The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 The Saker ArchiveBlogview
Debunking Popular Clichés About Modern Warfare
shutterstock_346239029

“What would a war between Russia and the USA look like?”

This must be the question which I am most frequently asked. This is also the question to which I hear the most outlandish and ill-informed responses to. I have addressed this question in the past and those interested in this topic can consult the following articles:

It would be pointless for me to repeat it all here, so I will try to approach the issue from a somewhat different angle, but I would strongly recommend that those interested take the time to read this articles which, while mostly written in 2014 and 2015, are still basically valid, especially in the methodology used to tackle this issue. All I propose to do today is to debunk a few popular clichés about modern warfare in general. My hope is that by debunking them I will provide you with some tools to cut through the nonsense which the corporate media loves to present to us as “analysis”.

Cliché No 1: the US military has a huge conventional advantage over Russia

It all depends by what you mean by “advantage”. The US armed forces are much larger than the Russian ones, that is true. But, unlike the Russians ones, they are spread all over the planet. In warfare what matters is not the size of your military, but how much of it is actually available for combat in the theater of military operations TMO (conflict area). For example, if in any one given TMO you have only 2 airfields each capable of sustaining air operations for, say 100 aircraft, it will do you no good to have 1000 aircraft available. You might have heard the sentence “civilians focus on firepower, soldiers on logistics“. This is true. Modern military forces are extremely “support heavy” meaning that for one tank, aircraft or artillery piece you need a huge and sophisticated support line making it possible for the tank, aircraft or artillery piece to operate in a normal way. Simply put – if your tank is out of fuel or spares – it stops. So it makes absolutely no sense to say, for example, that the USA has 13,000 aircraft and Russia only 3,000. This might well be true, but it is also irrelevant. What matters is only how many aircraft the US and NATO could have ready to engage on the moment of the initiation of combat operations and what their mission would be. The Israelis have a long record of destroying the Arab air forces on the ground, rather than in the air, in surprise attacks which are the best way to negate a numerical advantage of an adversary. The reality is that the USA would need many months to assemble in western Europe a force having even a marginal hope to take on the Russian military. And the reality also is that nothing could force the Russians to just sit and watch while such a force is being assembled (the biggest mistake Saddam Hussein made).

Cliché No 2: an attacker needs a 3:1 or even 4:1 advantage over the defender.

Well, this is one “kinda true”, especially on a tactical level. There is an often used as a general rule of thumb that being in the defense gives you a 3:1 advantage meaning that if you have 1 battalion on the defense you should could about 3 battalions on the offense in order to hope for a victory. But when looking at an operational or, even more so, strategic level, this rule is completely false. Why? Because the defending side has a huge disadvantage: it is always the attacker who gets to decide when to attack, where and how. For those interested by this topic I highly recommend the book “Surprise Attack: Lessons for Defense Planning” by Richard Betts which, while relatively old (1982) and very focused on the Cold War, provides a very interesting and thorough discussion of the advantages and risks of a surprise attack. This is a fascinating topic which I cannot discuss in detail here, but let’s just say that a successfully pulled off surprise attack almost totally negates the advantage in theoretical forces ratios for the defender. Let me give you a simple example: imagine a front line of 50 km in which each 5 km are defended on both sides by a one division. So each sides has 10 divisions, each responsible for the defense of 5km of front, right? According to the 3:1 rule, side A needs 30 divisions to overcome the 10 divisions in the defense? Right? Wrong! What side A can do is concentrate 5 of its divisions on a 10km wide front and put the other five in the defense. On that 10km wide front of attack side now had 5 attacking divisions against 2 defending ones while on the rest of the front, side A has 5 defending divisions against 8 (potentially) attacking ones. Notice that now side B does not have a 3:1 advantage to overcome side A’s defenses (the actual ration is now 8:5). In reality what B will do is rush more divisions to defend the narrow 10km sector but that, in turn means that B now has less divisions to defense the full front. From here on you can make many assumptions: side B can counter-attack instead of defending, side B can defend in depth (in several “echelons”, 2 or even 3), side A could also begin by faking attack on one sector of the front and then attack elsewhere, or side A can send, say, one reinforced battalion to move really fast and create chaos deep in the defenses of B. My point here is simply that this 3:1 rules is purely a tactical rule of thumb and that in real warfare theoretical forces ratios (norms) require much more advanced calculations, including the consequences of a surprise attack.

Cliché No 3: high technology wins the day

ORDER IT NOW

That is a fantastically false statement and yet this myth is sacred dogma amongst civilians, especially in the USA. In the real world, high teach weapons systems, while very valuable, also come with a long list of problems the first one of which is simply cost.

[Sidebar: when I was studying military strategy in the late 1990s one of our teachers (from the US Air Force) presented us with a graph showing the increasing cost of a single US fighter aircraft from the 1950s to the 1990s. He then projected this trend in the future and jokingly concluded that by roughly 2020 (iirc) the USA would only have the money to afford one single and very, very expensive fighter. This was a joke, of course, but it had a very serious lesson in it: runways costs can result in insanely expensive weapon systems which can only be produced at very few copies and which are very risky to engage].

Technology is also typically fragile and requires a very complex support, maintenance and repair network. It makes no sense to have the best tank on the planet if it spends most of its time in major repairs.

Furthermore, one of the problems of sophisticated high tech gear is that its complexity makes it possible to attack it in many different ways. Take, for example, an armed drone. It can be defeated by:

  1. shooting it out of the sky (active defense)
  2. blinding or otherwise disabling its sensors (active defense)
  3. jamming its communications with the operator (active defense)
  4. jamming or disabling its navigation system (active defense)
  5. camouflage/deception (passive defense)
  6. providing it with false targets (passive defense)
  7. protecting targets by, for example, burying them (passive defense)
  8. remaining mobile and/or decentralized and/or redundant (passive defense)

There are many more possible measures, it all depends on the actual threat. They key here is, again, cost and practicality: how much does it cost to develop, build and deploy an advanced weapon system versus the cost of one (or several) counter-measures.

Finally, history has shown over and over again that willpower is far more important that technology. Just look at the absolutely humiliating and total defeat of the multi-billion high tech Israeli Defense Forces by Hezbollah in 2006. The Israelis used their entire air force, a good part of their navy, their very large artillery, their newest tanks and they were defeated, horribly defeated, by probably about less than 2000 Hezbollah fighters, and even those where not the very best Hezbollah had (Hezbollah kept the best ones north of the Litani river). Likewise, the NATO air campaign against the Serbian Army Corps in Kosovo will go down in history as one of the worst defeats of a huge military alliance backed by high tech weapons by a small country equipped with clearly dated weapon systems.

[Sidebar: on both these wars what really "saved the day" for the AngloZionists is a truly world-class propaganda machine which successfully concealed the magnitude of the defeat of the AngloZionist forces. But the information is out there, and you can look it up for yourself].

Cliché No 4: big military budgets win the day

That is also a myth which is especially cherished in the USA. How often have you heard something like “the billion dollar B-2″ or the “6 billion dollar Nimitz class aircraft carrier”? The assumption here is that if the B-2 or the Nimitz costs so much money they must be truly formidable. But are they?

Take the three hundred million dollar plus dollar F-22A “Raptor” and then look up the “deployment” subsection in the Wikipedia article about the F-22A. What have we got? A few Russian T-95 (date of introduction: 1956) bomber intercepts and one Iranian F-4 Phantom (date of introduction: 1960) interception. That, a few bombing runs in Syria and a motley assortment of overseas deployments for PR reasons. That’s it! On paper the F-22A is an awesome aircraft and, in many ways is really is, but the real life reality is that the F-22A was only used on missions which an F-16, F-15 or F-18 could have done for cheaper and even done it better (the F-22A is a crappy bomber, if only because it was never designed to be one).

I already hear the counter argument: the F-22A was designed for a war against the USSR and had that war happened it would have performed superbly. Yeah, maybe, except that less than 200 were ever built. Except that in order to maintain a low radar cross section the F-22 has a tiny weapons bay. Except that the Soviets deployed infra-red search and track systems on all their MiG-29s (a very non-high-teach fighter) and their SU-27s. Except that the Soviets had already begun developing “anti-stealth” radars and that nowadays the F-22A is basically useless against modern Russian radars. None of that negates that in terms of technology, the F-22A is a superb achievement and a very impressive air superiority fighter. But one which would not have made a significant difference in a real war between the USA and the Soviet Union.

Cliché No 5: big military alliances help win wars

One more myth about wars which is cherished in the West: alliances win wars. The typical example is, of course, WWII: in theory, Germany, Italy and Japan formed the “Axis powers” while 24 nations (including Mongolia and Mexico) formed the “Allies“. As we all know, the Allies defeated the Axis. That is utter nonsense. The reality is very different. Hitler’s forces included about 2 million Europeans from 15 different countries which added 59 divisions, 23 brigades, a number of separate regiments, battalions and legions to the German forces (source: here, here, here and here). Furthermore, the Red Army account for no less than 80% of all the German losses (in manpower and equipment) during the war. All the others, including the USA and the UK, shared the puny 20% or less and joined the war when Hitler was already clearly defeated. Some will mention the various resistance movements which did resist the Nazis, often heroically. I don’t deny their valor and contribution, but it is important to realize that no resistance movement in Europe ever defeated a single German Wehrmacht or SS division (10 to 15 thousand men). In comparison, in Stalingrad alone the Germans lost 400,000 soldiers, the Romanians 200,000, the Italians 130,000, and the Hungarians 120,000 for a total loss of 850,000 soldiers. In the Kursk battle the Soviets defeated 50 German divisions counting about 900,000 soldiers.

[Sidebar: While resistance movements were typically engaged in sabotage, diversion or attacks on high value targets, they were never designed to attack regular military formations, not even a company (120 men or so). The German forces in the USSR were structures into several "Army Groups" (Heeresgruppe) each of which contained 4-5 Armies (each with about 150,000 soldiers). What I am trying to illustrate with these figures is that the magnitude of the combat operations on the Eastern Front was not only different from what any resistance movement can deal with, but also different from any other theater of military operations during WWII, at least for land warfare - the naval war in the Pacific was also fought on a huge scale].

The historical record is that one unified military force under one command usually performs much better than large alliances. Or, to put it differently, when large alliances do form, there is typically the “one big guy” who really matters and everybody else is more or less a sideshow (of course, the individual combatant who gets attacked, maimed and killed does not feel that he is a “sideshow”, but that does not change the big picture).

Speaking of NATO the reality is that there is no NATO outside the USA. The USA is the only country in NATO which really matters. Not just in terms of numbers and firepower, but also in terms of intelligence, force projection, mobility, logistics, etc. Every single US commanders knows and understands that perfectly, and while he will be impeccable courteous to his non-US colleagues in Mons or during cocktail parties in Brussels, if the proverbial bovine excreta hits the fan and somebody has to go and fight the Russians, the Americans will count solely on themselves and will be happy of the rest of the NATO members get out of the way without delay.

Cliché No 6: forward deployment gives a major advantage

Day after day we hear the Russians complaining that NATO has moved to their borders, that thousands of US troops are now deployed in the Baltics or Poland, that the US has deployed anti-ballistic missiles in Romania and that USN ships are constantly hugging the Russian coast in the Black and Baltic Sea. And it’s all true and very deplorable. But where the Russians are being a tad disingenuous is when they try to present all this as a military threat to Russia.

The truth is that from a purely military point of view, deploying US forces in the Baltic states of sending USN ships into the Black Sea are very bad ideas, in the first case because the three Baltics states are indefensible anyway, and it the second case because the Black Sea is, for all practical purposes, a Russian lake where the Russian military can detect and destroy any ship within 30 minutes or less. The American are quite aware of that and if they decided to strike at Russia they would not do if from forward deployed ship but with long-range standoff weapons such as ballistic or cruise missiles.

[Sidebar: the notion that Russia would ever want to attack any of the Baltic states or sink a USN ship is ridiculous and I am in no way suggesting that this might happen. But when looking at purely military issues you look at capabilities, not intentions.]

The range of modern weapons is such that in case of war in Europe there will probably not be a real “front” and a “rear”, but being closer to the enemy still makes you easier to detect and exposes you to a wider array of possible weapons. Simply put, the closer you are to Russian firepower, electronic warfare systems, reconnaissance networks and personnel, the greater number of potential threats you need to worry about.

I would not go as far as to say that forward deployment does not give you any advantage, it does: your weapon systems can reach further, the flight time of your missiles (ballistic and cruise) is shorter, your aircraft need less fuel to get to their mission area, etc. But these advantages come at a very real cost. Currently forward deployed US forces are, at best, a trip-wire force whose aim is political: to try to demonstrate commitment. But they are not any real threat to Russia.

Cliché No 7: The US and NATO are protecting East European countries

On paper and in the official NATO propaganda, all of Europe and the USA are ready, if needed, to start WWIII to defend Estonia from the revanchist Russian hordes. Judging at how the tiny Baltic states and Poland constantly “bark” at Russia and engage in an apparently never-ending streams of infantile but nonetheless arrogant provocations, folks in eastern Europe apparently believe that. They think that they are part of NATO, part of the EU, part of the “civilized West” and that their AngloZionist patrons will protect them from these scary Russkies. That belief just shows how stupid they are.

I wrote above that the USA is the only real military force in NATO and that US military and political leaders all know that. And they are right. Non-US NATO capabilities are a joke. What in the world do you think the, say, Belgian or Polish armed forces are in reality. That’s right – both a joke and a target. How about the glorious and invincible Portuguese and Slovenians? Same deal. The reality is that non-US NATO armed forces are just fig leaves hiding the fact that Europe is a US colony – some fig leaves are bigger, other are smaller. But even the biggest fig leaves (Germany and France) are still only that – a disposable utensil at the service of the real masters of the Empire. Should a real war ever break up in Europe, all these pompous little European statelets will be told to get the fuck out of the way and let the big boys take care of business. Both the Americans and the Russians know that, but for political reasons they will never admit this publicly.

ORDER IT NOW

Here I have to admit that I cannot prove that. All I can do is offer a personal testimony. While I was working on my Master’s Degree in Strategic Studies in Washington DC I had the opportunity to meet and spend time with a lot of US military personnel ranging from Armored Cavalry officers deployed in the Fulda Gap to a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The first thing that I will say about them is that they were all patriots and, I think, excellent officers. They were all very capable of distinguishing political nonsense (like the notion of forward deploying US carriers to strike at the Kola Peninsula) from how the US would really fight. One senior Pentagon officer attached to the Office of Net Assessment was very blunt about that and declared to our classroom “no US President will ever sacrifice Chicago to protect Munich”. In other words, yes, the US would fight the Soviets to protect Europe, but the US will never escalate that fight to the point were the US territory would be threatened by Soviet nukes.

The obvious flaw here is that this assumes that escalation can be planned and controlled. Well, escalation is being planned in numerous offices, agencies and departments, but all these models usually show that it is very hard to control. As for de-escalation, I don’t know of any good models describing it (but my personal exposure to that kind of things is now very old, maybe things have changed since the late 1990s?). Keep in mind that both the USA and Russia have the use of nuclear weapons to prevent a defeat in conventional warfare included in their military doctrines. So if we believe, as I do, that the US is not willing to go nuclear to, say, save Poland then this basically means that the US is not even willing to defend Poland by conventional means or, at least, not defend it very much.

Again, the notion that Russia would attack anybody in Europe is beyond ridiculous, no Russian leader would ever even contemplate such a stupid, useless, counter-productive and self-defeating plan, if only because Russia has no need for any territory. If Putin told Poroshenko that he did not want to take over the Donbass, how likely is that that the Russians are dreaming of occupying Lithuania or Romania?! I challenge anybody to come up with any rational reason for the Russians to want to attack any country in the West (or elsewhere, for that matter) even if that country had no military and was not member of any military alliance. In fact, Russia could have *easily* invaded Georgia in the 08/08/08 war but did not. And when is the last time you heard Mongolia or Kazakhstan fearing a Russian (or Chinese) invasion?

So the simple truth is that for all the big gesticulations and vociferous claims about defending the Europeans against the “Russian threat” there is no Russian threat just like the USA will never deliberately initiate a nuclear slugfest with Russia to defend Chisinau or even Stockholm.

Conclusion

So if all of the above are just clichés with no bearing on reality, why is the western corporate media so full of this nonsense? Mainly for two reasons: journalists are mostly “Jack of all trades, master of none” and they much prefer to pass on pre-packaged propaganda then to make the effort to try to understand something. As for the talking heads on TV, the various generals who speak as “experts” for CNN and the rest, they are also simply propagandists. The real pros are busy working for the various government agencies and they don’t go in live TV to speak about the “Russian threat”. But the most important reason for this nonsensical propaganda is that by constantly pretending to discuss a military issue the AngloZionist propagandist are thereby hiding the real nature of the very real conflict between Russia and the USA over Europe: a political struggle for the future of Europe: if Russia has no intention of invading anybody, she sure does have huge interest in trying to de-couple Europe from its current status of US colony/protectorate. The Russians fully realize that while the current European elites are maniacally russophobic, most Europeans (with the possible exception of the Baltic States and Poland) are not. In that sense the recent Eurovision vote where the popular vote was overturned by so-called “experts” is very symbolic.

The first Secretary General of NATO did very openly spell out its real purposeto keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” The Russians want it exactly the other way around: the Russians in (economically, not militarily, of course), the Americans out and the Germans up (again, economically). That is the real reason behind all the tensions in Europe: the USA desperately wants a Cold War v.2 while Russia is trying has hard as she to prevent this.

So, what would a war between Russia and the USA look like? To be honest, I don’t know. It all depends on so many different factors that it is pretty much impossible to predict. That does not mean that it cannot, or will not, happen. There are numerous very bad signs that the Empire is acting in an irresponsible way. One of the worst ones is that the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) has almost completely ceased to function.

The main reason for the creation of the NRC was to make sure that secure lines of communications were open, especially in a crisis or tension situation. Alas, as a way to signal their displeasure with Russia over the Ukraine, NATO has now almost completely closed down the NRC even though the NRC was precisely created for that purpose.

Furthermore, forward deploying, besides often being militarily useless, is also potentially dangerous as a local incident between the two sides can rapidly escalate into something very serious. Especially when important lines of communications have been done away with. The good news, relatively speaking, is that the US and Russia still have emergency communications between the Kremlin and the White House and that the Russian and US armed forces also have direct emergency communication capabilities. But at the end of the day, the problem is not a technological one, but a psychological one: the Americans are apparently simply unable or unwilling to negotiate about anything at all. Somehow, the Neocons have imposed their worldview on the US deep state, and that worldview is that any dynamic between Russia and the USA is a zero sum one, that there is nothing to negotiate and that forcing Russia to comply and submit to the Empire by means of isolation and containment is the only thinkable approach. This will, of course, not work. The question is whether the Neocons have the intellectual capability to understand that or, alternatively, whether the old Anglo US patriots can finally kick the “crazies in the basement” (as Bush senior used to refer to the Neocons) out of the White House.

But if Hillary makes it into the White House in November, then things will become really scary. Remember how I said that no US President would ever sacrifice a US city in defense of a European one? Well, that assumes a patriotic President, one who loves his country. I don’t believe that the Neocons give a damn about America or the American people, and these crazies might well think that sacrificing one (or many) US cities is well worth the price if that allows them to nuke Moscow.

Any theory of deterrences assumes a “rational actor”, not a psychopathic and hate-filled cabal of “crazies in a basement”.

During the last years of the Cold War I was much more afraid of the gerontocrats in the Kremlin than of the Anglo officers and officials in the White House or the Pentagon. Now I fear the (relatively) new generation of “ass-kissing little chickenshit” officers à la Petraeus, or maniacs like General Breedlove, which have replaced the “old style” Cold Warriors (like Admirals Elmo Zumwalt, William Crowe or Mike Mullen) who at least knew that a war with Russia must be avoided at all cost. It is outright frightening for me to realize that the Empire is now run by unprofessional, incompetent, unpatriotic and dishonorable men who are either driven by hateful ideologies or whose sole aim in life is to please their political bosses.

The example of Ehud Olmert, Amir Peretz and Dan Halutz going to war against Hezbollah in 2006 or Saakashvili’s attempt at ethnically cleansing South Ossetia in 2008 have shown the world that ideology-driven leaders can start absolutely unwinnable wars, especially if they believe in their own propaganda about their invincibility. Let’s is hope and pray that this kind of insanity does not take over the current US leaders. The best thing that could happen for the future of mankind would be if real patriots would come back to power in the United States. Then mankind could finally breathe a big sigh of relief.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Russia 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. Some of the crazies are getting close to having their hands on the actual levers of power, including making war – and are of the mentality of a Masha Gessen, which means readiness to threaten nukes to impose LGBTQI.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    so the same as the north korean fatty?
    , @Anonymous
    You said it! Today's mincing rainbow queers working rallying to HRC in support of Amerika-driven armageddon is a spectacle as sickening as how an earlier generation fell for the wiles of fascism. And I write as a dyed-in-wool same-sexer. If same-sex love isn't mobilized as catalyst to virtue (the Greeks had the idea) it becomes corruption itself...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/debunking-popular-cliches-about-modern-warfare/#comment-1424584
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. […] Written by TheSaker, originally appeared at The Unz Review […]

    Read More
  3. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The BEST analysis I have seen in several years … real – to the point …. thanks.

    Read More
  4. Excellent article, The Saker.

    “One senior Pentagon officer attached to the Office of Net Assessment was very blunt about that and declared to our classroom “no US President will ever sacrifice Chicago to protect Munich”. In other words, yes, the US would fight the Soviets to protect Europe, but the US will never escalate that fight to the point were the US territory would be threatened by Soviet nukes.”

    Former West German Chancellor Schmidt in a published interview years ago said he told then President Carter that he’d surrender West Germany to the Soviet Union rather than see it destroyed in another war. I’ll guess Schmidt well knew the U. S. wouldn’t “sacrifice Chicago”, and perhaps the experience of the nominally victorious but exhausted French and English in WWI and WWII informed his thinking.

    The WWII European Theater was mostly a German-Soviet affair, as you say, but I doubt that 1 in 10,000 Americans knows that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grey
    Most of the Americans that I've spoken to either don't care or are very ill informed. So many still believe in the illusion of American exceptionalism. The fight in the west during WWII wasn't anything to snicker at (Battle of the Bulge) but you're right, the meat and potatoes happened between the Soviets and the Germans. Remember though, the Russians had a huge amount of help from the United States through the Lend-Lease program, not to mention the very foolish decision of Hitler to launch operation Barbarossa, especially without proper intelligence of the real Soviet strength (The Germans were totally shocked that the Russians had so many tanks, and good ones at that!).

    On the other side of the coin, if the Germans hadn't fought the Soviets then all of Europe would have collapsed under Soviet Power. A strange thing, that if not for the Germans all of Europe would have been lost to communism.

    But we're acting as if what is going on today stems from American power. It doesn't. You got it half-right. The Zionists (The same Bolshevik Jews that slaughtered tens of millions of Christian Russians and Ukrainians) have been captain of the ship since before WWI. There is a multitude of historical data that proves this beyond any doubt. America, just like the rest of the western nations, are firmly under the thumb of the International Banking cabal, i.e., Elite Jewry. Why is everyone so afraid of telling it like it is?

    The biggest mistake Europe ever made was to allow Jews the same rights and privileges of true European natives. Every head of state since the turn of the tenth century has had plenty to say about the Jews as a people. And since the 18th century their elite have been slowly pounding us into the dirt, all through the control of money. Sure, there are Anglos, eastern Europeans, Russians, etc. that have partaken of the feast (European royalty, the Black nobility, the Vatican) but the Jewish Elite are at the top of the pyramid.

    They created fractional reserve banking, they created the BIS and the World Bank. They run the central bank of America, own it lock, stick, and barrel. They own the central banks of Europe and any other country western militaries have conquered. It seems like the only nations that are a supposed threat to the United States don't have a Jewish central bank (Libya, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Russia?).

    Qaddafi was doing a lot of good things for his people, like the great man-made water project (they used to have to buy their water from Europe) and state banks in which there was no usury (no interest). Qaddafi then decided to create a United North African Union, with the gold dinar at the heart of it all. Soon thereafter his nation was bombed into the stone age and he was executed, brutally and without mercy, most likely filmed on a Japanese handicam. Then it was off to Syria to topple the next country that refused to be ruled by the family of eight.

    Not only do they control the money, they control the airwaves, the mainstream media, hence all of the gross lies about the savage Palestinian terrorists and the big, bad Russians. But how did it all come to be? How did such a pitiful people manage to outsmart our best and brightest, not to mention our richest? It can't be done to greed alone, something deeper and darker keeps their unholy union together.

    It all stems from the mystery religions. Freemasonry was born out of Jewish mysticism (or rather Babylonian mysticism), along with other secretive societies, is the organizational structure the Elite Jews use to force their will on their goyim minions. Oh yeah, they apparently control the extensive power of the Vatican, if you believe it. Personally, it is enough for me to know that they favor the mega-rich, regardless of race or creed. Apparently it's all being prepared for their false Messiah.

    We shall see, we shall see!
    , @Anonymous
    You assume that US presidents are authors of their own destinies! Not so since Reagan. In recent times, it got even worse. US presidents are increasingly acting like glorified figureheads taking orders from behind the scene real masters.
  5. Day after day we hear the Russians complaining that NATO has moved to their borders, that thousands of US troops are now deployed in the Baltics or Poland, that the US has deployed anti-ballistic missiles in Romania and that USN ships are constantly hugging the Russian coast in the Black and Baltic Sea. And it’s all true and very deplorable. But where the Russians are being a tad disingenuous is when they try to present all this as a military threat to Russia.

    It might be because the Russians are unaware of the military genius Saker and have no idea that all those troops, hardware, anti ballistic missiles systems, military bases and US ships are no threat at all. Somebody should tell them and put their worries to rest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carl
    Only idiots believe that having vastly bigger, better equipped, and more technologically advanced forces are some kind of "advantage". Pfffft. Just hide your shit from the drones, dude. Take that, AngloZionists!

