The death of Lieutenant General Valery Asapov and two Russian colonels who were with him in Syria highlights the fundamentally different military command philosophies of the US and Russian militaries.
by Alexander Mercouris for Russia Feed
Unlike Western armies the Russian army still requires senior officers like General Asapov to lead their men into battle
Putting aside the question of whether or not General Asapov was deliberately targeted, the key point about his death is that he was a high ranking general (commander at the time of his death of Russia’s 5th Red Banner Army) who was killed whilst carrying out personal reconnaissance on the front line in Deir Ezzor in Syria, where he exposed himself to shelling.
Though his death was big news in Russia, it has been received there calmly, with none of the displays of dismay or panic, or the feverish post-mortems, or the angry cries for vengeance, which would assuredly have happened if a US officer of similar rank had been killed in the same way.
Nor is there the slightest sign of General Asapov’s death having caused any change in the battlefield strategy followed by the Russians in Syria.
Thus offensive military operations by the Syrian army as advised and directed by the Russians in the area where General Asapov was killed continue with undiminished vigour, with – as reported by The Duran – Russian engineers just completing a road bridge across the Euphrates to enable the Syrian army to get across.
All this highlights a key point about the Russian army’s system of command: Russian commanders – including the most senior commanders – are expected to lead from the front, making themselves visible to their men, whilst at the same through direct observation gaining a ‘feel’ for the battle.
By contrast US military practice prefers to keep commanders out of harm’s way, expecting them to control the battle from their headquarters in the rear.
The result is that Russian commanders run a far greater risk of being killed or injured than their US counterparts do.
Back in 2008 General Anatoly Khrulyov, commander of Russia’s 58th Army, was wounded during the war with Georgia during a firefight with Georgian Special Forces. Khrulyov’s wounding was reported in the West as a blow to the Russians. The Russians however were unfazed, going on to win the war against Georgia – in which General Khrulyov’s 58th Army played the leading part – in just five days.
After the war General Khrulyov continued to command the 58th Army until his retirement in 2010, when he became – with the agreement of the Russian government – the Chief of Staff of the military of the breakaway former Georgian republic of Abkhazia, which through his contribution to the battle in 2008 he had helped to save.
By contrast when US Major General Harold Greene was killed in Afghanistan in 2014 as a result of an insider attack by an Afghan soldier, it was the first time a US general had been killed in combat for more than forty years. To see what an unusual occurrence that was, consider how the BBC reported General Greene’s death
Gen Greene is not only the highest ranking US military official to have been killed since the start of the war in Afghanistan, his death also marks the first time in more than 40 years that a general has been killed in combat….
“It was once common for generals to share the fate of the ordinary soldier,” says Boston University political scientist Andrew Bacevich. “There was once a common used phrase – ‘fighting generals’ – those who stayed on the front lines.”
Lt Gen Simon Bolivar Buckner Jr was killed in the final days of the Battle for Okinawa during World War Two. Posthumously promoted to the rank of four-star general, Gen Buckner became the highest-ranking military officer killed on the battlefield during that war.
“In the US Civil War, it was quite common for generals to be killed. In World War Two, the odds were substantially lower,” says Stephen Biddle, a military expert with the Council on Foreign Relations.
“As weapons’ ranges increased, the headquarters tended to move to the rear, to get them further out of harm’s way.”
Maj Gen John Albert B Dillard Jr was killed during the Vietnam War when his helicopter was shot down in 1970. According to data compiled by the Associated Press, Gen Dillard was the last army general killed in action overseas before the death of Gen Greene.
As military technology and tactics changed in Vietnam, so did the nature of the war. Because of the lack of distinct frontlines, many commanders would lead their battalions from helicopters above the battlefield, radioing commands to their soldiers below…..
Lt Gen Timothy Maude became the highest-ranking officer killed by foreign action since Gen Buckner when a passenger plane crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11.
Following the Vietnam War, high ranking officers were rarely placed in vulnerable positions, such as on the battlefield. Instead, they occupied more strategic positions in places like the Pentagon.
“In modern times, the American military has become more bureaucratised,” says HW Brands, a historian at the University of Texas.
“These days it takes a long time to become a general – 25 years – whereas in the Civil War, people became generals after three months in battle. The army will not put someone with 25 years training on the field.”
Note that this very low level of combat deaths of US generals – Dillard and Greene are the only two to have been killed in combat since 1970 – has happened notwithstanding that the US military has been engaged in fighting in one place or another almost continuously since that year.
This is completely different from Russian military practice, in which the commander is expected – including by his own soldiers – to lead from the front, something which inevitably exposes senior Russian officers to much greater risk of death or injury in battle by comparison with senior US officers.
The reason the Russian military is able to brush off losses of its senior commanders such as those of Generals Khrulyov and Asapov in a way that the US military almost certainly would not be able to do is because the command and staff systems of the Russian army are specifically designed in anticipation of such losses.
This has practical consequences in the way US and Russian officers conceive of their command roles during a battle.
A US commander directs the battle from his headquarters in the rear, relying on reports and intelligence (including increasingly from drones) to keep him accurately informed about what is going on. By way of example, in 2003 General Tommy Franks directed the whole invasion of Iraq from his headquarters located far away to the rear in Qatar.
By contrast a Russian commander is supposed to lead from the front. General Khrulyov was wounded in 2008 because he advanced with his men into South Ossetia, and General Asapov has just been killed because he was carrying out personal reconnaissance on the front line in Deir Ezzor in Syria.
Reports and intelligence from drones and from other technical means obviously are sent to Russian headquarters, just as they are to US headquarters, and are processed by the staff there and provided to the commander and to the supreme headquarters in Moscow. However the burden of assessing this intelligence and these reports, and informing and advising the commander about them, falls upon the chief of staff, whose role in the Russian army goes far beyond the organisational and planning tasks the chief of staff tends to have in the US army.
Which is the better system as a civilian I am in no position to judge.
The Russians would doubtless say that the US system turns commanders from warriors into managers, robbing them of their ‘feel’ of the battle, and causing them to lose the qualities of aggression and inventiveness which are essential to achieve victory.
The Americans would doubtless respond that the Russian system is outdated, being more suited to the Napoleonic battlefield than the modern battlefield, and that sending valuable officers into harm’s way where they might get injured or killed is not only wasteful, but by distancing the officers from their headquarters, actually limits their knowledge of the state of the battle.
Regardless of who is right, on the specific subject of General Asapov’s death, I suspect that as a Russian officer he would be baffled by some of the things which have been said about it.
