The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 The Saker ArchiveBlogview
I Sure Hope That I am Wrong, But…
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_660093913
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

The talk of the week is the upcoming meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin on the sidelines of the G20 conference this Friday. There have been some very good articles already written on this topic, I particularly recommend Adam Garrie’s “5 obstacles Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will have to address in their meeting” for The Duran and Israel Shamir’s “What Would Putin Tell Trump?” for The Unz Review. It is undeniable that the fact that these two men will finally meet is an event of immense significance and importance for the future not only of US-Russian relations, but even for the future or mankind.

Or is it?

I have to be honest here and say that my expectations are pretty close to zero. Oh sure, they will smile, probably a lot, and some minor issues, such as the seizure of the Russian diplomatic residence in the US, will be resolved. Probably. There might even be some kind of positive sounding sounds about “reaffirming the Minsk Agreement” or “fighting ISIS in Syria”, but compared to long list of truly vital issues which need to be urgently discussed and resolved, this will, I am afraid, be as close to nothing as it can get. Why do I say that?

First, we should all stop kidding ourselves, Russia and the USA do not have “disagreements”. The sad and frightening reality is that we are now closer to war than during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Not only are Russian and US servicemen now deployed in the same war zone (the Americans totally illegally), but unlike what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis we have a US President who terminally lacks the willpower to deal with the crazies on the US side, I am talking about the Neocons, of course. In fact, under Kennedy there were no real Neocons to tackle to begin with. Now they are running the White House while Trump serves them coffee or watches TV in another room (I am joking of course, but just barely). In this context, to meet on the “sidelines” of a G20 conference is bordering on the criminally irresponsible. What the world would need is for Trump and Putin to meet in a “Camp David” like format for at least 3-5 days with all their key advisors and officials. Even if we assume 100% good will on both sides, meeting on the “sidelines” of an already big conference just won’t make it possible to get anything done. In the very best of cases Lavrov and Tillerson could have done most of the hard work away from the public eye, but the truth is that the Russians say that so far the two sides have not even agreed upon an agenda.

Second, it is absolutely clear that the US Ziomedia and Congress will declare any, any, positive outcome from the meeting as “Trump caved in to Putin” and try to get a pound of political flesh out of Trump for it. So for Trump any external success will mean an internal disaster. And we already know that the man does not have what it takes to deal with such attacks. Frankly, his only “tactic”, so to speak, to deal with the Neocons has been to try to appease them. So short of Trump asking for political asylum in Russia and joining Snowden somewhere in Russia, I don’t see him ever taking any independent action.

Third, if we look at the people around Trump it is pretty clear that the only intelligent and rational person in the White House is Rex Tillerson. The rest of them are lunatics, maniacs and imbeciles – the current US what shall I call it—“actions” (can’t call it a “policy”) towards Syria clearly prove that the Executive Branch is completely out of control. We now can clearly see that Mattis and McMaster are not these military geniuses presented to us by the Ziomedia but that, in fact, they are both phenomenally incompetent and that their views of the conflicts in Syria and even Afghanistan can only be characterized as totally lacking anything remotely resembling any kind of vision. Yet these two “geniuses” seem to be in charge. For all his intelligence, Tillerson can’t even rein in this Nikki idiot at the United Nations. We should stop kidding ourselves and stop pretending like there is anybody to talk to for the Russians. At best, they are dealing with a Kindergarten. At worst, they are dealing with an evil Kindergarten. But either way, there is nobody to talk to on the US side, much less so somebody to begin solving the many issues that need solving.

I will admit that I did have high hopes for Trump and his apparent willingness to sit down and have an adult conversation with the Russians. I was especially inspired by Trump’s repeated rejection of the Ziomedia’s narrative about Russia and by what appeared to me as his “no nonsense” approach towards getting things done. I wrote many articles for this blog saying that having hopes (not expectations!) for Trump was the right thing to do. And, frankly, I think that at the time it was. Last Fall I even wrote an entire chapter on this topic in the book “If I were King: Advice for President Trump“. The big difference is that before his election we could only judge Trump by his words. Now, however, we can judge him by his words and his actions and the latter show us a consistent pattern of supine subservience to the Neocons and their demands, from the betrayal of his friend and key advisor Flynn, to the recent threats to bomb Syria for, allegedly, “preparing” to use chemical munitions against civilians.

This might be his, shall we call it, “Las Vegas culture” – but Trump is all about form over substance and appearance over facts. Just look at his frankly pathetic threats (with no less than 3 aircraft carrier strike groups!) against the DPRK or his half-assed missile strike on the Syrian airbase: it’s all a big show, nothing more. No wonder the man likes “tweeting” – he seems to think in 140 character long “thought clusters”…

ORDER IT NOW

None of that would be too bad if the US, and the West generally, had a halfway decent media and a Legislative Branch worthy of its name. In theory, these could raise hell and demand that the President either resign or begin doing his job. But, of course, they don’t and they won’t. They hate Trump, of course, but they also own him. He can make fun of them in “tweets” in his free time, but in terms of his policies he does exactly what they want. And the very last thing they want is any kind of “detente” with Russia. At most, they will impeach Trump just to humiliate him, but that’s about it. They don’t even need to play their “Pence” card – Trump is what is colloquially known in US ghettos as their “punk-ass bitch”.

Ever since the ill-fated “GWOT” more or less petered out, Russia has become the indispensable bogeyman to terrify the public and justify multi-billion dollar corruption schemes. Not only that, but a “resurgent Russia” is the cornerstone justification of the AngloZionist paranoia about a need to spend more on the war state, the police state and, of course, on corporate greed. The powers that be are even re-heating old, Cold War era, scaring techniques:

The Defense Intelligence Agency has recently released a “Russian Military Power 2017” report. Since it is pretty well written, I actually recommend that you download and read it: it is a mix of pretty good information about the Russian Armed Forces and the garden variety nonsense about Russian hackers and their cyber-threat to US and its allies. Just set aside the clearly politically-induced nonsense and you are left with a rather well made summary of what the Russian Armed Forces are up to these days.

I have to thank the DIA for this report: it made me feel young again, like I was in the 1980s when all the students of warfare and of the Soviet military were reading these annual “Soviet Military Power” reports with great interest. But other than making some of us feel young, the real purpose of this document is clear and it is the very same one behind the Cold War era “Soviet Military Power” series: to justify an increase in “defense” (i.e. “aggression”) spending by showing how scary these evil Commies/Russkies were/are.

This would all be rather funny, and nostalgic in a way, if it did not show the total lack of imagination of the folks at the Pentagon. Far from coming up with anything novel or interesting, they are bringing back into service stuff which for years had been collecting dust in the memories of now mostly retired Cold Warriors. It is rather pathetic, really.

Over the past 30 years or so, Russia went from being the Soviet Union, to being a Somalia-like “democratic hell” during the 1990s, to becoming a completely new entity – a “New Russia” which is dramatically different from the Soviet Union of the 1980s. In contrast, the US got completely stuck in its old patterns, except for this time they are “the same, but even worse”. If the US did not have nukes that would almost be okay (after all, the world can let “Uncle Sam” slowly lose his sclerotic brain, who cares?) but when a nuclear superpower is acting like an out-of-control rogue state, this is very, very, scary.

So back to our G20 meeting again. The first thing which needs to be said is that Trump is weak, extremely weak: he goes in with the Ziomedia and Congress hating him and with a basically treacherous White House team clearly controlled by Pence, Kushner and the rest of the Neocon crazies. To make things worse, Trump can offer the Russians absolutely nothing they would want or need.

Please don’t buy this sanctions canard. The damage these sanctions could do they have already done. The simple truth is that Russia has already survived the sanctions and come out even stronger, this is confirmed by international organizations and by the private sector. In fact, removing the sanctions right now would hurt the Russian economy far more, especially the agricultural sector, which has greatly benefited from the de-facto protectionist protection provided to the Russian economy by these sanctions. Likewise, the Russian defense industry has successfully adapted to the total severance by the Ukronazi regime of all the defense contracts with Russia and now 100% Russian military systems and parts are being produced in Russia at a cheaper price and of a higher quality. Besides, since Congress and UN Nikki have made it pretty darn clear that sanctions will remain in place until Russia agrees to return Crimea to the Ukraine, nothing will change until the current Ukraine finally breaks into three or four parts.

Trump could, in theory, offer the Russians to stop sabotaging the peace process in Syria and the Russians would surely welcome that. But since the US policy of illegal air and missile strikes combined with a deployment of US forces on the ground in Syria is failing anyway, see here and here, the Russians are going to get what they want whether the US wants it or not.

As for the Ukraine, the situation there is so bad that an increasing number of specialists are saying that even the US has lost control of Banderastan and that now it’s going to be all about intra-Ukie power plays: the social, political, military, cultural and economic disaster has reached what I would call an “escape velocity” when the various processes taking place are basically chaotic, unpredictable and unmanageable. I am personally very dubious that the Americans would have anything to offer the Russians.

How about the other way around? What could the Russians offer Trump?

Again, I am afraid that nothing much either.

Russian foreign policies are all centered around the development of a multi-polar world and Putin is now extremely busy dealing with some seriously important matters. So what can Putin offer Trump? A promise not to invade Lithuania? Trump knows that there never was any such threat to begin with. It’s not like Putin can agree to pretend not to see the constant inflow of NATO forces and equipment into eastern Europe as the latter constitute a serious threat to Russian national security. Could the Russian promise that they won’t fly over the Baltic without their transponders on? Hardly, since the first ones to switch off their transponders were the Americans. What about a Russian promise not to intercept Secretary of Defense Mattis’ civilian transport aircraft over international waters? But wait – that was the other way around, it’s NATO (a Polish F-16 actually) which intercepted Shoigu’s aircraft over the Baltic Sea during a long announced and official trip from mainland Russia to Kaliningrad (and who then ran away as soon as a Russian SU-27 showed the missiles it was carrying under it’s wings which by convention means “get the hell out of here or I shoot you down“), so its not the Russians, but the American who need to rein in their yapping poodle.

[Sidebar: I have never been a big admirer of Polish politicians, but now Poland is reaching truly historical lows in terms of cowardice, dishonor and plain stupidity; from their “war on statues“, to their idiotic accusation that the Russian ATC deliverately crashed an official Polish aircraft ( resulting from their categorical inability to accept that their own politicians gave a stupid order to their pilots) to Prime Minister Kazinsky’s war on “cyclists and vegetarians“, to the resurrection of the extremely dangerous “Three Seas” plan – Poland is constantly up to the no good and self-deafeningly stupid. But then, what are we to expect from a country which considers a character like Pilsudksi as a national hero? Sadly, Poland is repeating its worst historical mistake: the one of constantly trying to trigger a conflict between the West and Russia (apparently, history has taught them nothing). So now, the tiny Polish poodle is barking at the Russian Bear convinced that Uncle Sam and the West will protect him if the bear comes down charging. Truly, human stupidity is limitless].

I think I can guess what the Americans want: a partition of Syria, if not de jure then de facto. I don’t think that this will work. For one thing, the Americans are (yet again) overlooking the fact that the main actor in Syria is not Russia but Iran and Iran has no reason whatsoever to agree to any such partition. Neither do the Russians, of course. The only ones truly interested in a partition of Syria are,who else, the Israelis and since they are now back in charge of the White House, they are the ones pushing for this “solution”. But that is something Turkey and Iran cannot accept as this would not only create a “Wahabistan” in eastern Syria, but also some kind of Kurdistan in the north – hardly a recipe for peace. And, finally, let’s not forget the Syrians themselves. They perfectly understand that any partition of their homeland would leave them squeezed between Israel in the southwest and some kind of crazy Daesh pretend-caliphate in the northeast – why would they ever accept such a rotten and, not to mention, unsustainable deal?

For the Americans, of course, it’s the other way around: since they could not get the black flag of Daesh to fly over Damascus they see the partition of Syria as the only acceptable outcome. They will therefore oppose any peace process, especially one crafted by Russia, Iran and Turkey, with every ugly trick in their bag.

So, will the upcoming meeting yield nothing, nothing at all?

It will yield the fact that the two leaders spoke to each other, face to face. That is not unimportant. I also have some hopes for some type of ‘deconfliction’ agreements between Russia and the US/NATO (switch their bloody transponders on again!). If we can get resumption of some kind of talks between NATO and Russia it would also be a good thing, even if nothing much concrete is achieved by this. I suspect that Trump would love the ditch the Ukraine, but he can’t do that for political reasons. If the Russians can con the Americans to endorse, even just verbally, the Astana talks on Syria that would be good because it would make it marginally harder for the Pentagon and/or the CIA to engage in false flag chemical attacks or any other such nonsense. Am I missing something? Yeah, probably some kind of “cultural exchanges” (that’s when diplomats are truly desperate and have nothing else to offer) or a common plan to protect polar bears (thank God for small things all the same!).

The Russians will probably try to get Trump into agreeing to some kind of new UN Resolution on Syria, but since we all know that the US disregards UN resolutions anyway, it won’t be much of a victory, even if it will feel good for a while.

I hope I am wrong, really wrong, totally wrong even. I will be watching the (hopefully joint) press conference of Trump and Putin on Friday with a tiny leftover and paradoxical spark of hope that maybe, just maybe, Trump has something good left inside him. But I won’t be holding my breath. They say that hope dies last. Maybe. I will find out on Friday.

 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Indeed there are no small items the leaders can give to each other, nor in Syria neither in the Ukraine. There is no place for some give-and-take. I’d hope for a full-fledged U-turn of American policy, like Nixon did – or, like Gorbachev did at his meeting with Reagan. Otherwise, it is basically waste of time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean

    I’d hope for a full-fledged U-turn of American policy, like Nixon did – or, like Gorbachev did at his meeting with Reagan.
     
    Nixon made friends with China as an ally against Russia, but it is becoming obvious to everyone that China is more dangerous to western primacy than the Soviets ever could be. A rapprochement with Russia would signal an alliance against China. Unfortunately the leaders that matter have completely missed the point.
    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/reagan-and-gorbachev-agreed-pause-cold-war-case-alien-invasion-180957402/

    At the begining of WW2 Churchill wrote:

    "I for one, am not so immensely impressed by the success we are making of our civilisation here that I am prepared to think we are the only spot in this immense universe which contains living, thinking creatures, or that we are the highest type of mental and physical development which has ever appeared in the vast compass of space and time."http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38985425
     
    Oblivious to the implications of the Fermi Paradox of the Universe, we seem to be heading for Chinamerica followed by universal cooperation and technological advance beyond imagining. But we know out planet hosts the only extant technological society in the universe. As John Gray said

    ... the Earth is larger and more enduring than anything produced by the human mind. For humans, the growth of knowledge means only history as usual – if on a rather larger scale of destruction. For the Earth, it is only a dream, soon to end in peace.
     
    Grave New World.
    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
    /tsaker/i-sure-hope-that-i-am-wrong-but/#comment-1922685
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Sean says:

    Melodramatic nonsense. No one is going to start a nuclear war unless they think they can win it and Russia has nothing anyone wants anyway. The real action is the trade agreement with China in which China got the lot . Eamonn Fingleton explained beforehand how China would use North Korea as wedge against the fools in the US to bring down American’s economic and industrial defences.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Issac
    >Melodramatic nonsense.

    My thoughts exactly. I read this article in the voice of my Jewish grandmother. Oy vey!
    , @Randal

    Melodramatic nonsense. No one is going to start a nuclear war unless they think they can win it and Russia has nothing anyone wants anyway.
     
    You accuse Saker of writing nonsense and then disregard three quarters of a century of top level agonising about the risks of unintended escalation to a nuclear exchange in a confrontation between nuclear powers.

    Well done.
    , @citizen of the world
    Actually, Eamonn Fingleton, a financial economist has explained international politics and balance of power between countries way better than most other geopolitical analysts. Maybe ironical,but thats the way it is
    , @Old Codger
    Not only melodramatic, but rather juvenilely IMBECILIC and snarky , as well.

    This "essay" could just as easily have ended with "Nanny, nanny boo-boo!"....as anything.

    Saker, call when your middle school holds its "continuation" ceremony. We'll send a card.
  3. In Syria, the only problem the Pentagon has is no air superiority. Without air superiority the Pentagon is helpless. Russia could give them that, maybe partially at least, in some areas. And Ukraine — without regular cash infusions Kiev is dead. And that’s what Trump could offer (maybe. He would have to grow some balls). And that’s a possible deal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    The US has complete air superiority in Syria, should it choose to exercise it.

    And the US (let alone Trump) has no veto over IMF policy.
    , @anon
    I wrote months ago that the U.S, the EU, the Kiev provisional government and Russia should have met and then proposed a solution to Ukraine. They could have suggested a poll of Ukrainian citizens as to whether to split the country into East and West Ukrainian nations along the Dnieper, with built in provisions for free movement of people, finance and goods between the two countries for a specified period in order to ameliorate difficulties of transition. This would have maintained both countries' access to the Black Sea and eliminated the cause of Russia's occupation of Crimea, as well avoiding the subsequent trouble and bloodshed tearing the country apart and the increasing international tension it's causing.
    The Kiev government needs increased connection with the West, not the problem of governing half a country's worth of Russophiles in the east. There would be no great threat to the West by having an Eastern Ukraine bordering the Dnieper - the longer the East acceded to the mindset and demands of the kleptocracy that is Russia, especially as greener forms of energy take over, the worse it would look to both itself and others in comparison to West Ukraine, which would be well rid of it, and accelerating its own progress aided by its connections with the West.
    But this scenario would require political leadership instead of the standard bumbling and gamesmanship in response to each daily event.
  4. Yes, this sounds about right.

    Russia should use this window of opportunity to aggressively push its geopolitical interests, including in Ukraine (it is most assuredly not going to break “into three or four parts” by itself).

    If Trump 2016 wins out, great. If the neocns fully reassert control, Russia is gonna get squeezed further regardless.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jj
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-03/trump-hopes-quietly-steal-russias-natgas-dominance-over-europe
    , @Mr. Hack

    Russia should use this window of opportunity to aggressively push its geopolitical interests, including in Ukraine (it is most assuredly not going to break “into three or four parts” by itself
     
    This is pretty much a Russian pipe dream that isn't going to happen. the West is not going to let Russia run roughshod over Ukraine and break it up 'into three or four parts'. Firstly, Ukrainians aren't interested in having their country further decimated by Russia, and would put up staunch resistance to any such encroachments. In case you hadn't heard, Poroshenko was in Washington last week, and got assurances from Pence (and his boss Trump) that US support for Ukraine is still very real and will continue into the foreseeable future. Ukraine has been given the green light to start producing weapon parts for the US military at lesser costs which will only cement future US/Ukraine relations.
  5. @Mao Cheng Ji
    In Syria, the only problem the Pentagon has is no air superiority. Without air superiority the Pentagon is helpless. Russia could give them that, maybe partially at least, in some areas. And Ukraine -- without regular cash infusions Kiev is dead. And that's what Trump could offer (maybe. He would have to grow some balls). And that's a possible deal.

    The US has complete air superiority in Syria, should it choose to exercise it.

    And the US (let alone Trump) has no veto over IMF policy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Naive to think the IMF ever does anything to which the US objects.
    And only if they start something in Syria will we find out whether or not they have air superiority.
    , @JL

    And the US (let alone Trump) has no veto over IMF policy.
     
    LOL, tell that to Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The US owns the IMF and is one of its primary tools for global domination.
    , @LondonBob
    But, how scary is the S-400 Triumf (nicknamed ‘Grumpy’ by the NATO)? Make no mistake, it’s very scary indeed. According to an assessment a former pilot-instructor at the US Air Force Weapons School, it is “the most dangerous operationally deployed modern long-range SAM (surface-to-air missile) in the world.”

    https://medium.com/@GetterWetzel/russian-s-400-in-syria-what-does-it-mean-for-us-air-assets-6bd31605cedd
    , @Silverado
    That's a nice piece of fiction you're peddling BUT you're (like the criminal warmongering neocons) wrong. The S400 and the S500 missile systems have air superiority in Syria and those belong to the Russians and the Syrians. All they have to do is to turn them on and VIOLA - they rule the air.
    , @Yeah
    @Anatoly Karlin

    "The US has complete air superiority in Syria, should it choose to exercise it."

    "And the US (let alone Trump) has no veto over IMF policy"

    Oh yeah, you just uttered two award-winning statements of utter ... a sense of politeness precludes me using the right word here. You obviously know nothing about the IMF, let us leave it that. As to your knowledge of air superiority ... maybe you are clairvoyant (or a military genius?) and can predict battle outcomes in advance. If you are right then the Russians have been pretty darned stupid. Why did they have to go into Syria in the first place and why do they keep boasting about their S400 and S300 systems?
  6. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Israel, I liked your article and reprinted it on the Intertel page of facebook.

    I think I know what you mean here, but ‘making nice’ isn’t a waste of time. And speaking of that, it’s about time. All of the necessary defense against the stupid accusations of ‘collusion’ were no substitute for initiating relations with Putin. Trump is not as dumb as The Saker thinks. He’s told Tillerson to ignore the at-home political mudslinging in his overtures to Putin.

    The Saker sees Trump’s sophistication as weakness, but with The Saker in a position of political power we’d be in real hot water immediately.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JGarbo
    Trump sophisticated? I daren't then ask about your upbringing. Trump's a punk, as the Saker so aptly says, taking it in the rear from his bosses. Might explain his misogyny, always being treated like a bitch by his masters. Nevertheless, the Punk was chosen for his "flexibility", bending on command, so his own ravings can be safely disregarded. Small mercy.
  7. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    In Syria, the only problem the Pentagon has is no air superiority. Without air superiority the Pentagon is helpless. Russia could give them that, maybe partially at least, in some areas. And Ukraine -- without regular cash infusions Kiev is dead. And that's what Trump could offer (maybe. He would have to grow some balls). And that's a possible deal.

    I wrote months ago that the U.S, the EU, the Kiev provisional government and Russia should have met and then proposed a solution to Ukraine. They could have suggested a poll of Ukrainian citizens as to whether to split the country into East and West Ukrainian nations along the Dnieper, with built in provisions for free movement of people, finance and goods between the two countries for a specified period in order to ameliorate difficulties of transition. This would have maintained both countries’ access to the Black Sea and eliminated the cause of Russia’s occupation of Crimea, as well avoiding the subsequent trouble and bloodshed tearing the country apart and the increasing international tension it’s causing.
    The Kiev government needs increased connection with the West, not the problem of governing half a country’s worth of Russophiles in the east. There would be no great threat to the West by having an Eastern Ukraine bordering the Dnieper – the longer the East acceded to the mindset and demands of the kleptocracy that is Russia, especially as greener forms of energy take over, the worse it would look to both itself and others in comparison to West Ukraine, which would be well rid of it, and accelerating its own progress aided by its connections with the West.
    But this scenario would require political leadership instead of the standard bumbling and gamesmanship in response to each daily event.

    Read More
  8. Max Payne says:

    They say that hope dies last.

    What? Who says that? I thought the saying was ‘Hope is the first step to disappointment.’

    Read More
    • Replies: @englishmike


    They say that hope dies last.
     
    What? Who says that? I thought the saying was ‘Hope is the first step to disappointment.’
     
    There is also this from Francis Bacon: "Hope is a good breakfast but a bad supper".
  9. Aedib says:

    A separated article about how Putin masterfully dodged the western-sanctions should be done.

    https://www.awaragroup.com/blog/russian-economy-2014-2016-the-years-of-sanctions-warfare/

    It seems that almost all Western prediction(wishes) about an imminent catastrophe in Russia, miserably fizzled.

    Read More
  10. rafael says:

    Saker ; I do believe you tending to the left ; I do believe that you don`t like the President .
    For you to judge someone comes easy . Saker you think President Trump is not a smart person .
    I do see something good coming out of this G20 . I do believe you are not very optimistic .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Why should the Saker not be pessimistic? I was also thinking, as many others here, that he may be making a difference for the better.

    Except for one point on your internal affairs (a *little* enforcement of rules re. illegals, particularly those who have committed crimes), he hasn't achieved anything much that he said.

    Very disappointed.

    If the USA prex. wants to ruling all of its colonies, we should all be having a vote.
  11. Issac says:
    @Sean
    Melodramatic nonsense. No one is going to start a nuclear war unless they think they can win it and Russia has nothing anyone wants anyway. The real action is the trade agreement with China in which China got the lot . Eamonn Fingleton explained beforehand how China would use North Korea as wedge against the fools in the US to bring down American's economic and industrial defences.

    >Melodramatic nonsense.

    My thoughts exactly. I read this article in the voice of my Jewish grandmother. Oy vey!

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    "Melodramatic nonsense."
    What ?
    Neither word seems appropriate.
    Sure, you can disagree, but your comment seems more like an unfair put down.
    Saker's central thesis (upon which he presents some strong arguments) is simply that he doubts whether the G 20 meeting between Trump/ Putin will produce any substantive agreements. Given all the circumstances that is a view, at the least, which deserves serious consideration.
    It maybe wrong, but it is NOT mere "nonsense"
    , @Che Guava
    Don't worry. Kushner is exclusively looking after Zionist, Israeli, and Jewish interests, so mazel tov to your stupid comment.
  12. Dod says:

    I find it unsettling that someone whom I trusted can see “Nikki” as a person, with personal ideas. She doesn’t recall her real name and her religion; how could she give a damn about whatever she spouts on orders from whoever is the object of her sycophancy?

    Read More
  13. Kyle McKenna [AKA "Mika-Non"] says:

    The sad and frightening reality is that we are now closer to war than during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    Wow, dude. Way to trash your credibility right out of the starting gate!

    I Sure Hope That I am Wrong

    As they say, careful what you wish for…

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Saker wrote that we are now closer to war not specifically nuclear war. With the massing of Nato (US) forces in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and all around China and NK, and having the hindsight that the Vietnam war was triggered by lies, the war in Iraq was triggered by lies, as was Libya, Syria and the lies being spewed by lying CNN, Fox and just about every other Big Media foghorn today have never been more divorced from reality, I'd go with the Saker's assessment.
    , @animalogic
    Actually the Saker maybe under playing the danger.
    The doomsday clock is at 2 & half minutes to midnight: the worst setting since 1953. This is due - in large part - to the woeful state of US /Russia relations. Saker's credibility, on this point at least, is on pretty firm ground.
    http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-27/nuclear-doomsday-clock-ticks-closest-to-midnight-in-64-years/8216458
  14. Austro says:

    Mao said a while ago that America is a paper tiger, nothing’s changed. Without the USAF just moneymaking bullshit.

    Read More
  15. El Dato says:
    @Dod
    I find it unsettling that someone whom I trusted can see "Nikki" as a person, with personal ideas. She doesn't recall her real name and her religion; how could she give a damn about whatever she spouts on orders from whoever is the object of her sycophancy?

    Nikki?

    Don’t you mean Twiki?

    Read More
  16. jj says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Yes, this sounds about right.

    Russia should use this window of opportunity to aggressively push its geopolitical interests, including in Ukraine (it is most assuredly not going to break "into three or four parts" by itself).

    If Trump 2016 wins out, great. If the neocns fully reassert control, Russia is gonna get squeezed further regardless.
    Read More
  17. Ivy says:

    Expect that some incident or provocative act will happen to occur on the eve of the talks. There is a slim, but non-zero chance that the parties could agree. That would upset many parties and likely trigger subsequent events.