    The facts are out there, if these idiotic journalists would bother looking at www.IKnowHowToWinWarsAndYouDont.com
  6. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Is it true that the F22 can be easily neutralized by Russian jets and radar?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SmoothieX12
    http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/The%20Radar%20Range%20Equation.en.html

    Look at the basic radar equation and see for yourself how power in pulse and RCS are related or, rather, multiply each-other. There is no such thing, other than in fanboy imaginations of journos, as "invisible" aircraft. All of them, without any exception are visible in radio diapason, "stealth" or no "stealth"--a BS term invented by PR managers in lieu of the description of decades long struggle of military technology in reducing own physical field, which range from optical through acoustic and radio diapason. Power and signal processing define everything in radar, with photonics coming on line very soon it wouldn't really matter anyway. Any so called "stealth" aircraft such as B-1 or F-22 or T-50 are absolutely no problem for modern AD complexes.
  7. Likewise, the NATO air campaign against the Serbian Army Corps in Kosovo will go down in history as one of the worst defeats of a huge military alliance backed by high tech weapons by a small country equipped with clearly dated weapon systems.

    Relevant:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown

    Read More
    • Replies: @Khan Bodin
    Ah, yes. I knew I had seen your comment at the beginning. There is no such thing as "invisible plane," whatever pathological Murican liars say. Even Pierre Spray, one of the architects of the F-16 and A-10 Warthog (it just goes to show who has been building weaponry for Murica, doesn't it? certainly not imbecilic Muricans) says as much:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI

    Every long range radar from the 40s can see "stealth" planes. The radar which saw "invisible" B-117 was an old Soviet radar from the 60s. Everything with Muricans is only good as long as you don't question it. The moment you question it, the illusion fails and you end up staring in the abyss of rot that stretch as far as eye can see.

    As for your comparisons, Hezbollah IDF comparison is a good one. You could have also used a better one: comparing Arab vs West warfare before to the one today. You know, Israelis used to wipe floor with the combined Arab armies not that long ago. The fact that they didn't want to fight for those secular dictators such as Nasser, Sadam et al has certainly played a big role, but tactics is also worth examining. Military analysts call it 4th generation warfare. Anyway, the moment westerners started touching into the sacred pillars of their civilization, their faith, the Arabs instantly found the courage, will and such fearlessness that those Westerners, who had just been making jokes about Arab fighting skills, started to shit in their pants: party in awe and amazement, and partly in fear I suspect.

    http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=1702

    Here it is. It's a very good article.


    edit:

    Oh, and Argentina lost because they run out of Exocet missiles. If they didn't, every British ship would have been sunk.

  8. It’s nice to hear rational commentary about this subject, rather than the insane saber-rattling we hear from our media. Unfortunately, we still don’t have the answer to the question, beyond the fact that it would be a complete disaster. Saker, do you think that the cooler heads in the US military might mutiny if ordered to make a suicidal attack on Russia?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Saint Nicholas
    Fidelios: Here is maybe an answer "yes" to your guess, although it's in Russian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBoMGcWDDoI
    Here is an interview of Ben Fulford by David Wilcock (in English), confirming the same event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-buFJfGZhI
    This video is a documantary investigation (Russian) of the same event (blowing of the underground bunkers in the US in, I think, 2012, 22-23 of Aug): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxJTdgAzTks
    There was also an incredible several-hour video telling about the same event in a larger context of events and including Fukusima's tragedy, but it was moved from the site.


    It would be intresting to hear what does Saker, say about it.
  9. Cliche No 8: in wars of attrition, industrial capacity doesn’t matter.

    Cliche No 9: in wars of attrition, population size doesn’t matter.

    Read More
  10. @Anonymous
    Is it true that the F22 can be easily neutralized by Russian jets and radar?

    http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/The%20Radar%20Range%20Equation.en.html

    Look at the basic radar equation and see for yourself how power in pulse and RCS are related or, rather, multiply each-other. There is no such thing, other than in fanboy imaginations of journos, as “invisible” aircraft. All of them, without any exception are visible in radio diapason, “stealth” or no “stealth”–a BS term invented by PR managers in lieu of the description of decades long struggle of military technology in reducing own physical field, which range from optical through acoustic and radio diapason. Power and signal processing define everything in radar, with photonics coming on line very soon it wouldn’t really matter anyway. Any so called “stealth” aircraft such as B-1 or F-22 or T-50 are absolutely no problem for modern AD complexes.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kiza
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    All this, assuming you have the physical assets in the air to chase down, identify and discriminate between the seagulls and F-22. Turn up the juice to gather return on the Raptor, you also bring into your screens "targets" that don't appear at lower power. Raptors diffuse the heat they produce better than a standard fighter. Raptors are lovely, there aren't enough of them. They should have bought many Raptors and bailed on the F35 at prototype.

    We don't need manned new carrier aircraft these days anyway, nor carriers because crewed with so many single mothers, 8 of 11 or 12 carriers and their air wings must reside pier side, providing a job, but never deploying because after all, the children. What to do with the children?

    Fundamental transformation..
  11. Didn’t a passing Russian plane electronically neuter a US warship recently?

    Nothing sets up failure like success. My fellow Americans are surely more “set up” than most.

    I never forget that World War One occurred because of a series of painfully stupid, cascading decisions and illogical alliances. Small consolation to those who died in agony, crying for their mothers in their final moments.

    I do wonder if the effects of a nuclear war would be as catastrophic, on a planetary scale, as seems likely. One would imagine that Pentagonians would have long ago figured out if a nuclear exchange would cause the starvation of most of the planet. I figure that as long as ICBM-deliverable nukes exist, it’s only a question of time before the right combination of hubris, senility, sycophancy and Peter-Principle ineptitude brings about nuclear Armageddon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SmoothieX12

    Didn’t a passing Russian plane electronically neuter a US warship recently?
     
    No, it didn't--propaganda, this time a Russian one. There is such term as энерго-вооружённость, roughly--energetic capacity. SU-24 can fool SPY-1D Radar of Arleigh Burke-class DDG but it can not realistically "jam" it. A-50, on the other hand....but that is a totally different story;-)
  12. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    A good article. One thing, while the Soviets inflicted 80% of TOTAL LOSSES on Germany, this figure includes prisoners of war. If you look just at killed, killed in action, or died of wounds, the figure is 90%. What happened was that at the very near end of the war great numbers of German troops surrounded to the western forces. This lowered and actually skewers the real total of German losses. Actually the USSR would probably have defeated Germany all by itself without any help from anyone.

    In any case NATO should have been dissolved a long time ago. It exists solely so that America can politically dominate Europe. Note how the writer says that American forces are scattered all around the planet. This has nothing to do with defending America but maintaining Washington’s global political hegemony. Where was the US military on 9/11? Why couldn’t even one of the planes have been intercepted? There were probably more US planes defending South Korean airspace then the whole eastern seaboard of America.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Agree with everything you said about the prediction that the USSR could have defeated Germany without help. No way in Hell.

    The Germans definitely could have taken and held at least much of European Russia if the USA had stayed out of the war as we should have.

    Without the USA, the western Europeans would have been annihilated en masse or had to make a deal submitting to Germany. Germany would have been free to move more of its forces to the eastern front, and there would have been more of those forces due to lower casualties on the western front.

    Too late now.
    , @Bill Jones
    There were more planes defending Saudi Arabia on 9/11.
  13. @dc.sunsets
    Didn't a passing Russian plane electronically neuter a US warship recently?

    Nothing sets up failure like success. My fellow Americans are surely more "set up" than most.

    I never forget that World War One occurred because of a series of painfully stupid, cascading decisions and illogical alliances. Small consolation to those who died in agony, crying for their mothers in their final moments.

    I do wonder if the effects of a nuclear war would be as catastrophic, on a planetary scale, as seems likely. One would imagine that Pentagonians would have long ago figured out if a nuclear exchange would cause the starvation of most of the planet. I figure that as long as ICBM-deliverable nukes exist, it's only a question of time before the right combination of hubris, senility, sycophancy and Peter-Principle ineptitude brings about nuclear Armageddon.

    Didn’t a passing Russian plane electronically neuter a US warship recently?

    No, it didn’t–propaganda, this time a Russian one. There is such term as энерго-вооружённость, roughly–energetic capacity. SU-24 can fool SPY-1D Radar of Arleigh Burke-class DDG but it can not realistically “jam” it. A-50, on the other hand….but that is a totally different story;-)

    Read More
  14. Both #1 and #2 are absolutely true. They are both merely extensions of Military Science 101.

    #3 is abject nonsense. In almost all cases, technology >> willpower. Armies that wasted their time waxing lyrical about the “spirit of the offensive” instead of doing the hard work of developing new technology and integrating them with doctrine were almost invariably humiliated when war erupted.

    #4 is mixed. Budgets are not as important as they are sometimes portrayed due to national price differences and varying levels of efficiency, corruption, geographic location, etc. However with more money you will invariably get more and better armed divisions and with better technology. Incidentally, The Saker contradicts himself here with regards to the previous point: “Except that the Soviets had already begun developing “anti-stealth” radars and that nowadays the F-22A is basically useless against modern Russian radars.” What is this but an example of high technology?

    #5 is also mixed. Much like the two previous points, the problem is that it is far too boldly stated. While a single unified military command is of course preferable (assuming overall numbers are otherwise equal), but having extra air bases and motorized rifle divisions never hurts either (so long as they don’t become a strategic liability like Italy wrt Germany in WW2).

    #6 is absolutely true. Short of a massive and decade-long NATO buildup in the Baltics, they will remain indefensible in the event of a real war. The fact that NATO forces there are being only modestly increased is just evidence that they do not in fact seriously expect a war with Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    I think you are wrong about #3. Serious rivals have comparably effective technology as a rule. You should have written organisation >> willpower.
    , @Max Payne

    #3 is abject nonsense. In almost all cases, technology >> willpower. Armies that wasted their time waxing lyrical about the “spirit of the offensive” instead of doing the hard work of developing new technology and integrating them with doctrine were almost invariably humiliated when war erupted.
     
    I'm sorry what cases are you talking about? When the backwards USSR defeated the technologically superior Germans through sheer willpower?

    Or when the Sri Lankan government, imbued with a real navy and real air force and a real army, had a 26 year war against the Tamil Tigers who were naked peasants with willpower as their only strength?

    Or Donbass?

    Or Hezbollah and Israel?

    I mean shit Argentina and the UK fought over the Falklands islands on the same technological level (all Western equipment too on both sides) and the UK won because of competent willpower.
  15. Dear Saker, if I were your editor, I would have cut out everything except your Conclusion. The previous part is a mish-mash of “my is bigger than yours” and other strategic wankery. You miss-interpret a cliche and then you debunk it. But the conclusion is brilliant, especially:

    Russia has no intention of invading anybody, she sure does have huge interest in trying to (economically) de-couple Europe from its current status of US colony/protectorate

    This reason, plus fighting the military budget cuts, and you have the Cold War 2.0. (oh, the good old times of CW 1.0).

    BTW, this reason of keeping Russia out of Europe is the same reason why the US bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999: the Chinese started creating an economic lily-pad into Europe out of Serbia (whilst Russia was busy with Yeltsin & Oligarchs).

    Using NATO, the US would rather force the Europeans to buy US armaments , then let Europe create even closer economic ties with Russia and the new Silk Road. Statement of SAAB CEO: Europe does not have the manufacturing capacity to produce armaments that NATO mandates (for CW 2.0).

    Therefore, the US is trying to create a boon for its MIC and economy by forcing all NATO members, other allies (Australia) and associates (Vietnam, Philippines) to weaponize against Russia and China by buying US weaponry. Unlike Nazi Germany during WW2, the US does not want your army divisions, it just wants your money. As long as things remain under control, they will be milking only your wallets and purses, not your children’s blood or survival.

    But it is worrying that the West keeps insisting on the Baltics scenario (movies, books, articles etc), which falls under the Ukraine-like suck-in game – the only way to get Russia to intervene in the Baltic states would be to find an internal force, similar to Ukrainian Nazis, which would start killing the Russian minority in the Baltic states. Luckily for the West, the Baltic states have a time-honored tradition of Nazism and this is a very nice strategic prospect. This is where this accent on the Russian aggression on the Baltic states is coming from. It is just a matter of time before a pogrom of the Russians start in a Baltic state, similar to Odessa. The Western media are already signalling the second phase of this scenario – the Russian reaction.

    Read More
  16. If one adds up the amounts of money that US allies & associates have to spend on weapons in the next 10 years, to counter the Russian and Chinese aggression, the sum comes close to $2 trillion. A good part of this creamy cake is expected to end up in the US MIC’s lap, mainly for weapons compatibility an inter-operability reasons. This is why it is hard to believe that even Trump will turn his back onto such bonanza by making peace with Russia and/or China. Forget about deal making with Putin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    "to counter the Russian and Chinese aggression,"

    And what "aggression" would that be?

    Attacking Iraq?, Afghanistan?, Libya?, Syria?,Yemen,?
    , @rod1963
    Are you joking?

    There is no Russian military aggression.

    Who invaded Iraq on false pretexts, who toppled the Libyan and Egyptian governments? Who started and funded the civil war in Syria?

    Why the U.S.

    Essentially all the immigration and terrorists woes can be laid at the feet of the American political class.
    , @Saint Nicholas
    This, of course, is an absolute truth. And there is very small chance, and very small hope that Trump will resist the pressure to submit to it. But our hope should be in the Lord.
  17. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles do NOT exist:

    http://www.big-lies.org

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Running through this entire article is an unrecognised attitude which always amuses me. When someone talks about the COST of some real or supposed weapon, the same someone usually fails to understand that when money is being made, the people making the money may be entirely happy with the system. The paper money system of the 'west' is Jewish-run, and Jews love wars because factories they own can supply weapons etc to both sides. And they do. All of course under the cover of 'governments' themselves run by jews.
    ---
    nukelies.org is a link to a forum on the question of non-existence of nukes. Like the holohoax, the nuclear fraud is long-established and lucrative. But it's also starting to shake.
    ---
    NB search for the Youtube 'Lords of the Nukes' for a long, detailed (news items, books, film clips of tests, 'Cold War', Cuba, 'H bombs', 'atom spies' etc etc. It should change your entire worldview.
  18. The deployment of these NATO troops definitely annoy Russia but do not, as it has been pointed out in the discussion, pose any real military threat to it. Perhaps their real purpose is to put the countries they deploy to under Occupation and hence suppress ANY form of protest against the official NATO narrative. The Empire knows that a lot of natives are against these deployments of foreign troops in their countries and substantial minorities have Russian sympathies. The presence of troops there keeps these countries in line. If one of these countries “peels”off, the domino effect will be quick.

    Read More
  19. @Anatoly Karlin
    Both #1 and #2 are absolutely true. They are both merely extensions of Military Science 101.

    #3 is abject nonsense. In almost all cases, technology >> willpower. Armies that wasted their time waxing lyrical about the "spirit of the offensive" instead of doing the hard work of developing new technology and integrating them with doctrine were almost invariably humiliated when war erupted.

    #4 is mixed. Budgets are not as important as they are sometimes portrayed due to national price differences and varying levels of efficiency, corruption, geographic location, etc. However with more money you will invariably get more and better armed divisions and with better technology. Incidentally, The Saker contradicts himself here with regards to the previous point: "Except that the Soviets had already begun developing “anti-stealth” radars and that nowadays the F-22A is basically useless against modern Russian radars." What is this but an example of high technology?

    #5 is also mixed. Much like the two previous points, the problem is that it is far too boldly stated. While a single unified military command is of course preferable (assuming overall numbers are otherwise equal), but having extra air bases and motorized rifle divisions never hurts either (so long as they don't become a strategic liability like Italy wrt Germany in WW2).

    #6 is absolutely true. Short of a massive and decade-long NATO buildup in the Baltics, they will remain indefensible in the event of a real war. The fact that NATO forces there are being only modestly increased is just evidence that they do not in fact seriously expect a war with Russia.

    I think you are wrong about #3. Serious rivals have comparably effective technology as a rule. You should have written organisation >> willpower.

    Read More
  20. @Anatoly Karlin
    Both #1 and #2 are absolutely true. They are both merely extensions of Military Science 101.

    #3 is abject nonsense. In almost all cases, technology >> willpower. Armies that wasted their time waxing lyrical about the "spirit of the offensive" instead of doing the hard work of developing new technology and integrating them with doctrine were almost invariably humiliated when war erupted.

    #4 is mixed. Budgets are not as important as they are sometimes portrayed due to national price differences and varying levels of efficiency, corruption, geographic location, etc. However with more money you will invariably get more and better armed divisions and with better technology. Incidentally, The Saker contradicts himself here with regards to the previous point: "Except that the Soviets had already begun developing “anti-stealth” radars and that nowadays the F-22A is basically useless against modern Russian radars." What is this but an example of high technology?

    #5 is also mixed. Much like the two previous points, the problem is that it is far too boldly stated. While a single unified military command is of course preferable (assuming overall numbers are otherwise equal), but having extra air bases and motorized rifle divisions never hurts either (so long as they don't become a strategic liability like Italy wrt Germany in WW2).

    #6 is absolutely true. Short of a massive and decade-long NATO buildup in the Baltics, they will remain indefensible in the event of a real war. The fact that NATO forces there are being only modestly increased is just evidence that they do not in fact seriously expect a war with Russia.

    #3 is abject nonsense. In almost all cases, technology >> willpower. Armies that wasted their time waxing lyrical about the “spirit of the offensive” instead of doing the hard work of developing new technology and integrating them with doctrine were almost invariably humiliated when war erupted.

    I’m sorry what cases are you talking about? When the backwards USSR defeated the technologically superior Germans through sheer willpower?

    Or when the Sri Lankan government, imbued with a real navy and real air force and a real army, had a 26 year war against the Tamil Tigers who were naked peasants with willpower as their only strength?

    Or Donbass?

    Or Hezbollah and Israel?

    I mean shit Argentina and the UK fought over the Falklands islands on the same technological level (all Western equipment too on both sides) and the UK won because of competent willpower.

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    "When the backwards USSR defeated the technologically superior Germans through sheer willpower"

    I assume that was meant to read the "larger, well-resourced, vastly more populated and geographically endowed albeit much less well-developed society and economy of the USSR, which both possessed and was capable of producing in great numbers comparable or better tanks and aircraft than Germany despite the latter's selective technological superiority, defeated Germany through a combination of rapidly developing technology, superior production capacity, rapidly improving military doctrines and willing expenditure of its superior manpower reserves to wear them down".

    The one thing it was not was a contest between either overwhelming or across-the-board technological superiority, which Germany did not have, and mere willpower, to which the Soviets could add many other militarily-relevant assets.

    I'd add, even at the expense of this being the wrong audience, that US/UK assistance was not negligible to the USSR. It didn't hurt that the allies supplied them with oil, food, tanks, aircraft, spares, jeeps, trucks etc. in vast quantities. But the Russians did the hard work of killing Germans by themselves, and not on will alone.

    Also, the Russians had done "hard work of developing new technology and integrating them with doctrine" before the war and they did it again during.
    , @random observer
    There may be a better case to be made for some of your other examples but none was a contest between an otherwise overwhelmingly superior enemy and one which had only willpower to count on.

    The LTTE was a pretty disparate organization, but some of that war was pure guerrilla war, always harder for the government side, and during its conventional phases the LTTE was far better equipped, trained, and more capable than your average insurgents. They had an idea of how to wage war and a lot of the tools.

    It doesn't look as though the correlation of forces in the Donbass is all that uneven either.

    Hezbollah ought to lose to Israel and willpower is a force multiplier, but they're not exactly a band of wandering peasants either.
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    When the backwards USSR defeated the technologically superior Germans through sheer willpower?
     
    The German technological advantage is often overstated, and in some spheres actually nonexistent (e.g. tanks). In fact if anyone had a willpower advantage specifically in 1941 it was the Germans considering the rates at which Soviet soldiers were surrendering in the first few months.

    Or when the Sri Lankan government, imbued with a real navy and real air force and a real army, had a 26 year war against the Tamil Tigers who were naked peasants with willpower as their only strength?
     
    Insurgencies follow very different rules from conventional warfare. It is regrettable that The Saker mixes them up so cavalierly.

    I mean shit Argentina and the UK fought over the Falklands islands on the same technological level (all Western equipment too on both sides) and the UK won because of competent willpower.
     

    competent willpower.
     

    competent
     
    , @Randal
    "I mean shit Argentina and the UK fought over the Falklands islands on the same technological level (all Western equipment too on both sides) and the UK won because of competent willpower."

    The UK beat Argentina because the UK had a far bigger military budget than Argentina and was able to spend sufficiently more to build and sustain an expeditionary force that outweighed even the leveraging effect of fighting in seas on the other side of the world from the UK and not all that far from Argentina. Building experience and maintaining military skills is also part of military expenditure - regular exercises and training with modern equipment doesn't come cheap.

    Indeed, that point in itself illustrates why Saker's arguments against US military superiority are flawed.
  21. When the backwards USSR defeated the technologically superior Germans through sheer willpower?

    I mean shit Argentina and the UK fought over the Falklands islands on the same technological level (all Western equipment too on both sides) and the UK won because of competent willpower.

    Especially sinking of Heneral Belgrano by HMS Conqueror, which was advanced SSN, or the fight between Luftwaffes FW-190s and Soviet La-5s, which Lavochkin planes won, among many other examples, kinda put your argumentation under question.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Max Payne
    Okay, so the UK used a multi-million dollar nuclear powered submarine to sink an old (1899) Argentinian vessel. Cool story bro. The HMS Sheffield was sunk by an Exocet missile fired by the Argentinian air force.

    So your story is some top of the line sub sinking some fossil, and my story is of two modern pieces of hardware pitted against each other. Same war.

    Why not talk about the headache the Argentinian air force gave the British task force with their French produced Exocet anti-ship missiles (using French made Super Etendards and US A-4 Skyhawks)? Launching multiple civilian airplanes in feint attacks from air strips inside the country to confuse British radars?


    Here's a list of causalities for you ladies because using Wikipedia is hard these days (apparently):


    UK:
    255 killed[nb 1]
    775 wounded
    115 PoWs[nb 2]
    2 destroyers
    2 frigates
    1 LSL ship
    1 LCU craft
    1 container ship
    24 helicopters
    10 fighters
    1 bomber (interned in Brazil)


    Argentina:
    649 killed[nb 3]
    1,657 wounded[5]
    11,313 PoWs
    1 cruiser
    1 submarine
    4 cargo vessels
    2 patrol boats
    1 spy trawler
    25 helicopters
    35 fighters
    2 bombers
    4 cargo aircraft
    25 COIN aircraft
    9 armed trainers


    It wasn't a cake-walk for the British. It was hard won.

    On a side note, the Falklands war was also a great example of limiting escalation. Both the UK and Argentina never actually declared war on one another. The UK never committed any serious action towards Argentina proper. And Argentina didn't mobilize it's entire armed forces away from the North and focused it on the South (if I recall conscripts were defending Port Stanly).
  22. “… non-US NATO armed forces are just fig leaves hiding the fact that Europe is a US colony ….”

    Sorry to quibble, but the correct description would be ‘vassal-states.’ The US’s brilliant tax policy FATCA has led to many American expat executives giving up their positions of power in many overseas companies and even in many US company affiliates abroad. They really need to examine why the City of London has regained a lot of its dominance in international finance despite being chained to the sinking EU. Anyway, they aren’t colonies without the colonists, and the people behind the walls of consulates and tourists do not count.

    Read More
  23. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Russia must avoid war with US at all cost.

    Even though US cannot defeat Russia, Russia will be hurt much worse cuz US has enough wealth and global power to weather any setback.

    Also, I suspect all this saber-rattling by Jewish-controlled US is to hold EU together when things are fraying due to Greek crisis, ‘refugee’ crisis’, and all the squabbles that are setting Europeans further apart from one another.

    The ONLY thing that the Europeans have left in common is being whore to Jewish-controlled US.
    I suspect one subconscious reason for European tolerance of Muslims is their repressed anger at Jewish-controlled US. Since they can’t lash out at Jews, they outsource it to Muslims.

    Anyway, if not for Russia, EU would be falling apart.
    EU is like the Democratic Party coalition. It would fall apart if not for the specter of GOP as the White Party. Jews in media spread fears of Evil Racist White Man to keep the diverse Democrat coalition together.
    Same in EU. Jews use the Fear of Big Russian Bear to keep Europeans together when, with each passing year, Europeans of different nations are discovering they don’t really like each other.

    Putin should understand this psychology and do his best not to increase tensions.
    Let America make an ass out of itself via its hysteria.

    Read More
  24. @Max Payne

    #3 is abject nonsense. In almost all cases, technology >> willpower. Armies that wasted their time waxing lyrical about the “spirit of the offensive” instead of doing the hard work of developing new technology and integrating them with doctrine were almost invariably humiliated when war erupted.
     
    I'm sorry what cases are you talking about? When the backwards USSR defeated the technologically superior Germans through sheer willpower?

    Or when the Sri Lankan government, imbued with a real navy and real air force and a real army, had a 26 year war against the Tamil Tigers who were naked peasants with willpower as their only strength?

    Or Donbass?

    Or Hezbollah and Israel?

    I mean shit Argentina and the UK fought over the Falklands islands on the same technological level (all Western equipment too on both sides) and the UK won because of competent willpower.

    “When the backwards USSR defeated the technologically superior Germans through sheer willpower”

    I assume that was meant to read the “larger, well-resourced, vastly more populated and geographically endowed albeit much less well-developed society and economy of the USSR, which both possessed and was capable of producing in great numbers comparable or better tanks and aircraft than Germany despite the latter’s selective technological superiority, defeated Germany through a combination of rapidly developing technology, superior production capacity, rapidly improving military doctrines and willing expenditure of its superior manpower reserves to wear them down”.

    The one thing it was not was a contest between either overwhelming or across-the-board technological superiority, which Germany did not have, and mere willpower, to which the Soviets could add many other militarily-relevant assets.

    I’d add, even at the expense of this being the wrong audience, that US/UK assistance was not negligible to the USSR. It didn’t hurt that the allies supplied them with oil, food, tanks, aircraft, spares, jeeps, trucks etc. in vast quantities. But the Russians did the hard work of killing Germans by themselves, and not on will alone.

    Also, the Russians had done “hard work of developing new technology and integrating them with doctrine” before the war and they did it again during.

    Read More
  25. @Max Payne

    #3 is abject nonsense. In almost all cases, technology >> willpower. Armies that wasted their time waxing lyrical about the “spirit of the offensive” instead of doing the hard work of developing new technology and integrating them with doctrine were almost invariably humiliated when war erupted.
     
    I'm sorry what cases are you talking about? When the backwards USSR defeated the technologically superior Germans through sheer willpower?