I am sure that he would say that death is an occupational hazard for a soldier, and that there was therefore nothing untoward or remarkable about his death, and that the proper way to respond to it is not to seek ‘revenge’ – which I suspect he would consider futile and pointless – but to complete successfully the mission for which he gave his life.
As to his being ‘martyred’, I suspect that he would simply say that death in battle was the price he was always willing to pay for his service as a Russian soldier.
——-
Commentary by The Saker: having met quite a few Soviet/Russian generals myself, and coming from a family of Russian military officers, I can attest that Alexander Mercouris is spot on. Whereas in the West the death of a general is seen as some kind of failure, in the Russian military culture this is something completely expected, even if it is no less tragic and painful. The example of the first Chechen war mentioned by Mercouris is most telling. This war, which was one of the worst planned, prepared and executed war in Russian history, a war which saw many generals categorically refuse to participate in (little known fact, but absolutely true) and which saw those generals who did agree to participate in it go there with the full knowledge that they were headed for a disaster is a war which saw Russian generals not only in the frontlines, but literally in the basements of the buildings in Grozny just a few yards away from the Chechen positions!
General Lev Rokhlin
Here is a video taken during the combats in Grozny. It shows footage taken inside the hastily arranged command post of Lieutenant-General Lev Rokhlin (a 2 star general in the US classification) – the guy on the photo on the right. Look at the conditions in which this general operated and look at the faces of the men around him. And I assure you that there is nothing that would have made these men happier than personally shooting their drunken President (Eltsin) and their imbecile Minister of Defense (Grachev). Even without understanding Russian you can see that these men all know that they can be killed at any second, yet they fight at the very frontline because they know that they cannot hide behind their soldiers.
At the time this footage was taken, hundreds of Russian soldiers had been stupidly and horribly killed and generals like Rokhlin were sent in to fix what is known in US military terminology as a clusterf**k. Lieutenant-General, Valery Asapov, the general who has just been killed in Syria, was also there, also at the front line. He got wounded and suffered from his wounds for the rest of his life.
See this short video for yourself and try to gage the “atmosphere” of the moment. See the dirt and exhaustion of these man and try to imagine who a US general would fit into this scene:
This was filmed in Grozny, but it could have been filed in Stalingrad. Do you feel that?
This video also features interviews with various Russian officers and soldiers. Do you notice that you can hardly tell them apart, that except for their age they all seemed to be made out of the same stuff? That’s because they are.
That is how Russians fight.
US generals are primarily manicured politicians and administrators. Not soldiers. Most of them have not seen frontline combat since many, many years. In South Ossetia during the 08.08.08 war a Russian general was wounded when he was part of a recon column entering the outskirts of the city of Tskhival. Was this a “mistake”? Nope, that was normal. That is how it should be.
To my knowledge the only military in the West which used to have the same approach was the German military during WWII. German generals were also frontline soldiers and a lot of them died in combat.
Why is that so important. For a couple of reasons.
- A frontline general not only gets fancy multi-media reports, but gets a personal “feel” for the reality, the “mood” of the combat situation.
- A frontline general has a change to see the truth and bypass the attempts by his subordinates to bullshit him about the real situation.
- A frontline general shows his man that he really cares for them and that he does not put his life above theirs. That is the kind of man that can lead his soldiers even into a suicide attack if needed.
- A frontline general personally knows the horrors of war and if far less likely to support a war if it can be avoided.
- A frontline general usually despises politicians and understands that his lot, his calling, is a totally different one: his loyalty is to his men and not to some Military-Industrial Complex or various lobby groups.
Mind you, not all Russian general are such frontline generals. During the Soviet the “democratic era” there were plenty of coward generals which were despised by real soldiers. Everybody knew who they were and they had no authority in the military. But now that Russia is returning to her ancient military traditions frontline generals are, again, becoming the norm.
The death of General Asapov is a painful loss for all Russians. But it is not a mistake or something unexpected. The best men die during wars. This is also why Russians hate wars so much.
The Saker
….spot on…
Anonymous 01:39, I agree, mostly spot on.
Motivating men to advance in to the maul of war is in a way like motivating a piece of string to move. You can’t push it, you have to pull it, ergo the cry of ‘Follow me!’ heard by any combat soldier from his NCO’s, junior officers and sometimes his senior officers. This willingness to advance in the lead, to ‘pull the string’, is one very good reason why Russian units are winning in Syria whilst the ‘senior IGIL’ and US commanders are getting rides in US helicopters out of harm’s way.
Auslander
Author
Never The Last One http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ZGCY8KK Love And Honor, Courage And Treachery. A Small War Fought In A Dark Corner Of A Vast Land.
An Incident On Simonka https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01ERKH3IU NATO Is Invited To Leave Sevastopol, One Way Or The Other.
Hi Saker! I agree almost entirely, except that I think that General George Patton could be included in the list of Western generals who used to lead from the front (even if he didn’t really shoot at the German bombers with his Colt .45 as staged in the movie).
George Patton had the same characteristic of the other successful Generals at mobile warfare. His troops never knew where he was likely to show up. The scene in the movie that I remember, and that I’ve seen recounted in other accounts, is that Patton on at least one occaision showed up on the far side of the river in advance of his leading units. In the movie rendition, his officer is trying to make excuses about needing to find a ford, and the General yells back “I’ve already done that”. Similar accounts show up about the top German Panzer Generals like Guderian and Rommel.
In WW2, there was a drawback. Yes the General could see more of the conditions at the key point himself, but it took him away from the information flow that was coming to HQ. At the very least, such a General had to rely on skilled subordinates at HQ to handle the battle at the other points of the front besides where the General was observing and giving orders. Of course, no one makes movies about such important aides. :)
It does seem with modern communications, it should be more and more possible for a General to get the advantages of leading at the front, while still getting the information flow and being available to make decisions at HQ. The US military appears to be heavily networked, so a couple of aides traveling with the general with notepads and cell phones should be in good contact with the HQ. Thus these days, when American Generals tend to stay at a safe HQ base far behind the line, there seems to be less reason for doing this.
Which means, the excuse of why generals did sometimes need to be at their HQ appears to be lessening with technology. A modern General would seem to be able to gain the advantages of personally observing conditions at a key point and providing leadership to his units without the disadvantages of losing the information flow that comes to his HQ. Although, this is heavily dependent on the Electronic Warfare conditions of the battlefield. Enemy jamming might make it more neccessary for the General to stay near the HQ. Of course, the USA has not fought an enemy with such capabilities in the modern era.
Of course, one thought of this is that monitoring of electronic signals might be a way of targetting such a General who’s at the front. Yet the same can be said about the HQ itself, which will tend to be a target as well.
