What if Daesh decided to attack Russia? (very interesting video)

And now contrast this readiness to:

The majority of Americans do not want to fight for their country.

The statistics are staggering…

The Economist, 24 October 2015, http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21676778-failures-iraq-and-afghanistan-have-widened-gulf-between-most-americans-and-armed: Who will fight the next war?

“… … it concerns America’s future ability to mobilise for war.

During the Korean war, around 70% of draft-age American men served in the armed forces; during Vietnam, the unpopularity of the conflict and ease of draft-dodging ensured that only 43% did. These days, even if every young American wanted to join up, less than 30% would be eligible to. Of the starting 21 million, around 9.5 million would fail a rudimentary academic qualification, either because they had dropped out of high school or, typically, because most young Americans cannot do tricky sums without a calculator. Of the remainder, 7 million would be disqualified because they are too fat, or have a criminal record, or tattoos on their hands or faces.
…
That leaves 4.5 million young Americans eligible to serve, of whom only around 390,000 are minded to, provided they do not get snapped up by a college or private firm instead — as tends to happen to the best of them. … …”

Russia knows who is funding these groups. Their policy should be to “have a talk with” the funders should such a thing happen.

Isn’t this flag-waving? And a warning flag at that? How times have changed. Not just a modern military but a modernized information weapon.

I’m amazed that a relatively small country population-wise can be so proficient and organized. Imagine the depth involved. It seems that the whole country must be engaged. And yet non-military life goes on in cultural events, sports, media and what-not. Impressive and meant to impress.

I guess the test will be in situations like Syria where Russian advisers must sometimes scratch their heads and wonder. I don’t believe any terrorists with cell phones are going to be foolish enough to challenge Russia on its homeland.

But Russia insists it will not put boots on the ground in foreign countries. So what’s all this about? Just the protection of Russia itself?

I think an interviewer once asked Putin if Russia was trying to instill fear in its opponents. If my memory serves me, he said “Of course, why else do we have missiles?”

It seems Russia has crossed some kind of Rubicon and is “all in” now. Apparently it’s open season except for holding back those trump.

Can the US and NATO follow suit with all their Hollywood know-how? They might but most would see it as bluffing.

Disclaimer: I’m just an interested observer with no inside knowledge. I’m fascinated by this unfolding story; hopefully not transfixed by it. I have a bigger game in mind: the money game. As old man Rothschild is said to have quipped: let me control the money and I’ll control the armies too. In other words, we can win every battle and still lose the war.

I now have to go and sleep on what I said. In the morning things may look different and I’ll have either a sinking feeling or a satisfied one. Sweet dreams to those on this side of the globe and wishing you a bright day on the other.

Greetings Saker:

One of the commanders said “we are using radiological equipment to jam communications and SATTELITE communications”.

Do the Russians have a jamming super weapon?
Are they using it to create a no fly zone in the Eastern Mediterranean?

Just wondering cause reports of this keep popping up but it’s impossible to verify.

Such a weapon would enable total superiority but it has a shelf life in terms of countermeasures against it.

If you are going to use it it has to be for decisive strategic advantage. Like using knowledge of the Japanese codes to sink the fleet at Midway.

Thinking of decisive strategic uses, destroying the American position in the Middle East, especially Iraq comes to mind.

Russia Iran Iraq Syria alliance would pretty much shut America out of Central Asia forever.

That would be strategic.

What do you think?

To think of Desh ever attacking Russia is insane. Desh was created by the U/Israel to destroy regional resistance to Jewish occupation of Muslim-Christian majority (83:14) Palestine. The Soviet Union played the part of surrogate mother for Israel after WWII. The very first president of Israel, Dr. Chaim Weisman was a Russian Jew. Putin has maintained very close relations with Israeli leaders and one million Russian Jews living in occupied Palestine.

On September 21, Putin welcomed Netanyahu, his defense chief of staff and head of Jewish military intelligence. Netanyahu conveyed his concern over Russian military personnel fighting along Syrian forces and supply of Russian air-to-air anti-aircraft system. He assured Putin that Israeli pilots would make sure they don’t hit Russian targets but warned Putin of collateral damage. Netanyahu told reporters after the meeting that Putin had promised to share intelligence with Israel over conflict in Syria.