    Or when the Sri Lankan government, imbued with a real navy and real air force and a real army, had a 26 year war against the Tamil Tigers who were naked peasants with willpower as their only strength?

    Or Donbass?

    Or Hezbollah and Israel?

    I mean shit Argentina and the UK fought over the Falklands islands on the same technological level (all Western equipment too on both sides) and the UK won because of competent willpower.

    There may be a better case to be made for some of your other examples but none was a contest between an otherwise overwhelmingly superior enemy and one which had only willpower to count on.

    The LTTE was a pretty disparate organization, but some of that war was pure guerrilla war, always harder for the government side, and during its conventional phases the LTTE was far better equipped, trained, and more capable than your average insurgents. They had an idea of how to wage war and a lot of the tools.

    It doesn’t look as though the correlation of forces in the Donbass is all that uneven either.

    Hezbollah ought to lose to Israel and willpower is a force multiplier, but they’re not exactly a band of wandering peasants either.

    Read More
  26. @anon
    A good article. One thing, while the Soviets inflicted 80% of TOTAL LOSSES on Germany, this figure includes prisoners of war. If you look just at killed, killed in action, or died of wounds, the figure is 90%. What happened was that at the very near end of the war great numbers of German troops surrounded to the western forces. This lowered and actually skewers the real total of German losses. Actually the USSR would probably have defeated Germany all by itself without any help from anyone.

    In any case NATO should have been dissolved a long time ago. It exists solely so that America can politically dominate Europe. Note how the writer says that American forces are scattered all around the planet. This has nothing to do with defending America but maintaining Washington's global political hegemony. Where was the US military on 9/11? Why couldn't even one of the planes have been intercepted? There were probably more US planes defending South Korean airspace then the whole eastern seaboard of America.

    Agree with everything you said about the prediction that the USSR could have defeated Germany without help. No way in Hell.

    The Germans definitely could have taken and held at least much of European Russia if the USA had stayed out of the war as we should have.

    Without the USA, the western Europeans would have been annihilated en masse or had to make a deal submitting to Germany. Germany would have been free to move more of its forces to the eastern front, and there would have been more of those forces due to lower casualties on the western front.

    Too late now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    The UUSR killed or wounded 4,900,000 German soldiers. The west 580,000. Not much of a difference to the Soviets. Given the policies the Nazis employed in the east holding down large areas of land and economically exploiting it appears improbable.
  27. @Max Payne

    #3 is abject nonsense. In almost all cases, technology >> willpower. Armies that wasted their time waxing lyrical about the “spirit of the offensive” instead of doing the hard work of developing new technology and integrating them with doctrine were almost invariably humiliated when war erupted.
     
    I'm sorry what cases are you talking about? When the backwards USSR defeated the technologically superior Germans through sheer willpower?

    Or when the Sri Lankan government, imbued with a real navy and real air force and a real army, had a 26 year war against the Tamil Tigers who were naked peasants with willpower as their only strength?

    Or Donbass?

    Or Hezbollah and Israel?

    I mean shit Argentina and the UK fought over the Falklands islands on the same technological level (all Western equipment too on both sides) and the UK won because of competent willpower.

    When the backwards USSR defeated the technologically superior Germans through sheer willpower?

    The German technological advantage is often overstated, and in some spheres actually nonexistent (e.g. tanks). In fact if anyone had a willpower advantage specifically in 1941 it was the Germans considering the rates at which Soviet soldiers were surrendering in the first few months.

    Or when the Sri Lankan government, imbued with a real navy and real air force and a real army, had a 26 year war against the Tamil Tigers who were naked peasants with willpower as their only strength?

    Insurgencies follow very different rules from conventional warfare. It is regrettable that The Saker mixes them up so cavalierly.

    I mean shit Argentina and the UK fought over the Falklands islands on the same technological level (all Western equipment too on both sides) and the UK won because of competent willpower.

    competent willpower.

    competent

    Read More
    • Replies: @Begemot
    I know you're a numbers guy. You proved that in an earlier piece where you tried to work up a scheme to rate the world's militaries.

    However, you are wrong to dismiss the power of will and commitment. All other factors being equal, the most committed, the most determined opponent is likely to prevail. I suspect you don't care for that because it isn't quantifiable, but there it is. If you want a number, then apply Napoleon's dictum: "The moral is to the physical as three is to one." I think Napoleon was more of an expert on war and men than you are, so I'll go with him.
    , @Max Payne
    Of course we're talking about competent willpower, not men on horseback charging tanks like its cool.

    What's the point of discussing the latter?
  28. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Cliché No 3: high technology wins the day

    That is a fantastically false statement and yet this myth is sacred dogma amongst civilians, especially in the USA. In the real world, high teach weapons systems, while very valuable, also come with a long list of problems the first one of which is simply cost.

    High tech weapons also require intelligent operators.

    The US has problems in that area.

    Read More
  29. @anon
    A good article. One thing, while the Soviets inflicted 80% of TOTAL LOSSES on Germany, this figure includes prisoners of war. If you look just at killed, killed in action, or died of wounds, the figure is 90%. What happened was that at the very near end of the war great numbers of German troops surrounded to the western forces. This lowered and actually skewers the real total of German losses. Actually the USSR would probably have defeated Germany all by itself without any help from anyone.

    In any case NATO should have been dissolved a long time ago. It exists solely so that America can politically dominate Europe. Note how the writer says that American forces are scattered all around the planet. This has nothing to do with defending America but maintaining Washington's global political hegemony. Where was the US military on 9/11? Why couldn't even one of the planes have been intercepted? There were probably more US planes defending South Korean airspace then the whole eastern seaboard of America.

    There were more planes defending Saudi Arabia on 9/11.

    Read More
  30. @Kiza
    If one adds up the amounts of money that US allies & associates have to spend on weapons in the next 10 years, to counter the Russian and Chinese aggression, the sum comes close to $2 trillion. A good part of this creamy cake is expected to end up in the US MIC's lap, mainly for weapons compatibility an inter-operability reasons. This is why it is hard to believe that even Trump will turn his back onto such bonanza by making peace with Russia and/or China. Forget about deal making with Putin.

    “to counter the Russian and Chinese aggression,”

    And what “aggression” would that be?

    Attacking Iraq?, Afghanistan?, Libya?, Syria?,Yemen,?

    Read More
  31. @Kiza
    If one adds up the amounts of money that US allies & associates have to spend on weapons in the next 10 years, to counter the Russian and Chinese aggression, the sum comes close to $2 trillion. A good part of this creamy cake is expected to end up in the US MIC's lap, mainly for weapons compatibility an inter-operability reasons. This is why it is hard to believe that even Trump will turn his back onto such bonanza by making peace with Russia and/or China. Forget about deal making with Putin.

    Are you joking?

    There is no Russian military aggression.

    Who invaded Iraq on false pretexts, who toppled the Libyan and Egyptian governments? Who started and funded the civil war in Syria?

    Why the U.S.

    Essentially all the immigration and terrorists woes can be laid at the feet of the American political class.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    I missed to put inverted commas around "Russian and Chinese aggression" and the reaction was immediate. Do not you guys understand that this phrase is the key to shaking down the vassals of the AngloZionist empire for trillions. Reality matters zero, or perception is reality. To create the perception of the Russian and Chinese aggression the Western media pattern is amazingly simple: AngloZionist empire behaves aggressively, Russia reacts defensively, this is interpreted as aggression by the Propaganda Complex, whilst skipping or claiming the noblest of intentions for the Western aggression. Therefore, the Russian defensive actions are constantly interpreted by the Western Propaganda Complex as aggression and fed as such to the domestic cattle.

    Take just the example of Crimea. Russia was happy to pay the corrupt and unstable Ukrainian government billions for this tradionally Russian naval base. Then under the threat that the new post-US coup government would kick the Russian fleet out they organised a referendum and peacefully took over this Russian base given to Ukraine by the Soviet Communists. The return of the Crimean naval base to Russia is regularly called the Russian aggression and annexation in all Western MSM.

    Now imagine that Mexico, with Russian help, claimed the US naval base in San Diego. Would the AngloZionist propagadistic media give any credence to such claim? Virtually all of California, New Mexico and Texas were stolen from Mexico. Therefore, the US aggression and annexation of San Diego was fine, the same as Communists giving away something which did not belong to them. It appears that the communists are good guys when they do such unlawful things.

    The propaganda drumbeat needs phrases such as "Russian and Chines aggression", sorry for missing to put the inverted commas. But just keep in mind the goal of this propaganda - to shake down the "allies".

  32. @Anatoly Karlin

    When the backwards USSR defeated the technologically superior Germans through sheer willpower?
     
    The German technological advantage is often overstated, and in some spheres actually nonexistent (e.g. tanks). In fact if anyone had a willpower advantage specifically in 1941 it was the Germans considering the rates at which Soviet soldiers were surrendering in the first few months.

    Or when the Sri Lankan government, imbued with a real navy and real air force and a real army, had a 26 year war against the Tamil Tigers who were naked peasants with willpower as their only strength?
     
    Insurgencies follow very different rules from conventional warfare. It is regrettable that The Saker mixes them up so cavalierly.

    I mean shit Argentina and the UK fought over the Falklands islands on the same technological level (all Western equipment too on both sides) and the UK won because of competent willpower.
     

    competent willpower.
     

    competent
     

    I know you’re a numbers guy. You proved that in an earlier piece where you tried to work up a scheme to rate the world’s militaries.

    However, you are wrong to dismiss the power of will and commitment. All other factors being equal, the most committed, the most determined opponent is likely to prevail. I suspect you don’t care for that because it isn’t quantifiable, but there it is. If you want a number, then apply Napoleon’s dictum: “The moral is to the physical as three is to one.” I think Napoleon was more of an expert on war and men than you are, so I’ll go with him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I don't dismiss it. I just don't unduly worship one of them, like The Saker, whose statement on this is far more absolute than mine:

    That is a fantastically false statement and yet this myth is sacred dogma amongst civilians, especially in the USA.
     
    This is really old, banal rhetoric. In practice, "The bullet is a fool but the bayonet is a fine lad" (pre Crimean War Russia), "the cult of the offensive" (pre-WW1 France), and "martial races" (Pakistan before India repeatedly trounced them) style rhetoric has more often not been used to mask laziness, real weakness, and criminal incompetence.

    All of which were laid bare when real wars came along.
  33. One of the reasons why the cold war never turned into a hot one is because deep down inside the Americans always knew and still know that they are not good enough to fight the Russians. The rest is all a smokescreen. If they really are the greatest military power in the history of the universe – as they claim – why do they need an alliance of 28 against one? Where I come from 2 against one is cowardly, 28 against one is beyond the pale. Give me a break.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    One of the reasons why the cold war never turned into a hot one is because deep down inside the Americans always knew and still know that they are not good enough to fight the Russians. The rest is all a smokescreen
     
    LOL, who was it that "allegedly" backed down in Havana?
  34. @Regnum Nostrum

    Day after day we hear the Russians complaining that NATO has moved to their borders, that thousands of US troops are now deployed in the Baltics or Poland, that the US has deployed anti-ballistic missiles in Romania and that USN ships are constantly hugging the Russian coast in the Black and Baltic Sea. And it’s all true and very deplorable. But where the Russians are being a tad disingenuous is when they try to present all this as a military threat to Russia.
     
    It might be because the Russians are unaware of the military genius Saker and have no idea that all those troops, hardware, anti ballistic missiles systems, military bases and US ships are no threat at all. Somebody should tell them and put their worries to rest.

    Only idiots believe that having vastly bigger, better equipped, and more technologically advanced forces are some kind of “advantage”. Pfffft. Just hide your shit from the drones, dude. Take that, AngloZionists!

    The facts are out there, if these idiotic journalists would bother looking at http://www.IKnowHowToWinWarsAndYouDont.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Regnum Nostrum

    Only idiots believe that having vastly bigger, better equipped, and more technologically advanced forces are some kind of “advantage”.
     
    Only idiots believe that it is not.
  35. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “All the others, including the USA and the UK, shared the puny 20% or less and joined the war when Hitler was already clearly defeated.”

    Erm, no, Britain declared war on Germany in 1939 and fought to the end of the war. Are you saying Hitler was defeated in 1939? Britain was always in the war, don’t you dare take a pi$$ on us. The UK and the Commonwealth troops were jointly responsible FOR the defeat of the Germans. I take it you forgot about the Battle Of Britain, which stopped Hitler in his tracks and later on the line enabled Britain to stage the D-Day Invasion?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    The English Channel stopped Hitler in his tracks. He never wanted a war with the U.K. anyways. It should be remembered that the USSR had inflicted 4,500,000 German casualties by the time of D-Day. Just a few weeks later in Operation Bagration they would destroy the whole of Army Group Center. At Stalingrad they destroyed an army. This was an army GROUP.
    , @Grey
    True, but there were a lot of Polish and American pilots that fought in the Battle of Britain, it wasn't just British pilots. Don't forget, Hitler allowed your army to escape at Dunkirk. If he would have allowed his generals to wipe you guys out that would have been the end right there. The Russians are definitely no one to screw with but without the United States funding and supplies and without the U.S. and Great Britain creating multiple fronts the Russians would have lost.

    What sunk the German army was bad leadership at the top. Hitler was a brilliant politician but had no business playing a Field Marshall.
  36. @SmoothieX12
    http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/The%20Radar%20Range%20Equation.en.html

    Look at the basic radar equation and see for yourself how power in pulse and RCS are related or, rather, multiply each-other. There is no such thing, other than in fanboy imaginations of journos, as "invisible" aircraft. All of them, without any exception are visible in radio diapason, "stealth" or no "stealth"--a BS term invented by PR managers in lieu of the description of decades long struggle of military technology in reducing own physical field, which range from optical through acoustic and radio diapason. Power and signal processing define everything in radar, with photonics coming on line very soon it wouldn't really matter anyway. Any so called "stealth" aircraft such as B-1 or F-22 or T-50 are absolutely no problem for modern AD complexes.

    All this, assuming you have the physical assets in the air to chase down, identify and discriminate between the seagulls and F-22. Turn up the juice to gather return on the Raptor, you also bring into your screens “targets” that don’t appear at lower power. Raptors diffuse the heat they produce better than a standard fighter. Raptors are lovely, there aren’t enough of them. They should have bought many Raptors and bailed on the F35 at prototype.

    We don’t need manned new carrier aircraft these days anyway, nor carriers because crewed with so many single mothers, 8 of 11 or 12 carriers and their air wings must reside pier side, providing a job, but never deploying because after all, the children. What to do with the children?

    Fundamental transformation..

    Read More
  37. Anonymous says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    Nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles do NOT exist:

    www.big-lies.org

    Running through this entire article is an unrecognised attitude which always amuses me. When someone talks about the COST of some real or supposed weapon, the same someone usually fails to understand that when money is being made, the people making the money may be entirely happy with the system. The paper money system of the ‘west’ is Jewish-run, and Jews love wars because factories they own can supply weapons etc to both sides. And they do. All of course under the cover of ‘governments’ themselves run by jews.

    nukelies.org is a link to a forum on the question of non-existence of nukes. Like the holohoax, the nuclear fraud is long-established and lucrative. But it’s also starting to shake.

    NB search for the Youtube ‘Lords of the Nukes’ for a long, detailed (news items, books, film clips of tests, ‘Cold War’, Cuba, ‘H bombs’, ‘atom spies’ etc etc. It should change your entire worldview.

    Read More
  38. @Carl
    Only idiots believe that having vastly bigger, better equipped, and more technologically advanced forces are some kind of "advantage". Pfffft. Just hide your shit from the drones, dude. Take that, AngloZionists!

    The facts are out there, if these idiotic journalists would bother looking at www.IKnowHowToWinWarsAndYouDont.com

    Only idiots believe that having vastly bigger, better equipped, and more technologically advanced forces are some kind of “advantage”.

    Only idiots believe that it is not.

    Read More
    • Agree: SmoothieX12
    • Replies: @Wally
    And just one cheap Chinese sunburn missile could destroy the new multi-billion dollar Zumwalt destroyer.
    But hey, it looks cool.
    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/151208103928-01-uss-zumwalt-exlarge-169.jpg

    Two more Zumwalt-class ships, the future Michael Monsoor and Lyndon B. Johnson, are under construction in Maine. Cost of the three ships is expected to total about $22.5 billion.
     
    And at the recent tank competition the forward deployed US tanks did not even place.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-tank-competition-2016-5

    The US platoons did not place in the contest, which was the first of its kind since 1991.
     
    , @Carl
    I clearly didn't make my sarcasm obvious enough!
  39. My take on moral vs. technology:

    Comparable technology means that having more willingness to kill and die relative to the adversary is a premium.

    In cases of comparably willingness to kill and die, superior technology and especially organisation is a premium.

    Throughout a conflict, who is more willing to kill and die will shift frequently between various sides (f.e. Maidan won in the beginning because it was far more OK with killing then the opposition to it. Once they literally purged moderate non Maidan elements, they lost “willingness to kill” as a unique selling point because the remainging opposition became as radical as Maidan was). Technology and its application can shift as well.

    In addition, a small, smart and focused actor will often marshal its own assets far more effectively then a larger beurocracy. Smaller and superficially weaker actors will often have much stronger motivations, and far more pre war planning, then more complacent larger entities. See Hezbollah vs. IDF.

    Concerning Donbass, the rebels have a very good cause (there is very very scant historical precedent for sub polity in the position of Donbass agreeing to its own perpetual subjugation without war. Closest is perhaps the Japanese colonization of Korea. The Japanese did fight for Korea, but against the Russians and Chinese, not against the Koreans), great power support, the fact that the majority of them have seen military service.

    Kiev meanwhile has effectively two disloyal militaries. The regular Ukrainian military still cannot be relied on to shot when ordered, and the irregulars cannot be relied on to stop shooting when told to do so. Kievs most “capable” Oligarch have, since Donbass has been burned thoroughly, set their eyes on juicier targets for personal enrichment, the democracy promoters are fully cocooned in their own propaganda and even the outright fascists are not too interested in “comitting suicide by seperatist for the greater good of Poroshenko”.

    Another thing Kiev has to juggle is this: One one hand, they would need peace and ideally victory in order to consolidate, on the other hand, in peacefull conditions, they would no longer be capable of “raiding and looting for Ukraines western choice” (TM), so the Kolomoiskys and Poroshenkos have to find the point were they raided everything worth raiding, but still have enough of a state to make peace with.

    Read More
  40. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Since Russia has no interest in capturing the Baltic states or Poland then that makes it safe for NATO-US to make a big deal about it’s commitment to them. It’ll never have to prove it and thus provides a stage for their sound machine; it’s show business at this point.
    During the cold war NATO-US had thousands of nuclear weapons stationed on the continent. Apparently the Americans were willing to fight the Russians to the last European. Can you imagine the devastation were those things to have gone off on the continent of Europe? The supposed NATO allies of the Americans would possibly have been decimated; that’s a great way to ‘defend’ someone. It seems that every war has had it’s surprises, assumptions shown to be wrong and people left to improvise. Know-it-alls in positions of power are a great danger to everyone.

    Read More
  41. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Saker, I know you like to use the term Anglo-Zionist, but I suggest Anglo-Zio-Homo Imperialism.

    Anglo-Zionists have recruited homo-globalists as their main imperialist allies.

    Wherever the tentacles of Anglo-Zionism spreads, homo victory marchers follow.

    In Old Imperialism, whenever Anglo-Brits conquered new land, they hoisted the British Flag.
    In Palestine that became Israel, Zionists hoisted the Jewish Flag. And in the US that has succumbed to Zionist control, Southern Flag is out and Zionist flag is in. It is everywhere.

    But it wouldn’t do for Anglo-Zionists to hoist British or American flags in all their globalist-imperial conquests. And it would look pretty stupid to hoist Zionist flags in such places also. If people see American Flags hoisted all over, they will see it as American Imperialism. If they see Zionist flags, they’ll see it as Jewish imperialism.
    Also, there will resistance from the Western domestic Left that is prominent in academia and even media. If US conquers new lands and hoists the US victory flag, Western Leftists will cry foul and holler ‘imperialism!’

    So, why not hoist the homo-flag to spread Anglo-Zionist Imperialism?
    In the de-spiritualized West, the new religion is homomania. Western Leftists and Liberals worship the ‘Gay’ Anus. They see trannies as godly. They think homos, especially Jewish ones, are holy and made of angelic skin. Ahhhh, the Socialism of the Skin. I don’t believe Western Leftists worshiped even Karl Marx, Lenin, or Gramsci as much as they do the holy homo. Why not? Because Western Leftists are hedonistic and vain, and they see the holy homo as more fun and flamboyant than Marxism that was actually quite priggish and spartan about lots of stuff.

    Because the Western Left is so much into holy-homomania, their ire can be neutralized if Western Imperialism is wrapped in the homo crusade, aka frusade(fruit crusade). It’s like when the West was Christian, much of the imperialist plunder could be hidden or justified on account of spreading Christianity and God.
    Today, much of the destruction and plunder is covered up by holy homomania.
    Old Imperialism was justified with the help of Christian missionaries.
    New Globo-Imperialism is justified with the help of homo missionfairies.

    In a way, the Globalist Imperialists fear the rage and resistance of domestic Western Left more than anything. Domestic Left is rich, powerful, and well-organized in the way that Third World darkies are not. So, in order for Western Imperialism to be successful, the Western Left must be persuaded that it is NOT imperialism but a holy frusade to spread ‘tolerance’ for homos and ‘love’. ‘War is Homo Love’ is the New Orwellianism. And homos are so vain and narcissistic that they are willing partners in this to spread homo-supremacism all over with the help of Anglo-Zionists.

    So, it must be seen as a case of Anglo-Zio-Homo Imperialism.

    Notice how Hillary Clinton praises the Zionist crushing and killing of Palestinians on the basis that Israel has ‘gay pride’ parades but Muslims/Arabs do not.
    And even Western Leftists, being so worshipful of homos, go along with this.
    In the name of holy homo, any amount of wars and oppression are justified.

    This is why whenever we discuss Anglo-Zionism, we need to associate or ass-ociate it with the homo-globo-agenda. We need to tell the world that homos are among the main collaborator-agents of the Western Neo-Imperialism.

    Anglo-Zio-Homo Imperialists!

    Read More
    • Agree: edNels
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    It must be said that West is no longer about tolerance for homos. I do believe some people are born homosexual, and we should accept this fact. And we should tolerate the fact that some men do fecal penetration and some women have 'sex' by grinding hole with hole.

    But the homo agenda is no longer about Tolerance. It is about Coercion of making all of us praise, celebrate, and worship homos. If you want wealth and status in the West, you must worship the Homo just like North Koreans must worship Kim and just like Cubans must worship Che and Castro. If you say homosexuality is gross or that you despise homo lifestyle(even as you tolerate it), you will be destroyed. You won't be send to gulag or shot in the back of your head, but you will lose your job, the media will denounce you, and you will be made a non-person. Homo agenda isn't about freedom for homos to express their views. It is about silencing those who find homosexuality to be gross or those who oppose stuff like 'gay marriage' that would associate the bio-moral foundations of true marriage with sexual deviancy.

    And even Conservatism Inc is fully on the side of homomania. But worse, homomania is now the ally of Globalist Imperialism. And this doesn't bother people at stuff like National Review one bit.
    , @SolontoCroesus
    brilliant
  42. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Priss Factor
    Saker, I know you like to use the term Anglo-Zionist, but I suggest Anglo-Zio-Homo Imperialism.

    Anglo-Zionists have recruited homo-globalists as their main imperialist allies.

    Wherever the tentacles of Anglo-Zionism spreads, homo victory marchers follow.

    In Old Imperialism, whenever Anglo-Brits conquered new land, they hoisted the British Flag.
    In Palestine that became Israel, Zionists hoisted the Jewish Flag. And in the US that has succumbed to Zionist control, Southern Flag is out and Zionist flag is in. It is everywhere.

    But it wouldn't do for Anglo-Zionists to hoist British or American flags in all their globalist-imperial conquests. And it would look pretty stupid to hoist Zionist flags in such places also. If people see American Flags hoisted all over, they will see it as American Imperialism. If they see Zionist flags, they'll see it as Jewish imperialism.
    Also, there will resistance from the Western domestic Left that is prominent in academia and even media. If US conquers new lands and hoists the US victory flag, Western Leftists will cry foul and holler 'imperialism!'

    So, why not hoist the homo-flag to spread Anglo-Zionist Imperialism?
    In the de-spiritualized West, the new religion is homomania. Western Leftists and Liberals worship the 'Gay' Anus. They see trannies as godly. They think homos, especially Jewish ones, are holy and made of angelic skin. Ahhhh, the Socialism of the Skin. I don't believe Western Leftists worshiped even Karl Marx, Lenin, or Gramsci as much as they do the holy homo. Why not? Because Western Leftists are hedonistic and vain, and they see the holy homo as more fun and flamboyant than Marxism that was actually quite priggish and spartan about lots of stuff.

    Because the Western Left is so much into holy-homomania, their ire can be neutralized if Western Imperialism is wrapped in the homo crusade, aka frusade(fruit crusade). It's like when the West was Christian, much of the imperialist plunder could be hidden or justified on account of spreading Christianity and God.
    Today, much of the destruction and plunder is covered up by holy homomania.
    Old Imperialism was justified with the help of Christian missionaries.
    New Globo-Imperialism is justified with the help of homo missionfairies.

    In a way, the Globalist Imperialists fear the rage and resistance of domestic Western Left more than anything. Domestic Left is rich, powerful, and well-organized in the way that Third World darkies are not. So, in order for Western Imperialism to be successful, the Western Left must be persuaded that it is NOT imperialism but a holy frusade to spread 'tolerance' for homos and 'love'. 'War is Homo Love' is the New Orwellianism. And homos are so vain and narcissistic that they are willing partners in this to spread homo-supremacism all over with the help of Anglo-Zionists.

    So, it must be seen as a case of Anglo-Zio-Homo Imperialism.

    Notice how Hillary Clinton praises the Zionist crushing and killing of Palestinians on the basis that Israel has 'gay pride' parades but Muslims/Arabs do not.
    And even Western Leftists, being so worshipful of homos, go along with this.
    In the name of holy homo, any amount of wars and oppression are justified.

    This is why whenever we discuss Anglo-Zionism, we need to associate or ass-ociate it with the homo-globo-agenda. We need to tell the world that homos are among the main collaborator-agents of the Western Neo-Imperialism.

    Anglo-Zio-Homo Imperialists!