Even in WW2, General George Patton was a maverick amongst the American Generals. Although Gen Bradley was also well known for dressing like an infantryman and his troops not knowing when they might look at the guy in the foxhole with them and maybe not realizing that this was the General leading the corps/army. But most WW2 generals tended to the Montgomery pattern of staying home at the HQ.
Yes. Eisenhower was an armchair general as well, safely leading the war from his Paris IS.
Patton was actually the second US general to be killed in WW2, and the highest ranking.
After all he fought through at the front, though, he was killed, not by Axis soldiers, but by the corrupt soldiers and spooks of his own side, who assassinated him because he wouldn’t tell a lie or sell out his country or his men:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3869117/General-George-S.-Patton-was-assassinated-to-silence-his-criticism-of-allied-war-leaders-claims-new-book.html
American generals in the civil war were expected and did lead their men from the front lines.
After that you had a few mavericks (like Patton) who would get out in front. Not so much anymore.
Depends on the level of the General. Bridadiers were expected to command their brigade on the battlefield. Generals in command of divisions similarly.
But the high command tended to the Napoleonic technique of finding a hilltop where they could observe to overall course of the battle.
Of names like Grant, Sherman, Lee, I can’t really think of many stories about them being at the front. However, the level below them, did see some of the more successful generals get to the front. An example is the General Jackson who was killed in a night battle at Chancellorsville while commanding half of Lee’s Army. Jackson died when he got out ahead of his own troops and was killed by a friendly patrol.
For that matter, there really aren’t many stories that I can recall about Napoleon actually leading troops in battle. Perhaps his early fight as a junior officer where he ordered his artillery battery to fire on Paris protesters.
At Waterloo, Napoleon was withing range of the English gunners.
Wellington refused permission to fire upon him, as it was ‘no business of general officers to fire upon one another,’
That is how gentlement fight.
I guess death creates promotional opportunities and a viable focus on fostering capacity and succession planning. But what if they are captured? Surely the intel and propaganda risk is very high. Do they keep a ‘kill’ pill option at hand?
There is a stark difference between Western and Russian Generals . The Western General shows up at the command post dressed in impeccable combat dress . The Russian General shows up at the command post with his combats covered in dust ,dirt ,mud and blood.
Good article and commentary, and exactly true. And lest you think this is lost on the common American soldier, I can tell you that even 35 years ago “Headquarters” was always referred to as “Hindquarters,” or more often “REMFs” (Rear Echelon Mother Fu….well, you get the idea). And the officer class has gotten only worse, now that the military has become such a revolving door with the MIC, such that senior officers in the US could care less about the troops, or learning battlefield tactics; they’re worried about getting invited to the right parties so they can rub elbows with their future employers.
Besides the fact that Russian generals fight in the front, the question still remains. What was the purpose of killing a Russian General? How will US benefit out of this? How will this change Russian strategy in Syria? Killing generals and ambassadors will have zero effect on Russia’s plans in the longer run. So why are they aimed? Intimidation? There is more into it or it could be simply a reckless behavior or over confidence of Russian staff. I remember this with Givi and Motorola in Donbass who have been assassinated partly due self recklessness.
I disagree with the word ‘recklessness’.
Motorola was assassinated in his apartment building elevator by a bomb atop the elevator with his bodyguard next to him.
Givi was assassinated in a second or third floor office at the start of his work day, 6 a.m. with a shot through the window from the front of the street. RPO-A Shmel, with thermobaric shell that incinerated him in 3 seconds.
Very professional hits, both of them.
Donetsk is a city with 40% Ukraine supporters living there. A huge sea of people within which professional assassins can move, hide and escape.
The failure that continues in Donbass is counter-Intel. They are very weak at that function. We all hold our breath that it doesn’t cost Zakharchenko his life.
“Donetsk is a city with 40% Ukraine supporters living there.”
Fortunately (or unfortunately) that sounds like the % of Irish Nationalists in Belfast 50 years ago.
Nothing is better now with a 60% Irish Nationalist majority in the City.
Nothing will get better/change if Belfast is ruled from Dublin or London (or Brussels) – nationalism will not solve the class war.
Here is the answer in their own words:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ivt2NmbyGg
To annoy, aggravate and/or intimidate the Russians.
In the US army, the generals are commanding from behind the lines and Bibi and his cabal are commanding the generals from Tel Aviv.
ISIS killing him with the info of our(US) intel IS good reason for revenge… against us.
Today RT reports that Russia has just agreed to build a new space station with the US.
I don’t get it? Does the left hand know what the right hand is doing? The US partner just killed Russian officers and attempted to kill Russian soldiers, so obviously it is a perfect time to sign a new agreement to help the US with Russian rockets. Or am I missing something? Is this a popular move in Russia??
Don’t mix apples and oranges. The scientists on both sides can talk each others and do something constructive. Except the ones who reside in Langley and who desesperatly search russian volunteers to get a sample of their DNA for “scientific researchs”
“The scientists on both sides can talk each others and do something constructive.”
And “constructive” is in sarcasm quotes because the US Space Corps is still in production.
Also, the other BRICS are invited to participate.
And in the future, the Russians will be a technological giant. What’s to fear?
These are peace moves. Russians want to live in peace.
The US government generally wants to spread chaos.
NASA is primarily a scientific organization, in search of knowledge. That fits the history of Russia and the intention of its government.
If Space is not going to be war zone, and outer space, the moon and Mars are going to be like Antarctica, for instance, then Russia is doing the right thing, the intelligent thing and its good for the planet of humans.
Thank you for this Saker and especially your commentary explaining the workings of the Russian forces and how they are led from the front. This should be the way for all armies – if you are going to put people’s lives on the line then you should fight with them in solidarity.
I also agree that everyone should watch that clip from Grozny. Yes I do feel Stalingrad.
I stand with Russia in hating wars too – the senseless loss of life and their understanding of the true cost of war on every level. RIP Lieutenant-General, Valery Asapov, you are a true hero as are the two Colonels and all the other Russian armed forces and military doctors and nurses who have been killed.
Interestingly, VVP dismissed some top commanders including the Russian Aerospace commander-in-chief of his duties – what would be your view on this?/are the Russian press saying anything?:
http://tass.com/politics/967588
Interestingly, VVP fired some top commanders including the Russian Aerospace commander-in-chief of his duties – what would be your view on this?
Fired, dismissed, relieved of duty, retired – they all carry different connotations. I am not so sure which one applies here, but I did read that Bondarev wants to go into politics and become a regional governor. So far nothing I see indicates and problems or crises, although the latter is always a possibility in Russia.
But so far, and unless proven otherwise, this looks pretty routine to me.