This source (confirmed?) says, that the Russians have the Krasukha-4 equipment in Latakia (https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://reseauinternational.net/larme-ultrasecrete-qui-permet-a-poutine-dassoir-sa-suprematie-dans-la-guerre-radio-electronique-en-syrie/) What were the consequences of war radio electronic measures established by the Russians in Syria? The Krasukha-4 equipment placed on the Russian air base Hmeymim (Governorate of Latakia) creates an invisible shield to objects in air and ground with a radius of 300 km. The Krasukha-4 is able to “blind” radars for detecting and guiding anti-aircraft missiles MIM-104 Patriot located on the Turkish border, and also radars Turkish fighter aircraft F-16C off from the Incirlik base and helping to establish a “no fly zone” over Syria. The Incirlik air base is located near the city of Adana, 140 km north of Latakia.

But if this is true how can someone kill of six high ranking Iranian advisors? Isn´t it impossible to do that if you are electronically blinded?

This was posted on the French saker a while back..

Losses from foreign legions and mercenaries of NATO in the Donbass are finally known.

Igor Panarin, a professor of Russian nationality, Doctor of Political Science and member of the Academy of Military Sciences, reported foreign military losses during the alleged anti-terrorist operations in the Donbass. This document was published under the title: “Losses of foreign mercenaries and NATO troops in Donbass for the period from May 2, 2014 to February 15, 2015”.

Following his calculations, it appears that foreign mercenaries have lost about 1,200 killed or wounded. The largest losses among foreign mercenaries operating in punitive units of the Ukrainian junta were sustained by:

– Poland: mercenaries “ASB Othago” elements 394 killed or wounded

– USA: mercenaries “Greystone”: 180 items

– USA: mercenaries “Academy” (known until 2009 under the name “Blackwater”) 269 items

– Body of female Snipers Baltic 26 items

– CIA: 25 items

Moreover, according to several experts in statistics, about 25% of the staff of NATO troops and foreign mercenaries (approximately 2200 items) were among the fighters surrounded in Debaltsevo.

This explains the frenetic diplomatic activity of French and German leaders in Moscow.

We can say that the loss of NATO and its allies, dead and wounded, in the pocket of Debaltsevo count down as follows:

– British Paratroopers (UK Airborne Service): about 20 items,

– Military Special Forces of the United States: (Special Operation Forces of the United States): 15 items

– Military of the French Foreign Legion: 10 items

– Polish Military: 10 items

– Israeli Military (IDF): 10 items

– Croatian Military: 10 items

Translated by Gabriel, read by jj for Francophone Saker

https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://reseauinternational.net/larme-ultrasecrete-qui-permet-a-poutine-dassoir-sa-suprematie-dans-la-guerre-radio-electronique-en-syrie/

Rocketing the retreating enemy. The Nazis would know all about being on the receiving end of that.

If Clinton(s) get back in office, beware. Bush II tried to fix the mistake of Bush I by invading Iraq to “finish the job.” There was also an Oedipal thing going on there, where Dubya was in competition with his old man and wanted to show him up, but the rest is history. The danger with the Clintons is that it was Bill who “lost Russia.” Because Bill didn’t take the drunk Yeltsin seriously. Who would? Under the cover of the incompetent Yeltsin, the West just looted Russia but missed the golden opportunity to break it up into statelets. Now it’s too late. But Hillary will want to fix Bill’s mistake, so there you go….

Since I have seen lots of comments referring to so-called “Cultural-Marxism” I decided to jump in with some thoughts of my own.

The European Conservative Right, and even the Far Right still like to obsess about Marxism, Leninism, Bolshevism, commies etc etc etc. Things, ideas, and personalities that anyone can disagree and criticize, but they do it in a perverted way.

Even though I am sympathetic to many of the things they have to say, and with many political positions they hold, their unhealthy obsession with what they vaguely perceive as “Communism” or with what they understand as “Cultural Marxism” (many have correctly pointed out that Marx himself would have puked if he saw what the SJW today have established as their agenda) is doing their own cause no good. Their obsession with imaginary enemies, loses them useful allies from working-class and left-wing backgrounds within the very European societies they are trying to save.

First of all, Karl Marx himself, is mostly famous for his Critique of Political Economy, or in other words for his incisive analysis of the CAPITALIST MODE OF PRODUCTION! This is what Karl Marx devoted most of his years into! Understanding the inner logic of the capitalist economic system, and how this system operates at its most fundamental level.