    Read More
  18. fnn says:

    The real enemy of the US is domestic. Ex-CIA analyst Michael Scheuer thinks he is waging war against them with his tweets:

    http://non-intervention.com/2789/pour-it-on-mr-trump-tweet-the-lying-bastards-and-bitches-straight-to-hell/

    He may be giving Trump too much credit, but I’m in no position to judge. Nevertheless, we know who the consistent warmongers have been.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    Didn't know Scheuer had a blog: thanks for the link.
    Have great respect for Michael: one of few public figures who has bravely called out Israel for causing great harm to America and the useless, endless, counterproductive wars ginned up Neocons and Israel-firsters.

    He wiped the floor with the sniveling members of Congress when he testified: the idiots didn't know what hit them. They are used to browbeating witnesses who don't tow the Neocon line.

    A true American patriot.
  19. 5371 says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    The US has complete air superiority in Syria, should it choose to exercise it.

    And the US (let alone Trump) has no veto over IMF policy.

    Naive to think the IMF ever does anything to which the US objects.
    And only if they start something in Syria will we find out whether or not they have air superiority.

    Read More
  20. Cyrano says:

    I am really impressed with this article, Saker. I find your analysis excellent, especially concerning the Polaks – nobodies that always dreamed of asserting themselves as the preeminent Slavic country – keep dreaming losers. I don’t entirely agree with Saker’s assessment that we are now closer to war than ever since the Cuban missile crisis. I think that US game is to bluff the Russians into making a major mistake – like the dismantling of USSR. These are not the 80’s and Putin is no Gorbachev. Even the plan to scrap the INF treaty smacks of old tricks played in the 80’s – trying to bankrupt Russia with a new arms race. What a brilliant idea. Hey why not – if it worked back then, why not try it again – same as restarting the cold war – recycling old ideas when nothing new comes to mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Agreed, Poland is hopeless. They helped start the 2nd world war, they may very well start the 3rd with their foolish delusions that they mean anything to the Anglo-Zionist empire.
    , @Che Guava
    For a note of levity, I spent a little time trying to find the original video of Poland's 2014 Eurovision entry, We are Slavic.

    It is a crappy wigger song, but the original original version of the video was v. funny, completely focussed on breasts and milking cows. Startlingly so. Tonight, I tried to finding it, but the 'original version' on utube just extends the wigger to the visuals.

    Suppose they pulled the real original video. A shame. It was very funny.
  21. Art says:

    Pure speculation.

    Me thinks that Trump is going to seek a big time summit with Putin – a grand Reagan like Reykjavi II.

    Nothing gives Trump more pleasure then big grand gestures that make fools of his detractors.

    The elite right and left would both die a thousand deaths.

    Peace — Art

    Read More
  22. JL says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    The US has complete air superiority in Syria, should it choose to exercise it.

    And the US (let alone Trump) has no veto over IMF policy.

    And the US (let alone Trump) has no veto over IMF policy.

    LOL, tell that to Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The US owns the IMF and is one of its primary tools for global domination.

    Read More
  23. Trump can’t cut a deal because the shadow government will do everything in its power to sabotage it. He also inherited a mess. We can guess at what he is going to do but we don’t really know for sure what the policy will turn out to be. He said early on he isn’t going to tell us what it is. He gets a lot of his information from the shadow government so obviously they will guide some of his thinking. The shadow government also is applying operant conditioning on Trump with praise (when he attacks someone) and abuse when he wants to engage in diplomacy. Twitter allows us to try and politely share our point of view with him which can contradict the propaganda that he sees on TV and reads in the newspapers so we the people have a direct line to the President and he has one to us. He knows the news media is bad mouthing him for no reason but they command a lot of power. I have no idea what is in Trump’s heart but before these 4 years are out we will know what is in it.

    Read More
  24. ” the real purpose of this document is clear and it is the very same one behind the Cold War era “Soviet Military Power” series: to justify an increase in “defense” (i.e. “aggression”) spending by showing how scary these evil Commies/Russkies were/are.

    This would all be rather funny, and nostalgic in a way, if it did not show the total lack of imagination of the folks at the Pentagon ”

    Is there any other way to justify the USA military spending ?
    No bureaucracy ever dissoluted itself.
    Changing the political course of a country that wages wars continually since Roosevelt is not an easy task.
    Too many interests want no change.
    And indeed, Putin has nothing to offer.

    The offer is to convert the USA swords into ploughs.
    Alas, as with any change, those that are affected directly do anything to prevent the change, those that may benefit have a wait and see attitude.

    Read More
  25. LondonBob says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    The US has complete air superiority in Syria, should it choose to exercise it.

    And the US (let alone Trump) has no veto over IMF policy.

    But, how scary is the S-400 Triumf (nicknamed ‘Grumpy’ by the NATO)? Make no mistake, it’s very scary indeed. According to an assessment a former pilot-instructor at the US Air Force Weapons School, it is “the most dangerous operationally deployed modern long-range SAM (surface-to-air missile) in the world.”

    https://medium.com/@GetterWetzel/russian-s-400-in-syria-what-does-it-mean-for-us-air-assets-6bd31605cedd

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    But, how scary is the S-400 Triumf (nicknamed ‘Grumpy’ by the NATO)? Make no mistake, it’s very scary indeed.
     
    Scary enough that the US regime know they will most likely have to bear a (hopefully) unacceptable cost for destroying the Russian expeditionary force in Syria, but not scary enough to prevent them overloading and destroying it if they really, really wanted do so and were prepared to pay the price, probably.
  26. It will be a three- way at Hamburg. XI will be there: all three will meet. Trump will announce a railway link between China and US via Siberia. All will be well. Happy 4th!

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Read More
  27. @Kyle McKenna

    The sad and frightening reality is that we are now closer to war than during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
     
    Wow, dude. Way to trash your credibility right out of the starting gate!

    I Sure Hope That I am Wrong
     
    As they say, careful what you wish for...

    Saker wrote that we are now closer to war not specifically nuclear war. With the massing of Nato (US) forces in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and all around China and NK, and having the hindsight that the Vietnam war was triggered by lies, the war in Iraq was triggered by lies, as was Libya, Syria and the lies being spewed by lying CNN, Fox and just about every other Big Media foghorn today have never been more divorced from reality, I’d go with the Saker’s assessment.

    Read More
  28. Sherman says:

    Hey Andrei

    Have you gotten a real job yet or are you still doing nonsense work for your wife?

    Sherm

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    Hey Sherm

    Are those Hasbara checks helping to stave off foreclosure on your used car loan?

    -- Jus' Sayin'...
  29. @Kyle McKenna

    The sad and frightening reality is that we are now closer to war than during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
     
    Wow, dude. Way to trash your credibility right out of the starting gate!

    I Sure Hope That I am Wrong
     
    As they say, careful what you wish for...

    Actually the Saker maybe under playing the danger.
    The doomsday clock is at 2 & half minutes to midnight: the worst setting since 1953. This is due – in large part – to the woeful state of US /Russia relations. Saker’s credibility, on this point at least, is on pretty firm ground.

    http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-27/nuclear-doomsday-clock-ticks-closest-to-midnight-in-64-years/8216458

    Read More
  30. @Issac
    >Melodramatic nonsense.

    My thoughts exactly. I read this article in the voice of my Jewish grandmother. Oy vey!

    “Melodramatic nonsense.”
    What ?
    Neither word seems appropriate.
    Sure, you can disagree, but your comment seems more like an unfair put down.
    Saker’s central thesis (upon which he presents some strong arguments) is simply that he doubts whether the G 20 meeting between Trump/ Putin will produce any substantive agreements. Given all the circumstances that is a view, at the least, which deserves serious consideration.
    It maybe wrong, but it is NOT mere “nonsense”

    Read More
  31. Kirt says:

    “punk-ass bitch”??!!! Don’t mince words now, Saker, tell us how you really feel.

    Read More
  32. Randal says:

    Pretty good summary.

    The simple truth is that Russia has already survived the sanctions and come out even stronger, this is confirmed by international organizations and by the private sector.

    As indeed many of us predicted at the time these were being heavily discussed. I can recall heated online debates with the advocates of confrontation of Russia insisting that Russia’s economy would be “destroyed” by sanctions (they were often the same people who declared Russia to be on the way to economic devastation anyway due to the supposed incompetence of its government).

    I wonder if any of them intend to pop up again to maintain their position now?

    Sanctions are not generally a good tool of policy. Mostly if they are significant enough to have much economic effect they just increase the power of the central government by further damaging alternative economic power centres, and in any case they provide the target state with a cast iron, patriotically motivating excuse for any economic failures or problems.

    Certainly in this case it seems plausible to assume they helped the Russian government ride out any political unrest resulting from the economic problems created by the oil price slump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    Well, sanctions may not generally be good tool of policy, but the US just doubled down with the US Senate's 98-2 vote.

    S.722 goes much further, codifying the existing Russian sanctions in statute which the White House cannot relieve by presidential decree; imposing new sanctions the same way; and setting up a scheme of reporting of new targets. By itself, the report process will immediately trigger informal sanctions, with or without the formal orders to follow.
    In this new Senate bill, the targeting is no longer crimes committed, or even the restraint of competition, but Russian wealth itself, and the oligarchs who have most of it. That is revolutionary. So is the exception in Section 241(a)(1)(A) for “their closeness to the Russian regime”. That’s a call for the oligarchs to join Mikhail Khodorkovsky in open rebellion.
     
    http://johnhelmer.net/us-senate-strikes-for-russian-equality-the-oligarchs-targeted-in-new-sanctions-bill/
    , @Carroll Price
    With another unforeseen plus being major damage inflicted on the EU as a result of counter-sanctions imposed on food imports coming from NATO countries in western Europe.
  33. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    the real purpose of this document is clear and it is the very same one behind the Cold War era “Soviet Military Power” series: to justify an increase in “defense” (i.e. “aggression”) spending by showing how scary these evil Commies/Russkies were/are.

    Saker simply can’t pierce the motives below the second layer of obfuscation.

    - The ME wars are not about oil or feeding the MIC – they’re laying the groundwork for Greater Israel.

    - Whites are getting genocided for the NWO. Western whites through immigration (and eventual collapse) and eastern whites (Russia and East Europe) in a coming (limited?) nuclear war.

    That’s it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man
    Is this guy Saker's first name Israel?
    Stupid Italy is finally going to stop accepting the hordes of sub Saharan lice landing on their shores, we hope anyway.
    Read Madison Grant's 'The Passing of the Great Race'.
    There will be no nuclear war between Russia and the US as long as Putin and Trump are in power...but that can be shortened by a concerted effort by the Cabal.
  34. Randal says:
    @Sean
    Melodramatic nonsense. No one is going to start a nuclear war unless they think they can win it and Russia has nothing anyone wants anyway. The real action is the trade agreement with China in which China got the lot . Eamonn Fingleton explained beforehand how China would use North Korea as wedge against the fools in the US to bring down American's economic and industrial defences.

    Melodramatic nonsense. No one is going to start a nuclear war unless they think they can win it and Russia has nothing anyone wants anyway.

    You accuse Saker of writing nonsense and then disregard three quarters of a century of top level agonising about the risks of unintended escalation to a nuclear exchange in a confrontation between nuclear powers.

    Well done.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/ideas/2013/08/enoch-powell-and-the-cold-war/

    Powell considered that there was a futility to great-power interventions around the world. After becoming Shadow Defence Minister in 1965, Powell told the Conservative Party Conference that the United States would struggle to exert effective power or influence in Vietnam because it was so far from its own geographical base. In a line of argument that also had relevance to Britain’s own military commitments East of Suez, Powell went further, contending that US involvement would only disrupt the emergence of a new regional balance of power [...]

    In 1949, the year before he became a Conservative MP, Powell argued in the Newcastle Journal that ‘the atom bomb in World War III may be like poison gas in World War II – a constant potential menace, but never an actual one’
     
  35. Randal says:

    [Sidebar: I have never been a big admirer of Polish politicians, but now Poland is reaching truly historical lows in terms of cowardice, dishonor and plain stupidity; from their “war on statues“, to their idiotic accusation that the Russian ATC deliverately crashed an official Polish aircraft ( resulting from their categorical inability to accept that their own politicians gave a stupid order to their pilots) to Prime Minister Kazinsky’s war on “cyclists and vegetarians“,

    Seems pretty harsh on the Poles to me (though I’ll admit I’ve not been in Poland for a couple of decades and more, so I ‘m basing my impression on talking to expatriate Poles and media reports). There’s surely a lot to like about the current Polish government’s domestic attitudes, which compared to mainstream so called conservative parties in western Europe are almost genuinely socially conservative and mildly nationalist. And I don’t see any supposed “war on vegetarians and cyclists” as any kind of problem, either.

    They seem to be relatively resistant (by comparison with the western European degenerate elites) to mass immigration and to social corruption such as the promotion of homosexual activity, and that’s surely a good thing.

    The problem of course is that broadly admirable nationalism can be a problem in foreign affairs when the nationalism is directed against the wrong targets, as with a lot of eastern European nationalism that is obsessed with anachronistic anti-Russian paranoia and misplaced worship of the US. Ukraine is the worst exemplar here, of course.

    In Poland’s case, its foreign policy positions are problematic, but not its domestic ones.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    Poland has earned the eternal enmity of God by giving us Karol Wojtyla, Antipope and Witch-Doctor of the Faith.
    , @Carroll Price
    Like the US government, aren't Jews also in control of Poland's government?
    , @Lex
    Can you REALLY call it paranoia in Ukraine's case?
  36. @Sean
    Melodramatic nonsense. No one is going to start a nuclear war unless they think they can win it and Russia has nothing anyone wants anyway. The real action is the trade agreement with China in which China got the lot . Eamonn Fingleton explained beforehand how China would use North Korea as wedge against the fools in the US to bring down American's economic and industrial defences.

    Actually, Eamonn Fingleton, a financial economist has explained international politics and balance of power between countries way better than most other geopolitical analysts. Maybe ironical,but thats the way it is

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Trump listened to the diplomats who have made a career of having rings run round them by economic rapist China and its N.Korea vassal.

    What did Trump get for his massive gift to China of untrammeled investment in the US? An N.Korean ICBM test has just occurred. The Chinese will offer to help and the next trade deal will give them everything they want again.
  37. @Cyrano
    I am really impressed with this article, Saker. I find your analysis excellent, especially concerning the Polaks – nobodies that always dreamed of asserting themselves as the preeminent Slavic country – keep dreaming losers. I don’t entirely agree with Saker’s assessment that we are now closer to war than ever since the Cuban missile crisis. I think that US game is to bluff the Russians into making a major mistake – like the dismantling of USSR. These are not the 80’s and Putin is no Gorbachev. Even the plan to scrap the INF treaty smacks of old tricks played in the 80’s – trying to bankrupt Russia with a new arms race. What a brilliant idea. Hey why not – if it worked back then, why not try it again – same as restarting the cold war - recycling old ideas when nothing new comes to mind.

    Agreed, Poland is hopeless. They helped start the 2nd world war, they may very well start the 3rd with their foolish delusions that they mean anything to the Anglo-Zionist empire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Poland was a "pawn" used by Great Britain, the bolshevik jews and and the USA. The "territorial dispute" was a pretext (and excuse) to drag the USA into war--something Roosevelt wanted badly.
  38. Joe Hide says:
    @anon
    I wrote months ago that the U.S, the EU, the Kiev provisional government and Russia should have met and then proposed a solution to Ukraine. They could have suggested a poll of Ukrainian citizens as to whether to split the country into East and West Ukrainian nations along the Dnieper, with built in provisions for free movement of people, finance and goods between the two countries for a specified period in order to ameliorate difficulties of transition. This would have maintained both countries' access to the Black Sea and eliminated the cause of Russia's occupation of Crimea, as well avoiding the subsequent trouble and bloodshed tearing the country apart and the increasing international tension it's causing.
    The Kiev government needs increased connection with the West, not the problem of governing half a country's worth of Russophiles in the east. There would be no great threat to the West by having an Eastern Ukraine bordering the Dnieper - the longer the East acceded to the mindset and demands of the kleptocracy that is Russia, especially as greener forms of energy take over, the worse it would look to both itself and others in comparison to West Ukraine, which would be well rid of it, and accelerating its own progress aided by its connections with the West.
    But this scenario would require political leadership instead of the standard bumbling and gamesmanship in response to each daily event.

    I liked your comments a lot.

    Read More
  39. It is undeniable that the fact that these two men will finally meet is an event of immense significance and importance for the future not only of US-Russian relations, but even for the future or mankind.

    Significance? I doubt it. It’ll be a meeting between a man and a show off, attention seeking, know-it-all punk and it’ll be about as significant as those things usually go.

    My bet is that Putin acts like a man, stands firm, and says as little as possible, while the pudgy, rich kid adolescent will not even understand that there’s a message being sent and will no doubt attempt to continue monkey business as usual.

    The rest of us will have to suck it up and grin and bear it. As usual.

    Read More
  40. Randal says:
    @LondonBob
    But, how scary is the S-400 Triumf (nicknamed ‘Grumpy’ by the NATO)? Make no mistake, it’s very scary indeed. According to an assessment a former pilot-instructor at the US Air Force Weapons School, it is “the most dangerous operationally deployed modern long-range SAM (surface-to-air missile) in the world.”

    https://medium.com/@GetterWetzel/russian-s-400-in-syria-what-does-it-mean-for-us-air-assets-6bd31605cedd

    But, how scary is the S-400 Triumf (nicknamed ‘Grumpy’ by the NATO)? Make no mistake, it’s very scary indeed.

    Scary enough that the US regime know they will most likely have to bear a (hopefully) unacceptable cost for destroying the Russian expeditionary force in Syria, but not scary enough to prevent them overloading and destroying it if they really, really wanted do so and were prepared to pay the price, probably.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    I'm not so sure Randal, the ZUSA solved the problem of embarrassing flag-draped bodybags coming home by unloading the planes in the darkness of night but when those expensive toys start falling out of the sky or sinking to the bottom of the seas it would be impossible to put on a brave face and I think the price would be too great.

    We know Russians do have the stomach to bear immense suffering but the US is so vulnerable in so many ways and goes overboard on everything so store shelves would be empty within hours, an already fragile credit-driven economy would grind to a halt immediately and the overrated armament industries would suffer greatly too.

    Obviously I don't know and nobody does so I hope it doesn't come to us all ever finding out.
  41. anarchyst says:

    If nuclear war is started, it will be a “false flag” operation instigated by Israel. Yes, Israel. You see, the USA and Israel are “tied at the hip” (not the citizenry, but the dual-citizenship congress, state department “policy wonks” and other influential “leaders”). What better way to perpetuate war and condition the masses.
    The “Samson Option” is a promise to nuke a major European or American city if Israel’s interests are threatened. Israel will not (and cannot) account for its nukes as they are “spread out” (and in position) all over the world.
    Of course, North Korea or Iran will be blamed. You can be sure that North Korean or Iranian passports will be found in the rubble, not unlike the passports found in the WTC rubble.
    Fantasy? I don’t think so. The geopolitical status of Israel and the USA demands it…
    The Israeli government has a number of “loose cannon” psychopaths that are itching for war…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    Aside from the on-going demographic withering of the White race, which has not yet risen to an unstoppable level, the single greatest danger to nations whose populations are still primarily of European ancestry is the absolute control wielded by Israel over the USA's foreign and military policy. Until the USA rids itself of its traitorous, Zionist fifth column there is little hope of amelioration. But under current circumstances nothing much short of a US civil war or paleo-conservative putsch is likely to accomplish this end.
  42. anarchyst says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty
    Agreed, Poland is hopeless. They helped start the 2nd world war, they may very well start the 3rd with their foolish delusions that they mean anything to the Anglo-Zionist empire.

    Poland was a “pawn” used by Great Britain, the bolshevik jews and and the USA. The “territorial dispute” was a pretext (and excuse) to drag the USA into war–something Roosevelt wanted badly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Yes, but it's not just that they were used (they clearly were), it's that they allowed themselves be used. It's incumbent upon a sensible and responsible people that they avoid such traps, or at the very least learn from the experience so as to avoid future calamities, and the Poles as a nation seem unable to do so.
  43. Z-man says:
    @Anonymous

    the real purpose of this document is clear and it is the very same one behind the Cold War era “Soviet Military Power” series: to justify an increase in “defense” (i.e. “aggression”) spending by showing how scary these evil Commies/Russkies were/are.
     
    Saker simply can't pierce the motives below the second layer of obfuscation.

    - The ME wars are not about oil or feeding the MIC - they're laying the groundwork for Greater Israel.

    - Whites are getting genocided for the NWO. Western whites through immigration (and eventual collapse) and eastern whites (Russia and East Europe) in a coming (limited?) nuclear war.

    That's it.

    Is this guy Saker’s first name Israel?
    Stupid Italy is finally going to stop accepting the hordes of sub Saharan lice landing on their shores, we hope anyway.
    Read Madison Grant’s ‘The Passing of the Great Race’.
    There will be no nuclear war between Russia and the US as long as Putin and Trump are in power…but that can be shortened by a concerted effort by the Cabal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Israel Shamir and the Saker are separate people, often to having similar views, as am I.
  44. Avery says:
    @fnn
    The real enemy of the US is domestic. Ex-CIA analyst Michael Scheuer thinks he is waging war against them with his tweets:
    http://non-intervention.com/2789/pour-it-on-mr-trump-tweet-the-lying-bastards-and-bitches-straight-to-hell/

    He may be giving Trump too much credit, but I'm in no position to judge. Nevertheless, we know who the consistent warmongers have been.

    Didn’t know Scheuer had a blog: thanks for the link.
    Have great respect for Michael: one of few public figures who has bravely called out Israel for causing great harm to America and the useless, endless, counterproductive wars ginned up Neocons and Israel-firsters.

    He wiped the floor with the sniveling members of Congress when he testified: the idiots didn’t know what hit them. They are used to browbeating witnesses who don’t tow the Neocon line.

    A true American patriot.

    Read More
  45. Erebus says:
    @Randal
    Pretty good summary.

    The simple truth is that Russia has already survived the sanctions and come out even stronger, this is confirmed by international organizations and by the private sector.
     
    As indeed many of us predicted at the time these were being heavily discussed. I can recall heated online debates with the advocates of confrontation of Russia insisting that Russia's economy would be "destroyed" by sanctions (they were often the same people who declared Russia to be on the way to economic devastation anyway due to the supposed incompetence of its government).

    I wonder if any of them intend to pop up again to maintain their position now?

    Sanctions are not generally a good tool of policy. Mostly if they are significant enough to have much economic effect they just increase the power of the central government by further damaging alternative economic power centres, and in any case they provide the target state with a cast iron, patriotically motivating excuse for any economic failures or problems.

    Certainly in this case it seems plausible to assume they helped the Russian government ride out any political unrest resulting from the economic problems created by the oil price slump.

    Well, sanctions may not generally be good tool of policy, but the US just doubled down with the US Senate’s 98-2 vote.

    S.722 goes much further, codifying the existing Russian sanctions in statute which the White House cannot relieve by presidential decree; imposing new sanctions the same way; and setting up a scheme of reporting of new targets. By itself, the report process will immediately trigger informal sanctions, with or without the formal orders to follow.
    In this new Senate bill, the targeting is no longer crimes committed, or even the restraint of competition, but Russian wealth itself, and the oligarchs who have most of it. That is revolutionary. So is the exception in Section 241(a)(1)(A) for “their closeness to the Russian regime”. That’s a call for the oligarchs to join Mikhail Khodorkovsky in open rebellion.

    http://johnhelmer.net/us-senate-strikes-for-russian-equality-the-oligarchs-targeted-in-new-sanctions-bill/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    may not generally be good tool of policy.......the US just doubled down
     
    These two statements have a harmonious togetherness these days.
    , @Art

    In this new Senate bill, the targeting is no longer crimes committed, or even the restraint of competition, but Russian wealth itself, and the oligarchs who have most of it. That is revolutionary.
     
    The way around these sanctions is crypto-currency (i.e., Bitcoin technology).

    The Central Bank of Russia has plans to introduce a national cryptocurrency of its design, according to Deputy Governor Olga Skorobogatova

    https://www.rt.com/business/390608-russia-bitcoin-cryptocurrency-central-bank/
     
    , @El Dato
    Clownish US behaviour. Iranian assets may be seizable and law-warfareable for all sorts of unclear reasons but if Russia starts seizing Murrican assets in retaliation, what is Murrica going to do about it?

    Muh_Sanctions.jpg

    Europeans also won't be too happy, will they start getting a bit fed up? On the other hand, they have proven to be rather self-defeatingly pliable and been seen watching My Little Political Pony during legislative sessions, so maybe not. At least one European I have spoken is for deeper, harder sanctions, and Freedom for Ukraine, but then again, his wife is Polish.

    Further afield, this smells like the US-vs.-Japan ramp-up to Pearl Harbor (yes, Japan did NOT attack out of the blue). There is probably an article in that idea.
  46. Che Guava says:
    @rafael
    Saker ; I do believe you tending to the left ; I do believe that you don`t like the President .
    For you to judge someone comes easy . Saker you think President Trump is not a smart person .
    I do see something good coming out of this G20 . I do believe you are not very optimistic .

    Why should the Saker not be pessimistic? I was also thinking, as many others here, that he may be making a difference for the better.

    Except for one point on your internal affairs (a *little* enforcement of rules re. illegals, particularly those who have committed crimes), he hasn’t achieved anything much that he said.

    Very disappointed.

    If the USA prex. wants to ruling all of its colonies, we should all be having a vote.

    Read More
  47. Neocons suck – much agreeance.

    So, the bottom line is: the WASPs and the Irish-Catholics need to grow spine, put aside enmity, unite to take back the USA from the neocons.

    Politics, strange bedfellows, etc.

    I don’t see another alliance that would have enough muscle, or care enough about Euro-Americans (Anglo-Saxon-Celtic, we could add the Italians) to do the right things for our people.

    Read More
  48. Che Guava says:
    @Issac
    >Melodramatic nonsense.

    My thoughts exactly. I read this article in the voice of my Jewish grandmother. Oy vey!

    Don’t worry. Kushner is exclusively looking after Zionist, Israeli, and Jewish interests, so mazel tov to your stupid comment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    I don't believe he's exclusive - he seems to be looking out for the Saudi regime's interests as well.
  49. Che Guava says:
    @Z-man
    Is this guy Saker's first name Israel?
    Stupid Italy is finally going to stop accepting the hordes of sub Saharan lice landing on their shores, we hope anyway.
    Read Madison Grant's 'The Passing of the Great Race'.
    There will be no nuclear war between Russia and the US as long as Putin and Trump are in power...but that can be shortened by a concerted effort by the Cabal.

    Israel Shamir and the Saker are separate people, often to having similar views, as am I.

    Read More
  50. bjondo says:

    This 4th for America sees many freedoms reduced or gone.
    Dreams, possibilities destroyed.
    Nevertheless
    we should give thanks that Trump won.
    There is still the possibility of a much better future.

    Read More
  51. Che Guava says:
    @Cyrano
    I am really impressed with this article, Saker. I find your analysis excellent, especially concerning the Polaks – nobodies that always dreamed of asserting themselves as the preeminent Slavic country – keep dreaming losers. I don’t entirely agree with Saker’s assessment that we are now closer to war than ever since the Cuban missile crisis. I think that US game is to bluff the Russians into making a major mistake – like the dismantling of USSR. These are not the 80’s and Putin is no Gorbachev. Even the plan to scrap the INF treaty smacks of old tricks played in the 80’s – trying to bankrupt Russia with a new arms race. What a brilliant idea. Hey why not – if it worked back then, why not try it again – same as restarting the cold war - recycling old ideas when nothing new comes to mind.

    For a note of levity, I spent a little time trying to find the original video of Poland’s 2014 Eurovision entry, We are Slavic.