Kindest regards,
The Saker
Thank you Saker for the reply.
p.s. FSB found Doku Umarov’s grave/remains today on RT news.
— but I did read that Bondarev wants to go into politics and become a regional governor
Not exactly, Saker.
Bondarev is about 60 years old (born in 1959), which is about the age of retirement for Generals in his sphere and of his statute.
On the 27 of July, Vasiliev, one of new acting governors (of Kirov Region – Central Russia), has included the name of Bondarev (Hero of Russia) in the list of 3 persons from whom he would select the Region’s representative in the Upper House of the Russian Parliament – Federation Council, or Soviet Federatsii (СФ).
It means that Bondarev had agreed to his inclusion in the list. And hasn’t wasted time in getting ready for the new job. Already on August 5, he went to Kirov on a working visit and, together with Vasiliev, visited several enterprises working for the Russian Military-Industrial Complex. The interests of which he would lobby when in the СФ.
On September 10, Vasiliev won in the election, and on September 20 he designated Bondarev as one of two of Region’s representatives in СФ…
Recently Putin and his team have been busy injecting “new blood” into management in different spheres of Russian politics and economy. The new guys are much younger than their predecessors (the youngest one – in Kaliningrad – is just 31), but quite experienced, since they have been trained well, by working in different posts in ministries and other organizations.
Many of them had been in the so called “presidential reserve”. Like, for example, Mr. Trutnev, who for 4 years has been President’s Representative in the Far East and – to make him more of a heavy-weight – also holds a title of a vice-premier.
The changes have been and are carried out (in the recent couple of days two more governors have been replaced), since Putin understood quite a time ago how difficult will be the times ahead for our country. That’s why, by the way, there are quite a few people from the Armed Forces and FSB among the new faces.
Just now I am writing a series of articles related to this issue for one of Russian sites, .
Funny, but the atrticle, including the piece on Bondarev, I’d posted just before I’ve read your post :)
Удачи.
shed
shed:
I would enjoy reading those articles if you could point me to where they could be found.
— shed: I would enjoy reading those articles if you could point me to where they could be found.
– They are in Russian, dear JSwift. Is it OK with you ? Well, in any case the links are given below:
– https://aftershock.news/?q=node/563615
– https://aftershock.news/?q=node/567477
Take care,
shed
“I also agree that everyone should watch that clip from Grozny. Yes I do feel Stalingrad.” —
It made me see the Syrian conflict in a broader light — the Russians have obviously been pushing these Wahhabi takfiri devils back towards their black filled holes in the ground for a long time. Syria just seems like step 2. Thank G_d they are winning so far.
Certainly, from what I’ve seen, the best Syrian generals are also frontline generals, particularly Issam Zahreddine, https://twitter.com/CheshirePicture/status/912703104876994560
I doubt if any NATO general could ever equal his accomplishments.
Issam Zahreddine has big balls of steel!
I hate the US armed forces at least as much as anyone here, and possibly moreso, but there is one misunderstanding in the article, and that is how ***rank*** titles work differently re:combat status.
High ranking US soldiers are pen-pushers, diplomats and politicians who always operate a very safe distance from the frontlines- but this is by design rather than out of any concept of ‘cowardice’. The cowardice of the US armed forces is in how they only engage when the advantage is massively overwhelmingly on their side- the preference being at least 100-to-1 if not better.
However, this is a top down consideration of how the US army works. Bottom up and things look closer to what you are saying about the Russian army. America prides itself on having senior veteran soldiers who do lead from the front, and who do die in battle. They are ‘gung-ho’, they are ‘patriotic’ and they are ‘brave’. Sadly the Human Race never chases away the scourge of war because too many alpha males find ‘honourable’ glory in war- and America is no different.
My point is that labels just don’t matter. That Russia labels some of its frontline leaders as ‘generals’ and America does not matters not one whit. Indeed the strength of the US armed forces is its ruthless and very effective bureaucracy. America may not get value for money (that’s for sure), but even so the power of its army is unprecedented in Human History. To beat our enemy we musn’t tell ourselves self-serving lies about it.
PS if your best trained strategy/tactics experts perished at the front because you thought there was something ‘macho’ at putting these essential assets at risk of pointless death, you would lose the war every time. Do you honestly think Russia is that stupid?
But killing big names on the other side is a great victory, so long as the killing is on the ‘battlefield’. Names are powerful. Britain learned this long ago, so ensured only the anonymous died on the British side. Psychology also helps win wars. Britain targeted and assassinated General Asapov because by killing a ‘name’ one scores a very significant psychological victory.
In the Syrian campaign, this killing was a spiteful pinprick. But Britain always likes acts of spite. For Britain they have always served better than obvious acts of atrocity. Psychology!
Anyhoo read the wider news and you’ll see its ‘bash a Kurd’ month as the Kurds learn the usual hard lesson that they have no real ‘pro-independence’ allies- just nasty types who’ll use them then drop them like a hot potato when their usefulness is over. Russia is currently telling the Kurds that Russian friendship is pragmatic, sane, and lasting- and offers them the best they can hope to get. Meanwhile, and by no coincidnece, Iraq and Turkey are preparing ***very*** big sticks for the Kurds. The end of the SDF, and the final act of reconquest of Syria, coincides with Kurds accepting that the Russian ‘carrot’ is infinitely better than dying for Saudi Arabia, Israel and the USA.
Putin is very close to a ***true*** mission over in Syria- by the limited standards of Russia’s ambitions there. But as I predicted, ‘rebel’ groups in Syria are being converted by their British handlers to ‘guerilla’ units who will use acts of spectacular terror agaisnt the government and civilian population in the near future. So Assad regains authority over the whole of Syria, while every week thousands of innocents will die in car bombings and the like arranged by the UK (via Israel and Saudi Arabia). And if you think I’m exagerating, go look at the recent death by violence rates in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. The zionist ruination of once peaceful ***secular*** muslim nations never ends- the sores never heal and life remains very unstable for the population.
Russia should never have allowed the West to ruin Syria in the first place. Acting ***after*** the fact is infinitely worse than acting to ***prevent*** the disaster. I only hope Russia has finally accepted this lesson, and will do better in the future in holding back the Deep State.
Not a space station, rather a Moon base, a common settlement or laboratory on the Moon. While this idea was already on paper in the early 70’s, I wouldn’t bother with that too much cause the plan is still unrealistic for many reasons (technical, political, economical). In other words, it’s part of the show.
This was a reply for Perimetr at 2:32 pm UTC
twilight, what you say is not exaggeration at all, it is also my concern, they will try to provoke chaos and damage by bombings in every corner they can get into. These killers are the real masters of terror and can induce big casualties, mostly among civilians, prolonging their suffer and poisoning the daily life with fear. There we are : what is the terror biggest reason ? Fear and the consequent feeling of anger and impotence.