This is a website with a very comprehensive analysis of what Marxism is all about:

https://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/

So, Karl Marx, as a thinker has absolutely nothing to do with the frankly disgusting SJW-movement and the PC-brigades all of us are now unfortunate enough to be witnessing in the Western world.

In fact, I invite everyone to actually go into the trouble of reading Karl Marx. He was a proud German who (in his early years) was dreaming of a United Germany etc… He was also extremely proud of German culture, philosophy and literature. He was no cosmopolitan Jew as many would like to think. I also invite you to read the “Jewish Question” in particular. It is one of his early, more idealistic works.

Now, what many on the Conservative/Nationalist Right understand as “Cultural Marxism” is nothing but post-modernist gibberish, served up by such buffoons as Derrida, Lyotard, Giuttari, Foucault, Judith Butler etc etc. All of these “intellectuals” (in reality, $5 careerists) will say that their thought has some (usually vaguely defined or not at all defined) some “roots” in Marxism. Even if that is true, almost the entirety of sociological thought, or philosophy has some roots in Marxism. Marx, like his predecessor Hegel, are impossible to bypass, irrespective of how much one so desires.

To return though back to the Conservative-Nationalist Right. They are rightly outraged with many of the positions of the so-called Left in the Western World, but they wrongly associate their treachery/stupidity/hypocrisy with some vague Marxism or “Cultural Marxism”.

Now, what I believe that is needed for humanity to go forward, is some kind of Fourth Political Theory (as per Joaquin Flores) By that I mean a combination of progressive popular economics (no parasitic financial elite allowed) with a strong role for the state with the social values of Classical Conservatism.

THIS IS ABOUT THE SUBTITLES. No intellectual stuff here….

After scrolling thru all these amazing comments to see if someone has already posted and/or answered the comment or request that I am about to make, and not finding an answer I am afraid that I am going to bore you all with my maudlin query.

Actually that was an apology. MY QUESTION is to the Saker or Alena, whom I heartily thank for posting and subtitling all these videos for us dummies that haven’t as yet learned the Russian language. DO YOU SUPPOSE that the subtitles for this video will be uploaded to KEEPSUBS.COM ?????

Having limited data allowance (via my expensive Verizon schmartfon) I download these vids in order to replay them without enriching my internet provider any more than I have to.
Alas, KEEPSUBSDOTCOMMIE doesn’t always have them. The SUBS, that is…

Best way for Russia to protect herself is to attack those vermins of the abgkosaxon controlled west and then kill the head snake of 5 evil eyes which is England the most vile nation in the workd history. That vermin has got to be eliminated fir safety of Rusdia and for wirld. Otherwise no respite.

This is certaintly give a clear message that this is one kind of responce will follow, if western and its supported terrorist make a slightest try on mother Russia

vot tak on October 24, 2015 · at 5:30 pm UTC
“Use of the term “cultural Marxism” provides a good indicator of the user’s worth as a thinking person. There are lots of these propaganda inspired terms that are valuable as reliable road markers of where the user is coming from and the road they are promoting travel upon.”
=====================

Yes. Very true. A very instructive, if brief, account of the orwellian torture of language and the dizzying heights it has reached, can be found in the introductory words by Michael Hudson to his own “Insider’s Economic Dictionary”. O copy some excerpts below:
———–
The fallacies that lurk in words are the quicksands of theory; and as the conduct of nations is built on theory, the correction of word-fallacies is the never-ending labor of Science. … the party in this country, one of whose great aims was, at one time, the perpetuation of slavery, owed much of its popular vote to the name Democracy.
– S. Dana Horton, Silver and Gold (1895)

Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes . . . It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. . . . If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration.
– George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language” (1946)

You can fool some of the people all of the time. Those are the ones you should concentrate on.
– George W. Bush, talking about The People.

Unlike psychological terminology, which consists mainly of terms of invective (try to think of a desirable personality complex), today’s economic vocabulary is euphemistic. One rarely hears the terms rentier or usury that played so central a role in the debates of past centuries.

