What the Senators didn’t hear on the Hill yesterday from Clinton Watts and co — from retired Canadian Army officer/diplomat Patrick Armstrong
by The Kulak
The CFE Treaty showed us all this: the Russians were obliged to give us a list of elements showing their precise location and relationship to other structures with the number of soldiers and major weapons; we could go there and check this out at any moment. Thanks to the Treaty we always knew what they had, where they had it and how it was organised. Our inspectors found no discrepancies. But the NATO member countries never ratified the Treaty, continually adding conditions to it and, after years, Russia, which had ratified it, gave up and denounced it. And so we all lost (because it was reciprocal) a transparent confidence building mechanism based on full disclosure with the right to verify.
All this time the Russians told us that that NATO’s relentless expansion, ever closer, was a danger (опасность) although they stopped short of calling it, as they did terrorism, a threat (угроза); “dangers” you watch; “threats” you must respond to. NATO of course didn’t listen, arrogantly assuming NATO expansion was doing Russia a favour and was an entitlement of the “exceptional nation” and its allies.
It is important to keep in mind with the everlasting charges that Russia is “weaponising” this and that, threatening everyone and everything, behaving in an “19th century fashion“, invading, brutalising, and on and on, that its army structure and deployments do not support the accusations. A few independent brigades, mostly in the south, are not the way to threaten neighbours in the west. Where are the rings of bases, the foreign fleet deployments, the exercises at the borders? And, especially, where are the strike forces? Since the end of the USSR they have not existed: as they have told us, so have they acted.
They planned for small wars, but NATO kept expanding; they argued, but NATO kept expanding; they protested, but NATO kept expanding. They took no action for years.
Well, they have now: the 1st Guards Tank Army is being re-created.
This army, or corps in Western terminology, will likely have two or three tank divisions, plus a motorised rifle division or two, plus enormous artillery and engineering support, plus helicopters and all else.
The 1st Guards Tank Army will be stationed in the Western Military District to defend Russia against NATO. It is very likely that it will be the first to receive the new Armata family of AFVs and be staffed with professional soldiers and all the very latest and best of Russia’s formidable defence industry. It will not be a paper headquarters; it will be the real thing: commanded, manned, staffed, integrated, exercised and ready to go.
It should be remembered that the Soviet Armed Forces conducted what are probably the largest operations in the history of warfare. Take, for example, Operation Bagration which started shortly after the D Day invasion. Using Western terms, it involved eleven armies, in support or attacking; recall that the Western allies entered Germany with eight armies – five American, one each British, Canadian and French. Tank corps (armies in Soviet/Russian) are the hammers – either they deliver the decisive counter-attack after the defence has absorbed the attack (Stalingrad or Kursk) or they deliver the offensive strike. The decision to create a tank army (armoured corps in Western terminology) is an indication that Russia really does fear attack from the west and is preparing to defend itself against it.
In short, Russia has finally come to the conclusion that
NATO’s aggression means it has to prepare for a big war.
As a historical note, Dominic Lieven’s book shows the preparations Emperor Alexander made when he realised that, sooner or later, Napoleon was going to come for Russia. And everyone knows how that ended. As Field Marshal Montgomery, who had more experience of big war than anyone in the Pentagon or White House today, said: “Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: ‘Do not march on Moscow’.”
This is what the light-hearted decision to expand NATO, “colour revolutions”, regime changes, cookies on the Maidan and incessant anti-Russian propaganda has brought us to.
And it won’t be a war that NATO will win.
https://patrickarmstrong.ca/2017/02/17/nato-would-probably-lose-a-war-against-russia/
NATO commanders will be in for a shattering shock when their aircraft start falling in quantity and the casualties swiftly mount into the thousands and thousands. After all, we are told that the Kiev forces lost two thirds of their military equipment against fighters with a fraction of Russia’s assets, but with the same fighting style.
But, getting back to the scenarios of the Cold War. Defending NATO forces would be hit by an unimaginably savage artillery attack, with, through the dust, a huge force of attackers pushing on. The NATO units that repelled their attackers would find a momentary peace on their part of the battlefield while the ones pushed back would immediately be attacked by fresh forces three times the size of the first ones and even heavier bombardments. The situation would become desperate very quickly.