“And if you think I’m exagerating, go look at the recent death by violence rates in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan.”
Doesn’t the bankster cartel own the “legitimate” governments in those states and have ways of continuing their terrorism…? Would that still be applicable to Assad’s Syria…?
Well, what is important is that Yeltsin is gone, Putin is in charge, and the Russian military has become a professional institution, performing brilliantly. That’s what counts.
Khrushchev, although about 50 years old, was at the front in Stalingrad. He wasn’t a soldier, but he was there. Between him and Kennedy, both active, on the ground (sic) participants in the horrible war, there could have been a peaceful, respectful relationship. Other powers had to prevent this.
@ Larry
Not knowing the specifics of what you said, but knowing something about the character of Khrushchev, I can tell you that, if it was true, he would not be at the front, he would not be fighting, and he would not be in harm’s way. He was a calculating and mean bastard who got his son, a pilot, out of the front. When Stalin found out he ordered that Leonid Khrushchev be sent to his unit at the front where he was killed. That explains a lot of history, namely Khrushchev’s hating Stalin and the “secret speech” at the XX Congress, revisionism and setting the rot in the USSR.
So what’s the point? This discussion is about high ranking officers leading from the front, not scurrilous politicians.
That’s why Russia and its allies are winning this proxy war in Syria. Everyone from top to bottom is involved in the operation of war. If you can’t see and feel what the men at the front are going through, how do you expect to win that battle or incident? My condolences to the family of this brave man. And my sympathies to the Russian people for their loss.
My nephew just signed an ROTC contract…I wish there was a way of getting him out of ROTC…
I despise the chickenhawk-warhawk draft dodger Donald Trump. He views the White Working Class as his precious Israel’s cannon fodder…
WfBM
“despise the chickenhawk-warhawk draft dodger Donald Trump. He views the White Working Class as his precious Israel’s cannon fodder…”
Exactly.
One small quibble with Mr. Mercouris. “notwithstanding that the US military has been engaged in fighting in one place or another almost continuously since that year.”
That is actually not true, although I can see why it might feel that way since 2001. In the early 70’s, the US was withdrawing from Vietnam, and was out of the war completely by the time Saigon collapsed. Then, there was what the military referred to as the “Vietnam syndrome” years. I remember President Ford attacking a boat in Southeast Asia. Jimmy Carter’s only military action was the ill-fated hostage rescue attempt in Iran. President Reagan made a big deal about trying to end the Vietnam Syndrome, but invading Grenada doesn’t really count as combat. Neither did making the Marines a target in Beirut while an old battleships lobbed shells the size of volkswagons at guerrillas. President Bush attacked Panama, and President Clinton had his 50 to 60 day bombing campaign in Serbia.
But before the start of America’s longest war in Afghanistan following 9-11, it appears to be incorrect to say that America’s military has been constantly engaged since 1970.
As an American anti-war activist, before 9-11 it is possible to remember marching to try to prevent/stop each of these sporadic wars. Since 9-11, its been one long continuous multi-front war.
I do enjoy Mr. Mercouris’ articles, and I can understand how with the shell-shock of today’s endless wars how someone can make such a mistake. It seems easy to forget that in my lifetime I can remember times where America was not constantly at war.
I believe Clinton bombed Iraq his whole 8 years.
If you include the operations of the CIA, the USA has indeed been at war constantly since at least 1840. Here is a partial list (kindly supplied by someone on YouTube) :
1840 – invasion of Fiji.
1841 – genocide on the island of Upolu (Drummond).
1843 – invasion of China.
1846-1848 war with Mexico.
1846 – aggression against the New Granada (Colombia).
1849 – shelling of Indochina.
1852 – invasion of Argentina.
1853-1856 – invasion of China.
1853 – invasion of Argentina and Nicaragua.
1854 – the destruction of the Nicaraguan city of San Juan del Norte.
1854 – an attempt to capture the Hawaiian Islands.
1855 – invasion and coup in Nicaragua.
1855 – invasion of Fiji and Uruguay.
1856 – invasion of Panama.
1858 – intervention in Fiji, genocide.
1858 – invasion of Uruguay.
1859 – attack on the Japanese fort of Taku.
1859 – invasion of Angola.
1860 – invasion of Panama.
1863 – punitive expedition to Shimonoseki (Japan).
1864 – military expedition to Japan.
1865 – invasion of Paraguay, genocide, 85% of the population destroyed.
1865 – intervention of Panama, coup d’état.
1866 – an attack on Mexico.
1866 – punitive expedition to China.
1867 – attack on the Midway Islands.
1868 – repeated invasion of Japan.
1868 – invasion of Uruguay and Colombia.
1874 – the entry of troops into China and Hawaii.
1876 - invasion of Mexico.
1878 – attack on Samoa.
1882 – the entry of troops into Egypt.
1888 – an attack on Korea.
1889 – punitive expedition to Hawaii.
1890 – the introduction of troops in Haiti.
1890 – the introduction of troops into Argentina.
1891 – intervention in Chile.
1891 – punitive expedition to Haiti.
1893 – the introduction of troops into Hawaii, the invasion of China.
1894 – intervention in Nicaragua.
1894-1896 – invasion of Korea.
1894-1895 – the war in China.
1895 – invasion of Panama.
1896 – the invasion of Nicaragua.
1898 – the capture of the Philippines, genocide (600,000 Filipinos).
1898 – invasion of the port of San Juan del Sur (Nicaragua).
1898 – the capture of the Hawaiian Islands.
1899-1901 – war with the Philippines.
1899 – invasion of the Nicaraguan port of Bluefields.
1901 – the entry of troops into Colombia.
1902 – invasion of Panama.
1903 – the entry of troops into Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Syria.
1904 – the entry of troops into Korea, Morocco.
1904-1905 – intervention in the Russo-Japanese War.
1905 – intervention in the revolution in Honduras.
1905 – the entry of troops to Mexico.
1905 – the entry of troops into Korea.
1906 – invasion of the Philippines.
1906-1909 – invasion of Cuba.
1907 – operations in Nicaragua.
1907 – intervention in the revolution in the Dominican Republic.
1907 – participation in the war of Honduras with Nicaragua.
1908 – invasion of Panama.
1910 – invasion of Bluefields and Corintho (Nicaragua).
1911 – intervention in Honduras.
1911 – genocide in the Philippines.
1911 – the introduction of troops into China.
1912 – the capture of Havana (Cuba).
1912 – intervention in Panama during the elections.
1912 – invasion of Honduras.