Classical economists defined rent as unearned income, a property claim that did not reflect a corresponding expenditure of labor, which was the sole source of value. But as our postindustrial society has evolved into a “service economy,” the national income and product accounts count interest and rent as a product – an output of services. Landlords thus are depicted as providing a useful service, not merely charging access fees for sites created by nature and given value by the community’s overall prosperity. The classical value judgment that deemed some business activities unproductive – or even “sterile,” as France’s Physiocrats put it – has been rejected by today’s value-free economics.

As advertisers well know, naming a product shapes how it is perceived. And as Voltaire noted in Candide, optimism “is the mania of insisting that all is well when one is in a terrible state.” Nowhere is this more a political act than in the realm of selling economic policy. What Orwell wrote about the ideological coloration of language in his day applies especially to the vocabulary with which economics students are indoctrinated and formal reports written. Instead of reflecting reality, their jargon often dulls the mind’s critical faculties by diverting attention away from the actual dynamics at work. Depicting debt as wealth, today’s doublethink calls higher access prices for homebuyers “wealth creation.” The economy’s lapse into a rent-and-usury system is welcomed as progress into a post-industrial service society.

Just as history is written by the victors, so politicians, journalists and academic ideologues coin the economic vocabulary with an eye to molding popular opinion on behalf of their constituencies. Thirteenth-century Churchmen replaced the unpleasant word “usury” by “interest,” a term bearing less negative connotations. More recently, predatory policies have been called “reforms” and regressive tax policies called progressive even when their objective is to reverse centuries of true reform.

Denis Diderot (1713-1784), a member of the French Enlightenment, organized the writing of the Encyclopédie as a revolutionary project. It contained a map of human knowledge and included an entry defining the Enlightenment’s political program: “The good of the people must be the great purpose of government. By the laws of nature and of reason, the governors are invested with power to that end. And the greatest good of the people is liberty. It is to the state what health is to the individual.”

But what is “liberty”? America’s Liberty Bell is inscribed with a verse from Leviticus 25: “Proclaim liberty throughout all the land, and to the inhabitants thereof.” The biblical Hebrew term was d’r’r (deror), cognate to Babylonian andurarum used by rulers to annul the population’s personal and agrarian debts, liberate bond-servants and restore self-support lands to citizens who had forfeited them to foreclosing creditors or sold them under distress conditions. These royal Babylonian proclamations evolved into the Jubilee Year that Judaism placed at the center of its religion in an epoch when rulers had come to protect rather than check the power of creditors and absentee landlords.

Liberty in today’s world has come to connote freedom for predators to exploit the economy at large, in contrast to the Enlightenment’s idea of freedom from the rentiers. A free market is said to be one in which government regulation is dismantled, “free” of public protection of consumers. Such protection has been re-christened “interference” and characterized as the Road to Serfdom. Diderot’s “greatest good of the people” has come to be defined as wealth and output that accrues mainly to the rentiers whom France’s Physiocrats and fellow reformers set out to tax. Today, the taxation of landed property and finance is deemed an encroachment on the liberty of wealth.

The Enlightenment and classical political economy advocated freedom from taxation by debt-burdened governments, and sought to protect populations from having to pay prices that included a non-labor rent element. The vested interests railed against public regulation along these lines, and against public ownership of natural monopolies and banking systems.

Confucius wrote that social disorder begins with the failure to call things by their appropriate names. The first step to reform a world that had become malstructured hence was “rectification of the names.” To Confucius, this meant restoring the original meaning of words and concepts. Today, a similar restoration hardly could do better than reviving the vocabulary of classical political economy, because our economic terminology is in obvious need of such renovation. Its vocabulary has diverged from reality in proportion to the extent to which the phenomena being described affect special interests. The term “free trade,” for instance, was countered by “protectionism” and more recently by “fair trade.” The upshot is that a different language exists between critics and defenders of wealth, imperialism and finance.

Realizing that naming a phenomenon tends to define it in the public mind, rhetoricians and demagogues seek to co-opt the vocabulary on behalf of their constituencies. The result is that economic terminology consists largely of the residuum of euphemisms generated during the course of economic debates of which most of today’s students are only taught one side. The vocabulary of rentiers depicts them as productive and useful rather than dispensable, and their income – in fact, all income indiscriminately – as reflecting, by definition, the value of the property and credit services they provide. By contrast, John Stuart Mill defined economic rent as the “unearned income” that property owners are able to make “in their sleep.” Depicting this revenue as “service income” implies that it reflects real output which society needs rather than being an economically unnecessary cost.