    It is a crappy wigger song, but the original original version of the video was v. funny, completely focussed on breasts and milking cows. Startlingly so. Tonight, I tried to finding it, but the ‘original version’ on utube just extends the wigger to the visuals.

    Suppose they pulled the real original video. A shame. It was very funny.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    The primary problem for Poland is that they see Russia as the country denying them “greatness”. Right. And the US is the country that will allow them to achieve greatness. Don’t they know, the US politicians before they go to sleep, that’s the last thing that they think of – how can we make Poland great. Poland was non-factor in the Warsaw pact and is non-factor in NATO. Nothing has changed. They like to think otherwise – that they are now part of something big and important. There is a big difference between being a part of something big and important and being something big and important.
  52. Randal says:
    @Erebus
    Well, sanctions may not generally be good tool of policy, but the US just doubled down with the US Senate's 98-2 vote.

    S.722 goes much further, codifying the existing Russian sanctions in statute which the White House cannot relieve by presidential decree; imposing new sanctions the same way; and setting up a scheme of reporting of new targets. By itself, the report process will immediately trigger informal sanctions, with or without the formal orders to follow.
    In this new Senate bill, the targeting is no longer crimes committed, or even the restraint of competition, but Russian wealth itself, and the oligarchs who have most of it. That is revolutionary. So is the exception in Section 241(a)(1)(A) for “their closeness to the Russian regime”. That’s a call for the oligarchs to join Mikhail Khodorkovsky in open rebellion.
     
    http://johnhelmer.net/us-senate-strikes-for-russian-equality-the-oligarchs-targeted-in-new-sanctions-bill/

    may not generally be good tool of policy…….the US just doubled down

    These two statements have a harmonious togetherness these days.

    Read More
  53. Randal says:
    @Che Guava
    Don't worry. Kushner is exclusively looking after Zionist, Israeli, and Jewish interests, so mazel tov to your stupid comment.

    I don’t believe he’s exclusive – he seems to be looking out for the Saudi regime’s interests as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    You may well be correct, but it is still a far cry from 'America first'. WTF is the basis of the Israeli-Saudi informal connection? Why does that control US policy?

    I don't even think that oil explains it. It is just pure evil.
  54. Che Guava says:
    @Randal
    I don't believe he's exclusive - he seems to be looking out for the Saudi regime's interests as well.

    You may well be correct, but it is still a far cry from ‘America first’. WTF is the basis of the Israeli-Saudi informal connection? Why does that control US policy?

    I don’t even think that oil explains it. It is just pure evil.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Yes, the one country whose interests certainly are not prioritised by Kushner appears to be the US.

    WTF is the basis of the Israeli-Saudi informal connection? Why does that control US policy?
     
    Seems to be just an alliance of convenience.

    It controls US policy because the US system is easily influenced by large amounts of money, especially in areas that most US voters are not really much interested in, such as foreign policy. And vast amounts of money is of course exactly what the Saudis and the super-rich members of the Israel lobby can provide, along with the large, well motivated and extremely well placed group of dual loyalty agents of influence the Israel lobby fields in US government and media.
  55. The Saker seems to have summed up Trump pretty well in this article, regrettably. He’s been turned.

    Still, I don’t regret my vote against Hillary, who was turned a very long time ago. At least, Trump sounded as if he might be different.

    And, at least that warmongering, entitled, would-be Caesar without the customary gonads was denied the office.

    LF

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man
    For some reason, call me a fool, I still have some hope, no call it intuitiveness or a + vibe, that he (Trump I) hasn't turned completely into the Cabal's man servant. We shall see soon enough.
  56. Art says:
    @Erebus
    Well, sanctions may not generally be good tool of policy, but the US just doubled down with the US Senate's 98-2 vote.

    S.722 goes much further, codifying the existing Russian sanctions in statute which the White House cannot relieve by presidential decree; imposing new sanctions the same way; and setting up a scheme of reporting of new targets. By itself, the report process will immediately trigger informal sanctions, with or without the formal orders to follow.
    In this new Senate bill, the targeting is no longer crimes committed, or even the restraint of competition, but Russian wealth itself, and the oligarchs who have most of it. That is revolutionary. So is the exception in Section 241(a)(1)(A) for “their closeness to the Russian regime”. That’s a call for the oligarchs to join Mikhail Khodorkovsky in open rebellion.
     
    http://johnhelmer.net/us-senate-strikes-for-russian-equality-the-oligarchs-targeted-in-new-sanctions-bill/

    In this new Senate bill, the targeting is no longer crimes committed, or even the restraint of competition, but Russian wealth itself, and the oligarchs who have most of it. That is revolutionary.

    The way around these sanctions is crypto-currency (i.e., Bitcoin technology).

    The Central Bank of Russia has plans to introduce a national cryptocurrency of its design, according to Deputy Governor Olga Skorobogatova

    https://www.rt.com/business/390608-russia-bitcoin-cryptocurrency-central-bank/

    Read More
  57. Sean says:
    @Randal

    Melodramatic nonsense. No one is going to start a nuclear war unless they think they can win it and Russia has nothing anyone wants anyway.
     
    You accuse Saker of writing nonsense and then disregard three quarters of a century of top level agonising about the risks of unintended escalation to a nuclear exchange in a confrontation between nuclear powers.

    Well done.

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/ideas/2013/08/enoch-powell-and-the-cold-war/

    Powell considered that there was a futility to great-power interventions around the world. After becoming Shadow Defence Minister in 1965, Powell told the Conservative Party Conference that the United States would struggle to exert effective power or influence in Vietnam because it was so far from its own geographical base. In a line of argument that also had relevance to Britain’s own military commitments East of Suez, Powell went further, contending that US involvement would only disrupt the emergence of a new regional balance of power [...]

    In 1949, the year before he became a Conservative MP, Powell argued in the Newcastle Journal that ‘the atom bomb in World War III may be like poison gas in World War II – a constant potential menace, but never an actual one’

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Always nice to be reminded that Powell was one of the few members of the British political elite who saw the post-WW2 subservience to the US clearly for what it was and what it was not - a necessary evil in the circumstances in which we found ourselves, and not an eternal joyous union. And Powell was rather naïve about nuclear weapons, in common with many of his generation who fell for the unilateralist nonsense.

    But no obvious relevance in the contents of your post to the exchange preceding it.
  58. Randal says:
    @Che Guava
    You may well be correct, but it is still a far cry from 'America first'. WTF is the basis of the Israeli-Saudi informal connection? Why does that control US policy?

    I don't even think that oil explains it. It is just pure evil.

    Yes, the one country whose interests certainly are not prioritised by Kushner appears to be the US.

    WTF is the basis of the Israeli-Saudi informal connection? Why does that control US policy?

    Seems to be just an alliance of convenience.

    It controls US policy because the US system is easily influenced by large amounts of money, especially in areas that most US voters are not really much interested in, such as foreign policy. And vast amounts of money is of course exactly what the Saudis and the super-rich members of the Israel lobby can provide, along with the large, well motivated and extremely well placed group of dual loyalty agents of influence the Israel lobby fields in US government and media.

    Read More
  59. Flavius says:

    Trump took on a hard row to hoe and even in the Age of Blink deserves a little time. Honesty requires us to admit that he is only President today because the opposition he faced in both political parties consisted of political dwarfs who had about run our political culture into the ground. Who can say when it was that it occurred even to trump that he might win and so take on the offices of chief of the executive branch, the employees of which would be mostly resisters, and Commander in Chief of the standing military, whose political/industrial support is comprised of nothing but resisters.
    So it was that upon entering the WH, Trump hadn’t many people to choose from whose past performance in both domestic governance and the conduct of foreign and military affairs was not characterized by 15 years of decline or outright failure.
    We may then be entitled to chagrin, but not surprise, that with some exceptions Trump’s cabinet selections are mediocre to poor and that his WH staffing is not much better. Nevertheless it must be said that the appointments of the Kushners and of such vacuous nonentities as Nikki Haley, are shocking examples of defective judgement. The Kushners pushed Trump into the Syrian debacle, his worst decision to date; Haley is such a flat out dope that she needs to be pushed into a broom closet where there are no cameras, no microphones and no telephones lest she be the midwife for real trouble.
    From Trump we can only hope for better; from the available alternatives, we have been given sufficient warrant to know only that we should expect the same failure and deepening decline that happenstance and fortune visited on Trump to try to forestall.
    Kudos to Ron Unz for this web site, to his regular writers and commentators: Happy 4th.

    Read More
  60. Silverado says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    The US has complete air superiority in Syria, should it choose to exercise it.

    And the US (let alone Trump) has no veto over IMF policy.

    That’s a nice piece of fiction you’re peddling BUT you’re (like the criminal warmongering neocons) wrong. The S400 and the S500 missile systems have air superiority in Syria and those belong to the Russians and the Syrians. All they have to do is to turn them on and VIOLA – they rule the air.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Do you not mean 'voila'?

    Viola is the name of a musical instrument, as you would likely know.
  61. @Sherman
    Hey Andrei

    Have you gotten a real job yet or are you still doing nonsense work for your wife?

    Sherm

    Hey Sherm

    Are those Hasbara checks helping to stave off foreclosure on your used car loan?

    – Jus’ Sayin’…

    Read More
  62. Z-man says:
    @Longfisher
    The Saker seems to have summed up Trump pretty well in this article, regrettably. He's been turned.

    Still, I don't regret my vote against Hillary, who was turned a very long time ago. At least, Trump sounded as if he might be different.

    And, at least that warmongering, entitled, would-be Caesar without the customary gonads was denied the office.

    LF

    For some reason, call me a fool, I still have some hope, no call it intuitiveness or a + vibe, that he (Trump I) hasn’t turned completely into the Cabal’s man servant. We shall see soon enough.

    Read More
  63. @anarchyst
    If nuclear war is started, it will be a "false flag" operation instigated by Israel. Yes, Israel. You see, the USA and Israel are "tied at the hip" (not the citizenry, but the dual-citizenship congress, state department "policy wonks" and other influential "leaders"). What better way to perpetuate war and condition the masses.
    The "Samson Option" is a promise to nuke a major European or American city if Israel's interests are threatened. Israel will not (and cannot) account for its nukes as they are "spread out" (and in position) all over the world.
    Of course, North Korea or Iran will be blamed. You can be sure that North Korean or Iranian passports will be found in the rubble, not unlike the passports found in the WTC rubble.
    Fantasy? I don't think so. The geopolitical status of Israel and the USA demands it...
    The Israeli government has a number of "loose cannon" psychopaths that are itching for war...

    Aside from the on-going demographic withering of the White race, which has not yet risen to an unstoppable level, the single greatest danger to nations whose populations are still primarily of European ancestry is the absolute control wielded by Israel over the USA’s foreign and military policy. Until the USA rids itself of its traitorous, Zionist fifth column there is little hope of amelioration. But under current circumstances nothing much short of a US civil war or paleo-conservative putsch is likely to accomplish this end.

    Read More
  64. Randal says:
    @Sean

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/ideas/2013/08/enoch-powell-and-the-cold-war/

    Powell considered that there was a futility to great-power interventions around the world. After becoming Shadow Defence Minister in 1965, Powell told the Conservative Party Conference that the United States would struggle to exert effective power or influence in Vietnam because it was so far from its own geographical base. In a line of argument that also had relevance to Britain’s own military commitments East of Suez, Powell went further, contending that US involvement would only disrupt the emergence of a new regional balance of power [...]

    In 1949, the year before he became a Conservative MP, Powell argued in the Newcastle Journal that ‘the atom bomb in World War III may be like poison gas in World War II – a constant potential menace, but never an actual one’
     

    Always nice to be reminded that Powell was one of the few members of the British political elite who saw the post-WW2 subservience to the US clearly for what it was and what it was not – a necessary evil in the circumstances in which we found ourselves, and not an eternal joyous union. And Powell was rather naïve about nuclear weapons, in common with many of his generation who fell for the unilateralist nonsense.

    But no obvious relevance in the contents of your post to the exchange preceding it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Scarcely innocent of him to think nuclear weapons are only a deterrent to nuclear weapons use by the other side but no deterrent to conventional attack under a nuclear Mexican standoff. It is obvious why Nato spent all that money on conventional weapons: to conventionally deter a conventional Soviet attack.

    The naive thing would to believe the US would blow its own brains out to save Europe--or even itself. The Russians would not start a nuclear war either. The main cause of the Cold war was the MLF proposal (seehere) Khrushchev was terrified of Germany getting a finger on Nato's nuclear trigger. He thought Germany could conventionally blitz to Moscow again.

    Sure, all nuclear powers talk of using nuclear weapons if they were losing conventionally but any conventional winner is going to be packing nukes, and hence on the nuclear level there will be a standoff.

    , @NoseytheDuke
    As a young lad I found out that I could distract teachers and disrupt the entire classroom just by asking a question about Enoch Powell. Teachers would often fly into a rage at simply an innocent sounding question such as "Please Sir, how do you spell Enoch?" My first taste of power. Happy days!
  65. Sean says:
    @citizen of the world
    Actually, Eamonn Fingleton, a financial economist has explained international politics and balance of power between countries way better than most other geopolitical analysts. Maybe ironical,but thats the way it is

    Trump listened to the diplomats who have made a career of having rings run round them by economic rapist China and its N.Korea vassal.

    What did Trump get for his massive gift to China of untrammeled investment in the US? An N.Korean ICBM test has just occurred. The Chinese will offer to help and the next trade deal will give them everything they want again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    Not an ICBM though:

    Missile launched by North Korea was intermediate range, not ICBM – Russian Defense Ministry

    Also:

    > economic rapist China

    Yeah, well stop printing money to buy tat from China, m'okay?
    , @Anonymous
    The Chinese haven't run rings around the US nor have they gotten what they wanted. They've been pretty clear about what they want:

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/china-russia-combine-to-challenge-trump-on-north-korea/article/2627743

    Russia and China agreed Tuesday that North Korea should halt missile tests and the United States should not deploy a missile shield or conduct large-scale military exercises with South Korea.

    The joint agreement came after a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Moscow and follows what the North Korean regime claims was a successful test of an intercontinental ballistic missile. The agreement was first reported by Reuters.
     
    China, along with Russia, have been very explicit about what they want in exchange for North Korea halting its missile development: They want the US missile shield out of the Korean peninsula, and US military activity on the peninsula to be reduced. This hasn't happened, and the US has no intention of doing this, and therefore China has not helped stop North Korea's missile development.

    It's clear that the opposite of what you suggest is the case. Rather than China using North Korea for economic gain by pretending to help stop North Korea - it's not even offering to help on North Korea unless the US deescalates on the Korean peninsula - it's the US that's using North Korea as a pretext to maintain one of its primary beachheads on Eurasia, and giving China economic carrots to make its military activities more amenable to the Chinese.
    , @citizen of the world
    Yes,now I get it. But many people still dont understand what is going on
  66. Yeah says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    The US has complete air superiority in Syria, should it choose to exercise it.

    And the US (let alone Trump) has no veto over IMF policy.

    “The US has complete air superiority in Syria, should it choose to exercise it.”

    “And the US (let alone Trump) has no veto over IMF policy”

    Oh yeah, you just uttered two award-winning statements of utter … a sense of politeness precludes me using the right word here. You obviously know nothing about the IMF, let us leave it that. As to your knowledge of air superiority … maybe you are clairvoyant (or a military genius?) and can predict battle outcomes in advance. If you are right then the Russians have been pretty darned stupid. Why did they have to go into Syria in the first place and why do they keep boasting about their S400 and S300 systems?

    Read More
  67. Sean says:
    @Israel Shamir
    Indeed there are no small items the leaders can give to each other, nor in Syria neither in the Ukraine. There is no place for some give-and-take. I'd hope for a full-fledged U-turn of American policy, like Nixon did - or, like Gorbachev did at his meeting with Reagan. Otherwise, it is basically waste of time.

    I’d hope for a full-fledged U-turn of American policy, like Nixon did – or, like Gorbachev did at his meeting with Reagan.

    Nixon made friends with China as an ally against Russia, but it is becoming obvious to everyone that China is more dangerous to western primacy than the Soviets ever could be. A rapprochement with Russia would signal an alliance against China. Unfortunately the leaders that matter have completely missed the point.

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/reagan-and-gorbachev-agreed-pause-cold-war-case-alien-invasion-180957402/

    At the begining of WW2 Churchill wrote:

    “I for one, am not so immensely impressed by the success we are making of our civilisation here that I am prepared to think we are the only spot in this immense universe which contains living, thinking creatures, or that we are the highest type of mental and physical development which has ever appeared in the vast compass of space and time.”http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38985425

    Oblivious to the implications of the Fermi Paradox of the Universe, we seem to be heading for Chinamerica followed by universal cooperation and technological advance beyond imagining. But we know out planet hosts the only extant technological society in the universe. As John Gray said

    … the Earth is larger and more enduring than anything produced by the human mind. For humans, the growth of knowledge means only history as usual – if on a rather larger scale of destruction. For the Earth, it is only a dream, soon to end in peace.

    Grave New World.

    Read More
    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
    Strongly agree about China being a much bigger threat than either Germany or Russia ever could be. Although it has to be said that the Chinese threat is neither like the Nazi or Soviet Communist threat, given the de-communization of the Chinese economy and the shell of an ideology that props up the capitalist oligarchy in the Party's name that rules China today. In European terms, losing would be a lot like being incorporated into the Hohenzollern or Romanov empires.
  68. Cyrano says:
    @Che Guava
    For a note of levity, I spent a little time trying to find the original video of Poland's 2014 Eurovision entry, We are Slavic.

    It is a crappy wigger song, but the original original version of the video was v. funny, completely focussed on breasts and milking cows. Startlingly so. Tonight, I tried to finding it, but the 'original version' on utube just extends the wigger to the visuals.

    Suppose they pulled the real original video. A shame. It was very funny.

    The primary problem for Poland is that they see Russia as the country denying them “greatness”. Right. And the US is the country that will allow them to achieve greatness. Don’t they know, the US politicians before they go to sleep, that’s the last thing that they think of – how can we make Poland great. Poland was non-factor in the Warsaw pact and is non-factor in NATO. Nothing has changed. They like to think otherwise – that they are now part of something big and important. There is a big difference between being a part of something big and important and being something big and important.

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    But Poland no longer even has a common border with Russia, except at Kaliningrad Oblast.

    And they DID stop the Red Army on its march to Berlin in 1920, so there is that.
    , @Che Guava
    I am agreeing in general, and know the part about delusional grandeur is true from direct experience of friends at times.

    Poland was not a non-factor in the Warsaw Pact. Between playing footsies with China, having sometimes to take the other parties in the 'People's Democracy' seriously, the role of the Vatican, rise of Woytyla to Pope, Vatican interference, deluded Walesa (his memoirs, if they appear and are sincere, will be very interesting, since the results of his actions had nothing to do with intentions), their polity seems to have had an interesting part.

    El Dato also is making a good point, from an earlier time, it is funny how Bronstein's attempted Western campaign, shameful waste of resources when people in Russia were suffering so badly, is down the memory hole. I would guess that is because so many western soc.-dem., dem.-soc., labour, and green politicians and educators were stupid Trotskyites when young.

    I just wanted to post a link to a hilarious and brilliant video with bad music, will be trying to find it again later, but I suspect it has been pulled from official sites. It is funny that the new 'original' version is just as offensive, though completely charmless, unlike the real original, but the new one is totally wigger, so that makes it somehow alright.

    The real original really made me LOL at the time, even though the music still sucked.
  69. Yeah says:

    This meeting should never, ever have been set up in the first place for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is going to be simply waste of time. The differences between the two sides are too deep and wide and there seems to exist no desire to hammer out a compromise on the US side. Secondly, no prep work on a basic agenda seems to have been done. So what exactly will Putin discuss with his “partner” – mega casino projects? Thirdly, the situation is simply too dangerous on the ground. If anything bad happens to any leader, god help us. Remember Duke Ferdinand and Sarajevo? Fourthly, while Putin may or may not have his state’s backing, Trump most certainly does not. If Trump so much as concedes to the Russians the right to use the toilet at a time of their choosing, the media, the democrats, the congress, and several people and their dogs will call out Trump for caving in, if not treason. All sorts of things can happen soon after the talks to void whatever may have been agreed. Lastly, I am simply voicing my fears, they may very well turn out to have been wrong and some meaningful progress may be made. If so, we all will be the winners and I’ll be delighted to be proven 100% wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Backwoods Bob
    The Russians can't trust the Americans. Trump is clearly trying to partition Syria at the very least.

    Hitlery was using the Wahhabi nut jobs. Trump is using the Kurds.

    During the election, Trump claimed it made sense to work with the Russians to defeat ISIS. He isn't stupid. I am. For believing him.
  70. L.K says:
    @Z-man
    For some reason, call me a fool, I still have some hope, no call it intuitiveness or a + vibe, that he (Trump I) hasn't turned completely into the Cabal's man servant. We shall see soon enough.

    I think you’ll be disappointed.

    Read More
  71. Sean says:
    @Randal
    Always nice to be reminded that Powell was one of the few members of the British political elite who saw the post-WW2 subservience to the US clearly for what it was and what it was not - a necessary evil in the circumstances in which we found ourselves, and not an eternal joyous union. And Powell was rather naïve about nuclear weapons, in common with many of his generation who fell for the unilateralist nonsense.

    But no obvious relevance in the contents of your post to the exchange preceding it.

    Scarcely innocent of him to think nuclear weapons are only a deterrent to nuclear weapons use by the other side but no deterrent to conventional attack under a nuclear Mexican standoff. It is obvious why Nato spent all that money on conventional weapons: to conventionally deter a conventional Soviet attack.

    The naive thing would to believe the US would blow its own brains out to save Europe–or even itself. The Russians would not start a nuclear war either. The main cause of the Cold war was the MLF proposal (seehere) Khrushchev was terrified of Germany getting a finger on Nato’s nuclear trigger. He thought Germany could conventionally blitz to Moscow again.

    Sure, all nuclear powers talk of using nuclear weapons if they were losing conventionally but any conventional winner is going to be packing nukes, and hence on the nuclear level there will be a standoff.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Scarcely innocent of him to think nuclear weapons are only a deterrent to nuclear weapons use by the other side but no deterrent to conventional attack under a nuclear Mexican standoff.
     
    This is a very naïve interpretation of nuclear deterrence. The more sophisticated analyses recognise that uncertainty and the potential for unintended escalation, especially in the context of a side losing a major war, as well as the likelihood of graduated escalation attempts as desperation increases, mean that even mutually assured destruction is not a guarantee against nuclear war.

    I don't recall the justifications for Powell's personal antinuclear stance (he was not a pacifist or hippy), though I suspect it related to his turning against Britain pretending to be a world power after the loss of India, but I believe all the unilateralists were basically naïve in their advocacy of that policy. In reality, no nuclear weapons means no sovereignty except at the sufferance of the nuclear armed powers, in the post-Hiroshima world. Of course, that rather assumes our treasonous post-war leadership elites weren't going to throw away our sovereignty and even our hard won nationality anyway, in pursuit of gains for themselves, as seems to have been the case to date.


    It is obvious why Nato spent all that money on conventional weapons: to conventionally deter a conventional Soviet attack.
     
    Indeed. It's also naïve to believe that nuclear weapons are the only thing you need.
  72. El Dato says:
    @Erebus
    Well, sanctions may not generally be good tool of policy, but the US just doubled down with the US Senate's 98-2 vote.

    S.722 goes much further, codifying the existing Russian sanctions in statute which the White House cannot relieve by presidential decree; imposing new sanctions the same way; and setting up a scheme of reporting of new targets. By itself, the report process will immediately trigger informal sanctions, with or without the formal orders to follow.
    In this new Senate bill, the targeting is no longer crimes committed, or even the restraint of competition, but Russian wealth itself, and the oligarchs who have most of it. That is revolutionary. So is the exception in Section 241(a)(1)(A) for “their closeness to the Russian regime”. That’s a call for the oligarchs to join Mikhail Khodorkovsky in open rebellion.
     
    http://johnhelmer.net/us-senate-strikes-for-russian-equality-the-oligarchs-targeted-in-new-sanctions-bill/

    Clownish US behaviour. Iranian assets may be seizable and law-warfareable for all sorts of unclear reasons but if Russia starts seizing Murrican assets in retaliation, what is Murrica going to do about it?

    Muh_Sanctions.jpg

    Europeans also won’t be too happy, will they start getting a bit fed up? On the other hand, they have proven to be rather self-defeatingly pliable and been seen watching My Little Political Pony during legislative sessions, so maybe not. At least one European I have spoken is for deeper, harder sanctions, and Freedom for Ukraine, but then again, his wife is Polish.

    Further afield, this smells like the US-vs.-Japan ramp-up to Pearl Harbor (yes, Japan did NOT attack out of the blue). There is probably an article in that idea.

    Read More
  73. El Dato says:
    @Cyrano
    The primary problem for Poland is that they see Russia as the country denying them “greatness”. Right. And the US is the country that will allow them to achieve greatness. Don’t they know, the US politicians before they go to sleep, that’s the last thing that they think of – how can we make Poland great. Poland was non-factor in the Warsaw pact and is non-factor in NATO. Nothing has changed. They like to think otherwise – that they are now part of something big and important. There is a big difference between being a part of something big and important and being something big and important.

    But Poland no longer even has a common border with Russia, except at Kaliningrad Oblast.

    And they DID stop the Red Army on its march to Berlin in 1920, so there is that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano

    And they DID stop the Red Army on its march to Berlin in 1920, so there is that.
     
    And thus they earned the eternal gratitude of the Germans. Poland today resides on about 1/3 of what’s historically German land. That’s Stalin’s doing. He gave them that German land intentionally – knowing that the Polaks are neither smart enough nor strong enough to be able to defend that land when the time comes.

    Once Germany wakes up from the 1000 year dream about the 1000 years Reich – by that time the scary monster NATO should be gone – watch for the Germans taking back their land and leaving the Polaks looking stupid (again) for placing all their bets on being “European” and "Western".

  74. DaveE says:

    I agree with Art, above.

    For my money, Trump agreeing PUBLICLY to talk with Putin at all is a huge sign. It means that Trump has won the “Russia hacked the election” battle with the zionists. Now he’s rubbing it in their reptilian faces.

    And most likely they will agree to meet again PUBLICLY, maybe not a major “summit”, that all depends on Putin, too, so Trump’s gotta test the waters. But I’ll bet money that some other meeting will at least be proposed.

    I’m not jumping to his defense but still, it’s a great step to (perhaps) keeping one of his major campaign promises. Of course, the Devil is in the details………. We’ll see and thankfully, soon.

    Read More
  75. El Dato says:
    @Sean
    Trump listened to the diplomats who have made a career of having rings run round them by economic rapist China and its N.Korea vassal.

    What did Trump get for his massive gift to China of untrammeled investment in the US? An N.Korean ICBM test has just occurred. The Chinese will offer to help and the next trade deal will give them everything they want again.

    Not an ICBM though:

    Missile launched by North Korea was intermediate range, not ICBM – Russian Defense Ministry

    Also:

    > economic rapist China

    Yeah, well stop printing money to buy tat from China, m’okay?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man
    To ICBM or not to ICBM, lol.
    Oh yeah btw, what happened with those 16/17 intelligence agencies that all agreed about Russian hacking but failed to tell the executive branch about the extent of 'Kim Yung Fat's' missile program, humm???
    Theater of the absurd!
    The Deep State and the Zionist Cabal must be destroyed!
  76. @anarchyst
    Poland was a "pawn" used by Great Britain, the bolshevik jews and and the USA. The "territorial dispute" was a pretext (and excuse) to drag the USA into war--something Roosevelt wanted badly.