1912-1933 – the occupation of Nicaragua.
1914 – intervention in the Dominican Republic.
1914-1918 – a series of incursions into Mexico.
1914-1934 – the occupation of Haiti.
1916-1924 – occupation of the Dominican Republic.
1917-1933 – the occupation of Cuba.
1918-1922 – occupation of the Russian Far East.
1918-1920 – the introduction of troops into Panama.
1919 – landing of troops in Costa Rica.
1919 – war against the Serbs in Dolmatia on the side of Italy.
1919 – intervention in Honduras during the elections.
1920 – intervention in Guatemala.
1922 – intervention in Turkey.
1922-1927 – intervention in China.
1924-1925 – invasion of Honduras.
1925 – military operations in Panama.
1926 – the invasion of Nicaragua.
1927-1934 – the occupation of China.
1932 – the invasion of El Salvador.
1936 – intervention in Spain.
1937 – won with Japan.
1937 – intervention in Nicaragua, state coup.
1939 – the introduction of troops in China.
1941-1945 – the genocide of the civilian population of Germany (Dresden, Hamburg).
1945 – nuclear attack on Japan.
1945-1991 – sabotage activity against the USSR. (Invasion of the airspace – more than 5000, parachute assaults –
1940, direct diversions, the total budget – 13 trillion dollars).
1946 – punitive operations in Yugoslavia.
1946-1949 – the bombing of China.
1947-1948 – Reconciliation of Vietnam, genocide.
1947-1949 – military operations in Greece.
1948-1953 – military operations in the Philippines.
1948 – military coup in Peru.
1948 – military coup in Nicaragua.
1948 – military coup in Costa Rica.
1949-1953 – attempts to overthrow the government in Albania.
1950 – punitive operations in Puerto Rico.
1950-1953 – intervention in Korea.
1951 – military assistance to Chinese rebels.
1953-1964 – security operations in British Guyana.
1953 – the overthrow of Mossadegh, who received 99.9% of the vote in the referendum.
1953 – Forcible deportation of the Inuit (Greenland).
1954 – Overthrow of the government in Guatemala.
1956 – the beginning of military assistance to Tibetan insurgents in the fight against China.
1957-1958 – an attempt to overthrow the government in Indonesia.
1958 – the occupation of Lebanon.
1958 – bombing of Indonesia.
1959 – the entry of troops into Laos.
1959 – punitive operations in Haiti.
1960 – military operations in Ecuador.
1960 – invasion of Guatemala.
1960 – Support for a military coup in El Salvador.
1960-1965 – interference in the internal affairs of the Congo. Support Mobutu.
1961-1964 – a military coup in Brazil.
1961 – a terrorist war against Cuba using bacteriological weapons.
1962 – punitive operations in Guatemala.
1963-1966 – coup d’état and punitive operations in the Dominican Republic.
1964 – punitive operation in Panama.
1964 – support for the coup in Brazil.
1964-1974 – interference in the internal affairs of Greece.
1965 – a coup d’état in Indonesia, genocide.
1965-1973 – aggression against Vietnam.
1966 – intervention in Guatemala.
1967 – Support for the coup and subsequent fascist regime in Greece.
1968 – hunting for Che Guevara in Bolivia.
1971-1973 – the bombing of Laos.
1971 – American military assistance in the coup in Bolivia.
1972 – the entry of troops into Nicaragua.
1973 – coup in Chile.
1973 – terror in Uruguay.
1974 – Support for the regime of Moboth in Zaire.
1974 – preparation of aggression in Portugal.
1974 – attempted coup in Cyprus.
1975 – the occupation of Western Sahara, the introduction of troops in Morocco.
1975 – interference in the internal affairs of Australia.
1975 – an attack on Cambodia.
1975-1989 – Support for the genocide in East Timor.
1978 – military assistance to the dictator, financing of the genocide.
1979 – Support for the cannibal Bocas.
1979 – military assistance to the rebels of Yemen.
1980-1992 – military presence in El Salvador, special operations, genocide.
1980-1990 – military assistance to Iraq. A million dead in ten years.
1980 – support and funding of the Khmer Rouge.
1980 – operation “Gladio” in Italy, 86 victims.
1980 – punitive operation in South Korea.
1981 – attempted coup in Zambia.
1981 – military pressure on Libya, downed two Libyan aircraft.
1981-1990 – Contra support, terrorism, genocide.
1982 – interference in the internal affairs of Suriname.
1982-1983 – attack on Lebanon.
1982 – Support for the genocide in Guatemala.
1983 – intervention in Grenada.
1983 – interference in the internal affairs of Angola.
1984 – two Iranian planes were shot down.
1984 – mining of the bays of Nicaragua.
1985 – financing of the genocide in Chad.
1986 – an attack on Libya.
1986-1987 – attack on an Iranian ship in international waters, the destruction of the Iranian oil platform.
1986 – financing and military support of social terror, seizure of natural resources.
1987-1988 – participation in the Iraq war against Iran, the use of chemical weapons.
1988 – financing of terror and genocide in Turkey.
1988 – the explosion of a passenger plane “Pan American” over Scotland. The wine was recognized in 2003.
1988 – invasion of Honduras.
1988 – the destruction of the Iranian passenger aircraft.
1989 – intervention in Panama.
1989 – two Libyan planes were shot down.
1989 – bombing in the Philippines.
1989 – punitive operation on the Virgin Islands.
1990 – the genocide in Guatemala.
1990 – Iraq’s naval blockade.
1990 – financing of the Bulgarian opposition ($ 1.5 million)
1991 – aggression against Iraq.
1991 – the bombing of Kuwait.
1992-1994 – the occupation of Somalia.
1992 – genocide and terror in the capture of the natural resources of Angola (destroyed 650,000 people).
1993-1995 – the bombing of Bosnia.
1994-1996 – terror against Iraq.
1994 – genocide in Rwanda (about 800,000 people).
1995 – the bombing of Croatia.
1998 – the destruction of a missile strike by a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
1998 – the bombing of Iraq.
1999 – aggression against Yugoslavia.
2001 – invasion of Afghanistan.
2002 – the entry of troops into the Philippines.
2003 – actions in Liberia.
2003 – clashes with Syrian border guards.
2004 – the entry of troops into Haiti.
2004 – Attempted coup in Equatorial Guinea.
2008 – the invasion of Pakistan.
2008 – The war in South Ossetia
2011 – The war in Libya
2013 – The war in Syria
2014 – The War in Ukraine
Generals Anatoly Khrulyov and Valery Asapov died as front line commanders but their missions were (are) successful.