    It must be said that West is no longer about tolerance for homos. I do believe some people are born homosexual, and we should accept this fact. And we should tolerate the fact that some men do fecal penetration and some women have ‘sex’ by grinding hole with hole.

    But the homo agenda is no longer about Tolerance. It is about Coercion of making all of us praise, celebrate, and worship homos. If you want wealth and status in the West, you must worship the Homo just like North Koreans must worship Kim and just like Cubans must worship Che and Castro. If you say homosexuality is gross or that you despise homo lifestyle(even as you tolerate it), you will be destroyed. You won’t be send to gulag or shot in the back of your head, but you will lose your job, the media will denounce you, and you will be made a non-person. Homo agenda isn’t about freedom for homos to express their views. It is about silencing those who find homosexuality to be gross or those who oppose stuff like ‘gay marriage’ that would associate the bio-moral foundations of true marriage with sexual deviancy.

    And even Conservatism Inc is fully on the side of homomania. But worse, homomania is now the ally of Globalist Imperialism. And this doesn’t bother people at stuff like National Review one bit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    And Western Establishment is fully on the side of homomania. But worse, homomania is now the ally of Globalist Imperialism. And this doesn't bother White Liberals one bit. Indeed, Homomania has restored white supremacism of a specious sort. White Liberals and Progressives don't say "whites are superior to other races", but by waving the Homo Flag, they say, "we white progressives are the MOST EVOLVED of all the peoples."

    Because homomania makes white 'progressives' to be superior to white conservatives, it isn't nakedly 'racist'. After all, non-whites who are homomaniacal are also thought to be 'more evolved' than apelike white conservatives. But given that homomania is most pronounced in the West, the end-result of the homomaniacal worldview is to see the White West as defacto 'more evolved' and superior to the non-West that is either hostile to the homo mania(as black Africa and Muslim world are) or lag behind in fullness of enthsiasm(like East Asia is).
  43. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Priss Factor
    It must be said that West is no longer about tolerance for homos. I do believe some people are born homosexual, and we should accept this fact. And we should tolerate the fact that some men do fecal penetration and some women have 'sex' by grinding hole with hole.

    But the homo agenda is no longer about Tolerance. It is about Coercion of making all of us praise, celebrate, and worship homos. If you want wealth and status in the West, you must worship the Homo just like North Koreans must worship Kim and just like Cubans must worship Che and Castro. If you say homosexuality is gross or that you despise homo lifestyle(even as you tolerate it), you will be destroyed. You won't be send to gulag or shot in the back of your head, but you will lose your job, the media will denounce you, and you will be made a non-person. Homo agenda isn't about freedom for homos to express their views. It is about silencing those who find homosexuality to be gross or those who oppose stuff like 'gay marriage' that would associate the bio-moral foundations of true marriage with sexual deviancy.

    And even Conservatism Inc is fully on the side of homomania. But worse, homomania is now the ally of Globalist Imperialism. And this doesn't bother people at stuff like National Review one bit.

    And Western Establishment is fully on the side of homomania. But worse, homomania is now the ally of Globalist Imperialism. And this doesn’t bother White Liberals one bit. Indeed, Homomania has restored white supremacism of a specious sort. White Liberals and Progressives don’t say “whites are superior to other races”, but by waving the Homo Flag, they say, “we white progressives are the MOST EVOLVED of all the peoples.”

    Because homomania makes white ‘progressives’ to be superior to white conservatives, it isn’t nakedly ‘racist’. After all, non-whites who are homomaniacal are also thought to be ‘more evolved’ than apelike white conservatives. But given that homomania is most pronounced in the West, the end-result of the homomaniacal worldview is to see the White West as defacto ‘more evolved’ and superior to the non-West that is either hostile to the homo mania(as black Africa and Muslim world are) or lag behind in fullness of enthsiasm(like East Asia is).

    Read More
  44. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @RadicalCenter
    Agree with everything you said about the prediction that the USSR could have defeated Germany without help. No way in Hell.

    The Germans definitely could have taken and held at least much of European Russia if the USA had stayed out of the war as we should have.

    Without the USA, the western Europeans would have been annihilated en masse or had to make a deal submitting to Germany. Germany would have been free to move more of its forces to the eastern front, and there would have been more of those forces due to lower casualties on the western front.

    Too late now.

    The UUSR killed or wounded 4,900,000 German soldiers. The west 580,000. Not much of a difference to the Soviets. Given the policies the Nazis employed in the east holding down large areas of land and economically exploiting it appears improbable.

    Read More
  45. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    "All the others, including the USA and the UK, shared the puny 20% or less and joined the war when Hitler was already clearly defeated."

    Erm, no, Britain declared war on Germany in 1939 and fought to the end of the war. Are you saying Hitler was defeated in 1939? Britain was always in the war, don't you dare take a pi$$ on us. The UK and the Commonwealth troops were jointly responsible FOR the defeat of the Germans. I take it you forgot about the Battle Of Britain, which stopped Hitler in his tracks and later on the line enabled Britain to stage the D-Day Invasion?

    The English Channel stopped Hitler in his tracks. He never wanted a war with the U.K. anyways. It should be remembered that the USSR had inflicted 4,500,000 German casualties by the time of D-Day. Just a few weeks later in Operation Bagration they would destroy the whole of Army Group Center. At Stalingrad they destroyed an army. This was an army GROUP.

    Read More
  46. @JackOH
    Excellent article, The Saker.

    "One senior Pentagon officer attached to the Office of Net Assessment was very blunt about that and declared to our classroom “no US President will ever sacrifice Chicago to protect Munich”. In other words, yes, the US would fight the Soviets to protect Europe, but the US will never escalate that fight to the point were the US territory would be threatened by Soviet nukes."

    Former West German Chancellor Schmidt in a published interview years ago said he told then President Carter that he'd surrender West Germany to the Soviet Union rather than see it destroyed in another war. I'll guess Schmidt well knew the U. S. wouldn't "sacrifice Chicago", and perhaps the experience of the nominally victorious but exhausted French and English in WWI and WWII informed his thinking.

    The WWII European Theater was mostly a German-Soviet affair, as you say, but I doubt that 1 in 10,000 Americans knows that.

    Most of the Americans that I’ve spoken to either don’t care or are very ill informed. So many still believe in the illusion of American exceptionalism. The fight in the west during WWII wasn’t anything to snicker at (Battle of the Bulge) but you’re right, the meat and potatoes happened between the Soviets and the Germans. Remember though, the Russians had a huge amount of help from the United States through the Lend-Lease program, not to mention the very foolish decision of Hitler to launch operation Barbarossa, especially without proper intelligence of the real Soviet strength (The Germans were totally shocked that the Russians had so many tanks, and good ones at that!).

    On the other side of the coin, if the Germans hadn’t fought the Soviets then all of Europe would have collapsed under Soviet Power. A strange thing, that if not for the Germans all of Europe would have been lost to communism.

    But we’re acting as if what is going on today stems from American power. It doesn’t. You got it half-right. The Zionists (The same Bolshevik Jews that slaughtered tens of millions of Christian Russians and Ukrainians) have been captain of the ship since before WWI. There is a multitude of historical data that proves this beyond any doubt. America, just like the rest of the western nations, are firmly under the thumb of the International Banking cabal, i.e., Elite Jewry. Why is everyone so afraid of telling it like it is?

    The biggest mistake Europe ever made was to allow Jews the same rights and privileges of true European natives. Every head of state since the turn of the tenth century has had plenty to say about the Jews as a people. And since the 18th century their elite have been slowly pounding us into the dirt, all through the control of money. Sure, there are Anglos, eastern Europeans, Russians, etc. that have partaken of the feast (European royalty, the Black nobility, the Vatican) but the Jewish Elite are at the top of the pyramid.

    They created fractional reserve banking, they created the BIS and the World Bank. They run the central bank of America, own it lock, stick, and barrel. They own the central banks of Europe and any other country western militaries have conquered. It seems like the only nations that are a supposed threat to the United States don’t have a Jewish central bank (Libya, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Russia?).

    Qaddafi was doing a lot of good things for his people, like the great man-made water project (they used to have to buy their water from Europe) and state banks in which there was no usury (no interest). Qaddafi then decided to create a United North African Union, with the gold dinar at the heart of it all. Soon thereafter his nation was bombed into the stone age and he was executed, brutally and without mercy, most likely filmed on a Japanese handicam. Then it was off to Syria to topple the next country that refused to be ruled by the family of eight.

    Not only do they control the money, they control the airwaves, the mainstream media, hence all of the gross lies about the savage Palestinian terrorists and the big, bad Russians. But how did it all come to be? How did such a pitiful people manage to outsmart our best and brightest, not to mention our richest? It can’t be done to greed alone, something deeper and darker keeps their unholy union together.

    It all stems from the mystery religions. Freemasonry was born out of Jewish mysticism (or rather Babylonian mysticism), along with other secretive societies, is the organizational structure the Elite Jews use to force their will on their goyim minions. Oh yeah, they apparently control the extensive power of the Vatican, if you believe it. Personally, it is enough for me to know that they favor the mega-rich, regardless of race or creed. Apparently it’s all being prepared for their false Messiah.

    We shall see, we shall see!

    Read More
  47. @Anonymous
    "All the others, including the USA and the UK, shared the puny 20% or less and joined the war when Hitler was already clearly defeated."

    Erm, no, Britain declared war on Germany in 1939 and fought to the end of the war. Are you saying Hitler was defeated in 1939? Britain was always in the war, don't you dare take a pi$$ on us. The UK and the Commonwealth troops were jointly responsible FOR the defeat of the Germans. I take it you forgot about the Battle Of Britain, which stopped Hitler in his tracks and later on the line enabled Britain to stage the D-Day Invasion?

    True, but there were a lot of Polish and American pilots that fought in the Battle of Britain, it wasn’t just British pilots. Don’t forget, Hitler allowed your army to escape at Dunkirk. If he would have allowed his generals to wipe you guys out that would have been the end right there. The Russians are definitely no one to screw with but without the United States funding and supplies and without the U.S. and Great Britain creating multiple fronts the Russians would have lost.

    What sunk the German army was bad leadership at the top. Hitler was a brilliant politician but had no business playing a Field Marshall.

    Read More
  48. […] Tak właśnie mówią o nas, Polakach *zamiast o polactfie i żydłactwie u ich steru) w artykule http://www.unz.com poniżej. Amerykanie potencjalnie największą siłą w przypadku rewolucji globalnej, bo jak […]

    Read More
  49. @rod1963
    Are you joking?

    There is no Russian military aggression.

    Who invaded Iraq on false pretexts, who toppled the Libyan and Egyptian governments? Who started and funded the civil war in Syria?

    Why the U.S.

    Essentially all the immigration and terrorists woes can be laid at the feet of the American political class.

    I missed to put inverted commas around “Russian and Chinese aggression” and the reaction was immediate. Do not you guys understand that this phrase is the key to shaking down the vassals of the AngloZionist empire for trillions. Reality matters zero, or perception is reality. To create the perception of the Russian and Chinese aggression the Western media pattern is amazingly simple: AngloZionist empire behaves aggressively, Russia reacts defensively, this is interpreted as aggression by the Propaganda Complex, whilst skipping or claiming the noblest of intentions for the Western aggression. Therefore, the Russian defensive actions are constantly interpreted by the Western Propaganda Complex as aggression and fed as such to the domestic cattle.

    Take just the example of Crimea. Russia was happy to pay the corrupt and unstable Ukrainian government billions for this tradionally Russian naval base. Then under the threat that the new post-US coup government would kick the Russian fleet out they organised a referendum and peacefully took over this Russian base given to Ukraine by the Soviet Communists. The return of the Crimean naval base to Russia is regularly called the Russian aggression and annexation in all Western MSM.

    Now imagine that Mexico, with Russian help, claimed the US naval base in San Diego. Would the AngloZionist propagadistic media give any credence to such claim? Virtually all of California, New Mexico and Texas were stolen from Mexico. Therefore, the US aggression and annexation of San Diego was fine, the same as Communists giving away something which did not belong to them. It appears that the communists are good guys when they do such unlawful things.

    The propaganda drumbeat needs phrases such as “Russian and Chines aggression”, sorry for missing to put the inverted commas. But just keep in mind the goal of this propaganda – to shake down the “allies”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    The Mexican-American war that ‘stole’ Mexico was a fight between two imperial, European-derived powers.
    White-ruled Mexico didn’t have any more right to this land than the 'gringos' who created the United States of America.

    Most ‘Mexicans’ (Meso-Americans) are descendants of the Aztecs, Mayans and Zapotecs (among others), who never set a foot north of the Rio Grande. Just ask the Apache and Navajo.

    Mexico was invented by (and is still dominated by) people whose ancestors hail from Western Europe (Spain).
  50. @Begemot
    I know you're a numbers guy. You proved that in an earlier piece where you tried to work up a scheme to rate the world's militaries.

    However, you are wrong to dismiss the power of will and commitment. All other factors being equal, the most committed, the most determined opponent is likely to prevail. I suspect you don't care for that because it isn't quantifiable, but there it is. If you want a number, then apply Napoleon's dictum: "The moral is to the physical as three is to one." I think Napoleon was more of an expert on war and men than you are, so I'll go with him.

    I don’t dismiss it. I just don’t unduly worship one of them, like The Saker, whose statement on this is far more absolute than mine:

    That is a fantastically false statement and yet this myth is sacred dogma amongst civilians, especially in the USA.

    This is really old, banal rhetoric. In practice, “The bullet is a fool but the bayonet is a fine lad” (pre Crimean War Russia), “the cult of the offensive” (pre-WW1 France), and “martial races” (Pakistan before India repeatedly trounced them) style rhetoric has more often not been used to mask laziness, real weakness, and criminal incompetence.

    All of which were laid bare when real wars came along.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Sikhs and Rajputs were always on everyone's list of martial races, Sindhis were never on anyone's.
  51. The scariest thing, in my view, is that we are completely in the dark about what would happen if two countries equipped with first-world weapons were to come to any kind of shooting match. We know less than Jan Bloch when he wrote his perceptive analysis in 1898 that predicted most of the features of World War 1.

    It’s been seventy years since fully-equipped countries went to war. The last closest analogy was the 1973 Arab-Israeli war- 40 years ago. Since then there have been revolutionary changes in whole classes of weapons.

    One key thing we don’t know is what will happen when modern air meets modern radar. No one has tried to enter airspace defended by air defenses built to shoot down ballistic missiles. There may be 100% casualties. And given the dependency of all combined arms on air, what happens when there’s no air any more?

    And artillery: it seems like the latest round of artillery hits just about everything. Nothing moves.

    Tanks seem to be useless- amounting to little more than large targets.

    Even the relatively sparsely equipped rebels in Syria seem to have completely neutralized the advantages that used to be available to the fully mechanized side. With full equipment, the Russian air that restored the balance there would not be possible either.

    Imagine the prospects for the NATO army in Afghanistan were it to be deprived of air support.

    What happens, then, if the battlefield turns out to be a reversion to the individual armed infantryman, alone with his rifle, without support of any kind?

    Bloch’s conclusion was that the only confident prediction he could make about the next war was that the generals and politicians would have utterly no idea about what to do when it happened, and that millions would die as a result.

    That part he got right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    We know less than Jan Bloch when he wrote his perceptive analysis in 1898 that predicted most of the features of World War 1.
     
    I wouldn't go that far.

    There are now many computer military simulations where you can plug in known variables under different scenarios and see what happens.

    Of course getting those variables right is a tricky matter, especially when it comes to more intangible factors such as competence and morale.

    Some pretty good ones are even available to the general public.

    Tanks seem to be useless- amounting to little more than large targets. Even the relatively sparsely equipped rebels in Syria seem to have completely neutralized the advantages that used to be available to the fully mechanized side.
     
    SAA tanks tend to be older generation and more critically, they tend to be extremely incompetent at using them.

    Liveleak is full of combat videos in which lone tanks trundle out into the open in urban areas and don't even get any support when they inevitably get blasted.

    Armored warfare between competent militaries on open terrain will be a completely different ball game.
  52. @Regnum Nostrum

    Only idiots believe that having vastly bigger, better equipped, and more technologically advanced forces are some kind of “advantage”.
     
    Only idiots believe that it is not.

    And just one cheap Chinese sunburn missile could destroy the new multi-billion dollar Zumwalt destroyer.
    But hey, it looks cool.

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/151208103928-01-uss-zumwalt-exlarge-169.jpg

    Two more Zumwalt-class ships, the future Michael Monsoor and Lyndon B. Johnson, are under construction in Maine. Cost of the three ships is expected to total about $22.5 billion.

    And at the recent tank competition the forward deployed US tanks did not even place.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-tank-competition-2016-5

    The US platoons did not place in the contest, which was the first of its kind since 1991.

    Read More
  53. @Kiza
    I missed to put inverted commas around "Russian and Chinese aggression" and the reaction was immediate. Do not you guys understand that this phrase is the key to shaking down the vassals of the AngloZionist empire for trillions. Reality matters zero, or perception is reality. To create the perception of the Russian and Chinese aggression the Western media pattern is amazingly simple: AngloZionist empire behaves aggressively, Russia reacts defensively, this is interpreted as aggression by the Propaganda Complex, whilst skipping or claiming the noblest of intentions for the Western aggression. Therefore, the Russian defensive actions are constantly interpreted by the Western Propaganda Complex as aggression and fed as such to the domestic cattle.

    Take just the example of Crimea. Russia was happy to pay the corrupt and unstable Ukrainian government billions for this tradionally Russian naval base. Then under the threat that the new post-US coup government would kick the Russian fleet out they organised a referendum and peacefully took over this Russian base given to Ukraine by the Soviet Communists. The return of the Crimean naval base to Russia is regularly called the Russian aggression and annexation in all Western MSM.

    Now imagine that Mexico, with Russian help, claimed the US naval base in San Diego. Would the AngloZionist propagadistic media give any credence to such claim? Virtually all of California, New Mexico and Texas were stolen from Mexico. Therefore, the US aggression and annexation of San Diego was fine, the same as Communists giving away something which did not belong to them. It appears that the communists are good guys when they do such unlawful things.

    The propaganda drumbeat needs phrases such as "Russian and Chines aggression", sorry for missing to put the inverted commas. But just keep in mind the goal of this propaganda - to shake down the "allies".

    The Mexican-American war that ‘stole’ Mexico was a fight between two imperial, European-derived powers.
    White-ruled Mexico didn’t have any more right to this land than the ‘gringos’ who created the United States of America.

    Most ‘Mexicans’ (Meso-Americans) are descendants of the Aztecs, Mayans and Zapotecs (among others), who never set a foot north of the Rio Grande. Just ask the Apache and Navajo.

    Mexico was invented by (and is still dominated by) people whose ancestors hail from Western Europe (Spain).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Mexico was invented by (and is still dominated by) people whose ancestors hail from Western Europe (Spain).}

    Exhibit A: ex Mexican President Vincente Fox.
  54. @Max Payne

    #3 is abject nonsense. In almost all cases, technology >> willpower. Armies that wasted their time waxing lyrical about the “spirit of the offensive” instead of doing the hard work of developing new technology and integrating them with doctrine were almost invariably humiliated when war erupted.
     
    I'm sorry what cases are you talking about? When the backwards USSR defeated the technologically superior Germans through sheer willpower?

    Or when the Sri Lankan government, imbued with a real navy and real air force and a real army, had a 26 year war against the Tamil Tigers who were naked peasants with willpower as their only strength?

    Or Donbass?

    Or Hezbollah and Israel?

    I mean shit Argentina and the UK fought over the Falklands islands on the same technological level (all Western equipment too on both sides) and the UK won because of competent willpower.

    I mean shit Argentina and the UK fought over the Falklands islands on the same technological level (all Western equipment too on both sides) and the UK won because of competent willpower.

    The UK beat Argentina because the UK had a far bigger military budget than Argentina and was able to spend sufficiently more to build and sustain an expeditionary force that outweighed even the leveraging effect of fighting in seas on the other side of the world from the UK and not all that far from Argentina. Building experience and maintaining military skills is also part of military expenditure – regular exercises and training with modern equipment doesn’t come cheap.

    Indeed, that point in itself illustrates why Saker’s arguments against US military superiority are flawed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Max Payne
    Last I remember during the Thatcher days the UK military was reeling from massive spending cuts. The HMS Invincible was on the cutting board even though it had just been commissioned, that's how bad the economic situation and the military budget was at the time. Argentina's junta was spending a fair share of money on its own military too...
  55. @Fran Macadam
    Some of the crazies are getting close to having their hands on the actual levers of power, including making war - and are of the mentality of a Masha Gessen, which means readiness to threaten nukes to impose LGBTQI.

    so the same as the north korean fatty?

    Read More
  56. Lots of good points, but often overextended with wishful thinking and misapplication.

    In the long run, military might does depend on economic power and consequently sustainable military spending, with some marginal adjustment for national “military competence” as a perhaps quasi-mystical factor. The Germans lost WW2 (like WW1 previously) because they and the allies they could mobilise were outmatched economically and therefore militarily by the forces their enemies could mobilise.

    And although we should honestly admit that our guesses at what a third world war would look like are almost entirely speculative, the only really plausible guess at the likely result is certainly that the NATO forces are more than capable of destroying any Russian military expeditions, but possibly not capable of sustaining an invasion of Russia. The recent RAND study implicitly admits this, despite its obvious alarmist, budget-stimulating intent, because the best it can come up with is the Russians grabbing the Baltic States and then desperately hoping that NATO would somehow magically fall apart, or seek peace as the British notably didn’t in 1940. It’s hardly an overwhelming armoured thrust to the Rhine seizing economically and politically significant assets (on a global scale), and putting still more under direct threat.

    It’s true that America-uber-alles types routinely overstate US superiority and often ignore the very real issues raised by Saker. But it’s also true that NATO spends ten times as much as Russia on its military and that spending does buy superiority, if not necessarily enough to succeed in a conquest (which is rather moot anyway in the age of the nuclear peace), certainly at any price that would be remotely worth paying for it. And for every argument that says NATO spending is vitiated (by corrupt purchasing, global spread, multiple nations, high wages etc), there is another that vitiates Russian spending (Russian corruption, post Soviet reform and reorganisation costs, the need to guard the largest country in the world against potential threats from both east and west as well as holding down the fractious muslims in the middle, etc).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    A direct, frontal attack on Russia is a straw man, exactly the same as the Russian invasion on any country. The US
    AngloZionist strategy is not even close to direct attack on Russia. The US plan is simply to weaken Russia and then regime change it. And all current vassals are participating, including Putin's favorite country Germany. All talk about military superiority is empty talk. The purpose of the NATO military build up is only to create tension to drain Russia, to slow down its economic development and to enrich the creators of this MIC strategy. Just like Cold War 1.0 agaist the Soviet Union, identical.

    I am not clear why Saker is even discusses the military superiority, this is why I called it the strategic wank.

  57. @Wally
    The Mexican-American war that ‘stole’ Mexico was a fight between two imperial, European-derived powers.
    White-ruled Mexico didn’t have any more right to this land than the 'gringos' who created the United States of America.

    Most ‘Mexicans’ (Meso-Americans) are descendants of the Aztecs, Mayans and Zapotecs (among others), who never set a foot north of the Rio Grande. Just ask the Apache and Navajo.

    Mexico was invented by (and is still dominated by) people whose ancestors hail from Western Europe (Spain).

    {Mexico was invented by (and is still dominated by) people whose ancestors hail from Western Europe (Spain).}

    Exhibit A: ex Mexican President Vincente Fox.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Indeed, just look at the Mexican Congress.

    http://thefreshscent.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/mexican-congress-470x300.jpg

    And we really should copy Mexico's immigration policies. Talk about tough.
  58. @Regnum Nostrum

    Only idiots believe that having vastly bigger, better equipped, and more technologically advanced forces are some kind of “advantage”.
     
    Only idiots believe that it is not.

    I clearly didn’t make my sarcasm obvious enough!

    Read More
  59. @Duglarri
    The scariest thing, in my view, is that we are completely in the dark about what would happen if two countries equipped with first-world weapons were to come to any kind of shooting match. We know less than Jan Bloch when he wrote his perceptive analysis in 1898 that predicted most of the features of World War 1.

    It's been seventy years since fully-equipped countries went to war. The last closest analogy was the 1973 Arab-Israeli war- 40 years ago. Since then there have been revolutionary changes in whole classes of weapons.

    One key thing we don't know is what will happen when modern air meets modern radar. No one has tried to enter airspace defended by air defenses built to shoot down ballistic missiles. There may be 100% casualties. And given the dependency of all combined arms on air, what happens when there's no air any more?

    And artillery: it seems like the latest round of artillery hits just about everything. Nothing moves.

    Tanks seem to be useless- amounting to little more than large targets.

    Even the relatively sparsely equipped rebels in Syria seem to have completely neutralized the advantages that used to be available to the fully mechanized side. With full equipment, the Russian air that restored the balance there would not be possible either.

    Imagine the prospects for the NATO army in Afghanistan were it to be deprived of air support.

    What happens, then, if the battlefield turns out to be a reversion to the individual armed infantryman, alone with his rifle, without support of any kind?

    Bloch's conclusion was that the only confident prediction he could make about the next war was that the generals and politicians would have utterly no idea about what to do when it happened, and that millions would die as a result.

    That part he got right.

    We know less than Jan Bloch when he wrote his perceptive analysis in 1898 that predicted most of the features of World War 1.

    I wouldn’t go that far.

    There are now many computer military simulations where you can plug in known variables under different scenarios and see what happens.

    Of course getting those variables right is a tricky matter, especially when it comes to more intangible factors such as competence and morale.

    Some pretty good ones are even available to the general public.

    Tanks seem to be useless- amounting to little more than large targets. Even the relatively sparsely equipped rebels in Syria seem to have completely neutralized the advantages that used to be available to the fully mechanized side.

    SAA tanks tend to be older generation and more critically, they tend to be extremely incompetent at using them.

    Liveleak is full of combat videos in which lone tanks trundle out into the open in urban areas and don’t even get any support when they inevitably get blasted.

    Armored warfare between competent militaries on open terrain will be a completely different ball game.

    Read More
  60. @Anatoly Karlin
    I don't dismiss it. I just don't unduly worship one of them, like The Saker, whose statement on this is far more absolute than mine:

    That is a fantastically false statement and yet this myth is sacred dogma amongst civilians, especially in the USA.
     