    Yes, but it’s not just that they were used (they clearly were), it’s that they allowed themselves be used. It’s incumbent upon a sensible and responsible people that they avoid such traps, or at the very least learn from the experience so as to avoid future calamities, and the Poles as a nation seem unable to do so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Let's not forget that ashkenazic jews had a stranglehold on Poland's economic and political process and hated the true ethnic Poles. These communist jews were responsible for most of the strife...
  77. Trump is all about form over substance and appearance over facts.

    SO SAD.

    I am so sad that there is nothing on this world wide web that isn’t some paid hack penning moronic observations — congratulations Saker, you are so discerning — and telgraphing fear porn on behalf of this or that phoney faction.

    On a more serious topic, word is Basic Income’s contract will require handing over reproductive rights to the state.

    And now back to the program where “Saker” tells us of the masters’ plan to blow up their own plantation to kingdom come.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Trump is all about form over substance and appearance over facts.

    Style over substance as form is substance.

    But keep in mind that Trump simply doesn't have the muscle.

    Putin came to power with the Russian Deep State.

    Trump came to power against Deep State wishes.

  78. Balkans not worth it to Russia?

    http://www.pravdareport.com/world/europe/04-07-2017/138096-russia_balkans-0/

    Come to think of it, the Balkans in-and-of-themselves were never important.

    The only reason why Balkan crisis led to WWI was because of the competing imperial aims of Russia, Ottomans, Austrians/Germans, British.

    Absent such clashing interests, it doesn’t matter what happens in the Balkans.

    Some nations are intrinsically important and consequential.

    Some nations or regions are important only as battleground of external forces. Once those external forces lose interest, it doesn’t matter what transpires there.

    Syria is important as a conflict zone of great powers: US, Israel, Iran, Russia, Turjey.

    But when millions died in Congo in the 90s and 2000s, no one cared as no great power was interested.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Does Russia have resources to do this? The answer is no. Russia already has Ukraine and Syria, complicated relations with the West in general. Therefore, the idea to get involved in Balkan problems would be an unnecessary and harmful.
     
    Excellent.
    From Pravda.ru no less.
    Great news for the Serbs in the region.
    Why this sounds as “we can’t really support our allies”?
    I mean, you can’t support the Serbs (you know, history, 1877 onwards....), but you expect Syrians (and the rest of similar types) to trust you?
    Trust Putin regime that is.
    Alavites and Assad should be rejoicing reading this article. From Pravda.ru.
    Awesome for credibility.

    Quite discouraging for The Empire.

    I this for real?
  79. The fun about real nucleair deterrence is: no nucleair War of any scale will happen (see cold war).
    If you live in Gaza, no deterrence, you get white-phosphorous, and cluster bombs all over you.

    G20: most likely just smiles.

    Russia-China strike back with North-Korea missile testing and telling US cowboys: remove TAAD from south-korea.

    Furthermore Trump’s grand plan to restore jobs in US: block Northstream 2 (what a joke) makes the Germans even more furious.

    https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201706301055121126-washington-berlin-collision-course/

    Since IS is being bombed now in Raqqa even by US, the US is losing boots on the ground in Syria fast. This means the US cannot start invading again with mercenaries.

    Unless, the Al Saud family take a camel ride to Syria! :D

    Read More
  80. @survey-of-disinfo

    Trump is all about form over substance and appearance over facts.
     
    SO SAD.

    I am so sad that there is nothing on this world wide web that isn't some paid hack penning moronic observations -- congratulations Saker, you are so discerning -- and telgraphing fear porn on behalf of this or that phoney faction.

    On a more serious topic, word is Basic Income's contract will require handing over reproductive rights to the state.

    And now back to the program where "Saker" tells us of the masters' plan to blow up their own plantation to kingdom come.

    Trump is all about form over substance and appearance over facts.

    Style over substance as form is substance.

    But keep in mind that Trump simply doesn’t have the muscle.

    Putin came to power with the Russian Deep State.

    Trump came to power against Deep State wishes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    But keep in mind that Trump simply doesn’t have the muscle.

    Putin came to power with the Russian Deep State.

    Trump came to power against Deep State wishes.
     
    That's the background. Trump has little power with the Establishment/Deep State against him.

    But I would also guess that the Deep State has similarities to the US in general with a small elite Zionist leadership and a mass of agents/operatives that are basically America First but just follow orders for the sake of their careers.
  81. @Randal

    [Sidebar: I have never been a big admirer of Polish politicians, but now Poland is reaching truly historical lows in terms of cowardice, dishonor and plain stupidity; from their “war on statues“, to their idiotic accusation that the Russian ATC deliverately crashed an official Polish aircraft ( resulting from their categorical inability to accept that their own politicians gave a stupid order to their pilots) to Prime Minister Kazinsky’s war on “cyclists and vegetarians“,
     
    Seems pretty harsh on the Poles to me (though I'll admit I've not been in Poland for a couple of decades and more, so I 'm basing my impression on talking to expatriate Poles and media reports). There's surely a lot to like about the current Polish government's domestic attitudes, which compared to mainstream so called conservative parties in western Europe are almost genuinely socially conservative and mildly nationalist. And I don't see any supposed "war on vegetarians and cyclists" as any kind of problem, either.

    They seem to be relatively resistant (by comparison with the western European degenerate elites) to mass immigration and to social corruption such as the promotion of homosexual activity, and that's surely a good thing.

    The problem of course is that broadly admirable nationalism can be a problem in foreign affairs when the nationalism is directed against the wrong targets, as with a lot of eastern European nationalism that is obsessed with anachronistic anti-Russian paranoia and misplaced worship of the US. Ukraine is the worst exemplar here, of course.

    In Poland's case, its foreign policy positions are problematic, but not its domestic ones.

    Poland has earned the eternal enmity of God by giving us Karol Wojtyla, Antipope and Witch-Doctor of the Faith.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Well in fairness God seems to have had the last laugh on that one already, as Wojtyla's no longer about, so forgive and forget, surely?
  82. Watch for a chemical weapons false flag in Syria just as the G-20 meeting commences.

    Read More
  83. Art says:

    Friday’s meeting with Putin will be a defining day for Trump’s presidency.

    The question is will he fall prey to the elitist Jew deep state, who wants nothing to happen, or will he be loyal to his campaign words and go for something big?

    So far in other matters, he has remained loyal to campaign Trump. The cruse missile attack was a must do, face saving maneuver. The Syrian plane shoot down looks like a hissy fit decision made by the Pentagon – not Trump.

    Will he wimp out – or not?

    For sure he will CLAIM big things – we will see if it is for real.

    Peace — Art

    p.s. One more Trump campaign promise is in play — he is kicking ass in Chicago – guns are coming of the street — about time. Protecting life is job one – period. You can ask questions later.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Davis
    "The cruse missile attack was a must do, face saving maneuver. The Syrian plane shoot down looks like a hissy fit decision made by the Pentagon – not Trump."

    Indeed, my thought exactly. Trump is clearly not micromanaging the Syrian conflict at the individual pilot decision-to-attack level. Multiple levels of command are interposed between Trump and that call. Which doesn't stop the "fakenews" calling it a Trump decision. Load of bull, like nearly everything attributed to Trump in the MSM.

    I expect Trump to keep his powder dry -- little agressive "swamp draining" -- until such time as he has full control of the Justice Dept in the form of a cadre of fierce and loyal prosecutors and a fire-breathing FBI director who would water-board his own mother if Trump so directed. Since Trump will have a hard time getting Congress to approve a Trump-loyal FBI head, the earliest Trump can accomplish this would be a recess appointment in August after Congress closes up shop. Also, I would look for limited GOP legislative success until after the mid-terms, at which time I expect Trump to primary out -- ie replace -- the mouth-flapping, do nothing GOP old guard with Trump-approved team players.

    It's waaaaay too early to draw any conclusions about who the real Trump is and what the real Trump wants to do. Stay patient and suspend judgement for a while yet.
  84. @Yeah
    This meeting should never, ever have been set up in the first place for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is going to be simply waste of time. The differences between the two sides are too deep and wide and there seems to exist no desire to hammer out a compromise on the US side. Secondly, no prep work on a basic agenda seems to have been done. So what exactly will Putin discuss with his "partner" - mega casino projects? Thirdly, the situation is simply too dangerous on the ground. If anything bad happens to any leader, god help us. Remember Duke Ferdinand and Sarajevo? Fourthly, while Putin may or may not have his state's backing, Trump most certainly does not. If Trump so much as concedes to the Russians the right to use the toilet at a time of their choosing, the media, the democrats, the congress, and several people and their dogs will call out Trump for caving in, if not treason. All sorts of things can happen soon after the talks to void whatever may have been agreed. Lastly, I am simply voicing my fears, they may very well turn out to have been wrong and some meaningful progress may be made. If so, we all will be the winners and I'll be delighted to be proven 100% wrong.

    The Russians can’t trust the Americans. Trump is clearly trying to partition Syria at the very least.

    Hitlery was using the Wahhabi nut jobs. Trump is using the Kurds.

    During the election, Trump claimed it made sense to work with the Russians to defeat ISIS. He isn’t stupid. I am. For believing him.

    Read More
  85. Allan says:

    Why on earth would Poland wish to retain the monuments of a foreign conqueror? And as for Pilsudski being a Polish hero, what are we to make of a nation which still looks back fondly on Stalin?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    You mean the Russians? Yeah, not the best choice of heroes, but Stalin did save Russian civilization from Trotsky, so perhaps some acknowledgement is in order.
  86. Randal says:
    @Sean
    Scarcely innocent of him to think nuclear weapons are only a deterrent to nuclear weapons use by the other side but no deterrent to conventional attack under a nuclear Mexican standoff. It is obvious why Nato spent all that money on conventional weapons: to conventionally deter a conventional Soviet attack.

    The naive thing would to believe the US would blow its own brains out to save Europe--or even itself. The Russians would not start a nuclear war either. The main cause of the Cold war was the MLF proposal (seehere) Khrushchev was terrified of Germany getting a finger on Nato's nuclear trigger. He thought Germany could conventionally blitz to Moscow again.

    Sure, all nuclear powers talk of using nuclear weapons if they were losing conventionally but any conventional winner is going to be packing nukes, and hence on the nuclear level there will be a standoff.

    Scarcely innocent of him to think nuclear weapons are only a deterrent to nuclear weapons use by the other side but no deterrent to conventional attack under a nuclear Mexican standoff.

    This is a very naïve interpretation of nuclear deterrence. The more sophisticated analyses recognise that uncertainty and the potential for unintended escalation, especially in the context of a side losing a major war, as well as the likelihood of graduated escalation attempts as desperation increases, mean that even mutually assured destruction is not a guarantee against nuclear war.

    I don’t recall the justifications for Powell’s personal antinuclear stance (he was not a pacifist or hippy), though I suspect it related to his turning against Britain pretending to be a world power after the loss of India, but I believe all the unilateralists were basically naïve in their advocacy of that policy. In reality, no nuclear weapons means no sovereignty except at the sufferance of the nuclear armed powers, in the post-Hiroshima world. Of course, that rather assumes our treasonous post-war leadership elites weren’t going to throw away our sovereignty and even our hard won nationality anyway, in pursuit of gains for themselves, as seems to have been the case to date.

    It is obvious why Nato spent all that money on conventional weapons: to conventionally deter a conventional Soviet attack.

    Indeed. It’s also naïve to believe that nuclear weapons are the only thing you need.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    This is a very naïve interpretation of nuclear deterrence. The more sophisticated analyses recognise that uncertainty and the potential for unintended escalation, especially in the context of a side losing a major war, as well as the likelihood of graduated escalation attempts as desperation increases, mean that even mutually assured destruction is not a guarantee against nuclear war.
     
    All the way to the end, Hitler did not use chemical weapons, even though he had the means to deliver them to British and Russian cities. The reality of war is that we try to substitute words for deeds whenever possible, and there are instances where words (i.e. threats) have deterred adversaries from going further, which is why they are uttered. But the reality of nuclear weapons use is civilizational annihilation for the loser. That is to say, there is the danger that the loser will be physically exterminated to the last man, woman and child by conventional means, after he unleashes nuclear weapons. That is why losers will refrain from using them.
    , @Sean
    With nuclear weapons and conventional superiority you can attack a nuclear power with nuclear superiority, because it is mere theoretical overkill capacity. However the thing you need is a reason, because wars are fought for an objective. Hitler wanted the East as German colony, and he took a calculated risk. Soviets went to vast expense to get conventional superiority. Assuming they had invaded, Nato would have had to accept conventional defeat and occupation, or employ limited nuclear weapons first and hope that the Soviets would not reciprocate. Note that the Soviets would have been the ones free to bluff about an all out strike in response to a single nuke being used By Nato. Furthermore it would be an American decision. I have already mentioned that when Reagan became president Kissinger was brought in to educate him and advised Reagan against any first use of a nuclear weapon. The threat of an incredible action is not a credible deterrent. The Soviets had 10:1 in tube artillery and had the option to roll, but they just didn't want Western Europe.

    We have lived in the shade of nuclear peace since the end of WW2
     
    And in the shade of poison gas since WW1. Hitler like the Spartan said we will fight in the dark then'(Powell used this very metaphor by the way). In the Thirties people were conditioned by Guermica to expect what we would now call a nuclear level extent of destruction (ie they though bombing would level the whole of London in a few weeks of the outbreak of war). Use of poison gas was also seen as inevitable in the next war. Beforehand, WW2 was expected to be a stalemate at best for Germany, certainly not a blitzkrieg victory. So mutually assured destruction inhibiting aggression failed because the Germans didn't believe it , were right, and they wanted to conquer territory.

    [T]he only reason there was not an openly fought WW3.
     
    The Soviets would have had to want to conquer Western Europe for them to be deterred. They didn't. The Soviets were uncertain about Germany's intentions and Khrushchev thought the Germans with nuclear weapons (MLF) would soon be at the gates of Moscow. By the way the MLF was what Christine Keeler was asked to find out about from Profumo. The top US general in Europe said back in the early Eighties that he would have asked for permission to use nukes within hours of a Soviet invasion of West Europe. He would not have got it.

    The original draft of John Hackett's WW3 book is instructive


    Hackett’s earlier attempt at writing a scenario had the Warsaw Pact advancing to the French border in as little as 4 days leading to the occupation of West Germany,... After distributing drafts of this early version, he was told by several retired US and West German generals that if it was published it would undermine public confidence in NATO. A year earlier, in 1976, Belgian Brigadier General Robert Close published a controversial book, Europe Without Defense? 48 hours That Could Change the Face of the World, involving a scenario in which the Warsaw Pact launches a surprise attack and advances to the Rhine in two days. https://defenceindepth.co/2016/08/01/general-sir-john-hacketts-the-third-world-war-or-how-to-think-about-a-future-war-with-russia-today/
     
  87. Cyrano says:
    @El Dato
    But Poland no longer even has a common border with Russia, except at Kaliningrad Oblast.

    And they DID stop the Red Army on its march to Berlin in 1920, so there is that.

    And they DID stop the Red Army on its march to Berlin in 1920, so there is that.

    And thus they earned the eternal gratitude of the Germans. Poland today resides on about 1/3 of what’s historically German land. That’s Stalin’s doing. He gave them that German land intentionally – knowing that the Polaks are neither smart enough nor strong enough to be able to defend that land when the time comes.

    Once Germany wakes up from the 1000 year dream about the 1000 years Reich – by that time the scary monster NATO should be gone – watch for the Germans taking back their land and leaving the Polaks looking stupid (again) for placing all their bets on being “European” and “Western”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome



    And they DID stop the Red Army on its march to Berlin in 1920, so there is that.

     

    And thus they earned the eternal gratitude of the Germans.

     

    Germany was grateful. They offered Poland membership in the Anti-Comintern Pact, but they refused.

    Adolf Hitler attending memorial service of the Polish First Marshall Jozef Pilsudski in Berlin, 1935
  88. Randal says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    Poland has earned the eternal enmity of God by giving us Karol Wojtyla, Antipope and Witch-Doctor of the Faith.

    Well in fairness God seems to have had the last laugh on that one already, as Wojtyla’s no longer about, so forgive and forget, surely?

    Read More
  89. peterAUS says:
    @Priss Factor
    Balkans not worth it to Russia?

    http://www.pravdareport.com/world/europe/04-07-2017/138096-russia_balkans-0/

    Come to think of it, the Balkans in-and-of-themselves were never important.

    The only reason why Balkan crisis led to WWI was because of the competing imperial aims of Russia, Ottomans, Austrians/Germans, British.

    Absent such clashing interests, it doesn't matter what happens in the Balkans.

    Some nations are intrinsically important and consequential.

    Some nations or regions are important only as battleground of external forces. Once those external forces lose interest, it doesn't matter what transpires there.

    Syria is important as a conflict zone of great powers: US, Israel, Iran, Russia, Turjey.

    But when millions died in Congo in the 90s and 2000s, no one cared as no great power was interested.

    Does Russia have resources to do this? The answer is no. Russia already has Ukraine and Syria, complicated relations with the West in general. Therefore, the idea to get involved in Balkan problems would be an unnecessary and harmful.

    Excellent.
    From Pravda.ru no less.
    Great news for the Serbs in the region.
    Why this sounds as “we can’t really support our allies”?
    I mean, you can’t support the Serbs (you know, history, 1877 onwards….), but you expect Syrians (and the rest of similar types) to trust you?
    Trust Putin regime that is.
    Alavites and Assad should be rejoicing reading this article. From Pravda.ru.
    Awesome for credibility.

    Quite discouraging for The Empire.

    I this for real?

    Read More
  90. @Max Payne

    They say that hope dies last.
     
    What? Who says that? I thought the saying was 'Hope is the first step to disappointment.'

    They say that hope dies last.

    What? Who says that? I thought the saying was ‘Hope is the first step to disappointment.’

    There is also this from Francis Bacon: “Hope is a good breakfast but a bad supper”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    The Germans say it:

    Die Hoffnung stirbt zuletzt.
  91. Johan nagel says: • Website

    I believe the saker was actually far too optimistic when trump was ‘elected’ and hilarious Clinton was ‘defeated’. Assuming there was a chance that both these killer pigs did not eat from the same trough. Unfortunately, unsurprisingly, he was mistaken, as were many more…I admit I felt a shock of jubiliation at the time, but it’s merely a case of getting carried away with the punch and Judy show of ‘elections’ at least in the US. Where president after president perhaps since JFK have been puppets of the corporate realm and mainly Zionism. The rest had no power, or ever less and are nothing more than glorified sitcom stars who the masses look to as some form of totem…

    Trump is part of the very swamp people still bang on about him draining. When all evidence points to Zero change whatsoever in policy which matters to the US and the world.

    Read More
  92. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Sean
    Trump listened to the diplomats who have made a career of having rings run round them by economic rapist China and its N.Korea vassal.

    What did Trump get for his massive gift to China of untrammeled investment in the US? An N.Korean ICBM test has just occurred. The Chinese will offer to help and the next trade deal will give them everything they want again.

    The Chinese haven’t run rings around the US nor have they gotten what they wanted. They’ve been pretty clear about what they want:

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/china-russia-combine-to-challenge-trump-on-north-korea/article/2627743

    Russia and China agreed Tuesday that North Korea should halt missile tests and the United States should not deploy a missile shield or conduct large-scale military exercises with South Korea.

    The joint agreement came after a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Moscow and follows what the North Korean regime claims was a successful test of an intercontinental ballistic missile. The agreement was first reported by Reuters.

    China, along with Russia, have been very explicit about what they want in exchange for North Korea halting its missile development: They want the US missile shield out of the Korean peninsula, and US military activity on the peninsula to be reduced. This hasn’t happened, and the US has no intention of doing this, and therefore China has not helped stop North Korea’s missile development.

    It’s clear that the opposite of what you suggest is the case. Rather than China using North Korea for economic gain by pretending to help stop North Korea – it’s not even offering to help on North Korea unless the US deescalates on the Korean peninsula – it’s the US that’s using North Korea as a pretext to maintain one of its primary beachheads on Eurasia, and giving China economic carrots to make its military activities more amenable to the Chinese.

    Read More
  93. Z-man says:
    @El Dato
    Not an ICBM though:

    Missile launched by North Korea was intermediate range, not ICBM – Russian Defense Ministry

    Also:

    > economic rapist China

    Yeah, well stop printing money to buy tat from China, m'okay?

    To ICBM or not to ICBM, lol.
    Oh yeah btw, what happened with those 16/17 intelligence agencies that all agreed about Russian hacking but failed to tell the executive branch about the extent of ‘Kim Yung Fat’s’ missile program, humm???
    Theater of the absurd!
    The Deep State and the Zionist Cabal must be destroyed!

    Read More
  94. @Allan
    Why on earth would Poland wish to retain the monuments of a foreign conqueror? And as for Pilsudski being a Polish hero, what are we to make of a nation which still looks back fondly on Stalin?

    You mean the Russians? Yeah, not the best choice of heroes, but Stalin did save Russian civilization from Trotsky, so perhaps some acknowledgement is in order.

    Read More
  95. Svigor says:

    Now, however, we can judge him by his words and his actions and the latter show us a consistent pattern of supine subservience to the Neocons and their demands, from the betrayal of his friend and key advisor Flynn, to the recent threats to bomb Syria for, allegedly, “preparing” to use chemical munitions against civilians.

    This might be his, shall we call it, “Las Vegas culture” – but Trump is all about form over substance and appearance over facts. Just look at his frankly pathetic threats (with no less than 3 aircraft carrier strike groups!) against the DPRK or his half-assed missile strike on the Syrian airbase: it’s all a big show, nothing more. No wonder the man likes “tweeting” – he seems to think in 140 character long “thought clusters”…

    Yes, he just said the food is terrible, and the portions are too small.

    I give you Saker.

    Read More
  96. Svigor says:

    On a more serious topic, word is Basic Income’s contract will require handing over reproductive rights to the state.

    Something like abjuring reproductive rights will inevitably have to accompany life-extension tech, at least at carrying capacity.

    Read More
  97. Svigor says:

    LOL, tell that to Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The US owns the IMF and is one of its primary tools for global domination.

    I’m gonna take a wild guess and say US is its biggest funder? He who has the gold, makes the rules.

    Read More
  98. 7.62mm says:

    It’s not whether you win or lose. It’s where you lay the blame.

    Read More
  99. @Cyrano

    And they DID stop the Red Army on its march to Berlin in 1920, so there is that.
     
    And thus they earned the eternal gratitude of the Germans. Poland today resides on about 1/3 of what’s historically German land. That’s Stalin’s doing. He gave them that German land intentionally – knowing that the Polaks are neither smart enough nor strong enough to be able to defend that land when the time comes.

    Once Germany wakes up from the 1000 year dream about the 1000 years Reich – by that time the scary monster NATO should be gone – watch for the Germans taking back their land and leaving the Polaks looking stupid (again) for placing all their bets on being “European” and "Western".

    And they DID stop the Red Army on its march to Berlin in 1920, so there is that.

    And thus they earned the eternal gratitude of the Germans.

    Germany was grateful. They offered Poland membership in the Anti-Comintern Pact, but they refused.

    Adolf Hitler attending memorial service of the Polish First Marshall Jozef Pilsudski in Berlin, 1935

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    I was talking about eternal not ephemeral gratitude.
  100. Skeptikal says:
    @englishmike


    They say that hope dies last.
     
    What? Who says that? I thought the saying was ‘Hope is the first step to disappointment.’
     
    There is also this from Francis Bacon: "Hope is a good breakfast but a bad supper".

    The Germans say it:

    Die Hoffnung stirbt zuletzt.

    Read More
  101. Agent76 says:

    How many know about this man in the Trump adminisration and his relationship with Russia?

    Apr 16, 2012 Exxon, Rosneft To Cement Historic Energy Deal

    On Monday, Exxon Mobil Corp and Rosneft launched a partnership allowing Exxon an access to Russia’s arctic reserves and giving Rosneft an access to the North American projects. The companies said in a statement that the agreements form joint ventures to manage an exploration program in the Kara Sea and Black Sea, the initial cost for which is estimated over $3.2 billion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    I really don't see what is wrong wtih making a deal with Russia.
    After all, we make such a "business" deal with Israel every day of the year---OK, every year of the century.
    We give them $3 billion and they use it to buy our weaponry.
    Or some such.
    The business of America is business, remember?
    , @RadicalCenter
    Glad to see it. We should and could have more profitable trade with Russia, benefitting the economy and security of both countries.

    And we could add many pro-Russian people to the federal government without outweighing the apparently widespread, deeprooted hatred against Russia among people already in the fed gov.
  102. Cyrano says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome



    And they DID stop the Red Army on its march to Berlin in 1920, so there is that.

     

    And thus they earned the eternal gratitude of the Germans.

     

    Germany was grateful. They offered Poland membership in the Anti-Comintern Pact, but they refused.

    Adolf Hitler attending memorial service of the Polish First Marshall Jozef Pilsudski in Berlin, 1935

    I was talking about eternal not ephemeral gratitude.

    Read More
  103. @Randal

    Scarcely innocent of him to think nuclear weapons are only a deterrent to nuclear weapons use by the other side but no deterrent to conventional attack under a nuclear Mexican standoff.
     
    This is a very naïve interpretation of nuclear deterrence. The more sophisticated analyses recognise that uncertainty and the potential for unintended escalation, especially in the context of a side losing a major war, as well as the likelihood of graduated escalation attempts as desperation increases, mean that even mutually assured destruction is not a guarantee against nuclear war.

    I don't recall the justifications for Powell's personal antinuclear stance (he was not a pacifist or hippy), though I suspect it related to his turning against Britain pretending to be a world power after the loss of India, but I believe all the unilateralists were basically naïve in their advocacy of that policy. In reality, no nuclear weapons means no sovereignty except at the sufferance of the nuclear armed powers, in the post-Hiroshima world. Of course, that rather assumes our treasonous post-war leadership elites weren't going to throw away our sovereignty and even our hard won nationality anyway, in pursuit of gains for themselves, as seems to have been the case to date.


    It is obvious why Nato spent all that money on conventional weapons: to conventionally deter a conventional Soviet attack.
     
    Indeed. It's also naïve to believe that nuclear weapons are the only thing you need.

    This is a very naïve interpretation of nuclear deterrence. The more sophisticated analyses recognise that uncertainty and the potential for unintended escalation, especially in the context of a side losing a major war, as well as the likelihood of graduated escalation attempts as desperation increases, mean that even mutually assured destruction is not a guarantee against nuclear war.

    All the way to the end, Hitler did not use chemical weapons, even though he had the means to deliver them to British and Russian cities. The reality of war is that we try to substitute words for deeds whenever possible, and there are instances where words (i.e. threats) have deterred adversaries from going further, which is why they are uttered. But the reality of nuclear weapons use is civilizational annihilation for the loser. That is to say, there is the danger that the loser will be physically exterminated to the last man, woman and child by conventional means, after he unleashes nuclear weapons. That is why losers will refrain from using them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    We have lived in the shade of nuclear peace since the end of WW2, which is almost certainly the only reason there was not an openly fought WW3.

    My point above is that just because both sides have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world, that does not mean you can forget about them and act as though they don't exist, blithely assuming the other side won't ever use them because they would be destroyed in an all out exchange.

    Relations between two nuclear armed powers are inherently different from relations between two non-nuclear armed powers, and for good reason. Conflict in the former case is like sex between porcupines (in the old joke).
    , @Anonymous

    That is why losers will refrain from using them.
     