To comment on the main thesis of this post re: front-line general, I think of another front line commander Russia may be proud of. Marshall Vasily Chuikov succeeded with two important missions, one as commander of the 62th Army to achieve the victory in Stalingrad and one as commander of the 8th Guards army that march on Berlin. Quote Military.Wikia.com: “It was at Stalingrad that Chuikov developed the important tactic of “hugging the enemy,” by which under-armed Soviet soldiers kept the German army so close to them as to minimize the superior firepower enjoyed by the Wehrmacht”. Of course he had to be on the frontline himself as well. After Stalingrad Chuikov continued as commander of the (renamed) 8th Guards marched in 8 months through the German front to arrive in Berlin and destroy the Nazi regime. He became Marshall of the Sovjet Union and lived until 81, despite his war inflicted wounds.
I have read one of Vasily Chuikov’s memoires: ‘Конец третьего рейха The End of the Third Reich’ (1962). This narrative reflects the basic characteristics of a front-line general as lined up by the Saker. However, I would like to add one ‘bullet’ to the Saker’s list of characteristics, perhaps as a comment on his first bullet on ‘the feel’ of the battleground. During the march of the 8th Guards from Stalingrad to Berlin, Chuikov’s 8th Guards, who where part of the 1st Belorussian front, proceeded at high speed, sometimes covering 40 km/day, ignoring or by-passing isolated German post, building advanced bridgeheads and crossing fords where they could, in spite of more cautious orders from General Zhukov in his (behind the lines) HQ, where he also directed 2 more fronts, more north and south and wanted to keep these in line. However the later Marshall Chuikov pushed ahead relentlessly. Considering this feat another ‘bullet’ would read something like this:
• A front-line general understands the directives from Central Command, but acts swiftly upon the facts on the grounds and his feel for the situation sometimes in disregard of these directives.
Noting that General Zhukov (not Chuikov) is generally represented as ‘the most successful Russian general in World War Two who effectively lead the attack on Berlin in April/May 1945’, it was actually Marshall Chuikov’s 8th Guards who did do the job (at a cost of 80 000 men). Typically, both Marshall Chuikov and Marshall Zhukov were sons from poor peasant families of Mother Russia who lead the Russian army to defeat a seemingly indomitable enemy.
@ Elten
Thank you for your valuable input into the discussion. The list of peasants’ children in the pantheon of notable Soviets is endless and is proof that, given the opportunity, the working class is capable of achieving great feats for the common good.
To a large extent one can say that WWII was won in 1937 when Stalin started the purges to get rid of the deadwood and traitors within the Red Army and Communist Party.
And now 20 years later, the best of these men who fought in Chechnya are winning a huge war in Syria, holding NATO and the Hegemon at bay in the Donbass, while Putin makes Russia an exemplar in strategy, tactics, logistics and military R&D.
He has heroic men in his military. No superpower or wannabe power has anything comparable. NATO troops don’t want to fight. US troops can’t fight. Chinese troops don’t know how to fight. (I am generalizing.)
In a flash, 08-08-08, less than four days of combat, Putin sent out the message to the world that Russia was back. Doubters then saw them in Crimea, and felt them (but can’t find them) in Donbass.
(It began in Chechnya when Putin first took the helm, that famous scene on video where he refused to drink in celebration of a battle until the whole war was won. That was the message internally that Putin was different.)
The Tsar and his generals and a military that has performed with great professionalism. Used with minimalist cost to the treasury. Displaying superior Intel, logistics and bravery and courage. Russia is unique.
indeed Saker,
I remember how we (a family coming from refugees of Adighe, Circassia, of “Cherkess” warriors killed defending their homeland in the colonial wars of the 19th, whose bones are around Sochi, Circassia, but who were welcomed in the arab world and integrated in it, and thus supported the soviets against the US and zionists) saw that first Chechen war, while living thousands of km away. It was a mix of hapiness, hoping, without understanding the geopolitical ramifications (manipulations by the empire and Saud…) to see an independent Kavkaz territory, an historical revenge through Cherkess cousins, but also feeling sorry for the russian soldiers, for the state of their army and society post-collapse, as if winning in such conditions was unfair and not brave enough. Add the fact that in the arab world soviet, russian soldiers were liked. Anyway great historical perl this video, the emotional tension, the ordinary bravery in the heart of this human madness. Indeed unthinkable not to have ones leaders away from the battle, death will get us all anyway, at least die with dignity.
Let me tell you that I, as a Russian patriot, place the blame for the first Chechen war squarely on Eltsin and his gang. Here is why:
1) Dudaev & Co. wanted to negotiate. It was the “democratic” gang around Eltsin who believed that Grozny could be taken with one Airborne Regiment.
2) The Chechens saw the “democratic” carnage in Moscow in 1993 when Eltsin used tanks to shoot at the Parliament. They wanted no part of such a regime and I cannot blame them.
3) Historically, the Chechens were victims of Russian imperialism, at least the “mountain Chechens” (since the Chechen plains were really not Chechen to begin with, and Grozny was founded by Cossaks).
That is not to say that Chechens did not commit mistakes (they did), that Dudaev was not an SOB (he was) or that the Russians were the only bad guys (they were not). But the blame for the war falls on Eltsin and his gang.
Now the second Chechen war in totally different. This 2nd war I totally support, the Russians and the anti-Wahabi Chechen were the good guys and the crazies in power in Grozny were no better than Daesh today.
But I will never blame the Chechens for the first war.
And, of course, mostly innocent people died on both sides.
This is why Putin and both Kadyrovs (father and son) deserve a Nobel Peace prize for saving Chechnia from total annihilation.
Also, for the record, I totally condemn Russian 19th century imperial wars. These were brutal and ugly wars which even obvious geostrategic considerations cannot justify.
Kind regards,
The Saker
Thank you Saker for the detailed answer,
Wasn’t online for a while, sorry.
Indeed i can only agree. Regarding the 19th century imperial wars and Adighe genocide, there was, in my limited understanding, to be honest, the pressure of expansionist european empires on the russian aristocracy, among factors explaining the invasion of the Caucasus region.
As for the wahhabi “Chechens” they are not even “Ahl As Sunna” but takfiri cultists used as mercenaries to cut Russia and Eurasia from the rest of the muslim world.
Hopefully, God willing, Russia and local leaders will be better and better at both suppressing the threat AND more importantly working on the social, economic, political, cultural conditions making tensions possible in the Caucasus. For healthy plants one just needs a healthy, diverse, organic soil, then less and less chemicals (war tools) are needed for pest control.
Blessings
Arab-Adighe
Bhadrakumars take:
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2017/09/26/kurdish-nationalism-raises-war-clouds/
In WW2 Soviets had about 510 casualties between generals,
among them 10-15 died in prison camps and 95 were executed.
Germans have had 475 eliminated generals , interesting is that most of them perished in Russia and 60-70 generals commited suicide…mainly in Russia ;)
USa had only 15-20 killed generals mainly in accidents….even Italians performed better!
In 1948 Marshal for the army, and Vandegrift for the Marines, decided in WW2 one of the problems was the rapid expansion of the Army and inadequate training of the rapidly promoted officers. They expanded the officer to 6 times the ratio in WW2 in order that if the Army expanded to 60 divisions there would be enough officers at various ranks. At the time Gen. puller criticized this, rightly thinking that the expanded officer corps would find slots in staff positions, as only a limited number of combat commands were available. Since most of their career is in staff positions, people whose psychological structure is suited to staff jobs thrive. These bureaucrats in uniform freeze out the old style leaders.
The officer efficiency reports, where the immediate superior’s opinions are main factor in promotions lead many to be ass-kissers. The US system produces ass-kisssing bureaucrats as generals, and performance in Viet Nam, Desert Storm, Iraq, afghan show this. In addition, according to Kay Griggs, no one gets colonel or higher without giving the oligarchs blackmail on them by engaging in perverse sex, which is prohibited by 1948 UCMJ. THe result is USA has corrupt, ass-kissing bureaucrats as generals. Only retired ones tell the truth about women and gays in military, to not cause problems with congress. So Unit cohesion and combat efficiency go down and the generals perjure themselves before congress, as Mattis did. This is why in spite of the enormous sums spent, USA gets little return on its investment.
“The US system produces ass-kisssing bureaucrats as generals, and performance in Viet Nam, Desert Storm, Iraq, afghan show this.”
Look at those wars from the banksters’ strategic perspective, John: Vietnam signed onto the TPP, Iraq is no longer threatening the Petrodollar and left weapons for ISIS to “find,” Afghanistan is pumping out more opioids than ever (most of which is shipped to the US), and the trampling of people’s rights due to the perpetual War on Terror continues. Isn’t that performance positive…?
“But when war becomes literally continuous, it also ceases to be dangerous. When war is continuous there is no such thing as military necessity. Technical progress can cease and the most palpable facts can be denied or disregarded… Efficiency, even military efficiency, is no longer needed.”
~ “1984,” George Orwell
During the Cold War and much of the War on Terror, the bureaucratic general system worked. The military’s “threats” came from Orwellian frenemies like the Soviet Union and from third world countries which cannot defeat the superpowers on their own, similar to “1984’s” super-states and war zone slaves. The real threat is ideologically challenging the system from within the superpowers, and “ass-kissing bureaucrats,” as you put it, are less likely to do that.
However, when the Soviet Union collapsed and Christian Russia made a comeback, this returned real opposition to the clique’s dystopia. If that never happened, military efficiency would continue to be unimportant to the grand scheme.
This also has to do with the available quality and quantity of subordinate staff, you can’t ‘lead from behind’ when not all of your officers have radios or can effectively use maps.
Situational awareness is key and not always can you observe the entire battle from a hilltop or from live screens.
Some argue that the american military can not as effectively operate in an electronic warfare environment, they simply do not prepare for it.
partly covered in the notorious
Russian New Generation Warfare Handbook
In Memoriam – Lieutenant General Valery Asapov und two Russian Colonels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNPhjkJEL3o
Do not expect a decadent ” Democracy” ,which fronts for International Banking to have there political Generals lead from the front . General officer from one star ( Brigader ) to 4 ( 5 in WW2 created to have parity with foreign Field Marshall) , are appointed by the Potus ,and approved by a voice vote of the Senate . Eisenhower was a set up by Rothschild’s US Agent ,Bernard Baruch to lead US forces in Europe for his empty, maleable character . In short : He took orders ,and admired the right people . General MacArthur retained his power first and foremost because he had been a Republican Appointment under Hoover …Chief Of Staff ..Democrat FDR needed a powerful figure from the other party to present the war leadership as bi- partisen …..Despite establishment history to the contrary ,most of the GOP opposed US entry into ‘ foreign wars ‘. The dismissal of Patton,and obvious killing was enough to warn any real leaders . 165 German Generals died in action during WW2 . More wounded. They , outnumbered ,and fighting the most powerful world empires , almost drawing it ,along with their Axis Powers ,with the same lead from the front doctrines . Eg Three Rumanian Generals died in Soviet Bayonet charges at the battle of Stalingrad . Shows the power of this true leadership . A leadership which shares the risks will always out last , despite any temporary historical set back those who do not ….long term the future belongs to that culture .
Iranian generals have also been killed in Syria.
” Lt Gen Timothy Maude became the highest-ranking officer killed by foreign action since Gen Buckner when a passenger plane crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11.”
I think it would have been more accurate for the BBC to refer to this as a friendly fire casualty unless you include the Mossad as a “foreign action.”
I just present my respects to the family of the fallen one.
The death of Lieutenant General Valery Asapov and two Russian Colonels reminds me –
“Trhe best among the gentiles deserves to be killed” or “Even the best of goyim should all
be killed”
Valery Grigorevich Asipov *Januar 1, 1966 in Kalinino, Russia – +September 23, 2017
in Deir Ez-Zor, Syria
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%92%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87
As a point of information I would like to point out that British generals were also of the ‘front-line’ variety: I believe over 30 were killed in WW1 alone.
Russians will continue with the mission but the mission should include killing lots of American soldiers and generals as well and make live footage of it. This worked in Vietnam this worked in Somalia when couple of their soldiers were dragged on the roads. That’s the language they understand and that would keep them away inside the barriers of Atlantic Ocean.
Of course via proxy means
Brilliant article, excellent commentary. Spot on
100% in agreement👍
There is no doubt that the German-Soviet War was the greatest military conflict ever in modern times. Both sides displayed tremendous valor bravery and toughness. Forget politics. THAT was war.
The US and Brits in comparison have been in nothing that even compares
that was war indeed
after reading some douglas reed,major raceys diaries and anthony c sutton it would seem
the leaders in moscow berlin and london all had huge cash injections by zionist banksters.
once upon a time i asked a nazi about the time the bolshevik in london and hitler in liverpool and down in tavistock sq.
and on 7 and 7 london bus bomb ritual nuttyahoo also in tavistock square.
the nazi looked at me blankly
atlas shrugged
and told me too ashkanazi
Thanks to Alexander and thanks to the Saker for such wonderful words. Let’s look also to a soldier like Qassem Suleimani.
Who Killed Russia’s General Valery Asapov in Syria?
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/who-killed-russias-general-valery-asapov-syria/ri21210