No wonder they always won and no wonder the NATO officer playing Red, following the simple instructions of push ahead resolutely, reinforce success, use all your artillery all the time, would win the day.
I don’t wish to be thought to be saying that the Soviets would have “got to the the English Channel in 48 hours” as the naysayers were fond of warning. In fact, the Soviets had a significant Achilles Heel. In the rear of all this would have been an unimaginably large traffic jam. Follow-up echelons running their engines while commanders tried to figure out where they should be sent, thousands of trucks carrying fuel and ammunition waiting to cross bridges, giant artillery parks, concentrations of engineering equipment never quite in the right place at the right time. And more arriving every moment. A ground-attack pilot’s dream. The NATO Air-Land Battle doctrine being developed would have gone some distance to even things up again. But it would have been a tremendously destructive war, even forgetting the nuclear weapons (which would also be somewhere in the traffic jam).
As for the Soviets on the defence, (something we didn’t game because NATO, in those days, was a defensive alliance) the Battle of Kursk is probably the model still taught today: hold the attack with layer after layer of defences, then, at the right moment, the overwhelming attack at the weak spot. The classic attack model is probably Autumn Storm.
All of this rugged and battle proven doctrine and methodology is somewhere in the Russian Army today. We didn’t see it in the first Chechen War – only overconfidence and incompetence. Some of it in the Second Chechen War. More of it in the Ossetia War. They’re getting it back. And they are exercising it all the time.
Light-hearted people in NATO or elsewhere should never forget that it’s a war-fighting doctrine that does not require absolute air superiority to succeed and knows that there are no cheap victories. It’s also a very, very successful one with many victories to its credit. (Yes, they lost in Afghanistan but the West didn’t do any better.)
I seriously doubt that NATO has anything to compare: quick air campaigns against third-rate enemies yes. This sort of thing, not so much.
Even if, somehow, the nukes are kept in the box.
To quote Field Marshal Montgomery “Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: ‘Do not march on Moscow’. Various people have tried it, Napoleon and Hitler, and it is no good. That is the first rule.”
(His second rule, by the way, was: “Do not go fighting with your land armies in China.” As Washington’s policy drives Moscow and Beijing closer together…. But that is another subject).
Thank you very much Kulak for this.
Very interesting about the CFE treaty (the West always cheat – don’t they) and all the NATO background. Especially as the NATO conference is underway with their usual sabre rattling about Russian aggression.
They never learn – do they?
Keep in mind the number of troops nato (israel-america) has placed near or on the Russian border amount to probably less than a full division all told. The nazis invaded Russia with more than 100 divisions and still failed. This nato build up nonsense is psywar.
there is a slight problem with all the rose colored glasses assumptions.
Remember one of the major reasons the Soviet Union fell? I guess I have to remind it.
Thass right, The Soviet Union simply couldn’t keep up ECONOMICALLY with the West, wasting all of its money on the military. And the Soviet Union was MUCH much bigger than Russia now. Russia is alone today; it doesn’t have the buffer zones it had during the 60 or 70s or 80.
SO The West don;t need to attack Russia(as they hope), all they have to do is keep on throwing billions that they CAN AFFORD while Russia cannot and they will eventually watch Russia fold over because it simply cannot keep up with the money machine the West is. USA/NARO figures all the have to do is wait a few years; after all, Russia is running on reserves.
Remember, that’s one of the main reason the sanctions were placed on Russia after Maidan, to keep the Russians from acquiring new loans.
As http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/imagine-if-russian-tanks-were-only-450-miles-washington-dc/ri19396 reports and admits, the NATO forces are mere 450 miles away from Moscow. Thats 700 kilometers, a day away. NATO doesnt need to do much, and when the fighting begins, it isnt going to be much of a push at all.
h\The attack will be on all fronts: air, ground and rockets. Russia will literally be hit with thousands ALL AT ONCE. Russia will not be able to respond. Let’s face it tanks are thing of the past as much as bow and arrows are. The tanks are NOT the problem, its the rockets that will be let go at thousands that Russia will have to fight against. And ALL Russia can do is reply with nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons will more than suffice.