    No they won't. Might be true for a smaller nuclear power that's perceived as the aggressor but your theory doesn't apply to any other scenario.

    Hitler was unpopular at the time and a chemical attack couldn't turn the tide anyway.
  104. @Sean

    I’d hope for a full-fledged U-turn of American policy, like Nixon did – or, like Gorbachev did at his meeting with Reagan.
     
    Nixon made friends with China as an ally against Russia, but it is becoming obvious to everyone that China is more dangerous to western primacy than the Soviets ever could be. A rapprochement with Russia would signal an alliance against China. Unfortunately the leaders that matter have completely missed the point.
    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/reagan-and-gorbachev-agreed-pause-cold-war-case-alien-invasion-180957402/

    At the begining of WW2 Churchill wrote:

    "I for one, am not so immensely impressed by the success we are making of our civilisation here that I am prepared to think we are the only spot in this immense universe which contains living, thinking creatures, or that we are the highest type of mental and physical development which has ever appeared in the vast compass of space and time."http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38985425
     
    Oblivious to the implications of the Fermi Paradox of the Universe, we seem to be heading for Chinamerica followed by universal cooperation and technological advance beyond imagining. But we know out planet hosts the only extant technological society in the universe. As John Gray said

    ... the Earth is larger and more enduring than anything produced by the human mind. For humans, the growth of knowledge means only history as usual – if on a rather larger scale of destruction. For the Earth, it is only a dream, soon to end in peace.
     
    Grave New World.

    Strongly agree about China being a much bigger threat than either Germany or Russia ever could be. Although it has to be said that the Chinese threat is neither like the Nazi or Soviet Communist threat, given the de-communization of the Chinese economy and the shell of an ideology that props up the capitalist oligarchy in the Party’s name that rules China today. In European terms, losing would be a lot like being incorporated into the Hohenzollern or Romanov empires.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    The US wants in on the ground floor of Chinese growth. Rather than war, I think peaceful progress and mutual advantage for China and America is an unprecedented threat to the existence of life on Earth. US business yearn for a full share of China's giant potential. The US leadership will roll over if they are allowed to invest in the Chinese megaeconomy and repatriate their massive profits.. I think US investment and technical priming with China's economies of scale means we will get an effective converging of the US and Chinese leaderships agendas. The resultant entity , call it "Chinamerica" will be something new, and present a unique danger because it will be an stoppable engine of exponential technological progress. Amid peace and plenty, individual rights will be increased and people will live better materially in China and the West. A solution to the thirds world's problems will be demanded by liberals (the Bill Gates ect syndrome ) and the Singularity will beckon. Something like Gray Goo will not be far behind. We know this: we are all alone in the Universe (the Fermi Paradox) so no one or thing has survived whatever killed off every single one of our myriad alien predecessor civilizations. Worried about Nuclear War as they all are, humanity won't see it coming. It must come, but I think Chinamerica will bring it on a lot sooner.

    James Lovelock’s book Gaia:


    “Our humanist concerns about the poor of the inner cities or the Third World, and our near-obscene obsession with death, suffering, and pain as if these were evils in themselves – these thoughts divert the mind from our gross and excessive domination of the natural world.”
     
  105. Anon 2 says:

    All nations follow self-interest as they see it. The problem with Russia is that it has little to offer to its neighbors, like Finland, Baltic countries, Poland, and Ukraine, compared to what Western Europe can offer. Finland, Baltic countries, and Poland spent much of the 19th and 20th centuries trying to tell Russia “We don’t want to be part of you. “Ukraine (most of it anyway) is still trying to tell a disbelieving Russia it wants out. Russians find it difficult to accept that their country has been regarded as backward for as long as it has existed. Of course, all Slavic countries are still regarded as backward by the rest of Europe but that’s a separate issue.

    Whatever you can say about Germany, France, and Britain, at least they are not backward, although they are now descending into mediocrity. Hence, based on pure selfish interest, it makes more sense to get closer to W. Europe than to Russia. Nobody is talking about greatness here, the era of empires and quest for national greatness didn’t end well, and thankfully is behind us. What the countries of Central Europe want is a decent life for their citizens, say the level of Italy or Spain. Based on IMF predictions, it is Lithuania that is likely to reach this level soon, and then surpass it. Yes, Lithuania, not Slovenia or Czechia

    Read More
    • Replies: @JL

    The problem with Russia is that it has little to offer to its neighbors, like Finland, Baltic countries, Poland, and Ukraine, compared to what Western Europe can offer.
     
    Except for cheap gas to fuel industry and one of the largest markets for goods that Western Europe will never buy. Little indeed. If you really are this ignorant, check up on the Finnish dairy industry, or Polish apple prices, since Russia imposed counter sanctions on European agriculture. For a lot of those producers the Russian market is gone for good. Not to mention the noise Poland and Ukraine make about the Nordstream 2 project. If this is so little to offer, why the strenuous objections?

    The problem that the denizens of these countries have is that many fail to realize that Russia is no longer an empire, nor is it gripped by any ideology. It has tried to strike, pragmatically, the same deal with most of its neighbors in the post-Soviet period: access to (in many cases discounted) natural resources and the Russian market in exchange for a neutral geopolitical stance. But, (often very justified) historical grievances, along with an overestimated sense of self-importance, just doesn't allow them to let it be. So they go running to the Americans, who are happy to use them as a battering ram against the RF. Little twits are going to get us all killed.
    , @Anonymous

    Whatever you can say about Germany, France, and Britain, at least they are not backward, although they are now descending into mediocrity. Hence, based on pure selfish interest, it makes more sense to get closer to W. Europe than to Russia.
     
    One word: Provincialism

    Just "get closer" to your own country and make it great. What's wrong with being your own man and trading with your neighbours in peace? Have you seen Greece lately? Did you miss the population replacement program in Western Europe?
    , @Mao Cheng Ji

    Based on IMF predictions, it is Lithuania that is likely to reach this level soon, and then surpass it.
     
    Yeah, that one Lithuanian who stays after everyone else has left to clean toilets in London.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_of_Lithuania_1915-2014.png

    , @RadicalCenter
    On current trends, in 30 years won't Germany, France, England, Sweden, and Netherlands be physically dangerous, fearful, Balkanized, untrusting, increasingly impoverished and unproductive and unintelligent places? Places where white and Christian people are constantly under physical attack by Muslims and Africans in "their" own lands, are intimidated and mocked openly by their guests and their guests' offspring, and gradually are exterminated or formally subjugated?

    On current trends, does it seem likely that White people and Christian people in Russia will be eliminated or enslaved by aliens to that degree?

    It does not, in fact, make sense to cozy up to formerly "Western" countries that are rapidly descending into barbarism, and lack the will even to have children to perpetuate their own families and nation. Countries that lack the decency, the courage, the sense of duty, even to protect their own daughters from rape and their sons from torture, beatings, and degradation at the hands of attackers they invited and are feeding and housing.

    The countries of my ancestry have lost their will and will lose everything else accordingly.

    If I were Polish, I would be glad to trade with UK and Western Europe -- or to vacation in UK / western Europe wherever it is still relatively safe and civilized and welcoming -- but I'd acknowledge the handwriting on the wall. Russia has a better chance of surviving AS RUSSIA than U.K. / western Europe has of preserving their own genes and civilization.
  106. @Art
    Friday’s meeting with Putin will be a defining day for Trump’s presidency.

    The question is will he fall prey to the elitist Jew deep state, who wants nothing to happen, or will he be loyal to his campaign words and go for something big?

    So far in other matters, he has remained loyal to campaign Trump. The cruse missile attack was a must do, face saving maneuver. The Syrian plane shoot down looks like a hissy fit decision made by the Pentagon – not Trump.

    Will he wimp out – or not?

    For sure he will CLAIM big things – we will see if it is for real.

    Peace --- Art

    p.s. One more Trump campaign promise is in play -- he is kicking ass in Chicago – guns are coming of the street --- about time. Protecting life is job one – period. You can ask questions later.

    “The cruse missile attack was a must do, face saving maneuver. The Syrian plane shoot down looks like a hissy fit decision made by the Pentagon – not Trump.”

    Indeed, my thought exactly. Trump is clearly not micromanaging the Syrian conflict at the individual pilot decision-to-attack level. Multiple levels of command are interposed between Trump and that call. Which doesn’t stop the “fakenews” calling it a Trump decision. Load of bull, like nearly everything attributed to Trump in the MSM.

    I expect Trump to keep his powder dry — little agressive “swamp draining” — until such time as he has full control of the Justice Dept in the form of a cadre of fierce and loyal prosecutors and a fire-breathing FBI director who would water-board his own mother if Trump so directed. Since Trump will have a hard time getting Congress to approve a Trump-loyal FBI head, the earliest Trump can accomplish this would be a recess appointment in August after Congress closes up shop. Also, I would look for limited GOP legislative success until after the mid-terms, at which time I expect Trump to primary out — ie replace — the mouth-flapping, do nothing GOP old guard with Trump-approved team players.

    It’s waaaaay too early to draw any conclusions about who the real Trump is and what the real Trump wants to do. Stay patient and suspend judgement for a while yet.

    Read More
  107. JGarbo says:
    @anon
    Israel, I liked your article and reprinted it on the Intertel page of facebook.

    I think I know what you mean here, but 'making nice' isn't a waste of time. And speaking of that, it's about time. All of the necessary defense against the stupid accusations of 'collusion' were no substitute for initiating relations with Putin. Trump is not as dumb as The Saker thinks. He's told Tillerson to ignore the at-home political mudslinging in his overtures to Putin.

    The Saker sees Trump's sophistication as weakness, but with The Saker in a position of political power we'd be in real hot water immediately.

    Trump sophisticated? I daren’t then ask about your upbringing. Trump’s a punk, as the Saker so aptly says, taking it in the rear from his bosses. Might explain his misogyny, always being treated like a bitch by his masters. Nevertheless, the Punk was chosen for his “flexibility”, bending on command, so his own ravings can be safely disregarded. Small mercy.

    Read More
  108. Miro23 says:
    @Priss Factor
    Trump is all about form over substance and appearance over facts.

    Style over substance as form is substance.

    But keep in mind that Trump simply doesn't have the muscle.

    Putin came to power with the Russian Deep State.

    Trump came to power against Deep State wishes.

    But keep in mind that Trump simply doesn’t have the muscle.

    Putin came to power with the Russian Deep State.

    Trump came to power against Deep State wishes.

    That’s the background. Trump has little power with the Establishment/Deep State against him.

    But I would also guess that the Deep State has similarities to the US in general with a small elite Zionist leadership and a mass of agents/operatives that are basically America First but just follow orders for the sake of their careers.

    Read More
  109. JL says:
    @Anon 2
    All nations follow self-interest as they see it. The problem with Russia is that it has little to offer to its neighbors, like Finland, Baltic countries, Poland, and Ukraine, compared to what Western Europe can offer. Finland, Baltic countries, and Poland spent much of the 19th and 20th centuries trying to tell Russia "We don't want to be part of you. "Ukraine (most of it anyway) is still trying to tell a disbelieving Russia it wants out. Russians find it difficult to accept that their country has been regarded as backward for as long as it has existed. Of course, all Slavic countries are still regarded as backward by the rest of Europe but that's a separate issue.

    Whatever you can say about Germany, France, and Britain, at least they are not backward, although they are now descending into mediocrity. Hence, based on pure selfish interest, it makes more sense to get closer to W. Europe than to Russia. Nobody is talking about greatness here, the era of empires and quest for national greatness didn't end well, and thankfully is behind us. What the countries of Central Europe want is a decent life for their citizens, say the level of Italy or Spain. Based on IMF predictions, it is Lithuania that is likely to reach this level soon, and then surpass it. Yes, Lithuania, not Slovenia or Czechia

    The problem with Russia is that it has little to offer to its neighbors, like Finland, Baltic countries, Poland, and Ukraine, compared to what Western Europe can offer.

    Except for cheap gas to fuel industry and one of the largest markets for goods that Western Europe will never buy. Little indeed. If you really are this ignorant, check up on the Finnish dairy industry, or Polish apple prices, since Russia imposed counter sanctions on European agriculture. For a lot of those producers the Russian market is gone for good. Not to mention the noise Poland and Ukraine make about the Nordstream 2 project. If this is so little to offer, why the strenuous objections?

    The problem that the denizens of these countries have is that many fail to realize that Russia is no longer an empire, nor is it gripped by any ideology. It has tried to strike, pragmatically, the same deal with most of its neighbors in the post-Soviet period: access to (in many cases discounted) natural resources and the Russian market in exchange for a neutral geopolitical stance. But, (often very justified) historical grievances, along with an overestimated sense of self-importance, just doesn’t allow them to let it be. So they go running to the Americans, who are happy to use them as a battering ram against the RF. Little twits are going to get us all killed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    So they go running to the Americans, who are happy to use them as a battering ram against the RF. Little twits are going to get us all killed.

    Poland was given the role of troublemakers by the ziocons and she accepted it (1) because being against Russia comes them naturally and (2) the quasi-conservative party that is in power now thinks that the American umbrella can give them more room to exercise more ethno-state policies akin to those of Israel and Trumpian Poland First. On the other hand one has to keep in mind what is the reality on the ground. Poland's trade with Germany is on the level of $100 billions per year while with the US it is just $5-6 billions. Germany can exercise tremendous pragmatic power over Poland and in the long run one may expect that Germany's desire (though carefully hidden) to link with Russia to create counter weight to Anglo-American and Chinese empires will be fulfilled thought it will be fought by Americans and Brits trying to destabilize EU. And Poland will be part of it whether she likes it or not but hopefully she will be happy in this arrangement.

    The main conflict here is between Germany and Russia as a junior partner one side and the US and UK on the other. In the long run Russia does not want to be pushed into the arms of China and desperately would like to make a deal with Germany and EU. Poland and Ukraine are just pawns used by ziocons.
  110. @Sean
    Trump listened to the diplomats who have made a career of having rings run round them by economic rapist China and its N.Korea vassal.

    What did Trump get for his massive gift to China of untrammeled investment in the US? An N.Korean ICBM test has just occurred. The Chinese will offer to help and the next trade deal will give them everything they want again.

    Yes,now I get it. But many people still dont understand what is going on

    Read More
  111. Randal says:
    @Johann Ricke

    This is a very naïve interpretation of nuclear deterrence. The more sophisticated analyses recognise that uncertainty and the potential for unintended escalation, especially in the context of a side losing a major war, as well as the likelihood of graduated escalation attempts as desperation increases, mean that even mutually assured destruction is not a guarantee against nuclear war.
     
    All the way to the end, Hitler did not use chemical weapons, even though he had the means to deliver them to British and Russian cities. The reality of war is that we try to substitute words for deeds whenever possible, and there are instances where words (i.e. threats) have deterred adversaries from going further, which is why they are uttered. But the reality of nuclear weapons use is civilizational annihilation for the loser. That is to say, there is the danger that the loser will be physically exterminated to the last man, woman and child by conventional means, after he unleashes nuclear weapons. That is why losers will refrain from using them.

    We have lived in the shade of nuclear peace since the end of WW2, which is almost certainly the only reason there was not an openly fought WW3.

    My point above is that just because both sides have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world, that does not mean you can forget about them and act as though they don’t exist, blithely assuming the other side won’t ever use them because they would be destroyed in an all out exchange.

    Relations between two nuclear armed powers are inherently different from relations between two non-nuclear armed powers, and for good reason. Conflict in the former case is like sex between porcupines (in the old joke).

    Read More
  112. @Randal

    But, how scary is the S-400 Triumf (nicknamed ‘Grumpy’ by the NATO)? Make no mistake, it’s very scary indeed.
     
    Scary enough that the US regime know they will most likely have to bear a (hopefully) unacceptable cost for destroying the Russian expeditionary force in Syria, but not scary enough to prevent them overloading and destroying it if they really, really wanted do so and were prepared to pay the price, probably.

    I’m not so sure Randal, the ZUSA solved the problem of embarrassing flag-draped bodybags coming home by unloading the planes in the darkness of night but when those expensive toys start falling out of the sky or sinking to the bottom of the seas it would be impossible to put on a brave face and I think the price would be too great.

    We know Russians do have the stomach to bear immense suffering but the US is so vulnerable in so many ways and goes overboard on everything so store shelves would be empty within hours, an already fragile credit-driven economy would grind to a halt immediately and the overrated armament industries would suffer greatly too.

    Obviously I don’t know and nobody does so I hope it doesn’t come to us all ever finding out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Obviously I don’t know and nobody does so I hope it doesn’t come to us all ever finding out.
     
    Indeed. We are all speculating about something there can be no certainty about.

    Presumably those making and influencing the decisions have their own perspectives on the pros and cons of war. I suspect for many of them, for instance, losses of expensive equipment are more a plus than a minus, as there are vast profits to be made in replacing them, provided the blame can be put elsewhere, of course. Though as has been discussed here before, the loss of a carrier would be a huge blow, with unpredictable but likely very dramatic consequences in the US. And likewise, many will take the view (whether they admit it or not, even to themselves) that dead US soldiers are a price well worth paying for the achievement of their personal or political objectives, for the benefit of Israel, or for the promotion of US-uber-alles, or whatever.

    What can be said with reasonable confidence, I think, though, is that dealing with Russia's modern air defences in Syria would likely cost even the US with all its regional allies some losses, but destroying those air defences can certainly be done (any missile system can be swamped and destroyed). What the costs would actually be is subject to huge uncertainty, even without the likelihood of lateral escalations by Russia.

    It all comes down to the pretexts and what can be gotten away with by those in power.

    As I've noted before, on December 6th 1941 your position could have been said to hold in the US for a major war against Japan - the American people would not have stood for their leaders waging a war to unconditional surrender against Japan, the deaths and material losses would have been too great to even consider. On December 8th 1941 that was no longer true.
  113. @Randal
    Always nice to be reminded that Powell was one of the few members of the British political elite who saw the post-WW2 subservience to the US clearly for what it was and what it was not - a necessary evil in the circumstances in which we found ourselves, and not an eternal joyous union. And Powell was rather naïve about nuclear weapons, in common with many of his generation who fell for the unilateralist nonsense.

    But no obvious relevance in the contents of your post to the exchange preceding it.

    As a young lad I found out that I could distract teachers and disrupt the entire classroom just by asking a question about Enoch Powell. Teachers would often fly into a rage at simply an innocent sounding question such as “Please Sir, how do you spell Enoch?” My first taste of power. Happy days!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    He was the great demon for all the right-thinking goodwhite types back in the 1970s, I recall. Sounds like you were doing righteous work by provoking such people, making the knees jerk.

    He's less familiar to the younger generations now (few under the age of 40 or so know much about him I think), but the wisdom of his political positions is becoming ever clearer. They're certainly standing the test of time much better than those of his contemporaries who vilified and hounded him.
  114. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Johann Ricke

    This is a very naïve interpretation of nuclear deterrence. The more sophisticated analyses recognise that uncertainty and the potential for unintended escalation, especially in the context of a side losing a major war, as well as the likelihood of graduated escalation attempts as desperation increases, mean that even mutually assured destruction is not a guarantee against nuclear war.
     
    All the way to the end, Hitler did not use chemical weapons, even though he had the means to deliver them to British and Russian cities. The reality of war is that we try to substitute words for deeds whenever possible, and there are instances where words (i.e. threats) have deterred adversaries from going further, which is why they are uttered. But the reality of nuclear weapons use is civilizational annihilation for the loser. That is to say, there is the danger that the loser will be physically exterminated to the last man, woman and child by conventional means, after he unleashes nuclear weapons. That is why losers will refrain from using them.

    That is why losers will refrain from using them.

    No they won’t. Might be true for a smaller nuclear power that’s perceived as the aggressor but your theory doesn’t apply to any other scenario.

    Hitler was unpopular at the time and a chemical attack couldn’t turn the tide anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    No they won’t. Might be true for a smaller nuclear power that’s perceived as the aggressor but your theory doesn’t apply to any other scenario.
     
    Reality isn't a Saturday morning cartoon. Countries that go to war always see themselves as the good guys. That is why they are prepared to make great sacrifices to win. To recap, with the exceptions of fifth columns and self-flagellants, each participant will see itself as a force for good. Which is why, if the losing side uses nuclear weapons and kills, say 1/4 of the winning side's population, in retaliation, the winning side might just decide to exterminate the losing side, after nuking it, with conventional weaponry. An extermination program wouldn't even involve significant friendly casualties, given the reality of autonomous drones that could be tasked to kill anything that moves a la Skynet*, in combination with that great killer wielded by the Axis powers and Soviet and Chinese communists - food deprivation. This possibility is what will prevent the loser from using its nukes - unless the winner uses them first.

    * And unlike the silly depiction of Skynet shown in the movies (probably necessary to let the humans win), the drones wouldn't cruise within range of manpads.
  115. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon 2
    All nations follow self-interest as they see it. The problem with Russia is that it has little to offer to its neighbors, like Finland, Baltic countries, Poland, and Ukraine, compared to what Western Europe can offer. Finland, Baltic countries, and Poland spent much of the 19th and 20th centuries trying to tell Russia "We don't want to be part of you. "Ukraine (most of it anyway) is still trying to tell a disbelieving Russia it wants out. Russians find it difficult to accept that their country has been regarded as backward for as long as it has existed. Of course, all Slavic countries are still regarded as backward by the rest of Europe but that's a separate issue.

    Whatever you can say about Germany, France, and Britain, at least they are not backward, although they are now descending into mediocrity. Hence, based on pure selfish interest, it makes more sense to get closer to W. Europe than to Russia. Nobody is talking about greatness here, the era of empires and quest for national greatness didn't end well, and thankfully is behind us. What the countries of Central Europe want is a decent life for their citizens, say the level of Italy or Spain. Based on IMF predictions, it is Lithuania that is likely to reach this level soon, and then surpass it. Yes, Lithuania, not Slovenia or Czechia

    Whatever you can say about Germany, France, and Britain, at least they are not backward, although they are now descending into mediocrity. Hence, based on pure selfish interest, it makes more sense to get closer to W. Europe than to Russia.

    One word: Provincialism

    Just “get closer” to your own country and make it great. What’s wrong with being your own man and trading with your neighbours in peace? Have you seen Greece lately? Did you miss the population replacement program in Western Europe?

    Read More
  116. Randal says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    I'm not so sure Randal, the ZUSA solved the problem of embarrassing flag-draped bodybags coming home by unloading the planes in the darkness of night but when those expensive toys start falling out of the sky or sinking to the bottom of the seas it would be impossible to put on a brave face and I think the price would be too great.

    We know Russians do have the stomach to bear immense suffering but the US is so vulnerable in so many ways and goes overboard on everything so store shelves would be empty within hours, an already fragile credit-driven economy would grind to a halt immediately and the overrated armament industries would suffer greatly too.

    Obviously I don't know and nobody does so I hope it doesn't come to us all ever finding out.

    Obviously I don’t know and nobody does so I hope it doesn’t come to us all ever finding out.

    Indeed. We are all speculating about something there can be no certainty about.

    Presumably those making and influencing the decisions have their own perspectives on the pros and cons of war. I suspect for many of them, for instance, losses of expensive equipment are more a plus than a minus, as there are vast profits to be made in replacing them, provided the blame can be put elsewhere, of course. Though as has been discussed here before, the loss of a carrier would be a huge blow, with unpredictable but likely very dramatic consequences in the US. And likewise, many will take the view (whether they admit it or not, even to themselves) that dead US soldiers are a price well worth paying for the achievement of their personal or political objectives, for the benefit of Israel, or for the promotion of US-uber-alles, or whatever.

    What can be said with reasonable confidence, I think, though, is that dealing with Russia’s modern air defences in Syria would likely cost even the US with all its regional allies some losses, but destroying those air defences can certainly be done (any missile system can be swamped and destroyed). What the costs would actually be is subject to huge uncertainty, even without the likelihood of lateral escalations by Russia.

    It all comes down to the pretexts and what can be gotten away with by those in power.

    As I’ve noted before, on December 6th 1941 your position could have been said to hold in the US for a major war against Japan – the American people would not have stood for their leaders waging a war to unconditional surrender against Japan, the deaths and material losses would have been too great to even consider. On December 8th 1941 that was no longer true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Presumably those making and influencing the decisions have their own perspectives on the pros and cons of war.
     
    I am old enough to remember being in 'full alert' a couple of times in late 80's.
    Just waiting for "THAT' and so hoping it's just not real.
    Not a good feeling at all.
    There is certain....inherent logic (if one can call it logic in the first place) in those matters.
    It feels as avalanche; a fate (or idiot) set it of and all you can do now is just watch it coming your way.
    The "launch mechanism" is drilled into people who are supposed to do that. They'll do it........
    Public has, unfortunately, no input here.
    And, the CORE of the matter now, it's top echelon of POLITICIANS who hold the "button'.

    Watching the shit between The Bitch and Trump before November.....looking at that "political class" (for a lack of better word) the only question that matters is:'would you give THESE characters the power to order the launch? Look at them...just look at them.

    And that's the problem now.
    In 80s, my feeling is, we had much more competent and mature leadership than now.
    Even public was more mature and engaged.

    Now, in this era of instant communication.....would one trust 'public opinion' on "The LAUNCH'?
    People.....debating issues now...look at them.

    And, there is more.
    Trust.
    Before, the leaders would do the slaughter of holoi poloi but would be careful about treatment of each other. They cut deals and kept them.
    Now?

    Would Putin trust anything promised to him? Or people around him?

    Treatment of Kaiser after WW1.
    Treatment of vanquished from (rump) Yugoslavia to Libya.

    Not good.
  117. Randal says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    As a young lad I found out that I could distract teachers and disrupt the entire classroom just by asking a question about Enoch Powell. Teachers would often fly into a rage at simply an innocent sounding question such as "Please Sir, how do you spell Enoch?" My first taste of power. Happy days!

    He was the great demon for all the right-thinking goodwhite types back in the 1970s, I recall. Sounds like you were doing righteous work by provoking such people, making the knees jerk.

    He’s less familiar to the younger generations now (few under the age of 40 or so know much about him I think), but the wisdom of his political positions is becoming ever clearer. They’re certainly standing the test of time much better than those of his contemporaries who vilified and hounded him.

    Read More
  118. @Anon 2
    All nations follow self-interest as they see it. The problem with Russia is that it has little to offer to its neighbors, like Finland, Baltic countries, Poland, and Ukraine, compared to what Western Europe can offer. Finland, Baltic countries, and Poland spent much of the 19th and 20th centuries trying to tell Russia "We don't want to be part of you. "Ukraine (most of it anyway) is still trying to tell a disbelieving Russia it wants out. Russians find it difficult to accept that their country has been regarded as backward for as long as it has existed. Of course, all Slavic countries are still regarded as backward by the rest of Europe but that's a separate issue.

    Whatever you can say about Germany, France, and Britain, at least they are not backward, although they are now descending into mediocrity. Hence, based on pure selfish interest, it makes more sense to get closer to W. Europe than to Russia. Nobody is talking about greatness here, the era of empires and quest for national greatness didn't end well, and thankfully is behind us. What the countries of Central Europe want is a decent life for their citizens, say the level of Italy or Spain. Based on IMF predictions, it is Lithuania that is likely to reach this level soon, and then surpass it. Yes, Lithuania, not Slovenia or Czechia

    Based on IMF predictions, it is Lithuania that is likely to reach this level soon, and then surpass it.

    Yeah, that one Lithuanian who stays after everyone else has left to clean toilets in London.