    This is really old, banal rhetoric. In practice, "The bullet is a fool but the bayonet is a fine lad" (pre Crimean War Russia), "the cult of the offensive" (pre-WW1 France), and "martial races" (Pakistan before India repeatedly trounced them) style rhetoric has more often not been used to mask laziness, real weakness, and criminal incompetence.

    All of which were laid bare when real wars came along.

    Sikhs and Rajputs were always on everyone’s list of martial races, Sindhis were never on anyone’s.

    Read More
  61. why is the western corporate media so full of this nonsense? Mainly for two reasons: journalists are mostly “Jack of all trades, master of none” and they much prefer to pass on pre-packaged propaganda then to make the effort to try to understand something.

    The second reason, which comes across as rather hazy and should go first, is of course that the majority of writers know where their bread and butter comes from and toe the official line – even if they stepped over it, they would be edited into oblivion. As with the mentioned placement of generals and admirals, the MSM is now peopled by a sorry crew who babble this incessant drivel, pleasing to their masters – anybody of stature, such as a Seymour Hersh, is long gone.

    Great article, Saker.

    Read More
  62. @Randal
    Lots of good points, but often overextended with wishful thinking and misapplication.

    In the long run, military might does depend on economic power and consequently sustainable military spending, with some marginal adjustment for national "military competence" as a perhaps quasi-mystical factor. The Germans lost WW2 (like WW1 previously) because they and the allies they could mobilise were outmatched economically and therefore militarily by the forces their enemies could mobilise.

    And although we should honestly admit that our guesses at what a third world war would look like are almost entirely speculative, the only really plausible guess at the likely result is certainly that the NATO forces are more than capable of destroying any Russian military expeditions, but possibly not capable of sustaining an invasion of Russia. The recent RAND study implicitly admits this, despite its obvious alarmist, budget-stimulating intent, because the best it can come up with is the Russians grabbing the Baltic States and then desperately hoping that NATO would somehow magically fall apart, or seek peace as the British notably didn't in 1940. It's hardly an overwhelming armoured thrust to the Rhine seizing economically and politically significant assets (on a global scale), and putting still more under direct threat.

    It's true that America-uber-alles types routinely overstate US superiority and often ignore the very real issues raised by Saker. But it's also true that NATO spends ten times as much as Russia on its military and that spending does buy superiority, if not necessarily enough to succeed in a conquest (which is rather moot anyway in the age of the nuclear peace), certainly at any price that would be remotely worth paying for it. And for every argument that says NATO spending is vitiated (by corrupt purchasing, global spread, multiple nations, high wages etc), there is another that vitiates Russian spending (Russian corruption, post Soviet reform and reorganisation costs, the need to guard the largest country in the world against potential threats from both east and west as well as holding down the fractious muslims in the middle, etc).

    A direct, frontal attack on Russia is a straw man, exactly the same as the Russian invasion on any country. The US
    AngloZionist strategy is not even close to direct attack on Russia. The US plan is simply to weaken Russia and then regime change it. And all current vassals are participating, including Putin’s favorite country Germany. All talk about military superiority is empty talk. The purpose of the NATO military build up is only to create tension to drain Russia, to slow down its economic development and to enrich the creators of this MIC strategy. Just like Cold War 1.0 agaist the Soviet Union, identical.

    I am not clear why Saker is even discusses the military superiority, this is why I called it the strategic wank.

    Read More
    • Agree: Regnum Nostrum
    • Replies: @Randal

    The US plan is simply to weaken Russia and then regime change it.
     
    Not going to disagree with this (though I'd probably view it as more of an aspiration and policy guide than a concrete plan). The reason an open attack on Russia is not on the cards, of course, is the Russian nuclear deterrent. Were it not for that, Russia would probably have been getting the "Serbia" treatment by now, imo.

    Bigger costs for sure, but immeasurably greater gains for the US-uber-alles types.

    All talk about military superiority is empty talk.
     
    The reason it's relevant politically is that gross exaggeration of a supposed Russian military threat is commonly used to manufacture political support in the US sphere for budget increases and confrontational deployments, etc. On the other hand, equally gross minimisation of Russia's capabilities is then used as needed to defuse opposition to those policies based upon fear of provoking Russian responses.

    The inconvenient truth for the neocons is that Russia is too weak to constitute any plausible conventional military threat to western/central Europe, still less the US, but probably strong enough to impose unacceptable costs (nukes aside, even) on the countries of the US sphere if attacked, though, as I noted above, probably not in the end unacceptable enough to deter the neocons and their potent ability to manipulate US sphere opinion in favour of confrontation and war. Truth is, of course, as we saw in Iraq, Libya and Syria, at most a marginal inconvenience to them.
    , @Khan Bodin
    And don't you think how stupid you Muricans are, hm? Trying to foment a coup with the adversary which holds the power of your utter annihilation! That's imbecility and irresponsibility at its finest. You know, if you get someone like Zhirinkovsky (and Russians will not tolerate you controlling their socio-political life, mind: no sane and free nation ever would), you end up with the risk of your annihilation. You know, if we in Yugoslavia had nuclear, you would have been annihilated long ago! You think someone will tolerate your shit?! You think you are the masters of the world?! You think you can do what ever you like?! You would see what the price of such delusion, stupidity and arrogance is!
  63. @Randal
    "I mean shit Argentina and the UK fought over the Falklands islands on the same technological level (all Western equipment too on both sides) and the UK won because of competent willpower."

    The UK beat Argentina because the UK had a far bigger military budget than Argentina and was able to spend sufficiently more to build and sustain an expeditionary force that outweighed even the leveraging effect of fighting in seas on the other side of the world from the UK and not all that far from Argentina. Building experience and maintaining military skills is also part of military expenditure - regular exercises and training with modern equipment doesn't come cheap.

    Indeed, that point in itself illustrates why Saker's arguments against US military superiority are flawed.

    Last I remember during the Thatcher days the UK military was reeling from massive spending cuts. The HMS Invincible was on the cutting board even though it had just been commissioned, that’s how bad the economic situation and the military budget was at the time. Argentina’s junta was spending a fair share of money on its own military too…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    that’s how bad the economic situation and the military budget was at the time. Argentina’s junta was spending a fair share of money on its own military too…
     
    I don't have easy access to the exact Argentine spending figures for the period in question, but I understand it was "above 5%" of gdp at its peak in 1982, which overstates the situation rather as there was a military spending spree by the military government in the 5 years or so leading up to 1982. Short term spending sprees rarely result in value for money as far as military effectiveness is concerned. The UK's percentage, iirc, was still around 4-5% of gdp then, but was in a long term decline from far higher levels in the past, which represented long term investments in military expertise and platforms (much of which we've sadly lost now and not replaced, by the way, but that's another issue). The Argentine gdp at the time was $84b according to Nationmaster.com, whereas the UK's using the same dollar measure was $490b.

    So you could say that the UK spent around four or five times as much as Argentina in 1982, even when the latter was in the midst of a recent military government spending spree and the UK was decades into a long period of dramatically reducing spending (but still with the benefits of much of that investment - military power lags economic capacity and investment by decades, generally). Opinions might differ as to which country probably spent its money more wisely, but for every argument against the effectiveness and applicability of British military spending to that particular conflict, you could probably come up with an equivalent reason why a corrupt military junta engaged in a long internal political repression might not be particularly good at building a proper warfighting machine.

    The war was fought in circumstances which in some ways dramatically leveraged Argentina's relatively limited military power compared to the UK (thousands of miles from UK bases, and requiring an opposed naval landing), but on the other hand it also prevented Argentina from using the kinds of advantages it would have had in a wider war on the mainland (large land forces and space to hide and operate in) and forced it to use recently acquired advanced equipment with limited numbers and availability and not always deployed and operated effectively. Had Argentina had a similar military spending budget to the UK, however, it would most likely have fielded forces that would have rendered the Falklands a complete no go area for UK forces.
  64. @Anatoly Karlin

    When the backwards USSR defeated the technologically superior Germans through sheer willpower?
     
    The German technological advantage is often overstated, and in some spheres actually nonexistent (e.g. tanks). In fact if anyone had a willpower advantage specifically in 1941 it was the Germans considering the rates at which Soviet soldiers were surrendering in the first few months.

    Or when the Sri Lankan government, imbued with a real navy and real air force and a real army, had a 26 year war against the Tamil Tigers who were naked peasants with willpower as their only strength?
     
    Insurgencies follow very different rules from conventional warfare. It is regrettable that The Saker mixes them up so cavalierly.

    I mean shit Argentina and the UK fought over the Falklands islands on the same technological level (all Western equipment too on both sides) and the UK won because of competent willpower.
     

    competent willpower.
     

    competent
     

    Of course we’re talking about competent willpower, not men on horseback charging tanks like its cool.

    What’s the point of discussing the latter?

    Read More
  65. @SmoothieX12

    When the backwards USSR defeated the technologically superior Germans through sheer willpower?
     

    I mean shit Argentina and the UK fought over the Falklands islands on the same technological level (all Western equipment too on both sides) and the UK won because of competent willpower.
     
    Especially sinking of Heneral Belgrano by HMS Conqueror, which was advanced SSN, or the fight between Luftwaffes FW-190s and Soviet La-5s, which Lavochkin planes won, among many other examples, kinda put your argumentation under question.

    Okay, so the UK used a multi-million dollar nuclear powered submarine to sink an old (1899) Argentinian vessel. Cool story bro. The HMS Sheffield was sunk by an Exocet missile fired by the Argentinian air force.

    So your story is some top of the line sub sinking some fossil, and my story is of two modern pieces of hardware pitted against each other. Same war.

    Why not talk about the headache the Argentinian air force gave the British task force with their French produced Exocet anti-ship missiles (using French made Super Etendards and US A-4 Skyhawks)? Launching multiple civilian airplanes in feint attacks from air strips inside the country to confuse British radars?

    Here’s a list of causalities for you ladies because using Wikipedia is hard these days (apparently):

    [MORE]

    UK:
    255 killed[nb 1]
    775 wounded
    115 PoWs[nb 2]
    2 destroyers
    2 frigates
    1 LSL ship
    1 LCU craft
    1 container ship
    24 helicopters
    10 fighters
    1 bomber (interned in Brazil)

    Argentina:
    649 killed[nb 3]
    1,657 wounded[5]
    11,313 PoWs
    1 cruiser
    1 submarine
    4 cargo vessels
    2 patrol boats
    1 spy trawler
    25 helicopters
    35 fighters
    2 bombers
    4 cargo aircraft
    25 COIN aircraft
    9 armed trainers

    It wasn’t a cake-walk for the British. It was hard won.

    On a side note, the Falklands war was also a great example of limiting escalation. Both the UK and Argentina never actually declared war on one another. The UK never committed any serious action towards Argentina proper. And Argentina didn’t mobilize it’s entire armed forces away from the North and focused it on the South (if I recall conscripts were defending Port Stanly).

    Read More
    • Replies: @SmoothieX12

    It wasn’t a cake-walk for the British. It was hard won.
     
    Nobody argues with that, in fact, I support your statement fully. RN and marines got bloodied pretty badly. But, in the end, it was superior organization, skills and technology which carried the day. Albeit, one can make a case of behind the scene massive pressure, including implied use of nukes, on Argentina. Evidently both of us meant two different things when generating this exchange--could be me misreading your initial post.
  66. . . . and don’t mention the ridiculous costs and lack of capabilities of the F-35!

    As for a combination of surprise attacks and irony, the Imperial Japanese Navy ripped up the Russian Imperial fleet in short order in the Russo-Japanese war through a surprise attack; Admiral Togo was rather brilliant, as was the reluctant Admiral Yamamoto in the attack on Pearl Harbour, but of course, Pres. Wheelchair had made sure that most of the chief targets were elsewhere, since he wanted the attack to proceed.

    In WWI, not ten years later than the Russo-Japanese war, Japanese forces were putative allies of the Russian Empire, not that much happened from them except seizing a few German-held islands.

    However, there is irony in it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Must add, solidifying the foothold in Manchuria, too, it had nothing to do with WWI, but was the earliest seed of the great East Asian war, the great Patriotic War, the Pacific war, WWII, the last is a purely Anglo-American term, imposed on the losers other than Japan (the term is used here, but it is more common to divide it into the great East Asian war and the Pacific war).

    What are referred to as WWI and WWII, to imagine that there is no gap is a category error.

    Japan never stopped attacks on Manchuria, then playing with warlords in China, 'allied forces', including from Japan, Czech, Britain, other places. most remained in place until 1922 or 3, tried to oppose the Bolshevik coup d'etat.

    The hero of certain idiots, Bronstein, dragged the Red Army to Poland, where they were defeated. Poor supply lines.

    In Germany, Hungary, other places less so, there was a state of civil war, with Bronstein and Ulyanov's dupes (mainly co-ethnics of Bronstein) briefly in power in some places.

    Low-level civil wars from there until the thirties. Over sooner in Italy.

    Meanwhile, Japan kept pushing and provoking in China, most western people do not understand the underlying idea. The Mongol were non-Han, but they had an empire that lasted for a couple of centuries, the Manchu were non-Han, but they also had the state for hundreds of years, we are also non-Han, and have some linguistic relation to Mongols and Manchus, so now it is our turn! was the thinking.

    I could trace the continuum further, but there is no gap between WWI and so-called WWII. Later, Italy and Libya, Ethiopia, etc.

    In the east, it was unbroken.

    Anyway, the Saker, always appreciate your articles.
  67. Interesting as always.

    I mostly agree, but when you suggest that technology doesn’t matter, well it doesn’t, unless it does.

    During the prolonged Iran-Iraq war, a tiny handful of high-tech Iranian F14 fighters almost completely neutralized Saddam Hussein’s entire air force. Now, I’m not saying that the F22 would do the same against Russia – maybe all their new radars and infrared tracking things really will cancel the F22′s stealth – but you never know (and surely, will hopefully never know).

    Remember how the Parthians retreating and shooting arrows gave the Roman legions such fits?

    Of course the big problem with our current leadership is that they are insane. A war with Russia would not probably involve head-to-head clashes. The way that our military takes out modern states is mostly to precision bomb all the power plants and water plants and bridges etc. The problem here is that, unlike Serbia, Russia can respond in kind. Imagine what would happen to western europe if 90% of its really big electrical generating stations were taken out (even the nuclear plants could be taken out without producing fallout, if you could reliably target the transformers). That would be it for europe.

    Read More
  68. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @JackOH
    Excellent article, The Saker.

    "One senior Pentagon officer attached to the Office of Net Assessment was very blunt about that and declared to our classroom “no US President will ever sacrifice Chicago to protect Munich”. In other words, yes, the US would fight the Soviets to protect Europe, but the US will never escalate that fight to the point were the US territory would be threatened by Soviet nukes."

    Former West German Chancellor Schmidt in a published interview years ago said he told then President Carter that he'd surrender West Germany to the Soviet Union rather than see it destroyed in another war. I'll guess Schmidt well knew the U. S. wouldn't "sacrifice Chicago", and perhaps the experience of the nominally victorious but exhausted French and English in WWI and WWII informed his thinking.

    The WWII European Theater was mostly a German-Soviet affair, as you say, but I doubt that 1 in 10,000 Americans knows that.

    You assume that US presidents are authors of their own destinies! Not so since Reagan. In recent times, it got even worse. US presidents are increasingly acting like glorified figureheads taking orders from behind the scene real masters.

    Read More
  69. @Max Payne
    Okay, so the UK used a multi-million dollar nuclear powered submarine to sink an old (1899) Argentinian vessel. Cool story bro. The HMS Sheffield was sunk by an Exocet missile fired by the Argentinian air force.

    So your story is some top of the line sub sinking some fossil, and my story is of two modern pieces of hardware pitted against each other. Same war.

    Why not talk about the headache the Argentinian air force gave the British task force with their French produced Exocet anti-ship missiles (using French made Super Etendards and US A-4 Skyhawks)? Launching multiple civilian airplanes in feint attacks from air strips inside the country to confuse British radars?


    Here's a list of causalities for you ladies because using Wikipedia is hard these days (apparently):


    UK:
    255 killed[nb 1]
    775 wounded
    115 PoWs[nb 2]
    2 destroyers
    2 frigates
    1 LSL ship
    1 LCU craft
    1 container ship
    24 helicopters
    10 fighters
    1 bomber (interned in Brazil)


    Argentina:
    649 killed[nb 3]
    1,657 wounded[5]
    11,313 PoWs
    1 cruiser
    1 submarine
    4 cargo vessels
    2 patrol boats
    1 spy trawler
    25 helicopters
    35 fighters
    2 bombers
    4 cargo aircraft
    25 COIN aircraft
    9 armed trainers


    It wasn't a cake-walk for the British. It was hard won.

    On a side note, the Falklands war was also a great example of limiting escalation. Both the UK and Argentina never actually declared war on one another. The UK never committed any serious action towards Argentina proper. And Argentina didn't mobilize it's entire armed forces away from the North and focused it on the South (if I recall conscripts were defending Port Stanly).

    It wasn’t a cake-walk for the British. It was hard won.

    Nobody argues with that, in fact, I support your statement fully. RN and marines got bloodied pretty badly. But, in the end, it was superior organization, skills and technology which carried the day. Albeit, one can make a case of behind the scene massive pressure, including implied use of nukes, on Argentina. Evidently both of us meant two different things when generating this exchange–could be me misreading your initial post.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    But, in the end, it was superior organization, skills and technology which carried the day.
     
    ...resulting mostly from massively superior military budgets over decades (centuries in fact).
  70. @Che Guava
    . . . and don't mention the ridiculous costs and lack of capabilities of the F-35!

    As for a combination of surprise attacks and irony, the Imperial Japanese Navy ripped up the Russian Imperial fleet in short order in the Russo-Japanese war through a surprise attack; Admiral Togo was rather brilliant, as was the reluctant Admiral Yamamoto in the attack on Pearl Harbour, but of course, Pres. Wheelchair had made sure that most of the chief targets were elsewhere, since he wanted the attack to proceed.

    In WWI, not ten years later than the Russo-Japanese war, Japanese forces were putative allies of the Russian Empire, not that much happened from them except seizing a few German-held islands.

    However, there is irony in it.

    Must add, solidifying the foothold in Manchuria, too, it had nothing to do with WWI, but was the earliest seed of the great East Asian war, the great Patriotic War, the Pacific war, WWII, the last is a purely Anglo-American term, imposed on the losers other than Japan (the term is used here, but it is more common to divide it into the great East Asian war and the Pacific war).

    What are referred to as WWI and WWII, to imagine that there is no gap is a category error.

    Japan never stopped attacks on Manchuria, then playing with warlords in China, ‘allied forces’, including from Japan, Czech, Britain, other places. most remained in place until 1922 or 3, tried to oppose the Bolshevik coup d’etat.

    The hero of certain idiots, Bronstein, dragged the Red Army to Poland, where they were defeated. Poor supply lines.

    In Germany, Hungary, other places less so, there was a state of civil war, with Bronstein and Ulyanov’s dupes (mainly co-ethnics of Bronstein) briefly in power in some places.

    Low-level civil wars from there until the thirties. Over sooner in Italy.

    Meanwhile, Japan kept pushing and provoking in China, most western people do not understand the underlying idea. The Mongol were non-Han, but they had an empire that lasted for a couple of centuries, the Manchu were non-Han, but they also had the state for hundreds of years, we are also non-Han, and have some linguistic relation to Mongols and Manchus, so now it is our turn! was the thinking.

    I could trace the continuum further, but there is no gap between WWI and so-called WWII. Later, Italy and Libya, Ethiopia, etc.

    In the east, it was unbroken.

    Anyway, the Saker, always appreciate your articles.

    Read More
  71. @Max Payne
    Last I remember during the Thatcher days the UK military was reeling from massive spending cuts. The HMS Invincible was on the cutting board even though it had just been commissioned, that's how bad the economic situation and the military budget was at the time. Argentina's junta was spending a fair share of money on its own military too...

    that’s how bad the economic situation and the military budget was at the time. Argentina’s junta was spending a fair share of money on its own military too…

    I don’t have easy access to the exact Argentine spending figures for the period in question, but I understand it was “above 5%” of gdp at its peak in 1982, which overstates the situation rather as there was a military spending spree by the military government in the 5 years or so leading up to 1982. Short term spending sprees rarely result in value for money as far as military effectiveness is concerned. The UK’s percentage, iirc, was still around 4-5% of gdp then, but was in a long term decline from far higher levels in the past, which represented long term investments in military expertise and platforms (much of which we’ve sadly lost now and not replaced, by the way, but that’s another issue). The Argentine gdp at the time was $84b according to Nationmaster.com, whereas the UK’s using the same dollar measure was $490b.

    So you could say that the UK spent around four or five times as much as Argentina in 1982, even when the latter was in the midst of a recent military government spending spree and the UK was decades into a long period of dramatically reducing spending (but still with the benefits of much of that investment – military power lags economic capacity and investment by decades, generally). Opinions might differ as to which country probably spent its money more wisely, but for every argument against the effectiveness and applicability of British military spending to that particular conflict, you could probably come up with an equivalent reason why a corrupt military junta engaged in a long internal political repression might not be particularly good at building a proper warfighting machine.

    The war was fought in circumstances which in some ways dramatically leveraged Argentina’s relatively limited military power compared to the UK (thousands of miles from UK bases, and requiring an opposed naval landing), but on the other hand it also prevented Argentina from using the kinds of advantages it would have had in a wider war on the mainland (large land forces and space to hide and operate in) and forced it to use recently acquired advanced equipment with limited numbers and availability and not always deployed and operated effectively. Had Argentina had a similar military spending budget to the UK, however, it would most likely have fielded forces that would have rendered the Falklands a complete no go area for UK forces.

    Read More
  72. @SmoothieX12

    It wasn’t a cake-walk for the British. It was hard won.
     
    Nobody argues with that, in fact, I support your statement fully. RN and marines got bloodied pretty badly. But, in the end, it was superior organization, skills and technology which carried the day. Albeit, one can make a case of behind the scene massive pressure, including implied use of nukes, on Argentina. Evidently both of us meant two different things when generating this exchange--could be me misreading your initial post.

    But, in the end, it was superior organization, skills and technology which carried the day.

    …resulting mostly from massively superior military budgets over decades (centuries in fact).

    Read More
  73. Cliche 7 is a joke and the author has no clue of history since he calls the major countries of Europe “fig leaves” to Russia. Has the author forgot that Germany alone almost layed waste to the Soviet Union? Now imagine if all the European states of the Union mobilize and fight the Russians. While Russia has an impressive arsenal, they cannot possibly hope to take out the Europeans in a swift conventional war. Has the author also forgot that several European countries have Nukes to defend themselves with? It’s easy to see that this author has no idea of Europe’s military strength and should conduct more research before you calls them stupid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    "Has the author forgot that Germany alone almost layed waste to the Soviet Union?"

    Almost! How many nations have invaded Russia? How many of those have tried it more than once?

    All failed.

    Have you overlooked the fact that Russia hasn't invaded anywhere since the break up of the USSR whilst the Euros have.

    Europe is a false construct. Would the Euros fight to the death for Europe's wars? I think we already know that the Russians will fight to the death to defend Russia.

    Other commenters here have already raised the notion that perhaps the less painful solution is to identify those crazies who are driving this madness and deal with them instead.
    , @L.K
    You r living in fantasy land, Marx.

    Most modern european militaries are little more than toy militaries.

    To compare the powerful and motivated German military machine of the 1940s with today's EU toy armies is a bad joke.

    Russia, in any case, is not a threat to Europe. ZUSA is.

    I hope - without any confidence - that the peoples of Europe can still wake up, overthrow their traitorous elites, which are US vassals and are destroying Europe, tell the zamericans to fu#k off and recover their sovereignty.
  74. @Kiza
    A direct, frontal attack on Russia is a straw man, exactly the same as the Russian invasion on any country. The US
    AngloZionist strategy is not even close to direct attack on Russia. The US plan is simply to weaken Russia and then regime change it. And all current vassals are participating, including Putin's favorite country Germany. All talk about military superiority is empty talk. The purpose of the NATO military build up is only to create tension to drain Russia, to slow down its economic development and to enrich the creators of this MIC strategy. Just like Cold War 1.0 agaist the Soviet Union, identical.

    I am not clear why Saker is even discusses the military superiority, this is why I called it the strategic wank.

    The US plan is simply to weaken Russia and then regime change it.

    Not going to disagree with this (though I’d probably view it as more of an aspiration and policy guide than a concrete plan). The reason an open attack on Russia is not on the cards, of course, is the Russian nuclear deterrent. Were it not for that, Russia would probably have been getting the “Serbia” treatment by now, imo.

    Bigger costs for sure, but immeasurably greater gains for the US-uber-alles types.

    All talk about military superiority is empty talk.

    The reason it’s relevant politically is that gross exaggeration of a supposed Russian military threat is commonly used to manufacture political support in the US sphere for budget increases and confrontational deployments, etc. On the other hand, equally gross minimisation of Russia’s capabilities is then used as needed to defuse opposition to those policies based upon fear of provoking Russian responses.

    The inconvenient truth for the neocons is that Russia is too weak to constitute any plausible conventional military threat to western/central Europe, still less the US, but probably strong enough to impose unacceptable costs (nukes aside, even) on the countries of the US sphere if attacked, though, as I noted above, probably not in the end unacceptable enough to deter the neocons and their potent ability to manipulate US sphere opinion in favour of confrontation and war. Truth is, of course, as we saw in Iraq, Libya and Syria, at most a marginal inconvenience to them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    It appears that it is now fashionable to talk the strategic talk and military superiority. I have great respect for Pepe Escobar, but in the following article he over-emphasizes the Russian missile shield (S500) superiority: https://www.rt.com/op-edge/344002-beware-russia-war-us/.
    It would be interesting to know how S400 handled those two F22 Raptors that the US sent to Turkey, if they flew at all.

    It is true that Patriot system is closer to S300 and is slowly catching up with the S400. It is also true the hypersonic missiles are very hard, almost impossible to defend against (very hard to catch up). But none of these new systems (S500 and the hyper-sonic submarine based nuclear missiles) have been implemented yet. Also, the S500 and the S600 (on the design board), can shoot down individual ballistic missiles, possible even a hundred of them, but the US first strike would launch a thousand. Yet, what is interesting in this article and very true is that the US "anti-missile shield" in Poland and Romania can easily hide offensive nuclear missiles, or the offensive nuclear missiles could be added at a moments notice when the facility is there. This is why the Russians have to have Iskanders (soon the hypersonic ones) aimed at them.