As Ivan Illich wryly observed, “School is the advertising agency which makes you believe that you need the society as it is.” H. G. Wells voiced much a similar idea in quipping that “Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.” Universities have followed “free-market” economists in taking refuge in a mathematical mode of expression, aping the natural sciences’ use of higher calculus as a means to conceal the over-simplifications of their assumptions. One might say that the more complex the math, the more simplistic and banal the relationships being drawn tend to be. The aim is to imbue mathematical symbolism with the sanctifying role that Orwell observed was once afforded by Latin. The economic curriculum effectively has been turned into an advertisement for the rentier claims – the economic overhead of rent and interest payments – almost as a “law of nature” as Diderot and his contemporaries had put it. The law of nature thus turns out to be as prone to economic self-interest as are the laws of modern courts and similar forums.
[…]
The economic vocabulary shapes the semantics of how reality is perceived, and conversely, as Orwell noted, “the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes.” “Protecting savings” and “making savers whole” have become euphemisms for downsizing the economy and sacrificing new direct investment in order to preserve the fortunes of rentiers. While psychologists speak of well-adjusted individuals, economists may ask whether the economy’s debts should be adjusted to the ability to pay, or whether growth and living standards should be “adjusted” (that is, sacrificed) to preserve the value of creditor claims. One may ask similar questions regarding the terms “democracy,” “value,” and “efficiency,” and reality itself.

Ultimately at issue is whether what economic jargon calls the “real” economy of production and consumption more real than the claims of finance and property. How a society defines economic terms and relationships will determine who controls it. Terminology serves to “frame” the way in which people perceive economic relationships. What is unsaid or intellectually bypassed therefore is often as important as what is said. Economic theories that focus only on the exchange of goods and services already produced, without discussing the distribution and control over wealth and its income independently of production, will be diverted from examining what really is most important in determining the economic present and future.
—-
http://michael-hudson.com/2013/07/the-insiders-economicdictionary-part-a/

Thanks a lot to both Alena Scarecrow and the Saker, very interesting.

About running out of gas in the middle of the battlefield and the new scenarios, such as the desert, I can only remember how I was struck by the “network of gas stations” established by the Tuaregs who took us on a journey of several days in the wilderness in southern Algeria. Well, they had buried drums in some easily locatable points just for them and refueled while we played and did photos in the dunes……Just amazing!

I find this display terrifying. It horrifies me that so many countries waste so many resources on these distractive technologies. Yet, I do hope it give the empire pause in its delusions.

There were so many unkind posts about americans, or the culture that is dominant in the united states now. As an expat from California, I do share a sense of horror and dread about some of these trends. Still, I think rather than slinging rude labels, it would serve the discussion and all of our understandings better to be specific and to not relegate whole populations to some kind of inhuman status.

I recently visited California, and was appalled as usual by the rhinos, one really could be run down easily. The surging fascism is palpable and frightening. Still, there are many people of good will that are either lost, beaten down, or suffering under the law (such as it is). To those of you in other countries who lampoon the citizens of the US, I would urge compassion. You have no idea what we have been up against and for how long.

When I discuss political issues with my teen daughter, I try to give her the perspective of my years, as well as history. I don´t think there has been a place on earth that has been such a laboratory for experimentation on human behaviors, from the media, schools and other institutions on down. Can you really blame the brutalized for brutality? Can you blame the brainwashed for their `opinions´? I would say, yes, to the degree that they had a choice, a chance of some way out, some other perspective. Still, I have a lot of compassion for the deluded, the lost, the addicted. I feel their suffering. I don´t think dismissal or ridicule is a healthy response to our brothers and sisters. I may deplore their actions, be driven to distraction by their viewpoints, but still, I strive to see their humanity.

I do see a culture in tatters, that is one reason I am not raising my children in the US. Still, I think the forces that created that situation can be named. Their strategies may be unmasked and understood. And I believe in redemption, that humans have an innate sense which draws us to the good and the light.

Here is one example, perhaps a bit off topic, but it reveals in detail some of the forces working to undermine communities and human dignity in the US.

https://kpfa.org/player/?audio=217845

In Solidarity,