    Read More
  119. anarchyst says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty
    Yes, but it's not just that they were used (they clearly were), it's that they allowed themselves be used. It's incumbent upon a sensible and responsible people that they avoid such traps, or at the very least learn from the experience so as to avoid future calamities, and the Poles as a nation seem unable to do so.

    Let’s not forget that ashkenazic jews had a stranglehold on Poland’s economic and political process and hated the true ethnic Poles. These communist jews were responsible for most of the strife…

    Read More
  120. Mr. Hack says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Yes, this sounds about right.

    Russia should use this window of opportunity to aggressively push its geopolitical interests, including in Ukraine (it is most assuredly not going to break "into three or four parts" by itself).

    If Trump 2016 wins out, great. If the neocns fully reassert control, Russia is gonna get squeezed further regardless.

    Russia should use this window of opportunity to aggressively push its geopolitical interests, including in Ukraine (it is most assuredly not going to break “into three or four parts” by itself

    This is pretty much a Russian pipe dream that isn’t going to happen. the West is not going to let Russia run roughshod over Ukraine and break it up ‘into three or four parts’. Firstly, Ukrainians aren’t interested in having their country further decimated by Russia, and would put up staunch resistance to any such encroachments. In case you hadn’t heard, Poroshenko was in Washington last week, and got assurances from Pence (and his boss Trump) that US support for Ukraine is still very real and will continue into the foreseeable future. Ukraine has been given the green light to start producing weapon parts for the US military at lesser costs which will only cement future US/Ukraine relations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU0gzoaSZiA&feature=youtu.be&t=1030
    , @Skeptikal
    " Ukraine has been given the green light to start producing weapon parts for the US military at lesser costs which will only cement future US/Ukraine relations."

    So it is OK to do arms business to "cement" relations with other countries but not oil deals, and not with Russia.
    I see . . . so logical.
    So consistent

    So much BS.
    , @Aedib
    Don’t worry. Putin considers former Ukraine as a big liability. He is not interested on taking it. He even refused to take the Donbas. Likely, also the West considers Ukraine as a burden, right now.
  121. @Mr. Hack

    Russia should use this window of opportunity to aggressively push its geopolitical interests, including in Ukraine (it is most assuredly not going to break “into three or four parts” by itself
     
    This is pretty much a Russian pipe dream that isn't going to happen. the West is not going to let Russia run roughshod over Ukraine and break it up 'into three or four parts'. Firstly, Ukrainians aren't interested in having their country further decimated by Russia, and would put up staunch resistance to any such encroachments. In case you hadn't heard, Poroshenko was in Washington last week, and got assurances from Pence (and his boss Trump) that US support for Ukraine is still very real and will continue into the foreseeable future. Ukraine has been given the green light to start producing weapon parts for the US military at lesser costs which will only cement future US/Ukraine relations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    I watched 4 minutes, lots of 'blah.blah, blah' - what's the point? (I don't have 45 minutes to waste on stupid propaganda attempts).
  122. Che Guava says:
    @Silverado
    That's a nice piece of fiction you're peddling BUT you're (like the criminal warmongering neocons) wrong. The S400 and the S500 missile systems have air superiority in Syria and those belong to the Russians and the Syrians. All they have to do is to turn them on and VIOLA - they rule the air.

    Do you not mean ‘voila’?

    Viola is the name of a musical instrument, as you would likely know.

    Read More
  123. utu says:
    @JL

    The problem with Russia is that it has little to offer to its neighbors, like Finland, Baltic countries, Poland, and Ukraine, compared to what Western Europe can offer.
     
    Except for cheap gas to fuel industry and one of the largest markets for goods that Western Europe will never buy. Little indeed. If you really are this ignorant, check up on the Finnish dairy industry, or Polish apple prices, since Russia imposed counter sanctions on European agriculture. For a lot of those producers the Russian market is gone for good. Not to mention the noise Poland and Ukraine make about the Nordstream 2 project. If this is so little to offer, why the strenuous objections?

    The problem that the denizens of these countries have is that many fail to realize that Russia is no longer an empire, nor is it gripped by any ideology. It has tried to strike, pragmatically, the same deal with most of its neighbors in the post-Soviet period: access to (in many cases discounted) natural resources and the Russian market in exchange for a neutral geopolitical stance. But, (often very justified) historical grievances, along with an overestimated sense of self-importance, just doesn't allow them to let it be. So they go running to the Americans, who are happy to use them as a battering ram against the RF. Little twits are going to get us all killed.

    So they go running to the Americans, who are happy to use them as a battering ram against the RF. Little twits are going to get us all killed.

    Poland was given the role of troublemakers by the ziocons and she accepted it (1) because being against Russia comes them naturally and (2) the quasi-conservative party that is in power now thinks that the American umbrella can give them more room to exercise more ethno-state policies akin to those of Israel and Trumpian Poland First. On the other hand one has to keep in mind what is the reality on the ground. Poland’s trade with Germany is on the level of $100 billions per year while with the US it is just $5-6 billions. Germany can exercise tremendous pragmatic power over Poland and in the long run one may expect that Germany’s desire (though carefully hidden) to link with Russia to create counter weight to Anglo-American and Chinese empires will be fulfilled thought it will be fought by Americans and Brits trying to destabilize EU. And Poland will be part of it whether she likes it or not but hopefully she will be happy in this arrangement.

    The main conflict here is between Germany and Russia as a junior partner one side and the US and UK on the other. In the long run Russia does not want to be pushed into the arms of China and desperately would like to make a deal with Germany and EU. Poland and Ukraine are just pawns used by ziocons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    Well, Poland is trying to counter-balance German domination in several different ways. 'Sucking American dick', as Pan Sikorski (their foreign minister) calls it, is one, but they also seek other alliances, where they attempt to dominate: the Visegrad Four, and now the Three Seas. They really are the busybody of Europe.
  124. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU0gzoaSZiA&feature=youtu.be&t=1030

    I watched 4 minutes, lots of ‘blah.blah, blah’ – what’s the point? (I don’t have 45 minutes to waste on stupid propaganda attempts).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    What propaganda? These are Ukrainian experts. And I linked to the exact minute: if you indeed did listen for 4 minutes, you should've heard what I wanted you to hear.
  125. Skeptikal says:
    @Agent76
    How many know about this man in the Trump adminisration and his relationship with Russia?

    Apr 16, 2012 Exxon, Rosneft To Cement Historic Energy Deal

    On Monday, Exxon Mobil Corp and Rosneft launched a partnership allowing Exxon an access to Russia's arctic reserves and giving Rosneft an access to the North American projects. The companies said in a statement that the agreements form joint ventures to manage an exploration program in the Kara Sea and Black Sea, the initial cost for which is estimated over $3.2 billion.

    https://youtu.be/ndgYy7u1VY4

    I really don’t see what is wrong wtih making a deal with Russia.
    After all, we make such a “business” deal with Israel every day of the year—OK, every year of the century.
    We give them $3 billion and they use it to buy our weaponry.
    Or some such.
    The business of America is business, remember?

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    No, Calvin Cooiidge was speaking at a different time.

    Three billion (it is pointless to oppose the US error on this point, now, particularly on money, but the real definition was ten to the twelfth, US con-men and ignorami knocked three orders of magnitude out), but the US gives far more than four 'billion' to Israel every year.

    That is not to including the loans that US supine Congress ensures need never be repaid.

    Also not to including weapons technology transfer, which the Izzies steal to export themselves at times. Automatically forgotten.

    Also to not including the weapons stockpiles the USA is providing gratis,

    So, the subsidy is many thousands per Jewish man, woman, and child in Israel!

    They have almost elimimated the formerly large Christian population, just like ISIS.
  126. Skeptikal says:
    @Mr. Hack

    Russia should use this window of opportunity to aggressively push its geopolitical interests, including in Ukraine (it is most assuredly not going to break “into three or four parts” by itself
     
    This is pretty much a Russian pipe dream that isn't going to happen. the West is not going to let Russia run roughshod over Ukraine and break it up 'into three or four parts'. Firstly, Ukrainians aren't interested in having their country further decimated by Russia, and would put up staunch resistance to any such encroachments. In case you hadn't heard, Poroshenko was in Washington last week, and got assurances from Pence (and his boss Trump) that US support for Ukraine is still very real and will continue into the foreseeable future. Ukraine has been given the green light to start producing weapon parts for the US military at lesser costs which will only cement future US/Ukraine relations.

    ” Ukraine has been given the green light to start producing weapon parts for the US military at lesser costs which will only cement future US/Ukraine relations.”

    So it is OK to do arms business to “cement” relations with other countries but not oil deals, and not with Russia.
    I see . . . so logical.
    So consistent

    So much BS.

    Read More
  127. @utu
    So they go running to the Americans, who are happy to use them as a battering ram against the RF. Little twits are going to get us all killed.

    Poland was given the role of troublemakers by the ziocons and she accepted it (1) because being against Russia comes them naturally and (2) the quasi-conservative party that is in power now thinks that the American umbrella can give them more room to exercise more ethno-state policies akin to those of Israel and Trumpian Poland First. On the other hand one has to keep in mind what is the reality on the ground. Poland's trade with Germany is on the level of $100 billions per year while with the US it is just $5-6 billions. Germany can exercise tremendous pragmatic power over Poland and in the long run one may expect that Germany's desire (though carefully hidden) to link with Russia to create counter weight to Anglo-American and Chinese empires will be fulfilled thought it will be fought by Americans and Brits trying to destabilize EU. And Poland will be part of it whether she likes it or not but hopefully she will be happy in this arrangement.

    The main conflict here is between Germany and Russia as a junior partner one side and the US and UK on the other. In the long run Russia does not want to be pushed into the arms of China and desperately would like to make a deal with Germany and EU. Poland and Ukraine are just pawns used by ziocons.

    Well, Poland is trying to counter-balance German domination in several different ways. ‘Sucking American dick’, as Pan Sikorski (their foreign minister) calls it, is one, but they also seek other alliances, where they attempt to dominate: the Visegrad Four, and now the Three Seas. They really are the busybody of Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    What Poland is doing (like Visegrad...) was outlined some years ago by George Friedman of Stratfor who present "his" visions for the future of the world and his own from time to time. The aw & Justice party won the 2016 election because it was the party that would carry out the plans of American Neocon Deep State do the detriment of Germany by playing the anti-Russia card. This whole game is not really about Russia. It is about Germany.
    , @Anonymous

    They really are the busybody of Europe.
     
    Shit. That alone should move the Doomsday clock 2 minutes forward. Historically, this was never a good sign.
  128. @Sean
    Melodramatic nonsense. No one is going to start a nuclear war unless they think they can win it and Russia has nothing anyone wants anyway. The real action is the trade agreement with China in which China got the lot . Eamonn Fingleton explained beforehand how China would use North Korea as wedge against the fools in the US to bring down American's economic and industrial defences.

    Not only melodramatic, but rather juvenilely IMBECILIC and snarky , as well.

    This “essay” could just as easily have ended with “Nanny, nanny boo-boo!”….as anything.

    Saker, call when your middle school holds its “continuation” ceremony. We’ll send a card.

    Read More
  129. @Mr. Hack
    I watched 4 minutes, lots of 'blah.blah, blah' - what's the point? (I don't have 45 minutes to waste on stupid propaganda attempts).

    What propaganda? These are Ukrainian experts. And I linked to the exact minute: if you indeed did listen for 4 minutes, you should’ve heard what I wanted you to hear.

    Read More
  130. utu says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    Well, Poland is trying to counter-balance German domination in several different ways. 'Sucking American dick', as Pan Sikorski (their foreign minister) calls it, is one, but they also seek other alliances, where they attempt to dominate: the Visegrad Four, and now the Three Seas. They really are the busybody of Europe.

    What Poland is doing (like Visegrad…) was outlined some years ago by George Friedman of Stratfor who present “his” visions for the future of the world and his own from time to time. The aw & Justice party won the 2016 election because it was the party that would carry out the plans of American Neocon Deep State do the detriment of Germany by playing the anti-Russia card. This whole game is not really about Russia. It is about Germany.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    the party that would carry out the plans of American Neocon Deep State do the detriment of Germany by playing the anti-Russia card
     
    Sounds like a 1:1 copy of the Zbigniew Brzezinski's plan in "The Grand Chessboard".

    http://archive.is/qmKC3

    Man, those Jews sure know what's best for everyone.
    , @Mao Cheng Ji

    This whole game is not really about Russia. It is about Germany.
     
    Well, for the US and UK it probably is about Germany, preventing the new German reich from getting too independent, too powerful, and teaming up with Russia. But for Poland it's probably mostly about Poland.
  131. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    Well, Poland is trying to counter-balance German domination in several different ways. 'Sucking American dick', as Pan Sikorski (their foreign minister) calls it, is one, but they also seek other alliances, where they attempt to dominate: the Visegrad Four, and now the Three Seas. They really are the busybody of Europe.

    They really are the busybody of Europe.

    Shit. That alone should move the Doomsday clock 2 minutes forward. Historically, this was never a good sign.

    Read More
  132. Sean says:
    @Randal

    Scarcely innocent of him to think nuclear weapons are only a deterrent to nuclear weapons use by the other side but no deterrent to conventional attack under a nuclear Mexican standoff.
     
    This is a very naïve interpretation of nuclear deterrence. The more sophisticated analyses recognise that uncertainty and the potential for unintended escalation, especially in the context of a side losing a major war, as well as the likelihood of graduated escalation attempts as desperation increases, mean that even mutually assured destruction is not a guarantee against nuclear war.

    I don't recall the justifications for Powell's personal antinuclear stance (he was not a pacifist or hippy), though I suspect it related to his turning against Britain pretending to be a world power after the loss of India, but I believe all the unilateralists were basically naïve in their advocacy of that policy. In reality, no nuclear weapons means no sovereignty except at the sufferance of the nuclear armed powers, in the post-Hiroshima world. Of course, that rather assumes our treasonous post-war leadership elites weren't going to throw away our sovereignty and even our hard won nationality anyway, in pursuit of gains for themselves, as seems to have been the case to date.


    It is obvious why Nato spent all that money on conventional weapons: to conventionally deter a conventional Soviet attack.
     
    Indeed. It's also naïve to believe that nuclear weapons are the only thing you need.

    With nuclear weapons and conventional superiority you can attack a nuclear power with nuclear superiority, because it is mere theoretical overkill capacity. However the thing you need is a reason, because wars are fought for an objective. Hitler wanted the East as German colony, and he took a calculated risk. Soviets went to vast expense to get conventional superiority. Assuming they had invaded, Nato would have had to accept conventional defeat and occupation, or employ limited nuclear weapons first and hope that the Soviets would not reciprocate. Note that the Soviets would have been the ones free to bluff about an all out strike in response to a single nuke being used By Nato. Furthermore it would be an American decision. I have already mentioned that when Reagan became president Kissinger was brought in to educate him and advised Reagan against any first use of a nuclear weapon. The threat of an incredible action is not a credible deterrent. The Soviets had 10:1 in tube artillery and had the option to roll, but they just didn’t want Western Europe.

    We have lived in the shade of nuclear peace since the end of WW2

    And in the shade of poison gas since WW1. Hitler like the Spartan said we will fight in the dark then’(Powell used this very metaphor by the way). In the Thirties people were conditioned by Guermica to expect what we would now call a nuclear level extent of destruction (ie they though bombing would level the whole of London in a few weeks of the outbreak of war). Use of poison gas was also seen as inevitable in the next war. Beforehand, WW2 was expected to be a stalemate at best for Germany, certainly not a blitzkrieg victory. So mutually assured destruction inhibiting aggression failed because the Germans didn’t believe it , were right, and they wanted to conquer territory.

    [T]he only reason there was not an openly fought WW3.

    The Soviets would have had to want to conquer Western Europe for them to be deterred. They didn’t. The Soviets were uncertain about Germany’s intentions and Khrushchev thought the Germans with nuclear weapons (MLF) would soon be at the gates of Moscow. By the way the MLF was what Christine Keeler was asked to find out about from Profumo. The top US general in Europe said back in the early Eighties that he would have asked for permission to use nukes within hours of a Soviet invasion of West Europe. He would not have got it.

    The original draft of John Hackett’s WW3 book is instructive

    Hackett’s earlier attempt at writing a scenario had the Warsaw Pact advancing to the French border in as little as 4 days leading to the occupation of West Germany,… After distributing drafts of this early version, he was told by several retired US and West German generals that if it was published it would undermine public confidence in NATO. A year earlier, in 1976, Belgian Brigadier General Robert Close published a controversial book, Europe Without Defense? 48 hours That Could Change the Face of the World, involving a scenario in which the Warsaw Pact launches a surprise attack and advances to the Rhine in two days. https://defenceindepth.co/2016/08/01/general-sir-john-hacketts-the-third-world-war-or-how-to-think-about-a-future-war-with-russia-today/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    I have already mentioned that when Reagan became president Kissinger was brought in to educate him and advised Reagan against any first use of a nuclear weapon.
     
    But that seems like a trivial calculation, integral to the MAD doctrine: you only use nukes when you are attacked, your own territory. Each side is free to attack pretty much any region outside the other side's dominion. Obviously, you won't initiate your own destruction for the sake of protecting you allies, no matter how close they are.
    , @Randal

    And in the shade of poison gas since WW1
     
    Poison gas is not and never has been in the same ballpark as nuclear weapons, in practice, and even in the peak of the "bomber will always get through" hysteria nobody serious expected bombers as they existed at the time to inflict the kind of universal destruction expected of thermonuclear weapons in an all out exchange.

    Speculations about Soviet desires at particular periods of the Cold War are neither here nor there. The reality is that the knowledge that war would likely mean a nuclear exchange even if neither wanted one exercised a cooling influence on the leaderships of both sides throughout the mid-late Cold War.

    Just as anybody rational would be desperately hoping it is exercising a similarly cooling influence on the current US President in the face of any literally stupid advice he might be receiving to the effect that the US should be acting aggressively against Russian forces in Syria because, supposedly, US conventional forces can beat the Russian forces there and (in your formulation) there's "no danger of nuclear war because the Russians know they would be destroyed".

    Real life doesn't work that way.
  133. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @utu
    What Poland is doing (like Visegrad...) was outlined some years ago by George Friedman of Stratfor who present "his" visions for the future of the world and his own from time to time. The aw & Justice party won the 2016 election because it was the party that would carry out the plans of American Neocon Deep State do the detriment of Germany by playing the anti-Russia card. This whole game is not really about Russia. It is about Germany.

    the party that would carry out the plans of American Neocon Deep State do the detriment of Germany by playing the anti-Russia card

    Sounds like a 1:1 copy of the Zbigniew Brzezinski’s plan in “The Grand Chessboard”.

    http://archive.is/qmKC3

    Man, those Jews sure know what’s best for everyone.

    Read More
  134. @utu
    What Poland is doing (like Visegrad...) was outlined some years ago by George Friedman of Stratfor who present "his" visions for the future of the world and his own from time to time. The aw & Justice party won the 2016 election because it was the party that would carry out the plans of American Neocon Deep State do the detriment of Germany by playing the anti-Russia card. This whole game is not really about Russia. It is about Germany.

    This whole game is not really about Russia. It is about Germany.

    Well, for the US and UK it probably is about Germany, preventing the new German reich from getting too independent, too powerful, and teaming up with Russia. But for Poland it’s probably mostly about Poland.

    Read More
  135. peterAUS says:
    @Randal

    Obviously I don’t know and nobody does so I hope it doesn’t come to us all ever finding out.
     
    Indeed. We are all speculating about something there can be no certainty about.

    Presumably those making and influencing the decisions have their own perspectives on the pros and cons of war. I suspect for many of them, for instance, losses of expensive equipment are more a plus than a minus, as there are vast profits to be made in replacing them, provided the blame can be put elsewhere, of course. Though as has been discussed here before, the loss of a carrier would be a huge blow, with unpredictable but likely very dramatic consequences in the US. And likewise, many will take the view (whether they admit it or not, even to themselves) that dead US soldiers are a price well worth paying for the achievement of their personal or political objectives, for the benefit of Israel, or for the promotion of US-uber-alles, or whatever.

    What can be said with reasonable confidence, I think, though, is that dealing with Russia's modern air defences in Syria would likely cost even the US with all its regional allies some losses, but destroying those air defences can certainly be done (any missile system can be swamped and destroyed). What the costs would actually be is subject to huge uncertainty, even without the likelihood of lateral escalations by Russia.

    It all comes down to the pretexts and what can be gotten away with by those in power.

    As I've noted before, on December 6th 1941 your position could have been said to hold in the US for a major war against Japan - the American people would not have stood for their leaders waging a war to unconditional surrender against Japan, the deaths and material losses would have been too great to even consider. On December 8th 1941 that was no longer true.

    Presumably those making and influencing the decisions have their own perspectives on the pros and cons of war.

    I am old enough to remember being in ‘full alert’ a couple of times in late 80′s.
    Just waiting for “THAT’ and so hoping it’s just not real.
    Not a good feeling at all.
    There is certain….inherent logic (if one can call it logic in the first place) in those matters.
    It feels as avalanche; a fate (or idiot) set it of and all you can do now is just watch it coming your way.
    The “launch mechanism” is drilled into people who are supposed to do that. They’ll do it……..
    Public has, unfortunately, no input here.
    And, the CORE of the matter now, it’s top echelon of POLITICIANS who hold the “button’.

    Watching the shit between The Bitch and Trump before November…..looking at that “political class” (for a lack of better word) the only question that matters is:’would you give THESE characters the power to order the launch? Look at them…just look at them.

    And that’s the problem now.
    In 80s, my feeling is, we had much more competent and mature leadership than now.
    Even public was more mature and engaged.

    Now, in this era of instant communication…..would one trust ‘public opinion’ on “The LAUNCH’?
    People…..debating issues now…look at them.

    And, there is more.
    Trust.
    Before, the leaders would do the slaughter of holoi poloi but would be careful about treatment of each other. They cut deals and kept them.
    Now?

    Would Putin trust anything promised to him? Or people around him?

    Treatment of Kaiser after WW1.
    Treatment of vanquished from (rump) Yugoslavia to Libya.

    Not good.

    Read More
  136. The only ones truly interested in a partition of Syria are,who else, the Israelis and since they are now back in charge of the White House, they are the ones pushing for this “solution”.

    Back in charge? When was Israel NOT in charge of the White House? Certainly not in my lifetime, and I’ve been around since the early 1940s.

    Read More
  137. @Anonymous

    That is why losers will refrain from using them.
     
    No they won't. Might be true for a smaller nuclear power that's perceived as the aggressor but your theory doesn't apply to any other scenario.

    Hitler was unpopular at the time and a chemical attack couldn't turn the tide anyway.

    No they won’t. Might be true for a smaller nuclear power that’s perceived as the aggressor but your theory doesn’t apply to any other scenario.

    Reality isn’t a Saturday morning cartoon. Countries that go to war always see themselves as the good guys. That is why they are prepared to make great sacrifices to win. To recap, with the exceptions of fifth columns and self-flagellants, each participant will see itself as a force for good. Which is why, if the losing side uses nuclear weapons and kills, say 1/4 of the winning side’s population, in retaliation, the winning side might just decide to exterminate the losing side, after nuking it, with conventional weaponry. An extermination program wouldn’t even involve significant friendly casualties, given the reality of autonomous drones that could be tasked to kill anything that moves a la Skynet*, in combination with that great killer wielded by the Axis powers and Soviet and Chinese communists – food deprivation. This possibility is what will prevent the loser from using its nukes – unless the winner uses them first.

    * And unlike the silly depiction of Skynet shown in the movies (probably necessary to let the humans win), the drones wouldn’t cruise within range of manpads.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The world is connected now and the power of false flags and media narratives is greatly diminished. So no - you can't push a country into nuclear retaliation and automatically claim moral victory in the eyes of the World and your own citizens. Chances are, they'll figure out who's the aggressor and rebel.

    This is doubly true if big nuclear players get involved. Everyone would start paying attention. The prospect of watching your children enter a nuclear winter can really focus the mind.
  138. @Sean
    With nuclear weapons and conventional superiority you can attack a nuclear power with nuclear superiority, because it is mere theoretical overkill capacity. However the thing you need is a reason, because wars are fought for an objective. Hitler wanted the East as German colony, and he took a calculated risk. Soviets went to vast expense to get conventional superiority. Assuming they had invaded, Nato would have had to accept conventional defeat and occupation, or employ limited nuclear weapons first and hope that the Soviets would not reciprocate. Note that the Soviets would have been the ones free to bluff about an all out strike in response to a single nuke being used By Nato. Furthermore it would be an American decision. I have already mentioned that when Reagan became president Kissinger was brought in to educate him and advised Reagan against any first use of a nuclear weapon. The threat of an incredible action is not a credible deterrent. The Soviets had 10:1 in tube artillery and had the option to roll, but they just didn't want Western Europe.

    We have lived in the shade of nuclear peace since the end of WW2
     
    And in the shade of poison gas since WW1. Hitler like the Spartan said we will fight in the dark then'(Powell used this very metaphor by the way). In the Thirties people were conditioned by Guermica to expect what we would now call a nuclear level extent of destruction (ie they though bombing would level the whole of London in a few weeks of the outbreak of war). Use of poison gas was also seen as inevitable in the next war. Beforehand, WW2 was expected to be a stalemate at best for Germany, certainly not a blitzkrieg victory. So mutually assured destruction inhibiting aggression failed because the Germans didn't believe it , were right, and they wanted to conquer territory.

    [T]he only reason there was not an openly fought WW3.
     
    The Soviets would have had to want to conquer Western Europe for them to be deterred. They didn't. The Soviets were uncertain about Germany's intentions and Khrushchev thought the Germans with nuclear weapons (MLF) would soon be at the gates of Moscow. By the way the MLF was what Christine Keeler was asked to find out about from Profumo. The top US general in Europe said back in the early Eighties that he would have asked for permission to use nukes within hours of a Soviet invasion of West Europe. He would not have got it.

    The original draft of John Hackett's WW3 book is instructive


    Hackett’s earlier attempt at writing a scenario had the Warsaw Pact advancing to the French border in as little as 4 days leading to the occupation of West Germany,... After distributing drafts of this early version, he was told by several retired US and West German generals that if it was published it would undermine public confidence in NATO. A year earlier, in 1976, Belgian Brigadier General Robert Close published a controversial book, Europe Without Defense? 48 hours That Could Change the Face of the World, involving a scenario in which the Warsaw Pact launches a surprise attack and advances to the Rhine in two days. https://defenceindepth.co/2016/08/01/general-sir-john-hacketts-the-third-world-war-or-how-to-think-about-a-future-war-with-russia-today/
     

    I have already mentioned that when Reagan became president Kissinger was brought in to educate him and advised Reagan against any first use of a nuclear weapon.

    But that seems like a trivial calculation, integral to the MAD doctrine: you only use nukes when you are attacked, your own territory. Each side is free to attack pretty much any region outside the other side’s dominion. Obviously, you won’t initiate your own destruction for the sake of protecting you allies, no matter how close they are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean

    Obviously, you won’t initiate your own destruction for the sake of protecting your allies, no matter how close they are.
     
    True. and neither would any country, when push came to shove, initiate their own destruction for the sake of protecting themselves from a fate less unpleasant than nuclear destruction--such as being conquered. Moreover the UK as a nuclear armed ally of the US could theoretically cause the US to be in a nuclear war because a British nuclear strike on Russia would provoke Russian retaliation on the US. But Britain would not actually do it, whatever they say.
  139. @Randal
    Pretty good summary.

    The simple truth is that Russia has already survived the sanctions and come out even stronger, this is confirmed by international organizations and by the private sector.
     