    Allowing the US to place a defensive/offensive nuclear facility in your country is an unsurpassed pinnacle of stupidity. To my knowledge, when in Warsaw Pact, Romania and Poland hosted Russian tactical nuclear weapons, but never had strategic nuclear missile basis on their soil. Now, these two just painted nuclear cross-hairs on their chests for just a few dollars. There is absolutely no known conflict scenario under which these two countries would end up anything but a radioactive dessert. Stupidity beyond stupidity.

    Ukraine is next. From Hlukiv in Ukraine to Moscow it is only about 370 miles or about 5 minutes by a hyper-sonic missile. Even the US nuclear missile submarines cannot come so close to Moscow. But the issue for the US is - will it be able to maintain Ukraine as one country and at what financial cost (Ukraine is a money black hole), to add it to NATO and then start "protecting it from Iran" with a missile shield.

    Finally, the most important point is that the AngloZionists do not want to win a nuclear war - they want to dictate the nuclear peace based on the strategic advantage of the possibility of a successful first strike.

    , @L.K
    Randal wrote:
    "The reason an open attack on Russia is not on the cards, of course, is the Russian nuclear deterrent. Were it not for that, Russia would probably have been getting the “Serbia” treatment by now, imo."

    Hmm... that is quite a statement but it is NOT supported by any evidence.

    Considering just Russia's conventional forces in its intended role, i.e, the defense of Russia, I think any attempt by the americans to mount a direct attack on the country would be crushed.
    The kind of massive troop build-up necessary for such an attack, which is doubtful the zamericans could even muster, would be detected in its early stages and a pre-emptive russian strike would most likely rout it.

    The trouble with many americans is that they really have come to believe in their own propaganda about how fantastic and invincible their military is; ZUSA's military is strong but overated. Its record is sketchy.
  75. @Randal

    The US plan is simply to weaken Russia and then regime change it.
     
    Not going to disagree with this (though I'd probably view it as more of an aspiration and policy guide than a concrete plan). The reason an open attack on Russia is not on the cards, of course, is the Russian nuclear deterrent. Were it not for that, Russia would probably have been getting the "Serbia" treatment by now, imo.

    Bigger costs for sure, but immeasurably greater gains for the US-uber-alles types.

    All talk about military superiority is empty talk.
     
    The reason it's relevant politically is that gross exaggeration of a supposed Russian military threat is commonly used to manufacture political support in the US sphere for budget increases and confrontational deployments, etc. On the other hand, equally gross minimisation of Russia's capabilities is then used as needed to defuse opposition to those policies based upon fear of provoking Russian responses.

    The inconvenient truth for the neocons is that Russia is too weak to constitute any plausible conventional military threat to western/central Europe, still less the US, but probably strong enough to impose unacceptable costs (nukes aside, even) on the countries of the US sphere if attacked, though, as I noted above, probably not in the end unacceptable enough to deter the neocons and their potent ability to manipulate US sphere opinion in favour of confrontation and war. Truth is, of course, as we saw in Iraq, Libya and Syria, at most a marginal inconvenience to them.

    It appears that it is now fashionable to talk the strategic talk and military superiority. I have great respect for Pepe Escobar, but in the following article he over-emphasizes the Russian missile shield (S500) superiority: https://www.rt.com/op-edge/344002-beware-russia-war-us/.
    It would be interesting to know how S400 handled those two F22 Raptors that the US sent to Turkey, if they flew at all.

    It is true that Patriot system is closer to S300 and is slowly catching up with the S400. It is also true the hypersonic missiles are very hard, almost impossible to defend against (very hard to catch up). But none of these new systems (S500 and the hyper-sonic submarine based nuclear missiles) have been implemented yet. Also, the S500 and the S600 (on the design board), can shoot down individual ballistic missiles, possible even a hundred of them, but the US first strike would launch a thousand. Yet, what is interesting in this article and very true is that the US “anti-missile shield” in Poland and Romania can easily hide offensive nuclear missiles, or the offensive nuclear missiles could be added at a moments notice when the facility is there. This is why the Russians have to have Iskanders (soon the hypersonic ones) aimed at them.

    Allowing the US to place a defensive/offensive nuclear facility in your country is an unsurpassed pinnacle of stupidity. To my knowledge, when in Warsaw Pact, Romania and Poland hosted Russian tactical nuclear weapons, but never had strategic nuclear missile basis on their soil. Now, these two just painted nuclear cross-hairs on their chests for just a few dollars. There is absolutely no known conflict scenario under which these two countries would end up anything but a radioactive dessert. Stupidity beyond stupidity.

    Ukraine is next. From Hlukiv in Ukraine to Moscow it is only about 370 miles or about 5 minutes by a hyper-sonic missile. Even the US nuclear missile submarines cannot come so close to Moscow. But the issue for the US is – will it be able to maintain Ukraine as one country and at what financial cost (Ukraine is a money black hole), to add it to NATO and then start “protecting it from Iran” with a missile shield.

    Finally, the most important point is that the AngloZionists do not want to win a nuclear war – they want to dictate the nuclear peace based on the strategic advantage of the possibility of a successful first strike.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    Well said Kiza:

    Agree that Pepe Escobar is a highly competent and knowledgeable commentator, but his hyperbole about S500 is off the charts.

    What 1,000s of years of warfare has shown is that there are no wonder weapons and there is no infallible defense. S500 is probably the best on paper and in computer simulations, but neither the S300, nor S400, nor S500 have ever been tested in real war.

    US Patriot performed abysmally during the Iraq war against primitive Scuds.
    Israeli improved version of the Patriot, the grandly misnamed "Iron Dome", has also been an abysmal failure against home-made Hamas rockets. Don't remember the guy's name, but an American physicist did a study on Iron Dome performance, and determined that only about 5% or so of the targets were actually hit. (Israeli propaganda claims the exact opposite).

    That does not mean Russia should not continue developing even more advanced missile defenses. But Escobar's contention that the S500 will somehow shield RF from a massive ICBM strike from NATO/US is a dangerous delusion. In an actual global nuke war - God forbid it comes to that - 10s of 1000s of dummy warheads will be mixed in with the real ones: any defense will be overwhelmed. All it takes is for a factions of thermonuclear warheads to get through.

    The Mutually Assured Destruction is as valid today as it was when USSR existed.
    We will all die in a global nuclear war.
    Only cockroaches will survive.

  76. […] Tak właśnie mówią o nas, Polakach *zamiast o polactfie i żydłactwie u ich steru) w artykule http://www.unz.com poniżej. Amerykanie potencjalnie największą siłą w przypadku rewolucji globalnej, bo jak […]

    Read More
  77. @Kiza
    It appears that it is now fashionable to talk the strategic talk and military superiority. I have great respect for Pepe Escobar, but in the following article he over-emphasizes the Russian missile shield (S500) superiority: https://www.rt.com/op-edge/344002-beware-russia-war-us/.
    It would be interesting to know how S400 handled those two F22 Raptors that the US sent to Turkey, if they flew at all.

    It is true that Patriot system is closer to S300 and is slowly catching up with the S400. It is also true the hypersonic missiles are very hard, almost impossible to defend against (very hard to catch up). But none of these new systems (S500 and the hyper-sonic submarine based nuclear missiles) have been implemented yet. Also, the S500 and the S600 (on the design board), can shoot down individual ballistic missiles, possible even a hundred of them, but the US first strike would launch a thousand. Yet, what is interesting in this article and very true is that the US "anti-missile shield" in Poland and Romania can easily hide offensive nuclear missiles, or the offensive nuclear missiles could be added at a moments notice when the facility is there. This is why the Russians have to have Iskanders (soon the hypersonic ones) aimed at them.

    Allowing the US to place a defensive/offensive nuclear facility in your country is an unsurpassed pinnacle of stupidity. To my knowledge, when in Warsaw Pact, Romania and Poland hosted Russian tactical nuclear weapons, but never had strategic nuclear missile basis on their soil. Now, these two just painted nuclear cross-hairs on their chests for just a few dollars. There is absolutely no known conflict scenario under which these two countries would end up anything but a radioactive dessert. Stupidity beyond stupidity.

    Ukraine is next. From Hlukiv in Ukraine to Moscow it is only about 370 miles or about 5 minutes by a hyper-sonic missile. Even the US nuclear missile submarines cannot come so close to Moscow. But the issue for the US is - will it be able to maintain Ukraine as one country and at what financial cost (Ukraine is a money black hole), to add it to NATO and then start "protecting it from Iran" with a missile shield.

    Finally, the most important point is that the AngloZionists do not want to win a nuclear war - they want to dictate the nuclear peace based on the strategic advantage of the possibility of a successful first strike.

    Well said Kiza:

    Agree that Pepe Escobar is a highly competent and knowledgeable commentator, but his hyperbole about S500 is off the charts.

    What 1,000s of years of warfare has shown is that there are no wonder weapons and there is no infallible defense. S500 is probably the best on paper and in computer simulations, but neither the S300, nor S400, nor S500 have ever been tested in real war.

    US Patriot performed abysmally during the Iraq war against primitive Scuds.
    Israeli improved version of the Patriot, the grandly misnamed “Iron Dome”, has also been an abysmal failure against home-made Hamas rockets. Don’t remember the guy’s name, but an American physicist did a study on Iron Dome performance, and determined that only about 5% or so of the targets were actually hit. (Israeli propaganda claims the exact opposite).

    That does not mean Russia should not continue developing even more advanced missile defenses. But Escobar’s contention that the S500 will somehow shield RF from a massive ICBM strike from NATO/US is a dangerous delusion. In an actual global nuke war – God forbid it comes to that – 10s of 1000s of dummy warheads will be mixed in with the real ones: any defense will be overwhelmed. All it takes is for a factions of thermonuclear warheads to get through.

    The Mutually Assured Destruction is as valid today as it was when USSR existed.
    We will all die in a global nuclear war.
    Only cockroaches will survive.

    Read More
  78. @Avery
    {Mexico was invented by (and is still dominated by) people whose ancestors hail from Western Europe (Spain).}

    Exhibit A: ex Mexican President Vincente Fox.

    Indeed, just look at the Mexican Congress.

    http://thefreshscent.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/mexican-congress-470×300.jpg

    And we really should copy Mexico’s immigration policies. Talk about tough.

    Read More
  79. @Marx
    Cliche 7 is a joke and the author has no clue of history since he calls the major countries of Europe "fig leaves" to Russia. Has the author forgot that Germany alone almost layed waste to the Soviet Union? Now imagine if all the European states of the Union mobilize and fight the Russians. While Russia has an impressive arsenal, they cannot possibly hope to take out the Europeans in a swift conventional war. Has the author also forgot that several European countries have Nukes to defend themselves with? It's easy to see that this author has no idea of Europe's military strength and should conduct more research before you calls them stupid.

    “Has the author forgot that Germany alone almost layed waste to the Soviet Union?”

    Almost! How many nations have invaded Russia? How many of those have tried it more than once?

    All failed.

    Have you overlooked the fact that Russia hasn’t invaded anywhere since the break up of the USSR whilst the Euros have.

    Europe is a false construct. Would the Euros fight to the death for Europe’s wars? I think we already know that the Russians will fight to the death to defend Russia.

    Other commenters here have already raised the notion that perhaps the less painful solution is to identify those crazies who are driving this madness and deal with them instead.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chaban
    No, YOU and people like the Faker fail.

    Russia was conquered by a tiny group of Wall Street mercenaries in 1917. Those people subsequently did such a number on the Russian population that Russia still has not recovered demographically, to this day!

    Unfortunately, Germany, being squeezed from all sides by the forces of the money changers could not deliver the Russians from the Bolshevik/Wall Street scum. Too bad. Tens of millions of Russians would not have been exterminated and would have had kids.

    And puhlease... stop with the Napoleon analogies. Unlike Napoleon, NATO would not have to worry about its western flank.

    To conclude, a person truly not worried would not waste time discussing these things and writing wishful thinking reports.

    By the way, the Faker has been talking about an imminent collapse of the U.S. for years...

    Dude! Where's my collapse?
  80. […] Ifølge The Saker er den militære opbygning I Europa mest sabelraslen. Vores medier fylder os med militært vrøvl om trusselbilleder, styrkeforhold osv., men sagen handler ikke om hvorvidt Putin er skør eller aggressiv. Den handler om, at forholdet mellem EU-landene og Rusland skal svækkes, så USA får fred og ro til at forfølge sine egne geopolitiske mål. […]

    Read More
  81. Cliché No 6: forward deployment gives a major advantage

    Cliché No 2: an attacker needs a 3:1 or even 4:1 advantage over the defender.

    Cliché No 3: high technology wins the day

    Cliché No 4: big military budgets win the day

    Cliché No 5: big military alliances help win wars

    SHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

    Dude what the *@%$# are you doing? You’re going to encourage Bahrain to attack us!

    Read More
  82. @Cyrano
    One of the reasons why the cold war never turned into a hot one is because deep down inside the Americans always knew and still know that they are not good enough to fight the Russians. The rest is all a smokescreen. If they really are the greatest military power in the history of the universe - as they claim - why do they need an alliance of 28 against one? Where I come from 2 against one is cowardly, 28 against one is beyond the pale. Give me a break.

    One of the reasons why the cold war never turned into a hot one is because deep down inside the Americans always knew and still know that they are not good enough to fight the Russians. The rest is all a smokescreen

    LOL, who was it that “allegedly” backed down in Havana?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    The Cuban crisis was a limited naval confrontation with no vital Russian interests at stake. To be really, truly a superpower you have to have great land forces. All the greatest military powers in history had superb land forces: Roman Empire, Napoleonic France, Germany, Russia, China. Exceptions are U.S. and Britain whose ground forces always sucked, being able to win wars only against third rate powers. In fact the greatest land war that U.S. has ever won was in 1865, against a limited opposition - themselves.
  83. My god. I don’t think I’ve ever read more stupid comments than with you imbeciles here (there were a few which could qualify as smart or informative (but to no large degree I will add): the rest of you are simply imbeciles). About lend lease program of Murica, simpletons, all USSR got it paid in gold. And it wasn’t much to begin with, mostly rust and used junk. From 46 billion dollares Murica assigned to lend lease program, British Empire got more than $30.2 billion, USSR 9.1 billion, France $1.4 billion, China $630 million, and even Latin America received $420 million. Lend-lease supplies were distributed to 42 different countries, and all of them paid! Even Brits paid their rust Murican junk in gold! You think Murican parasites have ever given anything for free? All they have ever been looking at is how to milk the world or parasitize on it. Even Iraq, an example Muricans like to state as “non-profitable endevour,” has still been somewhat profitable for them. People forget that Iraq has been selling their oil for Murican worthless paper or T-bills for a very long time. Murica benefited greatly. Murica is just as a parasite on the world as negroids in Murica are on Murica. What other blathering was there? Ah, yes. Notion that Russia cannot completely annihilate Europe or Murica. You are imbeciles. All it takes is few big nuclear bombs to be sent on the bottom of Atlantic ocean, and possibly on the North Sea… and detonate them. The waves would wash away all western filth, and as a bonus it would render lands westerners are now occupying inhospitable for hosting life. It doesn’t take much to destroy you degenerate westerners, imbeciles. Even North Korea could easily wipe out west coast of Murica. Just imagine sending to San Andreas Fault the bomb the size of submarine, with the power of few hundreds of megatons. What would such a weapon do to Murican west coast I wonder. Not only it would trigger massive earthquakes, but tsunamis would be kilometers in height (and they would bring nuclear shower with themselves too). Torpedoes armed with nuclear weapons could also be used. Detonate such a torpedo close to London, and it would wipe out that parasitic city. Someone ought to do it. High time we see London or Murican east or west coast utterly destroyed. High time that the carnage of war comes to Anglo lands! That is the only reason why we aren’t, and never will as long as such weapons exist, seeing war today morons! You can sat that the weapon of the gods has made it obsolete, at least in sphere of visible (in the shadows it is always present). And don’t fantasize about Europeans fighting for you Muricans! Europeans despise you! You liberal disease has wreck European nations like a plague! How does someone, even dumb, corrupt and foul as you Muricans are, can even imagine someone would fight for you after you occupy them, force them to commit national suicide, destroy their cultures, parasitize on them and constantly show disrepute and disregard for their culture, traditions and values, hm? It’s mind-boggling how far Murican parasitical fantasies can go! You are the enemy, Anglo-Muricans! You are more hated than the Jews! Get that into your head already!

    Read More
  84. @Max Payne

    Likewise, the NATO air campaign against the Serbian Army Corps in Kosovo will go down in history as one of the worst defeats of a huge military alliance backed by high tech weapons by a small country equipped with clearly dated weapon systems.

     

    Relevant:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown

    Ah, yes. I knew I had seen your comment at the beginning. There is no such thing as “invisible plane,” whatever pathological Murican liars say. Even Pierre Spray, one of the architects of the F-16 and A-10 Warthog (it just goes to show who has been building weaponry for Murica, doesn’t it? certainly not imbecilic Muricans) says as much:

    Every long range radar from the 40s can see “stealth” planes. The radar which saw “invisible” B-117 was an old Soviet radar from the 60s. Everything with Muricans is only good as long as you don’t question it. The moment you question it, the illusion fails and you end up staring in the abyss of rot that stretch as far as eye can see.

    As for your comparisons, Hezbollah IDF comparison is a good one. You could have also used a better one: comparing Arab vs West warfare before to the one today. You know, Israelis used to wipe floor with the combined Arab armies not that long ago. The fact that they didn’t want to fight for those secular dictators such as Nasser, Sadam et al has certainly played a big role, but tactics is also worth examining. Military analysts call it 4th generation warfare. Anyway, the moment westerners started touching into the sacred pillars of their civilization, their faith, the Arabs instantly found the courage, will and such fearlessness that those Westerners, who had just been making jokes about Arab fighting skills, started to shit in their pants: party in awe and amazement, and partly in fear I suspect.

    http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=1702

    Here it is. It’s a very good article.

    edit:

    Oh, and Argentina lost because they run out of Exocet missiles. If they didn’t, every British ship would have been sunk.

    Read More
  85. Strange how this article, which is as I see written on 19th May gets posted yesterday. The owner ought to synchronize that.

    Read More
  86. @Kiza
    A direct, frontal attack on Russia is a straw man, exactly the same as the Russian invasion on any country. The US
    AngloZionist strategy is not even close to direct attack on Russia. The US plan is simply to weaken Russia and then regime change it. And all current vassals are participating, including Putin's favorite country Germany. All talk about military superiority is empty talk. The purpose of the NATO military build up is only to create tension to drain Russia, to slow down its economic development and to enrich the creators of this MIC strategy. Just like Cold War 1.0 agaist the Soviet Union, identical.

    I am not clear why Saker is even discusses the military superiority, this is why I called it the strategic wank.

    And don’t you think how stupid you Muricans are, hm? Trying to foment a coup with the adversary which holds the power of your utter annihilation! That’s imbecility and irresponsibility at its finest. You know, if you get someone like Zhirinkovsky (and Russians will not tolerate you controlling their socio-political life, mind: no sane and free nation ever would), you end up with the risk of your annihilation. You know, if we in Yugoslavia had nuclear, you would have been annihilated long ago! You think someone will tolerate your shit?! You think you are the masters of the world?! You think you can do what ever you like?! You would see what the price of such delusion, stupidity and arrogance is!

    Read More
  87. @Truth

    One of the reasons why the cold war never turned into a hot one is because deep down inside the Americans always knew and still know that they are not good enough to fight the Russians. The rest is all a smokescreen
     
    LOL, who was it that "allegedly" backed down in Havana?

    The Cuban crisis was a limited naval confrontation with no vital Russian interests at stake. To be really, truly a superpower you have to have great land forces. All the greatest military powers in history had superb land forces: Roman Empire, Napoleonic France, Germany, Russia, China. Exceptions are U.S. and Britain whose ground forces always sucked, being able to win wars only against third rate powers. In fact the greatest land war that U.S. has ever won was in 1865, against a limited opposition – themselves.

    Read More
  88. The first Secretary General of NATO did very openly spell out its real purpose “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” The Russians want it exactly the other way around: the Russians in (economically, not militarily, of course), the Americans out and the Germans up (again, economically).

    Given that as of 2015 Germany has the 4th or 5th largest economy in the world, and that Russia isn’t even in the top 10 for world economies, your statement makes no sense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SmoothieX12
    Actually, as of 2015 Russia was 6th, right behind said Germany, in accordance of IMF. Now, when one considers that most global economic data which is propagated in US is mostly BS from the cooked books and has nothing to do with what really defines the strength of economy--real sector and a number of enclosed technological cycles. GDP PPP criteria is more accurate but still--the way GDP is calculated in the West is preposterous. FIRE so called "economy".
  89. @woodNfish

    The first Secretary General of NATO did very openly spell out its real purpose “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” The Russians want it exactly the other way around: the Russians in (economically, not militarily, of course), the Americans out and the Germans up (again, economically).
     
    Given that as of 2015 Germany has the 4th or 5th largest economy in the world, and that Russia isn't even in the top 10 for world economies, your statement makes no sense.

    Actually, as of 2015 Russia was 6th, right behind said Germany, in accordance of IMF. Now, when one considers that most global economic data which is propagated in US is mostly BS from the cooked books and has nothing to do with what really defines the strength of economy–real sector and a number of enclosed technological cycles. GDP PPP criteria is more accurate but still–the way GDP is calculated in the West is preposterous. FIRE so called “economy”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Very true. Anyone who imagines that the size of the Chinese or South Korean economies is adequately measured by their official GDP figures is an ignoramus or idiot.
  90. Actually, as of 2015 Russia was 6th, right behind said Germany

    Not according to the information I looked at.

    Read More
  91. I agree with most of the saker’s points(clichés) with a few caveats.

    However, for his Cliché No 5, ALL he really needed to have said was this:

    “Speaking of NATO the reality is that there is no NATO outside the USA. The USA is the only country in NATO which really matters. Not just in terms of numbers and firepower, but also in terms of intelligence, force projection, mobility, logistics, etc.”

    No need at all for false analogies with WWII but the guy just cannot resist false analogies as well as introducing a bit of propaganda through the side door.
    For this I will take the saker to the woodshed for a good and deserved spanking;
    What the saker is doing is introducing tired Soviet propaganda – adopted by the Russian Federation – to the silly effect that the Soviet Union basically fought nearly alone against Germany, and hey, the Germans even had all those European allies to help them out.
    Pure BS.
    Of course the Soviets fought as part of an alliance and this mattered and mattered a lot.
    It was basically a team of giants(USSR, ZUSA, Brit.Empire, France and its colonial empire, China, etc) X a team of midgets(Germany, Japan, Italy, Hungary,etc).

    Put it simply, the Allies won WWII bc they had more of everything; manpower, industrial output, raw materials, etc. To say nothing of Germany’s horrible strategic/geographic position.
    For example:
    Global GDP distribution 1941 in %:
    USA = 29
    USSR = 13
    British Empire = 11
    France = 5
    – –
    Germany = 11
    Japan = 6
    Italy = 5

    Without oil, it is impossible to fight modern wars, particularly on the massive scale of WWII.
    A comparison between just US production and German production tells us all we need to know;
    USA – year: 1942 : 183.9(million metric tons)
    Germany – year: 1942: 7.7(million metric tons)
    Figures above include imports & production by synthetic fuel plants.

    To make matters worse, the Allies actually generally coodinated their war strategy and planning while the Axis countries often fought parallel wars which hurt each other.

    The Saker, just like many others who push ‘great patriotic war’ myths, loves military historian David M. Glantz( but they seem to love him selectively).
    This is what David Glantz had this to say about the eastern front:

    “By 1942, after Leningrad and Moscow, Stalin and Marshal Georgi Zhukov think alike. They understand that even if you have to ruthlessly expend manpower, resistance will wear down a numerically weaker opponent. That tactic cost probably 14 million military dead—the price of defeating a more experienced, battle-worthy, savvy Wehrmacht.”

    Not exactly the picture the Saker is trying to sell, I guess.

    It cannot be emphasized enough that the Soviet Union did NOT fight this war alone against Germany. It received MASSIVE help in the form of the lend lease program and other aid from the US and, to a less extent, Britain. We can see the usual peddlers of the ‘great patriotic war’ myths, trying to downplay the lend lease program with their usual sad little lies.
    The program was massive;
    Trucks, aircraft, armor, fuel oils, food, all kinds of raw materials were given in huge quantities and new Russian research, such as was done by Russian historians Alla Paperno, Boris Sokolov, Aleksandr Vislykh, has confirmed the massive size of the operation.
    This contribution may have been decisive.
    Marshal Zhukov himself stated:
    “…Today(1963) some say the Allies did not help us…
    But, listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war…
    We did not have enough munitions, how would we have been able to turn out all those tanks without the rolled steel sent to us by the Americans?”

    Also, very important, despite Stalin’s repeated demands for an Allied ‘second front’ to take the pressure off Russia, in point of fact several such fronts were already draining Germany’s quite limited resources, not just in manpower but also in raw materials and equipment —a second front in the air war over Germany itself, a third front in the Battle of the Atlantic, a fourth front in the war in North Africa and then later Sicily and Italy—all before the D-Day invasion of France in June 1944.
    The mere threat of Western Allied operations often gave the Soviets an edge over the Germans, given that the germans kept switching many units, including some of Germany’s most elite and powerful units, from the eastern front to other theatres in the West, to the Balkans, to France, to Italy, in response to real or perceived threats from the Soviet’s anglo-american Allies.

    Fighting-wise, the Soviets were indeed the ones most responsible for winning the war, given that most German casualties were incurred on the Eastern Front and Germany was the strongest Axis power, militarily and economically.
    That said, realistically speaking, the Soviet ability to keep fighting cannot really be separated from the aid it received, whether material aid or other fronts that kept draining Germanys very limited resources.
    It’s far from certain that in a war involving just Germany and the Soviet Union, the former would have lost. In fact, it is unlikely.
    Fighting under extremely unfavorable conditions Germany got quite close to knocking out the red colossus.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Begemot
    The Soviets stopped the Germans in front of Moscow in 1941 and pushed them back. This was before American lend lease aid really got going. This counteroffensive ended Germany's chance to win against the Soviets. In 1941 the Germans attacked the Soviet Union across a broad front with three army groups. In 1942 German resources were sufficient for an offensive with one army group, which ended up at Stalingrad. Remember how that turned out? In 1943 the Germans hoped to pinch off a bulge in the front. That was Kursk. After Kursk it was a one way road to Berlin. Lend lease helped make the Soviets' war easier, but it wasn't what decided the victory.

    But the Soviets do remember America's contribution to their war. There is a can of Spam in the war museum in Kiev.
  92. @Randal

    The US plan is simply to weaken Russia and then regime change it.
     
    Not going to disagree with this (though I'd probably view it as more of an aspiration and policy guide than a concrete plan). The reason an open attack on Russia is not on the cards, of course, is the Russian nuclear deterrent. Were it not for that, Russia would probably have been getting the "Serbia" treatment by now, imo.

    Bigger costs for sure, but immeasurably greater gains for the US-uber-alles types.

    All talk about military superiority is empty talk.
     
    The reason it's relevant politically is that gross exaggeration of a supposed Russian military threat is commonly used to manufacture political support in the US sphere for budget increases and confrontational deployments, etc. On the other hand, equally gross minimisation of Russia's capabilities is then used as needed to defuse opposition to those policies based upon fear of provoking Russian responses.

    The inconvenient truth for the neocons is that Russia is too weak to constitute any plausible conventional military threat to western/central Europe, still less the US, but probably strong enough to impose unacceptable costs (nukes aside, even) on the countries of the US sphere if attacked, though, as I noted above, probably not in the end unacceptable enough to deter the neocons and their potent ability to manipulate US sphere opinion in favour of confrontation and war. Truth is, of course, as we saw in Iraq, Libya and Syria, at most a marginal inconvenience to them.

    Randal wrote:
    “The reason an open attack on Russia is not on the cards, of course, is the Russian nuclear deterrent. Were it not for that, Russia would probably have been getting the “Serbia” treatment by now, imo.”

    Hmm… that is quite a statement but it is NOT supported by any evidence.

    Considering just Russia’s conventional forces in its intended role, i.e, the defense of Russia, I think any attempt by the americans to mount a direct attack on the country would be crushed.
    The kind of massive troop build-up necessary for such an attack, which is doubtful the zamericans could even muster, would be detected in its early stages and a pre-emptive russian strike would most likely rout it.

    The trouble with many americans is that they really have come to believe in their own propaganda about how fantastic and invincible their military is; ZUSA’s military is strong but overated. Its record is sketchy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Hmm… that is quite a statement but it is NOT supported by any evidence.
     
    Not sure what kind of evidence can really be adduced for what is essentially a piece of counterfactual speculation, to be honest.

    There are two main questions, assuming the basic counterfactual of no Russian nuclear deterrent force - would the US regime want to attack Russia as Serbia was attacked, and would the US win. The two are related, of course, inasmuch as the US regime would have to at least think it could win in order to want to attack.

    On the first, I have absolutely no doubt that there are powerful groups and individuals influencing US foreign policy, and capable of manufacturing popular support for their desired course of action through media and political manipulation, who would be very happy to see a war against Russia if they thought it could be won. I suspect this is not likely to be a major point of disagreement between us.

    Given the motivation, the events in Ukraine provided a perfect pretext for attacking Russia, as events in Yugoslavia and Kosovo provided the pretext for the attack on Serbia.

    The remaining issue is whether the US could defeat Russia conventionally, which it appears from your comment you dispute.

    We must both concede at the outset that any consideration of the matter involves massive speculation, as far as the effectiveness of particular weapon systems and strategies, details of the strategic situation, etc are concerned. For me, though, I rest my assumption on the same case you made above for WW2. The US would beat Russia because the US versus Russia is economically "a team of giants versus a team of pygmies", certainly unless China were to openly intervene on Russia's side (and China is probably not ready for such a war yet, for another decade or two at any rate).

    There is no obvious reason to assume that things would be particularly different in this war from what they were in WW2, mutatis mutandis (Russia has very different advantages and disadvantages from those the Axis powers had, but the economic and strategic situations and balance are similar). Or more accurately, one can come up with many reasons why things might go differently, but one can also come up with at least equally numerous reasons why they would go in the other way.

    In summary, in the absence of nuclear weapons, the US would most likely win a war to the finish with Russia, the same way it and its allies beat Germany and Japan. That's not to say that the US fanboys are right, or that the US military is not often overrated, or that the US could easily invade Russia.
  93. @Marx
    Cliche 7 is a joke and the author has no clue of history since he calls the major countries of Europe "fig leaves" to Russia. Has the author forgot that Germany alone almost layed waste to the Soviet Union? Now imagine if all the European states of the Union mobilize and fight the Russians. While Russia has an impressive arsenal, they cannot possibly hope to take out the Europeans in a swift conventional war. Has the author also forgot that several European countries have Nukes to defend themselves with? It's easy to see that this author has no idea of Europe's military strength and should conduct more research before you calls them stupid.

    You r living in fantasy land, Marx.

    Most modern european militaries are little more than toy militaries.

    To compare the powerful and motivated German military machine of the 1940s with today’s EU toy armies is a bad joke.

    Russia, in any case, is not a threat to Europe. ZUSA is.

    I hope – without any confidence – that the peoples of Europe can still wake up, overthrow their traitorous elites, which are US vassals and are destroying Europe, tell the zamericans to fu#k off and recover their sovereignty.

    Read More
  94. @Kiza
    If one adds up the amounts of money that US allies & associates have to spend on weapons in the next 10 years, to counter the Russian and Chinese aggression, the sum comes close to $2 trillion. A good part of this creamy cake is expected to end up in the US MIC's lap, mainly for weapons compatibility an inter-operability reasons. This is why it is hard to believe that even Trump will turn his back onto such bonanza by making peace with Russia and/or China. Forget about deal making with Putin.

    This, of course, is an absolute truth. And there is very small chance, and very small hope that Trump will resist the pressure to submit to it. But our hope should be in the Lord.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    They killed Kennedies for much less than scuttling trillions in military contracts by negotiating with the enemies that they worked so hard to invent.
  95. @SmoothieX12
    Actually, as of 2015 Russia was 6th, right behind said Germany, in accordance of IMF. Now, when one considers that most global economic data which is propagated in US is mostly BS from the cooked books and has nothing to do with what really defines the strength of economy--real sector and a number of enclosed technological cycles. GDP PPP criteria is more accurate but still--the way GDP is calculated in the West is preposterous. FIRE so called "economy".

    Very true. Anyone who imagines that the size of the Chinese or South Korean economies is adequately measured by their official GDP figures is an ignoramus or idiot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SmoothieX12
    Most monetarist (that is detached from reality) so called economic models, and that is what reigns supreme among current "elites", can predict sh.t and give no real picture of the state of the affairs. Truth is, US real GDP is much smaller (and I mean much) than is being declared, the whole US financial "industry" is a virtual bubble which produces no value. The only, strategic that is, competitive industries which US still retains today are aerospace, auto-industry, some residual machine-building complex and some shipbuilding capability. The rest, well, we all know the rest.
  96. @L.K
    I agree with most of the saker's points(clichés) with a few caveats.

    However, for his Cliché No 5, ALL he really needed to have said was this:

    "Speaking of NATO the reality is that there is no NATO outside the USA. The USA is the only country in NATO which really matters. Not just in terms of numbers and firepower, but also in terms of intelligence, force projection, mobility, logistics, etc."

    No need at all for false analogies with WWII but the guy just cannot resist false analogies as well as introducing a bit of propaganda through the side door.
    For this I will take the saker to the woodshed for a good and deserved spanking;
    What the saker is doing is introducing tired Soviet propaganda – adopted by the Russian Federation – to the silly effect that the Soviet Union basically fought nearly alone against Germany, and hey, the Germans even had all those European allies to help them out.
    Pure BS.
    Of course the Soviets fought as part of an alliance and this mattered and mattered a lot.
    It was basically a team of giants(USSR, ZUSA, Brit.Empire, France and its colonial empire, China, etc) X a team of midgets(Germany, Japan, Italy, Hungary,etc).

    Put it simply, the Allies won WWII bc they had more of everything; manpower, industrial output, raw materials, etc. To say nothing of Germany’s horrible strategic/geographic position.
    For example:
    Global GDP distribution 1941 in %:
    USA = 29
    USSR = 13
    British Empire = 11
    France = 5
    – –
    Germany = 11
    Japan = 6
    Italy = 5

    Without oil, it is impossible to fight modern wars, particularly on the massive scale of WWII.
    A comparison between just US production and German production tells us all we need to know;
    USA - year: 1942 : 183.9(million metric tons)
    Germany - year: 1942: 7.7(million metric tons)
    Figures above include imports & production by synthetic fuel plants.

    To make matters worse, the Allies actually generally coodinated their war strategy and planning while the Axis countries often fought parallel wars which hurt each other.

    The Saker, just like many others who push ‘great patriotic war’ myths, loves military historian David M. Glantz( but they seem to love him selectively).
    This is what David Glantz had this to say about the eastern front:

    “By 1942, after Leningrad and Moscow, Stalin and Marshal Georgi Zhukov think alike. They understand that even if you have to ruthlessly expend manpower, resistance will wear down a numerically weaker opponent. That tactic cost probably 14 million military dead—the price of defeating a more experienced, battle-worthy, savvy Wehrmacht.”

    Not exactly the picture the Saker is trying to sell, I guess.

    It cannot be emphasized enough that the Soviet Union did NOT fight this war alone against Germany. It received MASSIVE help in the form of the lend lease program and other aid from the US and, to a less extent, Britain. We can see the usual peddlers of the 'great patriotic war' myths, trying to downplay the lend lease program with their usual sad little lies.
    The program was massive;
    Trucks, aircraft, armor, fuel oils, food, all kinds of raw materials were given in huge quantities and new Russian research, such as was done by Russian historians Alla Paperno, Boris Sokolov, Aleksandr Vislykh, has confirmed the massive size of the operation.
    This contribution may have been decisive.
    Marshal Zhukov himself stated:
    “…Today(1963) some say the Allies did not help us…
    But, listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war…
    We did not have enough munitions, how would we have been able to turn out all those tanks without the rolled steel sent to us by the Americans?”


    Also, very important, despite Stalin’s repeated demands for an Allied ‘second front’ to take the pressure off Russia, in point of fact several such fronts were already draining Germany’s quite limited resources, not just in manpower but also in raw materials and equipment —a second front in the air war over Germany itself, a third front in the Battle of the Atlantic, a fourth front in the war in North Africa and then later Sicily and Italy—all before the D-Day invasion of France in June 1944.
    The mere threat of Western Allied operations often gave the Soviets an edge over the Germans, given that the germans kept switching many units, including some of Germany’s most elite and powerful units, from the eastern front to other theatres in the West, to the Balkans, to France, to Italy, in response to real or perceived threats from the Soviet’s anglo-american Allies.

    Fighting-wise, the Soviets were indeed the ones most responsible for winning the war, given that most German casualties were incurred on the Eastern Front and Germany was the strongest Axis power, militarily and economically.
    That said, realistically speaking, the Soviet ability to keep fighting cannot really be separated from the aid it received, whether material aid or other fronts that kept draining Germanys very limited resources.
    It’s far from certain that in a war involving just Germany and the Soviet Union, the former would have lost. In fact, it is unlikely.
    Fighting under extremely unfavorable conditions Germany got quite close to knocking out the red colossus.

    The Soviets stopped the Germans in front of Moscow in 1941 and pushed them back. This was before American lend lease aid really got going. This counteroffensive ended Germany’s chance to win against the Soviets. In 1941 the Germans attacked the Soviet Union across a broad front with three army groups. In 1942 German resources were sufficient for an offensive with one army group, which ended up at Stalingrad. Remember how that turned out? In 1943 the Germans hoped to pinch off a bulge in the front. That was Kursk. After Kursk it was a one way road to Berlin. Lend lease helped make the Soviets’ war easier, but it wasn’t what decided the victory.

    But the Soviets do remember America’s contribution to their war. There is a can of Spam in the war museum in Kiev.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one

    In 1942 German resources were sufficient for an offensive with one army group, which ended up at Stalingrad.
     
    Yes, putting Paulus in charge of that was a mistake. And he surrendered with a relief force only some 20 miles away.
  97. @L.K
    Randal wrote:
    "The reason an open attack on Russia is not on the cards, of course, is the Russian nuclear deterrent. Were it not for that, Russia would probably have been getting the “Serbia” treatment by now, imo."

    Hmm... that is quite a statement but it is NOT supported by any evidence.

    Considering just Russia's conventional forces in its intended role, i.e, the defense of Russia, I think any attempt by the americans to mount a direct attack on the country would be crushed.
    The kind of massive troop build-up necessary for such an attack, which is doubtful the zamericans could even muster, would be detected in its early stages and a pre-emptive russian strike would most likely rout it.

    The trouble with many americans is that they really have come to believe in their own propaganda about how fantastic and invincible their military is; ZUSA's military is strong but overated. Its record is sketchy.

    Hmm… that is quite a statement but it is NOT supported by any evidence.

    Not sure what kind of evidence can really be adduced for what is essentially a piece of counterfactual speculation, to be honest.

    There are two main questions, assuming the basic counterfactual of no Russian nuclear deterrent force – would the US regime want to attack Russia as Serbia was attacked, and would the US win. The two are related, of course, inasmuch as the US regime would have to at least think it could win in order to want to attack.

    On the first, I have absolutely no doubt that there are powerful groups and individuals influencing US foreign policy, and capable of manufacturing popular support for their desired course of action through media and political manipulation, who would be very happy to see a war against Russia if they thought it could be won. I suspect this is not likely to be a major point of disagreement between us.

    Given the motivation, the events in Ukraine provided a perfect pretext for attacking Russia, as events in Yugoslavia and Kosovo provided the pretext for the attack on Serbia.

    The remaining issue is whether the US could defeat Russia conventionally, which it appears from your comment you dispute.

    We must both concede at the outset that any consideration of the matter involves massive speculation, as far as the effectiveness of particular weapon systems and strategies, details of the strategic situation, etc are concerned. For me, though, I rest my assumption on the same case you made above for WW2. The US would beat Russia because the US versus Russia is economically “a team of giants versus a team of pygmies”, certainly unless China were to openly intervene on Russia’s side (and China is probably not ready for such a war yet, for another decade or two at any rate).

    There is no obvious reason to assume that things would be particularly different in this war from what they were in WW2, mutatis mutandis (Russia has very different advantages and disadvantages from those the Axis powers had, but the economic and strategic situations and balance are similar). Or more accurately, one can come up with many reasons why things might go differently, but one can also come up with at least equally numerous reasons why they would go in the other way.

    In summary, in the absence of nuclear weapons, the US would most likely win a war to the finish with Russia, the same way it and its allies beat Germany and Japan. That’s not to say that the US fanboys are right, or that the US military is not often overrated, or that the US could easily invade Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Khan Bodin
    You don't produce anything other than frauds, you stupid imbecile! During the WW2 Muricans actually did produce many things, but not anymore. You are no land power, and you have never been one. Had you been in the place of France in WW2, regardless of how much more powerful economy you had compared to the German, you would have been annihilated. That's how much powerful German army was compared to yours. In absence of nuclear weapons (as well as biological) you Anglo-Muricans would still lose the war. Nazis were one of most, if not the most, formidable military machine in the history of this planet, and they still lost. You Murican trash would be massacred! Like I said, no European will fight for you. The only fight any European nation would commit itself to would be to free itself of your occupation, you imbecile! In short order, rest assured that if the Wehrmacht, which was the real war machine whose soldiers (especially vanguard ones) paid no heed to their well-being when attacking, couldn't do it, you Muricans would be massacred. Russia, like the former USSR, is no place where Murican aviation would even come close to bombing the cities. Russian soldiers would paid no heed to their well-being when defending the motherland, and I don't have to say what kind of soldiers you Muricans are. Mercenaries are no good fighting force when fighting against determined adversary. You can go on dreaming about how you would win something, Muricunt, but the reality is that you would be massacred.
    , @The most deplorable one

    In summary, in the absence of nuclear weapons, the US would most likely win a war to the finish with Russia, the same way it and its allies beat Germany and Japan. That’s not to say that the US fanboys are right, or that the US military is not often overrated, or that the US could easily invade Russia.
     
    The difference is that the US military forces wear high heels these days and average intelligence of their fighting forces has gone down.

    During WWII each German soldier was worth about 1.25 allied soldiers and 2 Russian soldiers.

    It has reversed now and each Russian soldier is worth more than 2 American soldiers.
  98. Putin has also said that everything the USSR held is Russia. Anyone that does not take this seriously needs to go to rehab. Saker is the typical Russian of the diaspora. Servile and an avid buyer of Russian propaganda in place of the truth. The idea that Russia is no threat to her neighbors is risible in the extreme.

    You need to return your master’s in Strategic Studies. You didn’t learn much, and you sold your soul to Neo-Stalinists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Khan Bodin
    I am sure something has messed up in your head terribly. From the very birth of yours I would say. The idea that you westerners (Anglo-Muricans) are no thereat to every and any free and sovereign nation in this world is laughable. Your imbecility is very strong, Anglo. The whole world hates you, Anglo.
  99. @Randal

    Hmm… that is quite a statement but it is NOT supported by any evidence.
     
    Not sure what kind of evidence can really be adduced for what is essentially a piece of counterfactual speculation, to be honest.

    There are two main questions, assuming the basic counterfactual of no Russian nuclear deterrent force - would the US regime want to attack Russia as Serbia was attacked, and would the US win. The two are related, of course, inasmuch as the US regime would have to at least think it could win in order to want to attack.

    On the first, I have absolutely no doubt that there are powerful groups and individuals influencing US foreign policy, and capable of manufacturing popular support for their desired course of action through media and political manipulation, who would be very happy to see a war against Russia if they thought it could be won. I suspect this is not likely to be a major point of disagreement between us.

    Given the motivation, the events in Ukraine provided a perfect pretext for attacking Russia, as events in Yugoslavia and Kosovo provided the pretext for the attack on Serbia.

    The remaining issue is whether the US could defeat Russia conventionally, which it appears from your comment you dispute.

    We must both concede at the outset that any consideration of the matter involves massive speculation, as far as the effectiveness of particular weapon systems and strategies, details of the strategic situation, etc are concerned. For me, though, I rest my assumption on the same case you made above for WW2. The US would beat Russia because the US versus Russia is economically "a team of giants versus a team of pygmies", certainly unless China were to openly intervene on Russia's side (and China is probably not ready for such a war yet, for another decade or two at any rate).

    There is no obvious reason to assume that things would be particularly different in this war from what they were in WW2, mutatis mutandis (Russia has very different advantages and disadvantages from those the Axis powers had, but the economic and strategic situations and balance are similar). Or more accurately, one can come up with many reasons why things might go differently, but one can also come up with at least equally numerous reasons why they would go in the other way.

    In summary, in the absence of nuclear weapons, the US would most likely win a war to the finish with Russia, the same way it and its allies beat Germany and Japan. That's not to say that the US fanboys are right, or that the US military is not often overrated, or that the US could easily invade Russia.

    You don’t produce anything other than frauds, you stupid imbecile! During the WW2 Muricans actually did produce many things, but not anymore. You are no land power, and you have never been one. Had you been in the place of France in WW2, regardless of how much more powerful economy you had compared to the German, you would have been annihilated. That’s how much powerful German army was compared to yours. In absence of nuclear weapons (as well as biological) you Anglo-Muricans would still lose the war. Nazis were one of most, if not the most, formidable military machine in the history of this planet, and they still lost. You Murican trash would be massacred! Like I said, no European will fight for you. The only fight any European nation would commit itself to would be to free itself of your occupation, you imbecile! In short order, rest assured that if the Wehrmacht, which was the real war machine whose soldiers (especially vanguard ones) paid no heed to their well-being when attacking, couldn’t do it, you Muricans would be massacred. Russia, like the former USSR, is no place where Murican aviation would even come close to bombing the cities. Russian soldiers would paid no heed to their well-being when defending the motherland, and I don’t have to say what kind of soldiers you Muricans are. Mercenaries are no good fighting force when fighting against determined adversary. You can go on dreaming about how you would win something, Muricunt, but the reality is that you would be massacred.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    LOL! You aren't the sharpest tool in the box, are you?
  100. @Quartermaster
    Putin has also said that everything the USSR held is Russia. Anyone that does not take this seriously needs to go to rehab. Saker is the typical Russian of the diaspora. Servile and an avid buyer of Russian propaganda in place of the truth. The idea that Russia is no threat to her neighbors is risible in the extreme.

    You need to return your master's in Strategic Studies. You didn't learn much, and you sold your soul to Neo-Stalinists.

    I am sure something has messed up in your head terribly. From the very birth of yours I would say. The idea that you westerners (Anglo-Muricans) are no thereat to every and any free and sovereign nation in this world is laughable. Your imbecility is very strong, Anglo. The whole world hates you, Anglo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quartermaster
    Your mental limitations are showing quite badly. Go read what I wrote, then try again. Knee jerk stupidity is not a credit to anyone.
  101. @5371
    Very true. Anyone who imagines that the size of the Chinese or South Korean economies is adequately measured by their official GDP figures is an ignoramus or idiot.

    Most monetarist (that is detached from reality) so called economic models, and that is what reigns supreme among current “elites”, can predict sh.t and give no real picture of the state of the affairs. Truth is, US real GDP is much smaller (and I mean much) than is being declared, the whole US financial “industry” is a virtual bubble which produces no value. The only, strategic that is, competitive industries which US still retains today are aerospace, auto-industry, some residual machine-building complex and some shipbuilding capability. The rest, well, we all know the rest.

    Read More
  102. @Saint Nicholas
    This, of course, is an absolute truth. And there is very small chance, and very small hope that Trump will resist the pressure to submit to it. But our hope should be in the Lord.

    They killed Kennedies for much less than scuttling trillions in military contracts by negotiating with the enemies that they worked so hard to invent.

    Read More
  103. @Khan Bodin
    You don't produce anything other than frauds, you stupid imbecile! During the WW2 Muricans actually did produce many things, but not anymore. You are no land power, and you have never been one. Had you been in the place of France in WW2, regardless of how much more powerful economy you had compared to the German, you would have been annihilated. That's how much powerful German army was compared to yours. In absence of nuclear weapons (as well as biological) you Anglo-Muricans would still lose the war. Nazis were one of most, if not the most, formidable military machine in the history of this planet, and they still lost. You Murican trash would be massacred! Like I said, no European will fight for you. The only fight any European nation would commit itself to would be to free itself of your occupation, you imbecile! In short order, rest assured that if the Wehrmacht, which was the real war machine whose soldiers (especially vanguard ones) paid no heed to their well-being when attacking, couldn't do it, you Muricans would be massacred. Russia, like the former USSR, is no place where Murican aviation would even come close to bombing the cities. Russian soldiers would paid no heed to their well-being when defending the motherland, and I don't have to say what kind of soldiers you Muricans are. Mercenaries are no good fighting force when fighting against determined adversary. You can go on dreaming about how you would win something, Muricunt, but the reality is that you would be massacred.

    LOL! You aren’t the sharpest tool in the box, are you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Khan Bodin
    You are an imbecile! Only an imbecile would think you wouldn't be annihilated in conventional warfare close to the Russian border, and only an imbecile would think Murican army is anywhere close enough to the Wehrmacht at the height of their might. You are not even a shadow of the Wehrmacht, you imbecilic creature!
  104. @Randal
    LOL! You aren't the sharpest tool in the box, are you?

    You are an imbecile! Only an imbecile would think you wouldn’t be annihilated in conventional warfare close to the Russian border, and only an imbecile would think Murican army is anywhere close enough to the Wehrmacht at the height of their might. You are not even a shadow of the Wehrmacht, you imbecilic creature!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Opinions undoubtedly differ on whether or not I'm an imbecile, but if I am I'm certainly not an American one.

    Entertaining as such rants always are, you'd be better off getting a grip and writing something substantive if you want to do anything other than blow off steam and waste time.
  105. I think that combined European, Russian and Chinese armies could easily cross the Bering Strait. There is plenty of spoil there… so much to loot and pillage. We only need to find a way of neutralizing Murican nuclear arsenal before proceeding. Without nuclear protection and oceans to defend them we can easily crush all Anglo resistance and take all their lands in North America and Australia. There will be plenty of Anglo slaves and so much treasure for all of us to be satisfied. Combined Eurasian might against combined Anglo thugs. Victory would be so swift!

    Read More
    • Replies: @SmoothieX12

    I think that combined European, Russian and Chinese armies could easily cross the Bering Strait.
     
    Dude, this is some really potent sh.t you are smoking or...taking.
  106. @Fidelios Automata
    It's nice to hear rational commentary about this subject, rather than the insane saber-rattling we hear from our media. Unfortunately, we still don't have the answer to the question, beyond the fact that it would be a complete disaster. Saker, do you think that the cooler heads in the US military might mutiny if ordered to make a suicidal attack on Russia?

    Fidelios: Here is maybe an answer “yes” to your guess, although it’s in Russian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBoMGcWDDoI
    Here is an interview of Ben Fulford by David Wilcock (in English), confirming the same event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-buFJfGZhI
    This video is a documantary investigation (Russian) of the same event (blowing of the underground bunkers in the US in, I think, 2012, 22-23 of Aug): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxJTdgAzTks
    There was also an incredible several-hour video telling about the same event in a larger context of events and including Fukusima’s tragedy, but it was moved from the site.

    It would be intresting to hear what does Saker, say about it.

    Read More
  107. @Khan Bodin
    You are an imbecile! Only an imbecile would think you wouldn't be annihilated in conventional warfare close to the Russian border, and only an imbecile would think Murican army is anywhere close enough to the Wehrmacht at the height of their might. You are not even a shadow of the Wehrmacht, you imbecilic creature!

    Opinions undoubtedly differ on whether or not I’m an imbecile, but if I am I’m certainly not an American one.

    Entertaining as such rants always are, you’d be better off getting a grip and writing something substantive if you want to do anything other than blow off steam and waste time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Khan Bodin
    An imbecile is an imbecile. I didn't call you an American imbecile, just an imbecile (though it's obvious that you are a British imbecile), and I stated the reasons for it too: all very well grounded in common sense and reality. And I don't do rants. I would have nothing against enslaving all of you in Anglo lands, plus of course the Jews, and taking all of your possessions as the war prize.
  108. @Randal
    Opinions undoubtedly differ on whether or not I'm an imbecile, but if I am I'm certainly not an American one.

    Entertaining as such rants always are, you'd be better off getting a grip and writing something substantive if you want to do anything other than blow off steam and waste time.