Short of that, your observation on continual economic strain — much like the economic sanctions — is apt, IMO.
But what remains to be considered is the (short term) economic benefit of warmongering to those who own (and control) the US military-industrial complex.
What after that ? They don’t care. They plan for today. An acronym familiar on Wall Street is IBGYBG — (by the time the consequences appear) I’ll Be Gone (&) You’ll Be Gone (both of us rich from short-term profits).
They are so caught up in the game that sanity is ruled out. As the RF has long noted. Compounding this is that individuals recover their sanity as individuals — one at a time. And even when they do, they are still helpless against the madness of the collective.
Laugh if you like, but I suspect it is only the secret influence of the Sufis that keep us alive.
(Removed. I agree with you,but still the language is too much. MOD)
Tactical nukes make you glorious HATO troops carbonized wienies.
Put away you Sgt Rock toys, (Removed MOD).
I’m pretty sure the opposite is true. The Russians are waiting for the US to collapse economically. With the US public debt what it is, and the current debt bubbles pervading the US economy, the only thing that can prevent such a decline is a War. Which is precisely why Putin, and hence Russia, has been so reserved throughout this whole debacle. Putin knows that he must be patient and use restraint so that he doesn’t give the MIC and the Neocons the one thing they need, a War. With every day that passes, the more likely the US economy is to make a sudden and rapid decline. It is only a matter of time before one of the bubbles burst and bring the entire US economy to a shattering halt that is reminiscent of the Great Depression. Putin knows this, he’s simply biding his time.
[As a side note: Russia’s MOD has been focusing on developing defensive technologies and weapons not suitable for the type of aggression exhibited by the US military. This is quite telling in the respective purposes of the two militaries, and hence why they operate so differently. The Russians are acting defensively, because that is their purpose and what they are primarily equipped to do, not because they are weak or afraid.]
My dearest Hoyeru,
Please realize that your all-caps mini-shouts don’t help you get your point across more effectively. They just make you look hysterical.
A couple of thoughts for your consideration:
1) What makes you think that the US can afford $600 billion in on-the-books military expenditures?
2) Were you aware that Napoleon launched his invasion, with what seemed to be a vastly superior force in his day, from the Lithuanian city of Kovno (then part of the French Empire) and which was just about 750 km from Moscow?
When the US and EU population start dying of cancers and blast wounds they will ask why. They will never get an answer but the answer is The Anglo-Zionist Empire.
What would you say to the idea that sometimes the make/ break factor in these historic battles is the allies that participate? I ask that question preparatory to my next remark, which is, you don’t know the full strength of the enemy until you know who the allies are. And if the allies are secret, that’s a huge wild card in the deck that can suddenly and decisively turn the tide in a conflict and create a devastating, not just embarrassing outcome. Everyone knows about China, but, is China the ally that is the one to be watched? I don’t think they are. Call it a “spidey-sense” kind of thing, but I don’t think that China is going to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Russian army. I think there is someone else, another ally we don’t yet know about who will. The outcome of a NATO attack against Russia may bring them to the forefront, and with huge impact that affects not only the local theater, but the entire world.
@Hoyeru, who claims the USA can overwhelm the RF by printing money.
Nope. Money printing by the US is a tax on the rest of the world, which means that the rest of the world will do its utmost to get out from under. Which means that as time goes by the US will have to spend exponentially more on its military to keep the lid on the globally rising pressure against its thievery. For how long can the US outmuscle the whole world combined? Not long at all.
Meanwhile, Russia only has to defend itself, which will be far cheaper.
In other words, if we’re in a financial fight, the US will crack far sooner than Russia — and I’m not even factoring in the value of the help that China can give to Russia.
I want to share this video from 1975 of ex CIA agent John “Bob” Stockwell. It is amazing how much it is relevant today. Especially the discussing of a certain Russian news story of that time.
He has many videos on YouTube and a book, ” In Search Of Enemies”. However, please do not buy the book, look for it free on line. Because he refused to allow the CIA to see the book before print, he can not receive any profits.
https://youtu.be/aTjFPwELZxY