    As indeed many of us predicted at the time these were being heavily discussed. I can recall heated online debates with the advocates of confrontation of Russia insisting that Russia's economy would be "destroyed" by sanctions (they were often the same people who declared Russia to be on the way to economic devastation anyway due to the supposed incompetence of its government).

    I wonder if any of them intend to pop up again to maintain their position now?

    Sanctions are not generally a good tool of policy. Mostly if they are significant enough to have much economic effect they just increase the power of the central government by further damaging alternative economic power centres, and in any case they provide the target state with a cast iron, patriotically motivating excuse for any economic failures or problems.

    Certainly in this case it seems plausible to assume they helped the Russian government ride out any political unrest resulting from the economic problems created by the oil price slump.

    With another unforeseen plus being major damage inflicted on the EU as a result of counter-sanctions imposed on food imports coming from NATO countries in western Europe.

    Read More
  140. @Randal

    [Sidebar: I have never been a big admirer of Polish politicians, but now Poland is reaching truly historical lows in terms of cowardice, dishonor and plain stupidity; from their “war on statues“, to their idiotic accusation that the Russian ATC deliverately crashed an official Polish aircraft ( resulting from their categorical inability to accept that their own politicians gave a stupid order to their pilots) to Prime Minister Kazinsky’s war on “cyclists and vegetarians“,
     
    Seems pretty harsh on the Poles to me (though I'll admit I've not been in Poland for a couple of decades and more, so I 'm basing my impression on talking to expatriate Poles and media reports). There's surely a lot to like about the current Polish government's domestic attitudes, which compared to mainstream so called conservative parties in western Europe are almost genuinely socially conservative and mildly nationalist. And I don't see any supposed "war on vegetarians and cyclists" as any kind of problem, either.

    They seem to be relatively resistant (by comparison with the western European degenerate elites) to mass immigration and to social corruption such as the promotion of homosexual activity, and that's surely a good thing.

    The problem of course is that broadly admirable nationalism can be a problem in foreign affairs when the nationalism is directed against the wrong targets, as with a lot of eastern European nationalism that is obsessed with anachronistic anti-Russian paranoia and misplaced worship of the US. Ukraine is the worst exemplar here, of course.

    In Poland's case, its foreign policy positions are problematic, but not its domestic ones.

    Like the US government, aren’t Jews also in control of Poland’s government?

    Read More
  141. Sean says:
    @Johann Ricke
    Strongly agree about China being a much bigger threat than either Germany or Russia ever could be. Although it has to be said that the Chinese threat is neither like the Nazi or Soviet Communist threat, given the de-communization of the Chinese economy and the shell of an ideology that props up the capitalist oligarchy in the Party's name that rules China today. In European terms, losing would be a lot like being incorporated into the Hohenzollern or Romanov empires.

    The US wants in on the ground floor of Chinese growth. Rather than war, I think peaceful progress and mutual advantage for China and America is an unprecedented threat to the existence of life on Earth. US business yearn for a full share of China’s giant potential. The US leadership will roll over if they are allowed to invest in the Chinese megaeconomy and repatriate their massive profits.. I think US investment and technical priming with China’s economies of scale means we will get an effective converging of the US and Chinese leaderships agendas. The resultant entity , call it “Chinamerica” will be something new, and present a unique danger because it will be an stoppable engine of exponential technological progress. Amid peace and plenty, individual rights will be increased and people will live better materially in China and the West. A solution to the thirds world’s problems will be demanded by liberals (the Bill Gates ect syndrome ) and the Singularity will beckon. Something like Gray Goo will not be far behind. We know this: we are all alone in the Universe (the Fermi Paradox) so no one or thing has survived whatever killed off every single one of our myriad alien predecessor civilizations. Worried about Nuclear War as they all are, humanity won’t see it coming. It must come, but I think Chinamerica will bring it on a lot sooner.

    James Lovelock’s book Gaia:

    “Our humanist concerns about the poor of the inner cities or the Third World, and our near-obscene obsession with death, suffering, and pain as if these were evils in themselves – these thoughts divert the mind from our gross and excessive domination of the natural world.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    The US leadership will roll over if they are allowed to invest in the Chinese megaeconomy and repatriate their massive profits... The resultant entity , call it “Chinamerica” will be something new
     
    Well, they've been doing it for decades, and 'Chimerica' is already a well-known term, has been for years.
  142. American Identity went from National to Imperial.

    It’s like how Roman identity went from the property of real Romans to that of Non-Roman Others in the Empire.

    Once identity becomes de-nationalized and then imperialized, the Core Population grows demoralized as what had once been special and unique to them becomes generic and diluted. And the new ‘citizens’ only care about the identity as a meal ticket.

    Identity became like currency.

    There was a time when currency was backed with precious metals, especially gold. But when gold standard was gone, any new amount could be printed at the whims of bankers or the state. Currency became easy to manipulate.

    Likewise, Identity was based on blood. Once it was cut off from river of history and ethnicity, it was stamped with generic ink. So, anyone could easily become an American, and as Americanization is the globalist-imperium that sets the template for the world, every nation(except Israel with Passover exception) is ‘Americanized’, which means its identity must also go from National(unique and special) to Imperial(generic and mercenary).

    So, there is no longer any difference between American, British, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Irish, Brazilian, and etc. ‘Diversity’ and Elite-Minority-Supremacism define their New National Identity, which is anything but truly national. They are interchangeably Global. France is turning into a nation of ‘Americans’ who speak French.

    So, just as anyone can easily become American, a newly arrived African with no roots in France is just as French as a Frenchmen with racial & cultural roots going back many centuries, and a newly arrived Turk or Syrian with no roots in Germany is just as German as a German with racial & cultural roots in Germany since time immemorial.

    Americanism is no longer just a national idea that applies only to America but the ONE AND ONLY IDEAL FOR ALL NATIONS(with the exception of Israel that must remain Jewish-majority and Jewish-ruled).

    The reason why imperialists hate nationalism is two-fold.

    Imperialists are filled with hubris, and their own nation is no longer big enough for their ambitions and pretensions. So, whereas Bismarck was content with German nationalism, Kaiser Wilhelm and later Hitler wanted world empires. And in striving for empire over nation, they brought ruination upon Germany.

    In striving for empire, imperialists neglect the sober interests of their own nation and drive their nations to huge risks… like Japan did in WWII that led to defeat and destruction.

    Today, we have Merkel and her Empire of Compassion that is based on Moral Hubris. That too is destroying Germany. And Sweden’s pretensions as a ‘Moral Super Power’, a Empire of Political Correctness, is leading it to Swedish Suicide or Swecide.

    Another reason why imperialists hate nationalism is it undermines the legitimacy and power of the empire. After all, imperialists have majority power only in their homeland. Outside the empire, they are alien minority elites over OTHER peoples. If nationalism were the norm worldwide, native masses will rise up and push out the elite minority imperial overlords. So, the ONLY way the imperialists can justify their power over Other Peoples is to make the latter feel as part of a Great Empire that transcends tribal or national interests.
    This is what the British did. Consider how the Brits used to rule over India, Malaysia, Kenya, Uganda, Rhodesia, Palestine, etc. (And the Japanese sold their regional globalist-imperialism as a radiant project of the Great East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.)
    By rules of nationalism, each of those peoples would have struggled for national independence & sovereignty, sought to drive out the British overlords, and have their own nation. Indians would have demanded India for Indians, Malaysians would have demanded Malaysia for Malaysians, Kenyans would have demanded Kenya for Kenyans, and etc. That would have meant end of empire.
    So, the British Imperialists sought to convince their non-British subjects that it was glorious and gratifying to be part of this grand wondrous empire under the loving care of the gentle queen. Also, the British imperialist elites appealed to class/caste as a binding principle among various peoples in the empire, i.e. however different they may be in race or culture, the non-white (comprador) elites and British elites belonged to a shared community of superiority and privilege.
    If nationalism emphasized the special bond between national elites and national masses, imperialism urged subject elites to collaborate with the ruling imperial elites while neglecting their own peoples. Under British Imperialism, the great contradiction lay in British elites’ representation & defense of British masses while pressuring non-British elites to forgo their patriotic responsibilities to their own peoples. Only the British elites could be both nationalist and imperialist whereas subject elites in the empire had to operate only in the imperialist mode of obeying British mandates.

    Today, as the Anglosphere World is the subject domain of Jewish globalists, the ONLY people who have the privilege of being both nationalist and imperialist are the Zionists. Only Jews can have both powerful nationalism in Israel while, at the same time, demanding that gentile elites cut their ties to gentile masses and serve Jewish Globalists elites instead. If you disobey, you become ostracized, isolated, and sanctioned by Russia under Putin and Hungary under Orban. (Jews saw right through the British BS, and early Zionists in Palestine had no desire to serve as comprador elites of the British Empire. In time, they used terror to drive out the British, and then used war to ethnically expel the Arabs to create a Jewish nation-state. Ironically, even though Israel was an imperial creation, it was the first non-Western nation to ‘liberate’ itself from European imperialism after WWII. Zionists, being imperialists themselves, understood the guile of Western Imperialism better than most.)

    Today, Jews think and act not unlike the British Imperialists of old Jews are only a majority in Israel. While Jews want a Jewish state in Israel, their power and influence are precarious in all other nations. Why? Because there are few or no Jews in most gentile nations. Nationalism is a barrier to Jewish penetration and takeover. So, in order for Jews to take over the entire world(by using American neo-imperialism controlled by Jewish elites), Jews must convince the entire world to ‘Americanize’ as America goes from a white nation to a non-white one. So, America is to turn non-white, and Europe is to ‘Americanize’. And then, all other gentile nations must dilute their national identities and formulate a new shared globo-imperial identity based on Americanism that says anyone can become anyone almost overnight based on ‘rule of law’ as devised by Jewish globalist lawyers. And the new shared neo-religion for all peoples must be worship of Homomania since Anno Sodomini.

    Read More
  143. Aedib says:
    @Mr. Hack

    Russia should use this window of opportunity to aggressively push its geopolitical interests, including in Ukraine (it is most assuredly not going to break “into three or four parts” by itself
     
    This is pretty much a Russian pipe dream that isn't going to happen. the West is not going to let Russia run roughshod over Ukraine and break it up 'into three or four parts'. Firstly, Ukrainians aren't interested in having their country further decimated by Russia, and would put up staunch resistance to any such encroachments. In case you hadn't heard, Poroshenko was in Washington last week, and got assurances from Pence (and his boss Trump) that US support for Ukraine is still very real and will continue into the foreseeable future. Ukraine has been given the green light to start producing weapon parts for the US military at lesser costs which will only cement future US/Ukraine relations.

    Don’t worry. Putin considers former Ukraine as a big liability. He is not interested on taking it. He even refused to take the Donbas. Likely, also the West considers Ukraine as a burden, right now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Scalpel
    Putin did not take the Donbass because he wanted the Donbass to take Ukraine first
  144. @Sean
    The US wants in on the ground floor of Chinese growth. Rather than war, I think peaceful progress and mutual advantage for China and America is an unprecedented threat to the existence of life on Earth. US business yearn for a full share of China's giant potential. The US leadership will roll over if they are allowed to invest in the Chinese megaeconomy and repatriate their massive profits.. I think US investment and technical priming with China's economies of scale means we will get an effective converging of the US and Chinese leaderships agendas. The resultant entity , call it "Chinamerica" will be something new, and present a unique danger because it will be an stoppable engine of exponential technological progress. Amid peace and plenty, individual rights will be increased and people will live better materially in China and the West. A solution to the thirds world's problems will be demanded by liberals (the Bill Gates ect syndrome ) and the Singularity will beckon. Something like Gray Goo will not be far behind. We know this: we are all alone in the Universe (the Fermi Paradox) so no one or thing has survived whatever killed off every single one of our myriad alien predecessor civilizations. Worried about Nuclear War as they all are, humanity won't see it coming. It must come, but I think Chinamerica will bring it on a lot sooner.

    James Lovelock’s book Gaia:


    “Our humanist concerns about the poor of the inner cities or the Third World, and our near-obscene obsession with death, suffering, and pain as if these were evils in themselves – these thoughts divert the mind from our gross and excessive domination of the natural world.”
     

    The US leadership will roll over if they are allowed to invest in the Chinese megaeconomy and repatriate their massive profits… The resultant entity , call it “Chinamerica” will be something new

    Well, they’ve been doing it for decades, and ‘Chimerica’ is already a well-known term, has been for years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Warren Buffett's face hasn't been on cans of Cherry Coke in China for decades. The Trump proposal for repatriation of US firms profits' currently held offshore will be a test. I think the firms are going to choose to plough their profits back into China.
  145. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Johann Ricke

    No they won’t. Might be true for a smaller nuclear power that’s perceived as the aggressor but your theory doesn’t apply to any other scenario.
     
    Reality isn't a Saturday morning cartoon. Countries that go to war always see themselves as the good guys. That is why they are prepared to make great sacrifices to win. To recap, with the exceptions of fifth columns and self-flagellants, each participant will see itself as a force for good. Which is why, if the losing side uses nuclear weapons and kills, say 1/4 of the winning side's population, in retaliation, the winning side might just decide to exterminate the losing side, after nuking it, with conventional weaponry. An extermination program wouldn't even involve significant friendly casualties, given the reality of autonomous drones that could be tasked to kill anything that moves a la Skynet*, in combination with that great killer wielded by the Axis powers and Soviet and Chinese communists - food deprivation. This possibility is what will prevent the loser from using its nukes - unless the winner uses them first.

    * And unlike the silly depiction of Skynet shown in the movies (probably necessary to let the humans win), the drones wouldn't cruise within range of manpads.

    The world is connected now and the power of false flags and media narratives is greatly diminished. So no – you can’t push a country into nuclear retaliation and automatically claim moral victory in the eyes of the World and your own citizens. Chances are, they’ll figure out who’s the aggressor and rebel.

    This is doubly true if big nuclear players get involved. Everyone would start paying attention. The prospect of watching your children enter a nuclear winter can really focus the mind.

    Read More
  146. Che Guava says:
    @Cyrano
    The primary problem for Poland is that they see Russia as the country denying them “greatness”. Right. And the US is the country that will allow them to achieve greatness. Don’t they know, the US politicians before they go to sleep, that’s the last thing that they think of – how can we make Poland great. Poland was non-factor in the Warsaw pact and is non-factor in NATO. Nothing has changed. They like to think otherwise – that they are now part of something big and important. There is a big difference between being a part of something big and important and being something big and important.

    I am agreeing in general, and know the part about delusional grandeur is true from direct experience of friends at times.

    Poland was not a non-factor in the Warsaw Pact. Between playing footsies with China, having sometimes to take the other parties in the ‘People’s Democracy’ seriously, the role of the Vatican, rise of Woytyla to Pope, Vatican interference, deluded Walesa (his memoirs, if they appear and are sincere, will be very interesting, since the results of his actions had nothing to do with intentions), their polity seems to have had an interesting part.

    El Dato also is making a good point, from an earlier time, it is funny how Bronstein’s attempted Western campaign, shameful waste of resources when people in Russia were suffering so badly, is down the memory hole. I would guess that is because so many western soc.-dem., dem.-soc., labour, and green politicians and educators were stupid Trotskyites when young.

    I just wanted to post a link to a hilarious and brilliant video with bad music, will be trying to find it again later, but I suspect it has been pulled from official sites. It is funny that the new ‘original’ version is just as offensive, though completely charmless, unlike the real original, but the new one is totally wigger, so that makes it somehow alright.

    The real original really made me LOL at the time, even though the music still sucked.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    I am going to venture a guess here and speculate that the reason why the video clip that you are talking about looked so ridiculous to you is because the participants in the video - of Polish persuasion as they seem to be – are trying very hard to impress Europe with their “culture”.

    When you are trying to impress somebody with something that they find trivial and ordinary – the results can be embarrassing for the party trying to impress. It’s like approaching a group of people and trying to impress them with your breathing skills – loudly inhaling and exhaling – there is no way that anyone can pull that one off without making a fool of himself.

    That would be about an equivalent of a Polish person trying to impress a European with their culture – definitely not an easy thing to do.

    , @skrik
    Is this the version you mean? rgds
  147. Is Turkey really against partition? I saw a Lebanese scholar on RT a few weeks ago explaining that Turkey intends to give the Kurds in Syria and Turkey an offer they can’t refuse. “Go to Iraqi Kurdistan or else!”

    Read More
  148. wootendw says:

    ” They will therefore oppose any peace process, especially one crafted by Russia, Iran and Turkey, with every ugly trick in their bag.”

    Yes, they will oppose any such peace process but the Neocons may have run out of workable tricks, ugly or otherwise. Turkey, still a NATO country, is not going to permit any division of Syria that creates a Kurdish state. And Russia is not going to permit any division of Syria that gives some of it to Turkey. History has also shown that externally applied changes to a country’s borders often leads to war.

    Tillerson, the smart guy, recently said that Assad’s fate was up to Russia – a switch from his earlier statement that Assad’s fate was up to the Syrian people which led to a false flag CWs attack. What Tillerson means is that the US is not going to go to war with Russia over Syria. The Neocons have demanded that the US go to war against Syria for years, but will they demand war with Russia now?

    The only ‘trick’ Neocons have left is the Kurds. The US will use them to thwart the peace process. But, ultimately, they are likely going to have abandon the Kurds – who will hate US forever.

    Read More
  149. Cyrano says:
    @Che Guava
    I am agreeing in general, and know the part about delusional grandeur is true from direct experience of friends at times.

    Poland was not a non-factor in the Warsaw Pact. Between playing footsies with China, having sometimes to take the other parties in the 'People's Democracy' seriously, the role of the Vatican, rise of Woytyla to Pope, Vatican interference, deluded Walesa (his memoirs, if they appear and are sincere, will be very interesting, since the results of his actions had nothing to do with intentions), their polity seems to have had an interesting part.

    El Dato also is making a good point, from an earlier time, it is funny how Bronstein's attempted Western campaign, shameful waste of resources when people in Russia were suffering so badly, is down the memory hole. I would guess that is because so many western soc.-dem., dem.-soc., labour, and green politicians and educators were stupid Trotskyites when young.

    I just wanted to post a link to a hilarious and brilliant video with bad music, will be trying to find it again later, but I suspect it has been pulled from official sites. It is funny that the new 'original' version is just as offensive, though completely charmless, unlike the real original, but the new one is totally wigger, so that makes it somehow alright.

    The real original really made me LOL at the time, even though the music still sucked.

    I am going to venture a guess here and speculate that the reason why the video clip that you are talking about looked so ridiculous to you is because the participants in the video – of Polish persuasion as they seem to be – are trying very hard to impress Europe with their “culture”.

    When you are trying to impress somebody with something that they find trivial and ordinary – the results can be embarrassing for the party trying to impress. It’s like approaching a group of people and trying to impress them with your breathing skills – loudly inhaling and exhaling – there is no way that anyone can pull that one off without making a fool of himself.

    That would be about an equivalent of a Polish person trying to impress a European with their culture – definitely not an easy thing to do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    No, you haven't seen it, your guess is wrong.

    The original video was so over-the-top sexist, milking cows, concentration on the breasts of the girls, all in rural settings, and giving the sly looks at the camera, it was truly funny and enjoyable.

    In the new official vid., all except the singer are wearing PVC short shorts, and it is all wigger, twerking, etc.
  150. skrik says:
    @Che Guava
    I am agreeing in general, and know the part about delusional grandeur is true from direct experience of friends at times.

    Poland was not a non-factor in the Warsaw Pact. Between playing footsies with China, having sometimes to take the other parties in the 'People's Democracy' seriously, the role of the Vatican, rise of Woytyla to Pope, Vatican interference, deluded Walesa (his memoirs, if they appear and are sincere, will be very interesting, since the results of his actions had nothing to do with intentions), their polity seems to have had an interesting part.

    El Dato also is making a good point, from an earlier time, it is funny how Bronstein's attempted Western campaign, shameful waste of resources when people in Russia were suffering so badly, is down the memory hole. I would guess that is because so many western soc.-dem., dem.-soc., labour, and green politicians and educators were stupid Trotskyites when young.

    I just wanted to post a link to a hilarious and brilliant video with bad music, will be trying to find it again later, but I suspect it has been pulled from official sites. It is funny that the new 'original' version is just as offensive, though completely charmless, unlike the real original, but the new one is totally wigger, so that makes it somehow alright.

    The real original really made me LOL at the time, even though the music still sucked.

    Is this the version you mean? rgds

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Very much thks, skrik, but I am sure that is also cut down from the original, which was similar, but much more of the sexist content, much less of the vocalist, also milking cows, blurred out of recognition on the vid at that link.

    I have suspect that the real original was pulled, for complaints.

    In any case, a crap 'song'.

    It is similar in style to many of our whiney vocalists.

    Regards.
  151. Che Guava says:
    @Cyrano
    I am going to venture a guess here and speculate that the reason why the video clip that you are talking about looked so ridiculous to you is because the participants in the video - of Polish persuasion as they seem to be – are trying very hard to impress Europe with their “culture”.

    When you are trying to impress somebody with something that they find trivial and ordinary – the results can be embarrassing for the party trying to impress. It’s like approaching a group of people and trying to impress them with your breathing skills – loudly inhaling and exhaling – there is no way that anyone can pull that one off without making a fool of himself.

    That would be about an equivalent of a Polish person trying to impress a European with their culture – definitely not an easy thing to do.

    No, you haven’t seen it, your guess is wrong.

    The original video was so over-the-top sexist, milking cows, concentration on the breasts of the girls, all in rural settings, and giving the sly looks at the camera, it was truly funny and enjoyable.

    In the new official vid., all except the singer are wearing PVC short shorts, and it is all wigger, twerking, etc.

    Read More
  152. Che Guava says:
    @skrik
    Is this the version you mean? rgds

    Very much thks, skrik, but I am sure that is also cut down from the original, which was similar, but much more of the sexist content, much less of the vocalist, also milking cows, blurred out of recognition on the vid at that link.

    I have suspect that the real original was pulled, for complaints.

    In any case, a crap ‘song’.

    It is similar in style to many of our whiney vocalists.

    Regards.

    Read More
  153. Che Guava says:
    @Skeptikal
    I really don't see what is wrong wtih making a deal with Russia.
    After all, we make such a "business" deal with Israel every day of the year---OK, every year of the century.
    We give them $3 billion and they use it to buy our weaponry.
    Or some such.
    The business of America is business, remember?

    No, Calvin Cooiidge was speaking at a different time.

    Three billion (it is pointless to oppose the US error on this point, now, particularly on money, but the real definition was ten to the twelfth, US con-men and ignorami knocked three orders of magnitude out), but the US gives far more than four ‘billion’ to Israel every year.

    That is not to including the loans that US supine Congress ensures need never be repaid.

    Also not to including weapons technology transfer, which the Izzies steal to export themselves at times. Automatically forgotten.

    Also to not including the weapons stockpiles the USA is providing gratis,

    So, the subsidy is many thousands per Jewish man, woman, and child in Israel!

    They have almost elimimated the formerly large Christian population, just like ISIS.

    Read More
  154. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Aedib
    Don’t worry. Putin considers former Ukraine as a big liability. He is not interested on taking it. He even refused to take the Donbas. Likely, also the West considers Ukraine as a burden, right now.

    Putin did not take the Donbass because he wanted the Donbass to take Ukraine first

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aedib
    That’s untrue. After Ilovaisk, Zakharchenko asked for resources to go further west and was pressured to sign with Porkky the Minsk-I treaty. After Debaltsevo, he also wanted to go on the offensive in order to take the rest of Donbas and was ordered to sign Minsk-II.
    Remember that some Novorussian SR groups reached outskirts of Berdiansk during September 2014 and were ordered to go back.
  155. Rhodesie says: • Website

    I hope that todays numbers are not portending another false flag attack in Syria to blame Assad like they did back on 4/4. They love multiples of 11…so today’s date 7/7 is perfect just perfect. Then I happened to read the Times of Israel tonight and saw Bibi looking at the CVN 77 anchored off Tel Aviv. The picture emphasises the big number 77 on the ships castle. You may laugh but this is what these occultists do all the time. So as you say Staker, “I hope not”… I hope not too! But that did not stop 9/11(99) or 3/11(33) or 7/7/05 or 4/4/17 false gas attack….and on and on and on–all 11′s which to these people means the Beast or their Christ.

    Read More
  156. TheSitRep says:

    I think Trump and Putin both realize that this is theater.

    They are both Alpha type leaders that probably very much respect each other.

    The NeoCon’s worst nightmare will soon come true when the duo leaves the meeting hugging each other.

    They also realize that they are fellow Sobieskites, and had better be in league with Poland, Japan, and the few other non-suicidal nations.

    Bringing Muslims into your country is equal to or worse than intentionally spreading Aids or Small Pox.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    The NeoCon’s worst nightmare will soon come true when the duo leaves the meeting hugging each other.
     
    That's true but they can neutralize it. Netanyahu has made it clear numerous times that he wants to destroy Iran, and what better time to launch an attack than right now with the largest US navy ship CVN-77 anchored beside Haifa.

    The USS George H. W. Bush would be conveniently caught in the cross-fire (False Flagged) drawing the US into the war and also sealing the fate of Syria + generating the desired Russia crisis.

    Just a suggestion - but the stars are lined up right. CVN-77 on 07/07/2017.
  157. Miro23 says:
    @TheSitRep
    I think Trump and Putin both realize that this is theater.

    They are both Alpha type leaders that probably very much respect each other.

    The NeoCon's worst nightmare will soon come true when the duo leaves the meeting hugging each other.

    They also realize that they are fellow Sobieskites, and had better be in league with Poland, Japan, and the few other non-suicidal nations.

    Bringing Muslims into your country is equal to or worse than intentionally spreading Aids or Small Pox.

    The NeoCon’s worst nightmare will soon come true when the duo leaves the meeting hugging each other.

    That’s true but they can neutralize it. Netanyahu has made it clear numerous times that he wants to destroy Iran, and what better time to launch an attack than right now with the largest US navy ship CVN-77 anchored beside Haifa.

    The USS George H. W. Bush would be conveniently caught in the cross-fire (False Flagged) drawing the US into the war and also sealing the fate of Syria + generating the desired Russia crisis.

    Just a suggestion – but the stars are lined up right. CVN-77 on 07/07/2017.

    Read More
  158. Aedib says:
    @The Scalpel
    Putin did not take the Donbass because he wanted the Donbass to take Ukraine first

    That’s untrue. After Ilovaisk, Zakharchenko asked for resources to go further west and was pressured to sign with Porkky the Minsk-I treaty. After Debaltsevo, he also wanted to go on the offensive in order to take the rest of Donbas and was ordered to sign Minsk-II.
    Remember that some Novorussian SR groups reached outskirts of Berdiansk during September 2014 and were ordered to go back.

    Read More
  159. Sean says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    The US leadership will roll over if they are allowed to invest in the Chinese megaeconomy and repatriate their massive profits... The resultant entity , call it “Chinamerica” will be something new
     
    Well, they've been doing it for decades, and 'Chimerica' is already a well-known term, has been for years.

    Warren Buffett’s face hasn’t been on cans of Cherry Coke in China for decades. The Trump proposal for repatriation of US firms profits’ currently held offshore will be a test. I think the firms are going to choose to plough their profits back into China.

    Read More
  160. Sean says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    I have already mentioned that when Reagan became president Kissinger was brought in to educate him and advised Reagan against any first use of a nuclear weapon.
     
    But that seems like a trivial calculation, integral to the MAD doctrine: you only use nukes when you are attacked, your own territory. Each side is free to attack pretty much any region outside the other side's dominion. Obviously, you won't initiate your own destruction for the sake of protecting you allies, no matter how close they are.

    Obviously, you won’t initiate your own destruction for the sake of protecting your allies, no matter how close they are.

    True. and neither would any country, when push came to shove, initiate their own destruction for the sake of protecting themselves from a fate less unpleasant than nuclear destruction–such as being conquered. Moreover the UK as a nuclear armed ally of the US could theoretically cause the US to be in a nuclear war because a British nuclear strike on Russia would provoke Russian retaliation on the US. But Britain would not actually do it, whatever they say.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Moreover the UK as a nuclear armed ally of the US could theoretically cause the US to be in a nuclear war because a British nuclear strike on Russia would provoke Russian retaliation on the US.
     
    I think this game needs to be viewed as a series of escalations/deescalations and responses to them. Response can be proportional, or it can constitute another escalation. A sequence of escalations leads to a total annihilation.

    I assume the UK doesn't have the capacity to destroy Russia. So, if the UK nukes Russia, the logical response is to retaliate by nuking the UK. Russia would suffer some damage, and the UK would be destroyed. I don't see a logical reason for Russia to retaliate against the US, thus causing its own annihilation.
  161. Randal says:
    @Sean
    With nuclear weapons and conventional superiority you can attack a nuclear power with nuclear superiority, because it is mere theoretical overkill capacity. However the thing you need is a reason, because wars are fought for an objective. Hitler wanted the East as German colony, and he took a calculated risk. Soviets went to vast expense to get conventional superiority. Assuming they had invaded, Nato would have had to accept conventional defeat and occupation, or employ limited nuclear weapons first and hope that the Soviets would not reciprocate. Note that the Soviets would have been the ones free to bluff about an all out strike in response to a single nuke being used By Nato. Furthermore it would be an American decision. I have already mentioned that when Reagan became president Kissinger was brought in to educate him and advised Reagan against any first use of a nuclear weapon. The threat of an incredible action is not a credible deterrent. The Soviets had 10:1 in tube artillery and had the option to roll, but they just didn't want Western Europe.

    We have lived in the shade of nuclear peace since the end of WW2
     
    And in the shade of poison gas since WW1. Hitler like the Spartan said we will fight in the dark then'(Powell used this very metaphor by the way). In the Thirties people were conditioned by Guermica to expect what we would now call a nuclear level extent of destruction (ie they though bombing would level the whole of London in a few weeks of the outbreak of war). Use of poison gas was also seen as inevitable in the next war. Beforehand, WW2 was expected to be a stalemate at best for Germany, certainly not a blitzkrieg victory. So mutually assured destruction inhibiting aggression failed because the Germans didn't believe it , were right, and they wanted to conquer territory.

    [T]he only reason there was not an openly fought WW3.
     
    The Soviets would have had to want to conquer Western Europe for them to be deterred. They didn't. The Soviets were uncertain about Germany's intentions and Khrushchev thought the Germans with nuclear weapons (MLF) would soon be at the gates of Moscow. By the way the MLF was what Christine Keeler was asked to find out about from Profumo. The top US general in Europe said back in the early Eighties that he would have asked for permission to use nukes within hours of a Soviet invasion of West Europe. He would not have got it.

    The original draft of John Hackett's WW3 book is instructive


    Hackett’s earlier attempt at writing a scenario had the Warsaw Pact advancing to the French border in as little as 4 days leading to the occupation of West Germany,... After distributing drafts of this early version, he was told by several retired US and West German generals that if it was published it would undermine public confidence in NATO. A year earlier, in 1976, Belgian Brigadier General Robert Close published a controversial book, Europe Without Defense? 48 hours That Could Change the Face of the World, involving a scenario in which the Warsaw Pact launches a surprise attack and advances to the Rhine in two days. https://defenceindepth.co/2016/08/01/general-sir-john-hacketts-the-third-world-war-or-how-to-think-about-a-future-war-with-russia-today/
     

    And in the shade of poison gas since WW1

    Poison gas is not and never has been in the same ballpark as nuclear weapons, in practice, and even in the peak of the “bomber will always get through” hysteria nobody serious expected bombers as they existed at the time to inflict the kind of universal destruction expected of thermonuclear weapons in an all out exchange.

    Speculations about Soviet desires at particular periods of the Cold War are neither here nor there. The reality is that the knowledge that war would likely mean a nuclear exchange even if neither wanted one exercised a cooling influence on the leaderships of both sides throughout the mid-late Cold War.

    Just as anybody rational would be desperately hoping it is exercising a similarly cooling influence on the current US President in the face of any literally stupid advice he might be receiving to the effect that the US should be acting aggressively against Russian forces in Syria because, supposedly, US conventional forces can beat the Russian forces there and (in your formulation) there’s “no danger of nuclear war because the Russians know they would be destroyed”.

    Real life doesn’t work that way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    The Russians know they will not be destroyed by nukes unless they use them first, and so they can use conventional war to get what they want. For an all out exchange someone has to fire off at least one nuke at their opponent to get the ball rolling. The side expecting to be the ultimate winner of a conventional conflict has no incentive to first use, but every incentive to public ally say they would use nukes first. Privately, Kissinger advised Reagan against any first use of nuclear weapons.

    In the late Cold War Russians attained enough conventional force in position,for a standing start (ie not requiring an exercise to cloak their preparations) invasion of Western Europe. Assuming the Russians actually had wanted Western Europe and took it , the US leadership as articulated by Kissinger would have not resorted to nuclear weapons and kept it strictly conventional, but this would be an easy decision because a globally fought WW3 against the worlds most powerful economy is one Russia could not hope to win.

    The Cold War is an example of conventional deterrence and it was conventional weapons that the vast majority of the money was spent on by both sides. If the US would not go nuclear for Europe, after losing the battle there; Russia would fight the US there in certain circumstances, but not go nuclear for a pile of crap like Syria just because they lost a few battles.

    It is not as obvious that the loser faced with their homeland being conquered would prefer fighting on conventionally to the bitter end of capitulation but in Russia's case they have a lot of space they could retreat to and a reasonable expectation of winning in the end. I think it probable that nuclear weapons would not be used even if Moscow was taken.

    It is a fact that nuclear armed Soviet Russia under Khrushchev was terrified of Germany getting nuked up because they thought Germany could and would invade under a thermonuclear Mexican standoff . If it sounds like the superpowers have been dissimulating, well John von Neumann worked out in his theory that bluffing was central to deterrence.

    I think a lot of your ideas are taken from the latter Cold War period when the establishment took fright at the headway MAD deterrence of nuclear war made toward being received wisdom. The worry was that talking of MAD all the time was exposing the bluff and making a conventional attack by the Soviets on Western Europe more likely.

    Led by the Dr Strangelove figure of Herman Kahn, defence intellectuals tried to undo the damage Von Neuman had done to the deterrent effect on Russia of the US's massive arsenal of nukes. To undo the hold of MAD, Kahn tried to give the bluff back some credibility by seeming to contemplate the US starting and fighting a nuclear war. Many feared a Soviet conventional build in the MAD climate was making a conventional Soviet attack ever more likely (what else was their conventional build up for) because Nato nukes were perceived by Soviet Russia as a transparent bluff. Kahn's ideas were, of course, just bullshit--another bluff. As Lord Mountbatten said shortly before his assassination, nuclear weapons have no military purpose. Wars cannot be fought with them.

  162. @Agent76
    How many know about this man in the Trump adminisration and his relationship with Russia?

    Apr 16, 2012 Exxon, Rosneft To Cement Historic Energy Deal

    On Monday, Exxon Mobil Corp and Rosneft launched a partnership allowing Exxon an access to Russia's arctic reserves and giving Rosneft an access to the North American projects. The companies said in a statement that the agreements form joint ventures to manage an exploration program in the Kara Sea and Black Sea, the initial cost for which is estimated over $3.2 billion.

    https://youtu.be/ndgYy7u1VY4

    Glad to see it. We should and could have more profitable trade with Russia, benefitting the economy and security of both countries.

    And we could add many pro-Russian people to the federal government without outweighing the apparently widespread, deeprooted hatred against Russia among people already in the fed gov.

    Read More
  163. @Anon 2
    All nations follow self-interest as they see it. The problem with Russia is that it has little to offer to its neighbors, like Finland, Baltic countries, Poland, and Ukraine, compared to what Western Europe can offer. Finland, Baltic countries, and Poland spent much of the 19th and 20th centuries trying to tell Russia "We don't want to be part of you. "Ukraine (most of it anyway) is still trying to tell a disbelieving Russia it wants out. Russians find it difficult to accept that their country has been regarded as backward for as long as it has existed. Of course, all Slavic countries are still regarded as backward by the rest of Europe but that's a separate issue.

    Whatever you can say about Germany, France, and Britain, at least they are not backward, although they are now descending into mediocrity. Hence, based on pure selfish interest, it makes more sense to get closer to W. Europe than to Russia. Nobody is talking about greatness here, the era of empires and quest for national greatness didn't end well, and thankfully is behind us. What the countries of Central Europe want is a decent life for their citizens, say the level of Italy or Spain. Based on IMF predictions, it is Lithuania that is likely to reach this level soon, and then surpass it. Yes, Lithuania, not Slovenia or Czechia

    On current trends, in 30 years won’t Germany, France, England, Sweden, and Netherlands be physically dangerous, fearful, Balkanized, untrusting, increasingly impoverished and unproductive and unintelligent places? Places where white and Christian people are constantly under physical attack by Muslims and Africans in “their” own lands, are intimidated and mocked openly by their guests and their guests’ offspring, and gradually are exterminated or formally subjugated?

    On current trends, does it seem likely that White people and Christian people in Russia will be eliminated or enslaved by aliens to that degree?

    It does not, in fact, make sense to cozy up to formerly “Western” countries that are rapidly descending into barbarism, and lack the will even to have children to perpetuate their own families and nation. Countries that lack the decency, the courage, the sense of duty, even to protect their own daughters from rape and their sons from torture, beatings, and degradation at the hands of attackers they invited and are feeding and housing.

    The countries of my ancestry have lost their will and will lose everything else accordingly.

    If I were Polish, I would be glad to trade with UK and Western Europe — or to vacation in UK / western Europe wherever it is still relatively safe and civilized and welcoming — but I’d acknowledge the handwriting on the wall. Russia has a better chance of surviving AS RUSSIA than U.K. / western Europe has of preserving their own genes and civilization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "On current trends, in 30 years won’t Germany, France, England, Sweden, and Netherlands be physically dangerous, fearful, Balkanized, untrusting, increasingly impoverished and unproductive and unintelligent places?"

    Depends upon what current trends you are referring to, and to what extent those trends, if they continue, will indeed lead to the results you present.

    "Places where white and Christian people are constantly under physical attack by Muslims and Africans in “their” own lands, are intimidated and mocked openly by their guests and their guests’ offspring, and gradually are exterminated or formally subjugated?"

    You use a number of qualifiers here, like "constantly" and "intimidated" and "mocked openly" and "exterminated". Are we here just being a tad presumptuous?

    "On current trends, does it seem likely that White people and Christian people in Russia will be eliminated or enslaved by aliens to that degree?"

    Not necessarily.

    "It does not, in fact, make sense to cozy up to formerly “Western” countries that are rapidly descending into barbarism, and lack the will even to have children to perpetuate their own families and nation."

    Who are these nations that are "barbaric" and lack the fortitude to sire offspring?

    "Countries that lack the decency, the courage, the sense of duty, even to protect their own daughters from rape and their sons from torture, beatings, and degradation at the hands of attackers they invited and are feeding and housing."

    The solution is for you to move there and defend the land from this oppression Rambo-style.

    "If I were Polish, I would be glad to trade with UK and Western Europe — or to vacation in UK / western Europe wherever it is still relatively safe and civilized and welcoming"

    I am Polish. I travel there frequently. It is relatively safe, civilized, and welcoming.
  164. @Skeptikal
    " Ukraine has been given the green light to start producing weapon parts for the US military at lesser costs which will only cement future US/Ukraine relations."

    So it is OK to do arms business to "cement" relations with other countries but not oil deals, and not with Russia.
    I see . . . so logical.
    So consistent

    So much BS.

    Well said.

    Read More
  165. @Sean

    Obviously, you won’t initiate your own destruction for the sake of protecting your allies, no matter how close they are.
     
    True. and neither would any country, when push came to shove, initiate their own destruction for the sake of protecting themselves from a fate less unpleasant than nuclear destruction--such as being conquered. Moreover the UK as a nuclear armed ally of the US could theoretically cause the US to be in a nuclear war because a British nuclear strike on Russia would provoke Russian retaliation on the US. But Britain would not actually do it, whatever they say.

    Moreover the UK as a nuclear armed ally of the US could theoretically cause the US to be in a nuclear war because a British nuclear strike on Russia would provoke Russian retaliation on the US.

    I think this game needs to be viewed as a series of escalations/deescalations and responses to them. Response can be proportional, or it can constitute another escalation. A sequence of escalations leads to a total annihilation.

    I assume the UK doesn’t have the capacity to destroy Russia. So, if the UK nukes Russia, the logical response is to retaliate by nuking the UK. Russia would suffer some damage, and the UK would be destroyed. I don’t see a logical reason for Russia to retaliate against the US, thus causing its own annihilation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean

    Once you go nuclear at all, you go nuclear for good; and you know it. Here is the parting of the ways, for from this point two opposite conclusions can be drawn. One is that therefore there can never again be serious war of any duration between Western nations, including Russia—in particular, that there can never again be serious war on the Continent of Europe or the waters around it, which an enemy must master in order to threaten Britain. That is the Government's position. The other conclusion, therefore, is that resort is most unlikely to be had to nuclear weapons at all, but that war could nevertheless develop as if they did not exist, except of course that it would be so conducted as to minimise any possibility of misapprehension that the use of nuclear weapons was imminent or had begun. The crucial question is whether there is any stage of a European war at which any nation would choose self-annihiliation in preference to prolonging the struggle. The Secretary of State says, "Yes, the loser or likely loser would almost instantly choose self-annihiliation." I say, "No. The probability, though not the certainty, but surely at least the possibility, is that no such point would come, whatever the course of the conflict." Speech in the House of Commons (1 March 1967).https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell

    The prospect of a Russian conquest of Western Europe is one for which history affords no material. The theory that the Russians have not advanced from the Elbe to the Atlantic because of the nuclear deterrent is not more convincing than the theory that they have not done so because they do not want to do so and have never envisaged, unless perhaps in terms of world revolution, a Russian hegemony in Western Europe... Of all the nations of Europe, Britain and Russia are the only ones, though for opposite reasons, which have this thing in common: that they can be defeated in the decisive land battle and still survive. This characteristic, which Russia owes to her immensity, Britain owes to her moat.
    Speech to The Hague (17 May 1971), from The Common Market: Renegotiate or Come Out (Elliot Right Way Books, 1973)

     

    Russia is scarcely going to be Sunday-punched and then be reasonable about being effectively tag teamed by Nato. No, if Russia was hit by a nuclear broadside from Britain, some of the Russians left in charge (submarine captains) would have the authority and one (it would only take one) would fire off their boat's missiles at the US. That is why the US gave Britain help with Nukes. Allow me to elucidate.

    There could be no escalation; in response to a Russian threat or actual specimen single warhead strike Britain would have to capitulate or order all the missiles fired, because the UK would probably have only one Trident-packing Vanguard class sub at sea, and firing discloses the position. The fragility of the British deterrent means a ladder of escalation does not exist for practical purposes in the British case. It would be fire all a sub's nukes or none.

    Britain could destroy a slew of Russian cities and in such a centralised country it would effectively take out Russian leadership and kill at least 10 million Russians. However, Britain's nukes are for something quite different; the proof is British subs such as HMS Vengeance only carry a fraction of their potential warhead load. The idea was obviously to gave a bit of credibility to America getting into a nuclear war by making it a British decision. It is as I said, Britain's nukes are there to give credibility to America getting involved in a nuclear war over Europe. But it remains the threat of an incredible action, because Britain would not be so easily invaded by conventional means, and even if Russians succeeded, the UK would prefer not to commit suicide. Dishonour before death.

  166. Lex says:
    @Randal

    [Sidebar: I have never been a big admirer of Polish politicians, but now Poland is reaching truly historical lows in terms of cowardice, dishonor and plain stupidity; from their “war on statues“, to their idiotic accusation that the Russian ATC deliverately crashed an official Polish aircraft ( resulting from their categorical inability to accept that their own politicians gave a stupid order to their pilots) to Prime Minister Kazinsky’s war on “cyclists and vegetarians“,
     
    Seems pretty harsh on the Poles to me (though I'll admit I've not been in Poland for a couple of decades and more, so I 'm basing my impression on talking to expatriate Poles and media reports). There's surely a lot to like about the current Polish government's domestic attitudes, which compared to mainstream so called conservative parties in western Europe are almost genuinely socially conservative and mildly nationalist. And I don't see any supposed "war on vegetarians and cyclists" as any kind of problem, either.

    They seem to be relatively resistant (by comparison with the western European degenerate elites) to mass immigration and to social corruption such as the promotion of homosexual activity, and that's surely a good thing.

    The problem of course is that broadly admirable nationalism can be a problem in foreign affairs when the nationalism is directed against the wrong targets, as with a lot of eastern European nationalism that is obsessed with anachronistic anti-Russian paranoia and misplaced worship of the US. Ukraine is the worst exemplar here, of course.

    In Poland's case, its foreign policy positions are problematic, but not its domestic ones.

    Can you REALLY call it paranoia in Ukraine’s case?

    Read More
  167. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    It’s too late for Ukrainians to be paranoid. They’ve already lost.

    (((Zbigniew Brzezinski))) wanted them fucked so they got (((Petro Poroshenko))) on the orders of (((Victoria Nuland))). First thing the new management did was slash pensions and prepare for war.

    Read More
  168. Sean says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    Moreover the UK as a nuclear armed ally of the US could theoretically cause the US to be in a nuclear war because a British nuclear strike on Russia would provoke Russian retaliation on the US.
     
    I think this game needs to be viewed as a series of escalations/deescalations and responses to them. Response can be proportional, or it can constitute another escalation. A sequence of escalations leads to a total annihilation.

    I assume the UK doesn't have the capacity to destroy Russia. So, if the UK nukes Russia, the logical response is to retaliate by nuking the UK. Russia would suffer some damage, and the UK would be destroyed. I don't see a logical reason for Russia to retaliate against the US, thus causing its own annihilation.

    Once you go nuclear at all, you go nuclear for good; and you know it. Here is the parting of the ways, for from this point two opposite conclusions can be drawn. One is that therefore there can never again be serious war of any duration between Western nations, including Russia—in particular, that there can never again be serious war on the Continent of Europe or the waters around it, which an enemy must master in order to threaten Britain. That is the Government’s position. The other conclusion, therefore, is that resort is most unlikely to be had to nuclear weapons at all, but that war could nevertheless develop as if they did not exist, except of course that it would be so conducted as to minimise any possibility of misapprehension that the use of nuclear weapons was imminent or had begun. The crucial question is whether there is any stage of a European war at which any nation would choose self-annihiliation in preference to prolonging the struggle. The Secretary of State says, “Yes, the loser or likely loser would almost instantly choose self-annihiliation.” I say, “No. The probability, though not the certainty, but surely at least the possibility, is that no such point would come, whatever the course of the conflict.” Speech in the House of Commons (1 March 1967).https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell

    The prospect of a Russian conquest of Western Europe is one for which history affords no material. The theory that the Russians have not advanced from the Elbe to the Atlantic because of the nuclear deterrent is not more convincing than the theory that they have not done so because they do not want to do so and have never envisaged, unless perhaps in terms of world revolution, a Russian hegemony in Western Europe… Of all the nations of Europe, Britain and Russia are the only ones, though for opposite reasons, which have this thing in common: that they can be defeated in the decisive land battle and still survive. This characteristic, which Russia owes to her immensity, Britain owes to her moat.
    Speech to The Hague (17 May 1971), from The Common Market: Renegotiate or Come Out (Elliot Right Way Books, 1973)

    Russia is scarcely going to be Sunday-punched and then be reasonable about being effectively tag teamed by Nato. No, if Russia was hit by a nuclear broadside from Britain, some of the Russians left in charge (submarine captains) would have the authority and one (it would only take one) would fire off their boat’s missiles at the US. That is why the US gave Britain help with Nukes. Allow me to elucidate.

    There could be no escalation; in response to a Russian threat or actual specimen single warhead strike Britain would have to capitulate or order all the missiles fired, because the UK would probably have only one Trident-packing Vanguard class sub at sea, and firing discloses the position. The fragility of the British deterrent means a ladder of escalation does not exist for practical purposes in the British case. It would be fire all a sub’s nukes or none.

    Britain could destroy a slew of Russian cities and in such a centralised country it would effectively take out Russian leadership and kill at least 10 million Russians. However, Britain’s nukes are for something quite different; the proof is British subs such as HMS Vengeance only carry a fraction of their potential warhead load. The idea was obviously to gave a bit of credibility to America getting into a nuclear war by making it a British decision. It is as I said, Britain’s nukes are there to give credibility to America getting involved in a nuclear war over Europe. But it remains the threat of an incredible action, because Britain would not be so easily invaded by conventional means, and even if Russians succeeded, the UK would prefer not to commit suicide. Dishonour before death.

    Read More
  169. Corvinus says:
    @RadicalCenter
    On current trends, in 30 years won't Germany, France, England, Sweden, and Netherlands be physically dangerous, fearful, Balkanized, untrusting, increasingly impoverished and unproductive and unintelligent places? Places where white and Christian people are constantly under physical attack by Muslims and Africans in "their" own lands, are intimidated and mocked openly by their guests and their guests' offspring, and gradually are exterminated or formally subjugated?

    On current trends, does it seem likely that White people and Christian people in Russia will be eliminated or enslaved by aliens to that degree?

    It does not, in fact, make sense to cozy up to formerly "Western" countries that are rapidly descending into barbarism, and lack the will even to have children to perpetuate their own families and nation. Countries that lack the decency, the courage, the sense of duty, even to protect their own daughters from rape and their sons from torture, beatings, and degradation at the hands of attackers they invited and are feeding and housing.

    The countries of my ancestry have lost their will and will lose everything else accordingly.

    If I were Polish, I would be glad to trade with UK and Western Europe -- or to vacation in UK / western Europe wherever it is still relatively safe and civilized and welcoming -- but I'd acknowledge the handwriting on the wall. Russia has a better chance of surviving AS RUSSIA than U.K. / western Europe has of preserving their own genes and civilization.

    “On current trends, in 30 years won’t Germany, France, England, Sweden, and Netherlands be physically dangerous, fearful, Balkanized, untrusting, increasingly impoverished and unproductive and unintelligent places?”

    Depends upon what current trends you are referring to, and to what extent those trends, if they continue, will indeed lead to the results you present.

    “Places where white and Christian people are constantly under physical attack by Muslims and Africans in “their” own lands, are intimidated and mocked openly by their guests and their guests’ offspring, and gradually are exterminated or formally subjugated?”

    You use a number of qualifiers here, like “constantly” and “intimidated” and “mocked openly” and “exterminated”. Are we here just being a tad presumptuous?

    “On current trends, does it seem likely that White people and Christian people in Russia will be eliminated or enslaved by aliens to that degree?”

    Not necessarily.

    “It does not, in fact, make sense to cozy up to formerly “Western” countries that are rapidly descending into barbarism, and lack the will even to have children to perpetuate their own families and nation.”

    Who are these nations that are “barbaric” and lack the fortitude to sire offspring?

    “Countries that lack the decency, the courage, the sense of duty, even to protect their own daughters from rape and their sons from torture, beatings, and degradation at the hands of attackers they invited and are feeding and housing.”

    The solution is for you to move there and defend the land from this oppression Rambo-style.

    “If I were Polish, I would be glad to trade with UK and Western Europe — or to vacation in UK / western Europe wherever it is still relatively safe and civilized and welcoming”

    I am Polish. I travel there frequently. It is relatively safe, civilized, and welcoming.

    Read More
  170. Sean says:
    @Randal

    And in the shade of poison gas since WW1
     
    Poison gas is not and never has been in the same ballpark as nuclear weapons, in practice, and even in the peak of the "bomber will always get through" hysteria nobody serious expected bombers as they existed at the time to inflict the kind of universal destruction expected of thermonuclear weapons in an all out exchange.

    Speculations about Soviet desires at particular periods of the Cold War are neither here nor there. The reality is that the knowledge that war would likely mean a nuclear exchange even if neither wanted one exercised a cooling influence on the leaderships of both sides throughout the mid-late Cold War.

    Just as anybody rational would be desperately hoping it is exercising a similarly cooling influence on the current US President in the face of any literally stupid advice he might be receiving to the effect that the US should be acting aggressively against Russian forces in Syria because, supposedly, US conventional forces can beat the Russian forces there and (in your formulation) there's "no danger of nuclear war because the Russians know they would be destroyed".

    Real life doesn't work that way.

    The Russians know they will not be destroyed by nukes unless they use them first, and so they can use conventional war to get what they want. For an all out exchange someone has to fire off at least one nuke at their opponent to get the ball rolling. The side expecting to be the ultimate winner of a conventional conflict has no incentive to first use, but every incentive to public ally say they would use nukes first. Privately, Kissinger advised Reagan against any first use of nuclear weapons.

    In the late Cold War Russians attained enough conventional force in position,for a standing start (ie not requiring an exercise to cloak their preparations) invasion of Western Europe. Assuming the Russians actually had wanted Western Europe and took it , the US leadership as articulated by Kissinger would have not resorted to nuclear weapons and kept it strictly conventional, but this would be an easy decision because a globally fought WW3 against the worlds most powerful economy is one Russia could not hope to win.

    The Cold War is an example of conventional deterrence and it was conventional weapons that the vast majority of the money was spent on by both sides. If the US would not go nuclear for Europe, after losing the battle there; Russia would fight the US there in certain circumstances, but not go nuclear for a pile of crap like Syria just because they lost a few battles.

    It is not as obvious that the loser faced with their homeland being conquered would prefer fighting on conventionally to the bitter end of capitulation but in Russia’s case they have a lot of space they could retreat to and a reasonable expectation of winning in the end. I think it probable that nuclear weapons would not be used even if Moscow was taken.

    It is a fact that nuclear armed Soviet Russia under Khrushchev was terrified of Germany getting nuked up because they thought Germany could and would invade under a thermonuclear Mexican standoff . If it sounds like the superpowers have been dissimulating, well John von Neumann worked out in his theory that bluffing was central to deterrence.

    I think a lot of your ideas are taken from the latter Cold War period when the establishment took fright at the headway MAD deterrence of nuclear war made toward being received wisdom. The worry was that talking of MAD all the time was exposing the bluff and making a conventional attack by the Soviets on Western Europe more likely.

    Led by the Dr Strangelove figure of Herman Kahn, defence intellectuals tried to undo the damage Von Neuman had done to the deterrent effect on Russia of the US’s massive arsenal of nukes. To undo the hold of MAD, Kahn tried to give the bluff back some credibility by seeming to contemplate the US starting and fighting a nuclear war. Many feared a Soviet conventional build in the MAD climate was making a conventional Soviet attack ever more likely (what else was their conventional build up for) because Nato nukes were perceived by Soviet Russia as a transparent bluff. Kahn’s ideas were, of course, just bullshit–another bluff. As Lord Mountbatten said shortly before his assassination, nuclear weapons have no military purpose. Wars cannot be fought with them.

    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
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored