There were exceptions, of course – the British and American “commandos” – WWII equivalent of today’s “Special Forces” – were effective against larger German units in several situations. But there were superior German “Special Forces” as well.
The Saker is also correct in that nukes have very specific “use cases” subject to military and geopolitical constraints. This is where North Korea is in error if they think a dozen or two nukes will prevent the US from attacking them. In fact, should the US attack North Korea, I predict NK will not even use its nukes until it absolutely has to. The risk of provoking of a US nuclear attack is simply overwhelming. I similarly predict that the US will not use nukes – even tactical ones – in a war with NK unless it, too, absolutely has to, due to the geopolitical fallout.
Given that Russia has a border with DPRK it seems crazy to touch even a NK fly.
Not to mention a far longer border with China too.
Although I am sure US miltary types have factored this in (they are aren’t all stupid), this may be beyond the means of myopic political ideologues and assorted Washington ‘swampers’ sitting in their childish bubbles.
There´s one Thing to be added: the vast control of the US about the Computer world (which is surely only one aspect and doesn´t change your analysis in general):
“Snowden, Putin and the US Russian „Partnership“: some legitimate Speculations”: http://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/snowden-putin-and-the-us-russian-partnership-some-legitimate-speculations/
Regards
It seems to me that the USA may have the most technically advanced military in the known world, but that same military cannot win against Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble anywhere in the known world! I believe it is now 16 years in pipelineostan and is it 4 invasions of Iraq now??? Not to mention all the humanitarian aid to Libya, et al!
Very nice article. But what are American people doing to resist governmental arbitrariness and warmongering? You start an anti-War movement from now on and probably gradually it will grow into a mass movement.
This is one version of Clarivoyant Cassandra I found on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8SQG8nvq4A
Indeed, I’m more than grateful for Dr. Roberts’ daily insights, even if the news is generally not good. He’s a savvy realist and I appreciate that deeply.
All in all it is not the gun that kills, it’s the man with the gun. Uncle Exceptional may be exceptional even in arms, but in the cause to use them, is of no significance at all. He uses them for the wrong cause, based on lies, wrong reports, for filling the coffers of his servants, the Corporations, Civilian and Military. He has not in his contemporary history fought a war for the masses of the people inside and outside his country. He has never fought a war for his own defence. All his wars have been aggressive and for the same reason he has been defeated. With a defeated army suffering from PTSD he has retreated, defeated. So it’s not the gun that wins, it’s the man harboring love in his heart, who fights oppressors to free people from oppression.
Interesting in the smaller scheme of things. The very small groups that run the world as a business are probably snickering at the thought that most cannot see past groups of allied nations struggling to dominate one another for so called ‘national interests’. While these very small groups of elites may vie for a bigger seat at the big table where the future is decided they are all on the same page as to what that future should look like and nation states are but tools in their tool chest The IMF/BIS/GATT et al are the headquarters, the real U.N. that governs the real nation states, JP Morgan, BoA, Citi, DB, HCBC, Barclays, Federal Reserve, PBOC, RCB and the vast entourage of multinational corporations that depend on a flow of money and credit to continue their operations. Nation states fall somewhere below in the rankings to these entities.
“The POWERS of financial capitalism [have] another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system [is] to be controlled in a feudalist [ic] fashion by central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences.” – Carroll Quigley – “Tragedy and Hope.”
Its spot on Americans are living in a fantasy world period especially when they start talking about the military there is too many in this country that think it is our right to invade and destroy peoples life one day they will have a awakening.
“there will appear a military or political leader which will have the courage to address these problems frontally and try to reform a currently petrified system.” I seem to remember a president from the early 1960s who give hints of such a possibility.
Thank you Saker & Dr. Roberts for your ongoing insights. As most here are aware, including the author, the USA & the rest of the colonized, once ‘indigenous’ (Latin ‘self-generating’) world is founded & developed in genocidal invasion, precisely for economic & military advantage by transnational oligarchs from Europe. Some 1/2 billion people have died in the last 500 years as a result of their invasion-colonization on every continent & island of the world. These ‘exogenous’ (L ‘other-generated’) oligarchs were exporting their own failed economic & ecological command from Europe, which left that subcontinent without essential functional ecological infrastructure services such as water, soil, air & biosphere. 10 million refugee rejects from Europe were exported to destroy successful abundant nations & biospheres on every continent & island of the world.
So the USA, to begin with, is just a useful puppet throughout its violent history. US puppet masters who are majority share holders of the US-Federal-Reserve, Bank-of-England, Bank-of-International-Settlements, World-Bank & IMF are not out to win the mercenary funded & armed destabilization battles, which they instigate worldwide. Oligarchs only wish to keep filling their pockets as their proxies destroy or subjugate western Zionist perceived enemies or those who don’t easily take to the yoke of their command & control. Israel as Zionism’s most recent perverted creation is meant to be the world’s head office, not the USA nor New-York.
These now ‘trillionaire’ ($ = # seconds in 32,000 years) Windsor, Rothschild & Vatican schizophrenic pathological oligarchs & their submissive are despondent beings beholding to artificial unsustainable negating even people-hating concepts of the world & therefore immersed in unfeeling mass-murder as in the 10 million who have died in their pointless wars during the past ten years. Through the IMF & World Bank, we are all under their currency command & control.
For 100s of 1000 of years all humanity had thriving international systems such as the String-shell time-based equivalence accounting systems of the whole world which maintained universal progressive multistakeholder ownership in specialized Production-Society-Guilds affiliated with the intergenerational female-male critical-mass economies-of-scale in Multihome-Dwelling-Complexes (Longhouse/apartment, Pueblo/townhouse & Kanata/village) proximal housing with individual & family privacy. 70% of the world’s population live in multihomes but have no memory of their indigenous heritage, about how to animate their own economic forces. ‘Political’ (‘workings-of-the-many’) ‘democracy’ (Greek ‘power-of-the-people’) is meant as a subset of ‘Economic’ (Gk ‘oikos’ = ‘home’ + ‘namein’ = ‘care-&-nurture’) Democracy. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/relational-economy/8-economic-democracy
The Saker States:
“This means that there is an emerging consensus amongst the countries which the USA tries to threaten and bully into submission that for all the threats and propaganda the USA is not nearly as formidable enemy as some would have you believe.”
Every so often the Empire has to commit an unspeakable atrocity to remind everyone what its capable of. The nukes and firebombing at the end of WW II served no military purpose and were instead acts of terrorism – directly mostly at the Russians – executed for this purpose.
What worries me is that, in light of Saker’s statement, the Empire may conclude its time for another reminder. Who will be the sacrificial lamb I don’t know but, as in the past, it will no doubt be poor helpless souls who are incapable of defending themselves as Germany and Japan were at the end of WW II.
PCR is known to be smart and good man. Likeable too. And in many ways I agree with him.
However he also idolizes Ronald Reagan the President he served.
A good case for Reagan-the man can be made…nice man, and also a spy for murkin political police – “fbi” when he was only an actor-union official… But he was weak-willed and moderately stupid, and illiterate in a serious way.
I know this from personal contacts with people who were Reagan’s friends and neighbors. Reagan was a nice stupid guy. He was our “uncle Ronnie”. The good ladies laughed out loud when Ronnie was put up for governor…I had a contact who was physically present as witness to choking on laughter and a beet-red Nancy – Reagan’s cunning actor-wife. (about her one might read Kitty Kelly’s book (she says Nancy gave “best bl–j-b in Hollywood”). Quite a pair…but I cannot attest to her skill.
PCR, who presumably ought to know this about Mr R, says that he believes otherwise.
Therefore I hold the view that PCR has a weakness for ideological delusion. And I keep that precisely in mind when I read his essays.
Does the average American enlisted feel he would be willing to die for the NWO, or shadow government?
LZ ought to know, but does not. He suspects that “enlisted” persons are simply desirous of a promise that they might live better after the army, as the army promises many advantages, and there are few employment places for these unskilled and uneducated people, mostly young men. Army promises big money bonuses and money for college, and sometimes delivers.
LZ asked a boy on leave from the Iraq invasion how he found Mesopotamia … “what?” was his reply. This is correct. He had never heard the word… That boy is now out of Army, and in jail, I hear. Maybe now he may read a book. Is single case. LZ suspects it is typical. The kids, if fit enough, join Army for money. This begs question…
What question?
How much they pay soldier to die?
Bush 41 refered to soldiers in speaking to Bush 43…between themselves a soldier is known as a FU.
FU?
Yes, This stands for “fodder-unit” Is sarcastic projection of cowardice of Bush 41/43 series. They hold US soldiers as contemptible. Nice men, eh?
Excellent article that speaks TRUTH, thank you. It saddens me greatly that my fellow Americans cannot see the forest for the trees. I’m ashamed that I also could not for quite some time. Americans are too self-centered to actually care enough to even give this a ponder. Just as long as most can keep up with the Jones’s.
Watching the Kens Burn’s Documentary about Vietnam. I was struck how most of the top USA politicians, talking heads, and advisors from the Kennedy to Nixion administrations – all said: “Well we can’t win in Vietnam but we’ll try anyway because I need to get reelected!” What America needs is leaders that don’t care if they get reelected, just that they do the right thing for America.
I understand that we have space-based weapons. How do we compare with Russia and China in this category?
Scaler weapons of the SSP?
The following comment may also be of interest here. I posted it in response to “Russia works on MiG-41 doomsday fighter jet” at http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/economics/03-11-2017/139110-russia_mig_41-0/ :
As the centenary of the Russian Revolution approaches, perhaps the Russian government should also be thinking of how to prevent war in the first place, as well as how to defend Russia, with weapons like the Mig-24, should they fail to prevent the outbreak of war.
Back in the 1920’s surely humanity’s best chance to prevent the rise of Nazism and the Second World War, with the estimated loss of 60 million lives, was the spread of the Russian Revolution to at least Poland and Germany. [1]
Today, in 2017, given that the criminality of the rulers of the US and their allies towards Iraq, Syria, Libya, Vietnam, Korea, … is, so far, at best, only an order of magnitude less than the criminality of Hitler, then surely, as an alternative to the high likelihood of war and death of hundreds of millions of people and our global life support system, the leaders of Russia should ‘interfere’ in Western countries by proactively encouraging more humane political leaders to seek office, then hold office against the deep state (as JFK sadly failed to do on 22/22/1963).
FOOTNOTE[S]
[1] This almost occurred in Germany in October 1923. – see “The Lost Revolution – Germany 1918 to 1923” (1982) by Chris Harman.
FDR said, and probably he was correct, that he himself saved murka from revolution, a socialist/communist revolution, in the 1930’s, I am old enough to have known a few of the men who would have done that… FDR was saying a true thing. I have watched the 4th Reich take that and turn it into darkness. The nazis jumped to safety in Argentina and Maryland, etc…and Canada…and…?
Would that murkin revolution in the 30’s have prevented the ruin of Europe and the moral ruin we see today in murka and elsewhere?
Is fair question. “maybe” is the best I can say. But now murka is screwed, self-screwed.
Saker: I have been follow your posts for some time now (years, i’m afraid) and they are mostly sound (cum grano salis). But something strage seems to happen when you talk about Cuba. A strange kind of arrogance (arrogance and ignorance are one and the same thing) seems to cloud your judgement. Some years ago you said that Cuba was something like completely infiltrated by USA inteligence services. Maybe a litte bird sang a little song in your ears cause the day after that modified that laughable statement. But ever since you have been making a curious bundle: an entity called Cuba-Venezuela. And, in those lists of yours, Cuba appears always like a unarmed and crushable country that only the indiference or magnanimity of yankees have preserved of a simply and swiftly wipping-off (damn, like a walk on the beach). As for that, I have just one and only question. If that is the case, if it its so simply and so easy to wipe of and out the little and crushable Cuba, why have Cubans got away with each and every “no-no” they have cross in the very face of the almigthy USA (from Algeria and Golan heights to Ethiopia and Venezuela; before and after 1980, when the soviets informed in no incertain terms that they could not help Cuba if the almighty decided a direct agression like in Panama or Irak)? Of course, this is just a retorical question. History is there for all to see. A simple and friendly advice: don’t count so low what you don’t know at first hand.
P.S.: Interesting enough, in your assesment of american perceived power, you are reinforcing the very same myth that you are supposedly trying to debunk. Fortunately, Cubans never thought that the USA were omnipotent. This have been the case, they had never made a revolution only 90 miles from the “almigthies”.
Read Anthony Sutton’s books especially America’s Secret Establishment and The Best Enemy Money Can Buy about Western technological transfer to the Soviet Union. Similarity we transferred this tech to China after WWII. Bessemer process. Chips. You name it.
Cuba could have taken over a thousand times over. Why wasn’t it? It was much more valuable for building consent for military spending.
This is a very good article. However, the US fights now and certainly will fight in the future with paid mercenaries. The US will rely on mercenaries, drones, robots, and financial/political manipulation in the future.
The Russians are doing the right thing. They spend their military budget wisely. The military mission is to produce the best technically advanced military hardware possible, but only produce enough to accomplish the mission. The mission is to (1) have a small well trained military that can temporarily detain and delay any foreign aggression until the country can mobilize for the major war, and (2) be capable of training the conscripts during the mobilization when mass production of the high tech weapons occurs. Is that what the US did in WWII, although not intentionally?
An EXCELLENT read! Sadly it will NOT be read with the except of Paul Craig Roberts.Org devotees and their growing number of contacts.
Hopefully fruitful change will come.
THANK YOU “SAKER”!
In 2005 I spent a couple weeks in Beijing on a bike. Went into a phone store to see what they had: Shocked at their advanced camera’s, phones, etc. Nothing like it in America. Department store toy section had drones – 5′ wing span – flying around the 3 story atrium – I ask a young girl who flies those thing? “They automatic – fly themselves.”
12 yrs. ago, and I look at the development in America during these last 12 yrs. Ugh.
And, how about Trump leading the next war – Wow! that’ll work out pretty good for contractors but no one else.
American military is livining in dreams just like the Six Million Dollar Man TV series of the 70’s.
The American military is living in dreams just like the Six Million Dollar Man television series of the 70’s.
” the Americans are hands down the leaders in quantitative terms; but in qualitative terms they are already behind the Russians and falling back faster and faster with each passing day.”
I am old enough to remember a time when the exact 180 degree of this statement was true; when the USSR had us beat absolutely in terms of quantity of arms, such that even our superior quality was not a guaranteed match for. And we all know what happened to the USSR. And to think Saint Reagan used to brag about how we would destroy them from within.
Professor Chomsky in many of his works made the same claim that America Never attacks anyone who can fight back. Just look at the list attached. But it is also true, if they ever maker that mistake of attacking those who can and will big time, the game will be over for them.The precious, exceptional homeland will experience for the first time that what they have done to countless countries and millions upon of millions of mainly innocent people.
Imagine what Russia and Chine would do. They are already de facto military and economic allies.Attack one , both will counterattack you. With Russian nukes (plus Chinese) and most likely 1/2 billion soldiers China can mobilize plus 30-50 million Russia can, who could defeat them. Plus the quality of Russian weapons and Chinese too (they have super carrier killer missiles and some) America would have no chance, unless they want to commit national and Earth’s suicide.
Americans must stop believing their own delusions and propaganda and heed following words of Napoleon, he said just before he attacked Russia in 1812.:”To Conquer Russia, First One Must Be Prepared To Die”. Today If he could tell them from his grave, Napoleon would tell them following:” To Conquer Russia, First One , His Entire Nation And All His Allies And Their Entire Nations Must Be Prepared To Die”. America & NATO and other vassals/puppets: Are You?
(Words in caps violate the blog rules.They were corrected for you this once.MOD)
Watching just raw numbers in Eurasian armies indicates just how the geopolitics have been changing, and where the great countries perceive their threats to be.
Until about 10 years ago, China, India and Russia prioritized defense against their neighbors. Since the days of communism China and the USSR maintained continual readyness for land invasions with massive 3.7M man PLA facing a 2.8M Red Army. India maintained a massive army >1M, similar in size to the US, prepared for invasion from China & Pakistan (and as a footnote, always-unstable Myanmar)
The equation has been changing, though. The Chinese and Russians are starting to see each other as having merging interests, even possibly becoming allies. And certainly neither perceives the threat of a land war even credible any more.
Russia has reduced its active army to about 800k active members with about 2.5M reservists, while China’s army is down to just over 2M. Both sufficient to deal with any sort of land war that might happen on the continent, given the size of potential forces arrayed against them, even if one considers the rate at which the US might be able to ship soldiers into battle.
China has announced that it intends to reduce its army to about 1M over the next few years, while redirecting the cost savings into missile and aerospace development, as well as completing its blue water navy.
India is maintaining its current 1.4M army while spending new funds on missile & aerospace (while also getting its blue water navy up to speed, like the Chinese.)
Russia is also pouring resources into technological areas perceived by serious analysts as key to the future: missile and aerospace development.
This tells you how they are orienting their strategic forces.
There is no longer any credible threat of a land war in Eurasia (Russia and China have buried the hatchet and are busy building Silk Road infrastructure, and NATO and the Europeans are a paper tiger.)
They are preparing for a naval/aerospace war, which is the only kind the US and its relatively weak “allies” are realistically capable of waging.
And their approaches are totally different.
The US is developing the kind of naval/aerospace system that generates lots of work for defense contractors (the F-22, the F-35, Aegis) in which engineers create hopelessly complex networked systems of weapons all transmitting information to each other, forming an “intelligent cloud” that outmaneuvers all opponents and meets their threats faster.
The Russians & Chinese have both determined that complexity is the key weakness of the US approach, and are responding to that chink in the armor differently.
This post is already too long. I’ll leave it to other commenters to outline the 2 different approaches.
In general, one should not underestimate the USA and its destructive ambitions and capabilities.
In fact, underestimating the American military threat plays ironically right into the USA’s hands.
Throughout the Cold War, the Americans would routinely (and falsely) claim that it was “falling behind” the Soviet Union in terms of this or that weapons capability, when the reality was the opposite.
The Missile Gap, Bomber Gap, and rise of the USA’s Team B “intelligence analysts” during the Cold War are examples of America crying wolf.
The Missile Gap Myth and Its Progeny
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2011_05/Thielmann
The Missile and Bomber Gaps: The Grand Deceptions of the 1960 Presidential Campaign by Gregory Hilton
https://diplomatdc.wordpress.com/2010/01/17/the-missile-and-bomber-gaps-the-grand-deceptions-of-the-1960-presidential-campaign-by-gregory-hilton/
CIA: US Overestimated Soviet Missiles
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/9/27/gap-missile-cia-soviets/
Remembering Team B
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/remembering_team_b/
Team “B”
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/general/news/2003/10/30/366/think-again-team-b/
America often likes to cry wolf in this manner in order to:
1) Justify more aggressive American behavior around the world
2) Manufacture a pretext for greater military spending
3) Paint adversary nations as a dire bogeyman threat
4) Promote the broader American national ideology of the USA as a potential victim being threatened by Evil-Doers
This American propaganda tactic continues after the Cold War, as evidenced by the USA’s pants-wetting hysterics about (non-existent) Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, Iran’s nuclear program, North Korean nukes, and of course the American Big Lie of 9/11 and the (fake) War on Terrorism.
Thank you. Would it be possible to get a few examples of where Russia is more advanced than the US? Air defence for example? It would be nice to see a comparison of their capabilities, from an honest perspective, rather than the tonnes of junk to be found on the inter web.
Paul Craig Roberts tells it like it is. The evil Washington Empire and useful idiot Neo-Cons have no use for peace. Simply put, peace is not profitable.