    An imbecile is an imbecile. I didn’t call you an American imbecile, just an imbecile (though it’s obvious that you are a British imbecile), and I stated the reasons for it too: all very well grounded in common sense and reality. And I don’t do rants. I would have nothing against enslaving all of you in Anglo lands, plus of course the Jews, and taking all of your possessions as the war prize.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    I would have nothing against enslaving all of you in Anglo lands, plus of course the Jews, and taking all of your possessions as the war prize.
     
    You're very welcome to try. Might hurt a bit, though, and the record suggests you're pretty unlikely to succeed. Have at it.
  109. @Khan Bodin
    An imbecile is an imbecile. I didn't call you an American imbecile, just an imbecile (though it's obvious that you are a British imbecile), and I stated the reasons for it too: all very well grounded in common sense and reality. And I don't do rants. I would have nothing against enslaving all of you in Anglo lands, plus of course the Jews, and taking all of your possessions as the war prize.

    I would have nothing against enslaving all of you in Anglo lands, plus of course the Jews, and taking all of your possessions as the war prize.

    You’re very welcome to try. Might hurt a bit, though, and the record suggests you’re pretty unlikely to succeed. Have at it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    This character was a bit entertaining initially with his totally mad extremism, but now he is becoming just a pest to any decent discussion here. BTW, he saw a US person in me too, so do not get too flattered. The character may need professional medical help, but in some asylums they already have Internet access.
  110. @Khan Bodin
    I think that combined European, Russian and Chinese armies could easily cross the Bering Strait. There is plenty of spoil there... so much to loot and pillage. We only need to find a way of neutralizing Murican nuclear arsenal before proceeding. Without nuclear protection and oceans to defend them we can easily crush all Anglo resistance and take all their lands in North America and Australia. There will be plenty of Anglo slaves and so much treasure for all of us to be satisfied. Combined Eurasian might against combined Anglo thugs. Victory would be so swift!

    I think that combined European, Russian and Chinese armies could easily cross the Bering Strait.

    Dude, this is some really potent sh.t you are smoking or…taking.

    Read More
  111. @NoseytheDuke
    "Has the author forgot that Germany alone almost layed waste to the Soviet Union?"

    Almost! How many nations have invaded Russia? How many of those have tried it more than once?

    All failed.

    Have you overlooked the fact that Russia hasn't invaded anywhere since the break up of the USSR whilst the Euros have.

    Europe is a false construct. Would the Euros fight to the death for Europe's wars? I think we already know that the Russians will fight to the death to defend Russia.

    Other commenters here have already raised the notion that perhaps the less painful solution is to identify those crazies who are driving this madness and deal with them instead.

    No, YOU and people like the Faker fail.

    Russia was conquered by a tiny group of Wall Street mercenaries in 1917. Those people subsequently did such a number on the Russian population that Russia still has not recovered demographically, to this day!

    Unfortunately, Germany, being squeezed from all sides by the forces of the money changers could not deliver the Russians from the Bolshevik/Wall Street scum. Too bad. Tens of millions of Russians would not have been exterminated and would have had kids.

    And puhlease… stop with the Napoleon analogies. Unlike Napoleon, NATO would not have to worry about its western flank.

    To conclude, a person truly not worried would not waste time discussing these things and writing wishful thinking reports.

    By the way, the Faker has been talking about an imminent collapse of the U.S. for years…

    Dude! Where’s my collapse?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parbes
    Only an idiot (like you) would call the 1917 Bolshevik revolutionaries in Russia "a tiny group of Wall Street mercenaries". And only an even greater idiot (again like you) would claim that Russia's "demographic problems" are due to a "number" done by 1917 Bolshevik revolutionaries. Stupider-than-stupid, counterfactual crap like this, is exactly why you shithead Neo-Nazis masquerading as "white nationalists" are spat upon, used as a pissoir, and not taken seriously by anyone with half a brain - least of all the Western "white masses" whom you're supposedly the "saviors" of.

    Blockhead!
  112. @Chaban
    No, YOU and people like the Faker fail.

    Russia was conquered by a tiny group of Wall Street mercenaries in 1917. Those people subsequently did such a number on the Russian population that Russia still has not recovered demographically, to this day!

    Unfortunately, Germany, being squeezed from all sides by the forces of the money changers could not deliver the Russians from the Bolshevik/Wall Street scum. Too bad. Tens of millions of Russians would not have been exterminated and would have had kids.

    And puhlease... stop with the Napoleon analogies. Unlike Napoleon, NATO would not have to worry about its western flank.

    To conclude, a person truly not worried would not waste time discussing these things and writing wishful thinking reports.

    By the way, the Faker has been talking about an imminent collapse of the U.S. for years...

    Dude! Where's my collapse?

    Only an idiot (like you) would call the 1917 Bolshevik revolutionaries in Russia “a tiny group of Wall Street mercenaries”. And only an even greater idiot (again like you) would claim that Russia’s “demographic problems” are due to a “number” done by 1917 Bolshevik revolutionaries. Stupider-than-stupid, counterfactual crap like this, is exactly why you shithead Neo-Nazis masquerading as “white nationalists” are spat upon, used as a pissoir, and not taken seriously by anyone with half a brain – least of all the Western “white masses” whom you’re supposedly the “saviors” of.

    Blockhead!

    Read More
  113. @Randal

    I would have nothing against enslaving all of you in Anglo lands, plus of course the Jews, and taking all of your possessions as the war prize.
     
    You're very welcome to try. Might hurt a bit, though, and the record suggests you're pretty unlikely to succeed. Have at it.

    This character was a bit entertaining initially with his totally mad extremism, but now he is becoming just a pest to any decent discussion here. BTW, he saw a US person in me too, so do not get too flattered. The character may need professional medical help, but in some asylums they already have Internet access.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Presumably he feels better after venting here, so perhaps it's doing some good.
  114. @Khan Bodin
    I am sure something has messed up in your head terribly. From the very birth of yours I would say. The idea that you westerners (Anglo-Muricans) are no thereat to every and any free and sovereign nation in this world is laughable. Your imbecility is very strong, Anglo. The whole world hates you, Anglo.

    Your mental limitations are showing quite badly. Go read what I wrote, then try again. Knee jerk stupidity is not a credit to anyone.

    Read More
  115. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Randal

    Hmm… that is quite a statement but it is NOT supported by any evidence.
     
    Not sure what kind of evidence can really be adduced for what is essentially a piece of counterfactual speculation, to be honest.

    There are two main questions, assuming the basic counterfactual of no Russian nuclear deterrent force - would the US regime want to attack Russia as Serbia was attacked, and would the US win. The two are related, of course, inasmuch as the US regime would have to at least think it could win in order to want to attack.

    On the first, I have absolutely no doubt that there are powerful groups and individuals influencing US foreign policy, and capable of manufacturing popular support for their desired course of action through media and political manipulation, who would be very happy to see a war against Russia if they thought it could be won. I suspect this is not likely to be a major point of disagreement between us.

    Given the motivation, the events in Ukraine provided a perfect pretext for attacking Russia, as events in Yugoslavia and Kosovo provided the pretext for the attack on Serbia.

    The remaining issue is whether the US could defeat Russia conventionally, which it appears from your comment you dispute.

    We must both concede at the outset that any consideration of the matter involves massive speculation, as far as the effectiveness of particular weapon systems and strategies, details of the strategic situation, etc are concerned. For me, though, I rest my assumption on the same case you made above for WW2. The US would beat Russia because the US versus Russia is economically "a team of giants versus a team of pygmies", certainly unless China were to openly intervene on Russia's side (and China is probably not ready for such a war yet, for another decade or two at any rate).

    There is no obvious reason to assume that things would be particularly different in this war from what they were in WW2, mutatis mutandis (Russia has very different advantages and disadvantages from those the Axis powers had, but the economic and strategic situations and balance are similar). Or more accurately, one can come up with many reasons why things might go differently, but one can also come up with at least equally numerous reasons why they would go in the other way.

    In summary, in the absence of nuclear weapons, the US would most likely win a war to the finish with Russia, the same way it and its allies beat Germany and Japan. That's not to say that the US fanboys are right, or that the US military is not often overrated, or that the US could easily invade Russia.

    In summary, in the absence of nuclear weapons, the US would most likely win a war to the finish with Russia, the same way it and its allies beat Germany and Japan. That’s not to say that the US fanboys are right, or that the US military is not often overrated, or that the US could easily invade Russia.

    The difference is that the US military forces wear high heels these days and average intelligence of their fighting forces has gone down.

    During WWII each German soldier was worth about 1.25 allied soldiers and 2 Russian soldiers.

    It has reversed now and each Russian soldier is worth more than 2 American soldiers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    The difference is that the US military forces wear high heels these days
     
    LOL!

    I don't know if you've ever played a computer game called XCOM (it's a science fiction game where a hypothetical small international force of soldiers fights alien landings). For some reason the (American) designers decided that a ridiculously high proportion of these combat airmobile infantry would be women, and specialist roles would be allocated randomly. Political correctness or marketing, I'm not sure which, but it amused me enough to write a short skit on it (which probably won't make much sense to you unless you know the game):

    https://www.fanfiction.net/s/11874161/1/XCOM-Enemy-In-Charge

    Which, come to think of it, I probably ought to get around to tidying up with a bit of editing.

    and average intelligence of their fighting forces has gone down.
     
    The men of today are not the men of yesteryear, for sure, but I doubt it will make that much difference in the kind of war that would be involved. We're even further down the remote fighting, industrialised tech warfare path than we were in the 1940s. It's the manufacture and operation of drones, missiles and high tech equipment of various kinds that will probably decide the war.

    And as you pointed out yourself, being better soldiers didn't help the Germans in the end.

    In counterinsurgency you can't use proper modern firepower much, but in a world war the gloves are off and the battlefield is likely to be a much more hostile place for human beings, however good they are, than the WW2 battlefield was, imo.
  116. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Begemot
    The Soviets stopped the Germans in front of Moscow in 1941 and pushed them back. This was before American lend lease aid really got going. This counteroffensive ended Germany's chance to win against the Soviets. In 1941 the Germans attacked the Soviet Union across a broad front with three army groups. In 1942 German resources were sufficient for an offensive with one army group, which ended up at Stalingrad. Remember how that turned out? In 1943 the Germans hoped to pinch off a bulge in the front. That was Kursk. After Kursk it was a one way road to Berlin. Lend lease helped make the Soviets' war easier, but it wasn't what decided the victory.

    But the Soviets do remember America's contribution to their war. There is a can of Spam in the war museum in Kiev.

    In 1942 German resources were sufficient for an offensive with one army group, which ended up at Stalingrad.

    Yes, putting Paulus in charge of that was a mistake. And he surrendered with a relief force only some 20 miles away.

    Read More
  117. @Kiza
    This character was a bit entertaining initially with his totally mad extremism, but now he is becoming just a pest to any decent discussion here. BTW, he saw a US person in me too, so do not get too flattered. The character may need professional medical help, but in some asylums they already have Internet access.

    Presumably he feels better after venting here, so perhaps it’s doing some good.

    Read More
  118. @The most deplorable one

    In summary, in the absence of nuclear weapons, the US would most likely win a war to the finish with Russia, the same way it and its allies beat Germany and Japan. That’s not to say that the US fanboys are right, or that the US military is not often overrated, or that the US could easily invade Russia.
     
    The difference is that the US military forces wear high heels these days and average intelligence of their fighting forces has gone down.

    During WWII each German soldier was worth about 1.25 allied soldiers and 2 Russian soldiers.

    It has reversed now and each Russian soldier is worth more than 2 American soldiers.

    The difference is that the US military forces wear high heels these days

    LOL!

    I don’t know if you’ve ever played a computer game called XCOM (it’s a science fiction game where a hypothetical small international force of soldiers fights alien landings). For some reason the (American) designers decided that a ridiculously high proportion of these combat airmobile infantry would be women, and specialist roles would be allocated randomly. Political correctness or marketing, I’m not sure which, but it amused me enough to write a short skit on it (which probably won’t make much sense to you unless you know the game):

    https://www.fanfiction.net/s/11874161/1/XCOM-Enemy-In-Charge

    Which, come to think of it, I probably ought to get around to tidying up with a bit of editing.

    and average intelligence of their fighting forces has gone down.

    The men of today are not the men of yesteryear, for sure, but I doubt it will make that much difference in the kind of war that would be involved. We’re even further down the remote fighting, industrialised tech warfare path than we were in the 1940s. It’s the manufacture and operation of drones, missiles and high tech equipment of various kinds that will probably decide the war.

    And as you pointed out yourself, being better soldiers didn’t help the Germans in the end.

    In counterinsurgency you can’t use proper modern firepower much, but in a world war the gloves are off and the battlefield is likely to be a much more hostile place for human beings, however good they are, than the WW2 battlefield was, imo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    Well, I guess we just have to wait and see. It shouldn't be long now.
    , @The most deplorable one
    Let me add one last thought.

    Forty or so years ago the US put men on the moon. Now it is content to put men in women's bathrooms.

    That tells us a lot, I think about its current ability to do the really hard things, and prosecuting a war is a really hard thing.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    XCOM isn't one of the games I play but I loled. Thanks for the link.
  119. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Randal

    The difference is that the US military forces wear high heels these days
     
    LOL!

    I don't know if you've ever played a computer game called XCOM (it's a science fiction game where a hypothetical small international force of soldiers fights alien landings). For some reason the (American) designers decided that a ridiculously high proportion of these combat airmobile infantry would be women, and specialist roles would be allocated randomly. Political correctness or marketing, I'm not sure which, but it amused me enough to write a short skit on it (which probably won't make much sense to you unless you know the game):

    https://www.fanfiction.net/s/11874161/1/XCOM-Enemy-In-Charge

    Which, come to think of it, I probably ought to get around to tidying up with a bit of editing.

    and average intelligence of their fighting forces has gone down.
     
    The men of today are not the men of yesteryear, for sure, but I doubt it will make that much difference in the kind of war that would be involved. We're even further down the remote fighting, industrialised tech warfare path than we were in the 1940s. It's the manufacture and operation of drones, missiles and high tech equipment of various kinds that will probably decide the war.

    And as you pointed out yourself, being better soldiers didn't help the Germans in the end.

    In counterinsurgency you can't use proper modern firepower much, but in a world war the gloves are off and the battlefield is likely to be a much more hostile place for human beings, however good they are, than the WW2 battlefield was, imo.

    Well, I guess we just have to wait and see. It shouldn’t be long now.

    Read More
  120. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Randal

    The difference is that the US military forces wear high heels these days
     
    LOL!

    I don't know if you've ever played a computer game called XCOM (it's a science fiction game where a hypothetical small international force of soldiers fights alien landings). For some reason the (American) designers decided that a ridiculously high proportion of these combat airmobile infantry would be women, and specialist roles would be allocated randomly. Political correctness or marketing, I'm not sure which, but it amused me enough to write a short skit on it (which probably won't make much sense to you unless you know the game):

    https://www.fanfiction.net/s/11874161/1/XCOM-Enemy-In-Charge

    Which, come to think of it, I probably ought to get around to tidying up with a bit of editing.

    and average intelligence of their fighting forces has gone down.
     
    The men of today are not the men of yesteryear, for sure, but I doubt it will make that much difference in the kind of war that would be involved. We're even further down the remote fighting, industrialised tech warfare path than we were in the 1940s. It's the manufacture and operation of drones, missiles and high tech equipment of various kinds that will probably decide the war.

    And as you pointed out yourself, being better soldiers didn't help the Germans in the end.

    In counterinsurgency you can't use proper modern firepower much, but in a world war the gloves are off and the battlefield is likely to be a much more hostile place for human beings, however good they are, than the WW2 battlefield was, imo.

    Let me add one last thought.

    Forty or so years ago the US put men on the moon. Now it is content to put men in women’s bathrooms.

    That tells us a lot, I think about its current ability to do the really hard things, and prosecuting a war is a really hard thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    I don't disagree with your overall point about modern America (the whole US sphere, in fact - Europe and the UK are probably further gone than the US in many ways).

    I just don't buy that it's going to have a big enough effect militarily to overturn the wisdom of ages that says military power follows economic power, and to overturn a ten to one military spending advantage sustained, more or less, over decades. And it would be a mistake to assume Russia doesn't have its own problems, probably equally debilitating. Different problems in many cases, but problems none the less.

    Well, I guess we just have to wait and see. It shouldn’t be long now.
     
    I can't see a plausible route to it (a world war, that is). We have lived in the dubious shade of the nuclear peace for 70 years now, and nothing has changed to alter its iron logic - the leaders of every powerful state still know that, unlike in past eras, they and their families can't evade the worst consequences of going to war, and nor can they hope to profit from a major war. Nuclear weapons put the leaders and their families in the firing line as never before.
  121. @The most deplorable one
    Let me add one last thought.

    Forty or so years ago the US put men on the moon. Now it is content to put men in women's bathrooms.

    That tells us a lot, I think about its current ability to do the really hard things, and prosecuting a war is a really hard thing.

    I don’t disagree with your overall point about modern America (the whole US sphere, in fact – Europe and the UK are probably further gone than the US in many ways).

    I just don’t buy that it’s going to have a big enough effect militarily to overturn the wisdom of ages that says military power follows economic power, and to overturn a ten to one military spending advantage sustained, more or less, over decades. And it would be a mistake to assume Russia doesn’t have its own problems, probably equally debilitating. Different problems in many cases, but problems none the less.

    Well, I guess we just have to wait and see. It shouldn’t be long now.

    I can’t see a plausible route to it (a world war, that is). We have lived in the dubious shade of the nuclear peace for 70 years now, and nothing has changed to alter its iron logic – the leaders of every powerful state still know that, unlike in past eras, they and their families can’t evade the worst consequences of going to war, and nor can they hope to profit from a major war. Nuclear weapons put the leaders and their families in the firing line as never before.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    I'm not sure that the economic power that you refer to is real. Very little is made in the US compared to previously. Much of the US economy is Wall St's smoke and mirrors.

    MAD doesn't work as before either now that the US is stationing nukes ever closer to Russia and China and is even going further by producing smaller tactical nukes. This is not good for the average Joe.

    Did the US really go to the moon anyway or was that more smoke and mirrors?
  122. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Les neocons sont aussi rationnels que les autres. Ils n ont pas envie d être vitrifiés dans une guerre nucléaire totale.
    Ils mènent une course aux armements indolore pour eux mais dommageable pour les Russes afin de les épuiser .
    Les minis agressions et autres démonstrations de force doivent être appréciées dans ce contexte.
    Enfin les neocons y trouvent un intérêt personnel car tous sont liés au complexe militaro industriel.
    Quant aux véritables patrons les banquiers Rockefeller Rotschild et autres ils partagent la même rationalité intellectuelle les mêmes intérêts et des objectifs identiques : la conquête économique du reste du monde qui leur résiste encore, la Russie et la Chine.
    Un dernier point: la propagande de la menace militaire et terroriste en plus de faire voter des budgets militaires abondants permet de développer peur patriotisme et restriction des libertés.

    Read More
  123. @Randal
    I don't disagree with your overall point about modern America (the whole US sphere, in fact - Europe and the UK are probably further gone than the US in many ways).

    I just don't buy that it's going to have a big enough effect militarily to overturn the wisdom of ages that says military power follows economic power, and to overturn a ten to one military spending advantage sustained, more or less, over decades. And it would be a mistake to assume Russia doesn't have its own problems, probably equally debilitating. Different problems in many cases, but problems none the less.

    Well, I guess we just have to wait and see. It shouldn’t be long now.
     
    I can't see a plausible route to it (a world war, that is). We have lived in the dubious shade of the nuclear peace for 70 years now, and nothing has changed to alter its iron logic - the leaders of every powerful state still know that, unlike in past eras, they and their families can't evade the worst consequences of going to war, and nor can they hope to profit from a major war. Nuclear weapons put the leaders and their families in the firing line as never before.

    I’m not sure that the economic power that you refer to is real. Very little is made in the US compared to previously. Much of the US economy is Wall St’s smoke and mirrors.

    MAD doesn’t work as before either now that the US is stationing nukes ever closer to Russia and China and is even going further by producing smaller tactical nukes. This is not good for the average Joe.

    Did the US really go to the moon anyway or was that more smoke and mirrors?

    Read More
  124. @Randal

    The difference is that the US military forces wear high heels these days
     
    LOL!

    I don't know if you've ever played a computer game called XCOM (it's a science fiction game where a hypothetical small international force of soldiers fights alien landings). For some reason the (American) designers decided that a ridiculously high proportion of these combat airmobile infantry would be women, and specialist roles would be allocated randomly. Political correctness or marketing, I'm not sure which, but it amused me enough to write a short skit on it (which probably won't make much sense to you unless you know the game):

    https://www.fanfiction.net/s/11874161/1/XCOM-Enemy-In-Charge

    Which, come to think of it, I probably ought to get around to tidying up with a bit of editing.

    and average intelligence of their fighting forces has gone down.
     
    The men of today are not the men of yesteryear, for sure, but I doubt it will make that much difference in the kind of war that would be involved. We're even further down the remote fighting, industrialised tech warfare path than we were in the 1940s. It's the manufacture and operation of drones, missiles and high tech equipment of various kinds that will probably decide the war.

    And as you pointed out yourself, being better soldiers didn't help the Germans in the end.

    In counterinsurgency you can't use proper modern firepower much, but in a world war the gloves are off and the battlefield is likely to be a much more hostile place for human beings, however good they are, than the WW2 battlefield was, imo.

    XCOM isn’t one of the games I play but I loled. Thanks for the link.

    Read More
  125. @Priss Factor
    Saker, I know you like to use the term Anglo-Zionist, but I suggest Anglo-Zio-Homo Imperialism.

    Anglo-Zionists have recruited homo-globalists as their main imperialist allies.

    Wherever the tentacles of Anglo-Zionism spreads, homo victory marchers follow.

    In Old Imperialism, whenever Anglo-Brits conquered new land, they hoisted the British Flag.
    In Palestine that became Israel, Zionists hoisted the Jewish Flag. And in the US that has succumbed to Zionist control, Southern Flag is out and Zionist flag is in. It is everywhere.

    But it wouldn't do for Anglo-Zionists to hoist British or American flags in all their globalist-imperial conquests. And it would look pretty stupid to hoist Zionist flags in such places also. If people see American Flags hoisted all over, they will see it as American Imperialism. If they see Zionist flags, they'll see it as Jewish imperialism.
    Also, there will resistance from the Western domestic Left that is prominent in academia and even media. If US conquers new lands and hoists the US victory flag, Western Leftists will cry foul and holler 'imperialism!'

    So, why not hoist the homo-flag to spread Anglo-Zionist Imperialism?
    In the de-spiritualized West, the new religion is homomania. Western Leftists and Liberals worship the 'Gay' Anus. They see trannies as godly. They think homos, especially Jewish ones, are holy and made of angelic skin. Ahhhh, the Socialism of the Skin. I don't believe Western Leftists worshiped even Karl Marx, Lenin, or Gramsci as much as they do the holy homo. Why not? Because Western Leftists are hedonistic and vain, and they see the holy homo as more fun and flamboyant than Marxism that was actually quite priggish and spartan about lots of stuff.

    Because the Western Left is so much into holy-homomania, their ire can be neutralized if Western Imperialism is wrapped in the homo crusade, aka frusade(fruit crusade). It's like when the West was Christian, much of the imperialist plunder could be hidden or justified on account of spreading Christianity and God.
    Today, much of the destruction and plunder is covered up by holy homomania.
    Old Imperialism was justified with the help of Christian missionaries.
    New Globo-Imperialism is justified with the help of homo missionfairies.

    In a way, the Globalist Imperialists fear the rage and resistance of domestic Western Left more than anything. Domestic Left is rich, powerful, and well-organized in the way that Third World darkies are not. So, in order for Western Imperialism to be successful, the Western Left must be persuaded that it is NOT imperialism but a holy frusade to spread 'tolerance' for homos and 'love'. 'War is Homo Love' is the New Orwellianism. And homos are so vain and narcissistic that they are willing partners in this to spread homo-supremacism all over with the help of Anglo-Zionists.

    So, it must be seen as a case of Anglo-Zio-Homo Imperialism.

    Notice how Hillary Clinton praises the Zionist crushing and killing of Palestinians on the basis that Israel has 'gay pride' parades but Muslims/Arabs do not.
    And even Western Leftists, being so worshipful of homos, go along with this.
    In the name of holy homo, any amount of wars and oppression are justified.

    This is why whenever we discuss Anglo-Zionism, we need to associate or ass-ociate it with the homo-globo-agenda. We need to tell the world that homos are among the main collaborator-agents of the Western Neo-Imperialism.

    Anglo-Zio-Homo Imperialists!

    brilliant

    Read More
  126. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I just want to tell the article’s author his last paragraphs, dealing with the psychopatic kabal, are very wise.

    One must reflect on how and why such a country like the USA ends in the hand of a circle of crazies overmastered by unlimited, maniacal, thirst for domination.

    Read More
  127. By far the best Saker article I have read. Mustn”t forgo however the little quibble that the UK did not join WW2 after it was virtually won – even if ine accepts that the US did – which is more than disputable.

    Read More
  128. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Very interesting analysis, thank you.

    Re WWII and the Russian front, two points:

    Hitler was incompetent. If the military leadership been allowed to fight as they thought best, the Germans might’ve stabilized the front.

    Secondly, the Russians profited from enormous amounts of western aid, including some 350k trucks.

    Re present day Russia, Putins behavior undercuts your thesis that Russia has no territorial ambitions.

    Read More
  129. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Fran Macadam
    Some of the crazies are getting close to having their hands on the actual levers of power, including making war - and are of the mentality of a Masha Gessen, which means readiness to threaten nukes to impose LGBTQI.

    You said it! Today’s mincing rainbow queers working rallying to HRC in support of Amerika-driven armageddon is a spectacle as sickening as how an earlier generation fell for the wiles of fascism. And I write as a dyed-in-wool same-sexer. If same-sex love isn’t mobilized as catalyst to virtue (the Greeks had the idea) it becomes corruption itself…

    Read More
  130. […] Debunking Popular Cliches About Modern Warfare The Unz Review. From May, but still relevant. […]

    Read More
  131. […] of the most frustrating tasks is to try to debunk the Hollywood myths imprinted on the mind of Americans about warfare in general and about special forces and technology in particular. When last week I wrote my column about the […]

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All The Saker Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution