The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 The Saker ArchiveBlogview
Russia vs. America in Syria
Using Plausible Deniability Against a Systematically Lying Adversary
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

The Internet has been buzzing with reactions to the latest Stratfor report about how a military confrontation between Russia and the United States would play out. I did not find the full text, I suppose it is behind a Stratfor paywall or for subscribers only (and, frankly, I have better use for my time and money than to subscribe to that rubbish), but since the same excerpts are quoted everywhere, I might as well list them here and assume that they form the highlights of the article. Here we go (taken from the Business Insider quoting and paraphrasing the original article):

While Russia has some advanced surface-to-air missile systems and very agile fighter aircraft in Syria, it wouldn’t fare well in what would be a short, brutal air war against the US (…) Russia has “about 25 planes, only about ten of which are dedicated to air superiority (Su-35s and Su-30s), and against that they’ll have to face fifth-gen stealth fighters, dozens of strike fighters, F-15s, F-16s, as well as B-1 and B-52 bombers. And of course the vast US Navy and pretty much hundreds of Tomahawks.” “Russians have a lot of air defenses, they’re not exactly defenseless by any means,” Lamrani told Business Insider, “But the US has very heavy air superiority.” Even though individual Russian platforms come close to matching, and in some ways exceed the capability of US jets, it comes down to numbers. If US surveillance detected a mass mobilization of Russian jets in response to the back-and-forth, the US wouldn’t just wait politely for Russians to get their planes in the sky so they can fight back. Instead, a giant salvo of cruise missiles would pour in from the USS George H. W. Bush carrier strike group, much like the April 7 strike on Syria’s Sharyat air base. But this time, the missiles would have to saturate and defeat Russia’s missile defenses first, which they could do by sheer numbers if not using electronic attack craft. Then, after neutering Russia’s defenses, the ships could target the air base, not only destroying planes on the ground but also tearing up the runways, so no planes could take off. At this point US and Coalition aircraft would have free reign to pass overhead and completely devastate Russian forces.

So is the author, Omar Lamrani, right in his assessment? Yes and no. Yes, that is exactly what would happen if the Russians decided to engage their small number of air superiority aircraft to try to prevail over the entire CENCOM and NATO air force for the control of the Syrian skies. And no, simply because the Russians would never do that.

The author of the article, a civilian with no military experience, makes a basic mistake, he assumes that the Russians will act like idiots and fight the kind of war the US would want to impose upon them. That is kind of assumptions most newbies make and which make for excellent propaganda articles. The problem is, of course, that there is absolutely no reason at all why the Russians should collaborate with such a ridiculous scenario. So, let’s get back to basics here.

Question 1: are the Russians in a position of weakness in Syria?

Yes, absolutely. And they know that too. First, the Russians are operating only 2 facilities (Tartus and Khmeimim), far away from home, and the size of their task force in Syria is tiny compared to the huge amount of firepower available to the AngloZionists and their allies. Second, the USA have poured billions of dollars into this region to make sure that the Soviet Union could never successfully invade Iran and not only do they have an immense numerical superiority over the Russians, they also have a world-class network of bases where even more forces can be brought in. Syria is squeezed between CENTCOM to the south and east and NATO to the north and west while the closest Russian forces are in Crimea. The truth is that not only could the US and NATO take control of the Syrian skies, even Israel alone could probably do it. So, assuming the Russians are not suicidal imbeciles, what do you think they should do? If you were Russian, how would you play your cards?

Question 2: do the Russians have advantages of their own?

Absolutely. In fact, they have many advantages over the Americans. Here they are in no particular order:

  • All the boots on the ground that matter are either Russian allies or at least on good terms with Russia: the Syrians, the Iranians, Hezbollah and even Turkey are all much closer to Russia than to the AngloZionists. The only AngloZionist boots on the ground that matter are Daesh & Co.
  • Internal public opinion: in Russia, the Russian military intervention is understood and backed by a overwhelming majority of Russians. In the USA the public is clueless and profoundly skeptical of this latest US war of choice. Not only that, but Putin personally has an immense credibility with the Russian people, while Trump is barely avoiding being impeached.
  • External public opinion: while in the USA the Ziomedia is engaged in a truly heroic effort to avoid even mentioning the fact that even the US presence in, and nevermind the actual aggression against, Syria is completely illegal in terms of international law, most of the planet is quite aware of that. This only further erodes the US standing worldwide.
  • The Russians have fewer lucrative targets to offer the AngloZionists than the Americans. Simply put, the Russians have Tartus and Khmeimim. The Americans have an long list of bases and facilities in the region which all could become potential targets.
  • The willpower, courage and determination of the Russian soldier is stronger than his US counterparts by many orders of magnitude. There are many reasons for this, historical as well as political, but I don’t think that anybody doubts the fact that while Americans love to kill for their country, they are much less enthusiastic about dying for it, especially when the “for it” part is extremely dubious and when the frontline soldier feels that he is being used in some complex political game which he does not understand but where he is definitely used as cannon fodder.
  • There is Russian personnel and military hardware interspersed within the Syrian forces. We know that Russian technical specialists, military advisors and special forces are operating on the ground in Syria. This means that the Russian can probably use a Syrian S-300 to shoot down a US aircraft without necessarily giving the US proof of their involvement. To use and old CIA term, the Russian can have “plausible deniability”.
  • We know that Russia has a vastly superior intelligence capability in Syria as reflected in the kind of damage Russian air and missile strike inflict on their targets especially when compared to the painfully obvious lack of US understanding of what’s really going on on the ground.

So what does all this add up to?

1) Plausible deniability in the air

First, it is pretty darn clear that the Russians have no incentive to begin a large scale air battle in the skies of Syria with their US counterparts. However, the fact that such a battle would not be in their interest does not mean that they would necessarily avoid it either. For the time being, the Russians seem to have chosen a strategy of deliberate uncertainty and harassment of the US aircraft, but they could decide to engage US aircraft using their ground based S-300/S-400 batteries. Here is how they could do it.

First, the Russians are the only ones in Syria with S-400s. So let’s set them aside for a minute and keep them for serious emergency purposes. Next, let’s look at the Syrian inventory of air defenses found on Wikipedia. Notice especially this one: the Pantsir-S1 (SA-22). According to Wikipedia, there are 50 SA-22 in Syria. Have you ever heard of the Panstsir-S1? Probably not.

Forget the S-300/S-400, think Pantsir

The Pantsir-S1 (aka “SA-22” in US/NATO classification) is an absolutely awe-inspiring air defense system, yet nobody in the general public or Ziomedia ever mentions it. Let’s take a look at it:

Pantsir

The Pantsir-S1 is a mobile short to medium range surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery weapon system which uses phased array radars for both target acquisition and tracking. Detection range: 32-45km (20-28mi). Tracking range: 24-28km (15-17mi). It can track up to 20 targets, engage up to 3 with 4 missiles at the same time. It has a secondary Autonomous Optoelectronic System with a 25km (15mi) engagement rage against a small F-16 size aircraft. The Pantsir’s missiles are solid-fuel rockets with a range of 20km (12mi), a ceiling of 15km (9mi)and a speed of Mach 2.3-2.8. The Pantsir also has two dual 30mm autocannons shooting up to 700 rounds of high explosive at a rate of 2,500 rounds per minute at a distance up to 4km (2.5mi). Now here is the really neat thing about it: both the Russian and the Syrian operate these mobile systems. In other words, not only might these Pantsirs be anywhere, but they might be operated by anybody. Heck, even the Iranians have them!

Though the Pantsirs look the part (they look like something out of a Terminator movie to me), they are even more dangerous than they appear because while they are capable of fully autonomous operations, they are also designed to be plugged-in into a global network via a digitally encrypted datalink which makes it possible for them to receive their engagement data from other land-based and airborne platforms. Finally, keep in mind that nobody really knows how many Pantsirs the Russians have brought with them to Syria, how many the Syrians currently operate, how many “Syrian” Pantsirs are operated by Russians and plugged in into the Russian digital air-defense network or, for that matter, how many Syrian and Iranian Pantsirs might be out there.

ORDER IT NOW

So what do we have? A system which is extremely mobile (being mounted on a heavy high mobility truck), easy to conceal (being small), which can engage any airborne target at altitudes ranging form 0m to 15,000m as far as 20,000m away. To do so, they can use their passive electronically scanned array (PESA), their Autonomous Opto-electronic System (AOS) or even data received from other radars including Russian S-300/S-400, Su-35 or AWACS.

Initially and officially, the Russian Pantsirs are solely tasked with defending the longer ranged S-300/S-400 systems and the Russian installations in Khmeimim and Tartus. But in reality they could be rapidly deployed anywhere and used to shoot down US aircraft with no evidence whatsoever that the Russians did it! Of course, the Russian would have to be very careful as to what source they would use to track the US aircraft and provide the Pantsir’s missile an engagement solution. As far as I know, the Pantsir’s missiles do not have an active or even semi-active radar system, but their AOS allows for completely silent/passive engagements. Depending on what intelligence assets the Americans do or do not have available at the time of attack, their might be no way of proving who shot down the US aircraft.

The bottom line is this: while the world is focused on the bigger S-300/S-400 capabilities, the Russians already have in place a far more flexible short-medium range air-defense system which would be impossible to destroy with Tomahawks (being mobile) and very hard to destroy with airstrikes. That system could be deployed anywhere in Syria and it could be used while providing the Russian with a plausible deniability. Of course, the US could try to fly outside the Pantsir’s flight envelope, but that would make use of any airpower very difficult. Another option for the Americans would be to rely solely on their low-RCS aircraft (B-1, B-2 for strikes, and F-22s to protect them), but that would dramatically decrease the overall capabilities of CENTOM/NATO over Syria.

I will conclude this section by reminding everybody that neither the US nor any other NATO country has ever had to operate in an environment as dangerous as the Syrian skies. The poor Serbs had only ancient air defenses and yet even against them NATO failed miserably. In Syria the Russian air defenses could give the Americans a run for their money without ever using any of their (admittedly few) air superiority aircraft.

2) Plausible deniability on the ground

Has anybody ever considered that the Russians might decide to attack US forces deployed on the ground in Syria (or Iraq for that matter?)? Apparently not, if only because most people would assume that the Russian force in Syria is tiny and therefore cannot attack a much larger and stronger US force. But, just as with the air warfare, this is a mistaken assumption based on the idea that the US would know who is attacking. In reality, the Russians could attack the US using their special forces (either those already deployed or specially brought in) to attack US targets and retain plausible deniability.

How?

This is what we already know:

Russian operators are already deployed and active in Syria:

First the famous Spetsnaz ( Spetsnaz GRU Gsh). These are special units drawn either from the Southern Military District or, possibly, subordinated directly to the Military Intelligence (GRU) HQ in Moscow. Unlike the Spetsnaz GRU forces of the GRU brigades of the Military Districts, these small groups (8-12 men) are staffed by career officers only.

RussianSpecialForces Next, the Russian Special Forces (SSO), a relatively new creation not to be confused with the Spetsnaz GRU even if they are similar in many ways, are also more or less officially in Syria (Russian TV channels have made reports and interviews with them). They are subordinated to General Staff of the Armed Forces. Here is a photo of them taken by a Russian journalist in Syria:

Finally, there аre reports of some unnamed but very secret Russian unit working in Syria (for example here) but neither Vympel nor Zaslon fit the bill (the former is now subordinated to the FSB, i.e. deal with internal security issues, while the latter is more of a protective service for officials, their residences and Russian civilians abroad). I have found no info on who they are, but my guess is that they are what Vympel used to be: special forces of the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) working in close collaboration with the SVR agent networks in Syria.

Whatever may be the case, the Russians already have more then enough special forces in Syria to start attacking US targets in Syria or even elsewhere in the region. For example, during the battle for Aleppo there have been numerous reports of Russian snipers killing Daesh leaders one after the other almost decapitating their entire leadership. That could happen to top US officers on the ground in Syria. Special forces could also arrange for “inexplicable” missile strikes hitting US forces. But the most important aspect here is that these forces could be used in complete secrecy with nothing identifying them as Russians. They would look like Arabs, speaks like Arabs and have Arabic IDs with them. The Soviets did use exactly this technique in Afghanistan to overthrow Afghan President Hafizullah Amin. Likewise, Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov has openly admitted that Chechen operators have been infiltrated into the Daesh command structure.. Finally, even if “Russians” are caught and somehow identified, there are about 5,000 Russian citizens of all sorts of ethnic groups (including Slavs) fighting in the ranks of Daesh and it will be impossible to prove that fighter X or fighter Z are agents of a Russian intelligence service.

Bottom line is this: Russia also has the option of ground attacks against US forces with plausible deniability.

So think of it – Russians SAMS shooting at US aircraft in the air, and Russian special forces killing US officers on the ground. And all this with complete plausible deniability.

Not convinced yet?

One the many uses of plausible deniability, especially against a systematically lying enemy

You might wonder how useful plausible deniability is against a country which makes up all sorts of ridiculous stories about Russian hackers stealing elections or invisible Russian armies in the eastern Ukraine. And I agree, a country which has 16 intelligence agencies and a long and shameful history of making up intelligence – yes, sure, they could say that “the Russkies did it” and have the Ziomedia repeat it all over and over again without any evidence.

But there is another side to this story: since the US propaganda machine has made up so many stories about genocidal Serbs, Viagra-enhanced raping Libyans, baby-tossing Iraqis, wannabe-nuclear Iranians, barrel-bombing Syrians and God knows who else – how credible will they be when they accuse the Russian of “this vicious and dastardly act” (whatever the act is, really)? Even as I write this, there are reports that the White House is already setting the stage for yet another false flag attack in Syria. Let’s be honest here and agree that Uncle Sam lies every time he moves his lips and while the brain-dead Ziomedia pretends to take each lie very seriously, the rest of the planet, including much of the American public, is under no illusions.

Now imagine a Russian operated Pantsir-S1 crew in Syria shooting down US aircraft or Russian operators blowing up a tent with the HQ of the US forces in Syria. Not only will there be no proof that the Russians did it, but even if there was, nobody would trust the Americans anyway. Furthermore, this also begs the following question: would it really be in the USA’s best interest to point the finger at the Russians? I would argue that it would not. It would make far more sense to blame the Syrians, then bomb some kind of Syrian government building (say the probably empty military intelligence building in downtown Damascus) and declare that “a message has been sent” then to take the military and political risk of attacking Russian forces in Syria.

Could the Americans retaliate in kind?

Probably not. Remember, they don’t have the boots on the ground, the intelligence capabilities or the political support (internal and external) to get away with that. Not only that, but US special forces have a long history of screwing up even relatively simple operations and I don’t see them trying to get away with a direct attack on Russian forces in Khmeimim or elsewhere. At most, they will do what they almost always do – subcontract the mission to some locals, which works great against defenseless civilians and ends up on disaster against a real “hard” target.

The many paradoxes of warfare

First, we should always keep in mind that any military action is just a means towards a political goal, the “continuation of politics by other means”. Because of that highly political nature, there are circumstances where being the weaker side can yield advantages. The key to the defensive strategy of the weaker side is not to let the stronger side impose the kind of warfare which maximizes the stronger side’s advantages. In the case of Syria, trying to defeat the entire air force of CENTCOM with just a few fighters would be plain stupid. And since the US does have an immense advantage in the number of cruise missiles it can launch – do what the Serbs did in Kosovo and Hezbollah did in 2006 against Israel: don’t give them a target. In the Syrian context this means: use only mobile air defense systems. Last but not least, hit the Americans were it hurts most – their morale. Remember how crazy they got when they could not find out who was attacking them in Vietnam?

An elephant in a porcelain store is a scary sight for sure. But once you get over your initial fear, you soon will realize that being a big bad elephant makes it very difficult to make a smart move. That is exactly the USA’s problem, especially the US armed forces: they are so big and confident that almost every move they make lacks the sophisticated caution imposed by life on a much weaker actor. This is why the almost always end up breaking the store and looking stupid. Add to this a quasi-total focus on the short-term quickfix, and you get a recipe for disaster.

The two options for a Russian counter-attack under the cover of plausible deniability are just the two that came to my mind. In reality there are many more, including many even much less “visible” than those I have suggested. My main goal was to illustrate that there is absolutely no reason for the Russians to behave like Omar Lamrani suggested in his frankly silly article. The truth is that I have absolutely no idea how the Russians might respond, and that is exactly how it should be. All I am sure of is that they won’t respond how Lamrani thinks they will, that’s all.

The wiser folks in the Pentagon and, apparently, on the ground are trying hard to avoid getting tangled up with the Russians not because they fear some specific Russian response, but because they are aware that they are dealing with an unpredictable and sophisticated actor. The good news is that the Russians are also trying hard to avoid getting tangled up with the Americans, especially so far away from home and smack in the middle of a thoroughly CENCTOM/NATO-controlled part of the world.

In conclusion, I want to mention just a small sampling of what I did not mention but which US commanders will have to consider before deciding on a direct attack on Russian forces: various naval scenarios, especially those involving diesel attack submarines, Russian options to deploy into Iran, Russian retaliatory options in other theaters such as Iraq, Pakistan and, especially, Afghanistan. Here is a good one: *real* Russian cracking (“hacking” is the wrong word) of crucial US computer networks, including the release of possibly very embarrassing information (think of it as “Wikileaks on steroids”). Finally, if cornered, one possibly option for Russia would be to draw US forces, resources and energy away from Syria to some other region truly critical to the USA. DPRK anybody?

The options are endless and the stakes very high. In the dreamworld of Mr Lamrani it’s all simple and easy. Which only goes to prove, yet again, that war is far too serious a matter to entrusted to civilians.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Russia, Syria 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Avery says:

    {The willpower, courage and determination of the Russian solider is stronger than his US counterparts by many orders of magnitude.}

    By many orders of magnitude?
    One order of magnitude is 10.
    Two orders of magnitude is 100.
    Many is …..what 1,000?
    Russian warriors are at the minimum 10X better than American warriors?

    You don’t actually believe that, do you?

    Their leaders – both military and civilian – may be incompetent, corrupt, treasonous (e.g. USS Liberty betrayal by their Commander in Chief),etc, etc…..but American professional warriors lack neither willpower, nor courage, nor determination.

    One example: the “Black Hawk Down”/Battle of Mogadishu firefight.

    Their leaders sent them into a harebrained Globalist mission without proper support, but once all Hell broke loose, Americans fought with great courage and determination. Fought like lions, in fact.

    The notion that Russian pros are, quote, ‘many orders of magnitude’ stronger in warrior quality (…and skills) is truly delusional on Saker’s part.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Agree, up to a point.
    These...debates...are like those "which is better, AK or M-16 platform'....good for amateurs.

    Now, it is a fact that the West, since Iraq, hasn't fought conventional war and even that was against much weaker opponent. COIN only.
    Russians have fought decent conventional wars...Georgia and Ukraine, against similar opponent.
    I'd hazard a guess that, on operational level, Russian Command and Control is better than US.

    The problem, for Russians, is quality of support/logistics and on tactical level (from division to including a battalion...or, better, battlegroup).

    Anyway...that's all actually besides the point.

    I believe we'll be looking at 'border clashes' from '1984', done by special forces and contractors. Teams killing each other under the radar.
    For a starter.

    But, I believe, WHEN push comes to shove Russians will step back and mark another line in sand.
    And another.
    The Empire will be pushing, carefully, and Russians will be retreating, slowly........
    , @Sergey Krieger
    On this Sacker is right. It is easier to fiht like a lion when you face jackals but it is far harder when you face tiger or bear. US forces were not good at fighting jackals and never fought bigger game...
    , @Tom Welsh
    I don't think it's "delusional" so much as slightly careless. I, too, dislike such exaggeration, which often bespeaks a writer somewhat lacking in mathematical or engineering knowledge. Not the Saker whom we know and admire!

    Another solecism that I am seeing more and more often is "increasing exponentially" when what is meant is "increasing". An addition to the mountain of evidence that most people - even among the supposedly educated - have no idea what "exponential" means, and use it just because "it sounds cool".
    , @pyrrhus
    Idiotic...As the Saker points out, Russian forces are highly patriotic, unlike US forces, who are in the military predominantly for the benefits and early retirement. Even more important, they have not been weakened by political promotions, or the addition of women, gays, and 3d world lackwits.
    , @Jeff Davis
    Another consideration similar to the claim that "The willpower, courage and determination of the Russian soldier is stronger than his US counterpart by many orders of magnitude" is the relative "willpower, courage, and determination" of the Russian and US publics. I would suggest that substantial numbers of dead and wounded would be much more difficult for the Americans to bear than for the Russians. In a real conflict against a capable adversary part of "the test" is the ability to absorb and endure substantial emotional and material "pain" -- ie damage. In this area I suggest that the US is at a very serious disadvantage. The Russians have a reputation, and perhaps the history to back it up, of having had to endure almost unimaginable levels of death and destruction in defensive warfare: sucking it up, retreating, fighting on, dying by the millions, persevering, sucking it up some more, dying some more, retreating some more, and basically sticking with this "this is what we've got, so we just keep at it until we're all dead or the enemy is exhausted" strategy of just gutting it out to the bitter end. The US just doesn't have that kind of guts, is my impression.

    But while this may be the bottom line, I think Putin and the Russian military are way out front of the US strategically and tactically, and it will never come to a straight up US vs Russia military slugfest. Instead some other approach, something "off to the side" -- bombing or threatening to bomb Israel, thus getting the Israels to rein in their US poodle, or obliterating Saudi oilfields, or destroying the US satellite fleet thereby crippling the US military force projection network, with nary an American paper-cut inflicted .... something like that which would stop in its tracks any escalation toward a direct confrontation.

    , @Mohammed Cohen
    Avery's self gloating estimation of the American solider is way way off! I've been in Iraq months before our idiotic baffoon Bush illegally invaded Iraq. I have personal friends among the commissioned and non-commissioned officers of our US Army, the Marines, USAF and even the Coast Guards. As an American I have spent a great deal of time with the soldiers on the ground in Iraq. I have yet to find ONE soldier is willingly in the front lines of the illegal fight with the Iraqis. Most of them cried to get back home saying "what the hell are we doin here in the God forsaken place? I was supposed to be here only for three months and now its the 2nd. year going on. "I don't wanna fight with these crazies who wanna die"., I know it's totally illegal war that we are killing these people". "Let the efin Israeli come and fight their war why us".. etc etc. Most of them I found scared shitless going out of the Green Zone area and if they do, only way they leave the security and comfort of the Green Zone is with a 30 Humvee convoy to escort them along with another 20 Iraqi and American private security companies. I went from Green one to Camp Anaconda, on our way, we stopped several times for reasons that no one knew why but just becuse there was some news that an Iraqi or an Al Queda blew himself up somewhere. The scare and the fear that we all felt was just mind blowing. Not being a military guy I was shocked to witness the fear among the soldiers of unknown IEDs that may or may not be on our path to Camp Anaconda. It took us thrice as much time as it took to the ordinary private American and non-American contractors to make it to Camp Anaconda. I can go on and on about the cowardice of our "volunteer" poverty stricken soldier who had nothing going on for his life in a run down dead tiny villages and towns and nothing matched the opportunity than enlisting in the Army etc. Great majority of our soldiers in the Middle East know very well that we are fighting the war for Israel and not for America! This is why all the difference it makes when we compare American soldiers with any other in the war theater of the Middle East. Most of our soldier are so spooked out that they shoot first before they figure out what they are shooting at!
    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/russia-vs-america-in-syria/#comment-1918846
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. jeffna says:

    This completely ommitts the Russian ability to wipeout the US navy with an EMF pulse.

    Read More
  3. Nero says:

    Nice! stick to political and military analysis because every time you talk about the moslems it makes me wanna gag..

    Read More
  4. I’m so out of my element here that I admit ignorance except from a civilian perspective.

    We’ve had examples like Reagan in Lebanon and Clinton in Somalia where the moment we really got our nose bloodied, the public had no stomach for it and we immediately backed out.

    We are on the cusp of a sea change in the deep state’s ability to control the media narrative. Unfortunately for the public the fake news media is not battling Trump in Syria. They’re both on Israel’s side, wanting to destroy Syria on behalf of Israel.

    It’s a contradictory narrative, that we are fighting ISIS but need to fight Assad too because he is just so awful to be fighting ISIS.

    So will the public’s disgust with the hysterical Russia screeching and the contradictory Syria narrative result in the public reacting against Trump and the deep state in Syria? Or will we rally behind the war criminal in chief after he makes a major attack on Syria based upon another false flag chemical weapons incident or something?

    What would the public’s reaction be to an aircraft carrier being sunk? That seems like a pretty easy thing to do with missiles. That’s a $5 billion replacement cost.

    I just don’t know. But I am convinced Trump is going to make more attacks on Syria, and he thinks he can get away with it. I can only hope the public’s reaction to getting our nose bloodied is to pull our heads out of our asses and pull out of the middle east.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sowhat
    I get frustrated with inability to simply agree. I do agree with Backwoods Bob and hope Russia kicks ass.
  5. ” about how a military confrontation between Russia and the United States would play out. ”

    Funny sentence, Syria IS a military confrontation between USA and Russia, as the Spanish Civil War was a military confrontation between Germany and Italy, with tacit USA and GB support, on the one hand, and the USSR on the other.
    The USA rebellion against GB long ago also was a world war, in the end the list of countries supporting the Yankees became very long.

    What we see at present in Syria is war between USA and collaborators, as Israel, Germany, France and the Netherlands, against Russia, Assad and Iran, with Turkey sitting on the fence.
    Both sides know that all out war will be the end of the world, both sides do not want to give up.

    So this may be going on indefinitely, the only solution I see is that Trump creates a normal relationship with Russia, thereafter they can divide the ME between them, as Sykes and Picott already did in 1916.
    In order to create a normal relationship with Russia Trump first has to win his war with Deep State.

    Three CNN journalists were fired, or resigned.
    If this is the beginning of the end of CNN, I hope so, but am not at all sure.

    Read More
  6. How is that US and EU get to do this to a nation and still give sermons about peace and human rights to the world?

    When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor to neutralize the US navy, it got punished with total destruction.

    US and EU totally wrecks a nation that did NOTHING to either, but they go around promoting themselves as defenders of freedom and ‘liberal global order’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    It's the ancient and hallowed legal principle sometimes shorthanded as "BWC." "Because We Can." I think it used to be filed under "Might makes right."
    , @Tom Welsh
    "When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor to neutralize the US navy, it got punished with total destruction".

    When Japan launched a sneak surprise attack on the Russian fleet in Port Arthur in 1904, it succeeded brilliantly. The Russian East fleet was crippled and Russia had to resort to sending its Baltic fleet halfway round the world - where it too was promptly sunk.

    Theodore Roosevelt, who was US president at the time, was jubilant. He saw the Japanese - whom he had recently dignified with the title of "honorary Aryans" - as the essential US proxy for the conquest of Asia. And he hated the Russians.

    But what of FDR - who was 22 at the time, and such a fanatic about all matters naval that he boasted of having collected thousands of books on the subject? Are we to believe he was oblivious to the highly successful tactic of launching a surprise naval attack before declaring war? Hardly.

    Yet 37 years later, we are supposed to believe that, having deliberately driven Japan into a corner with the specific intention of forcing it to declare war, it never occurred to him that the Japanese - facing a far more powerful enemy than Russia in 1904, whose main fleet was hanging out halfway across the Pacific simply asking to be sunk - would use the same trick.

    If so, I have a fleet of very old battleships to sell you.
    , @Carroll Price
    I think has got something to do with the US being an exceptional nation, or something like that.
  7. Let’s assume the Saker is wrong.
    Does that mean the huge American military can actually do more than create chaos?
    No, it doesn’t. Syria, unlike other targets by the self-styled hegemon, needs to be dissected in order to achieve Amerikkkan goals. The American imperial troops lack the simple sophistication of the Viet Cong, the Iraqis, the Libyans, the various Yugoslavs, etc. Like a psychotic entomologist, the American approach is to squash the bug, thus rendering study impossible. Like a serious, well trained entomologist, the Russian approach is to trap the live bug for further study.
    So, while the Saker may be wrong – the US approach will, because it operates at such a low level of effectiveness, simply create chaos. After all, the American way is based on destruction.

    Read More
  8. web guy says:

    Something’s really wrong with your layout at least in Opera. The right third of the main column is covered with some white block that makes it unreadable. It vanishes when you scroll down to the comments and reappears when you scroll up to the top.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vendetta
    I'm seeing this too, it's also affecting my mobile phone on Safari. I have to put it in reader mode, otherwise the right third of the text just runs offscreen and there's no ability to scroll right or zoom out to see it.
  9. peterAUS says:
    @Avery
    {The willpower, courage and determination of the Russian solider is stronger than his US counterparts by many orders of magnitude.}

    By many orders of magnitude?
    One order of magnitude is 10.
    Two orders of magnitude is 100.
    Many is .....what 1,000?
    Russian warriors are at the minimum 10X better than American warriors?

    You don't actually believe that, do you?

    Their leaders - both military and civilian - may be incompetent, corrupt, treasonous (e.g. USS Liberty betrayal by their Commander in Chief),etc, etc.....but American professional warriors lack neither willpower, nor courage, nor determination.

    One example: the "Black Hawk Down"/Battle of Mogadishu firefight.

    Their leaders sent them into a harebrained Globalist mission without proper support, but once all Hell broke loose, Americans fought with great courage and determination. Fought like lions, in fact.

    The notion that Russian pros are, quote, 'many orders of magnitude' stronger in warrior quality (...and skills) is truly delusional on Saker's part.

    Agree, up to a point.
    These…debates…are like those “which is better, AK or M-16 platform’….good for amateurs.

    Now, it is a fact that the West, since Iraq, hasn’t fought conventional war and even that was against much weaker opponent. COIN only.
    Russians have fought decent conventional wars…Georgia and Ukraine, against similar opponent.
    I’d hazard a guess that, on operational level, Russian Command and Control is better than US.

    The problem, for Russians, is quality of support/logistics and on tactical level (from division to including a battalion…or, better, battlegroup).

    Anyway…that’s all actually besides the point.

    I believe we’ll be looking at ‘border clashes’ from ’1984′, done by special forces and contractors. Teams killing each other under the radar.
    For a starter.

    But, I believe, WHEN push comes to shove Russians will step back and mark another line in sand.
    And another.
    The Empire will be pushing, carefully, and Russians will be retreating, slowly……..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    In layman turns if it ever comes to this US military will suddenly fin itself in a very dark place wondering what that's all about. There is nothing in US military track record which would justify different outcome.
  10. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    President Putin has said that there will NOT be another world war fought on Russian soil.

    Clueless US politicians who sound like parrots squawking when talking about Russia, should get their heads out of their rectal area and pay attention to what Putin is saying or Condi Rice’s wet dream of mushroom clouds appearing will come true.

    Read More
  11. Randal says:

    Depending on what intelligence assets the Americans do or do not have available at the time of attack, their might be no way of proving who shot down the US aircraft.
    ….
    Now imagine a Russian operated Pantsir-S1 crew in Syria shooting down US aircraft or Russian operators blowing up a tent with the HQ of the US forces in Syria. Not only will there be no proof that the Russians did it, but even if there was, nobody would trust the Americans anyway.

    Plausible deniability in this context is of limited benefit to the Russians, imo. The factions in and influencing the US regime towards war are always looking for pretexts for an open attack on Syrian forces, in order to do to Syria what was done to Libya. This is evidently their primary initial objective in the region. Having been unable so far to find one sufficiently convincing for the target audiences, they have even resorted to making them up.

    So a plausibly deniable but clearly intentional attack on US forces would simply provide them with exactly what they have been seeking. They do not need to prove forensically who fired the shot, they will simply use it try to persuade the President to authorise a massive attack on Syrian government forces and to declare that the US is not intending to harm Russian forces but cannot guarantee their safety if they remain in Syria.

    That, imo, is precisely the reason the Russians have not carried out such an attack and will only do so if pushed hard. It would be a major escalatory step, and the US and its regional allies have escalation superiority in the region, and arguably in the world as a whole (this latter is clearly an opinion that is open to question). Yes, the Russians would then themselves have all kinds of retaliatory and lateral escalation options, but those pushing US policy in the direction of the destruction of the Syrian government likely do not care much about those and it is difficult to see how travelling any distance down that road can result in any better situation for Russia.

    in Russia, the Russian military intervention is understood and backed by a overwhelming majority of Russians.

    How “overwhelming”? I’m not familiar with the polls but I seem to recall Anatoly Karlin here recently suggesting that Russian opinion is perhaps not entirely whole-heartedly behind too big an involvement in war in Syria.

    In the USA the public is clueless and profoundly skeptical of this latest US war of choice. Not only that, but Putin personally has an immense credibility with the Russian people, while Trump is barely avoiding being impeached.

    This is true (with a similar question about just how overwhelming support for Putin still is), but it rather ignores the proven opinion management abilities (within the US sphere, at least) of those driving the attempt to get the US regime to destroy the government of Syria.

    Granted they failed to swing it when the Obama regime came close to attacking a few years back, but the Trump regime is unlikely to seek congressional approval as Obama did, and the overnight transformation of Trump into a media darling a few weeks ago just for murdering a few Syrian conscripts was quite revealing.

    These matters are all about the pretexts, and shooting down a US plane or killing some US soldiers are exactly the kinds of pretexts that can be expected to work best. As I’ve noted before, on 6th December 1941 the US lacked the power to destroy its rival Japan militarily – the US president and regime simply could not politically have achieved the mobilisation of economic and military forces and the willingness to accept costs and casualties necessary to achieve it. On 8th December 1941 the US and the US president had the power to do it, and proceeded to do so.

    Read More
    • Agree: for-the-record, Miro23
    • Replies: @El Dato
    Very correct.
    , @Random Guy
    Yanks want to overextend into another quagmire, there are some who want that. They grow more depleted, diluted by the day.
    They are already making the fatal mistake of 'marching on moscow'... and Beijing for that matter. It's just the 21st century version.
    The American military are increasingly exceptional among their own populace, to some they are even seen as occupiers of their own country... little nation syndrome. A natural psychological progression from soldier worship to disillusionment.
    They are broke, Americans didn't win the second world War. They didn't even win the cold war, banks did.
    Back to my point, how much of the world are you going to have soldiers plant flags on? Where do your borders, your administration end? This is all symptomatic of an ideological power gone crazy. But then, all sociopaths are exceptionalist... and with a government, military, and oligarchs with nothing but borderline psychotics what do you expect policy to be.
    America started marching on moscow back in 1991, they are very deep in foreign hostile lands. Even their friends are anathema to their philosophy back in the empirical core. You can see the contradictions, their coalitions begin to splinter.
    Most people in power here in North America and maybe Europe are not self made people but mediocres with entitlement, sometimes power is just their inheritance... call signs of dying empire.
    Eventually our self styled Napoleon's will outrun supply chains, domestic support, and in the end money. America and it's tributaries are anemic if not bleeding cash. Only the nobility still make money.
    , @peterAUS
    Agree.
  12. David says:

    Great article. I would be interested to read some knowledgeable reflections on the US Navy ship running into a Japanese cargo ship a week or so ago. It seems that a lot of things would have to go wrong to make that possible, indicating considerable rot in the US Navy. We haven’t even heard of the ship’s commander losing his commission.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    The container ship was going to Japan, not Japanese, Philippines flag, mainly (or all) Philippino crew.

    That ship ran imto the US ship, not vice versa.

    However, according to Japanese news and the captain of the cargo ship, they sounded the foghorn, tried signals, radio contact. Those giant ships are not at all agile, not designed to be. Turning radii are huge.

    From the sounds of the captain's injuries, he was asleep.

    The interesting question is, what the fuck were the bridge duty officer(s) and crew doing at the time, that they noticed nothing? Playing video games? Engrossed in Twit or Faescesbook? Little party? Having or seeking sex?

    Even if the reports of warnings from the cargo giant are false (which I strongly doubt), if the bridge people were not behaving stupidly at the time, they would have spotted it on radar and with eyes.

    I did a quick search, as said earlier, must sleeping soon, I was finding the captain's name, but not the name of whoever was in charge on the bridge. Interesting.

    It is such a shame for the seven dead, I am not a fan of US imperialism, but I like many US people. Their deaths were very sad and pointless.

    The clear and tragic incompetence on the bridge has some connection with the Saker's article.
    , @Stupid Kat
    Watch this video, to hear an experienced USN bridge watch officer (and former SEAL), Matt Bracken give his account of how the at sea collision may have occurred. It is the most plausible explanation I have heard, to date.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRUMtopcNk4
    , @Carroll Price
    If they're anything like most other Americans (particularly young Americans) they had their heads buried in an I-phone playing video games or watching porn.
  13. El Dato says:
    @Randal

    Depending on what intelligence assets the Americans do or do not have available at the time of attack, their might be no way of proving who shot down the US aircraft.
    ....
    Now imagine a Russian operated Pantsir-S1 crew in Syria shooting down US aircraft or Russian operators blowing up a tent with the HQ of the US forces in Syria. Not only will there be no proof that the Russians did it, but even if there was, nobody would trust the Americans anyway.
     
    Plausible deniability in this context is of limited benefit to the Russians, imo. The factions in and influencing the US regime towards war are always looking for pretexts for an open attack on Syrian forces, in order to do to Syria what was done to Libya. This is evidently their primary initial objective in the region. Having been unable so far to find one sufficiently convincing for the target audiences, they have even resorted to making them up.

    So a plausibly deniable but clearly intentional attack on US forces would simply provide them with exactly what they have been seeking. They do not need to prove forensically who fired the shot, they will simply use it try to persuade the President to authorise a massive attack on Syrian government forces and to declare that the US is not intending to harm Russian forces but cannot guarantee their safety if they remain in Syria.

    That, imo, is precisely the reason the Russians have not carried out such an attack and will only do so if pushed hard. It would be a major escalatory step, and the US and its regional allies have escalation superiority in the region, and arguably in the world as a whole (this latter is clearly an opinion that is open to question). Yes, the Russians would then themselves have all kinds of retaliatory and lateral escalation options, but those pushing US policy in the direction of the destruction of the Syrian government likely do not care much about those and it is difficult to see how travelling any distance down that road can result in any better situation for Russia.

    in Russia, the Russian military intervention is understood and backed by a overwhelming majority of Russians.
     
    How "overwhelming"? I'm not familiar with the polls but I seem to recall Anatoly Karlin here recently suggesting that Russian opinion is perhaps not entirely whole-heartedly behind too big an involvement in war in Syria.

    In the USA the public is clueless and profoundly skeptical of this latest US war of choice. Not only that, but Putin personally has an immense credibility with the Russian people, while Trump is barely avoiding being impeached.
     
    This is true (with a similar question about just how overwhelming support for Putin still is), but it rather ignores the proven opinion management abilities (within the US sphere, at least) of those driving the attempt to get the US regime to destroy the government of Syria.

    Granted they failed to swing it when the Obama regime came close to attacking a few years back, but the Trump regime is unlikely to seek congressional approval as Obama did, and the overnight transformation of Trump into a media darling a few weeks ago just for murdering a few Syrian conscripts was quite revealing.

    These matters are all about the pretexts, and shooting down a US plane or killing some US soldiers are exactly the kinds of pretexts that can be expected to work best. As I've noted before, on 6th December 1941 the US lacked the power to destroy its rival Japan militarily - the US president and regime simply could not politically have achieved the mobilisation of economic and military forces and the willingness to accept costs and casualties necessary to achieve it. On 8th December 1941 the US and the US president had the power to do it, and proceeded to do so.

    Very correct.

    Read More
  14. Imho if US indeed ever decides to strike Russian forces in Syria it would constitute the act of war and war is not limited to no theater of operations. Considering USA huge superiority in this area I do not think Russia would invest heavily over there, but instead would use this to strike where it is more important for Russia security. USA anti missiles installations around Russia borders would have been a good important targets. Around Syria as Sacker mentioned US has a lot of bases which would make fair game for Russian missile capabilities amptly shown in Syrian campaign and which imho are just a tip of the iceberg. Hopefully it won’t come to this because no one knows where it may end.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kilo 4/11
    Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S. hits them in Syria? We did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S. Russia had better think twice and think again before going down that road.
    , @annamaria
    "USA anti missiles installations around Russia borders would have been a good important targets."
    Particularly because of that: "Putin: Foreign intel services support terrorist groups on Russia’s borders" https://www.rt.com/news/394518-putin-foreign-spies-support-terrorism/

    If "US indeed ever decides to strike Russian forces in Syria" the first response should be towards Israel. The more clarity in this regard the better. There should be the time of "harvest" for the ziocons.
  15. Ruiner says:

    I have another scenario, US tells Putin to back down and he does.
    Russia seemed more evenly matched in past articles. It looks like the US and allies are getting ready for boots on the ground. Its going forward.

    These guys don’t give up!

    https://genieoilgas.com/about-us/strategic-advisory-board/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
    You are wrong. Mr Putin does not take orders from Washington. He has often said so, and he is not bluffing. Incidentally, much the same applies to China, Iran and other nations who have had about enough of US bullying.
  16. @Avery
    {The willpower, courage and determination of the Russian solider is stronger than his US counterparts by many orders of magnitude.}

    By many orders of magnitude?
    One order of magnitude is 10.
    Two orders of magnitude is 100.
    Many is .....what 1,000?
    Russian warriors are at the minimum 10X better than American warriors?

    You don't actually believe that, do you?

    Their leaders - both military and civilian - may be incompetent, corrupt, treasonous (e.g. USS Liberty betrayal by their Commander in Chief),etc, etc.....but American professional warriors lack neither willpower, nor courage, nor determination.

    One example: the "Black Hawk Down"/Battle of Mogadishu firefight.

    Their leaders sent them into a harebrained Globalist mission without proper support, but once all Hell broke loose, Americans fought with great courage and determination. Fought like lions, in fact.

    The notion that Russian pros are, quote, 'many orders of magnitude' stronger in warrior quality (...and skills) is truly delusional on Saker's part.

    On this Sacker is right. It is easier to fiht like a lion when you face jackals but it is far harder when you face tiger or bear. US forces were not good at fighting jackals and never fought bigger game…

    Read More
  17. Hunsdon says:
    @Priss Factor
    How is that US and EU get to do this to a nation and still give sermons about peace and human rights to the world?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cbBXk4iW5Q

    When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor to neutralize the US navy, it got punished with total destruction.

    US and EU totally wrecks a nation that did NOTHING to either, but they go around promoting themselves as defenders of freedom and 'liberal global order'.

    It’s the ancient and hallowed legal principle sometimes shorthanded as “BWC.” “Because We Can.” I think it used to be filed under “Might makes right.”

    Read More
  18. “The willpower, courage and determination of the Russian solider is stronger than his US counterparts by many orders of magnitude. ”

    While I would think the Russians likely are more motivated taking the forces as a whole, US forces are designed around using only the “tip of spear” in wars of choice, and I would think there the two are much more comparable, while the US forces are much better resourced.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
    If that's what you think, so much the better.
    , @bluedog
    Are you sure of that in Korea we couldn't even furnish the troops with winter gear, even tho it was 40 below, in Nam they were short of everything including troops, as the one commander of a rifle company said we were always at least 50 men short and that's just a start,then of course you have battle field leadership, and not knowing what the Russian generals are but with a pretty good idea of what ours are it would without a doubt go to the Russians..
  19. @Randal

    Depending on what intelligence assets the Americans do or do not have available at the time of attack, their might be no way of proving who shot down the US aircraft.
    ....
    Now imagine a Russian operated Pantsir-S1 crew in Syria shooting down US aircraft or Russian operators blowing up a tent with the HQ of the US forces in Syria. Not only will there be no proof that the Russians did it, but even if there was, nobody would trust the Americans anyway.
     
    Plausible deniability in this context is of limited benefit to the Russians, imo. The factions in and influencing the US regime towards war are always looking for pretexts for an open attack on Syrian forces, in order to do to Syria what was done to Libya. This is evidently their primary initial objective in the region. Having been unable so far to find one sufficiently convincing for the target audiences, they have even resorted to making them up.

    So a plausibly deniable but clearly intentional attack on US forces would simply provide them with exactly what they have been seeking. They do not need to prove forensically who fired the shot, they will simply use it try to persuade the President to authorise a massive attack on Syrian government forces and to declare that the US is not intending to harm Russian forces but cannot guarantee their safety if they remain in Syria.

    That, imo, is precisely the reason the Russians have not carried out such an attack and will only do so if pushed hard. It would be a major escalatory step, and the US and its regional allies have escalation superiority in the region, and arguably in the world as a whole (this latter is clearly an opinion that is open to question). Yes, the Russians would then themselves have all kinds of retaliatory and lateral escalation options, but those pushing US policy in the direction of the destruction of the Syrian government likely do not care much about those and it is difficult to see how travelling any distance down that road can result in any better situation for Russia.

    in Russia, the Russian military intervention is understood and backed by a overwhelming majority of Russians.
     
    How "overwhelming"? I'm not familiar with the polls but I seem to recall Anatoly Karlin here recently suggesting that Russian opinion is perhaps not entirely whole-heartedly behind too big an involvement in war in Syria.

    In the USA the public is clueless and profoundly skeptical of this latest US war of choice. Not only that, but Putin personally has an immense credibility with the Russian people, while Trump is barely avoiding being impeached.
     
    This is true (with a similar question about just how overwhelming support for Putin still is), but it rather ignores the proven opinion management abilities (within the US sphere, at least) of those driving the attempt to get the US regime to destroy the government of Syria.

    Granted they failed to swing it when the Obama regime came close to attacking a few years back, but the Trump regime is unlikely to seek congressional approval as Obama did, and the overnight transformation of Trump into a media darling a few weeks ago just for murdering a few Syrian conscripts was quite revealing.

    These matters are all about the pretexts, and shooting down a US plane or killing some US soldiers are exactly the kinds of pretexts that can be expected to work best. As I've noted before, on 6th December 1941 the US lacked the power to destroy its rival Japan militarily - the US president and regime simply could not politically have achieved the mobilisation of economic and military forces and the willingness to accept costs and casualties necessary to achieve it. On 8th December 1941 the US and the US president had the power to do it, and proceeded to do so.

    Yanks want to overextend into another quagmire, there are some who want that. They grow more depleted, diluted by the day.
    They are already making the fatal mistake of ‘marching on moscow’… and Beijing for that matter. It’s just the 21st century version.
    The American military are increasingly exceptional among their own populace, to some they are even seen as occupiers of their own country… little nation syndrome. A natural psychological progression from soldier worship to disillusionment.
    They are broke, Americans didn’t win the second world War. They didn’t even win the cold war, banks did.
    Back to my point, how much of the world are you going to have soldiers plant flags on? Where do your borders, your administration end? This is all symptomatic of an ideological power gone crazy. But then, all sociopaths are exceptionalist… and with a government, military, and oligarchs with nothing but borderline psychotics what do you expect policy to be.
    America started marching on moscow back in 1991, they are very deep in foreign hostile lands. Even their friends are anathema to their philosophy back in the empirical core. You can see the contradictions, their coalitions begin to splinter.
    Most people in power here in North America and maybe Europe are not self made people but mediocres with entitlement, sometimes power is just their inheritance… call signs of dying empire.
    Eventually our self styled Napoleon’s will outrun supply chains, domestic support, and in the end money. America and it’s tributaries are anemic if not bleeding cash. Only the nobility still make money.

    Read More
  20. Kilo 4/11 says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    Imho if US indeed ever decides to strike Russian forces in Syria it would constitute the act of war and war is not limited to no theater of operations. Considering USA huge superiority in this area I do not think Russia would invest heavily over there, but instead would use this to strike where it is more important for Russia security. USA anti missiles installations around Russia borders would have been a good important targets. Around Syria as Sacker mentioned US has a lot of bases which would make fair game for Russian missile capabilities amptly shown in Syrian campaign and which imho are just a tip of the iceberg. Hopefully it won't come to this because no one knows where it may end.

    Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S. hits them in Syria? We did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S. Russia had better think twice and think again before going down that road.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S.}

    Russia has that right, and no other country does, because.........the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic officially requested military assistance from the Russian Federation and officially invited RF to come in.

    Clear?
    , @JL

    Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S.
     
    Russia's presence in Syria is legal under international law, while the US' presence is not. You need to get some basic facts straight before offering up analysis. Otherwise, it's just garbage in/garbage out.
    , @Tom Welsh
    Your comment brilliantly illustrates the problems that the rest of the world has with Americans. Beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt, Russia has every right to be in Syria where the legitimate government has invited its help. The USA has no right at all to set a single foot inside Syria without the Syrian government's permission, which it emphatically does not have.

    By attacking Syria - as it has done persistently for the past six years and more, through US forces, NATO forces, Israeli forces, Daesh and dozens of other alphabet terrorist soup organizations - the USA has flagrantly disobeyed the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles, the whole body of international law, and - more often than not - the very US Constitution.

    That any American doesn't know these things - or, knowing them, sees fit to pretend he doesn't - is an appalling testimonty to American arrogance, ignorance and stupidity.
    , @Rurik

    when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam.
     
    do you realize that the Soviet Union is dead and gone?

    and that Russia today is acting like the only adult on the world's stage with any respect for international law, (or what's left of it, since the ZUS has been waging illegal wars of aggression all over the planet, destroying nation after nation, all based on lies).

    Today Russia is the last great hope of the planet as a bulwark against the rabid dog that is the ZUSA, slaughtering and displacing millions upon millions of people even as its causing the permanent destruction of Europe and N. America for all time.

    what kind of future do your American grandchildren have in the ZUSA, as the immigrants pour in and the future is bankrupted to slaughter people and destroy nations that Israel doesn't like?

    At least Putin's Russia is trying to protect some kind of future for the Russian people and their progeny, as the ZUSA is like a drooling beast on the world's stage, and doing all it can do destroy Western civilization in the process, and your nation's (and grandchildren's) future with it.

    how anyone here at the Unz Review could still look at Russia today and see the Soviet Union!, is beyond me.

    , @Elder

    @Kilo 4/11 Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S.
     
    The Russians are in Syria at the request of the sovereign nation of Syria.
    The USA is in Syria as an illegal invading force providing support to Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
    I never would have guessed that the rot in the USA would have progressed to the point where the Russians would be 100% in the right, both legally and morally, and the USA would be 100% in the wrong, both legally and morally, but here we are.
    , @Anon

    Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S.
     
    Had you said "than the U.S. had to be in Vietnam" you'd be right. As it is you couldn't be more wrong.
    , @Harold Smith
    "We did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam."

    Yes "we" did; "we" simply refused the opportunity because "we" were willing to kill millions of people for the sake of "superpower credibility". (BTW good for "Russia" to stand up and help the victim, because our "enemy" was merely defending itself from U.S. aggression. The U.S. "government" had no more legitimacy involving itself in Vietnam than it does in Syria).
  21. annamaria says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    Imho if US indeed ever decides to strike Russian forces in Syria it would constitute the act of war and war is not limited to no theater of operations. Considering USA huge superiority in this area I do not think Russia would invest heavily over there, but instead would use this to strike where it is more important for Russia security. USA anti missiles installations around Russia borders would have been a good important targets. Around Syria as Sacker mentioned US has a lot of bases which would make fair game for Russian missile capabilities amptly shown in Syrian campaign and which imho are just a tip of the iceberg. Hopefully it won't come to this because no one knows where it may end.

    “USA anti missiles installations around Russia borders would have been a good important targets.”
    Particularly because of that: “Putin: Foreign intel services support terrorist groups on Russia’s borders” https://www.rt.com/news/394518-putin-foreign-spies-support-terrorism/

    If “US indeed ever decides to strike Russian forces in Syria” the first response should be towards Israel. The more clarity in this regard the better. There should be the time of “harvest” for the ziocons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    That's what you want but it makes no sense for Russia. Those installations in Romania and Poland make complete sense.
  22. headrick says:

    So what if the US does launch this massive air campaign, — then what? Is the US
    army ready to occupy Syria – on the ground.- forever? IN 2006 Hezbollah kicked the
    Israeli’s out of Lebanon border areas. Imagine the pain inflicted on a US occupation
    force who can’t handle Afghanistan. And if the Russian air base is hit, they can I believe
    sink a US capital ship or two, and announce, any further direct action against Russian forces in Syria will call for a full nuclear strategic response against the US. Then what does the US do? Suck up the loss of carrier or Ageis warship, of face world war III. This whole act would produce a domestic firestorm in the US, and it would not be controllable. Shiite Allies in Bahrain would attack
    US assets and Bases there and in Bahrain, and they would not need Russian coaching to do it.
    Hezbollah would probably begin to attacks on Israel and Israel knows how that turned out. Just more pain for Team USA. There is no follow up strategy for such a US air action against Syria/Russia/Iran. Just huge pain and an ignominious back down -or upon unchecked escalation, world war III.
    Air power, without a plan for follow up ground action, is worse than pointless. It is suicidal. If the US just wants Chaos in the region, and thinks they can find Muslim proxies to do the ground work, well that was the ISIS plan, and soon there will be no ISIS, so how does the US find proxies on the ground to occupy the country?

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/29/the-next-world-war-wont-just-be-over-there/
    "The Next World War Won’t Just Be “Over There,” by BILL WILLERS
    "... with every hostile American denigration of Russia, every aggressive push against Russia’s borders, every move that imperils Russia’s place on the world stage, the prospect of massive world war becomes increasingly plausible. And in this world made so small by terrifying, sophisticated weaponry, any powerful adversary of the US would make certain that “over there” was shared, so as to become “over here” from the US point of view, with major east coast cities certain to be prime targets. The Russians understand very well from agonizing experience what modern, catastrophic war on one’s homeland is like, while we in the US do not, although we are on a path to find out. It is a path of our own creation."
    Sigh.
  23. TG says:

    Interesting ideas. A little too much on the speculative side for my tastes, mind, but certainly thought provoking.

    I’d like to propose an additional reason why Putin might be very reluctant to attack US airplanes in Syria. Because it would be a colossal gamble, likely completely game-changing not just for Syria but for Russia’s place in the world. The Russians would have an enormous amount to gain – and an enormous amount to lose. A cautious leader might shy away from rolling those dice. At least right now Mr. Putin still has the ability to bluff, and to make moderate foreign sales of military equipment…

    You can read the press releases all you like, but the history of warfare makes one thing clear: when militaries that have never seriously fought each other first meet, the result is unpredictable. Usually one side completely dominates the other, although if given time the weaker side generally adapts.

    The big strength of the United States military is not its ability to conquer other countries – it mostly can’t – but to destroy and destabilize them. In this it must have total air superiority. If the Russian air defenses can block this, the entire basis of US military supremacy goes away. But if the Russian systems really are ineffective in the face of American jamming and electronic countermeasures etc., then not just technical, but Russian military and diplomatic credibility could evaporate. The US might start to think more seriously about moving into territory near the Russian federation. Big stakes.

    I note that Russian air defenses don’t have to be perfect. Just good enough to raise the costs of American air attacks to unacceptable levels. If Russian defenses can only be penetrated via massed attacks of expensive ground-hugging cruise missiles, that doesn’t matter – if the Russians can seriously attrit less expensive sorties by conventional bombers carrying cheaper bombs, that would be enough to win a de-facto overwhelming strategic victory.

    But I have zero ability to predict the outcome of any such conflict in advance. And neither does anyone else.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    I’d like to propose an additional reason why Putin might be very reluctant to attack US airplanes in Syria. Because it would be a colossal gamble, likely completely game-changing not just for Syria but for Russia’s place in the world.
     
    Putin might be very reluctant but the Ziocons may already be helping things along.

    Iraq would never have happened without the directed public outrage of 9/11, so probably no US conflict with Russia/Syria/Iran is going to happen without some new "event".

    Prior to 9/11 the MSM was working hard to set up Iraq with the fake WMD and fake Al Qaeda Iraq bases stories. Similarly now they are working hard to set up Russia with a barrage of "fake news". Why would they be doing this?

    They haven't had much time to arrange another False Flag (9/11 took years) so some possibilities along this line could be:

    - "Russian" missiles hitting the big US Qatar base.

    - "Russian" missiles sinking a US navy ship in the Gulf (a variant of this was tried before with the USS Liberty).

    One way or another it has to involve a "Russian" strike on the US military with the US public primed for a massive MSM campaign explaining exactly how the "Russians" planned and executed the terrible deed, and of course demanding immediate US retaliation (destruction) of Russian assets in Syria, Syria itself and their ally Iran.

    Putin's denials of involvement would get as much notice as Bin Laden's denials of involvement in 9/11.
  24. Rurik says:

    not good

    https://www.rt.com/usa/394474-haley-no-place-for-assad/

    the zio-deepstate must be showing Trump how easily they JFK’d JFK

    I suspect that Trump doesn’t want to play along with their ‘seven countries’ narrative, and would prefer peace and prosperity as his legacy

    but he’s forced to play a razor’s edge game as he slowly and methodically inserts personnel loyal to the US vs. the deepstate, without triggering a “heart attack” or however they’d do it.

    If he can survive a year or two, and get his own people in, without causing a full-on hot war with Russia, perhaps he can prevail. But this new development is a very bad sign.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    he’s forced to play a razor’s edge game as he slowly and methodically inserts personnel loyal to the US vs. the deepstate, without triggering a “heart attack” or however they’d do it.

    If he can survive a year or two, and get his own people in, without causing a full-on hot war with Russia, perhaps he can prevail.

     

    Well done. I had quite given up on Trump, but your theory allows one a glimmer of hope that he is not just another in a long line of monster liars and turds to dupe the American people in the interests of plutocrats and foreign bastards with a contempt for the mass of ordinary Americans.
    , @Carroll Price
    Just one problem. Trumps got a Jewish son-in-law living in the house with him and half-Jewish grandkids sitting on his knee. When push comes to shove, who's side do you think he'll be on?
  25. I have better use for my time and money than to subscribe to that rubbish

    Yep. Your time is taken up producing your own rubbish

    The only AngloZionist boots on the ground that matter are Daesh & Co

    Yep. Wholly owned subsidiary. That’s why the west is supporting the destruction of Daesh & Co. But those “AngloZionists” really have all this thought out and planned thoroughly. It’s all those dirty Jooooos!

    Any Russian Soldier that wants to believe Saker’s advertising is in for a very rude awakening.

    Saker thinks the DPRK is somehow going to threaten South Korea? He needs to learn a bit about the ROK Army. A ROK army against the troops of a backward country that can’t even feed itself? Saker, you reveal your ignorance more everytime you post your rubbish.

    More disinformation from Saker. He can’t even get the implications of My Lai right.

    Read More
    • Troll: bluedog
    • Replies: @Geneva observer
    Your comments on the two Koreas require a short review of history. Koreans who fought the Japanese colonialists were halted from reuniting the country by US intervention at the 38th parallel. The US placed into power Korean collaborators of the previous Japanese occupiers, a fascist government in the southern part of the country.

    The DPRK had the support of China and the Soviet Union, which fought the US and allies to a stalemate, ending in an armistice, with no peace treaty in sight after more than sixty years.

    The US and its allies continued very aggressive military exercises at spring planting and harvest seasons. This triggered massive military mobilizations in North Korea (not unreasonable after almost every building in every city had been flattened by US bombing), decreasing manpower available to plant rice. Requests to shift the military exercises by ROK and US forces were ignored. This was clearly an artificially created famine, you might want to call it an act of war.

    This led to a massive push to develop nuclear weapons (successfully despite all obstacles). This has greatly reduced DPRK mobilizations. There have been no famines since.

    The people in North Korea are probably the most traumatized on earth by US bombing, as well as hybrid warfare at almost every level. There are very few countries that have successfully held the US empire at bay for so long, a rather amazing feat for such a small country.

    Growth in per capita GDP during the 1960s and early 70's was actually higher in the DPRK than ROK. The DPRK has been dragged down by the highest per capita military expenditures in the world and the collapse of the Soviet Union, its second most important trading partner.

    The ROK economic boom is mostly due to massive foreign investment in the early 1980's. It is also a political show piece for Wall Street (just avoid looking in any depth if you do not want to be disappointed).

    The DPRK is far less backward than suggested.
  26. @peterAUS
    Agree, up to a point.
    These...debates...are like those "which is better, AK or M-16 platform'....good for amateurs.

    Now, it is a fact that the West, since Iraq, hasn't fought conventional war and even that was against much weaker opponent. COIN only.
    Russians have fought decent conventional wars...Georgia and Ukraine, against similar opponent.
    I'd hazard a guess that, on operational level, Russian Command and Control is better than US.

    The problem, for Russians, is quality of support/logistics and on tactical level (from division to including a battalion...or, better, battlegroup).

    Anyway...that's all actually besides the point.

    I believe we'll be looking at 'border clashes' from '1984', done by special forces and contractors. Teams killing each other under the radar.
    For a starter.

    But, I believe, WHEN push comes to shove Russians will step back and mark another line in sand.
    And another.
    The Empire will be pushing, carefully, and Russians will be retreating, slowly........

    In layman turns if it ever comes to this US military will suddenly fin itself in a very dark place wondering what that’s all about. There is nothing in US military track record which would justify different outcome.

    Read More
  27. To Saker’a point about public opinion, the only one that matters is American public opinion… as long as body bags aren’t coming home in the tens of thousands like Vietnam, the public will continue to lap up the party line and cheer on our boys.

    But while AF doctrine is to control the vertical dimension in support of achieving dominance of the ground, even the AF is wise enough to caveat that control of the vertical dimension is no guarantee of control of the ground. Low-RCS is also no guarantee of invisibility. I don’t know if the latest SA-22s can readily gain a lock on all of our air assets, but they can take out enough to make the point.

    Can someone ask Sen. McCain if he would like to do just one more mission?

    Read More
  28. Vendetta says:
    @web guy
    Something's really wrong with your layout at least in Opera. The right third of the main column is covered with some white block that makes it unreadable. It vanishes when you scroll down to the comments and reappears when you scroll up to the top.

    I’m seeing this too, it’s also affecting my mobile phone on Safari. I have to put it in reader mode, otherwise the right third of the text just runs offscreen and there’s no ability to scroll right or zoom out to see it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    I’m seeing this too, it’s also affecting my mobile phone on Safari. I have to put it in reader mode, otherwise the right third of the text just runs offscreen and there’s no ability to scroll right or zoom out to see it.
     
    Fixed, I think. Please let me know if there are still problems with the rendering on any device/browser combinations.
  29. @annamaria
    "USA anti missiles installations around Russia borders would have been a good important targets."
    Particularly because of that: "Putin: Foreign intel services support terrorist groups on Russia’s borders" https://www.rt.com/news/394518-putin-foreign-spies-support-terrorism/

    If "US indeed ever decides to strike Russian forces in Syria" the first response should be towards Israel. The more clarity in this regard the better. There should be the time of "harvest" for the ziocons.

    That’s what you want but it makes no sense for Russia. Those installations in Romania and Poland make complete sense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    This is not about "what I want," - actually, I want a cessation of all US/Israel/Gulfies' military actions in the Middle East, accompanied by reparations to the survived populations of the ruined Libya and Syria.
    The ongoing interventions in the Middle East have been inspired, to a large extend, by the Eretz Israel project. Let Israel-firsters eat the poisonous fruit of their "gardening." The clearly stated danger of retribution could also work as a warning sign preventing the WWIII. It is not for nothing that the US Congress is called Israel-occupied Congress. The head of the parasitoid-snake is the Lobby and its beloved warmongering state of Israel.
  30. There are many reasons for this, historical as well as political, but I don’t think that anybody doubts the fact that while Americans love to kill for their country, they are much less enthusiastic about dying for it…

    The Saker says this as if it’s a bad thing.

    Patton: I don’t want to die for my country, I want the other bastard to die for his.

    Perfectly healthy, rational approach so far as I’m concerned.

    Anyhow, on the bright side, at least The Saker seems to have finally stopped peddling the fiction that Russia is capable of doing anything to stop its modest Syrian forces from being swept off the board in the event of a full-scale confrontation with the US in that region.

    If that were to happen, Russia’s only real options would be to raise (in Ukraine or even the Baltics) or fold (retreat in ignominy).

    Read More
    • Disagree: Sergey Krieger, Kiza
    • Replies: @KA
    If the outcome for America were so positive ,whythe coalition forces have not ratcheted up the antics ?
    Let's see
    ' Trump's threat worked ' Syria didn't use gas - NYT. The mouth opened and the mice roared .

    Do you remember that Bagdad Bob ?

    America doesn't want full scale war. But it did in many situations from Vietnam to Iraq . Sure it could have sacrificed few more soldiers to stay on course for few more years and sacrifice more to stay on course . The course is not the victory or the aim of war, unless it is American aim . It seems America has invented like so many things , also the essence of the meaning of the war .
    , @RandomGuy
    Patton... was just a goon, plain and simple. A world class Ice-hole. Patriots can be a bit of a pill.
    , @The Kulak
    By that you mean Anatoly avenging Kheimmim by incinerating good chunk of Yavoriv with Kalibrs and hitting the SBU HQ US strike on Chinese Embassy in 1999 Belgrade style with CIA in Kiev having to scrape up pieces of their colleagues who were on duty, and utterly destroying Ukraine's defense plants and possibly many if not most of its SAM batteries via spetsnaz blowing them up on the ground, and perhaps giving the NAF a nudge with strikes on the Azov Nazi larpers with an emphasis on sending dozens of NATO advisers, mercs and 'vacationers' home in body bags?

    Because even without sinking a carrier or AEGIS ship with all hands, I think the militarily sane not drunk on their own BS or the aura of greater Galician invincibility (i.e. not Quartermaster types) understand US/NATO have escalation dominance in Syria, but not in Ukraine even with the mild qualitative (mostly quantity of conscripts) improvement in the UAF since 2014. No one besides maybe the Poles in NATO is willing to die by the hundreds much less thousands to stop the 1st Guards Tank Army from rolling into Donbass kicking the crap out of the UAF so hard and so fast their US advisers have to flee to Kiev in civilian car trunks and civvies.

    I think the prospect of such a thoroughly humiliating beating for a US propped up client state is what USA try Col Pat Lang of Turcopolier blog was referring to when warning that the US could blunder into a debacle even as the neocons insist that ca back Russia down in Syria.

    , @Anonymous
    Anatoly's typical passive aggressive responce to the Saker. "There can only be one Russian blogger on Unz."

    From what I have read of the Saker, he never said that Russia could stop America in a full on conflict. In fact, he said the opposite. He was high on Russia having enough strategic advantages to make American interference very painfull.

    America does not want to fully commit its forces in Syria. It wants limited engagements that provide the most bang for the buck, as America has amlong list of countries to topple. Thats why Trump put so much emphasis on using China to take out N Korea. America cannot stand a real war.
  31. Avery says:
    @Kilo 4/11
    Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S. hits them in Syria? We did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S. Russia had better think twice and think again before going down that road.

    {Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S.}

    Russia has that right, and no other country does, because………the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic officially requested military assistance from the Russian Federation and officially invited RF to come in.

    Clear?

    Read More
  32. JL says:
    @Kilo 4/11
    Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S. hits them in Syria? We did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S. Russia had better think twice and think again before going down that road.

    Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S.

    Russia’s presence in Syria is legal under international law, while the US’ presence is not. You need to get some basic facts straight before offering up analysis. Otherwise, it’s just garbage in/garbage out.

    Read More
  33. Aedib says:

    What I see that was not mentioned neither by Stratfor nor by Saker is that if Tomahawks rain over Russian bases in Syria, Kalibrs coming from the Black and Caspian seas will start to rain over American bases in the region. If Americans decide to strike Sebastopol or Astrakhan, thing will go ugly pretty fast.

    Read More
    • Agree: Tom Welsh
    • Replies: @Randal

    What I see that was not mentioned neither by Stratfor nor by Saker is that if Tomahawks rain over Russian bases in Syria, Kalibrs coming from the Black and Caspian seas will start to rain over American bases in the region.
     
    The Yanks have a lot more standoff firepower than the Russians.

    Saker here isn't really discussing such open war options, which are probably better left to propagandist fantasists like Stratfor. By the time there are substantial missile exchanges between Russia and US bases in the region, the shit has well and truly hit the fan

    He's dealing with options much further down the escalation ladder. Russia won't be firing cruise missiles from Russia at US bases unless the US has already openly targeted Russian bases in Syria, and the US won't be openly targeting Russian bases in Syria (though accidental (or "accidental") strikes might come earlier) unless Russia has already openly struck directly at US forces. At each escalatory step, each regime will have to consider whether it's worth the risk and costs, though admittedly such things have a tendency to acquire their own momentum.
  34. Tom Welsh says:
    @Avery
    {The willpower, courage and determination of the Russian solider is stronger than his US counterparts by many orders of magnitude.}

    By many orders of magnitude?
    One order of magnitude is 10.
    Two orders of magnitude is 100.
    Many is .....what 1,000?
    Russian warriors are at the minimum 10X better than American warriors?

    You don't actually believe that, do you?

    Their leaders - both military and civilian - may be incompetent, corrupt, treasonous (e.g. USS Liberty betrayal by their Commander in Chief),etc, etc.....but American professional warriors lack neither willpower, nor courage, nor determination.

    One example: the "Black Hawk Down"/Battle of Mogadishu firefight.

    Their leaders sent them into a harebrained Globalist mission without proper support, but once all Hell broke loose, Americans fought with great courage and determination. Fought like lions, in fact.

    The notion that Russian pros are, quote, 'many orders of magnitude' stronger in warrior quality (...and skills) is truly delusional on Saker's part.

    I don’t think it’s “delusional” so much as slightly careless. I, too, dislike such exaggeration, which often bespeaks a writer somewhat lacking in mathematical or engineering knowledge. Not the Saker whom we know and admire!

    Another solecism that I am seeing more and more often is “increasing exponentially” when what is meant is “increasing”. An addition to the mountain of evidence that most people – even among the supposedly educated – have no idea what “exponential” means, and use it just because “it sounds cool”.

    Read More
  35. “Then, after neutering Russia’s defenses, the ships could target the air base, not only destroying planes on the ground but also tearing up the runways, so no planes could take off.”

    Why does the author assume that our ships would not become targets, too? Surface ships are extremely vulnerable to attack when you’re facing something like a peer-competitor.

    Read More
  36. Tom Welsh says:
    @Kilo 4/11
    Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S. hits them in Syria? We did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S. Russia had better think twice and think again before going down that road.

    Your comment brilliantly illustrates the problems that the rest of the world has with Americans. Beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt, Russia has every right to be in Syria where the legitimate government has invited its help. The USA has no right at all to set a single foot inside Syria without the Syrian government’s permission, which it emphatically does not have.

    By attacking Syria – as it has done persistently for the past six years and more, through US forces, NATO forces, Israeli forces, Daesh and dozens of other alphabet terrorist soup organizations – the USA has flagrantly disobeyed the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles, the whole body of international law, and – more often than not – the very US Constitution.

    That any American doesn’t know these things – or, knowing them, sees fit to pretend he doesn’t – is an appalling testimonty to American arrogance, ignorance and stupidity.

    Read More
  37. Tom Welsh says:
    @Simon in London
    "The willpower, courage and determination of the Russian solider is stronger than his US counterparts by many orders of magnitude. "

    While I would think the Russians likely are more motivated taking the forces as a whole, US forces are designed around using only the "tip of spear" in wars of choice, and I would think there the two are much more comparable, while the US forces are much better resourced.

    If that’s what you think, so much the better.

    Read More
  38. Tom Welsh says:
    @Ruiner
    I have another scenario, US tells Putin to back down and he does.
    Russia seemed more evenly matched in past articles. It looks like the US and allies are getting ready for boots on the ground. Its going forward.

    These guys don't give up!

    https://genieoilgas.com/about-us/strategic-advisory-board/

    You are wrong. Mr Putin does not take orders from Washington. He has often said so, and he is not bluffing. Incidentally, much the same applies to China, Iran and other nations who have had about enough of US bullying.

    Read More
  39. Tom Welsh says:
    @Priss Factor
    How is that US and EU get to do this to a nation and still give sermons about peace and human rights to the world?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cbBXk4iW5Q

    When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor to neutralize the US navy, it got punished with total destruction.

    US and EU totally wrecks a nation that did NOTHING to either, but they go around promoting themselves as defenders of freedom and 'liberal global order'.

    “When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor to neutralize the US navy, it got punished with total destruction”.

    When Japan launched a sneak surprise attack on the Russian fleet in Port Arthur in 1904, it succeeded brilliantly. The Russian East fleet was crippled and Russia had to resort to sending its Baltic fleet halfway round the world – where it too was promptly sunk.

    Theodore Roosevelt, who was US president at the time, was jubilant. He saw the Japanese – whom he had recently dignified with the title of “honorary Aryans” – as the essential US proxy for the conquest of Asia. And he hated the Russians.

    But what of FDR – who was 22 at the time, and such a fanatic about all matters naval that he boasted of having collected thousands of books on the subject? Are we to believe he was oblivious to the highly successful tactic of launching a surprise naval attack before declaring war? Hardly.

    Yet 37 years later, we are supposed to believe that, having deliberately driven Japan into a corner with the specific intention of forcing it to declare war, it never occurred to him that the Japanese – facing a far more powerful enemy than Russia in 1904, whose main fleet was hanging out halfway across the Pacific simply asking to be sunk – would use the same trick.

    If so, I have a fleet of very old battleships to sell you.

    Read More
  40. annamaria says:
    @headrick
    So what if the US does launch this massive air campaign, -- then what? Is the US
    army ready to occupy Syria - on the ground.- forever? IN 2006 Hezbollah kicked the
    Israeli's out of Lebanon border areas. Imagine the pain inflicted on a US occupation
    force who can't handle Afghanistan. And if the Russian air base is hit, they can I believe
    sink a US capital ship or two, and announce, any further direct action against Russian forces in Syria will call for a full nuclear strategic response against the US. Then what does the US do? Suck up the loss of carrier or Ageis warship, of face world war III. This whole act would produce a domestic firestorm in the US, and it would not be controllable. Shiite Allies in Bahrain would attack
    US assets and Bases there and in Bahrain, and they would not need Russian coaching to do it.
    Hezbollah would probably begin to attacks on Israel and Israel knows how that turned out. Just more pain for Team USA. There is no follow up strategy for such a US air action against Syria/Russia/Iran. Just huge pain and an ignominious back down -or upon unchecked escalation, world war III.
    Air power, without a plan for follow up ground action, is worse than pointless. It is suicidal. If the US just wants Chaos in the region, and thinks they can find Muslim proxies to do the ground work, well that was the ISIS plan, and soon there will be no ISIS, so how does the US find proxies on the ground to occupy the country?

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/29/the-next-world-war-wont-just-be-over-there/

    “The Next World War Won’t Just Be “Over There,” by BILL WILLERS
    “… with every hostile American denigration of Russia, every aggressive push against Russia’s borders, every move that imperils Russia’s place on the world stage, the prospect of massive world war becomes increasingly plausible. And in this world made so small by terrifying, sophisticated weaponry, any powerful adversary of the US would make certain that “over there” was shared, so as to become “over here” from the US point of view, with major east coast cities certain to be prime targets. The Russians understand very well from agonizing experience what modern, catastrophic war on one’s homeland is like, while we in the US do not, although we are on a path to find out. It is a path of our own creation.”
    Sigh.

    Read More
  41. I am increasingly resigned to the idea that WW3 is inevitable. Trump has caved completely and is now just another sock-puppet of the Ziocons. All those threats of impeachment worked. I think the only thing that can prevent war now is an act of God.

    All I can hope for is that Russia will just nuke Washington and leave the rest of the US alone. If they can somehow manage that, they will be doing two countries at once a huge favor.

    Read More
  42. annamaria says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    That's what you want but it makes no sense for Russia. Those installations in Romania and Poland make complete sense.

    This is not about “what I want,” – actually, I want a cessation of all US/Israel/Gulfies’ military actions in the Middle East, accompanied by reparations to the survived populations of the ruined Libya and Syria.
    The ongoing interventions in the Middle East have been inspired, to a large extend, by the Eretz Israel project. Let Israel-firsters eat the poisonous fruit of their “gardening.” The clearly stated danger of retribution could also work as a warning sign preventing the WWIII. It is not for nothing that the US Congress is called Israel-occupied Congress. The head of the parasitoid-snake is the Lobby and its beloved warmongering state of Israel.

    Read More
  43. KA says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    There are many reasons for this, historical as well as political, but I don’t think that anybody doubts the fact that while Americans love to kill for their country, they are much less enthusiastic about dying for it...
     
    The Saker says this as if it's a bad thing.

    Patton: I don't want to die for my country, I want the other bastard to die for his.

    Perfectly healthy, rational approach so far as I'm concerned.

    Anyhow, on the bright side, at least The Saker seems to have finally stopped peddling the fiction that Russia is capable of doing anything to stop its modest Syrian forces from being swept off the board in the event of a full-scale confrontation with the US in that region.

    If that were to happen, Russia's only real options would be to raise (in Ukraine or even the Baltics) or fold (retreat in ignominy).

    If the outcome for America were so positive ,whythe coalition forces have not ratcheted up the antics ?
    Let’s see
    ‘ Trump’s threat worked ‘ Syria didn’t use gas – NYT. The mouth opened and the mice roared .

    Do you remember that Bagdad Bob ?

    America doesn’t want full scale war. But it did in many situations from Vietnam to Iraq . Sure it could have sacrificed few more soldiers to stay on course for few more years and sacrifice more to stay on course . The course is not the victory or the aim of war, unless it is American aim . It seems America has invented like so many things , also the essence of the meaning of the war .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    If the outcome for America were so positive ,whythe coalition forces have not ratcheted up the antics ?
     
    Because of a host of contingencies (aka, among civilians, ramifications) which may, in the case of serious escalation (or its threat) force Russia to do what many, yours truly included, thought as a "cherry on the top" scenario--Russia can air drop into Syria within 12-14 hours 2-3 airborne divisions (76th, 98th and 106th, as an example) and that pretty much is going to close the issue for good. Pentagon is keenly aware of that and so is Iran. This is just one of the contingencies. Can Russia resupply such a force by air? Yes. Let alone by sea. But political resolution is always better and that is what Russia pursues. In the end, nobody knows actual ECCM capabilities on the ground in Syria. I think they are impressive. I also can only speculate about what Russian Navy has in Med underwater. I do however know the approximate weight of X-101 and 3M14 salvo at any American military facility in the region should (God forbids) somebody decides to "attack" Russian contingent in Syria. That salvo will not be intercepted. For some reason this factor is always ignored.
  44. Pandos says:

    Give Iran nukes capable of destroying Israel. Checkmate. We all know who is behind all this.

    Read More
  45. Rurik says:
    @Kilo 4/11
    Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S. hits them in Syria? We did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S. Russia had better think twice and think again before going down that road.

    when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam.

    do you realize that the Soviet Union is dead and gone?

    and that Russia today is acting like the only adult on the world’s stage with any respect for international law, (or what’s left of it, since the ZUS has been waging illegal wars of aggression all over the planet, destroying nation after nation, all based on lies).

    Today Russia is the last great hope of the planet as a bulwark against the rabid dog that is the ZUSA, slaughtering and displacing millions upon millions of people even as its causing the permanent destruction of Europe and N. America for all time.

    what kind of future do your American grandchildren have in the ZUSA, as the immigrants pour in and the future is bankrupted to slaughter people and destroy nations that Israel doesn’t like?

    At least Putin’s Russia is trying to protect some kind of future for the Russian people and their progeny, as the ZUSA is like a drooling beast on the world’s stage, and doing all it can do destroy Western civilization in the process, and your nation’s (and grandchildren’s) future with it.

    how anyone here at the Unz Review could still look at Russia today and see the Soviet Union!, is beyond me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kilo 4/11
    No sale and kiss my ass with the "stupidity" remark. Russia is playing its old imperial grand chessboard game and it matters not that Assad "invited" him. Think Putin was going to stay out of Syria w/o this "invitation"? ROFLMAO! It is the gullibility or simply anti-Americanism of dolts like you that keep on showing up the Russophile storyline for what it is: a pack of lies.
    , @Kilo 4/11
    No, I don't recognize that the USSR is gone, because the SAME FUCKING TROGLODYTES THAT RAN IT are running Russia today, starting with Putin, the mope that weeps over its demise. As we said in the Marines "Payback is a motherfucker" and you're finding that out aren't you.

    "Today Russia is the last great hope of the planet" is one of the most pathetic memes currently hiding in the guise of received wisdom. Tell that to the besieged Ukrainians of occupied Ukraine, who only want to keep their country intact, but due to Russia's total incapability of recognizing Ukrainians as a separate people with a right to self-determination and Russians' desperation to continue seeing themselves as a world power, no matter what other nation has to be crushed, continue getting killed every day by Russians and their proxies. And you talk of respecting international law!
  46. Randal says:
    @Aedib
    What I see that was not mentioned neither by Stratfor nor by Saker is that if Tomahawks rain over Russian bases in Syria, Kalibrs coming from the Black and Caspian seas will start to rain over American bases in the region. If Americans decide to strike Sebastopol or Astrakhan, thing will go ugly pretty fast.

    What I see that was not mentioned neither by Stratfor nor by Saker is that if Tomahawks rain over Russian bases in Syria, Kalibrs coming from the Black and Caspian seas will start to rain over American bases in the region.

    The Yanks have a lot more standoff firepower than the Russians.

    Saker here isn’t really discussing such open war options, which are probably better left to propagandist fantasists like Stratfor. By the time there are substantial missile exchanges between Russia and US bases in the region, the shit has well and truly hit the fan

    He’s dealing with options much further down the escalation ladder. Russia won’t be firing cruise missiles from Russia at US bases unless the US has already openly targeted Russian bases in Syria, and the US won’t be openly targeting Russian bases in Syria (though accidental (or “accidental”) strikes might come earlier) unless Russia has already openly struck directly at US forces. At each escalatory step, each regime will have to consider whether it’s worth the risk and costs, though admittedly such things have a tendency to acquire their own momentum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aedib
    I completely agree with your assessment. I don’t mean an exchange of cruise missiles on a 1 x 1 basis. Nevertheless, Stratfor armchair generals claim that US can hit Russian bases in Syria and Russians will not be able to retaliate from Syria dreaming about a “compartmentalized war”. That’s bull…t. Once Tartus and Latakia got stuck by i.e. 100 Tomahawks, those lovely corvettes on the Caspian sea will start to spit 10-12 Kalibr toward i.e. the US Qatar air base; and after that Ms. Zakharova will claim that Saudis did it (plausible deniability). After that, both side will have to decide if the sh.t hit the fan or if heads cool down.
  47. At this point US and Coalition aircraft would have free reign to pass overhead and completely devastate Russian forces.

    WTF, can NO ONE use the English language? Madre de Dios!! Free REIN, goddammit!! Get a goddamn education, you Business Insider TWITS!!

    Read More
  48. annamaria says:

    The dying empire:
    “The elephants did not climb up the trees. Warning them off was successful,” they say.” http://www.moonofalabama.org
    And then they exhibit a very special Nikki Haley who was generously”cued” by Israel: https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/06/21/israel-vs-united-nations-nikki-haley-doctrine.
    Syrian update: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/06/syrian-update-ttg.html
    My sympathies for the competent American patriots shoved away from all positions of influence in the US government by ziocons (abetted by war profiteers of all stripes). http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/06/harper-mattis-walks-back-from-syria-cw-claims.html#comments
    See the story of a honorable and superbly competent Col. Lang and the dumb Douglas Feith (the Idiot of a ziocon stock): http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/05/12/selective-intelligence

    Read More
  49. Kilo 4/11 says:
    @Rurik

    when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam.
     
    do you realize that the Soviet Union is dead and gone?

    and that Russia today is acting like the only adult on the world's stage with any respect for international law, (or what's left of it, since the ZUS has been waging illegal wars of aggression all over the planet, destroying nation after nation, all based on lies).

    Today Russia is the last great hope of the planet as a bulwark against the rabid dog that is the ZUSA, slaughtering and displacing millions upon millions of people even as its causing the permanent destruction of Europe and N. America for all time.

    what kind of future do your American grandchildren have in the ZUSA, as the immigrants pour in and the future is bankrupted to slaughter people and destroy nations that Israel doesn't like?

    At least Putin's Russia is trying to protect some kind of future for the Russian people and their progeny, as the ZUSA is like a drooling beast on the world's stage, and doing all it can do destroy Western civilization in the process, and your nation's (and grandchildren's) future with it.

    how anyone here at the Unz Review could still look at Russia today and see the Soviet Union!, is beyond me.

    No sale and kiss my ass with the “stupidity” remark. Russia is playing its old imperial grand chessboard game and it matters not that Assad “invited” him. Think Putin was going to stay out of Syria w/o this “invitation”? ROFLMAO! It is the gullibility or simply anti-Americanism of dolts like you that keep on showing up the Russophile storyline for what it is: a pack of lies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Why the hysterics, Kilo 4/11? The UnzRevew is obviously beyond your grade. Your could find all the solace you need with MSM.
    , @Rurik

    kiss my ass with the “stupidity” remark.
     
    you put the word 'stupidity' in quotes, as if I had used that word or called you that

    perhaps you don't understand the protocols of discourse vis-a-vis quoting your interlocutor. You're forgiven, but try not to do that, it's considered rude.


    Think Putin was going to stay out of Syria w/o this “invitation”?
     
    has Putin gone into any nation on earth without an invitation?

    eh?

    As far as I'm aware, so far Putin has helped out South Ossetia and Abkhazia, after John McBloodstain had his puppet Saakashvili provoke Russia in those break-away republics. But that was all by invitation from the locals there, who wanted Putin to intervene.

    And then of course there's Crimea, where the locals obviously wanted Putin's Russia to intervene on their behalf. Just like the citizens of Donbas would very much like for Putin to intervene there, but he's been heroically restrained, as Bloodstain's puppets have done all they can to provoke him.

    Where has Putin, without the express wishes of the citizens of a region, intervened anywhere?

    And with Syria, he was asked to do so, after the AUSA drooling fiend destroyed Libya and proved to the entire world (with the obvious exception of assorted fools) that the ZUSA is a vicious and criminal rabid dog on the world's stage.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

    you may have your own reasons for hating Russia and or Putin. A lot of people do. But that doesn't change the fact that it's been Putin that has been acting like the only adult on the world's stage, and all truth be told, seems to be an actual statesman today protecting some semblance of a Rule of Law on the planet.

  50. @KA
    If the outcome for America were so positive ,whythe coalition forces have not ratcheted up the antics ?
    Let's see
    ' Trump's threat worked ' Syria didn't use gas - NYT. The mouth opened and the mice roared .

    Do you remember that Bagdad Bob ?

    America doesn't want full scale war. But it did in many situations from Vietnam to Iraq . Sure it could have sacrificed few more soldiers to stay on course for few more years and sacrifice more to stay on course . The course is not the victory or the aim of war, unless it is American aim . It seems America has invented like so many things , also the essence of the meaning of the war .

    If the outcome for America were so positive ,whythe coalition forces have not ratcheted up the antics ?

    Because of a host of contingencies (aka, among civilians, ramifications) which may, in the case of serious escalation (or its threat) force Russia to do what many, yours truly included, thought as a “cherry on the top” scenario–Russia can air drop into Syria within 12-14 hours 2-3 airborne divisions (76th, 98th and 106th, as an example) and that pretty much is going to close the issue for good. Pentagon is keenly aware of that and so is Iran. This is just one of the contingencies. Can Russia resupply such a force by air? Yes. Let alone by sea. But political resolution is always better and that is what Russia pursues. In the end, nobody knows actual ECCM capabilities on the ground in Syria. I think they are impressive. I also can only speculate about what Russian Navy has in Med underwater. I do however know the approximate weight of X-101 and 3M14 salvo at any American military facility in the region should (God forbids) somebody decides to “attack” Russian contingent in Syria. That salvo will not be intercepted. For some reason this factor is always ignored.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Word it be surprising to learn that there is some "insurance" contingent underwater near the coasts of the US?
  51. Kilo 4/11 says:
    @Rurik

    when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam.
     
    do you realize that the Soviet Union is dead and gone?

    and that Russia today is acting like the only adult on the world's stage with any respect for international law, (or what's left of it, since the ZUS has been waging illegal wars of aggression all over the planet, destroying nation after nation, all based on lies).

    Today Russia is the last great hope of the planet as a bulwark against the rabid dog that is the ZUSA, slaughtering and displacing millions upon millions of people even as its causing the permanent destruction of Europe and N. America for all time.

    what kind of future do your American grandchildren have in the ZUSA, as the immigrants pour in and the future is bankrupted to slaughter people and destroy nations that Israel doesn't like?

    At least Putin's Russia is trying to protect some kind of future for the Russian people and their progeny, as the ZUSA is like a drooling beast on the world's stage, and doing all it can do destroy Western civilization in the process, and your nation's (and grandchildren's) future with it.

    how anyone here at the Unz Review could still look at Russia today and see the Soviet Union!, is beyond me.

    No, I don’t recognize that the USSR is gone, because the SAME FUCKING TROGLODYTES THAT RAN IT are running Russia today, starting with Putin, the mope that weeps over its demise. As we said in the Marines “Payback is a motherfucker” and you’re finding that out aren’t you.

    “Today Russia is the last great hope of the planet” is one of the most pathetic memes currently hiding in the guise of received wisdom. Tell that to the besieged Ukrainians of occupied Ukraine, who only want to keep their country intact, but due to Russia’s total incapability of recognizing Ukrainians as a separate people with a right to self-determination and Russians’ desperation to continue seeing themselves as a world power, no matter what other nation has to be crushed, continue getting killed every day by Russians and their proxies. And you talk of respecting international law!

    Read More
    • Troll: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Hold your horses, Kilo 4/12. Nobody needs Ukraine but ZUSA, for the supposedly "defensive" purposes. Look at the amazing transformation of the "liberated" Ukraine after the 2014 coup d'etat: The neo-Nazis are openly in the Ukrainian government, Banderites parade Nazi collaborator Bandera in Kiev and L'viv; a proposal for federalization of Ukraine (you know, federalism, similar to the US) has been criminalized by Kiev government; a new prime-minister is certain Mr. Groysman, and the index of Ukrainian corruption is staying stubbornly high.
    Considering that the USSR had amassed the neighboring lands (Polish, Rumanian, and Hungarian) to make the modern state of Ukraine, you need to decide whether you want to continue with the Soviet tradition and keep the Soviet territories or you should finally return the annexed territories to the proper owners.
    It seems that you still didn't get it - in 2014, Ukraine had become a protectorate of ZUSA. There is no independent Ukraine anymore.
    This is what your thuggish government in Kiev has rejected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States
    , @Rurik

    “Payback is a motherfucker”
     
    that's the problem today

    too many chest thumping 'tough guys' who're all too eager for some kind of 'payback' for slights real or imagined.

    they don't simply want Ukraine to have independence. No! They want "payback!".

    they want to put their jackboot on the necks of ethnic Russians and get their pound of flesh.

    ....................................................>>Newsflash<<

    It was the Jewish Bolshevik Soviets who genocided the Ukrainians by the millions, not the Russian people.

    Do you know that thousands upon thousands of ethnic Russian were 'Keelhauled" along with th0usands upon thousands of Ukrainians and others who fought the Satanic Soviets after WWII was over. England turned both heroic Russian and Ukrainian (and Cossacks and others) over to the tender mercies of Stalin to be slaughtered as brothers in arms, against the demon Soviet fiend.

    The ZUSA is using your intractable and parochial animosities and ethnic hatreds to their own designs of death and hatred in the Ukraine. Your people are dying along side of innocent (yes, there is such a thing) Russian civilians.

    The provincial hatreds over there are cynically being tweaked by the enemies of both your peoples. John McBloodstain could not give a fuck about the Ukrainian people. All he wants is war, and the Ukrainians are acting as his dupes and saps, in accommodating him.

    Did Ukrainians suffer during the war? Oh hell yes! So did Poland and Estonia and all the other victims of that demonic insanity.

    But the Bolsheviks are over here now! It's time for reconciliation and rapprochement between Russsia and Ukraine. (and much of that blame belongs to Russia. Of course the Ukrainians are going to demolish the Soviet abominations/ Red Army memorials on their sacred lands!)

    It's past time to put away the “Payback is a motherfucker” mentality and seek peace and mutual prosperity. Don't be a dupe of the Fiend. Don't let them push your people into a 'let's you and him fight', because it will be more poor Ukrainians and Russians suffering and dying as the scumfucks count the shekels.
    , @bluedog
    Yes you found that out in Nam didn't you, at Operation Buffalo and all the other operations that said perhaps you should have stayed home, but fools being fools still preach the old line that we are the best for we are a junkyard dog with only the later being anywhere close to the truth...
    , @jacques sheete

    As we said in the Marines “Payback is a motherfucker”...blah blah blah...
     
    Looks like you could use a dose of Marine MG Butler's wisdom.

    Knock yerself out toughie...

    “… I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.

    In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for [crony] capitalism.”

    Major General Butler USMC, War is a Racket, 1935

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
     
    , @in the middle
    Talking of killings; you forget Afganishtan, Iraq, Lybia, Somalia, etc. I don't see Russians killing in these places do you? Who are the killeres then?
  52. annamaria says:
    @Kilo 4/11
    No sale and kiss my ass with the "stupidity" remark. Russia is playing its old imperial grand chessboard game and it matters not that Assad "invited" him. Think Putin was going to stay out of Syria w/o this "invitation"? ROFLMAO! It is the gullibility or simply anti-Americanism of dolts like you that keep on showing up the Russophile storyline for what it is: a pack of lies.

    Why the hysterics, Kilo 4/11? The UnzRevew is obviously beyond your grade. Your could find all the solace you need with MSM.

    Read More
    • Replies: @in the middle
    Right on, annamaria! However, wish him a welcome to remove the MSN off his brain. I once was a slave to the MSN just like Kilo, and was blind, but now I see!!!!
  53. annamaria says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    If the outcome for America were so positive ,whythe coalition forces have not ratcheted up the antics ?
     
    Because of a host of contingencies (aka, among civilians, ramifications) which may, in the case of serious escalation (or its threat) force Russia to do what many, yours truly included, thought as a "cherry on the top" scenario--Russia can air drop into Syria within 12-14 hours 2-3 airborne divisions (76th, 98th and 106th, as an example) and that pretty much is going to close the issue for good. Pentagon is keenly aware of that and so is Iran. This is just one of the contingencies. Can Russia resupply such a force by air? Yes. Let alone by sea. But political resolution is always better and that is what Russia pursues. In the end, nobody knows actual ECCM capabilities on the ground in Syria. I think they are impressive. I also can only speculate about what Russian Navy has in Med underwater. I do however know the approximate weight of X-101 and 3M14 salvo at any American military facility in the region should (God forbids) somebody decides to "attack" Russian contingent in Syria. That salvo will not be intercepted. For some reason this factor is always ignored.

    Word it be surprising to learn that there is some “insurance” contingent underwater near the coasts of the US?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Word it be surprising to learn that there is some “insurance” contingent underwater near the coasts of the US?
     
    Russian naval nuclear deterrent is a force of what is known as a force of permanent readiness, any of modern SSBN can launch from the pier, if need be--the only difference is a flight time. As per subs with cruise missiles (SSGNs)--I don't know. I would assume so. It has to be understood very clearly: there are some warmongers in Pentagon and around who would love to "compartmentalize" a possible war, that is limit it to Syria only. Such as this psychopath, sadly fairly influential in some circles, Lt.Colonel Ralph Peters. He openly calls for that. But this is not how Russian General Staff and GOU play. Every single American military installation in the Middle East is within the range of 3M14 or X101. Strategic aviation from Engels Air Base can easily, remaining within Russia's airspace, launch in a first wave by most modest estimates: TU-160 8 x 12 =96 + TU-95 8 x 8 =64, 96 + 64 = 160 X101 cruise missile (101--means conventional) with follow on strike of another 24-32 3M14 from Caspian Sea. Those missiles CAN disable airfields (not to mention aircraft) which could be used for the attack on Russia's Syrian contingent. Both sides are aware of that and normal people and real professionals on both sides are trying to do their utmost to avoid such a scenario. Are there any rogue elements in US CENTCOM? Could be, I merely speculate. But, of course, a scenario of possible attack on Russian contingent in Syria is way more complex than some standard practice of US forces bombing defenseless Arabs into the stone age.
  54. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I’d hate to see the Trump presidency go down in the smoke of a Syrian/Russian military conflict. Voters did not want the confrontation promised by Clinton and voted for domestic issues such as re-industrialization, population stability and so on. There are just way too many unknowns involved with this potential clash for the US to risk intruding itself any more than it already has. We really don’t know how all these weapon systems would work out in an actual war, short and intense or drawn out. Then there’s the prospect of Americans getting killed and taken prisoner in a very public way which would drive them to ratchet things up yet higher. Same for the Russians. It’s hard to see what the American endgame really is. Perhaps it’s just to deny Russia and Iran any allies so perhaps chaos and the destruction of Syria as a state is a goal rather than a result.
    Putin is a legalistic moderate. Were Russia to suffer a humiliating defeat directly from the Americans then it’s probable he’ll be succeeded by a hardliner seeking to even the score. Wars always have unintended consequences so we could end up having Cold War II for the next fifty years. Of course this might be desired since it would tie Europe to the US due to this ‘threat’.

    Read More
  55. Rurik says:
    @Kilo 4/11
    No sale and kiss my ass with the "stupidity" remark. Russia is playing its old imperial grand chessboard game and it matters not that Assad "invited" him. Think Putin was going to stay out of Syria w/o this "invitation"? ROFLMAO! It is the gullibility or simply anti-Americanism of dolts like you that keep on showing up the Russophile storyline for what it is: a pack of lies.

    kiss my ass with the “stupidity” remark.

    you put the word ‘stupidity’ in quotes, as if I had used that word or called you that

    perhaps you don’t understand the protocols of discourse vis-a-vis quoting your interlocutor. You’re forgiven, but try not to do that, it’s considered rude.

    Think Putin was going to stay out of Syria w/o this “invitation”?

    has Putin gone into any nation on earth without an invitation?

    eh?

    As far as I’m aware, so far Putin has helped out South Ossetia and Abkhazia, after John McBloodstain had his puppet Saakashvili provoke Russia in those break-away republics. But that was all by invitation from the locals there, who wanted Putin to intervene.

    And then of course there’s Crimea, where the locals obviously wanted Putin’s Russia to intervene on their behalf. Just like the citizens of Donbas would very much like for Putin to intervene there, but he’s been heroically restrained, as Bloodstain’s puppets have done all they can to provoke him.

    Where has Putin, without the express wishes of the citizens of a region, intervened anywhere?

    And with Syria, he was asked to do so, after the AUSA drooling fiend destroyed Libya and proved to the entire world (with the obvious exception of assorted fools) that the ZUSA is a vicious and criminal rabid dog on the world’s stage.

    you may have your own reasons for hating Russia and or Putin. A lot of people do. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s been Putin that has been acting like the only adult on the world’s stage, and all truth be told, seems to be an actual statesman today protecting some semblance of a Rule of Law on the planet.

    Read More
  56. annamaria says:
    @Kilo 4/11
    No, I don't recognize that the USSR is gone, because the SAME FUCKING TROGLODYTES THAT RAN IT are running Russia today, starting with Putin, the mope that weeps over its demise. As we said in the Marines "Payback is a motherfucker" and you're finding that out aren't you.

    "Today Russia is the last great hope of the planet" is one of the most pathetic memes currently hiding in the guise of received wisdom. Tell that to the besieged Ukrainians of occupied Ukraine, who only want to keep their country intact, but due to Russia's total incapability of recognizing Ukrainians as a separate people with a right to self-determination and Russians' desperation to continue seeing themselves as a world power, no matter what other nation has to be crushed, continue getting killed every day by Russians and their proxies. And you talk of respecting international law!

    Hold your horses, Kilo 4/12. Nobody needs Ukraine but ZUSA, for the supposedly “defensive” purposes. Look at the amazing transformation of the “liberated” Ukraine after the 2014 coup d’etat: The neo-Nazis are openly in the Ukrainian government, Banderites parade Nazi collaborator Bandera in Kiev and L’viv; a proposal for federalization of Ukraine (you know, federalism, similar to the US) has been criminalized by Kiev government; a new prime-minister is certain Mr. Groysman, and the index of Ukrainian corruption is staying stubbornly high.
    Considering that the USSR had amassed the neighboring lands (Polish, Rumanian, and Hungarian) to make the modern state of Ukraine, you need to decide whether you want to continue with the Soviet tradition and keep the Soviet territories or you should finally return the annexed territories to the proper owners.
    It seems that you still didn’t get it – in 2014, Ukraine had become a protectorate of ZUSA. There is no independent Ukraine anymore.
    This is what your thuggish government in Kiev has rejected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States

    Read More
  57. Che Guava says:
    @David
    Great article. I would be interested to read some knowledgeable reflections on the US Navy ship running into a Japanese cargo ship a week or so ago. It seems that a lot of things would have to go wrong to make that possible, indicating considerable rot in the US Navy. We haven't even heard of the ship's commander losing his commission.

    The container ship was going to Japan, not Japanese, Philippines flag, mainly (or all) Philippino crew.

    That ship ran imto the US ship, not vice versa.

    However, according to Japanese news and the captain of the cargo ship, they sounded the foghorn, tried signals, radio contact. Those giant ships are not at all agile, not designed to be. Turning radii are huge.

    From the sounds of the captain’s injuries, he was asleep.

    The interesting question is, what the fuck were the bridge duty officer(s) and crew doing at the time, that they noticed nothing? Playing video games? Engrossed in Twit or Faescesbook? Little party? Having or seeking sex?

    Even if the reports of warnings from the cargo giant are false (which I strongly doubt), if the bridge people were not behaving stupidly at the time, they would have spotted it on radar and with eyes.

    I did a quick search, as said earlier, must sleeping soon, I was finding the captain’s name, but not the name of whoever was in charge on the bridge. Interesting.

    It is such a shame for the seven dead, I am not a fan of US imperialism, but I like many US people. Their deaths were very sad and pointless.

    The clear and tragic incompetence on the bridge has some connection with the Saker’s article.

    Read More
  58. Randal says:

    No sale and kiss my ass with the “stupidity” remark. Russia is playing its old imperial grand chessboard game and it matters not that Assad “invited” him. Think Putin was going to stay out of Syria w/o this “invitation”?

    If you really believe that Russia would have any significant military involvement in Syria today in the absence of its longstanding alliance with that country and its consequent interest in protecting it from regime change then you are either profoundly stupid or profoundly ignorant. Or both, of course.

    the SAME FUCKING TROGLODYTES THAT RAN IT are running Russia today, starting with Putin

    Again, you merely highlight your own lack of knowledge and pig-headed refusal to recognise any change in the world from that (presumably) of your youth.

    And you talk of respecting international law!

    The simple fact is that (as has been pointed out to you by several people) Russia’s military presence in Syria is perfectly legal, being at the invitation of Syria’s government, while the US has a long track record of contempt for international law, from the attack on Yugoslavia to the invasion of Iraq and on down to its recent murders of Syrian servicemen without even an attempt to pretend to any legal justification.

    No sale and kiss my ass with the “stupidity” remark

    No “stupidity” remark that I can see in the comment by Rurik to which you claim to be replying, but your subsequent determination to insist that black is in fact white on several points suggest he would have been justified in such a personal criticism.

    Read More
  59. @annamaria
    Word it be surprising to learn that there is some "insurance" contingent underwater near the coasts of the US?

    Word it be surprising to learn that there is some “insurance” contingent underwater near the coasts of the US?

    Russian naval nuclear deterrent is a force of what is known as a force of permanent readiness, any of modern SSBN can launch from the pier, if need be–the only difference is a flight time. As per subs with cruise missiles (SSGNs)–I don’t know. I would assume so. It has to be understood very clearly: there are some warmongers in Pentagon and around who would love to “compartmentalize” a possible war, that is limit it to Syria only. Such as this psychopath, sadly fairly influential in some circles, Lt.Colonel Ralph Peters. He openly calls for that. But this is not how Russian General Staff and GOU play. Every single American military installation in the Middle East is within the range of 3M14 or X101. Strategic aviation from Engels Air Base can easily, remaining within Russia’s airspace, launch in a first wave by most modest estimates: TU-160 8 x 12 =96 + TU-95 8 x 8 =64, 96 + 64 = 160 X101 cruise missile (101–means conventional) with follow on strike of another 24-32 3M14 from Caspian Sea. Those missiles CAN disable airfields (not to mention aircraft) which could be used for the attack on Russia’s Syrian contingent. Both sides are aware of that and normal people and real professionals on both sides are trying to do their utmost to avoid such a scenario. Are there any rogue elements in US CENTCOM? Could be, I merely speculate. But, of course, a scenario of possible attack on Russian contingent in Syria is way more complex than some standard practice of US forces bombing defenseless Arabs into the stone age.

    Read More
    • Agree: Sergey Krieger
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Thank you. Though my question was about different geography.
    An attack on Russian forces in Syria would be an attack on Russian Federation, since Russian forces are in Syria legitimately. My Q was about the possibility of a prepared "answer" closer to the US home. "Every single American military installation in the Middle East is within the range of 3M14 or X101." - That would be a tangential response.
  60. Rurik says:
    @Kilo 4/11
    No, I don't recognize that the USSR is gone, because the SAME FUCKING TROGLODYTES THAT RAN IT are running Russia today, starting with Putin, the mope that weeps over its demise. As we said in the Marines "Payback is a motherfucker" and you're finding that out aren't you.

    "Today Russia is the last great hope of the planet" is one of the most pathetic memes currently hiding in the guise of received wisdom. Tell that to the besieged Ukrainians of occupied Ukraine, who only want to keep their country intact, but due to Russia's total incapability of recognizing Ukrainians as a separate people with a right to self-determination and Russians' desperation to continue seeing themselves as a world power, no matter what other nation has to be crushed, continue getting killed every day by Russians and their proxies. And you talk of respecting international law!

    “Payback is a motherfucker”

    that’s the problem today

    too many chest thumping ‘tough guys’ who’re all too eager for some kind of ‘payback’ for slights real or imagined.

    they don’t simply want Ukraine to have independence. No! They want “payback!”.

    they want to put their jackboot on the necks of ethnic Russians and get their pound of flesh.

    …………………………………………….>>Newsflash<<

    It was the Jewish Bolshevik Soviets who genocided the Ukrainians by the millions, not the Russian people.

    Do you know that thousands upon thousands of ethnic Russian were ‘Keelhauled” along with th0usands upon thousands of Ukrainians and others who fought the Satanic Soviets after WWII was over. England turned both heroic Russian and Ukrainian (and Cossacks and others) over to the tender mercies of Stalin to be slaughtered as brothers in arms, against the demon Soviet fiend.

    The ZUSA is using your intractable and parochial animosities and ethnic hatreds to their own designs of death and hatred in the Ukraine. Your people are dying along side of innocent (yes, there is such a thing) Russian civilians.

    The provincial hatreds over there are cynically being tweaked by the enemies of both your peoples. John McBloodstain could not give a fuck about the Ukrainian people. All he wants is war, and the Ukrainians are acting as his dupes and saps, in accommodating him.

    Did Ukrainians suffer during the war? Oh hell yes! So did Poland and Estonia and all the other victims of that demonic insanity.

    But the Bolsheviks are over here now! It’s time for reconciliation and rapprochement between Russsia and Ukraine. (and much of that blame belongs to Russia. Of course the Ukrainians are going to demolish the Soviet abominations/ Red Army memorials on their sacred lands!)

    It’s past time to put away the “Payback is a motherfucker” mentality and seek peace and mutual prosperity. Don’t be a dupe of the Fiend. Don’t let them push your people into a ‘let’s you and him fight’, because it will be more poor Ukrainians and Russians suffering and dying as the scumfucks count the shekels.

    Read More
  61. Sean says:

    Russia has made a bad mistake in appearing to side with Iran in Syria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KA
    How do you know?

    recent anti war articles by Justin Rainondo tell a different story - a story of looting , scavenging, endangering Russia , a story of a few assassination attempts , a story of ignoring Russian safety , and story of supporting terror outfits against Russia.
    , @anon
    All Russia has to do is to make America hate Israel. Just the reverse process of what made US love Israel in the first place.

    It will need no trickery or lies- mongering but letting the truth to seep in to the American mind .
    , @Randal

    Russia has made a bad mistake in appearing to side with Iran in Syria.
     
    Yes that's right because history demonstrates clearly that appeasement and passive acceptance is the best way to protect yourself against ongoing lawless aggression by a major power. If nothing else, there's always that faint, fading hope that if you are meek enough you might at least be left for last, eh?

    If only the Russians had had the patience and strength of mind to continue with the wisdom of the Yeltsin years, in kowtowing to the US declaration of a global US sphere of influence and a universal US right, nay duty, of regime changing interventionism......
    , @in the middle
    NO! The Zios-Anglos made the mistake of siding with the terrorists in Syria.
    , @annamaria
    The "war on terror" was supposed to be against Al Qaeda (ISIS, Daesh, IS and other jihadis). But Israelis did not get a memo (for some strange reason) and instead Israel has establishes a cooperation with jihadis: "The jihadists in this area [Golan Height] have received substantial logistical and medical support from the Israelis. Over the last few days, they have also also received Israeli tactical air support from IAF F-16s and armed drones. These air attacks were aimed largely against the SAA artillery positions in the area."
    Does not this situation remind of the USSLiberty "incident," when Israel had attacked and slaughtered several dozens US servicemen. Today Israel supports jihadis (9/11 anybody?)
    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/06/syrian-update-ttg.html
    Treason.
  62. Ron Unz says:
    @Vendetta
    I'm seeing this too, it's also affecting my mobile phone on Safari. I have to put it in reader mode, otherwise the right third of the text just runs offscreen and there's no ability to scroll right or zoom out to see it.

    I’m seeing this too, it’s also affecting my mobile phone on Safari. I have to put it in reader mode, otherwise the right third of the text just runs offscreen and there’s no ability to scroll right or zoom out to see it.

    Fixed, I think. Please let me know if there are still problems with the rendering on any device/browser combinations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    I noticed the same effect on James Thompson's latest piece:

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/looking-intelligent/

    Viewed on my pc using Explorer the text and images run over the right hand edge under the sidebar and don't wrap. No problem reading it on the same pc with Chrome, though.
    , @smited
    Weird highlighting of paragraphs and
    bookmark prompt on each paragraph in android firefox
    , @SonOfFrankenstein
    Thanks for fixing the problem. It was failing on IE 11.413 but seemingly only for this particular article.
  63. Erebus says:

    It seems to me that if the US delivers either an ultimatum, or a direct attack on Russian assets in Syria, Russia’s response will depend primarily on what it believes its allies can and will deliver. The SAA, Hezbollah, and Iraqi PMUs are already doing yeoman’s service and probably can’t do much more. In any case, the boots-on-the-ground part would come some time after a stand-off weapon exchange.
    Can Iran be depended on to commit, knowing they’re next if the American gambit succeeds? Hard to tell. They could do a lot of damage to US assets around the Gulf in very short order. Doha and Manama are but a few minutes away as the missile flies, and those missiles could fly from anywhere along a mountainous 2500km coastline. If Iran can be counted on, the Russians can play much harder ball than on their own.

    The big question mark is China. Not for any military contribution, obviously, but for the fact that it can cripple the U$ system on which American military power rests, and they can do it almost instantly. There’s some pain in it for China, though not nearly as much as is sometimes assumed, but it would make any military “victory” the USM might be dreaming of Pyrrhic. In addition to losing a bunch of hardware and expensive personnel, they’d be staring at an economic catastrophe. With that, they’d also be staring at the “Decline and Fall” moment in the Zempire’s timeline.

    In its present domestic socio-political state, the US could simply fly apart from the combined shock. From where I sit, that looks all but inevitable.

    Be that all as it may, the Kremlin had surely gamed all the possible variations to exhaustion before making their move into Syria. They committed, and since Sept 31, 2015 they’ve been driving, not reacting to, events. They went in fully committed to success, and they knew what ramifications their success could trigger. They must have had viable contingency Plans A thru Z in place before the ever cautious, meticulous Putin would have been confident enough that he had all bases covered to sign off on it. I’m pretty sure that none of Plans A thru Z included turning tail and running away when the American started barking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Putin would have been confident enough that he had all bases covered to sign off on it. I’m pretty sure that none of Plans A thru Z included turning tail and running away when the American started barking.
     
    Yes, seems to me this was a calculated gamble for the highest stakes by Putin, and I think he must have known that once he went all in there would be no further option to fold under US presure that wouldn't be disastrous for Russia and for him, personally. I suspect he decided at the time that he would take it all the way if necessary.

    But that doesn't mean, of course, that he and the Russians thought they couldn't lose. Just that they thought the situation was serious enough to justify such a move, which inevitably involves a degree of risk and the highest of stakes.

    What they did know, and still know, is that the costs to the US of even a "victory" in Syria could be made high enough that the US leadership would almost certainly blink first (rightly, given that the whole regime change attempt in Syria involves no vital US interests and serves the purposes of foreigners, wealthy business cliques and issue obsessives).

    And so it has come to pass, so far, fortunately for humanity and for both the US and Russia. Who knows if that would still be the case if Clinton had won the election? Who really knows if it will remain the case under the highly suspect Trump?

    Can Iran be depended on to commit, knowing they’re next if the American gambit succeeds?
     
    Difficult to predict in such a dramatic situation, but Iran obviously knows that it is next in the firing line after Syria goes down and Hezbollah is targeted (as the plans of the regime changers hope for). However Iran really adds little to Russia's strength overall, though as you point out they can contribute substantially in the region. On the other hand, Iran's involvement would ensure far more enthusiastic cooperation with the US by Israel and Saudi Arabia, who might otherwise balk at a direct attack on Russian forces.

    The big question mark is China. Not for any military contribution, obviously, but for the fact that it can cripple the U$ system on which American military power rests, and they can do it almost instantly.
     
    I think the record suggests China would be far too cautious to intervene directly in that way in such a situation, though I'm sure they would give Russia plenty of indirect support.
  64. bluedog says:
    @Simon in London
    "The willpower, courage and determination of the Russian solider is stronger than his US counterparts by many orders of magnitude. "

    While I would think the Russians likely are more motivated taking the forces as a whole, US forces are designed around using only the "tip of spear" in wars of choice, and I would think there the two are much more comparable, while the US forces are much better resourced.

    Are you sure of that in Korea we couldn’t even furnish the troops with winter gear, even tho it was 40 below, in Nam they were short of everything including troops, as the one commander of a rifle company said we were always at least 50 men short and that’s just a start,then of course you have battle field leadership, and not knowing what the Russian generals are but with a pretty good idea of what ours are it would without a doubt go to the Russians..

    Read More
  65. Randal says:
    @Ron Unz

    I’m seeing this too, it’s also affecting my mobile phone on Safari. I have to put it in reader mode, otherwise the right third of the text just runs offscreen and there’s no ability to scroll right or zoom out to see it.
     
    Fixed, I think. Please let me know if there are still problems with the rendering on any device/browser combinations.

    I noticed the same effect on James Thompson’s latest piece:

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/looking-intelligent/

    Viewed on my pc using Explorer the text and images run over the right hand edge under the sidebar and don’t wrap. No problem reading it on the same pc with Chrome, though.

    Read More
  66. bluedog says:
    @Kilo 4/11
    No, I don't recognize that the USSR is gone, because the SAME FUCKING TROGLODYTES THAT RAN IT are running Russia today, starting with Putin, the mope that weeps over its demise. As we said in the Marines "Payback is a motherfucker" and you're finding that out aren't you.

    "Today Russia is the last great hope of the planet" is one of the most pathetic memes currently hiding in the guise of received wisdom. Tell that to the besieged Ukrainians of occupied Ukraine, who only want to keep their country intact, but due to Russia's total incapability of recognizing Ukrainians as a separate people with a right to self-determination and Russians' desperation to continue seeing themselves as a world power, no matter what other nation has to be crushed, continue getting killed every day by Russians and their proxies. And you talk of respecting international law!

    Yes you found that out in Nam didn’t you, at Operation Buffalo and all the other operations that said perhaps you should have stayed home, but fools being fools still preach the old line that we are the best for we are a junkyard dog with only the later being anywhere close to the truth…

    Read More
  67. annamaria says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Word it be surprising to learn that there is some “insurance” contingent underwater near the coasts of the US?
     
    Russian naval nuclear deterrent is a force of what is known as a force of permanent readiness, any of modern SSBN can launch from the pier, if need be--the only difference is a flight time. As per subs with cruise missiles (SSGNs)--I don't know. I would assume so. It has to be understood very clearly: there are some warmongers in Pentagon and around who would love to "compartmentalize" a possible war, that is limit it to Syria only. Such as this psychopath, sadly fairly influential in some circles, Lt.Colonel Ralph Peters. He openly calls for that. But this is not how Russian General Staff and GOU play. Every single American military installation in the Middle East is within the range of 3M14 or X101. Strategic aviation from Engels Air Base can easily, remaining within Russia's airspace, launch in a first wave by most modest estimates: TU-160 8 x 12 =96 + TU-95 8 x 8 =64, 96 + 64 = 160 X101 cruise missile (101--means conventional) with follow on strike of another 24-32 3M14 from Caspian Sea. Those missiles CAN disable airfields (not to mention aircraft) which could be used for the attack on Russia's Syrian contingent. Both sides are aware of that and normal people and real professionals on both sides are trying to do their utmost to avoid such a scenario. Are there any rogue elements in US CENTCOM? Could be, I merely speculate. But, of course, a scenario of possible attack on Russian contingent in Syria is way more complex than some standard practice of US forces bombing defenseless Arabs into the stone age.

    Thank you. Though my question was about different geography.
    An attack on Russian forces in Syria would be an attack on Russian Federation, since Russian forces are in Syria legitimately. My Q was about the possibility of a prepared “answer” closer to the US home. “Every single American military installation in the Middle East is within the range of 3M14 or X101.” – That would be a tangential response.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    My Q was about the possibility of a prepared “answer” closer to the US home.
     
    Everything I stated about X-101 is totally relevant to your question. This is the missile with the range (official, in reality it could be even longer) of 5000+ kilometers, this allows those very same strategic bombers such as TU-160 and TU-95, also remaining either within Russia's air space or being escorted by fighters to launch pretty much at anything in North America, with the exception of some southern parts. X-101 is a conventionally armed missile, X-102 is with nuclear ordnance. I hope I answered you question. But above all, I hope that my scenarios remain a complete BS by arm chair strategist such as myself. One of those cases when I would love to be proven a fool.
  68. KA says:
    @Sean
    Russia has made a bad mistake in appearing to side with Iran in Syria.

    How do you know?

    recent anti war articles by Justin Rainondo tell a different story – a story of looting , scavenging, endangering Russia , a story of a few assassination attempts , a story of ignoring Russian safety , and story of supporting terror outfits against Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Because Iran is hated by Superpower-America which is looking for an excuse to crush them.
  69. Aedib says:
    @Randal

    What I see that was not mentioned neither by Stratfor nor by Saker is that if Tomahawks rain over Russian bases in Syria, Kalibrs coming from the Black and Caspian seas will start to rain over American bases in the region.
     
    The Yanks have a lot more standoff firepower than the Russians.

    Saker here isn't really discussing such open war options, which are probably better left to propagandist fantasists like Stratfor. By the time there are substantial missile exchanges between Russia and US bases in the region, the shit has well and truly hit the fan

    He's dealing with options much further down the escalation ladder. Russia won't be firing cruise missiles from Russia at US bases unless the US has already openly targeted Russian bases in Syria, and the US won't be openly targeting Russian bases in Syria (though accidental (or "accidental") strikes might come earlier) unless Russia has already openly struck directly at US forces. At each escalatory step, each regime will have to consider whether it's worth the risk and costs, though admittedly such things have a tendency to acquire their own momentum.

    I completely agree with your assessment. I don’t mean an exchange of cruise missiles on a 1 x 1 basis. Nevertheless, Stratfor armchair generals claim that US can hit Russian bases in Syria and Russians will not be able to retaliate from Syria dreaming about a “compartmentalized war”. That’s bull…t. Once Tartus and Latakia got stuck by i.e. 100 Tomahawks, those lovely corvettes on the Caspian sea will start to spit 10-12 Kalibr toward i.e. the US Qatar air base; and after that Ms. Zakharova will claim that Saudis did it (plausible deniability). After that, both side will have to decide if the sh.t hit the fan or if heads cool down.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    That's fair enough, and for sure you won't find me defending Stratfor's nonsense.
  70. @annamaria
    Thank you. Though my question was about different geography.
    An attack on Russian forces in Syria would be an attack on Russian Federation, since Russian forces are in Syria legitimately. My Q was about the possibility of a prepared "answer" closer to the US home. "Every single American military installation in the Middle East is within the range of 3M14 or X101." - That would be a tangential response.

    My Q was about the possibility of a prepared “answer” closer to the US home.

    Everything I stated about X-101 is totally relevant to your question. This is the missile with the range (official, in reality it could be even longer) of 5000+ kilometers, this allows those very same strategic bombers such as TU-160 and TU-95, also remaining either within Russia’s air space or being escorted by fighters to launch pretty much at anything in North America, with the exception of some southern parts. X-101 is a conventionally armed missile, X-102 is with nuclear ordnance. I hope I answered you question. But above all, I hope that my scenarios remain a complete BS by arm chair strategist such as myself. One of those cases when I would love to be proven a fool.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "I hope that my scenarios remain a complete BS by arm chair strategist such as myself. One of those cases when I would love to be proven a fool."
    I am with you.
  71. nickels says:

    Not only that, but US special forces have a long history of screwing up even relatively simple operations..

    Saker seems to have forgotten the seamlessly executed imaginary assassination of Bin Laden, which was pulled off with only imaginary glitches.
    Unless we take into account the great damage done by the Soldier who leaked the whole story in a book, but that damage must not have been too bad since he wasn’t even disciplined.

    Read More
  72. […] G20 Sherpa. 22. Reconsidering Russia Podcast #11: Vladimir Pozner. 23. The Unz Review: The Saker, Russia vs. America in Syria. Using Plausible Deniability Against a Systematically Lying Adversary. 24. Awful Avalanche: International Ballet Competition in Moscow – Warning Signs – Part […]

    Read More
  73. peterAUS says:
    @Randal

    Depending on what intelligence assets the Americans do or do not have available at the time of attack, their might be no way of proving who shot down the US aircraft.
    ....
    Now imagine a Russian operated Pantsir-S1 crew in Syria shooting down US aircraft or Russian operators blowing up a tent with the HQ of the US forces in Syria. Not only will there be no proof that the Russians did it, but even if there was, nobody would trust the Americans anyway.
     
    Plausible deniability in this context is of limited benefit to the Russians, imo. The factions in and influencing the US regime towards war are always looking for pretexts for an open attack on Syrian forces, in order to do to Syria what was done to Libya. This is evidently their primary initial objective in the region. Having been unable so far to find one sufficiently convincing for the target audiences, they have even resorted to making them up.

    So a plausibly deniable but clearly intentional attack on US forces would simply provide them with exactly what they have been seeking. They do not need to prove forensically who fired the shot, they will simply use it try to persuade the President to authorise a massive attack on Syrian government forces and to declare that the US is not intending to harm Russian forces but cannot guarantee their safety if they remain in Syria.

    That, imo, is precisely the reason the Russians have not carried out such an attack and will only do so if pushed hard. It would be a major escalatory step, and the US and its regional allies have escalation superiority in the region, and arguably in the world as a whole (this latter is clearly an opinion that is open to question). Yes, the Russians would then themselves have all kinds of retaliatory and lateral escalation options, but those pushing US policy in the direction of the destruction of the Syrian government likely do not care much about those and it is difficult to see how travelling any distance down that road can result in any better situation for Russia.

    in Russia, the Russian military intervention is understood and backed by a overwhelming majority of Russians.
     
    How "overwhelming"? I'm not familiar with the polls but I seem to recall Anatoly Karlin here recently suggesting that Russian opinion is perhaps not entirely whole-heartedly behind too big an involvement in war in Syria.

    In the USA the public is clueless and profoundly skeptical of this latest US war of choice. Not only that, but Putin personally has an immense credibility with the Russian people, while Trump is barely avoiding being impeached.
     
    This is true (with a similar question about just how overwhelming support for Putin still is), but it rather ignores the proven opinion management abilities (within the US sphere, at least) of those driving the attempt to get the US regime to destroy the government of Syria.

    Granted they failed to swing it when the Obama regime came close to attacking a few years back, but the Trump regime is unlikely to seek congressional approval as Obama did, and the overnight transformation of Trump into a media darling a few weeks ago just for murdering a few Syrian conscripts was quite revealing.

    These matters are all about the pretexts, and shooting down a US plane or killing some US soldiers are exactly the kinds of pretexts that can be expected to work best. As I've noted before, on 6th December 1941 the US lacked the power to destroy its rival Japan militarily - the US president and regime simply could not politically have achieved the mobilisation of economic and military forces and the willingness to accept costs and casualties necessary to achieve it. On 8th December 1941 the US and the US president had the power to do it, and proceeded to do so.

    Agree.

    Read More
  74. @Kilo 4/11
    No, I don't recognize that the USSR is gone, because the SAME FUCKING TROGLODYTES THAT RAN IT are running Russia today, starting with Putin, the mope that weeps over its demise. As we said in the Marines "Payback is a motherfucker" and you're finding that out aren't you.

    "Today Russia is the last great hope of the planet" is one of the most pathetic memes currently hiding in the guise of received wisdom. Tell that to the besieged Ukrainians of occupied Ukraine, who only want to keep their country intact, but due to Russia's total incapability of recognizing Ukrainians as a separate people with a right to self-determination and Russians' desperation to continue seeing themselves as a world power, no matter what other nation has to be crushed, continue getting killed every day by Russians and their proxies. And you talk of respecting international law!

    As we said in the Marines “Payback is a motherfucker”…blah blah blah…

    Looks like you could use a dose of Marine MG Butler’s wisdom.

    Knock yerself out toughie…

    “… I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.

    In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for [crony] capitalism.”

    Major General Butler USMC, War is a Racket, 1935

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @nsa
    USMC? Isn't that the expeditionary wing of the IDF?
  75. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Rurik
    not good

    https://www.rt.com/usa/394474-haley-no-place-for-assad/

    the zio-deepstate must be showing Trump how easily they JFK'd JFK

    I suspect that Trump doesn't want to play along with their 'seven countries' narrative, and would prefer peace and prosperity as his legacy

    but he's forced to play a razor's edge game as he slowly and methodically inserts personnel loyal to the US vs. the deepstate, without triggering a "heart attack" or however they'd do it.

    If he can survive a year or two, and get his own people in, without causing a full-on hot war with Russia, perhaps he can prevail. But this new development is a very bad sign.

    he’s forced to play a razor’s edge game as he slowly and methodically inserts personnel loyal to the US vs. the deepstate, without triggering a “heart attack” or however they’d do it.

    If he can survive a year or two, and get his own people in, without causing a full-on hot war with Russia, perhaps he can prevail.

    Well done. I had quite given up on Trump, but your theory allows one a glimmer of hope that he is not just another in a long line of monster liars and turds to dupe the American people in the interests of plutocrats and foreign bastards with a contempt for the mass of ordinary Americans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    allows one a glimmer of hope
     
    I'm clinging to it for now

    he didn't do much damage to that Syrian airfield he bombed and he warned everyone over there that he was going to do it, and by doing so, he completely shut up the snake-pit, from John McBloodstain to Chucky Schumer to the length and breath of the zio-msm.

    I sense he's trying to play them, and it seems at times like he's playing them like a fine fiddle.

    Saying 'Assad has to go' will cause tingles and chills up their legs, and cut him some slack with the Republicucks, so perhaps he can get more of his people appointed.

    So long as he has a back-door channel to Putin, they can pretend like they're enemies, while mollifying the Fiend and its minions as ISIS is routed and Syria's sovereignty and border integrity becomes more and more a reality on the ground.

    At least that's my hope. Of course I could be wrong.

  76. Sean says:
    @KA
    How do you know?

    recent anti war articles by Justin Rainondo tell a different story - a story of looting , scavenging, endangering Russia , a story of a few assassination attempts , a story of ignoring Russian safety , and story of supporting terror outfits against Russia.

    Because Iran is hated by Superpower-America which is looking for an excuse to crush them.

    Read More
  77. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Sean
    Russia has made a bad mistake in appearing to side with Iran in Syria.

    All Russia has to do is to make America hate Israel. Just the reverse process of what made US love Israel in the first place.

    It will need no trickery or lies- mongering but letting the truth to seep in to the American mind .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Indeed.
    The only reason the average American is silenced about parasitical Zionists and Israel is because they’ve had their head filled with various absurd fictions such as 'holocau$t' propaganda, “Judeo-Christian values”, and Jews being a uniquely righteous, exceptional, and persecuted people.

    The laughably impossible 'holocaust' storyline has hoodwinked too many for too long.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

  78. Elder says:
    @Kilo 4/11
    Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S. hits them in Syria? We did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S. Russia had better think twice and think again before going down that road.

    Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S.

    The Russians are in Syria at the request of the sovereign nation of Syria.
    The USA is in Syria as an illegal invading force providing support to Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
    I never would have guessed that the rot in the USA would have progressed to the point where the Russians would be 100% in the right, both legally and morally, and the USA would be 100% in the wrong, both legally and morally, but here we are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ohioguy
    Syria is as close to Russia as Chicago to Cleveland. Not only is it in their interests to destroy Wahhabist US proxies operating there, they have supported Syria as a client since Papa Haffez was in power

    The ignorance of Americans is only exceeded by that of the Talking Hairdos of the (((Lamestream Media))) and Congress
  79. RandomGuy says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    There are many reasons for this, historical as well as political, but I don’t think that anybody doubts the fact that while Americans love to kill for their country, they are much less enthusiastic about dying for it...
     
    The Saker says this as if it's a bad thing.

    Patton: I don't want to die for my country, I want the other bastard to die for his.

    Perfectly healthy, rational approach so far as I'm concerned.

    Anyhow, on the bright side, at least The Saker seems to have finally stopped peddling the fiction that Russia is capable of doing anything to stop its modest Syrian forces from being swept off the board in the event of a full-scale confrontation with the US in that region.

    If that were to happen, Russia's only real options would be to raise (in Ukraine or even the Baltics) or fold (retreat in ignominy).

    Patton… was just a goon, plain and simple. A world class Ice-hole. Patriots can be a bit of a pill.

    Read More
  80. gwynedd1 says:

    All Russia needs to do to secure its future is to have good relations with Mexico and the rest of Latin America.

    Read More
  81. annamaria says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    My Q was about the possibility of a prepared “answer” closer to the US home.
     
    Everything I stated about X-101 is totally relevant to your question. This is the missile with the range (official, in reality it could be even longer) of 5000+ kilometers, this allows those very same strategic bombers such as TU-160 and TU-95, also remaining either within Russia's air space or being escorted by fighters to launch pretty much at anything in North America, with the exception of some southern parts. X-101 is a conventionally armed missile, X-102 is with nuclear ordnance. I hope I answered you question. But above all, I hope that my scenarios remain a complete BS by arm chair strategist such as myself. One of those cases when I would love to be proven a fool.

    “I hope that my scenarios remain a complete BS by arm chair strategist such as myself. One of those cases when I would love to be proven a fool.”
    I am with you.

    Read More
  82. @David
    Great article. I would be interested to read some knowledgeable reflections on the US Navy ship running into a Japanese cargo ship a week or so ago. It seems that a lot of things would have to go wrong to make that possible, indicating considerable rot in the US Navy. We haven't even heard of the ship's commander losing his commission.

    Watch this video, to hear an experienced USN bridge watch officer (and former SEAL), Matt Bracken give his account of how the at sea collision may have occurred. It is the most plausible explanation I have heard, to date.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David
    Thanks, Kat. The explanation starting at 35:00 is totally believable. The bit about the collision alarm not sounding is another level of failure.
  83. Randal says:
    @Erebus
    It seems to me that if the US delivers either an ultimatum, or a direct attack on Russian assets in Syria, Russia's response will depend primarily on what it believes its allies can and will deliver. The SAA, Hezbollah, and Iraqi PMUs are already doing yeoman's service and probably can't do much more. In any case, the boots-on-the-ground part would come some time after a stand-off weapon exchange.
    Can Iran be depended on to commit, knowing they're next if the American gambit succeeds? Hard to tell. They could do a lot of damage to US assets around the Gulf in very short order. Doha and Manama are but a few minutes away as the missile flies, and those missiles could fly from anywhere along a mountainous 2500km coastline. If Iran can be counted on, the Russians can play much harder ball than on their own.

    The big question mark is China. Not for any military contribution, obviously, but for the fact that it can cripple the U$ system on which American military power rests, and they can do it almost instantly. There's some pain in it for China, though not nearly as much as is sometimes assumed, but it would make any military "victory" the USM might be dreaming of Pyrrhic. In addition to losing a bunch of hardware and expensive personnel, they'd be staring at an economic catastrophe. With that, they'd also be staring at the "Decline and Fall" moment in the Zempire's timeline.

    In its present domestic socio-political state, the US could simply fly apart from the combined shock. From where I sit, that looks all but inevitable.

    Be that all as it may, the Kremlin had surely gamed all the possible variations to exhaustion before making their move into Syria. They committed, and since Sept 31, 2015 they've been driving, not reacting to, events. They went in fully committed to success, and they knew what ramifications their success could trigger. They must have had viable contingency Plans A thru Z in place before the ever cautious, meticulous Putin would have been confident enough that he had all bases covered to sign off on it. I'm pretty sure that none of Plans A thru Z included turning tail and running away when the American started barking.

    Putin would have been confident enough that he had all bases covered to sign off on it. I’m pretty sure that none of Plans A thru Z included turning tail and running away when the American started barking.

    Yes, seems to me this was a calculated gamble for the highest stakes by Putin, and I think he must have known that once he went all in there would be no further option to fold under US presure that wouldn’t be disastrous for Russia and for him, personally. I suspect he decided at the time that he would take it all the way if necessary.

    But that doesn’t mean, of course, that he and the Russians thought they couldn’t lose. Just that they thought the situation was serious enough to justify such a move, which inevitably involves a degree of risk and the highest of stakes.

    What they did know, and still know, is that the costs to the US of even a “victory” in Syria could be made high enough that the US leadership would almost certainly blink first (rightly, given that the whole regime change attempt in Syria involves no vital US interests and serves the purposes of foreigners, wealthy business cliques and issue obsessives).

    And so it has come to pass, so far, fortunately for humanity and for both the US and Russia. Who knows if that would still be the case if Clinton had won the election? Who really knows if it will remain the case under the highly suspect Trump?

    Can Iran be depended on to commit, knowing they’re next if the American gambit succeeds?

    Difficult to predict in such a dramatic situation, but Iran obviously knows that it is next in the firing line after Syria goes down and Hezbollah is targeted (as the plans of the regime changers hope for). However Iran really adds little to Russia’s strength overall, though as you point out they can contribute substantially in the region. On the other hand, Iran’s involvement would ensure far more enthusiastic cooperation with the US by Israel and Saudi Arabia, who might otherwise balk at a direct attack on Russian forces.

    The big question mark is China. Not for any military contribution, obviously, but for the fact that it can cripple the U$ system on which American military power rests, and they can do it almost instantly.

    I think the record suggests China would be far too cautious to intervene directly in that way in such a situation, though I’m sure they would give Russia plenty of indirect support.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    Yes, seems to me this was a calculated gamble for the highest stakes by Putin, and I think he must have known that once he went all in there would be no further option to fold under US pressure that wouldn’t be disastrous for Russia and for him, personally. I suspect he decided at the time that he would take it all the way if necessary.
     
    I'm not sure about that one. If you wind back the clock, Putin was invited into Syria to help the Syrian army deal with an ISIS insurgency. This was quite straightforward, especially since the US also (officially) opposed ISIS.

    Maybe Putin didn't expect Trump & the Ziocons to switch so fast to "regime change" in Syria - although they probably did so precisely because they were secretly backing ISIS to topple Assad and saw that their team was starting to lose.

    In fact, the US just made plain that it planned all along for the destruction of Syria ("regime change") and Russia was getting in the way. I don't think that Putin made any kind of calculated gamble - he was just taken by surprise by the two faced action of the US and now has to find a way out without losing face.

    There's no point in Putin giving the Ziocons the pretext to start WW3 when the US is already on the point of (economic ) collapse, and will probably have to shut down most of its bases anyway - although there's still the possibility that the US could be False Flagged into an attack on Russia (a suspicion here that the MSM is building up the fake Russia story in the same way that they built up the fake Iraqi WMD story prior to the 9/11 "event").
    , @Erebus
    Thank you for your considered reply.

    I think the record suggests China would be far too cautious to intervene directly in that way in such a situation, though I’m sure they would give Russia plenty of indirect support.
     
    In "normal" times, even in "normal" wartimes, I'd be agreeing with you, but we're not talking about normal times. "Such a situation" may well sharpen the tipping point in history we find ourselves. A geo-political Groundhog's Day at the end of which we'll either be on the high road to the multi-polar world so desired by many countries, or falling back for a few more decades under the Pax Americana many have come to know and despise.
    The Chinese know that a Pax Sinica cannot replace Pax Americana. They also know too well the trap hegemony poses. Together, Russia and China are the critical drivers of the multi-polar world movement. If one is grievously damaged, the project falters. Perhaps critically.
    If Russia were...

    ... to fold under US presure that (would) be disastrous for Russia and for (Putin), personally. I suspect he decided at the time that he would take it all the way if necessary.
     
    Not just for Russia and Putin, but for China as well. "Tak(ing) it all the way" has global, even existential implications and I would be surprised if China was not deeply consulted. A Russian failure in Syria would have enormous implications for China's great Eurasian projects, its need for a secure littoral, and its economic/financial security. Russia's fundamental political role in Eurasian - Eastasian development as security balance/guarantor would suffer massively. Without a strong Russia, the SCO is an all but empty shell, and the Chinese know it. A "disastrously" wounded Russia would put paid to the Eurasian dream for a generation or more.

    In other words, I think the Kremlin saw themselves as facing an Either/Or moment. They would have let the Chinese know their reasoning, and doubtless asked for support. Without any support (as in: "Good Luck Guys!"), I'm not at all sure that they would have gone in. By extension, they won't "take it all the way" without Chinese backing. In extremis, that backing would necessarily have to be decisive if it is to be of any value at all. "Indirect support" doesn't quite catch it for me, while "asymmetrical and devastating" does. The Chinese have an "asymmetrical and devastating" weapon in hand, and that hand may be forced by circumstances.
  84. Randal says:
    @Aedib
    I completely agree with your assessment. I don’t mean an exchange of cruise missiles on a 1 x 1 basis. Nevertheless, Stratfor armchair generals claim that US can hit Russian bases in Syria and Russians will not be able to retaliate from Syria dreaming about a “compartmentalized war”. That’s bull…t. Once Tartus and Latakia got stuck by i.e. 100 Tomahawks, those lovely corvettes on the Caspian sea will start to spit 10-12 Kalibr toward i.e. the US Qatar air base; and after that Ms. Zakharova will claim that Saudis did it (plausible deniability). After that, both side will have to decide if the sh.t hit the fan or if heads cool down.

    That’s fair enough, and for sure you won’t find me defending Stratfor’s nonsense.

    Read More
  85. Rurik says:
    @CanSpeccy

    he’s forced to play a razor’s edge game as he slowly and methodically inserts personnel loyal to the US vs. the deepstate, without triggering a “heart attack” or however they’d do it.

    If he can survive a year or two, and get his own people in, without causing a full-on hot war with Russia, perhaps he can prevail.

     

    Well done. I had quite given up on Trump, but your theory allows one a glimmer of hope that he is not just another in a long line of monster liars and turds to dupe the American people in the interests of plutocrats and foreign bastards with a contempt for the mass of ordinary Americans.

    allows one a glimmer of hope

    I’m clinging to it for now

    he didn’t do much damage to that Syrian airfield he bombed and he warned everyone over there that he was going to do it, and by doing so, he completely shut up the snake-pit, from John McBloodstain to Chucky Schumer to the length and breath of the zio-msm.

    I sense he’s trying to play them, and it seems at times like he’s playing them like a fine fiddle.

    Saying ‘Assad has to go’ will cause tingles and chills up their legs, and cut him some slack with the Republicucks, so perhaps he can get more of his people appointed.

    So long as he has a back-door channel to Putin, they can pretend like they’re enemies, while mollifying the Fiend and its minions as ISIS is routed and Syria’s sovereignty and border integrity becomes more and more a reality on the ground.

    At least that’s my hope. Of course I could be wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    So long as he has a back-door channel to Putin

    Putin receives former U.S. diplomat Kissinger in Kremlin
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-kissinger-idUSKBN19K2QN

    U.S. Retreats From Al-Tanf - Gives Up On Occupying South East Syria
    http://www.moonofalabama.org
  86. Art says:

    Let us hope – war – no war – is up to the American people and not the 15,000,000 strong Jew-matrix.

    “WE the PEOPLE” do not want war – election Trump says he does not want war – Putin does not want war.

    Only the Jews want war. The Jew MSM will try to drag us into a war – stampede us with a fake story – pull a false flag on the world.

    It’s up to Trump – who is he going to follow – the American first folks – or the Jew cabal.

    WE must scream to the politicians – NO WAR!

    Peace — Art

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "WE must scream to the politicians – NO WAR!"

    Israel cares not about Americans and their voices: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/06/syrian-update-ttg.htmlm
    Israelis' support for ISIS / Al Qaeda: "In addition to the broad offensive to the east, the R+6 is engaged with the jihadists formerly known as Al Qaeda at Quneitra near the Golan Heights. ... The jihadists in this area have received substantial logistical and medical support from the Israelis. Over the last few days, they have also also received Israeli tactical air support from IAF F-16s and armed drones. These air attacks were aimed largely against the SAA artillery positions in the area."

    As they have been squeaking loudly at the Pentagon "War and Terror" and "Support the Troops in a war against Al Qaeda..." Today, the American taxpayers' money go to finance Al Qaeda via Israel. Only in the US. The Israel-occupied Congress joyfully channels the citizens' money to Israel and war profiteers.
    https://www.businessinsider.com.au/israel-grants-golan-heights-oil-license-2013-2#AorvhlgY7US2W4JK.99
    "Israel has granted a U.S. company the first licence to explore for oil and gas in the occupied Golan Heights...A local subsidiary of the New York-listed company Genie Energy — which is advised by former vice president Dick Cheney and whose shareholders include Jacob Rothschild and Rupert Murdoch — will now have exclusive rights to a 153-square mile radius in the southern part of the Golan Heights."
    Syrians have been slaughtered in order to enrich Dick Cheney, Jacob Rothschild, Rupert Murdoch, Netanyahu and such

  87. Randal says:
    @Sean
    Russia has made a bad mistake in appearing to side with Iran in Syria.

    Russia has made a bad mistake in appearing to side with Iran in Syria.

    Yes that’s right because history demonstrates clearly that appeasement and passive acceptance is the best way to protect yourself against ongoing lawless aggression by a major power. If nothing else, there’s always that faint, fading hope that if you are meek enough you might at least be left for last, eh?

    If only the Russians had had the patience and strength of mind to continue with the wisdom of the Yeltsin years, in kowtowing to the US declaration of a global US sphere of influence and a universal US right, nay duty, of regime changing interventionism……

    Read More
    • Replies: @in the middle
    Non sense! You have to confront the bully, sooner or later, better sooner than later.
  88. David says:
    @Stupid Kat
    Watch this video, to hear an experienced USN bridge watch officer (and former SEAL), Matt Bracken give his account of how the at sea collision may have occurred. It is the most plausible explanation I have heard, to date.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRUMtopcNk4

    Thanks, Kat. The explanation starting at 35:00 is totally believable. The bit about the collision alarm not sounding is another level of failure.

    Read More
  89. This sucker (the Syrian conflict) could take all sorts of twists and turns, acquire a life of its own, and do who knows what. Since there seems to be no rational motive at play, at least on the US side, this mess defies rational analysis. What is the US objective in Syria, after all? I doubt anyone can answer that. What benefit will accrue if Assad ends up going? It simply seems to be a psychopathic game of power, more power, and yet more power (“full spectrum dominance” – not a Hitler statement that, but officially stated US policy) Full dominance to what aim? (try raising that on mass media, good luck) To stand tall in a graveyard of humanity as the last human survivor? To add to the already long list of countries and peoples destroyed? To be acknowledged as the toughest and meanest kid on the block? I think all bets are off, this sucker could go any way, any time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    What is the US objective in Syria, after all? I doubt anyone can answer that.
     
    Maybe....just....CONSTANT low level chaos as it is now.
    Just to keep that region unstable and unusable for anyone.
    Serves a couple of purposes, one of them is weakening Russia.

    What benefit will accrue if Assad ends up going?
     
    The same.
    But even with Assad not going, just keeping things as they are now is good for The Empire.
    Or, it is better for The Empire than it is for Russia.
    Or...it is less worse for The Empire than it is for Russia.
    , @annamaria
    I apologize for reposting, but the US/Israel objectives are perfectly clear: "Israel has granted a U.S. company the first licence to explore for oil and gas in the occupied Golan Heights, John Reed of the Financial Times reports. A local subsidiary of the New York-listed company Genie Energy — which is advised by former vice president Dick Cheney and whose shareholders include Jacob Rothschild and Rupert Murdoch — will now have exclusive rights to a 153-square mile radius in the southern part of the Golan Heights.
    That geographic location will likely prove controversial. Israel seized the Golan Heights in the Six-Day War in 1967 and annexed the territory in 1981. Its administration of the area — which is not recognised by international law — has been mostly peaceful until the Syrian civil war broke out 23 months ago. “This action is mostly political – it’s an attempt to deepen Israeli commitment to the occupied Golan Heights,” Israeli political analyst Yaron Ezrahi told FT. “The timing is directly related to the fact that the Syrian government is dealing with violence and chaos and is not free to deal with this problem.”
    Read more at https://www.businessinsider.com.au/israel-grants-golan-heights-oil-license-2013-2#lEO1m2MwXg44dtbR.99
    "The jihadists in this area [Golan Heights] have received substantial logistical and medical support from the Israelis. Over the last few days, they have also also received Israeli tactical air support from IAF F-16s and armed drones. These air attacks were aimed largely against the SAA artillery positions in the area. I’m sure the IDF is also represented in the “operation room” established to support this jihadi offensive." http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/06/syrian-update-ttg.html
  90. smited says:
    @Ron Unz

    I’m seeing this too, it’s also affecting my mobile phone on Safari. I have to put it in reader mode, otherwise the right third of the text just runs offscreen and there’s no ability to scroll right or zoom out to see it.
     
    Fixed, I think. Please let me know if there are still problems with the rendering on any device/browser combinations.

    Weird highlighting of paragraphs and
    bookmark prompt on each paragraph in android firefox

    Read More
  91. The Saker

    …makes a basic mistake, he assumes that the [Americans] will act like idiots and fight the kind of war the [Russia] would want to impose upon them.

    And he does so in nearly every article he writes. It would be amusing except for quotes like this.

    There are good points to be made. The US will have certain habits that must be deliberately deviated from. The US deploys too much and exposes its fighting style too much.

    But the Saker is silly, Capital S, silly, to think that the US would fight Russia the way he imagines it.

    Just the same: we must not fight. Russia and the US, must, not fight. It must not happen.

    The silliest thing is all the imagining of it. We should steel all our efforts to assure this never, ever happens.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    I'd say a lot could be done by the young people of America by taking to the streets with Anti-War protests like they did 50 years ago. Of course they'd need to invest less time being occupied with nonsense.

    I'd love to see a class-action lawsuit filed by members of the military themselves defending their rights and obligations to defend America but not to wage wars of aggression that serve no vital US interests.

    The only people who really have the power to peacefully put a stop to all of this madness is the American people themselves.
  92. Mongrel says:

    IMO, a massive US attack to gain air superiority in Syria is completely unrealistic for the following reasons among others:

    1. If an aircraft carrier takes part in the attack, if could be sunk by the Russians with moral justification. Sinking an aircraft carrier would cause the dollar to plummet by revealing the phony nature of American military might.

    2. The Russians could lose their entire Syrian forces and the larger military balance would not be affected in the short run, nor would the Russian regime be threatened by internal revolution. If the US lost significant numbers of aircraft, especially F-35’s and/or F-22’s, it would be a US disaster. There would be no hiding from the US public that we are at war for no discernable purpose. The sleepwalking goyim could very well take their eyes off Kim Kardashian’s ass and the Trump circus and wake up. The political effects are utterly unpredictable.

    3. Russia and China could announce an international gold standard, effectively removing a major source of US income via dollar creation. With US inflation raging, military cutbacks would ensue, kicking off a downward spiral for the ZUSA empire.

    4. War in Syria would precipitate a US financial crisis, because US markets are held aloft with smoke and mirrors. We have runaway federal debt, states about to default, a pension crisis, and a consumer debt crisis. When this thing blows, the 2000 crash will look like a picnic. Unemployment will skyrocket from an already high level, and the deep state will be fighting off multiple Occupy Wall Street-like movements. Sure hope those new surveillance tools work well, ‘cause the deep state is gonna need ‘em.

    Of course, empires often show the brains of a dinosaur. Did the Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and German empires plan to disappear when they entered WWI?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    Of course, empires often show the brains of a dinosaur. Did the Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and German empires plan to disappear when they entered WWI?
     
    That's exactly what worries me.
  93. peterAUS says:
    @sad and scared
    This sucker (the Syrian conflict) could take all sorts of twists and turns, acquire a life of its own, and do who knows what. Since there seems to be no rational motive at play, at least on the US side, this mess defies rational analysis. What is the US objective in Syria, after all? I doubt anyone can answer that. What benefit will accrue if Assad ends up going? It simply seems to be a psychopathic game of power, more power, and yet more power ("full spectrum dominance" - not a Hitler statement that, but officially stated US policy) Full dominance to what aim? (try raising that on mass media, good luck) To stand tall in a graveyard of humanity as the last human survivor? To add to the already long list of countries and peoples destroyed? To be acknowledged as the toughest and meanest kid on the block? I think all bets are off, this sucker could go any way, any time.

    What is the US objective in Syria, after all? I doubt anyone can answer that.

    Maybe….just….CONSTANT low level chaos as it is now.
    Just to keep that region unstable and unusable for anyone.
    Serves a couple of purposes, one of them is weakening Russia.

    What benefit will accrue if Assad ends up going?

    The same.
    But even with Assad not going, just keeping things as they are now is good for The Empire.
    Or, it is better for The Empire than it is for Russia.
    Or…it is less worse for The Empire than it is for Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    It's key to The Esoteric Agenda, "Out of chaos, order".
  94. utu says:
    @Rurik

    allows one a glimmer of hope
     
    I'm clinging to it for now

    he didn't do much damage to that Syrian airfield he bombed and he warned everyone over there that he was going to do it, and by doing so, he completely shut up the snake-pit, from John McBloodstain to Chucky Schumer to the length and breath of the zio-msm.

    I sense he's trying to play them, and it seems at times like he's playing them like a fine fiddle.

    Saying 'Assad has to go' will cause tingles and chills up their legs, and cut him some slack with the Republicucks, so perhaps he can get more of his people appointed.

    So long as he has a back-door channel to Putin, they can pretend like they're enemies, while mollifying the Fiend and its minions as ISIS is routed and Syria's sovereignty and border integrity becomes more and more a reality on the ground.

    At least that's my hope. Of course I could be wrong.

    So long as he has a back-door channel to Putin

    Putin receives former U.S. diplomat Kissinger in Kremlin

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-kissinger-idUSKBN19K2QN

    U.S. Retreats From Al-Tanf – Gives Up On Occupying South East Syria

    http://www.moonofalabama.org

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    U.S. Retreats From Al-Tanf – Gives Up On Occupying South East Syria
     
    the second picture in the link with the caption is funny

    what I'd like to think is going on in a cabinet meeting:

    'well, we're quietly quitting Syria, and this is sure to piss off the deepstate and their media. So I'm going to swat their predicable hornet's nest with an inane tweet about how ugly one of their plastic 'journalists' are, and send them into a frenzy demanding impeachment. This is so predictable that I'm embarrassed, but I'm going to do it anyways, and then they'll be so obsessed over my tweet they won't even notice we're leaving Syria.'

    that's what I'd like to think is going on

  95. Mikel says:

    Could anyone kindly explain how the Israeli planes manage to avoid the Syrian Pantsirs and S-300s every time they enter Syrian air space and take out some target? (and one presumes that the Syrians must be waiting for the next Israeli incursion 24×7).

    Thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Israeli planes don't really avoid those systems.
    Just people supposed to give orders to fire do not give those orders.

    Now...why is that is another question and matter altogether.

    Maybe:
    1. A brilliant geopolitical game played by some people.
    2. Just what elites do when playing games of power. They don't die, or at least not immediately.
    3. Short sighted political play which will bite some players later on.
    4.etc...
    5. etc...
    Pick one/ create one.
  96. @Kilo 4/11
    No, I don't recognize that the USSR is gone, because the SAME FUCKING TROGLODYTES THAT RAN IT are running Russia today, starting with Putin, the mope that weeps over its demise. As we said in the Marines "Payback is a motherfucker" and you're finding that out aren't you.

    "Today Russia is the last great hope of the planet" is one of the most pathetic memes currently hiding in the guise of received wisdom. Tell that to the besieged Ukrainians of occupied Ukraine, who only want to keep their country intact, but due to Russia's total incapability of recognizing Ukrainians as a separate people with a right to self-determination and Russians' desperation to continue seeing themselves as a world power, no matter what other nation has to be crushed, continue getting killed every day by Russians and their proxies. And you talk of respecting international law!

    Talking of killings; you forget Afganishtan, Iraq, Lybia, Somalia, etc. I don’t see Russians killing in these places do you? Who are the killeres then?

    Read More
  97. @annamaria
    Why the hysterics, Kilo 4/11? The UnzRevew is obviously beyond your grade. Your could find all the solace you need with MSM.

    Right on, annamaria! However, wish him a welcome to remove the MSN off his brain. I once was a slave to the MSN just like Kilo, and was blind, but now I see!!!!

    Read More
  98. @Sean
    Russia has made a bad mistake in appearing to side with Iran in Syria.

    NO! The Zios-Anglos made the mistake of siding with the terrorists in Syria.

    Read More
  99. @Randal

    Russia has made a bad mistake in appearing to side with Iran in Syria.
     
    Yes that's right because history demonstrates clearly that appeasement and passive acceptance is the best way to protect yourself against ongoing lawless aggression by a major power. If nothing else, there's always that faint, fading hope that if you are meek enough you might at least be left for last, eh?

    If only the Russians had had the patience and strength of mind to continue with the wisdom of the Yeltsin years, in kowtowing to the US declaration of a global US sphere of influence and a universal US right, nay duty, of regime changing interventionism......

    Non sense! You have to confront the bully, sooner or later, better sooner than later.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Non sense!
     
    Sarcasm.

    You have to confront the bully, sooner or later, better sooner than later.
     
    In this case, I think the Russians were correct to do so, for sure.
  100. @SimplePseudonymicHandle
    The Saker

    ...makes a basic mistake, he assumes that the [Americans] will act like idiots and fight the kind of war the [Russia] would want to impose upon them.
     
    And he does so in nearly every article he writes. It would be amusing except for quotes like this.

    There are good points to be made. The US will have certain habits that must be deliberately deviated from. The US deploys too much and exposes its fighting style too much.

    But the Saker is silly, Capital S, silly, to think that the US would fight Russia the way he imagines it.

    Just the same: we must not fight. Russia and the US, must, not fight. It must not happen.

    The silliest thing is all the imagining of it. We should steel all our efforts to assure this never, ever happens.

    I’d say a lot could be done by the young people of America by taking to the streets with Anti-War protests like they did 50 years ago. Of course they’d need to invest less time being occupied with nonsense.

    I’d love to see a class-action lawsuit filed by members of the military themselves defending their rights and obligations to defend America but not to wage wars of aggression that serve no vital US interests.

    The only people who really have the power to peacefully put a stop to all of this madness is the American people themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tomgreg
    "I’d say a lot could be done by the young people of America by taking to the streets with Anti-War protests like they did 50 years ago."

    Back in Vietnam War days the USA had the selective service draft. In theory anyone's son could have been drafted and sent to die in the jungle. Since every young person, more or less, was touched by this more of them cared enough to protest.

    Now with voluntary service, primarily those of lower incomes and/or opportunities enlist.
    Many, if not most, Americans do not care about anything unless they are personally affected. So, there's not as much interest in taking to the streets to protest. Hey, who cares if there's still college football and Game of Thrones....right?

    In my opinion the USA got rid of the draft to cut down on the protests when they'd do their invasions and regime change stuff.
    , @Sparkon

    I’d say a lot could be done by the young people of America by taking to the streets with Anti-War protests like they did 50 years ago.
     
    Before GW Bush's attack on Iraq, there were massive anti-war protests both in the United States, and also in Europe:

    According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

    On Feb. 15, 2003, up to 15 million people took to the streets in hundreds of cities around the world to protest the impending war, but on March 20, 2003, the U.S. led coalition began its attacks on Iraq, a very sad day for Iraqis, for Americans, and for world peace.

    So no, I don't see street solutions. We need honest and entirely loyal public officials in these United States. No dual-citizens should be allowed to serve in any official capacity at the local, state, or federal level.

    We have the laws, and a legal framework in place. All we need are public servants with the courage and determination to enforce those laws. Laws were broken on 9/11, but the criminals weren't from Afghanistan or Iraq.

  101. @peterAUS

    What is the US objective in Syria, after all? I doubt anyone can answer that.
     
    Maybe....just....CONSTANT low level chaos as it is now.
    Just to keep that region unstable and unusable for anyone.
    Serves a couple of purposes, one of them is weakening Russia.

    What benefit will accrue if Assad ends up going?
     
    The same.
    But even with Assad not going, just keeping things as they are now is good for The Empire.
    Or, it is better for The Empire than it is for Russia.
    Or...it is less worse for The Empire than it is for Russia.

    It’s key to The Esoteric Agenda, “Out of chaos, order”.

    Read More
  102. pyrrhus says:
    @Avery
    {The willpower, courage and determination of the Russian solider is stronger than his US counterparts by many orders of magnitude.}

    By many orders of magnitude?
    One order of magnitude is 10.
    Two orders of magnitude is 100.
    Many is .....what 1,000?
    Russian warriors are at the minimum 10X better than American warriors?

    You don't actually believe that, do you?

    Their leaders - both military and civilian - may be incompetent, corrupt, treasonous (e.g. USS Liberty betrayal by their Commander in Chief),etc, etc.....but American professional warriors lack neither willpower, nor courage, nor determination.

    One example: the "Black Hawk Down"/Battle of Mogadishu firefight.

    Their leaders sent them into a harebrained Globalist mission without proper support, but once all Hell broke loose, Americans fought with great courage and determination. Fought like lions, in fact.

    The notion that Russian pros are, quote, 'many orders of magnitude' stronger in warrior quality (...and skills) is truly delusional on Saker's part.

    Idiotic…As the Saker points out, Russian forces are highly patriotic, unlike US forces, who are in the military predominantly for the benefits and early retirement. Even more important, they have not been weakened by political promotions, or the addition of women, gays, and 3d world lackwits.

    Read More
    • Agree: bluedog
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Avery is correct here, and this...

    ... Russian forces are highly patriotic, unlike US forces, who are in the military predominantly for the benefits and early retirement.
     
    ... is complete nonsense.

    The Russian military in Syria is every bit as much a "mercentary" army as the American one. And it's far better for it.

    In the first round of the Russian Army's professionalization, when salaries were low, recruitment targets weren't met and volunteers were poor quality, who as a rule couldn't find employment anywhere else.

    After military salaries were increased to a level much higher than civilian alternatives, the quality of volunteers increased greatly, to the point that the Russian Army are now the fine-honed professionals that we saw in Crimea and now Syria.

    Patriotism, morale, values, etc. etc., that The Saker seems to be so obsessed with have zilch to do with anything. (Though military types in America, Russia, and most other countries do tend to be far more patriotic than average, of course).
  103. peterAUS says:
    @Mikel
    Could anyone kindly explain how the Israeli planes manage to avoid the Syrian Pantsirs and S-300s every time they enter Syrian air space and take out some target? (and one presumes that the Syrians must be waiting for the next Israeli incursion 24x7).

    Thanks.

    Israeli planes don’t really avoid those systems.
    Just people supposed to give orders to fire do not give those orders.

    Now…why is that is another question and matter altogether.

    Maybe:
    1. A brilliant geopolitical game played by some people.
    2. Just what elites do when playing games of power. They don’t die, or at least not immediately.
    3. Short sighted political play which will bite some players later on.
    4.etc…
    5. etc…
    Pick one/ create one.

    Read More
  104. KenH says:

    Girly man Sean Spicer’s pronouncement that the U.S. possesses “intelligence” to the effect that Assad is planning a chemical attack on innocents is just a bogus pretext for war. It’s Iraqi weapons of mass destruction all over again.

    It’s designed to soften Americans up for greater illegal and unilateral military action in Syria. And if my fellow countrymen fall for it yet again just because they’re enamored with Trump’s hollow promises and circus like rallies then I will have absolutely no sympathy for them when the economy implodes and if somehow the war comes to U.S. soil.

    Gee, who gets all the refugees when we bring hell to Syria? Not Saudi Arabia or Israel. Oh no, princess Ivanka will see to it that we get our share just as long as they’re nowhere near her, Jared or any other Manhattan millionaire liberal.

    Putin should announce the sale of long range nuclear missiles to the People’s Republic of N. Korea. Hopefully this would give Nimrata Haley and Trump aneurysms along with the rest of the American likudniks. Then he should follow up and begin supplying the Taliban with surface to air missile batteries, anti-drone technology and advanced weaponry for combat operations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Trump attacking Syria will cause Iran to build an atomic bomb.
  105. nsa says:
    @jacques sheete

    As we said in the Marines “Payback is a motherfucker”...blah blah blah...
     
    Looks like you could use a dose of Marine MG Butler's wisdom.

    Knock yerself out toughie...

    “… I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.

    In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for [crony] capitalism.”

    Major General Butler USMC, War is a Racket, 1935

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
     

    USMC? Isn’t that the expeditionary wing of the IDF?

    Read More
  106. MarkinLA says:
    @KenH
    Girly man Sean Spicer's pronouncement that the U.S. possesses "intelligence" to the effect that Assad is planning a chemical attack on innocents is just a bogus pretext for war. It's Iraqi weapons of mass destruction all over again.

    It's designed to soften Americans up for greater illegal and unilateral military action in Syria. And if my fellow countrymen fall for it yet again just because they're enamored with Trump's hollow promises and circus like rallies then I will have absolutely no sympathy for them when the economy implodes and if somehow the war comes to U.S. soil.

    Gee, who gets all the refugees when we bring hell to Syria? Not Saudi Arabia or Israel. Oh no, princess Ivanka will see to it that we get our share just as long as they're nowhere near her, Jared or any other Manhattan millionaire liberal.

    Putin should announce the sale of long range nuclear missiles to the People's Republic of N. Korea. Hopefully this would give Nimrata Haley and Trump aneurysms along with the rest of the American likudniks. Then he should follow up and begin supplying the Taliban with surface to air missile batteries, anti-drone technology and advanced weaponry for combat operations.

    Trump attacking Syria will cause Iran to build an atomic bomb.

    Read More
  107. @Priss Factor
    How is that US and EU get to do this to a nation and still give sermons about peace and human rights to the world?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cbBXk4iW5Q

    When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor to neutralize the US navy, it got punished with total destruction.

    US and EU totally wrecks a nation that did NOTHING to either, but they go around promoting themselves as defenders of freedom and 'liberal global order'.

    I think has got something to do with the US being an exceptional nation, or something like that.

    Read More
  108. @David
    Great article. I would be interested to read some knowledgeable reflections on the US Navy ship running into a Japanese cargo ship a week or so ago. It seems that a lot of things would have to go wrong to make that possible, indicating considerable rot in the US Navy. We haven't even heard of the ship's commander losing his commission.

    If they’re anything like most other Americans (particularly young Americans) they had their heads buried in an I-phone playing video games or watching porn.

    Read More
  109. @Rurik
    not good

    https://www.rt.com/usa/394474-haley-no-place-for-assad/

    the zio-deepstate must be showing Trump how easily they JFK'd JFK

    I suspect that Trump doesn't want to play along with their 'seven countries' narrative, and would prefer peace and prosperity as his legacy

    but he's forced to play a razor's edge game as he slowly and methodically inserts personnel loyal to the US vs. the deepstate, without triggering a "heart attack" or however they'd do it.

    If he can survive a year or two, and get his own people in, without causing a full-on hot war with Russia, perhaps he can prevail. But this new development is a very bad sign.

    Just one problem. Trumps got a Jewish son-in-law living in the house with him and half-Jewish grandkids sitting on his knee. When push comes to shove, who’s side do you think he’ll be on?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    who’s side do you think he’ll be on?
     
    I don't know Carroll

    But I suspect he wants it both ways. I suspect he's trying to avoid 'push comes to shove', and would prefer for Israel to stay satisfied with murdering a few Pals here and there, and stealing more and more land, without causing an international crisis. So far he hasn't moved the embassy, so I have my hopes.

    I suspect he wants to go down in history a great president, (his ego and all). A war with Russia would probably not add to his legacy, so I suspect he'd rather avoid that.

    I suspect he's concerned with the US economy for now, and just wishes all the other special interests would just take a back seat, but of course we can only imagine the screeching that's being done in his ear. 'Assad has to go!!' 'Iran needs regime change!!' Blah, blah, blah..

    So far, so good..
  110. annamaria says:
    @Art
    Let us hope – war – no war – is up to the American people and not the 15,000,000 strong Jew-matrix.

    “WE the PEOPLE” do not want war – election Trump says he does not want war – Putin does not want war.

    Only the Jews want war. The Jew MSM will try to drag us into a war – stampede us with a fake story – pull a false flag on the world.

    It’s up to Trump – who is he going to follow – the American first folks – or the Jew cabal.

    WE must scream to the politicians – NO WAR!

    Peace --- Art

    “WE must scream to the politicians – NO WAR!”

    Israel cares not about Americans and their voices: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/06/syrian-update-ttg.htmlm
    Israelis’ support for ISIS / Al Qaeda: “In addition to the broad offensive to the east, the R+6 is engaged with the jihadists formerly known as Al Qaeda at Quneitra near the Golan Heights. … The jihadists in this area have received substantial logistical and medical support from the Israelis. Over the last few days, they have also also received Israeli tactical air support from IAF F-16s and armed drones. These air attacks were aimed largely against the SAA artillery positions in the area.”

    As they have been squeaking loudly at the Pentagon “War and Terror” and “Support the Troops in a war against Al Qaeda…” Today, the American taxpayers’ money go to finance Al Qaeda via Israel. Only in the US. The Israel-occupied Congress joyfully channels the citizens’ money to Israel and war profiteers.

    https://www.businessinsider.com.au/israel-grants-golan-heights-oil-license-2013-2#AorvhlgY7US2W4JK.99

    “Israel has granted a U.S. company the first licence to explore for oil and gas in the occupied Golan Heights…A local subsidiary of the New York-listed company Genie Energy — which is advised by former vice president Dick Cheney and whose shareholders include Jacob Rothschild and Rupert Murdoch — will now have exclusive rights to a 153-square mile radius in the southern part of the Golan Heights.”
    Syrians have been slaughtered in order to enrich Dick Cheney, Jacob Rothschild, Rupert Murdoch, Netanyahu and such

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    ...the Golan Heights.”
    Syrians have been slaughtered in order to enrich Dick Cheney, Jacob Rothschild, Rupert Murdoch, Netanyahu and such
     
    I believe this is what the Syrian thing is all about. Destroying Syria (a la Libya) so that Israel can steal the Golan heights and also isolate Hezbollah and Lebanon from Iran.

    They're trying to create a new world order with Israel as the de-facto center of power, and NATO as their rabid dog/enforcement. So far it looks like it's working, right up until Trump. We all know that Hillary would have been Israeli's bitch. Right now it seems uncertain with Trump.
  111. annamaria says:
    @sad and scared
    This sucker (the Syrian conflict) could take all sorts of twists and turns, acquire a life of its own, and do who knows what. Since there seems to be no rational motive at play, at least on the US side, this mess defies rational analysis. What is the US objective in Syria, after all? I doubt anyone can answer that. What benefit will accrue if Assad ends up going? It simply seems to be a psychopathic game of power, more power, and yet more power ("full spectrum dominance" - not a Hitler statement that, but officially stated US policy) Full dominance to what aim? (try raising that on mass media, good luck) To stand tall in a graveyard of humanity as the last human survivor? To add to the already long list of countries and peoples destroyed? To be acknowledged as the toughest and meanest kid on the block? I think all bets are off, this sucker could go any way, any time.

    I apologize for reposting, but the US/Israel objectives are perfectly clear: “Israel has granted a U.S. company the first licence to explore for oil and gas in the occupied Golan Heights, John Reed of the Financial Times reports. A local subsidiary of the New York-listed company Genie Energy — which is advised by former vice president Dick Cheney and whose shareholders include Jacob Rothschild and Rupert Murdoch — will now have exclusive rights to a 153-square mile radius in the southern part of the Golan Heights.
    That geographic location will likely prove controversial. Israel seized the Golan Heights in the Six-Day War in 1967 and annexed the territory in 1981. Its administration of the area — which is not recognised by international law — has been mostly peaceful until the Syrian civil war broke out 23 months ago. “This action is mostly political – it’s an attempt to deepen Israeli commitment to the occupied Golan Heights,” Israeli political analyst Yaron Ezrahi told FT. “The timing is directly related to the fact that the Syrian government is dealing with violence and chaos and is not free to deal with this problem.”
    Read more at https://www.businessinsider.com.au/israel-grants-golan-heights-oil-license-2013-2#lEO1m2MwXg44dtbR.99
    “The jihadists in this area [Golan Heights] have received substantial logistical and medical support from the Israelis. Over the last few days, they have also also received Israeli tactical air support from IAF F-16s and armed drones. These air attacks were aimed largely against the SAA artillery positions in the area. I’m sure the IDF is also represented in the “operation room” established to support this jihadi offensive.” http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/06/syrian-update-ttg.html

    Read More
  112. annamaria says:
    @Sean
    Russia has made a bad mistake in appearing to side with Iran in Syria.

    The “war on terror” was supposed to be against Al Qaeda (ISIS, Daesh, IS and other jihadis). But Israelis did not get a memo (for some strange reason) and instead Israel has establishes a cooperation with jihadis: “The jihadists in this area [Golan Height] have received substantial logistical and medical support from the Israelis. Over the last few days, they have also also received Israeli tactical air support from IAF F-16s and armed drones. These air attacks were aimed largely against the SAA artillery positions in the area.”
    Does not this situation remind of the USSLiberty “incident,” when Israel had attacked and slaughtered several dozens US servicemen. Today Israel supports jihadis (9/11 anybody?)

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/06/syrian-update-ttg.html

    Treason.

    Read More
  113. Miro23 says:
    @Randal

    Putin would have been confident enough that he had all bases covered to sign off on it. I’m pretty sure that none of Plans A thru Z included turning tail and running away when the American started barking.
     
    Yes, seems to me this was a calculated gamble for the highest stakes by Putin, and I think he must have known that once he went all in there would be no further option to fold under US presure that wouldn't be disastrous for Russia and for him, personally. I suspect he decided at the time that he would take it all the way if necessary.

    But that doesn't mean, of course, that he and the Russians thought they couldn't lose. Just that they thought the situation was serious enough to justify such a move, which inevitably involves a degree of risk and the highest of stakes.

    What they did know, and still know, is that the costs to the US of even a "victory" in Syria could be made high enough that the US leadership would almost certainly blink first (rightly, given that the whole regime change attempt in Syria involves no vital US interests and serves the purposes of foreigners, wealthy business cliques and issue obsessives).

    And so it has come to pass, so far, fortunately for humanity and for both the US and Russia. Who knows if that would still be the case if Clinton had won the election? Who really knows if it will remain the case under the highly suspect Trump?

    Can Iran be depended on to commit, knowing they’re next if the American gambit succeeds?
     
    Difficult to predict in such a dramatic situation, but Iran obviously knows that it is next in the firing line after Syria goes down and Hezbollah is targeted (as the plans of the regime changers hope for). However Iran really adds little to Russia's strength overall, though as you point out they can contribute substantially in the region. On the other hand, Iran's involvement would ensure far more enthusiastic cooperation with the US by Israel and Saudi Arabia, who might otherwise balk at a direct attack on Russian forces.

    The big question mark is China. Not for any military contribution, obviously, but for the fact that it can cripple the U$ system on which American military power rests, and they can do it almost instantly.
     
    I think the record suggests China would be far too cautious to intervene directly in that way in such a situation, though I'm sure they would give Russia plenty of indirect support.

    Yes, seems to me this was a calculated gamble for the highest stakes by Putin, and I think he must have known that once he went all in there would be no further option to fold under US pressure that wouldn’t be disastrous for Russia and for him, personally. I suspect he decided at the time that he would take it all the way if necessary.

    I’m not sure about that one. If you wind back the clock, Putin was invited into Syria to help the Syrian army deal with an ISIS insurgency. This was quite straightforward, especially since the US also (officially) opposed ISIS.

    Maybe Putin didn’t expect Trump & the Ziocons to switch so fast to “regime change” in Syria – although they probably did so precisely because they were secretly backing ISIS to topple Assad and saw that their team was starting to lose.

    In fact, the US just made plain that it planned all along for the destruction of Syria (“regime change”) and Russia was getting in the way. I don’t think that Putin made any kind of calculated gamble – he was just taken by surprise by the two faced action of the US and now has to find a way out without losing face.

    There’s no point in Putin giving the Ziocons the pretext to start WW3 when the US is already on the point of (economic ) collapse, and will probably have to shut down most of its bases anyway – although there’s still the possibility that the US could be False Flagged into an attack on Russia (a suspicion here that the MSM is building up the fake Russia story in the same way that they built up the fake Iraqi WMD story prior to the 9/11 “event”).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    I’m not sure about that one. If you wind back the clock, Putin was invited into Syria to help the Syrian army deal with an ISIS insurgency. This was quite straightforward, especially since the US also (officially) opposed ISIS.
     
    Clearly we viewed those events differently. 2014/15 saw a string of defeats for the government at the hands of the various externally backed terrorist groups, and increasingly open interference and threats of direct intervention by the terrorists' external backers, especially the US and Turkey. Idlib fell, the southern border areas fell, Palmyra fell.

    I saw the US using attacking IS as another pretext for increasingly direct involvement in Syria during 2015, while making ever louder noises about direct intervention in support of their own terrorists, and I saw the Russian decision to go "all in" as a direct response to that. The Russians used attacking IS as their own pretext just as the US had, but the main motivation was to prevent the fall of the Syrian government and to lock out the then very real possibility of a "no fly zone" or similar direct intervention by the US or Turkey. It was touch and go for a while but in the end the main threat was averted, the government was stabilised and the ground was set for the current advances and the final defeat of IS, at least as a territory-holding quasi-state in its current form.

    Maybe Putin didn’t expect Trump & the Ziocons to switch so fast to “regime change” in Syria – although they probably did so precisely because they were secretly backing ISIS to topple Assad and saw that their team was starting to lose.

    In fact, the US just made plain that it planned all along for the destruction of Syria (“regime change”) and Russia was getting in the way. I don’t think that Putin made any kind of calculated gamble – he was just taken by surprise by the two faced action of the US and now has to find a way out without losing face.
     
    It was always obvious that the Syrian rebellion was a regime change operation backed by the US and its regional proxies. I don't think there's any way Putin was surprised by that aspect. I think he's occasionally been surprised at just how barefacedly dishonest and nakedly hostile the US has been willing to be, but not to the extent of it affecting his strategic considerations.

    I think it's easy to overstate IS's importance in all this from a hindsight pov.

    There’s no point in Putin giving the Ziocons the pretext to start WW3 when the US is already on the point of (economic ) collapse, and will probably have to shut down most of its bases anyway
     
    And there's no point giving them such a pretext when the Russians and Syrians are winning on the ground anyway and don't need to respond to US provocations such as its illegal and murderous attacks on Syrian forces, so long as those attacks remain more symbolic than effective.

    That's, imo, the real reason why there's been no military response to the US's recent provocations.
  114. Erebus says:
    @Randal

    Putin would have been confident enough that he had all bases covered to sign off on it. I’m pretty sure that none of Plans A thru Z included turning tail and running away when the American started barking.
     
    Yes, seems to me this was a calculated gamble for the highest stakes by Putin, and I think he must have known that once he went all in there would be no further option to fold under US presure that wouldn't be disastrous for Russia and for him, personally. I suspect he decided at the time that he would take it all the way if necessary.

    But that doesn't mean, of course, that he and the Russians thought they couldn't lose. Just that they thought the situation was serious enough to justify such a move, which inevitably involves a degree of risk and the highest of stakes.

    What they did know, and still know, is that the costs to the US of even a "victory" in Syria could be made high enough that the US leadership would almost certainly blink first (rightly, given that the whole regime change attempt in Syria involves no vital US interests and serves the purposes of foreigners, wealthy business cliques and issue obsessives).

    And so it has come to pass, so far, fortunately for humanity and for both the US and Russia. Who knows if that would still be the case if Clinton had won the election? Who really knows if it will remain the case under the highly suspect Trump?

    Can Iran be depended on to commit, knowing they’re next if the American gambit succeeds?
     
    Difficult to predict in such a dramatic situation, but Iran obviously knows that it is next in the firing line after Syria goes down and Hezbollah is targeted (as the plans of the regime changers hope for). However Iran really adds little to Russia's strength overall, though as you point out they can contribute substantially in the region. On the other hand, Iran's involvement would ensure far more enthusiastic cooperation with the US by Israel and Saudi Arabia, who might otherwise balk at a direct attack on Russian forces.

    The big question mark is China. Not for any military contribution, obviously, but for the fact that it can cripple the U$ system on which American military power rests, and they can do it almost instantly.
     
    I think the record suggests China would be far too cautious to intervene directly in that way in such a situation, though I'm sure they would give Russia plenty of indirect support.

    Thank you for your considered reply.

    I think the record suggests China would be far too cautious to intervene directly in that way in such a situation, though I’m sure they would give Russia plenty of indirect support.

    In “normal” times, even in “normal” wartimes, I’d be agreeing with you, but we’re not talking about normal times. “Such a situation” may well sharpen the tipping point in history we find ourselves. A geo-political Groundhog’s Day at the end of which we’ll either be on the high road to the multi-polar world so desired by many countries, or falling back for a few more decades under the Pax Americana many have come to know and despise.
    The Chinese know that a Pax Sinica cannot replace Pax Americana. They also know too well the trap hegemony poses. Together, Russia and China are the critical drivers of the multi-polar world movement. If one is grievously damaged, the project falters. Perhaps critically.
    If Russia were…

    … to fold under US presure that (would) be disastrous for Russia and for (Putin), personally. I suspect he decided at the time that he would take it all the way if necessary.

    Not just for Russia and Putin, but for China as well. “Tak(ing) it all the way” has global, even existential implications and I would be surprised if China was not deeply consulted. A Russian failure in Syria would have enormous implications for China’s great Eurasian projects, its need for a secure littoral, and its economic/financial security. Russia’s fundamental political role in Eurasian – Eastasian development as security balance/guarantor would suffer massively. Without a strong Russia, the SCO is an all but empty shell, and the Chinese know it. A “disastrously” wounded Russia would put paid to the Eurasian dream for a generation or more.

    In other words, I think the Kremlin saw themselves as facing an Either/Or moment. They would have let the Chinese know their reasoning, and doubtless asked for support. Without any support (as in: “Good Luck Guys!”), I’m not at all sure that they would have gone in. By extension, they won’t “take it all the way” without Chinese backing. In extremis, that backing would necessarily have to be decisive if it is to be of any value at all. “Indirect support” doesn’t quite catch it for me, while “asymmetrical and devastating” does. The Chinese have an “asymmetrical and devastating” weapon in hand, and that hand may be forced by circumstances.

    Read More
  115. Randal says:
    @in the middle
    Non sense! You have to confront the bully, sooner or later, better sooner than later.

    Non sense!

    Sarcasm.

    You have to confront the bully, sooner or later, better sooner than later.

    In this case, I think the Russians were correct to do so, for sure.

    Read More
  116. Russia would have no choice but to respond militarily all in.

    War with the US in Syria would mean the permanent end of business as usual, being thrown out of SWIFT and being made into a pariah state with putin himself being frozen out of the western world, not responding would also put him at serious risk at home maybe even threaten his life.

    He would have no choice even if that means nukes.

    Read More
  117. idealogus says:

    Somebody already said it but I tell again. In case of conflict with USA, Rusia must supply modern weapon to taliban, to irakies insurgents, to sirian, to libyans, to North Korean, to Yemen etc. etc. Big headache to americans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Somebody already said it but I tell again. In case of conflict with USA, Rusia must supply modern weapon to taliban
     
    This is really a dumb idea, like really-really dumb.
  118. The Kulak says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    There are many reasons for this, historical as well as political, but I don’t think that anybody doubts the fact that while Americans love to kill for their country, they are much less enthusiastic about dying for it...
     
    The Saker says this as if it's a bad thing.

    Patton: I don't want to die for my country, I want the other bastard to die for his.

    Perfectly healthy, rational approach so far as I'm concerned.

    Anyhow, on the bright side, at least The Saker seems to have finally stopped peddling the fiction that Russia is capable of doing anything to stop its modest Syrian forces from being swept off the board in the event of a full-scale confrontation with the US in that region.

    If that were to happen, Russia's only real options would be to raise (in Ukraine or even the Baltics) or fold (retreat in ignominy).

    By that you mean Anatoly avenging Kheimmim by incinerating good chunk of Yavoriv with Kalibrs and hitting the SBU HQ US strike on Chinese Embassy in 1999 Belgrade style with CIA in Kiev having to scrape up pieces of their colleagues who were on duty, and utterly destroying Ukraine’s defense plants and possibly many if not most of its SAM batteries via spetsnaz blowing them up on the ground, and perhaps giving the NAF a nudge with strikes on the Azov Nazi larpers with an emphasis on sending dozens of NATO advisers, mercs and ‘vacationers’ home in body bags?

    Because even without sinking a carrier or AEGIS ship with all hands, I think the militarily sane not drunk on their own BS or the aura of greater Galician invincibility (i.e. not Quartermaster types) understand US/NATO have escalation dominance in Syria, but not in Ukraine even with the mild qualitative (mostly quantity of conscripts) improvement in the UAF since 2014. No one besides maybe the Poles in NATO is willing to die by the hundreds much less thousands to stop the 1st Guards Tank Army from rolling into Donbass kicking the crap out of the UAF so hard and so fast their US advisers have to flee to Kiev in civilian car trunks and civvies.

    I think the prospect of such a thoroughly humiliating beating for a US propped up client state is what USA try Col Pat Lang of Turcopolier blog was referring to when warning that the US could blunder into a debacle even as the neocons insist that ca back Russia down in Syria.

    Read More
  119. @pyrrhus
    Idiotic...As the Saker points out, Russian forces are highly patriotic, unlike US forces, who are in the military predominantly for the benefits and early retirement. Even more important, they have not been weakened by political promotions, or the addition of women, gays, and 3d world lackwits.

    Avery is correct here, and this…

    … Russian forces are highly patriotic, unlike US forces, who are in the military predominantly for the benefits and early retirement.

    … is complete nonsense.

    The Russian military in Syria is every bit as much a “mercentary” army as the American one. And it’s far better for it.

    In the first round of the Russian Army’s professionalization, when salaries were low, recruitment targets weren’t met and volunteers were poor quality, who as a rule couldn’t find employment anywhere else.

    After military salaries were increased to a level much higher than civilian alternatives, the quality of volunteers increased greatly, to the point that the Russian Army are now the fine-honed professionals that we saw in Crimea and now Syria.

    Patriotism, morale, values, etc. etc., that The Saker seems to be so obsessed with have zilch to do with anything. (Though military types in America, Russia, and most other countries do tend to be far more patriotic than average, of course).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Patriotism, morale, values, etc. etc., that The Saker seems to be so obsessed with have zilch to do with anything.
     
    But they do. I would be really unoriginal by stating Napoleon's dictum (one of), such as this: In war, moral factors acount for three quarters of the whole; relative material strength accounts for only one quarter. , but Napoleon had the point. Discipline, combat cohesion, in the end--professionalism--are all parts of a morale of the unit (troops). In the end, morale is a critical operational factor--enough to look at Israeli-Arab wars to understand this. This wasn't the technological disparity between sides, of which there was none, in fact, Arabs in some sense were armed better, but it was a dramatic difference in morale and values which pre-determined Israeli's victories. Israelis had Panfilov's roll call during Yom Kippur War, Arabs didn't. Paradoxically, in 2006 when IDF encountered motivated Hezbollah fighters at Wadi Saluki in 2006 they learned (again) what it means to have a good morale. I will abstain here from commenting on Russians' approach to war, but making Armed Forces "professional" (sure, before that they all were amateur) is only a part, and by far not the largest, of the answer.
    , @Carroll Price

    Patriotism, morale, values, etc. etc., that The Saker seems to be so obsessed with have zilch to do with anything. (Though military types in America, Russia, and most other countries do tend to be far more patriotic than average, of course).
     
    The misnamed American civil war serves as a good example of what patriotism (the real kind as opposed to flag-wavers) and morale does for well-led armies. Nothing else accounts for the fact that Southern forces routinely won battle after battle while being outnumbered three, and often, four times to one by an army vastly over-supplied with superior weapons and food of every description.
    , @Anonymous
    Anatoly, quit playing so many video games.

    In real life, people dont want to die for wars for the Jews. Morale plays a huge part in all warfare. And while there is a core of soldiers who will fight no matter what, it is nieve to expect modern day millenials to try to sustain a long and bloody war.
  120. Randal says:
    @Miro23

    Yes, seems to me this was a calculated gamble for the highest stakes by Putin, and I think he must have known that once he went all in there would be no further option to fold under US pressure that wouldn’t be disastrous for Russia and for him, personally. I suspect he decided at the time that he would take it all the way if necessary.
     
    I'm not sure about that one. If you wind back the clock, Putin was invited into Syria to help the Syrian army deal with an ISIS insurgency. This was quite straightforward, especially since the US also (officially) opposed ISIS.

    Maybe Putin didn't expect Trump & the Ziocons to switch so fast to "regime change" in Syria - although they probably did so precisely because they were secretly backing ISIS to topple Assad and saw that their team was starting to lose.

    In fact, the US just made plain that it planned all along for the destruction of Syria ("regime change") and Russia was getting in the way. I don't think that Putin made any kind of calculated gamble - he was just taken by surprise by the two faced action of the US and now has to find a way out without losing face.

    There's no point in Putin giving the Ziocons the pretext to start WW3 when the US is already on the point of (economic ) collapse, and will probably have to shut down most of its bases anyway - although there's still the possibility that the US could be False Flagged into an attack on Russia (a suspicion here that the MSM is building up the fake Russia story in the same way that they built up the fake Iraqi WMD story prior to the 9/11 "event").

    I’m not sure about that one. If you wind back the clock, Putin was invited into Syria to help the Syrian army deal with an ISIS insurgency. This was quite straightforward, especially since the US also (officially) opposed ISIS.

    Clearly we viewed those events differently. 2014/15 saw a string of defeats for the government at the hands of the various externally backed terrorist groups, and increasingly open interference and threats of direct intervention by the terrorists’ external backers, especially the US and Turkey. Idlib fell, the southern border areas fell, Palmyra fell.

    I saw the US using attacking IS as another pretext for increasingly direct involvement in Syria during 2015, while making ever louder noises about direct intervention in support of their own terrorists, and I saw the Russian decision to go “all in” as a direct response to that. The Russians used attacking IS as their own pretext just as the US had, but the main motivation was to prevent the fall of the Syrian government and to lock out the then very real possibility of a “no fly zone” or similar direct intervention by the US or Turkey. It was touch and go for a while but in the end the main threat was averted, the government was stabilised and the ground was set for the current advances and the final defeat of IS, at least as a territory-holding quasi-state in its current form.

    Maybe Putin didn’t expect Trump & the Ziocons to switch so fast to “regime change” in Syria – although they probably did so precisely because they were secretly backing ISIS to topple Assad and saw that their team was starting to lose.

    In fact, the US just made plain that it planned all along for the destruction of Syria (“regime change”) and Russia was getting in the way. I don’t think that Putin made any kind of calculated gamble – he was just taken by surprise by the two faced action of the US and now has to find a way out without losing face.

    It was always obvious that the Syrian rebellion was a regime change operation backed by the US and its regional proxies. I don’t think there’s any way Putin was surprised by that aspect. I think he’s occasionally been surprised at just how barefacedly dishonest and nakedly hostile the US has been willing to be, but not to the extent of it affecting his strategic considerations.

    I think it’s easy to overstate IS’s importance in all this from a hindsight pov.

    There’s no point in Putin giving the Ziocons the pretext to start WW3 when the US is already on the point of (economic ) collapse, and will probably have to shut down most of its bases anyway

    And there’s no point giving them such a pretext when the Russians and Syrians are winning on the ground anyway and don’t need to respond to US provocations such as its illegal and murderous attacks on Syrian forces, so long as those attacks remain more symbolic than effective.

    That’s, imo, the real reason why there’s been no military response to the US’s recent provocations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JL
    Not many people seem to know this, but Russia had plans to intervene in Syria as early as fall of 2013, and perhaps even earlier. I believe the aggressiveness pursued by the US in Ukraine was partly an attempt to preempt Russia in Syria, because otherwise options were quite limited. In the event, it only served to delay.

    The Russians used attacking IS as their own pretext just as the US had, but the main motivation was to prevent the fall of the Syrian government
     
    I don't believe Russia ever used the pretext of attacking IS, solely, for its actions in Syria. Putin was very upfront at the beginning of the Syria campaign about Russia's goals, in a 60 Minutes interview when he participated in the UN General Assembly. He said that Assad's enemies were terrorists, whoever they were, and that is who Russia would be fighting. IS was never singled out.
  121. @Anatoly Karlin
    Avery is correct here, and this...

    ... Russian forces are highly patriotic, unlike US forces, who are in the military predominantly for the benefits and early retirement.
     
    ... is complete nonsense.

    The Russian military in Syria is every bit as much a "mercentary" army as the American one. And it's far better for it.

    In the first round of the Russian Army's professionalization, when salaries were low, recruitment targets weren't met and volunteers were poor quality, who as a rule couldn't find employment anywhere else.

    After military salaries were increased to a level much higher than civilian alternatives, the quality of volunteers increased greatly, to the point that the Russian Army are now the fine-honed professionals that we saw in Crimea and now Syria.

    Patriotism, morale, values, etc. etc., that The Saker seems to be so obsessed with have zilch to do with anything. (Though military types in America, Russia, and most other countries do tend to be far more patriotic than average, of course).

    Patriotism, morale, values, etc. etc., that The Saker seems to be so obsessed with have zilch to do with anything.

    But they do. I would be really unoriginal by stating Napoleon’s dictum (one of), such as this: In war, moral factors acount for three quarters of the whole; relative material strength accounts for only one quarter. , but Napoleon had the point. Discipline, combat cohesion, in the end–professionalism–are all parts of a morale of the unit (troops). In the end, morale is a critical operational factor–enough to look at Israeli-Arab wars to understand this. This wasn’t the technological disparity between sides, of which there was none, in fact, Arabs in some sense were armed better, but it was a dramatic difference in morale and values which pre-determined Israeli’s victories. Israelis had Panfilov’s roll call during Yom Kippur War, Arabs didn’t. Paradoxically, in 2006 when IDF encountered motivated Hezbollah fighters at Wadi Saluki in 2006 they learned (again) what it means to have a good morale. I will abstain here from commenting on Russians’ approach to war, but making Armed Forces “professional” (sure, before that they all were amateur) is only a part, and by far not the largest, of the answer.

    Read More
    • Agree: Sergey Krieger
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    Military imho should consist both of professionals and drafties to keep general population engaged. To avoid what happened to Romans who became so distant from military service that draft in time of need was plainly impossible. It may be considered strategically moral part which is important. Professional core with considerable draftee part.
    , @Seamus Padraig
    Consider also the Vietnam War. How did lightly armed Vietnamese manage to defeat the a super power like the US? Morale wasn't the only factor, of course; but was definitely not irrelevant.
    , @MarkinLA
    In war, moral factors acount for three quarters of the whole; relative material strength accounts for only one quarter. ,

    Yes in 1810 when all you had was smooth bore horse drawn cannons and smooth bore muskets that were inaccurate past 100 meters. Most wars ultimately had to be settled up close and personal in hand to hand combat with bayoneted rifles and sabers.

    Not anymore when you don't even see the guy you are killing. The issue of why modern armies don't defeat insurgents as in Israel or Vietnam is because the invading army doesn't do like they did hundreds of years ago and kill everything in its path like they are capable of.

    You really have to look at military history to see how relatively soft modern wars are. In medieval times it was quite common to simply kill all the men and rape all the women. There was one instance when some king sent his army to take another kingdom and lost. The first king paid the ransom to get his army back. When he tried it again, he lost his whole army. The other king blinded 99 out of 100 men and let the 100th keep one eye so he could lead the blind men back home. This was the only way to make sure that his kingdom was at least safe from attack for another 30 years or so.
  122. @Quartermaster

    I have better use for my time and money than to subscribe to that rubbish
     
    Yep. Your time is taken up producing your own rubbish

    The only AngloZionist boots on the ground that matter are Daesh & Co
     
    Yep. Wholly owned subsidiary. That's why the west is supporting the destruction of Daesh & Co. But those "AngloZionists" really have all this thought out and planned thoroughly. It's all those dirty Jooooos!

    Any Russian Soldier that wants to believe Saker's advertising is in for a very rude awakening.

    Saker thinks the DPRK is somehow going to threaten South Korea? He needs to learn a bit about the ROK Army. A ROK army against the troops of a backward country that can't even feed itself? Saker, you reveal your ignorance more everytime you post your rubbish.

    More disinformation from Saker. He can't even get the implications of My Lai right.

    Your comments on the two Koreas require a short review of history. Koreans who fought the Japanese colonialists were halted from reuniting the country by US intervention at the 38th parallel. The US placed into power Korean collaborators of the previous Japanese occupiers, a fascist government in the southern part of the country.

    The DPRK had the support of China and the Soviet Union, which fought the US and allies to a stalemate, ending in an armistice, with no peace treaty in sight after more than sixty years.

    The US and its allies continued very aggressive military exercises at spring planting and harvest seasons. This triggered massive military mobilizations in North Korea (not unreasonable after almost every building in every city had been flattened by US bombing), decreasing manpower available to plant rice. Requests to shift the military exercises by ROK and US forces were ignored. This was clearly an artificially created famine, you might want to call it an act of war.

    This led to a massive push to develop nuclear weapons (successfully despite all obstacles). This has greatly reduced DPRK mobilizations. There have been no famines since.

    The people in North Korea are probably the most traumatized on earth by US bombing, as well as hybrid warfare at almost every level. There are very few countries that have successfully held the US empire at bay for so long, a rather amazing feat for such a small country.

    Growth in per capita GDP during the 1960s and early 70′s was actually higher in the DPRK than ROK. The DPRK has been dragged down by the highest per capita military expenditures in the world and the collapse of the Soviet Union, its second most important trading partner.

    The ROK economic boom is mostly due to massive foreign investment in the early 1980′s. It is also a political show piece for Wall Street (just avoid looking in any depth if you do not want to be disappointed).

    The DPRK is far less backward than suggested.

    Read More
  123. Rurik says:
    @utu
    So long as he has a back-door channel to Putin

    Putin receives former U.S. diplomat Kissinger in Kremlin
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-kissinger-idUSKBN19K2QN

    U.S. Retreats From Al-Tanf - Gives Up On Occupying South East Syria
    http://www.moonofalabama.org

    U.S. Retreats From Al-Tanf – Gives Up On Occupying South East Syria

    the second picture in the link with the caption is funny

    what I’d like to think is going on in a cabinet meeting:

    ‘well, we’re quietly quitting Syria, and this is sure to piss off the deepstate and their media. So I’m going to swat their predicable hornet’s nest with an inane tweet about how ugly one of their plastic ‘journalists’ are, and send them into a frenzy demanding impeachment. This is so predictable that I’m embarrassed, but I’m going to do it anyways, and then they’ll be so obsessed over my tweet they won’t even notice we’re leaving Syria.’

    that’s what I’d like to think is going on

    Read More
  124. @idealogus
    Somebody already said it but I tell again. In case of conflict with USA, Rusia must supply modern weapon to taliban, to irakies insurgents, to sirian, to libyans, to North Korean, to Yemen etc. etc. Big headache to americans.

    Somebody already said it but I tell again. In case of conflict with USA, Rusia must supply modern weapon to taliban

    This is really a dumb idea, like really-really dumb.

    Read More
  125. Rurik says:
    @Carroll Price
    Just one problem. Trumps got a Jewish son-in-law living in the house with him and half-Jewish grandkids sitting on his knee. When push comes to shove, who's side do you think he'll be on?

    who’s side do you think he’ll be on?

    I don’t know Carroll

    But I suspect he wants it both ways. I suspect he’s trying to avoid ‘push comes to shove’, and would prefer for Israel to stay satisfied with murdering a few Pals here and there, and stealing more and more land, without causing an international crisis. So far he hasn’t moved the embassy, so I have my hopes.

    I suspect he wants to go down in history a great president, (his ego and all). A war with Russia would probably not add to his legacy, so I suspect he’d rather avoid that.

    I suspect he’s concerned with the US economy for now, and just wishes all the other special interests would just take a back seat, but of course we can only imagine the screeching that’s being done in his ear. ‘Assad has to go!!’ ‘Iran needs regime change!!’ Blah, blah, blah..

    So far, so good..

    Read More
  126. Rurik says:
    @annamaria
    "WE must scream to the politicians – NO WAR!"

    Israel cares not about Americans and their voices: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/06/syrian-update-ttg.htmlm
    Israelis' support for ISIS / Al Qaeda: "In addition to the broad offensive to the east, the R+6 is engaged with the jihadists formerly known as Al Qaeda at Quneitra near the Golan Heights. ... The jihadists in this area have received substantial logistical and medical support from the Israelis. Over the last few days, they have also also received Israeli tactical air support from IAF F-16s and armed drones. These air attacks were aimed largely against the SAA artillery positions in the area."

    As they have been squeaking loudly at the Pentagon "War and Terror" and "Support the Troops in a war against Al Qaeda..." Today, the American taxpayers' money go to finance Al Qaeda via Israel. Only in the US. The Israel-occupied Congress joyfully channels the citizens' money to Israel and war profiteers.
    https://www.businessinsider.com.au/israel-grants-golan-heights-oil-license-2013-2#AorvhlgY7US2W4JK.99
    "Israel has granted a U.S. company the first licence to explore for oil and gas in the occupied Golan Heights...A local subsidiary of the New York-listed company Genie Energy — which is advised by former vice president Dick Cheney and whose shareholders include Jacob Rothschild and Rupert Murdoch — will now have exclusive rights to a 153-square mile radius in the southern part of the Golan Heights."
    Syrians have been slaughtered in order to enrich Dick Cheney, Jacob Rothschild, Rupert Murdoch, Netanyahu and such

    …the Golan Heights.”
    Syrians have been slaughtered in order to enrich Dick Cheney, Jacob Rothschild, Rupert Murdoch, Netanyahu and such

    I believe this is what the Syrian thing is all about. Destroying Syria (a la Libya) so that Israel can steal the Golan heights and also isolate Hezbollah and Lebanon from Iran.

    They’re trying to create a new world order with Israel as the de-facto center of power, and NATO as their rabid dog/enforcement. So far it looks like it’s working, right up until Trump. We all know that Hillary would have been Israeli’s bitch. Right now it seems uncertain with Trump.

    Read More
  127. JL says:
    @Randal

    I’m not sure about that one. If you wind back the clock, Putin was invited into Syria to help the Syrian army deal with an ISIS insurgency. This was quite straightforward, especially since the US also (officially) opposed ISIS.
     
    Clearly we viewed those events differently. 2014/15 saw a string of defeats for the government at the hands of the various externally backed terrorist groups, and increasingly open interference and threats of direct intervention by the terrorists' external backers, especially the US and Turkey. Idlib fell, the southern border areas fell, Palmyra fell.

    I saw the US using attacking IS as another pretext for increasingly direct involvement in Syria during 2015, while making ever louder noises about direct intervention in support of their own terrorists, and I saw the Russian decision to go "all in" as a direct response to that. The Russians used attacking IS as their own pretext just as the US had, but the main motivation was to prevent the fall of the Syrian government and to lock out the then very real possibility of a "no fly zone" or similar direct intervention by the US or Turkey. It was touch and go for a while but in the end the main threat was averted, the government was stabilised and the ground was set for the current advances and the final defeat of IS, at least as a territory-holding quasi-state in its current form.

    Maybe Putin didn’t expect Trump & the Ziocons to switch so fast to “regime change” in Syria – although they probably did so precisely because they were secretly backing ISIS to topple Assad and saw that their team was starting to lose.

    In fact, the US just made plain that it planned all along for the destruction of Syria (“regime change”) and Russia was getting in the way. I don’t think that Putin made any kind of calculated gamble – he was just taken by surprise by the two faced action of the US and now has to find a way out without losing face.
     
    It was always obvious that the Syrian rebellion was a regime change operation backed by the US and its regional proxies. I don't think there's any way Putin was surprised by that aspect. I think he's occasionally been surprised at just how barefacedly dishonest and nakedly hostile the US has been willing to be, but not to the extent of it affecting his strategic considerations.

    I think it's easy to overstate IS's importance in all this from a hindsight pov.

    There’s no point in Putin giving the Ziocons the pretext to start WW3 when the US is already on the point of (economic ) collapse, and will probably have to shut down most of its bases anyway
     
    And there's no point giving them such a pretext when the Russians and Syrians are winning on the ground anyway and don't need to respond to US provocations such as its illegal and murderous attacks on Syrian forces, so long as those attacks remain more symbolic than effective.

    That's, imo, the real reason why there's been no military response to the US's recent provocations.

    Not many people seem to know this, but Russia had plans to intervene in Syria as early as fall of 2013, and perhaps even earlier. I believe the aggressiveness pursued by the US in Ukraine was partly an attempt to preempt Russia in Syria, because otherwise options were quite limited. In the event, it only served to delay.

    The Russians used attacking IS as their own pretext just as the US had, but the main motivation was to prevent the fall of the Syrian government

    I don’t believe Russia ever used the pretext of attacking IS, solely, for its actions in Syria. Putin was very upfront at the beginning of the Syria campaign about Russia’s goals, in a 60 Minutes interview when he participated in the UN General Assembly. He said that Assad’s enemies were terrorists, whoever they were, and that is who Russia would be fighting. IS was never singled out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Your synopsis needs mentioning the details of geography re radical jihadis. Up to date the US is implementing a program of preventing emigration from Middle East to protect the US from probable terrorist acts. Russia has the radical jihadis at her southern borders. Ukraine or no Ukraine, Russian Federation needs protection from the spread of terrorism that has been spawned and nurtured by the US/Israel policies. Syria sovereignty (hated rabid by Israel and Israel-firsters) is the necessary factor of that protection.
    PS: the loud squeaking of MSM about Russia's alleged interference into other countries affairs is particularly ridiculous considering the open intervention of the US State Dept. and the CIA into the state affairs of Ukraine in 2014.
    , @utu
    I think your analysis is correct. Russia was very upfront about its engagement in Syria. Intervention planning started when Libya fell. Putin was outraged. He watched the video of Gaddafi murder several times. There would be no more Libyas.

    Fighting the so called terrorists was never a real motive just like securing Syria for some oil pipelines projects was never a real motive for Russia just like it is not for America. The motive of terrorism is for MSM gullible public. The motive of oil and pipelines is for the armchair conspiracy theorists.
  128. @Andrei Martyanov

    Somebody already said it but I tell again. In case of conflict with USA, Rusia must supply modern weapon to taliban
     
    This is really a dumb idea, like really-really dumb.

    Essentially to become like USA. Not good .

    Read More
  129. @Anatoly Karlin
    Avery is correct here, and this...

    ... Russian forces are highly patriotic, unlike US forces, who are in the military predominantly for the benefits and early retirement.
     
    ... is complete nonsense.

    The Russian military in Syria is every bit as much a "mercentary" army as the American one. And it's far better for it.

    In the first round of the Russian Army's professionalization, when salaries were low, recruitment targets weren't met and volunteers were poor quality, who as a rule couldn't find employment anywhere else.

    After military salaries were increased to a level much higher than civilian alternatives, the quality of volunteers increased greatly, to the point that the Russian Army are now the fine-honed professionals that we saw in Crimea and now Syria.

    Patriotism, morale, values, etc. etc., that The Saker seems to be so obsessed with have zilch to do with anything. (Though military types in America, Russia, and most other countries do tend to be far more patriotic than average, of course).

    Patriotism, morale, values, etc. etc., that The Saker seems to be so obsessed with have zilch to do with anything. (Though military types in America, Russia, and most other countries do tend to be far more patriotic than average, of course).

    The misnamed American civil war serves as a good example of what patriotism (the real kind as opposed to flag-wavers) and morale does for well-led armies. Nothing else accounts for the fact that Southern forces routinely won battle after battle while being outnumbered three, and often, four times to one by an army vastly over-supplied with superior weapons and food of every description.

    Read More
  130. @Andrei Martyanov

    Patriotism, morale, values, etc. etc., that The Saker seems to be so obsessed with have zilch to do with anything.
     
    But they do. I would be really unoriginal by stating Napoleon's dictum (one of), such as this: In war, moral factors acount for three quarters of the whole; relative material strength accounts for only one quarter. , but Napoleon had the point. Discipline, combat cohesion, in the end--professionalism--are all parts of a morale of the unit (troops). In the end, morale is a critical operational factor--enough to look at Israeli-Arab wars to understand this. This wasn't the technological disparity between sides, of which there was none, in fact, Arabs in some sense were armed better, but it was a dramatic difference in morale and values which pre-determined Israeli's victories. Israelis had Panfilov's roll call during Yom Kippur War, Arabs didn't. Paradoxically, in 2006 when IDF encountered motivated Hezbollah fighters at Wadi Saluki in 2006 they learned (again) what it means to have a good morale. I will abstain here from commenting on Russians' approach to war, but making Armed Forces "professional" (sure, before that they all were amateur) is only a part, and by far not the largest, of the answer.

    Military imho should consist both of professionals and drafties to keep general population engaged. To avoid what happened to Romans who became so distant from military service that draft in time of need was plainly impossible. It may be considered strategically moral part which is important. Professional core with considerable draftee part.

    Read More
    • Agree: Andrei Martyanov
    • Replies: @kemerd
    that is also the reason why empires rely on mercenaries.

    It is possible to convince ordinary draftees to fight for defending their homeland but when it comes to attacking and (possibly) dying for some imperial goals thousands of kms away from home, the parents, uncles/aunts of these draftees would balk as well as draftees themselves.

    That is also why think you are absolutely right. That, any military must be mostly composed of ordinary people; serving their armies for few months for the genuine goal of protecting their nation, as such a force would not be useful for anything else.

    I am turkish, and I am convinced that the only reason Erdogan did/could not dive into Syria with full force when his proxies started to lose was that most of the Turkish army is composed of draftees and Turkish people are deeply opposed to any imperial adventures, possibly resulting in his government collapsing and he ending up in jail for life, if not get killed by some patriot.
  131. Joey Zaza says:

    Training to become a U.S navy pilot takes a minimum of three to five years, while the cost of a U.S fighter plane averages 18 to 30 million dollars.

    The cost of a Russian anti aircraft missile, by comparison, is about the same as a packet of Oreos and Russian armament factories turn them out a dozen a day.

    Its this simple equation that represents a terrible attritional cost for U.S forces, how many pilots and planes can you afford to lose to such simple and cheap technology?

    Its not that the Americans wont want to fight because they will, its the terrible cost of losing such expensive hardware and valuable pilots on every sortie that will eventually do it for them.

    Russia does not need to win in any confrontation with U.S forces, its enough just to make them bleed.

    Read More
  132. @Mongrel
    IMO, a massive US attack to gain air superiority in Syria is completely unrealistic for the following reasons among others:

    1. If an aircraft carrier takes part in the attack, if could be sunk by the Russians with moral justification. Sinking an aircraft carrier would cause the dollar to plummet by revealing the phony nature of American military might.

    2. The Russians could lose their entire Syrian forces and the larger military balance would not be affected in the short run, nor would the Russian regime be threatened by internal revolution. If the US lost significant numbers of aircraft, especially F-35’s and/or F-22’s, it would be a US disaster. There would be no hiding from the US public that we are at war for no discernable purpose. The sleepwalking goyim could very well take their eyes off Kim Kardashian’s ass and the Trump circus and wake up. The political effects are utterly unpredictable.

    3. Russia and China could announce an international gold standard, effectively removing a major source of US income via dollar creation. With US inflation raging, military cutbacks would ensue, kicking off a downward spiral for the ZUSA empire.

    4. War in Syria would precipitate a US financial crisis, because US markets are held aloft with smoke and mirrors. We have runaway federal debt, states about to default, a pension crisis, and a consumer debt crisis. When this thing blows, the 2000 crash will look like a picnic. Unemployment will skyrocket from an already high level, and the deep state will be fighting off multiple Occupy Wall Street-like movements. Sure hope those new surveillance tools work well, ‘cause the deep state is gonna need ‘em.

    Of course, empires often show the brains of a dinosaur. Did the Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and German empires plan to disappear when they entered WWI?

    Of course, empires often show the brains of a dinosaur. Did the Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and German empires plan to disappear when they entered WWI?

    That’s exactly what worries me.

    Read More
  133. Rurik says:

    ..how many pilots and planes can you afford to lose to such simple and cheap technology?

    .., its the terrible cost of losing such expensive hardware and valuable pilots on every sortie that will eventually do it for them.

    Russia does not need to win in any confrontation with U.S forces, its enough just to make them bleed.

    there’s nothing the MIC loves more than seeing all that expensive hardware blown up, because then it need$ to be replaced!

    like the Huey helicopters shot down in Vietnam, these war pigs/profiteers are salivating over a major war expecting there to be massive loss of expensive hardware. They’re counting on it!

    do you actually believe that the US Senate (or house for that matter) gives a rip about American lives or American dollars?! They work for banksters who love American debt.

    There’s nothing a bankster loves more than war!

    and the fecal government works for these banksters and the MIC

    John McBloodstain’s entire career has been nothing short of a zio-lobbyist for the MIC

    they’re drooling over a major war for massive profit$, and they couldn’t give one **** about the loss of American pilot’s lives any more than they care about the millions of lives ended or destroyed in their ongoing Eternal War$Ⓤ. It’s all about money and power to these psychopaths, and it’s up to the rest of us to keep them from getting what they really want.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "...government works for these banksters and the MIC."
    Right on. This is the root of all evils.
  134. @Andrei Martyanov

    Patriotism, morale, values, etc. etc., that The Saker seems to be so obsessed with have zilch to do with anything.
     
    But they do. I would be really unoriginal by stating Napoleon's dictum (one of), such as this: In war, moral factors acount for three quarters of the whole; relative material strength accounts for only one quarter. , but Napoleon had the point. Discipline, combat cohesion, in the end--professionalism--are all parts of a morale of the unit (troops). In the end, morale is a critical operational factor--enough to look at Israeli-Arab wars to understand this. This wasn't the technological disparity between sides, of which there was none, in fact, Arabs in some sense were armed better, but it was a dramatic difference in morale and values which pre-determined Israeli's victories. Israelis had Panfilov's roll call during Yom Kippur War, Arabs didn't. Paradoxically, in 2006 when IDF encountered motivated Hezbollah fighters at Wadi Saluki in 2006 they learned (again) what it means to have a good morale. I will abstain here from commenting on Russians' approach to war, but making Armed Forces "professional" (sure, before that they all were amateur) is only a part, and by far not the largest, of the answer.

    Consider also the Vietnam War. How did lightly armed Vietnamese manage to defeat the a super power like the US? Morale wasn’t the only factor, of course; but was definitely not irrelevant.

    Read More
    • Agree: Andrei Martyanov
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    It has more to do with what the people back home think than anything happening on the battlefield - same as with Britain during the US Revolutionary War. There is no way the US becomes independent if the people in Britain really decide that the colonies must stay under British rule.
  135. annamaria says:
    @JL
    Not many people seem to know this, but Russia had plans to intervene in Syria as early as fall of 2013, and perhaps even earlier. I believe the aggressiveness pursued by the US in Ukraine was partly an attempt to preempt Russia in Syria, because otherwise options were quite limited. In the event, it only served to delay.

    The Russians used attacking IS as their own pretext just as the US had, but the main motivation was to prevent the fall of the Syrian government
     
    I don't believe Russia ever used the pretext of attacking IS, solely, for its actions in Syria. Putin was very upfront at the beginning of the Syria campaign about Russia's goals, in a 60 Minutes interview when he participated in the UN General Assembly. He said that Assad's enemies were terrorists, whoever they were, and that is who Russia would be fighting. IS was never singled out.

    Your synopsis needs mentioning the details of geography re radical jihadis. Up to date the US is implementing a program of preventing emigration from Middle East to protect the US from probable terrorist acts. Russia has the radical jihadis at her southern borders. Ukraine or no Ukraine, Russian Federation needs protection from the spread of terrorism that has been spawned and nurtured by the US/Israel policies. Syria sovereignty (hated rabid by Israel and Israel-firsters) is the necessary factor of that protection.
    PS: the loud squeaking of MSM about Russia’s alleged interference into other countries affairs is particularly ridiculous considering the open intervention of the US State Dept. and the CIA into the state affairs of Ukraine in 2014.

    Read More
  136. annamaria says:
    @Rurik

    ..how many pilots and planes can you afford to lose to such simple and cheap technology?

    .., its the terrible cost of losing such expensive hardware and valuable pilots on every sortie that will eventually do it for them.

    Russia does not need to win in any confrontation with U.S forces, its enough just to make them bleed.
     
    there's nothing the MIC loves more than seeing all that expensive hardware blown up, because then it need$ to be replaced!

    like the Huey helicopters shot down in Vietnam, these war pigs/profiteers are salivating over a major war expecting there to be massive loss of expensive hardware. They're counting on it!

    do you actually believe that the US Senate (or house for that matter) gives a rip about American lives or American dollars?! They work for banksters who love American debt.

    There's nothing a bankster loves more than war!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiN1xHaNDJ0

    and the fecal government works for these banksters and the MIC

    John McBloodstain's entire career has been nothing short of a zio-lobbyist for the MIC

    they're drooling over a major war for massive profit$, and they couldn't give one **** about the loss of American pilot's lives any more than they care about the millions of lives ended or destroyed in their ongoing Eternal War$Ⓤ. It's all about money and power to these psychopaths, and it's up to the rest of us to keep them from getting what they really want.

    “…government works for these banksters and the MIC.”
    Right on. This is the root of all evils.

    Read More
  137. MarkinLA says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Patriotism, morale, values, etc. etc., that The Saker seems to be so obsessed with have zilch to do with anything.
     
    But they do. I would be really unoriginal by stating Napoleon's dictum (one of), such as this: In war, moral factors acount for three quarters of the whole; relative material strength accounts for only one quarter. , but Napoleon had the point. Discipline, combat cohesion, in the end--professionalism--are all parts of a morale of the unit (troops). In the end, morale is a critical operational factor--enough to look at Israeli-Arab wars to understand this. This wasn't the technological disparity between sides, of which there was none, in fact, Arabs in some sense were armed better, but it was a dramatic difference in morale and values which pre-determined Israeli's victories. Israelis had Panfilov's roll call during Yom Kippur War, Arabs didn't. Paradoxically, in 2006 when IDF encountered motivated Hezbollah fighters at Wadi Saluki in 2006 they learned (again) what it means to have a good morale. I will abstain here from commenting on Russians' approach to war, but making Armed Forces "professional" (sure, before that they all were amateur) is only a part, and by far not the largest, of the answer.

    In war, moral factors acount for three quarters of the whole; relative material strength accounts for only one quarter. ,

    Yes in 1810 when all you had was smooth bore horse drawn cannons and smooth bore muskets that were inaccurate past 100 meters. Most wars ultimately had to be settled up close and personal in hand to hand combat with bayoneted rifles and sabers.

    Not anymore when you don’t even see the guy you are killing. The issue of why modern armies don’t defeat insurgents as in Israel or Vietnam is because the invading army doesn’t do like they did hundreds of years ago and kill everything in its path like they are capable of.

    You really have to look at military history to see how relatively soft modern wars are. In medieval times it was quite common to simply kill all the men and rape all the women. There was one instance when some king sent his army to take another kingdom and lost. The first king paid the ransom to get his army back. When he tried it again, he lost his whole army. The other king blinded 99 out of 100 men and let the 100th keep one eye so he could lead the blind men back home. This was the only way to make sure that his kingdom was at least safe from attack for another 30 years or so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Yes in 1810
     
    Last time I checked, Israeli defeat came in 2006 very up close and personal: Hezbollah fighters + Kornet ATGMs. We all know the result.

    Not anymore when you don’t even see the guy you are killing.
     
    Try to operate under fire or from the base which sustained attack from the air--then we may talk. Of course, there are other things such as fight for survivability in the struck by missile (mine, shells, shahid etc.) ship, where darkness, smoke, fires, screams of wounded people, body parts etc. are prominently featured, but if you say so. There are many other things too, of course. It is not really a pleasant feeling of knowing that there is some sort of munition with your name on it and this feeling, for some reason, remains unchanged be it in 1810, 1812, 1861, 1914 or 1943 with 2017--just doesn't want to go away.

    You really have to look at military history
     
    That is one of very few things which I do constantly, since very young years, and with great attention to details. There is a reason I think (not me alone) that War And Peace is the greatest war book ever written. Meanwhile Clausewitz is being studied even today in any serious military academy or war college.
    , @Brother Ma
    The King that did the blinding was the Byzantine Greek emperor B
    asil the Bulgarslayer around 1000AD.The army he blinded was that of czar of Bulgarians as Basil's name suggests. The Bulgarian czar was so heartbroken at seeing long lines of his totally blind soldiers coming back as invalids that he died of a heartattack.
  138. MarkinLA says:
    @Seamus Padraig
    Consider also the Vietnam War. How did lightly armed Vietnamese manage to defeat the a super power like the US? Morale wasn't the only factor, of course; but was definitely not irrelevant.

    It has more to do with what the people back home think than anything happening on the battlefield – same as with Britain during the US Revolutionary War. There is no way the US becomes independent if the people in Britain really decide that the colonies must stay under British rule.

    Read More
  139. @MarkinLA
    In war, moral factors acount for three quarters of the whole; relative material strength accounts for only one quarter. ,

    Yes in 1810 when all you had was smooth bore horse drawn cannons and smooth bore muskets that were inaccurate past 100 meters. Most wars ultimately had to be settled up close and personal in hand to hand combat with bayoneted rifles and sabers.

    Not anymore when you don't even see the guy you are killing. The issue of why modern armies don't defeat insurgents as in Israel or Vietnam is because the invading army doesn't do like they did hundreds of years ago and kill everything in its path like they are capable of.

    You really have to look at military history to see how relatively soft modern wars are. In medieval times it was quite common to simply kill all the men and rape all the women. There was one instance when some king sent his army to take another kingdom and lost. The first king paid the ransom to get his army back. When he tried it again, he lost his whole army. The other king blinded 99 out of 100 men and let the 100th keep one eye so he could lead the blind men back home. This was the only way to make sure that his kingdom was at least safe from attack for another 30 years or so.

    Yes in 1810

    Last time I checked, Israeli defeat came in 2006 very up close and personal: Hezbollah fighters + Kornet ATGMs. We all know the result.

    Not anymore when you don’t even see the guy you are killing.

    Try to operate under fire or from the base which sustained attack from the air–then we may talk. Of course, there are other things such as fight for survivability in the struck by missile (mine, shells, shahid etc.) ship, where darkness, smoke, fires, screams of wounded people, body parts etc. are prominently featured, but if you say so. There are many other things too, of course. It is not really a pleasant feeling of knowing that there is some sort of munition with your name on it and this feeling, for some reason, remains unchanged be it in 1810, 1812, 1861, 1914 or 1943 with 2017–just doesn’t want to go away.

    You really have to look at military history

    That is one of very few things which I do constantly, since very young years, and with great attention to details. There is a reason I think (not me alone) that War And Peace is the greatest war book ever written. Meanwhile Clausewitz is being studied even today in any serious military academy or war college.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    You seem to have left out the part where I mentioned the level of brutality of the invaders and whether or not they gave a damn about the people they are killing. The issue was how much the moral of the armies meant in a fight. The Israelis simply didn't kill everybody - civilians included as they could have, just as the US could have simply depopulated Vietnam.

    I am not saying they should or should not have, only that the moral of the troops is less important today when the weapons are so much more lethal.
  140. MarkinLA says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Yes in 1810
     
    Last time I checked, Israeli defeat came in 2006 very up close and personal: Hezbollah fighters + Kornet ATGMs. We all know the result.

    Not anymore when you don’t even see the guy you are killing.
     
    Try to operate under fire or from the base which sustained attack from the air--then we may talk. Of course, there are other things such as fight for survivability in the struck by missile (mine, shells, shahid etc.) ship, where darkness, smoke, fires, screams of wounded people, body parts etc. are prominently featured, but if you say so. There are many other things too, of course. It is not really a pleasant feeling of knowing that there is some sort of munition with your name on it and this feeling, for some reason, remains unchanged be it in 1810, 1812, 1861, 1914 or 1943 with 2017--just doesn't want to go away.

    You really have to look at military history
     
    That is one of very few things which I do constantly, since very young years, and with great attention to details. There is a reason I think (not me alone) that War And Peace is the greatest war book ever written. Meanwhile Clausewitz is being studied even today in any serious military academy or war college.

    You seem to have left out the part where I mentioned the level of brutality of the invaders and whether or not they gave a damn about the people they are killing. The issue was how much the moral of the armies meant in a fight. The Israelis simply didn’t kill everybody – civilians included as they could have, just as the US could have simply depopulated Vietnam.

    I am not saying they should or should not have, only that the moral of the troops is less important today when the weapons are so much more lethal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    only that the moral of the troops is less important today when the weapons are so much more lethal.
     
    Well, you are free to think whatever you want, but I disagree with you on the most fundamental level.
    , @Sergey Krieger
    Were Germans not brutal enough in the Soviet Union? How come they lost?
  141. @MarkinLA
    You seem to have left out the part where I mentioned the level of brutality of the invaders and whether or not they gave a damn about the people they are killing. The issue was how much the moral of the armies meant in a fight. The Israelis simply didn't kill everybody - civilians included as they could have, just as the US could have simply depopulated Vietnam.

    I am not saying they should or should not have, only that the moral of the troops is less important today when the weapons are so much more lethal.

    only that the moral of the troops is less important today when the weapons are so much more lethal.

    Well, you are free to think whatever you want, but I disagree with you on the most fundamental level.

    Read More
  142. @MarkinLA
    You seem to have left out the part where I mentioned the level of brutality of the invaders and whether or not they gave a damn about the people they are killing. The issue was how much the moral of the armies meant in a fight. The Israelis simply didn't kill everybody - civilians included as they could have, just as the US could have simply depopulated Vietnam.

    I am not saying they should or should not have, only that the moral of the troops is less important today when the weapons are so much more lethal.

    Were Germans not brutal enough in the Soviet Union? How come they lost?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    They lost in a war of attrition that they never could win. Russia is too big and there were too many Russians to kill for them to win. They did, however, have a much lower casualty rate than the Russians.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    A case of Soviet munitioning superiority overcoming Germany's advantage in morale and competence.

    Had Germany moved to a war economy in 1940, instead of 1943, it is difficult to see how it could have lost.
  143. MarkinLA says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    Were Germans not brutal enough in the Soviet Union? How come they lost?

    They lost in a war of attrition that they never could win. Russia is too big and there were too many Russians to kill for them to win. They did, however, have a much lower casualty rate than the Russians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    It is all hindsight. USSR could lose. Without moral side USSR would lose. Soviet people fought to death and delayed Germans allowing Soviet government to do things that much later turned the tide of the war. In terms of military losses there were more Soviet causalities mostly due to Germans basically killing all POWs some 3+ million. Otherwise despite all surprise military losses would be about the same. it is by killing 18 million civilians Germans managed to have such a high score. Did them being ruthless and cruel help them to win? Nope.
    , @Seamus Padraig
    Hmmm. Somehow the Germans managed to beat Russia in the First World War, even while they had a second front going in France. Again, I don't think morale was the only factor, but it definitely made a difference.
  144. peterAUS says:

    I really find amusing that people who have never been in military, let alone in war, and THEN let alone in (infantry) combat have very strong opinions about war, combat, moral etc.
    I mean, this guy Saker is, apparently, admired for quality of his posts, and I do agree that SOME of his posts are really very good.
    But I really have an issue with him, apparently, never SERVED in either US or Russian military, let alone being in any war/conflict. Definitely not being a part of a platoon/company of soldiers under fire and trying to get those guys firing at them.
    My point is, to truly understand combat, and combat moral, you do need to have that type of experience. Or similar.
    Similar (not the same) is member of paramilitary police fighting guys with automatic weapons and hand grenades.
    Or, at the very rudimentary level, a criminal gang member doing armed robbery. No, I am not joking.
    A very smart man once said that men join military for a lot of reasons, but FIGHT for their comrades. This comes deep from human nature, and, to be PC incorrect, for men human nature.
    Now, of course, women can be even more motivated but that’s another topic.
    So….whoever underestimates combat moral of Western military I think you are for some rude awakening.
    Add to that professionalism from squad level, material superiority and organizational culture and see what happens.
    Compare work ethics….the very same principles apply to training and delivery capabilities of modern soldier. Let alone MAINTENANCE of modern systems, supply and logistics chains etc.
    Moral….compare Western combat medical support to the rest.
    Moral….financial support of a combatant and his family.
    Moral….rule of law in military and society in general (beasting anyone…..).
    C’mon….any VETERAN from Western or Russian (and their allies) willing to comment on this?
    No..no need for writing credentials….we’ll ‘feel’ each other in instant just by writing about a topic.
    Say….you are in combat and you get shot in guts in a field. Just visualize what’s going to happen from that moment to next 6 months to you. And your family. In US Army….in Russian army. Compare.
    Funny.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Do you find this funny? - "Suicide rate among veterans has risen sharply since 2001:" https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/08/us/suicide-rate-among-veterans-has-risen-sharply-since-2001.html
    "New VA study finds 20 veterans commit suicide each day:" http://www.militarytimes.com/story/veterans/2016/07/07/va-suicide-20-daily-research/86788332/
    You are welcome to continue your "funny" comparisons.
    , @bluedog
    I don't know as Bernard B. Fall ever served in combat, but his books were right on target as far as the French in Vietnam and what would happen if we went charging in to the same mess, making the same mistakes as the French did, and are now making in our second Vietnam Afghanistan. Do you really have to be stupid enough to believe that only under combat can you understand stupidity I rather doubt it but each to his own...
    , @Alberto Campos
    "whoever underestimates combat moral of Western military I think you are for some rude awakening."

    You're right, our awakening was quite shocking at the sight of those Navy "sillies" crying like babies when their patrol boat was caught by the Iranians.

    We felt the same of the Western military bravery in thousands of other episodes in Nam, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
  145. Lot’s of US-Russian de-escalation scenario’s, I as a civilian non-gamer do not know.

    However the obvious: the unwritten rule between the superpowers = no direct attacks!

    Seeing Putin’s angry reaction at Erdogan, after downing 1 Russian jet, I would not advise McCain, Liebermann or Lindsay to get involved in direct Russian attacks, which the Russians will retaliate later in time and kind.

    But ofcourse the Syrian troops can do the damage to anybody destroying their country.

    Syria is Russia’s pre-emptive Stalingrad and they will fight if needed.

    Read More
  146. Sowhat says:
    @The Alarmist
    To Saker'a point about public opinion, the only one that matters is American public opinion... as long as body bags aren't coming home in the tens of thousands like Vietnam, the public will continue to lap up the party line and cheer on our boys.

    But while AF doctrine is to control the vertical dimension in support of achieving dominance of the ground, even the AF is wise enough to caveat that control of the vertical dimension is no guarantee of control of the ground. Low-RCS is also no guarantee of invisibility. I don't know if the latest SA-22s can readily gain a lock on all of our air assets, but they can take out enough to make the point.

    Can someone ask Sen. McCain if he would like to do just one more mission?

    Re:last sentence PLEASE?

    Read More
  147. kemerd says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    Military imho should consist both of professionals and drafties to keep general population engaged. To avoid what happened to Romans who became so distant from military service that draft in time of need was plainly impossible. It may be considered strategically moral part which is important. Professional core with considerable draftee part.

    that is also the reason why empires rely on mercenaries.

    It is possible to convince ordinary draftees to fight for defending their homeland but when it comes to attacking and (possibly) dying for some imperial goals thousands of kms away from home, the parents, uncles/aunts of these draftees would balk as well as draftees themselves.

    That is also why think you are absolutely right. That, any military must be mostly composed of ordinary people; serving their armies for few months for the genuine goal of protecting their nation, as such a force would not be useful for anything else.

    I am turkish, and I am convinced that the only reason Erdogan did/could not dive into Syria with full force when his proxies started to lose was that most of the Turkish army is composed of draftees and Turkish people are deeply opposed to any imperial adventures, possibly resulting in his government collapsing and he ending up in jail for life, if not get killed by some patriot.

    Read More
  148. utu says:
    @JL
    Not many people seem to know this, but Russia had plans to intervene in Syria as early as fall of 2013, and perhaps even earlier. I believe the aggressiveness pursued by the US in Ukraine was partly an attempt to preempt Russia in Syria, because otherwise options were quite limited. In the event, it only served to delay.

    The Russians used attacking IS as their own pretext just as the US had, but the main motivation was to prevent the fall of the Syrian government
     
    I don't believe Russia ever used the pretext of attacking IS, solely, for its actions in Syria. Putin was very upfront at the beginning of the Syria campaign about Russia's goals, in a 60 Minutes interview when he participated in the UN General Assembly. He said that Assad's enemies were terrorists, whoever they were, and that is who Russia would be fighting. IS was never singled out.

    I think your analysis is correct. Russia was very upfront about its engagement in Syria. Intervention planning started when Libya fell. Putin was outraged. He watched the video of Gaddafi murder several times. There would be no more Libyas.

    Fighting the so called terrorists was never a real motive just like securing Syria for some oil pipelines projects was never a real motive for Russia just like it is not for America. The motive of terrorism is for MSM gullible public. The motive of oil and pipelines is for the armchair conspiracy theorists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    Fighting the so called terrorists was never a real motive just like securing Syria for some oil pipelines projects was never a real motive for Russia just like it is not for America. The motive of terrorism is for MSM gullible public. The motive of oil and pipelines is for the armchair conspiracy theorists.
     
    Alright. So what, in your opinion, is the motive then?
  149. Sowhat says:
    @Backwoods Bob
    I'm so out of my element here that I admit ignorance except from a civilian perspective.

    We've had examples like Reagan in Lebanon and Clinton in Somalia where the moment we really got our nose bloodied, the public had no stomach for it and we immediately backed out.

    We are on the cusp of a sea change in the deep state's ability to control the media narrative. Unfortunately for the public the fake news media is not battling Trump in Syria. They're both on Israel's side, wanting to destroy Syria on behalf of Israel.

    It's a contradictory narrative, that we are fighting ISIS but need to fight Assad too because he is just so awful to be fighting ISIS.

    So will the public's disgust with the hysterical Russia screeching and the contradictory Syria narrative result in the public reacting against Trump and the deep state in Syria? Or will we rally behind the war criminal in chief after he makes a major attack on Syria based upon another false flag chemical weapons incident or something?

    What would the public's reaction be to an aircraft carrier being sunk? That seems like a pretty easy thing to do with missiles. That's a $5 billion replacement cost.

    I just don't know. But I am convinced Trump is going to make more attacks on Syria, and he thinks he can get away with it. I can only hope the public's reaction to getting our nose bloodied is to pull our heads out of our asses and pull out of the middle east.

    I get frustrated with inability to simply agree. I do agree with Backwoods Bob and hope Russia kicks ass.

    Read More
  150. Wally says: • Website
    @anon
    All Russia has to do is to make America hate Israel. Just the reverse process of what made US love Israel in the first place.

    It will need no trickery or lies- mongering but letting the truth to seep in to the American mind .

    Indeed.
    The only reason the average American is silenced about parasitical Zionists and Israel is because they’ve had their head filled with various absurd fictions such as ‘holocau$t’ propaganda, “Judeo-Christian values”, and Jews being a uniquely righteous, exceptional, and persecuted people.

    The laughably impossible ‘holocaust’ storyline has hoodwinked too many for too long.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:

    http://codoh.com

    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    Read More
  151. tomgreg says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    I'd say a lot could be done by the young people of America by taking to the streets with Anti-War protests like they did 50 years ago. Of course they'd need to invest less time being occupied with nonsense.

    I'd love to see a class-action lawsuit filed by members of the military themselves defending their rights and obligations to defend America but not to wage wars of aggression that serve no vital US interests.

    The only people who really have the power to peacefully put a stop to all of this madness is the American people themselves.

    “I’d say a lot could be done by the young people of America by taking to the streets with Anti-War protests like they did 50 years ago.”

    Back in Vietnam War days the USA had the selective service draft. In theory anyone’s son could have been drafted and sent to die in the jungle. Since every young person, more or less, was touched by this more of them cared enough to protest.

    Now with voluntary service, primarily those of lower incomes and/or opportunities enlist.
    Many, if not most, Americans do not care about anything unless they are personally affected. So, there’s not as much interest in taking to the streets to protest. Hey, who cares if there’s still college football and Game of Thrones….right?

    In my opinion the USA got rid of the draft to cut down on the protests when they’d do their invasions and regime change stuff.

    Read More
  152. annamaria says:
    @peterAUS
    I really find amusing that people who have never been in military, let alone in war, and THEN let alone in (infantry) combat have very strong opinions about war, combat, moral etc.
    I mean, this guy Saker is, apparently, admired for quality of his posts, and I do agree that SOME of his posts are really very good.
    But I really have an issue with him, apparently, never SERVED in either US or Russian military, let alone being in any war/conflict. Definitely not being a part of a platoon/company of soldiers under fire and trying to get those guys firing at them.
    My point is, to truly understand combat, and combat moral, you do need to have that type of experience. Or similar.
    Similar (not the same) is member of paramilitary police fighting guys with automatic weapons and hand grenades.
    Or, at the very rudimentary level, a criminal gang member doing armed robbery. No, I am not joking.
    A very smart man once said that men join military for a lot of reasons, but FIGHT for their comrades. This comes deep from human nature, and, to be PC incorrect, for men human nature.
    Now, of course, women can be even more motivated but that's another topic.
    So....whoever underestimates combat moral of Western military I think you are for some rude awakening.
    Add to that professionalism from squad level, material superiority and organizational culture and see what happens.
    Compare work ethics....the very same principles apply to training and delivery capabilities of modern soldier. Let alone MAINTENANCE of modern systems, supply and logistics chains etc.
    Moral....compare Western combat medical support to the rest.
    Moral....financial support of a combatant and his family.
    Moral....rule of law in military and society in general (beasting anyone.....).
    C'mon....any VETERAN from Western or Russian (and their allies) willing to comment on this?
    No..no need for writing credentials....we'll 'feel' each other in instant just by writing about a topic.
    Say....you are in combat and you get shot in guts in a field. Just visualize what's going to happen from that moment to next 6 months to you. And your family. In US Army....in Russian army. Compare.
    Funny.

    Do you find this funny? – “Suicide rate among veterans has risen sharply since 2001:” https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/08/us/suicide-rate-among-veterans-has-risen-sharply-since-2001.html
    “New VA study finds 20 veterans commit suicide each day:” http://www.militarytimes.com/story/veterans/2016/07/07/va-suicide-20-daily-research/86788332/
    You are welcome to continue your “funny” comparisons.

    Read More
  153. @MarkinLA
    They lost in a war of attrition that they never could win. Russia is too big and there were too many Russians to kill for them to win. They did, however, have a much lower casualty rate than the Russians.

    It is all hindsight. USSR could lose. Without moral side USSR would lose. Soviet people fought to death and delayed Germans allowing Soviet government to do things that much later turned the tide of the war. In terms of military losses there were more Soviet causalities mostly due to Germans basically killing all POWs some 3+ million. Otherwise despite all surprise military losses would be about the same. it is by killing 18 million civilians Germans managed to have such a high score. Did them being ruthless and cruel help them to win? Nope.

    Read More
    • LOL: L.K
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    The only moral the USSR had was fear of the Germans murdering their family members and the hatred that engendered, and the NKVD shooting them if they refused to attack the German positions. Lets not forget how hated Stalin was in Ukraine and how the Germans were first welcomed as liberators.

    The Germans were the ones with the high moral as they were the far better soldiers. They just started their invasion too late and were not as well equipped for an invasion of such a large place as they should have been. They also didn't play their cards right due to Hitler's hatred of the untermenchen Slavs. Germany could not produce enough war material fast enough to sustain such an invasion. Germany should have come in as liberators saving the peasants from Moscow.

    As for your casualty numbers, the USSR had the highest casualty rate in the war as Stalin and his generals gave little thought to the lives of the men fighting and just threw them at the Germans. By almost every measure, the individual German soldier was the best fighting man on the battlefield in both the eastern and the western fronts.
  154. Sparkon says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    I'd say a lot could be done by the young people of America by taking to the streets with Anti-War protests like they did 50 years ago. Of course they'd need to invest less time being occupied with nonsense.

    I'd love to see a class-action lawsuit filed by members of the military themselves defending their rights and obligations to defend America but not to wage wars of aggression that serve no vital US interests.

    The only people who really have the power to peacefully put a stop to all of this madness is the American people themselves.

    I’d say a lot could be done by the young people of America by taking to the streets with Anti-War protests like they did 50 years ago.

    Before GW Bush’s attack on Iraq, there were massive anti-war protests both in the United States, and also in Europe:

    According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

    On Feb. 15, 2003, up to 15 million people took to the streets in hundreds of cities around the world to protest the impending war, but on March 20, 2003, the U.S. led coalition began its attacks on Iraq, a very sad day for Iraqis, for Americans, and for world peace.

    So no, I don’t see street solutions. We need honest and entirely loyal public officials in these United States. No dual-citizens should be allowed to serve in any official capacity at the local, state, or federal level.

    We have the laws, and a legal framework in place. All we need are public servants with the courage and determination to enforce those laws. Laws were broken on 9/11, but the criminals weren’t from Afghanistan or Iraq.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Scalpel
    "We need honest and entirely loyal public officials in these United States"

    LMAO - good luck with that
  155. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anatoly Karlin

    There are many reasons for this, historical as well as political, but I don’t think that anybody doubts the fact that while Americans love to kill for their country, they are much less enthusiastic about dying for it...
     
    The Saker says this as if it's a bad thing.

    Patton: I don't want to die for my country, I want the other bastard to die for his.

    Perfectly healthy, rational approach so far as I'm concerned.

    Anyhow, on the bright side, at least The Saker seems to have finally stopped peddling the fiction that Russia is capable of doing anything to stop its modest Syrian forces from being swept off the board in the event of a full-scale confrontation with the US in that region.

    If that were to happen, Russia's only real options would be to raise (in Ukraine or even the Baltics) or fold (retreat in ignominy).

    Anatoly’s typical passive aggressive responce to the Saker. “There can only be one Russian blogger on Unz.”

    From what I have read of the Saker, he never said that Russia could stop America in a full on conflict. In fact, he said the opposite. He was high on Russia having enough strategic advantages to make American interference very painfull.

    America does not want to fully commit its forces in Syria. It wants limited engagements that provide the most bang for the buck, as America has amlong list of countries to topple. Thats why Trump put so much emphasis on using China to take out N Korea. America cannot stand a real war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    America does not want to fully commit its forces in Syria.
     
    there are of course two separate Americas

    there is the 'America' of the deepstate (fecal government / media / MIC / 'intelligence services', etc..) vs. the American people

    the only reason America has fought any of these wars (going back to WWI), are all due to the zio-deepstate / banksters and assorted war pig$.

    There is NOTHING that the American people benefit from these serial wars for Israel. We get debt, body bags, a loss of our constitutional freedoms and the justifiable hatred of the planet.

    "it's very good"

    http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Israeli+PM+Netanyahu+Addresses+Joint+Meeting+vfdrblWrz0Ix.jpg

  156. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Avery is correct here, and this...

    ... Russian forces are highly patriotic, unlike US forces, who are in the military predominantly for the benefits and early retirement.
     
    ... is complete nonsense.

    The Russian military in Syria is every bit as much a "mercentary" army as the American one. And it's far better for it.

    In the first round of the Russian Army's professionalization, when salaries were low, recruitment targets weren't met and volunteers were poor quality, who as a rule couldn't find employment anywhere else.

    After military salaries were increased to a level much higher than civilian alternatives, the quality of volunteers increased greatly, to the point that the Russian Army are now the fine-honed professionals that we saw in Crimea and now Syria.

    Patriotism, morale, values, etc. etc., that The Saker seems to be so obsessed with have zilch to do with anything. (Though military types in America, Russia, and most other countries do tend to be far more patriotic than average, of course).

    Anatoly, quit playing so many video games.

    In real life, people dont want to die for wars for the Jews. Morale plays a huge part in all warfare. And while there is a core of soldiers who will fight no matter what, it is nieve to expect modern day millenials to try to sustain a long and bloody war.

    Read More
  157. @MarkinLA
    They lost in a war of attrition that they never could win. Russia is too big and there were too many Russians to kill for them to win. They did, however, have a much lower casualty rate than the Russians.

    Hmmm. Somehow the Germans managed to beat Russia in the First World War, even while they had a second front going in France. Again, I don’t think morale was the only factor, but it definitely made a difference.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    I think the original comment was that it was about 3/4s of what was needed.

    However my main point was that it is less important as the weapons become more lethal. Will moral matter in a nuclear exchange?
  158. @utu
    I think your analysis is correct. Russia was very upfront about its engagement in Syria. Intervention planning started when Libya fell. Putin was outraged. He watched the video of Gaddafi murder several times. There would be no more Libyas.

    Fighting the so called terrorists was never a real motive just like securing Syria for some oil pipelines projects was never a real motive for Russia just like it is not for America. The motive of terrorism is for MSM gullible public. The motive of oil and pipelines is for the armchair conspiracy theorists.

    Fighting the so called terrorists was never a real motive just like securing Syria for some oil pipelines projects was never a real motive for Russia just like it is not for America. The motive of terrorism is for MSM gullible public. The motive of oil and pipelines is for the armchair conspiracy theorists.

    Alright. So what, in your opinion, is the motive then?

    Read More
  159. bluedog says:
    @peterAUS
    I really find amusing that people who have never been in military, let alone in war, and THEN let alone in (infantry) combat have very strong opinions about war, combat, moral etc.
    I mean, this guy Saker is, apparently, admired for quality of his posts, and I do agree that SOME of his posts are really very good.
    But I really have an issue with him, apparently, never SERVED in either US or Russian military, let alone being in any war/conflict. Definitely not being a part of a platoon/company of soldiers under fire and trying to get those guys firing at them.
    My point is, to truly understand combat, and combat moral, you do need to have that type of experience. Or similar.
    Similar (not the same) is member of paramilitary police fighting guys with automatic weapons and hand grenades.
    Or, at the very rudimentary level, a criminal gang member doing armed robbery. No, I am not joking.
    A very smart man once said that men join military for a lot of reasons, but FIGHT for their comrades. This comes deep from human nature, and, to be PC incorrect, for men human nature.
    Now, of course, women can be even more motivated but that's another topic.
    So....whoever underestimates combat moral of Western military I think you are for some rude awakening.
    Add to that professionalism from squad level, material superiority and organizational culture and see what happens.
    Compare work ethics....the very same principles apply to training and delivery capabilities of modern soldier. Let alone MAINTENANCE of modern systems, supply and logistics chains etc.
    Moral....compare Western combat medical support to the rest.
    Moral....financial support of a combatant and his family.
    Moral....rule of law in military and society in general (beasting anyone.....).
    C'mon....any VETERAN from Western or Russian (and their allies) willing to comment on this?
    No..no need for writing credentials....we'll 'feel' each other in instant just by writing about a topic.
    Say....you are in combat and you get shot in guts in a field. Just visualize what's going to happen from that moment to next 6 months to you. And your family. In US Army....in Russian army. Compare.
    Funny.

    I don’t know as Bernard B. Fall ever served in combat, but his books were right on target as far as the French in Vietnam and what would happen if we went charging in to the same mess, making the same mistakes as the French did, and are now making in our second Vietnam Afghanistan. Do you really have to be stupid enough to believe that only under combat can you understand stupidity I rather doubt it but each to his own…

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Thank you for making my point, actually.
    Just from Wikipedia:

    In 1942, at the age of sixteen, Bernard Fall followed in his father's footsteps and joined the French Resistance, after which time he fought the Germans in the Alps. As France was being liberated in 1944, Fall joined the French Army, in which he served until 1946. For his service, he was awarded the French Liberation Medal.
     

    Due to his French citizenship, Fall was allowed to accompany French soldiers and pilots into enemy territory.
     

    Fall was a political scientist, but one who had been a soldier and who spoke the soldier's language and lived the soldier's life at the front line. He obtained his data on the war while slogging through the mud of Vietnam with French colonial troops, with American infantry, and with South Vietnamese soldiers. He combined the usual academic analysis of Indochina with a perspective of the war from the soldier's point of view.
     
    That's why I find puzzling that otherwise smart people buy Saker's strong negative opinions of Western militaries.
    Or positive of Russia/China/whatever military.
    Smart people in the West that is.
    Americans, Brits, Aussies....etc.....
    I guess it's because they need alternative to The Empire so much that they WANT to believe.
    As form of therapy or entertainment it's fine, just don't swap reality for delusion.
  160. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Sparkon

    I’d say a lot could be done by the young people of America by taking to the streets with Anti-War protests like they did 50 years ago.
     
    Before GW Bush's attack on Iraq, there were massive anti-war protests both in the United States, and also in Europe:

    According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

    On Feb. 15, 2003, up to 15 million people took to the streets in hundreds of cities around the world to protest the impending war, but on March 20, 2003, the U.S. led coalition began its attacks on Iraq, a very sad day for Iraqis, for Americans, and for world peace.

    So no, I don't see street solutions. We need honest and entirely loyal public officials in these United States. No dual-citizens should be allowed to serve in any official capacity at the local, state, or federal level.

    We have the laws, and a legal framework in place. All we need are public servants with the courage and determination to enforce those laws. Laws were broken on 9/11, but the criminals weren't from Afghanistan or Iraq.

    “We need honest and entirely loyal public officials in these United States”

    LMAO – good luck with that

    Read More
  161. @Sergey Krieger
    Were Germans not brutal enough in the Soviet Union? How come they lost?

    A case of Soviet munitioning superiority overcoming Germany’s advantage in morale and competence.

    Had Germany moved to a war economy in 1940, instead of 1943, it is difficult to see how it could have lost.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Had Germany moved to a war economy in 1940, instead of 1943, it is difficult to see how it could have lost.
     
    A favorite Speer "argument", which, of course, forgets how the rest of Europe was supplying Wehrmacht.
  162. The United States can afford to get into faraway wars it can never win, and thus become endless. The definition of defeat for the United States is if any of these particular wars should ever end, a defeat for military complex profits.

    Given the asymmetrical financial resources, can Russia reciprocate?

    First world to first world wars against each other are the ones that both those militaries were designed to fight and win, not the endless colonial insurgencies that are endlessly profitable by their very dysfunctionality of inability to achieve victory.

    When one side begins to lose a first world conflict, that is designed to ramp extremely quickly into apocalyptic nuclear conflagration, absent unconditional capitulation.

    Are Russians, even Putin, sufficiently moral to prefer subjection to Wall Street over the death of humankind?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Are Russians, even Putin, sufficiently moral to prefer subjection to Wall Street over the death of humankind?
     
    Very well worded.
  163. MarkinLA says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    It is all hindsight. USSR could lose. Without moral side USSR would lose. Soviet people fought to death and delayed Germans allowing Soviet government to do things that much later turned the tide of the war. In terms of military losses there were more Soviet causalities mostly due to Germans basically killing all POWs some 3+ million. Otherwise despite all surprise military losses would be about the same. it is by killing 18 million civilians Germans managed to have such a high score. Did them being ruthless and cruel help them to win? Nope.

    The only moral the USSR had was fear of the Germans murdering their family members and the hatred that engendered, and the NKVD shooting them if they refused to attack the German positions. Lets not forget how hated Stalin was in Ukraine and how the Germans were first welcomed as liberators.

    The Germans were the ones with the high moral as they were the far better soldiers. They just started their invasion too late and were not as well equipped for an invasion of such a large place as they should have been. They also didn’t play their cards right due to Hitler’s hatred of the untermenchen Slavs. Germany could not produce enough war material fast enough to sustain such an invasion. Germany should have come in as liberators saving the peasants from Moscow.

    As for your casualty numbers, the USSR had the highest casualty rate in the war as Stalin and his generals gave little thought to the lives of the men fighting and just threw them at the Germans. By almost every measure, the individual German soldier was the best fighting man on the battlefield in both the eastern and the western fronts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {The only moral the USSR had was fear of the Germans murdering their family members and the hatred that engendered,}

    One of the best, if not the best motivators and morale boosters since the beginning of time for fighting invaders of your homeland.

    {Germany should have come in as liberators saving the peasants from Moscow.}

    Not possible: Hitler's prime goal for invading USSR* was the extermination of 'useless'** Slavs living on 'his' Lebensraum. Even if he had pretended, to gain short term advantage, Slavic peoples would have figured out his true motives pretty quick. And would have fought to death justthe same. Ordinary Slavs hated Stalin and /NKVDBolsheviks/Communists, but they hated the genocidal Nazi invaders far more.

    _________
    *
    Actually, Hitler's one only goal for launching WW2 was conquering the endless, rich agricultural lands to the East. He never wanted war with England: he considered English his Anglo-Saxon kin. French similarly were treated fairly well: no French, except Jewish-French and the Resistance, were harmed or mistreated.

    **
    The plan was to exterminate all the useless mouths outright and work the healthy one to death producing food and materiel for the Master Race.

    , @Sergey Krieger
    So Germans had better moral you say? They also had all possible advantages and by the end of 1941 they occupied USSR territory with 90 million population. Hence, USSR was fighting the whole of Western Europe with barely 110 million population left until 1943 and managed to change the course of war handing Germans crashing defeats at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. and you dare to speak of moral?
    According to your logic Hannibal and his troops also had better moral but somehow Romans won.
    Moral in that case was paramount to Roman eventual victory as it was to Soviet victory. Moral allowed Soviet troops to resist German onslaught despite horrible losses which exhausted German military machine and allowed Soviet leadership to implement measures which without high moral of Soviet fighting troops would have been impossible. Look at France...for example.
    The proof is in the pudding as saying goes. The best man won., Get over it. Germany is no more by the way... it was thoroughly castrated. Germans while indeed having high moral were crashed and now they have no moral even to protect their women against people whom they would consider lower race just 77 years ago.
    , @Alberto Campos
    Your head is full of BS, isn't it painful? Stop going to the pub, try a library instead.
  164. MarkinLA says:
    @Seamus Padraig
    Hmmm. Somehow the Germans managed to beat Russia in the First World War, even while they had a second front going in France. Again, I don't think morale was the only factor, but it definitely made a difference.

    I think the original comment was that it was about 3/4s of what was needed.

    However my main point was that it is less important as the weapons become more lethal. Will moral matter in a nuclear exchange?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    Will moral matter in a nuclear exchange?
     
    Not much at all really. It looks more like a video game, with drone operators in Texas already sitting at screens and running strikes in the Middle East. The morale aspect is about as important as in Team Fortress2 or Counter Strike: Global Offensive.
    , @Seamus Padraig

    Will moral matter in a nuclear exchange?
     
    No, certainly not.
  165. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Anatoly Karlin
    A case of Soviet munitioning superiority overcoming Germany's advantage in morale and competence.

    Had Germany moved to a war economy in 1940, instead of 1943, it is difficult to see how it could have lost.

    Had Germany moved to a war economy in 1940, instead of 1943, it is difficult to see how it could have lost.

    A favorite Speer “argument”, which, of course, forgets how the rest of Europe was supplying Wehrmacht.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bb.
    and allies were supplying the soviets. is it even possible to do a clean ceteris paribus adjustment on war production? do trucks count as war goods?railroads?spikes?gas tanks? wikipedia mentions a ''full'' war economy since speer took over with a 2,5fold increase in goods with all manpower diverted. is it even possible to maintain such an 'economy' even medium turn?
    i agree with you that moral plays a bigger role then akarlin suggests but also the saker point on moral was really weak. i also agree with akarlin that at the end of the day, zhelezo is what probably matters most.
    i think moral as a military factor is useful when discussing homeland protection/vengeance type war scenarios. the us and ruskies are both foreign paid expeditionaries in our case so no moral superiority for any side. the syrians, iranians, sure, that might be a factor. from the russians, only chechens might feel something like a moral responsibility, but as far as i know, they are mostly MP on the ground.
  166. Miro23 says:
    @MarkinLA
    I think the original comment was that it was about 3/4s of what was needed.

    However my main point was that it is less important as the weapons become more lethal. Will moral matter in a nuclear exchange?

    Will moral matter in a nuclear exchange?

    Not much at all really. It looks more like a video game, with drone operators in Texas already sitting at screens and running strikes in the Middle East. The morale aspect is about as important as in Team Fortress2 or Counter Strike: Global Offensive.

    Read More
  167. Rurik says:
    @Anonymous
    Anatoly's typical passive aggressive responce to the Saker. "There can only be one Russian blogger on Unz."

    From what I have read of the Saker, he never said that Russia could stop America in a full on conflict. In fact, he said the opposite. He was high on Russia having enough strategic advantages to make American interference very painfull.

    America does not want to fully commit its forces in Syria. It wants limited engagements that provide the most bang for the buck, as America has amlong list of countries to topple. Thats why Trump put so much emphasis on using China to take out N Korea. America cannot stand a real war.

    America does not want to fully commit its forces in Syria.

    there are of course two separate Americas

    there is the ‘America’ of the deepstate (fecal government / media / MIC / ‘intelligence services’, etc..) vs. the American people

    the only reason America has fought any of these wars (going back to WWI), are all due to the zio-deepstate / banksters and assorted war pig$.

    There is NOTHING that the American people benefit from these serial wars for Israel. We get debt, body bags, a loss of our constitutional freedoms and the justifiable hatred of the planet.

    “it’s very good”

    Read More
  168. Miro23 says:
    @TG
    Interesting ideas. A little too much on the speculative side for my tastes, mind, but certainly thought provoking.

    I'd like to propose an additional reason why Putin might be very reluctant to attack US airplanes in Syria. Because it would be a colossal gamble, likely completely game-changing not just for Syria but for Russia's place in the world. The Russians would have an enormous amount to gain - and an enormous amount to lose. A cautious leader might shy away from rolling those dice. At least right now Mr. Putin still has the ability to bluff, and to make moderate foreign sales of military equipment...

    You can read the press releases all you like, but the history of warfare makes one thing clear: when militaries that have never seriously fought each other first meet, the result is unpredictable. Usually one side completely dominates the other, although if given time the weaker side generally adapts.

    The big strength of the United States military is not its ability to conquer other countries - it mostly can't - but to destroy and destabilize them. In this it must have total air superiority. If the Russian air defenses can block this, the entire basis of US military supremacy goes away. But if the Russian systems really are ineffective in the face of American jamming and electronic countermeasures etc., then not just technical, but Russian military and diplomatic credibility could evaporate. The US might start to think more seriously about moving into territory near the Russian federation. Big stakes.

    I note that Russian air defenses don't have to be perfect. Just good enough to raise the costs of American air attacks to unacceptable levels. If Russian defenses can only be penetrated via massed attacks of expensive ground-hugging cruise missiles, that doesn't matter - if the Russians can seriously attrit less expensive sorties by conventional bombers carrying cheaper bombs, that would be enough to win a de-facto overwhelming strategic victory.

    But I have zero ability to predict the outcome of any such conflict in advance. And neither does anyone else.

    I’d like to propose an additional reason why Putin might be very reluctant to attack US airplanes in Syria. Because it would be a colossal gamble, likely completely game-changing not just for Syria but for Russia’s place in the world.

    Putin might be very reluctant but the Ziocons may already be helping things along.

    Iraq would never have happened without the directed public outrage of 9/11, so probably no US conflict with Russia/Syria/Iran is going to happen without some new “event”.

    Prior to 9/11 the MSM was working hard to set up Iraq with the fake WMD and fake Al Qaeda Iraq bases stories. Similarly now they are working hard to set up Russia with a barrage of “fake news”. Why would they be doing this?

    They haven’t had much time to arrange another False Flag (9/11 took years) so some possibilities along this line could be:

    - “Russian” missiles hitting the big US Qatar base.

    - “Russian” missiles sinking a US navy ship in the Gulf (a variant of this was tried before with the USS Liberty).

    One way or another it has to involve a “Russian” strike on the US military with the US public primed for a massive MSM campaign explaining exactly how the “Russians” planned and executed the terrible deed, and of course demanding immediate US retaliation (destruction) of Russian assets in Syria, Syria itself and their ally Iran.

    Putin’s denials of involvement would get as much notice as Bin Laden’s denials of involvement in 9/11.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    - “Russian” missiles hitting the big US Qatar base.

    - “Russian” missiles sinking a US navy ship in the Gulf (a variant of this was tried before with the USS Liberty).
     
    You evidently fail to understand the difference between some Middle Eastern shithole, which could be attacked with impunity, and Russia which can turn US into the radioactive parking lot. But in general, it has to be noted, issue of scales and proportions was never a forte of many "analysts" in US. I guess US post-WW II military history is a great testament to this major problem.
  169. peterAUS says:
    @bluedog
    I don't know as Bernard B. Fall ever served in combat, but his books were right on target as far as the French in Vietnam and what would happen if we went charging in to the same mess, making the same mistakes as the French did, and are now making in our second Vietnam Afghanistan. Do you really have to be stupid enough to believe that only under combat can you understand stupidity I rather doubt it but each to his own...

    Thank you for making my point, actually.
    Just from Wikipedia:

    In 1942, at the age of sixteen, Bernard Fall followed in his father’s footsteps and joined the French Resistance, after which time he fought the Germans in the Alps. As France was being liberated in 1944, Fall joined the French Army, in which he served until 1946. For his service, he was awarded the French Liberation Medal.

    Due to his French citizenship, Fall was allowed to accompany French soldiers and pilots into enemy territory.

    Fall was a political scientist, but one who had been a soldier and who spoke the soldier’s language and lived the soldier’s life at the front line. He obtained his data on the war while slogging through the mud of Vietnam with French colonial troops, with American infantry, and with South Vietnamese soldiers. He combined the usual academic analysis of Indochina with a perspective of the war from the soldier’s point of view.

    That’s why I find puzzling that otherwise smart people buy Saker’s strong negative opinions of Western militaries.
    Or positive of Russia/China/whatever military.
    Smart people in the West that is.
    Americans, Brits, Aussies….etc…..
    I guess it’s because they need alternative to The Empire so much that they WANT to believe.
    As form of therapy or entertainment it’s fine, just don’t swap reality for delusion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    I don't think its because people have" strong negative opinions of the west" but instead its the fact that we have invaded and bombed half the planet at one time or the other, and left little to show for it, Colin Powell was right he said in Vietnam we tried to fight idealogy with technology and lost, and are still doing the same thing in the Mid-East, for that's why I said Afghanistan was our second Vietnam for we learned nothing from the past..
    , @Alberto Campos
    No one ever told you that your argumentation is only valid in your barbershop or your pub? Not one?

    So, to further disqualify yourself you cite a "soldier" who fought the Germans "in the Alps" LOOOOL Not in the côte belge also?

    Seriously, don't you really see how far the Saker is ahead of you?

  170. @Ron Unz

    I’m seeing this too, it’s also affecting my mobile phone on Safari. I have to put it in reader mode, otherwise the right third of the text just runs offscreen and there’s no ability to scroll right or zoom out to see it.
     
    Fixed, I think. Please let me know if there are still problems with the rendering on any device/browser combinations.

    Thanks for fixing the problem. It was failing on IE 11.413 but seemingly only for this particular article.

    Read More
  171. @Miro23

    I’d like to propose an additional reason why Putin might be very reluctant to attack US airplanes in Syria. Because it would be a colossal gamble, likely completely game-changing not just for Syria but for Russia’s place in the world.
     
    Putin might be very reluctant but the Ziocons may already be helping things along.

    Iraq would never have happened without the directed public outrage of 9/11, so probably no US conflict with Russia/Syria/Iran is going to happen without some new "event".

    Prior to 9/11 the MSM was working hard to set up Iraq with the fake WMD and fake Al Qaeda Iraq bases stories. Similarly now they are working hard to set up Russia with a barrage of "fake news". Why would they be doing this?

    They haven't had much time to arrange another False Flag (9/11 took years) so some possibilities along this line could be:

    - "Russian" missiles hitting the big US Qatar base.

    - "Russian" missiles sinking a US navy ship in the Gulf (a variant of this was tried before with the USS Liberty).

    One way or another it has to involve a "Russian" strike on the US military with the US public primed for a massive MSM campaign explaining exactly how the "Russians" planned and executed the terrible deed, and of course demanding immediate US retaliation (destruction) of Russian assets in Syria, Syria itself and their ally Iran.

    Putin's denials of involvement would get as much notice as Bin Laden's denials of involvement in 9/11.

    - “Russian” missiles hitting the big US Qatar base.

    - “Russian” missiles sinking a US navy ship in the Gulf (a variant of this was tried before with the USS Liberty).

    You evidently fail to understand the difference between some Middle Eastern shithole, which could be attacked with impunity, and Russia which can turn US into the radioactive parking lot. But in general, it has to be noted, issue of scales and proportions was never a forte of many “analysts” in US. I guess US post-WW II military history is a great testament to this major problem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    You evidently fail to understand the difference between some Middle Eastern shithole, which could be attacked with impunity, and Russia which can turn US into the radioactive parking lot.
     
    The US could also flatten every Russian city.

    The point is that the US and Russian public don't want WW3 and neither do Trump or Putin, but the Neocons have a completely different worldview entirely focused on what they see as the advancement of Israel.

    From that worldview , the destruction of Russia, Syria and Iran would be good news since they would control the Middle East and probably the United States through some kind of Emergency Regime. It's no more bizarre than the 9/11 coup attempt.

    The suggestion is, that something is already going on with MSM anti-Russian propaganda and Trump almost having to prove that he isn't a Russian agent. Another False Flag aimed at triggering a US attack on Russia could lead directly to a nuclear war, and since everything would happen very fast in that environment, they probably calculate that they could bring sufficient fake intelligence pressure on Trump in the 10-15 minutes involved for him to order a strike.

    This website http://www.nucleardarkness.org/nuclear/nuclearweaponsintheusandrussia/ talks about it:

    Terrorists could carry out two forms of attacks which could cause a mistaken retaliatory launch using Launch-on-Warning policy. First, terrorists could create the illusion of an impending nuclear attack. They could do so by spoofing radar or satellite sensors of Early Warning Systems to imitate a nuclear attack. This could also be accomplished by introducing computer viruses or software that mimic a full-scale nuclear attack into Early Warning System computers or computers which compromise the nuclear command and control systems.
     
    While Putin is protesting his innocence it could well be Russia that is converted into a radioactive parking lot.

    The only way out of this is for the US to break with Israel and get Zionists out of the US government and politics - but Trump isn't going to do that, so Putin has to make some difficult decisions.
  172. Avery says:
    @MarkinLA
    The only moral the USSR had was fear of the Germans murdering their family members and the hatred that engendered, and the NKVD shooting them if they refused to attack the German positions. Lets not forget how hated Stalin was in Ukraine and how the Germans were first welcomed as liberators.

    The Germans were the ones with the high moral as they were the far better soldiers. They just started their invasion too late and were not as well equipped for an invasion of such a large place as they should have been. They also didn't play their cards right due to Hitler's hatred of the untermenchen Slavs. Germany could not produce enough war material fast enough to sustain such an invasion. Germany should have come in as liberators saving the peasants from Moscow.

    As for your casualty numbers, the USSR had the highest casualty rate in the war as Stalin and his generals gave little thought to the lives of the men fighting and just threw them at the Germans. By almost every measure, the individual German soldier was the best fighting man on the battlefield in both the eastern and the western fronts.

    {The only moral the USSR had was fear of the Germans murdering their family members and the hatred that engendered,}

    One of the best, if not the best motivators and morale boosters since the beginning of time for fighting invaders of your homeland.

    {Germany should have come in as liberators saving the peasants from Moscow.}

    Not possible: Hitler’s prime goal for invading USSR* was the extermination of ‘useless’** Slavs living on ‘his’ Lebensraum. Even if he had pretended, to gain short term advantage, Slavic peoples would have figured out his true motives pretty quick. And would have fought to death justthe same. Ordinary Slavs hated Stalin and /NKVDBolsheviks/Communists, but they hated the genocidal Nazi invaders far more.

    _________
    *
    Actually, Hitler’s one only goal for launching WW2 was conquering the endless, rich agricultural lands to the East. He never wanted war with England: he considered English his Anglo-Saxon kin. French similarly were treated fairly well: no French, except Jewish-French and the Resistance, were harmed or mistreated.

    **
    The plan was to exterminate all the useless mouths outright and work the healthy one to death producing food and materiel for the Master Race.

    Read More
    • Agree: Miro23
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    Explain then how my grandfather who was 17 years in 1941 and had exemption / bronya due to being Komosmol secretary refused exemption, added age and enlisted to become invalid in mere 19 years old ? If you think he was the only one.... There were millions like him.
    Stalin brought up generation of super men quite frankly. That generation unfortunately perished during that war. But they saved USSR/ Russia and the whole world from Nazis.
    Human factor must not be underestimated. My maternal grandfather was lucky. He had no close relatives who died during that war. How come high moral then ?
    , @Alberto Campos
    Slavs and other peoples LOVED Stalin. Until now, as you should know. Smersh wouldn't be so effective, hence the war wouldn't be won without (among other things) that feeling. In 15 years he made a miracle in that country and average people recognized the enormous improvement in their lives. Only aristocrats and ex-landords hated the new regime. And fyi at that time no one talked of "bolsheviks" anymore, rather of the "old time" and the present.
  173. By 1943 Wehrmacht would have faced far different Red army too…. Ready one.

    Read More
  174. @MarkinLA
    The only moral the USSR had was fear of the Germans murdering their family members and the hatred that engendered, and the NKVD shooting them if they refused to attack the German positions. Lets not forget how hated Stalin was in Ukraine and how the Germans were first welcomed as liberators.

    The Germans were the ones with the high moral as they were the far better soldiers. They just started their invasion too late and were not as well equipped for an invasion of such a large place as they should have been. They also didn't play their cards right due to Hitler's hatred of the untermenchen Slavs. Germany could not produce enough war material fast enough to sustain such an invasion. Germany should have come in as liberators saving the peasants from Moscow.

    As for your casualty numbers, the USSR had the highest casualty rate in the war as Stalin and his generals gave little thought to the lives of the men fighting and just threw them at the Germans. By almost every measure, the individual German soldier was the best fighting man on the battlefield in both the eastern and the western fronts.

    So Germans had better moral you say? They also had all possible advantages and by the end of 1941 they occupied USSR territory with 90 million population. Hence, USSR was fighting the whole of Western Europe with barely 110 million population left until 1943 and managed to change the course of war handing Germans crashing defeats at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. and you dare to speak of moral?
    According to your logic Hannibal and his troops also had better moral but somehow Romans won.
    Moral in that case was paramount to Roman eventual victory as it was to Soviet victory. Moral allowed Soviet troops to resist German onslaught despite horrible losses which exhausted German military machine and allowed Soviet leadership to implement measures which without high moral of Soviet fighting troops would have been impossible. Look at France…for example.
    The proof is in the pudding as saying goes. The best man won., Get over it. Germany is no more by the way… it was thoroughly castrated. Germans while indeed having high moral were crashed and now they have no moral even to protect their women against people whom they would consider lower race just 77 years ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    I am not sure you had a point but I will say this about Germany/USSR and the moral of the troops:

    When the Spartans faced the Persians at Thermopylae, all the moral in the world by the Spartans eventually meant nothing. This was the same as for the Germans. There were too many Russians to kill for Germany to win.

    Very few people from the areas captured by Germany fought for Germany. The German allies like the Romanians were not very capable so bringing up the population of western Europe makes no sense.

    As for Hannibal, he was winning but could not take Rome and the Romans sent forces to Carthage and Hannibal was called back to defend the city. I am not sure that Hannibal ever lost a battle until his defeat defending Carthage at Zama.
  175. @Avery
    {The only moral the USSR had was fear of the Germans murdering their family members and the hatred that engendered,}

    One of the best, if not the best motivators and morale boosters since the beginning of time for fighting invaders of your homeland.

    {Germany should have come in as liberators saving the peasants from Moscow.}

    Not possible: Hitler's prime goal for invading USSR* was the extermination of 'useless'** Slavs living on 'his' Lebensraum. Even if he had pretended, to gain short term advantage, Slavic peoples would have figured out his true motives pretty quick. And would have fought to death justthe same. Ordinary Slavs hated Stalin and /NKVDBolsheviks/Communists, but they hated the genocidal Nazi invaders far more.

    _________
    *
    Actually, Hitler's one only goal for launching WW2 was conquering the endless, rich agricultural lands to the East. He never wanted war with England: he considered English his Anglo-Saxon kin. French similarly were treated fairly well: no French, except Jewish-French and the Resistance, were harmed or mistreated.

    **
    The plan was to exterminate all the useless mouths outright and work the healthy one to death producing food and materiel for the Master Race.

    Explain then how my grandfather who was 17 years in 1941 and had exemption / bronya due to being Komosmol secretary refused exemption, added age and enlisted to become invalid in mere 19 years old ? If you think he was the only one…. There were millions like him.
    Stalin brought up generation of super men quite frankly. That generation unfortunately perished during that war. But they saved USSR/ Russia and the whole world from Nazis.
    Human factor must not be underestimated. My maternal grandfather was lucky. He had no close relatives who died during that war. How come high moral then ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    Well, you being Russian know Russian history and Russian people better than I do. (I am originally from Armenia SSR, before breakup of USSR).
    But this my view.


    {Explain then how my grandfather..}

    You know your grandfather: I don't.
    But I highly doubt he was fighting for Komsomol: he was fighting for Mother Russia, like millions of other Russians.
    (pretty much every young person coming of age had to join the Komsomol)
    (if you didn't you stood out, and in a bad way......)
    (at least that's how it was in Armenia SSR)

    {But they saved USSR/ Russia and the whole world from Nazis.}

    Yes, they did.
    God bless them and all others from all 15 USSR republics.
    They also saved Armenia from total wipeout.
    During the Battle of Stalingrad, Turks had massed a huge invasion army on the border of Armenia SSR. The expectation was that Nazis would win at Stalingrad and race to the oilfields of Baku. Turks would invade Armenia, and link up with their Turk kin in Azerbaijan. As soon as Paulus's army got annihilated and 'Marshal' Paulus surrendered, Turks quickly up and left.

    {He had no close relatives who died during that war. How come high moral then ?}

    You are nitpicking.
    When someone is trying to exterminate you simply because you are a Russian, you fight to the death if you can. I cannot explain what makes humans fight and die for their ethnos, but I know they do,.
    During the Nagorno-Karabagh war hundreds Diaspora Armenian volunteers went to Artsakh to fight and many were KIA there. One the most famous ones was Monte Melkonian: American by birth from Fresno, CA. Third generation Armenian-American. He was KIA in Artsakh. None of his immediate or extended family in California was in danger, obviously. He went to Artaskh because his ancestral ethnos was facing extermination there.

    {Stalin brought up generation of super men quite frankly.}

    Sorry, I have to disagree.
    Did Stalin bring up Kutuzov?
    Did Stalin bring up Suvorov?
    ......
    There wee Russian supermen long before Bolsheviks showed up.

  176. bluedog says:
    @peterAUS
    Thank you for making my point, actually.
    Just from Wikipedia:

    In 1942, at the age of sixteen, Bernard Fall followed in his father's footsteps and joined the French Resistance, after which time he fought the Germans in the Alps. As France was being liberated in 1944, Fall joined the French Army, in which he served until 1946. For his service, he was awarded the French Liberation Medal.
     

    Due to his French citizenship, Fall was allowed to accompany French soldiers and pilots into enemy territory.
     

    Fall was a political scientist, but one who had been a soldier and who spoke the soldier's language and lived the soldier's life at the front line. He obtained his data on the war while slogging through the mud of Vietnam with French colonial troops, with American infantry, and with South Vietnamese soldiers. He combined the usual academic analysis of Indochina with a perspective of the war from the soldier's point of view.
     
    That's why I find puzzling that otherwise smart people buy Saker's strong negative opinions of Western militaries.
    Or positive of Russia/China/whatever military.
    Smart people in the West that is.
    Americans, Brits, Aussies....etc.....
    I guess it's because they need alternative to The Empire so much that they WANT to believe.
    As form of therapy or entertainment it's fine, just don't swap reality for delusion.

    I don’t think its because people have” strong negative opinions of the west” but instead its the fact that we have invaded and bombed half the planet at one time or the other, and left little to show for it, Colin Powell was right he said in Vietnam we tried to fight idealogy with technology and lost, and are still doing the same thing in the Mid-East, for that’s why I said Afghanistan was our second Vietnam for we learned nothing from the past..

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    An interesting reply.

    Not that is has anything to do with my point that Saker (and similar Internet characters) aren't authorities for combat moral on tactical/operational level.
    Or combat capabilities in general on tactical/operational level, for that matter.

    Expressing opinions, debating, exchanging ideas is more than O.K. of course.
    That's how we learn.
    Being regarded as authorities....well....tells more about those readers than writers.

    Which brings us to my question if I may:

    What do YOU think, which regime is BETTER (not good, not nice...just better), Washington or Moscow? For an average, say, low middle class person/family?
    Under which regime that person/family could expect better life? Not good life...not nice life...just BETTER life.

    I'll, personally, come clean now: Washington.

    How about you?

    And, from there, it's easy to conclude for which one I'd fight, or fight against, if it comes to that.
    One of basic blocks of combat morale...................
  177. Miro23 says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    - “Russian” missiles hitting the big US Qatar base.

    - “Russian” missiles sinking a US navy ship in the Gulf (a variant of this was tried before with the USS Liberty).
     
    You evidently fail to understand the difference between some Middle Eastern shithole, which could be attacked with impunity, and Russia which can turn US into the radioactive parking lot. But in general, it has to be noted, issue of scales and proportions was never a forte of many "analysts" in US. I guess US post-WW II military history is a great testament to this major problem.

    You evidently fail to understand the difference between some Middle Eastern shithole, which could be attacked with impunity, and Russia which can turn US into the radioactive parking lot.

    The US could also flatten every Russian city.

    The point is that the US and Russian public don’t want WW3 and neither do Trump or Putin, but the Neocons have a completely different worldview entirely focused on what they see as the advancement of Israel.

    From that worldview , the destruction of Russia, Syria and Iran would be good news since they would control the Middle East and probably the United States through some kind of Emergency Regime. It’s no more bizarre than the 9/11 coup attempt.

    The suggestion is, that something is already going on with MSM anti-Russian propaganda and Trump almost having to prove that he isn’t a Russian agent. Another False Flag aimed at triggering a US attack on Russia could lead directly to a nuclear war, and since everything would happen very fast in that environment, they probably calculate that they could bring sufficient fake intelligence pressure on Trump in the 10-15 minutes involved for him to order a strike.

    This website http://www.nucleardarkness.org/nuclear/nuclearweaponsintheusandrussia/ talks about it:

    Terrorists could carry out two forms of attacks which could cause a mistaken retaliatory launch using Launch-on-Warning policy. First, terrorists could create the illusion of an impending nuclear attack. They could do so by spoofing radar or satellite sensors of Early Warning Systems to imitate a nuclear attack. This could also be accomplished by introducing computer viruses or software that mimic a full-scale nuclear attack into Early Warning System computers or computers which compromise the nuclear command and control systems.

    While Putin is protesting his innocence it could well be Russia that is converted into a radioactive parking lot.

    The only way out of this is for the US to break with Israel and get Zionists out of the US government and politics – but Trump isn’t going to do that, so Putin has to make some difficult decisions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "The only way out of this is for the US to break with Israel and get Zionists out of the US government and politics."
    This is a dream; the tentacles have been stuck deep into the host.
  178. Avery says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    Explain then how my grandfather who was 17 years in 1941 and had exemption / bronya due to being Komosmol secretary refused exemption, added age and enlisted to become invalid in mere 19 years old ? If you think he was the only one.... There were millions like him.
    Stalin brought up generation of super men quite frankly. That generation unfortunately perished during that war. But they saved USSR/ Russia and the whole world from Nazis.
    Human factor must not be underestimated. My maternal grandfather was lucky. He had no close relatives who died during that war. How come high moral then ?

    Well, you being Russian know Russian history and Russian people better than I do. (I am originally from Armenia SSR, before breakup of USSR).
    But this my view.

    {Explain then how my grandfather..}

    You know your grandfather: I don’t.
    But I highly doubt he was fighting for Komsomol: he was fighting for Mother Russia, like millions of other Russians.
    (pretty much every young person coming of age had to join the Komsomol)
    (if you didn’t you stood out, and in a bad way……)
    (at least that’s how it was in Armenia SSR)

    {But they saved USSR/ Russia and the whole world from Nazis.}

    Yes, they did.
    God bless them and all others from all 15 USSR republics.
    They also saved Armenia from total wipeout.
    During the Battle of Stalingrad, Turks had massed a huge invasion army on the border of Armenia SSR. The expectation was that Nazis would win at Stalingrad and race to the oilfields of Baku. Turks would invade Armenia, and link up with their Turk kin in Azerbaijan. As soon as Paulus’s army got annihilated and ‘Marshal’ Paulus surrendered, Turks quickly up and left.

    {He had no close relatives who died during that war. How come high moral then ?}

    You are nitpicking.
    When someone is trying to exterminate you simply because you are a Russian, you fight to the death if you can. I cannot explain what makes humans fight and die for their ethnos, but I know they do,.
    During the Nagorno-Karabagh war hundreds Diaspora Armenian volunteers went to Artsakh to fight and many were KIA there. One the most famous ones was Monte Melkonian: American by birth from Fresno, CA. Third generation Armenian-American. He was KIA in Artsakh. None of his immediate or extended family in California was in danger, obviously. He went to Artaskh because his ancestral ethnos was facing extermination there.

    {Stalin brought up generation of super men quite frankly.}

    Sorry, I have to disagree.
    Did Stalin bring up Kutuzov?
    Did Stalin bring up Suvorov?
    ……
    There wee Russian supermen long before Bolsheviks showed up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    People fought both for the country and for the system that indeed brought them benefits and different life. You know not of the spirit of the time. Yes, Russian soldier always was brave and fought well but never to such extent as during Great Patriotic war. Despite what many think socialism and Russian people were great match at the time. If you think the progress that Soviet Union experienced since 1921 to the end of 30's did not bring the best out of Soviet people it is plainly wrong. Do not forget about moral of those who worked for the victory and managed to out manufacture the whole Western Europe under the most severe conditions.
  179. ohioguy says:
    @Elder

    @Kilo 4/11 Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S.
     
    The Russians are in Syria at the request of the sovereign nation of Syria.
    The USA is in Syria as an illegal invading force providing support to Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
    I never would have guessed that the rot in the USA would have progressed to the point where the Russians would be 100% in the right, both legally and morally, and the USA would be 100% in the wrong, both legally and morally, but here we are.

    Syria is as close to Russia as Chicago to Cleveland. Not only is it in their interests to destroy Wahhabist US proxies operating there, they have supported Syria as a client since Papa Haffez was in power

    The ignorance of Americans is only exceeded by that of the Talking Hairdos of the (((Lamestream Media))) and Congress

    Read More
  180. @Avery
    {The willpower, courage and determination of the Russian solider is stronger than his US counterparts by many orders of magnitude.}

    By many orders of magnitude?
    One order of magnitude is 10.
    Two orders of magnitude is 100.
    Many is .....what 1,000?
    Russian warriors are at the minimum 10X better than American warriors?

    You don't actually believe that, do you?

    Their leaders - both military and civilian - may be incompetent, corrupt, treasonous (e.g. USS Liberty betrayal by their Commander in Chief),etc, etc.....but American professional warriors lack neither willpower, nor courage, nor determination.

    One example: the "Black Hawk Down"/Battle of Mogadishu firefight.

    Their leaders sent them into a harebrained Globalist mission without proper support, but once all Hell broke loose, Americans fought with great courage and determination. Fought like lions, in fact.

    The notion that Russian pros are, quote, 'many orders of magnitude' stronger in warrior quality (...and skills) is truly delusional on Saker's part.

    Another consideration similar to the claim that “The willpower, courage and determination of the Russian soldier is stronger than his US counterpart by many orders of magnitude” is the relative “willpower, courage, and determination” of the Russian and US publics. I would suggest that substantial numbers of dead and wounded would be much more difficult for the Americans to bear than for the Russians. In a real conflict against a capable adversary part of “the test” is the ability to absorb and endure substantial emotional and material “pain” — ie damage. In this area I suggest that the US is at a very serious disadvantage. The Russians have a reputation, and perhaps the history to back it up, of having had to endure almost unimaginable levels of death and destruction in defensive warfare: sucking it up, retreating, fighting on, dying by the millions, persevering, sucking it up some more, dying some more, retreating some more, and basically sticking with this “this is what we’ve got, so we just keep at it until we’re all dead or the enemy is exhausted” strategy of just gutting it out to the bitter end. The US just doesn’t have that kind of guts, is my impression.

    But while this may be the bottom line, I think Putin and the Russian military are way out front of the US strategically and tactically, and it will never come to a straight up US vs Russia military slugfest. Instead some other approach, something “off to the side” — bombing or threatening to bomb Israel, thus getting the Israels to rein in their US poodle, or obliterating Saudi oilfields, or destroying the US satellite fleet thereby crippling the US military force projection network, with nary an American paper-cut inflicted …. something like that which would stop in its tracks any escalation toward a direct confrontation.

    Read More
    • Agree: JL, bluedog
    • Replies: @Avery
    { The US just doesn’t have that kind of guts, is my impression.}

    You are quite right that Russian people have an almost unimaginable capacity to endure all sorts of hardship and privations, and keep going. The Russian Empire did attain its size because its population and foot-soldiers were snowflakes.

    But as to whether the US has that kind of guts is yet to be determined.
    US has never had to fight the kind of war that USSR (overwhelmingly Russians and other Slavs) fought against Nazi Germany: an existential war. Nazis invaded with the express goal of exterminating all Slavs West of the Urals. Russians/Slavs knew it and saw it with their own eyes. So, fight to the death.

    All the wars US has fought, even WW2, were nowhere near a threat to the existence of US. US could afford to walk away, with only its pride bruised.

    I would not discount the ability of Americans to endure hardship and bloodshed, if necessary.

    During the (misnamed) Civil War, there were quite a few battles where both sides charged massed guns and cannon, were cut down like reeds, and yet men kept going forward.
    And during the Great Depression, American families endured tremendous hardships, yet families adapted and coped.
  181. @MarkinLA
    In war, moral factors acount for three quarters of the whole; relative material strength accounts for only one quarter. ,

    Yes in 1810 when all you had was smooth bore horse drawn cannons and smooth bore muskets that were inaccurate past 100 meters. Most wars ultimately had to be settled up close and personal in hand to hand combat with bayoneted rifles and sabers.

    Not anymore when you don't even see the guy you are killing. The issue of why modern armies don't defeat insurgents as in Israel or Vietnam is because the invading army doesn't do like they did hundreds of years ago and kill everything in its path like they are capable of.

    You really have to look at military history to see how relatively soft modern wars are. In medieval times it was quite common to simply kill all the men and rape all the women. There was one instance when some king sent his army to take another kingdom and lost. The first king paid the ransom to get his army back. When he tried it again, he lost his whole army. The other king blinded 99 out of 100 men and let the 100th keep one eye so he could lead the blind men back home. This was the only way to make sure that his kingdom was at least safe from attack for another 30 years or so.

    The King that did the blinding was the Byzantine Greek emperor B
    asil the Bulgarslayer around 1000AD.The army he blinded was that of czar of Bulgarians as Basil’s name suggests. The Bulgarian czar was so heartbroken at seeing long lines of his totally blind soldiers coming back as invalids that he died of a heartattack.

    Read More
  182. Avery says:
    @Jeff Davis
    Another consideration similar to the claim that "The willpower, courage and determination of the Russian soldier is stronger than his US counterpart by many orders of magnitude" is the relative "willpower, courage, and determination" of the Russian and US publics. I would suggest that substantial numbers of dead and wounded would be much more difficult for the Americans to bear than for the Russians. In a real conflict against a capable adversary part of "the test" is the ability to absorb and endure substantial emotional and material "pain" -- ie damage. In this area I suggest that the US is at a very serious disadvantage. The Russians have a reputation, and perhaps the history to back it up, of having had to endure almost unimaginable levels of death and destruction in defensive warfare: sucking it up, retreating, fighting on, dying by the millions, persevering, sucking it up some more, dying some more, retreating some more, and basically sticking with this "this is what we've got, so we just keep at it until we're all dead or the enemy is exhausted" strategy of just gutting it out to the bitter end. The US just doesn't have that kind of guts, is my impression.

    But while this may be the bottom line, I think Putin and the Russian military are way out front of the US strategically and tactically, and it will never come to a straight up US vs Russia military slugfest. Instead some other approach, something "off to the side" -- bombing or threatening to bomb Israel, thus getting the Israels to rein in their US poodle, or obliterating Saudi oilfields, or destroying the US satellite fleet thereby crippling the US military force projection network, with nary an American paper-cut inflicted .... something like that which would stop in its tracks any escalation toward a direct confrontation.

    { The US just doesn’t have that kind of guts, is my impression.}

    You are quite right that Russian people have an almost unimaginable capacity to endure all sorts of hardship and privations, and keep going. The Russian Empire did attain its size because its population and foot-soldiers were snowflakes.

    But as to whether the US has that kind of guts is yet to be determined.
    US has never had to fight the kind of war that USSR (overwhelmingly Russians and other Slavs) fought against Nazi Germany: an existential war. Nazis invaded with the express goal of exterminating all Slavs West of the Urals. Russians/Slavs knew it and saw it with their own eyes. So, fight to the death.

    All the wars US has fought, even WW2, were nowhere near a threat to the existence of US. US could afford to walk away, with only its pride bruised.

    I would not discount the ability of Americans to endure hardship and bloodshed, if necessary.

    During the (misnamed) Civil War, there were quite a few battles where both sides charged massed guns and cannon, were cut down like reeds, and yet men kept going forward.
    And during the Great Depression, American families endured tremendous hardships, yet families adapted and coped.

    Read More
  183. annamaria says:
    @Miro23

    You evidently fail to understand the difference between some Middle Eastern shithole, which could be attacked with impunity, and Russia which can turn US into the radioactive parking lot.
     
    The US could also flatten every Russian city.

    The point is that the US and Russian public don't want WW3 and neither do Trump or Putin, but the Neocons have a completely different worldview entirely focused on what they see as the advancement of Israel.

    From that worldview , the destruction of Russia, Syria and Iran would be good news since they would control the Middle East and probably the United States through some kind of Emergency Regime. It's no more bizarre than the 9/11 coup attempt.

    The suggestion is, that something is already going on with MSM anti-Russian propaganda and Trump almost having to prove that he isn't a Russian agent. Another False Flag aimed at triggering a US attack on Russia could lead directly to a nuclear war, and since everything would happen very fast in that environment, they probably calculate that they could bring sufficient fake intelligence pressure on Trump in the 10-15 minutes involved for him to order a strike.

    This website http://www.nucleardarkness.org/nuclear/nuclearweaponsintheusandrussia/ talks about it:

    Terrorists could carry out two forms of attacks which could cause a mistaken retaliatory launch using Launch-on-Warning policy. First, terrorists could create the illusion of an impending nuclear attack. They could do so by spoofing radar or satellite sensors of Early Warning Systems to imitate a nuclear attack. This could also be accomplished by introducing computer viruses or software that mimic a full-scale nuclear attack into Early Warning System computers or computers which compromise the nuclear command and control systems.
     
    While Putin is protesting his innocence it could well be Russia that is converted into a radioactive parking lot.

    The only way out of this is for the US to break with Israel and get Zionists out of the US government and politics - but Trump isn't going to do that, so Putin has to make some difficult decisions.

    “The only way out of this is for the US to break with Israel and get Zionists out of the US government and politics.”
    This is a dream; the tentacles have been stuck deep into the host.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    The very mention of such a thing would trigger an economic Armageddon and ensure the most serious deprivations, of everything. Americans may well talk about loving their freedoms but they love their luxuries and conveniences even more.
  184. @annamaria
    "The only way out of this is for the US to break with Israel and get Zionists out of the US government and politics."
    This is a dream; the tentacles have been stuck deep into the host.

    The very mention of such a thing would trigger an economic Armageddon and ensure the most serious deprivations, of everything. Americans may well talk about loving their freedoms but they love their luxuries and conveniences even more.

    Read More
  185. “We know that Russia has a vastly superior intelligence capability in Syria as reflected in the kind of damage Russian air and missile strike inflict on their targets especially when compared to the painfully obvious lack of US understanding of what’s really going on on the ground.”

    Though I gree with most of the article and apreciate it quite much, I found the above argument not very convincing. It sort of argues that the effectiveness of attacking terrorist targets is a measure of the quality of intelligence gathering. But if one of the comparing parties’ aim is to NOT target terrorists (which I believe is the US’s aim), then you cannot determine the quality of its intelligence by the effectiveness of their targeting of terrorists.
    No doubt that Russia has some quite useful intelligence operations going on (resulting in some quite effective targeting of terrorists), but it doesn’t prove a better quality of intelligence than the Us’s, because (I believe) the US doesn’t want to target terrorists in Syria in the first place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    The blinding truth:

    "Israel cannot justify its attacks on Syria. Syria is not threatening Israel and judging by the fact that Israel often treats wounded al-Qaeda terrorists in its hospitals, al-Qaeda is clearly not a threat to Israel either.
    The internal struggle for Syrian survival should not be molested by any foreign state or non-state power unless explicitly given permission by the Syrian government or the United Nations. Israel has been given no such permission and of course, never will be. Therefore, Israel’s attacks on sovereign Syrian territory without provocation are war crimes."
    http://theduran.com/4-reasons-israeli-and-allied-aggression-against-syria-must-be-condemned/

    In short: Terrorism-supporting Israel commits war crimes in Syria in pursuit of Oded Yinon plan for Eretz Israel.
  186. @Avery
    Well, you being Russian know Russian history and Russian people better than I do. (I am originally from Armenia SSR, before breakup of USSR).
    But this my view.


    {Explain then how my grandfather..}

    You know your grandfather: I don't.
    But I highly doubt he was fighting for Komsomol: he was fighting for Mother Russia, like millions of other Russians.
    (pretty much every young person coming of age had to join the Komsomol)
    (if you didn't you stood out, and in a bad way......)
    (at least that's how it was in Armenia SSR)

    {But they saved USSR/ Russia and the whole world from Nazis.}

    Yes, they did.
    God bless them and all others from all 15 USSR republics.
    They also saved Armenia from total wipeout.
    During the Battle of Stalingrad, Turks had massed a huge invasion army on the border of Armenia SSR. The expectation was that Nazis would win at Stalingrad and race to the oilfields of Baku. Turks would invade Armenia, and link up with their Turk kin in Azerbaijan. As soon as Paulus's army got annihilated and 'Marshal' Paulus surrendered, Turks quickly up and left.

    {He had no close relatives who died during that war. How come high moral then ?}

    You are nitpicking.
    When someone is trying to exterminate you simply because you are a Russian, you fight to the death if you can. I cannot explain what makes humans fight and die for their ethnos, but I know they do,.
    During the Nagorno-Karabagh war hundreds Diaspora Armenian volunteers went to Artsakh to fight and many were KIA there. One the most famous ones was Monte Melkonian: American by birth from Fresno, CA. Third generation Armenian-American. He was KIA in Artsakh. None of his immediate or extended family in California was in danger, obviously. He went to Artaskh because his ancestral ethnos was facing extermination there.

    {Stalin brought up generation of super men quite frankly.}

    Sorry, I have to disagree.
    Did Stalin bring up Kutuzov?
    Did Stalin bring up Suvorov?
    ......
    There wee Russian supermen long before Bolsheviks showed up.

    People fought both for the country and for the system that indeed brought them benefits and different life. You know not of the spirit of the time. Yes, Russian soldier always was brave and fought well but never to such extent as during Great Patriotic war. Despite what many think socialism and Russian people were great match at the time. If you think the progress that Soviet Union experienced since 1921 to the end of 30′s did not bring the best out of Soviet people it is plainly wrong. Do not forget about moral of those who worked for the victory and managed to out manufacture the whole Western Europe under the most severe conditions.

    Read More
  187. annamaria says:
    @Hans Zandvliet
    "We know that Russia has a vastly superior intelligence capability in Syria as reflected in the kind of damage Russian air and missile strike inflict on their targets especially when compared to the painfully obvious lack of US understanding of what’s really going on on the ground."

    Though I gree with most of the article and apreciate it quite much, I found the above argument not very convincing. It sort of argues that the effectiveness of attacking terrorist targets is a measure of the quality of intelligence gathering. But if one of the comparing parties' aim is to NOT target terrorists (which I believe is the US's aim), then you cannot determine the quality of its intelligence by the effectiveness of their targeting of terrorists.
    No doubt that Russia has some quite useful intelligence operations going on (resulting in some quite effective targeting of terrorists), but it doesn't prove a better quality of intelligence than the Us's, because (I believe) the US doesn't want to target terrorists in Syria in the first place.

    The blinding truth:

    “Israel cannot justify its attacks on Syria. Syria is not threatening Israel and judging by the fact that Israel often treats wounded al-Qaeda terrorists in its hospitals, al-Qaeda is clearly not a threat to Israel either.
    The internal struggle for Syrian survival should not be molested by any foreign state or non-state power unless explicitly given permission by the Syrian government or the United Nations. Israel has been given no such permission and of course, never will be. Therefore, Israel’s attacks on sovereign Syrian territory without provocation are war crimes.”

    http://theduran.com/4-reasons-israeli-and-allied-aggression-against-syria-must-be-condemned/

    In short: Terrorism-supporting Israel commits war crimes in Syria in pursuit of Oded Yinon plan for Eretz Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hans Zandvliet
    Hello Annamaria,
    I suspect you dialed the wrong number: your reply to my comment argues an entirely different subject (with which, by the way, I completely agree). Even different than the subject of the article itself.
  188. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Kilo 4/11
    Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S. hits them in Syria? We did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S. Russia had better think twice and think again before going down that road.

    Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S.

    Had you said “than the U.S. had to be in Vietnam” you’d be right. As it is you couldn’t be more wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Had you said “than the U.S. had to be in Vietnam” you’d be right. As it is you couldn’t be more wrong.
     
    Indeed so, though the Vietnam parallel is a troublesome one for those who defend Russian involvement in Syria but would criticise the US's involvement in Vietnam.

    I can justify it by arguing that the Syrian government is the established and legitimate government of Syria, whereas the government of Vietnam was an occupation by post-colonial elites, but there are obvious problems with that argument. I might also justify it by saying that the survival of the Assad government is in the clear best interests of my nation (UK), whereas there was no good reason to be fighting to sustain the post-colonial Vietnamese government, but again there are clearly issues with that line of argument as well. Finally, it can be argued that an extension of US domination, and the regional interests of the noxious Saudi and Israeli regimes, into yet another of the few remaining corners of the planet where it does not yet run is not in humanity's interest, 0r anyone's interests but those of a few notably unappealing parties, but there are obvious reasons why that argument would not be accepted by many, as well.

    In the end, perhaps it just comes down to the fact that the US involvement in Vietnam was unsuccessful but the Russian assistance of its ally seems likely to be a success.
    , @Rurik


    Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S.
     
    Had you said “than the U.S. had to be in Vietnam” you’d be right
     
    this is wrong, because the Russians have every right, both moral and legal and otherwise, to be in Syria. In fact it's even highly laudable on several different metrics for Russia to be in Syria, as they are protecting the legitimate (and by far more palatable) government than anything that might replace it once Syria has been 'Libya'd' and Assad has been 'Gadhafi'd'.

    The US by contrast had little if any justification for being in Vietnam.

    Just as it has zero justification for being in Syria today, and indeed, is acting like a rogue nation attacking sovereign nations in serial wars of aggression with zero moral or legal standing.

    The US is funding and arming stone age orcs and sending them marching on innocent villages and cities and regions where the locals are terrorized, often tortured, crucified or even burned alive as the young women and girls are subjected to treatment no human would tolerate for a dog. But the ZUS imposes all of this on those beleaguered people because it is acting on behalf of the Fiend. [what else can you call it?!]

    Russia, on the other hand, is acting like the civilized adult in the room trying to restore order and safety to these people's lives. There's just no moral equivalency at all.
  189. peterAUS says:
    @bluedog
    I don't think its because people have" strong negative opinions of the west" but instead its the fact that we have invaded and bombed half the planet at one time or the other, and left little to show for it, Colin Powell was right he said in Vietnam we tried to fight idealogy with technology and lost, and are still doing the same thing in the Mid-East, for that's why I said Afghanistan was our second Vietnam for we learned nothing from the past..

    An interesting reply.

    Not that is has anything to do with my point that Saker (and similar Internet characters) aren’t authorities for combat moral on tactical/operational level.
    Or combat capabilities in general on tactical/operational level, for that matter.

    Expressing opinions, debating, exchanging ideas is more than O.K. of course.
    That’s how we learn.
    Being regarded as authorities….well….tells more about those readers than writers.

    Which brings us to my question if I may:

    What do YOU think, which regime is BETTER (not good, not nice…just better), Washington or Moscow? For an average, say, low middle class person/family?
    Under which regime that person/family could expect better life? Not good life…not nice life…just BETTER life.

    I’ll, personally, come clean now: Washington.

    How about you?

    And, from there, it’s easy to conclude for which one I’d fight, or fight against, if it comes to that.
    One of basic blocks of combat morale……………….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    What do YOU think, which regime is BETTER (not good, not nice…just better), Washington or Moscow? For an average, say, low middle class person/family?
    Under which regime that person/family could expect better life? Not good life…not nice life…just BETTER life.

    I’ll, personally, come clean now: Washington.
     
    I think Enoch Powell had a better answer for that question when he reportedly said that: "we do not fight for values. I would fight for this country even if it had a communist government". I would never strongly criticise any man for fighting for his nation under any government, in any war, except where it serves foreign interests. I do not unduly criticise the ordinary soldiers of Hitler's Germany nor those of Stalin's Russia.

    The point being that morale is not just about ideology, but mostly about nation.

    In most cases where people claim people are fighting for ideology, imo you will find nation (not state, mind you) underlying it, from Vietnam to Hezbollah.
    , @Erebus
    Have you lived in either? Both?
    Having worked (admittedly, not really lived) in both, there is little doubt which way I'd choose, in spite of the weather.

    I guess it boils down to what you're definition of "better" is.
    , @Rurik

    What do YOU think, which regime is BETTER (not good, not nice…just better), Washington or Moscow? For an average, say, low middle class person/family?
     
    it depends on the trajectory

    if Hillary had won, then just about any place on earth would be better than a nation being humiliatingly looted and raped to benefit its enemy.

    we might have nice weather in parts of the ZUS, great people and even a crumbling economy, left over from America's glory days

    but when your nation is in steep decline, and being used like a cheap whore to benefit a pimp that shits on you and hates your guts, then even a less economically well-off place would be preferable to the humiliation of living in the land of the free and home of the brave. Run by traitors and cowards, and selling out the future of your children and grandchildren.

    I'd rather live in an ascendant Russia, than in Hillary's ZUSA. But with Trump, the verdict is still out.
    , @Alberto Campos
    "And, from there, it’s easy to conclude for which one I’d fight, or fight against"
    I would suggest: against the Aboriginals. To exterminate them.

    And, as you insist:

    "Not that is has anything to do with my point that Saker (and similar Internet characters) aren’t authorities for combat moral on tactical/operational level.
    Or combat capabilities in general on tactical/operational level, for that matter."
    You are. Obviously. Together with Powell, Mattis and all other liars you hear so carefully day after day, year after year.
  190. Randal says:
    @peterAUS
    An interesting reply.

    Not that is has anything to do with my point that Saker (and similar Internet characters) aren't authorities for combat moral on tactical/operational level.
    Or combat capabilities in general on tactical/operational level, for that matter.

    Expressing opinions, debating, exchanging ideas is more than O.K. of course.
    That's how we learn.
    Being regarded as authorities....well....tells more about those readers than writers.

    Which brings us to my question if I may:

    What do YOU think, which regime is BETTER (not good, not nice...just better), Washington or Moscow? For an average, say, low middle class person/family?
    Under which regime that person/family could expect better life? Not good life...not nice life...just BETTER life.

    I'll, personally, come clean now: Washington.

    How about you?

    And, from there, it's easy to conclude for which one I'd fight, or fight against, if it comes to that.
    One of basic blocks of combat morale...................

    What do YOU think, which regime is BETTER (not good, not nice…just better), Washington or Moscow? For an average, say, low middle class person/family?
    Under which regime that person/family could expect better life? Not good life…not nice life…just BETTER life.

    I’ll, personally, come clean now: Washington.

    I think Enoch Powell had a better answer for that question when he reportedly said that: “we do not fight for values. I would fight for this country even if it had a communist government”. I would never strongly criticise any man for fighting for his nation under any government, in any war, except where it serves foreign interests. I do not unduly criticise the ordinary soldiers of Hitler’s Germany nor those of Stalin’s Russia.

    The point being that morale is not just about ideology, but mostly about nation.

    In most cases where people claim people are fighting for ideology, imo you will find nation (not state, mind you) underlying it, from Vietnam to Hezbollah.

    Read More
  191. Randal says:
    @Anon

    Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S.
     
    Had you said "than the U.S. had to be in Vietnam" you'd be right. As it is you couldn't be more wrong.

    Had you said “than the U.S. had to be in Vietnam” you’d be right. As it is you couldn’t be more wrong.

    Indeed so, though the Vietnam parallel is a troublesome one for those who defend Russian involvement in Syria but would criticise the US’s involvement in Vietnam.

    I can justify it by arguing that the Syrian government is the established and legitimate government of Syria, whereas the government of Vietnam was an occupation by post-colonial elites, but there are obvious problems with that argument. I might also justify it by saying that the survival of the Assad government is in the clear best interests of my nation (UK), whereas there was no good reason to be fighting to sustain the post-colonial Vietnamese government, but again there are clearly issues with that line of argument as well. Finally, it can be argued that an extension of US domination, and the regional interests of the noxious Saudi and Israeli regimes, into yet another of the few remaining corners of the planet where it does not yet run is not in humanity’s interest, 0r anyone’s interests but those of a few notably unappealing parties, but there are obvious reasons why that argument would not be accepted by many, as well.

    In the end, perhaps it just comes down to the fact that the US involvement in Vietnam was unsuccessful but the Russian assistance of its ally seems likely to be a success.

    Read More
  192. @Avery
    {The willpower, courage and determination of the Russian solider is stronger than his US counterparts by many orders of magnitude.}

    By many orders of magnitude?
    One order of magnitude is 10.
    Two orders of magnitude is 100.
    Many is .....what 1,000?
    Russian warriors are at the minimum 10X better than American warriors?

    You don't actually believe that, do you?

    Their leaders - both military and civilian - may be incompetent, corrupt, treasonous (e.g. USS Liberty betrayal by their Commander in Chief),etc, etc.....but American professional warriors lack neither willpower, nor courage, nor determination.

    One example: the "Black Hawk Down"/Battle of Mogadishu firefight.

    Their leaders sent them into a harebrained Globalist mission without proper support, but once all Hell broke loose, Americans fought with great courage and determination. Fought like lions, in fact.

    The notion that Russian pros are, quote, 'many orders of magnitude' stronger in warrior quality (...and skills) is truly delusional on Saker's part.

    Avery’s self gloating estimation of the American solider is way way off! I’ve been in Iraq months before our idiotic baffoon Bush illegally invaded Iraq. I have personal friends among the commissioned and non-commissioned officers of our US Army, the Marines, USAF and even the Coast Guards. As an American I have spent a great deal of time with the soldiers on the ground in Iraq. I have yet to find ONE soldier is willingly in the front lines of the illegal fight with the Iraqis. Most of them cried to get back home saying “what the hell are we doin here in the God forsaken place? I was supposed to be here only for three months and now its the 2nd. year going on. “I don’t wanna fight with these crazies who wanna die”., I know it’s totally illegal war that we are killing these people”. “Let the efin Israeli come and fight their war why us”.. etc etc. Most of them I found scared shitless going out of the Green Zone area and if they do, only way they leave the security and comfort of the Green Zone is with a 30 Humvee convoy to escort them along with another 20 Iraqi and American private security companies. I went from Green one to Camp Anaconda, on our way, we stopped several times for reasons that no one knew why but just becuse there was some news that an Iraqi or an Al Queda blew himself up somewhere. The scare and the fear that we all felt was just mind blowing. Not being a military guy I was shocked to witness the fear among the soldiers of unknown IEDs that may or may not be on our path to Camp Anaconda. It took us thrice as much time as it took to the ordinary private American and non-American contractors to make it to Camp Anaconda. I can go on and on about the cowardice of our “volunteer” poverty stricken soldier who had nothing going on for his life in a run down dead tiny villages and towns and nothing matched the opportunity than enlisting in the Army etc. Great majority of our soldiers in the Middle East know very well that we are fighting the war for Israel and not for America! This is why all the difference it makes when we compare American soldiers with any other in the war theater of the Middle East. Most of our soldier are so spooked out that they shoot first before they figure out what they are shooting at!

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Crude.

    I LOVE good propaganda, but, this is........just.......crude....
    It's grating.

    I guess it's O.K. enough if it's done for "non-Western" audience, and bottom half of social ladder of that group.
    No educated Russian/Chinese/Iranian/etc will buy this post.

    But, really, Western audience.........man.

    You really should work harder on your skills.

    I'll try to help, polish it a bit, just as an exercise.

    I was in Iraq months before Bush invaded Iraq. I have personal friends among the commissioned and non-commissioned officers of our US Army, the Marines, USAF and even the Coast Guards. As an American I have spent a great deal of time with the soldiers on the ground in Iraq. Most military personnel there are not happy with deployment in that theater. Most of them I found anxious when going out of the Green Zone area and when they do, they leave the security and comfort of the Green Zone in a 30 Humvee convoy. I went from Green one to Camp Anaconda and on our way we stopped several times for unknown reasons . The scare that we civilians all felt was rather unpleasant. Not being a military guy I was surprised to witness the anxiety among the soldiers from unknown IEDs that may or may not be on our path to Camp Anaconda. Great majority of our soldiers in the Middle East know very well that we are fighting unwinnable wars there!

    Better?
    , @Avery
    You have a great imagination.
    It's wasted here @UNZ writing posts: you should self-publish and become famous.

    btw: no American who has been American for any length of time writes sentences like you wrote in your post. I won't point what the tells are, but there are a whole bunch that scream "not an American". And I doubt very much you were anywhere near Iraq or that you witnessed any of the things you claim you witnessed.

  193. @annamaria
    The blinding truth:

    "Israel cannot justify its attacks on Syria. Syria is not threatening Israel and judging by the fact that Israel often treats wounded al-Qaeda terrorists in its hospitals, al-Qaeda is clearly not a threat to Israel either.
    The internal struggle for Syrian survival should not be molested by any foreign state or non-state power unless explicitly given permission by the Syrian government or the United Nations. Israel has been given no such permission and of course, never will be. Therefore, Israel’s attacks on sovereign Syrian territory without provocation are war crimes."
    http://theduran.com/4-reasons-israeli-and-allied-aggression-against-syria-must-be-condemned/

    In short: Terrorism-supporting Israel commits war crimes in Syria in pursuit of Oded Yinon plan for Eretz Israel.

    Hello Annamaria,
    I suspect you dialed the wrong number: your reply to my comment argues an entirely different subject (with which, by the way, I completely agree). Even different than the subject of the article itself.

    Read More
  194. peterAUS says:
    @Mohammed Cohen
    Avery's self gloating estimation of the American solider is way way off! I've been in Iraq months before our idiotic baffoon Bush illegally invaded Iraq. I have personal friends among the commissioned and non-commissioned officers of our US Army, the Marines, USAF and even the Coast Guards. As an American I have spent a great deal of time with the soldiers on the ground in Iraq. I have yet to find ONE soldier is willingly in the front lines of the illegal fight with the Iraqis. Most of them cried to get back home saying "what the hell are we doin here in the God forsaken place? I was supposed to be here only for three months and now its the 2nd. year going on. "I don't wanna fight with these crazies who wanna die"., I know it's totally illegal war that we are killing these people". "Let the efin Israeli come and fight their war why us".. etc etc. Most of them I found scared shitless going out of the Green Zone area and if they do, only way they leave the security and comfort of the Green Zone is with a 30 Humvee convoy to escort them along with another 20 Iraqi and American private security companies. I went from Green one to Camp Anaconda, on our way, we stopped several times for reasons that no one knew why but just becuse there was some news that an Iraqi or an Al Queda blew himself up somewhere. The scare and the fear that we all felt was just mind blowing. Not being a military guy I was shocked to witness the fear among the soldiers of unknown IEDs that may or may not be on our path to Camp Anaconda. It took us thrice as much time as it took to the ordinary private American and non-American contractors to make it to Camp Anaconda. I can go on and on about the cowardice of our "volunteer" poverty stricken soldier who had nothing going on for his life in a run down dead tiny villages and towns and nothing matched the opportunity than enlisting in the Army etc. Great majority of our soldiers in the Middle East know very well that we are fighting the war for Israel and not for America! This is why all the difference it makes when we compare American soldiers with any other in the war theater of the Middle East. Most of our soldier are so spooked out that they shoot first before they figure out what they are shooting at!

    Crude.

    I LOVE good propaganda, but, this is……..just…….crude….
    It’s grating.

    I guess it’s O.K. enough if it’s done for “non-Western” audience, and bottom half of social ladder of that group.
    No educated Russian/Chinese/Iranian/etc will buy this post.

    But, really, Western audience………man.

    You really should work harder on your skills.

    I’ll try to help, polish it a bit, just as an exercise.

    I was in Iraq months before Bush invaded Iraq. I have personal friends among the commissioned and non-commissioned officers of our US Army, the Marines, USAF and even the Coast Guards. As an American I have spent a great deal of time with the soldiers on the ground in Iraq. Most military personnel there are not happy with deployment in that theater. Most of them I found anxious when going out of the Green Zone area and when they do, they leave the security and comfort of the Green Zone in a 30 Humvee convoy. I went from Green one to Camp Anaconda and on our way we stopped several times for unknown reasons . The scare that we civilians all felt was rather unpleasant. Not being a military guy I was surprised to witness the anxiety among the soldiers from unknown IEDs that may or may not be on our path to Camp Anaconda. Great majority of our soldiers in the Middle East know very well that we are fighting unwinnable wars there!

    Better?

    Read More
  195. @Kilo 4/11
    Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S. hits them in Syria? We did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S. Russia had better think twice and think again before going down that road.

    “We did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam.”

    Yes “we” did; “we” simply refused the opportunity because “we” were willing to kill millions of people for the sake of “superpower credibility”. (BTW good for “Russia” to stand up and help the victim, because our “enemy” was merely defending itself from U.S. aggression. The U.S. “government” had no more legitimacy involving itself in Vietnam than it does in Syria).

    Read More
  196. Blue Sky says:

    Yes, remember the USS Donald Cook incident in the Black Sea? A Russian jet flew by a couple of times and all the electronics in the US warship shut down and the Capt of the Cook had no choice but to turn around and flee.

    Putin has publicly said that Russia can wipe out the whole US Navy fleet with EMP.

    Read More
  197. bb. says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Had Germany moved to a war economy in 1940, instead of 1943, it is difficult to see how it could have lost.
     
    A favorite Speer "argument", which, of course, forgets how the rest of Europe was supplying Wehrmacht.

    and allies were supplying the soviets. is it even possible to do a clean ceteris paribus adjustment on war production? do trucks count as war goods?railroads?spikes?gas tanks? wikipedia mentions a ”full” war economy since speer took over with a 2,5fold increase in goods with all manpower diverted. is it even possible to maintain such an ‘economy’ even medium turn?
    i agree with you that moral plays a bigger role then akarlin suggests but also the saker point on moral was really weak. i also agree with akarlin that at the end of the day, zhelezo is what probably matters most.
    i think moral as a military factor is useful when discussing homeland protection/vengeance type war scenarios. the us and ruskies are both foreign paid expeditionaries in our case so no moral superiority for any side. the syrians, iranians, sure, that might be a factor. from the russians, only chechens might feel something like a moral responsibility, but as far as i know, they are mostly MP on the ground.

    Read More
  198. Rurik says: • Website
    @Anon

    Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S.
     
    Had you said "than the U.S. had to be in Vietnam" you'd be right. As it is you couldn't be more wrong.

    Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S.

    Had you said “than the U.S. had to be in Vietnam” you’d be right

    this is wrong, because the Russians have every right, both moral and legal and otherwise, to be in Syria. In fact it’s even highly laudable on several different metrics for Russia to be in Syria, as they are protecting the legitimate (and by far more palatable) government than anything that might replace it once Syria has been ‘Libya’d’ and Assad has been ‘Gadhafi’d’.

    The US by contrast had little if any justification for being in Vietnam.

    Just as it has zero justification for being in Syria today, and indeed, is acting like a rogue nation attacking sovereign nations in serial wars of aggression with zero moral or legal standing.

    The US is funding and arming stone age orcs and sending them marching on innocent villages and cities and regions where the locals are terrorized, often tortured, crucified or even burned alive as the young women and girls are subjected to treatment no human would tolerate for a dog. But the ZUS imposes all of this on those beleaguered people because it is acting on behalf of the Fiend. [what else can you call it?!]

    Russia, on the other hand, is acting like the civilized adult in the room trying to restore order and safety to these people’s lives. There’s just no moral equivalency at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Describe in a brief essay the concept of territorial sovereignty and how it applies to South Vietnam and to Syria.

    Describe some lives to which order was brought by the VC.
  199. Erebus says:
    @peterAUS
    An interesting reply.

    Not that is has anything to do with my point that Saker (and similar Internet characters) aren't authorities for combat moral on tactical/operational level.
    Or combat capabilities in general on tactical/operational level, for that matter.

    Expressing opinions, debating, exchanging ideas is more than O.K. of course.
    That's how we learn.
    Being regarded as authorities....well....tells more about those readers than writers.

    Which brings us to my question if I may:

    What do YOU think, which regime is BETTER (not good, not nice...just better), Washington or Moscow? For an average, say, low middle class person/family?
    Under which regime that person/family could expect better life? Not good life...not nice life...just BETTER life.

    I'll, personally, come clean now: Washington.

    How about you?

    And, from there, it's easy to conclude for which one I'd fight, or fight against, if it comes to that.
    One of basic blocks of combat morale...................

    Have you lived in either? Both?
    Having worked (admittedly, not really lived) in both, there is little doubt which way I’d choose, in spite of the weather.

    I guess it boils down to what you’re definition of “better” is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    I guess it boils down to what you’re definition of “better” is.
     
    Precisely.

    For me just three:
    Rule of law.
    Corruption.
    Work ethics.

    Now, COMPARE those three elements in US (or West in general) and Russia.

    As for military, say, an average mechanized brigade:
    Alcoholism in ranks.
    Relationship between officers/senior NCOs and troopers.
    Combat support services (quality and availability of spare parts and quality of maintenance....related to work ethics and alcohol, naturally).
    Quality of training.....related to personal example of officers/senior NCOs.


    @Rurik
    Same as above.

    I get "virtue signalling".
    I also get a certain hypocrisy.
    LIVING in the West and preferring Russia sounds a bit....weird?

    But to get back to Syria.
    The forces engaged there are the selected professionals (and "contractors") from both sides.
    In essence....mercenaries.
    Top pros from both sides doing what they do the best.

    Nothing to do, in fact, with big confrontation between US/West and Russia.
    Pulling Stalingrad and Iwo Jima makes no sense whatsoever.

    There will be death and mutilation on personnel engaged there on both sides, huge buhaha in media but nothing on substance in real world. There will be shot down drones, planes from both sides with the same result.

    The goal of The Empire is to keep the chaos there.
    The goal of Russia is to stabilize Syria.

    The overall goal of The Empire is to weaken Putin regime and, ultimately, replace it with a "friendly" one.
    The overall goal of Putin regime is to survive long enough for The Empire to lose its power to expand.

    Time will tell.

  200. Rurik says: • Website
    @peterAUS
    An interesting reply.

    Not that is has anything to do with my point that Saker (and similar Internet characters) aren't authorities for combat moral on tactical/operational level.
    Or combat capabilities in general on tactical/operational level, for that matter.

    Expressing opinions, debating, exchanging ideas is more than O.K. of course.
    That's how we learn.
    Being regarded as authorities....well....tells more about those readers than writers.

    Which brings us to my question if I may:

    What do YOU think, which regime is BETTER (not good, not nice...just better), Washington or Moscow? For an average, say, low middle class person/family?
    Under which regime that person/family could expect better life? Not good life...not nice life...just BETTER life.

    I'll, personally, come clean now: Washington.

    How about you?

    And, from there, it's easy to conclude for which one I'd fight, or fight against, if it comes to that.
    One of basic blocks of combat morale...................

    What do YOU think, which regime is BETTER (not good, not nice…just better), Washington or Moscow? For an average, say, low middle class person/family?

    it depends on the trajectory

    if Hillary had won, then just about any place on earth would be better than a nation being humiliatingly looted and raped to benefit its enemy.

    we might have nice weather in parts of the ZUS, great people and even a crumbling economy, left over from America’s glory days

    but when your nation is in steep decline, and being used like a cheap whore to benefit a pimp that shits on you and hates your guts, then even a less economically well-off place would be preferable to the humiliation of living in the land of the free and home of the brave. Run by traitors and cowards, and selling out the future of your children and grandchildren.

    I’d rather live in an ascendant Russia, than in Hillary’s ZUSA. But with Trump, the verdict is still out.

    Read More
  201. So when are trumps sons, Kuschner too, going to volunteer for the Front Lines?
    —————
    NATO wants to take on RUSSIA?! (and maybe China)
    NATO cannot defend it’s own people at HOME.
    NATO cannot beat ISIS-AlQueda-Taliban-AlNusra
    NATO families will be raped & murdered as NATO Troops fight far from home.
    NATO installations will be sabotaged by Refujihadi Invaders.
    NATO Troops should turn their weapons on their ENEMIES that are betraying them.

    NATO defeated itself by being invaded and overrun by the REFUJIHADIS from the wars NATO started but can’t FINISH …………. THAT has to be a FIRST in all history.

    Read More
  202. @MarkinLA
    The only moral the USSR had was fear of the Germans murdering their family members and the hatred that engendered, and the NKVD shooting them if they refused to attack the German positions. Lets not forget how hated Stalin was in Ukraine and how the Germans were first welcomed as liberators.

    The Germans were the ones with the high moral as they were the far better soldiers. They just started their invasion too late and were not as well equipped for an invasion of such a large place as they should have been. They also didn't play their cards right due to Hitler's hatred of the untermenchen Slavs. Germany could not produce enough war material fast enough to sustain such an invasion. Germany should have come in as liberators saving the peasants from Moscow.

    As for your casualty numbers, the USSR had the highest casualty rate in the war as Stalin and his generals gave little thought to the lives of the men fighting and just threw them at the Germans. By almost every measure, the individual German soldier was the best fighting man on the battlefield in both the eastern and the western fronts.

    Your head is full of BS, isn’t it painful? Stop going to the pub, try a library instead.

    Read More
  203. peterAUS says:
    @Erebus
    Have you lived in either? Both?
    Having worked (admittedly, not really lived) in both, there is little doubt which way I'd choose, in spite of the weather.

    I guess it boils down to what you're definition of "better" is.

    I guess it boils down to what you’re definition of “better” is.

    Precisely.

    For me just three:
    Rule of law.
    Corruption.
    Work ethics.

    Now, COMPARE those three elements in US (or West in general) and Russia.

    As for military, say, an average mechanized brigade:
    Alcoholism in ranks.
    Relationship between officers/senior NCOs and troopers.
    Combat support services (quality and availability of spare parts and quality of maintenance….related to work ethics and alcohol, naturally).
    Quality of training…..related to personal example of officers/senior NCOs.


    Same as above.

    I get “virtue signalling”.
    I also get a certain hypocrisy.
    LIVING in the West and preferring Russia sounds a bit….weird?

    But to get back to Syria.
    The forces engaged there are the selected professionals (and “contractors”) from both sides.
    In essence….mercenaries.
    Top pros from both sides doing what they do the best.

    Nothing to do, in fact, with big confrontation between US/West and Russia.
    Pulling Stalingrad and Iwo Jima makes no sense whatsoever.

    There will be death and mutilation on personnel engaged there on both sides, huge buhaha in media but nothing on substance in real world. There will be shot down drones, planes from both sides with the same result.

    The goal of The Empire is to keep the chaos there.
    The goal of Russia is to stabilize Syria.

    The overall goal of The Empire is to weaken Putin regime and, ultimately, replace it with a “friendly” one.
    The overall goal of Putin regime is to survive long enough for The Empire to lose its power to expand.

    Time will tell.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    LIVING in the West and preferring Russia sounds a bit….weird?
     
    I wouldn't know, as I don't, and haven't in a long time. I have however visited a great many countries, though naturally I worked in fewer and lived in fewer still. Still, I've covered all the major regions except the Central Asian 'stans and N. Africa. You?

    The great difference between the US and RU that one sees from that perspective is that Russia is improving in almost every aspect, not only those you mention but other critical ones that you don't. Meanwhile the US is on precisely the opposite trajectory on every important metric. Critically, both are accelerating. The US, unfortunately, is accelerating at an accelerating rate.
    , @L.K
    Like I said, you are sort of full of sh*t...

    Re the ZUSA's modern military, let's hear the opinion of one of its most decorated veterans, who fought in Korea and Vietnam, Colonel David Haskell Hackworth;

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/29/afghanistan.terrorism2

    America's 'elite' troops
    So how come the country's most decorated soldier thinks they are only good for playing video games?

    Marcus Scriven
    Monday 29 October 2001 01.40 GMT

    Colonel David H Hackworth, America's most decorated soldier, does not mince his words. "I would be reluctant to jump into a battle zone with any conventional American unit. I would hate to take them into battle - they ain't ready, they are not 'good to go'."
     
    What did the Colonel think of the elite units though?

    ... And his verdict on "crack" American troops such as those likely to be deployed in Afghanistan, is scarcely more complimentary. The soldiers of the vaunted 82nd Airborne are only "a little better" than ordinary infantry. And of the supposedly fearsome 10th Mountain Division, he says, "I hear a lot of rhetoric about the famous 10th Mountain Division. In World War II it was unquestionably America's finest unit - trained for three years, made up with men from Colorado, Montana, Idaho, really tough men, experts in mountain fighting. What we have now in the 10th Mountain Division is a bunch of kids that are better qualified to play computer games than they are to fight in that kind of terrain."

     

    Since you mention training, you should read what Hackworth wrote after spending time around the modern, all-volunteer US army recruits, during basic combat training, in South Carolina.
    The title of his article says it all: "The March of the Porcelain Soldiers". It makes for a sobering & extremely funny read! A small sample;

    Welcome to Basic Combat Training. Welcome to Camp Snoopy, the U.S. Army's let's-play-soldiers theme park tucked in the piney hills of South Carolina. ...
    To check the progress of grunts at the end stages of Basic, I go out to the Omaha Course, one of the combat ranges. These soldiers are heading down the homestretch towards graduation. Two soldiers shoot and scoot forward toward a large bunker. It's live fire. They hit the ground like two-hundred pound flour sacks; neither can get into a correct prone firing position: their boot heels stick up in the air, their faces say help me, help me. While the first crawls forward and uncorks his dummy grenade, his buddy "covers" him, firing wildly at the pop-up targets, missing at least half of them. The objective, an open sandpit big enough and wide enough to swallow an SUV, lies only 20 paces ahead of the lead grunt. He lobs his grenade. POP. Short. Exercise over. POP, POP, POP, POP. Four more teams. No one hits the target.

     

  204. @Avery
    {The only moral the USSR had was fear of the Germans murdering their family members and the hatred that engendered,}

    One of the best, if not the best motivators and morale boosters since the beginning of time for fighting invaders of your homeland.

    {Germany should have come in as liberators saving the peasants from Moscow.}

    Not possible: Hitler's prime goal for invading USSR* was the extermination of 'useless'** Slavs living on 'his' Lebensraum. Even if he had pretended, to gain short term advantage, Slavic peoples would have figured out his true motives pretty quick. And would have fought to death justthe same. Ordinary Slavs hated Stalin and /NKVDBolsheviks/Communists, but they hated the genocidal Nazi invaders far more.

    _________
    *
    Actually, Hitler's one only goal for launching WW2 was conquering the endless, rich agricultural lands to the East. He never wanted war with England: he considered English his Anglo-Saxon kin. French similarly were treated fairly well: no French, except Jewish-French and the Resistance, were harmed or mistreated.

    **
    The plan was to exterminate all the useless mouths outright and work the healthy one to death producing food and materiel for the Master Race.

    Slavs and other peoples LOVED Stalin. Until now, as you should know. Smersh wouldn’t be so effective, hence the war wouldn’t be won without (among other things) that feeling. In 15 years he made a miracle in that country and average people recognized the enormous improvement in their lives. Only aristocrats and ex-landords hated the new regime. And fyi at that time no one talked of “bolsheviks” anymore, rather of the “old time” and the present.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Keep going, please.

    Don't you find interesting that non-Slavs talk how Slavs loved/or not loved someone/something?
    Or people who haven't spent a day in military just love to analyze it and hold, apparently, an authority on the subject?
    Or people who haven't lived a couple of years under USSR/Russia regime know so much about that and are, again, quite keen on lecturing the rest.

    I mean, is it really that hard to listen to people with certain real life EXPERIENCES on the subject?

    I'd love to hear somebody from, say, an average town in Krasnoyarsk describing how his life goes on. Little things...how he gets his pay, how are his working conditions....how is his health care.....how he deals with authorities...stuff like that.
    Or, a captain in Russian army in the same place. How is life? How is job?
    Or, better...a crippled veteran from fighting in Ukraine. How are you doing mate? Health...pay....social service....general attitude to you when you move around?
    Little things.

    What amuses me it's not Internet "experts/leaders/authorities".

    It's people believing them.
    Not people not living in the West. Neither immigrants into West whose first allegiance is to their countries of origin. Most of them would love the collapse of the West.
    I mean real Westerners who don't like The Empire.

    Good but naive souls.
    Emphasize on "naive".
    , @Avery
    {Slavs and other peoples LOVED Stalin. }

    How would you know?

    There were no opinion polls at the time, and information and propaganda were strictly controlled by Soviet authorities.

    I am sure there were many people in USSR who loved and admired Stalin at the time, but no way to know what percentage of the population.

    Any public adulation was contrived and expected.
    Sort of like the milder version of North Koreans' public displays 'love' of the Kim Jong-un.
    , @MarkinLA
    Yeah, they loved Stalin so much that they remember him by the national holiday called the Holodomor.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
  205. @peterAUS
    I really find amusing that people who have never been in military, let alone in war, and THEN let alone in (infantry) combat have very strong opinions about war, combat, moral etc.
    I mean, this guy Saker is, apparently, admired for quality of his posts, and I do agree that SOME of his posts are really very good.
    But I really have an issue with him, apparently, never SERVED in either US or Russian military, let alone being in any war/conflict. Definitely not being a part of a platoon/company of soldiers under fire and trying to get those guys firing at them.
    My point is, to truly understand combat, and combat moral, you do need to have that type of experience. Or similar.
    Similar (not the same) is member of paramilitary police fighting guys with automatic weapons and hand grenades.
    Or, at the very rudimentary level, a criminal gang member doing armed robbery. No, I am not joking.
    A very smart man once said that men join military for a lot of reasons, but FIGHT for their comrades. This comes deep from human nature, and, to be PC incorrect, for men human nature.
    Now, of course, women can be even more motivated but that's another topic.
    So....whoever underestimates combat moral of Western military I think you are for some rude awakening.
    Add to that professionalism from squad level, material superiority and organizational culture and see what happens.
    Compare work ethics....the very same principles apply to training and delivery capabilities of modern soldier. Let alone MAINTENANCE of modern systems, supply and logistics chains etc.
    Moral....compare Western combat medical support to the rest.
    Moral....financial support of a combatant and his family.
    Moral....rule of law in military and society in general (beasting anyone.....).
    C'mon....any VETERAN from Western or Russian (and their allies) willing to comment on this?
    No..no need for writing credentials....we'll 'feel' each other in instant just by writing about a topic.
    Say....you are in combat and you get shot in guts in a field. Just visualize what's going to happen from that moment to next 6 months to you. And your family. In US Army....in Russian army. Compare.
    Funny.

    “whoever underestimates combat moral of Western military I think you are for some rude awakening.”

    You’re right, our awakening was quite shocking at the sight of those Navy “sillies” crying like babies when their patrol boat was caught by the Iranians.

    We felt the same of the Western military bravery in thousands of other episodes in Nam, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

    Read More
  206. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Rurik


    Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S.
     
    Had you said “than the U.S. had to be in Vietnam” you’d be right
     
    this is wrong, because the Russians have every right, both moral and legal and otherwise, to be in Syria. In fact it's even highly laudable on several different metrics for Russia to be in Syria, as they are protecting the legitimate (and by far more palatable) government than anything that might replace it once Syria has been 'Libya'd' and Assad has been 'Gadhafi'd'.

    The US by contrast had little if any justification for being in Vietnam.

    Just as it has zero justification for being in Syria today, and indeed, is acting like a rogue nation attacking sovereign nations in serial wars of aggression with zero moral or legal standing.

    The US is funding and arming stone age orcs and sending them marching on innocent villages and cities and regions where the locals are terrorized, often tortured, crucified or even burned alive as the young women and girls are subjected to treatment no human would tolerate for a dog. But the ZUS imposes all of this on those beleaguered people because it is acting on behalf of the Fiend. [what else can you call it?!]

    Russia, on the other hand, is acting like the civilized adult in the room trying to restore order and safety to these people's lives. There's just no moral equivalency at all.

    Describe in a brief essay the concept of territorial sovereignty and how it applies to South Vietnam and to Syria.

    Describe some lives to which order was brought by the VC.

    Read More
  207. @peterAUS
    Thank you for making my point, actually.
    Just from Wikipedia:

    In 1942, at the age of sixteen, Bernard Fall followed in his father's footsteps and joined the French Resistance, after which time he fought the Germans in the Alps. As France was being liberated in 1944, Fall joined the French Army, in which he served until 1946. For his service, he was awarded the French Liberation Medal.
     

    Due to his French citizenship, Fall was allowed to accompany French soldiers and pilots into enemy territory.
     

    Fall was a political scientist, but one who had been a soldier and who spoke the soldier's language and lived the soldier's life at the front line. He obtained his data on the war while slogging through the mud of Vietnam with French colonial troops, with American infantry, and with South Vietnamese soldiers. He combined the usual academic analysis of Indochina with a perspective of the war from the soldier's point of view.
     
    That's why I find puzzling that otherwise smart people buy Saker's strong negative opinions of Western militaries.
    Or positive of Russia/China/whatever military.
    Smart people in the West that is.
    Americans, Brits, Aussies....etc.....
    I guess it's because they need alternative to The Empire so much that they WANT to believe.
    As form of therapy or entertainment it's fine, just don't swap reality for delusion.

    No one ever told you that your argumentation is only valid in your barbershop or your pub? Not one?

    So, to further disqualify yourself you cite a “soldier” who fought the Germans “in the Alps” LOOOOL Not in the côte belge also?

    Seriously, don’t you really see how far the Saker is ahead of you?

    Read More
  208. @peterAUS
    An interesting reply.

    Not that is has anything to do with my point that Saker (and similar Internet characters) aren't authorities for combat moral on tactical/operational level.
    Or combat capabilities in general on tactical/operational level, for that matter.

    Expressing opinions, debating, exchanging ideas is more than O.K. of course.
    That's how we learn.
    Being regarded as authorities....well....tells more about those readers than writers.

    Which brings us to my question if I may:

    What do YOU think, which regime is BETTER (not good, not nice...just better), Washington or Moscow? For an average, say, low middle class person/family?
    Under which regime that person/family could expect better life? Not good life...not nice life...just BETTER life.

    I'll, personally, come clean now: Washington.

    How about you?

    And, from there, it's easy to conclude for which one I'd fight, or fight against, if it comes to that.
    One of basic blocks of combat morale...................

    “And, from there, it’s easy to conclude for which one I’d fight, or fight against”
    I would suggest: against the Aboriginals. To exterminate them.

    And, as you insist:

    “Not that is has anything to do with my point that Saker (and similar Internet characters) aren’t authorities for combat moral on tactical/operational level.
    Or combat capabilities in general on tactical/operational level, for that matter.”
    You are. Obviously. Together with Powell, Mattis and all other liars you hear so carefully day after day, year after year.

    Read More
  209. @peterAUS
    Crude.

    I LOVE good propaganda, but, this is........just.......crude....
    It's grating.

    I guess it's O.K. enough if it's done for "non-Western" audience, and bottom half of social ladder of that group.
    No educated Russian/Chinese/Iranian/etc will buy this post.

    But, really, Western audience.........man.

    You really should work harder on your skills.

    I'll try to help, polish it a bit, just as an exercise.

    I was in Iraq months before Bush invaded Iraq. I have personal friends among the commissioned and non-commissioned officers of our US Army, the Marines, USAF and even the Coast Guards. As an American I have spent a great deal of time with the soldiers on the ground in Iraq. Most military personnel there are not happy with deployment in that theater. Most of them I found anxious when going out of the Green Zone area and when they do, they leave the security and comfort of the Green Zone in a 30 Humvee convoy. I went from Green one to Camp Anaconda and on our way we stopped several times for unknown reasons . The scare that we civilians all felt was rather unpleasant. Not being a military guy I was surprised to witness the anxiety among the soldiers from unknown IEDs that may or may not be on our path to Camp Anaconda. Great majority of our soldiers in the Middle East know very well that we are fighting unwinnable wars there!

    Better?

    “Better?”
    No. Censorship.

    Read More
  210. peterAUS says:
    @Alberto Campos
    Slavs and other peoples LOVED Stalin. Until now, as you should know. Smersh wouldn't be so effective, hence the war wouldn't be won without (among other things) that feeling. In 15 years he made a miracle in that country and average people recognized the enormous improvement in their lives. Only aristocrats and ex-landords hated the new regime. And fyi at that time no one talked of "bolsheviks" anymore, rather of the "old time" and the present.

    Keep going, please.

    Don’t you find interesting that non-Slavs talk how Slavs loved/or not loved someone/something?
    Or people who haven’t spent a day in military just love to analyze it and hold, apparently, an authority on the subject?
    Or people who haven’t lived a couple of years under USSR/Russia regime know so much about that and are, again, quite keen on lecturing the rest.

    I mean, is it really that hard to listen to people with certain real life EXPERIENCES on the subject?

    I’d love to hear somebody from, say, an average town in Krasnoyarsk describing how his life goes on. Little things…how he gets his pay, how are his working conditions….how is his health care…..how he deals with authorities…stuff like that.
    Or, a captain in Russian army in the same place. How is life? How is job?
    Or, better…a crippled veteran from fighting in Ukraine. How are you doing mate? Health…pay….social service….general attitude to you when you move around?
    Little things.

    What amuses me it’s not Internet “experts/leaders/authorities”.

    It’s people believing them.
    Not people not living in the West. Neither immigrants into West whose first allegiance is to their countries of origin. Most of them would love the collapse of the West.
    I mean real Westerners who don’t like The Empire.

    Good but naive souls.
    Emphasize on “naive”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Listen here,
    While this Alberto Campos guy seems to be another Stalinist nut, you have been trolling on several issues;
    Re the Saker - with whom I agree with possibly most of what he says but also disagree sharply on certain topics - you have been saying the man has no military background, but you are entirely WRONG.
    Had you done a little research, instead of just trolling, you would have found this to be of interest:
    http://thesaker.is/submarines-in-the-desert-as-my-deepest-gratitude-to-you/

    I was born in Zurich, Switzerland, from a Dutch father and Russian mother....
    In 1984 I did my military service in electronic warfare and I was later transferred to the military intelligence service (UNA) as a language specialist where did some work with the Swiss Air Force. I then traveled to the USA where I got a BA in International Relations from the School of International Service (SIS) at the American University and a MA in Strategic Studies from the Paul H. Nitze School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at the Johns Hopkins University. Upon my return to Switzerland, I worked as a civilian consultant for the Swiss Strategic Intelligence Service (SND) writing strategic analyses, primarily about the Soviet/Russian military. In the military, I was given the Major-equivalent rank of “Technical Officer”, which is a fancy way of saying that I was an analyst. I also worked as an “enemy operations” (“Red Team” in US parlance) specialist for the operational-level training of the General Staff of Swiss armed forces. I then accepted a position for the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) where I specialized in peacekeeping tactics and operations. This gave me the opportunity to co-author a book on Russian peacekeeping operations with the Major-General I. N. Vorob’ev, of the Russian General Staff Academy. My last work at UNIDIR was about psychological operations and intelligence in peacekeeping which can be downloaded here. At the same time, I also wrote an evaluation of the performance of the Russian military during the first Chechen war for the Journal of Slavic Military Studies which somebody has since uploaded here.
     
  211. Erebus says:
    @peterAUS

    I guess it boils down to what you’re definition of “better” is.
     
    Precisely.

    For me just three:
    Rule of law.
    Corruption.
    Work ethics.

    Now, COMPARE those three elements in US (or West in general) and Russia.

    As for military, say, an average mechanized brigade:
    Alcoholism in ranks.
    Relationship between officers/senior NCOs and troopers.
    Combat support services (quality and availability of spare parts and quality of maintenance....related to work ethics and alcohol, naturally).
    Quality of training.....related to personal example of officers/senior NCOs.


    @Rurik
    Same as above.

    I get "virtue signalling".
    I also get a certain hypocrisy.
    LIVING in the West and preferring Russia sounds a bit....weird?

    But to get back to Syria.
    The forces engaged there are the selected professionals (and "contractors") from both sides.
    In essence....mercenaries.
    Top pros from both sides doing what they do the best.

    Nothing to do, in fact, with big confrontation between US/West and Russia.
    Pulling Stalingrad and Iwo Jima makes no sense whatsoever.

    There will be death and mutilation on personnel engaged there on both sides, huge buhaha in media but nothing on substance in real world. There will be shot down drones, planes from both sides with the same result.

    The goal of The Empire is to keep the chaos there.
    The goal of Russia is to stabilize Syria.

    The overall goal of The Empire is to weaken Putin regime and, ultimately, replace it with a "friendly" one.
    The overall goal of Putin regime is to survive long enough for The Empire to lose its power to expand.

    Time will tell.

    LIVING in the West and preferring Russia sounds a bit….weird?

    I wouldn’t know, as I don’t, and haven’t in a long time. I have however visited a great many countries, though naturally I worked in fewer and lived in fewer still. Still, I’ve covered all the major regions except the Central Asian ‘stans and N. Africa. You?

    The great difference between the US and RU that one sees from that perspective is that Russia is improving in almost every aspect, not only those you mention but other critical ones that you don’t. Meanwhile the US is on precisely the opposite trajectory on every important metric. Critically, both are accelerating. The US, unfortunately, is accelerating at an accelerating rate.

    Read More
  212. L.K says:
    @peterAUS
    Keep going, please.

    Don't you find interesting that non-Slavs talk how Slavs loved/or not loved someone/something?
    Or people who haven't spent a day in military just love to analyze it and hold, apparently, an authority on the subject?
    Or people who haven't lived a couple of years under USSR/Russia regime know so much about that and are, again, quite keen on lecturing the rest.

    I mean, is it really that hard to listen to people with certain real life EXPERIENCES on the subject?

    I'd love to hear somebody from, say, an average town in Krasnoyarsk describing how his life goes on. Little things...how he gets his pay, how are his working conditions....how is his health care.....how he deals with authorities...stuff like that.
    Or, a captain in Russian army in the same place. How is life? How is job?
    Or, better...a crippled veteran from fighting in Ukraine. How are you doing mate? Health...pay....social service....general attitude to you when you move around?
    Little things.

    What amuses me it's not Internet "experts/leaders/authorities".

    It's people believing them.
    Not people not living in the West. Neither immigrants into West whose first allegiance is to their countries of origin. Most of them would love the collapse of the West.
    I mean real Westerners who don't like The Empire.

    Good but naive souls.
    Emphasize on "naive".

    Listen here,
    While this Alberto Campos guy seems to be another Stalinist nut, you have been trolling on several issues;
    Re the Saker – with whom I agree with possibly most of what he says but also disagree sharply on certain topics – you have been saying the man has no military background, but you are entirely WRONG.
    Had you done a little research, instead of just trolling, you would have found this to be of interest:

    http://thesaker.is/submarines-in-the-desert-as-my-deepest-gratitude-to-you/

    I was born in Zurich, Switzerland, from a Dutch father and Russian mother….
    In 1984 I did my military service in electronic warfare and I was later transferred to the military intelligence service (UNA) as a language specialist where did some work with the Swiss Air Force. I then traveled to the USA where I got a BA in International Relations from the School of International Service (SIS) at the American University and a MA in Strategic Studies from the Paul H. Nitze School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at the Johns Hopkins University. Upon my return to Switzerland, I worked as a civilian consultant for the Swiss Strategic Intelligence Service (SND) writing strategic analyses, primarily about the Soviet/Russian military. In the military, I was given the Major-equivalent rank of “Technical Officer”, which is a fancy way of saying that I was an analyst. I also worked as an “enemy operations” (“Red Team” in US parlance) specialist for the operational-level training of the General Staff of Swiss armed forces. I then accepted a position for the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) where I specialized in peacekeeping tactics and operations. This gave me the opportunity to co-author a book on Russian peacekeeping operations with the Major-General I. N. Vorob’ev, of the Russian General Staff Academy. My last work at UNIDIR was about psychological operations and intelligence in peacekeeping which can be downloaded here. At the same time, I also wrote an evaluation of the performance of the Russian military during the first Chechen war for the Journal of Slavic Military Studies which somebody has since uploaded here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    I am sure that any combat vet, anywhere, just gets amused by that resume.

    A food for thought:
    Say, you are an embedded reporter, and Saker, in his prime, is infantry company commander. I mean, Major rank ain't a joke.
    Just an exercise, not real combat.
    Night attack with live ammunition. Illumination, support fires, the works. He is in charge of course, from preparations, rehearsals, checks......to actual approach....attack....assault, coordinating all that, you know, machineguns, mortars.......
    Nobody would be shooting at you (well...at least not intentionally....those strays....especially from mortars.....).
    All you need to do is to keep close to a grenadier in leading squad and record what you deem interesting on your camera. Dropping hand grenades in trench/bunker is always exciting.
    Would you be comfortable with playing your role?

    Actually, something tells me you would.

    Just seen your post from......Guardian........
    Guardian.

  213. Avery says:
    @Alberto Campos
    Slavs and other peoples LOVED Stalin. Until now, as you should know. Smersh wouldn't be so effective, hence the war wouldn't be won without (among other things) that feeling. In 15 years he made a miracle in that country and average people recognized the enormous improvement in their lives. Only aristocrats and ex-landords hated the new regime. And fyi at that time no one talked of "bolsheviks" anymore, rather of the "old time" and the present.

    {Slavs and other peoples LOVED Stalin. }

    How would you know?

    There were no opinion polls at the time, and information and propaganda were strictly controlled by Soviet authorities.

    I am sure there were many people in USSR who loved and admired Stalin at the time, but no way to know what percentage of the population.

    Any public adulation was contrived and expected.
    Sort of like the milder version of North Koreans’ public displays ‘love’ of the Kim Jong-un.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alberto Campos
    Right, no polls - only elements to judge. But today's polls show how those feelings passed through consecutive generations (despite all that followed) until now:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/4000381/Josef-Stalin-named-among-greatest-Russians-in-nationwide-TV-vote.html
  214. Avery says:
    @Mohammed Cohen
    Avery's self gloating estimation of the American solider is way way off! I've been in Iraq months before our idiotic baffoon Bush illegally invaded Iraq. I have personal friends among the commissioned and non-commissioned officers of our US Army, the Marines, USAF and even the Coast Guards. As an American I have spent a great deal of time with the soldiers on the ground in Iraq. I have yet to find ONE soldier is willingly in the front lines of the illegal fight with the Iraqis. Most of them cried to get back home saying "what the hell are we doin here in the God forsaken place? I was supposed to be here only for three months and now its the 2nd. year going on. "I don't wanna fight with these crazies who wanna die"., I know it's totally illegal war that we are killing these people". "Let the efin Israeli come and fight their war why us".. etc etc. Most of them I found scared shitless going out of the Green Zone area and if they do, only way they leave the security and comfort of the Green Zone is with a 30 Humvee convoy to escort them along with another 20 Iraqi and American private security companies. I went from Green one to Camp Anaconda, on our way, we stopped several times for reasons that no one knew why but just becuse there was some news that an Iraqi or an Al Queda blew himself up somewhere. The scare and the fear that we all felt was just mind blowing. Not being a military guy I was shocked to witness the fear among the soldiers of unknown IEDs that may or may not be on our path to Camp Anaconda. It took us thrice as much time as it took to the ordinary private American and non-American contractors to make it to Camp Anaconda. I can go on and on about the cowardice of our "volunteer" poverty stricken soldier who had nothing going on for his life in a run down dead tiny villages and towns and nothing matched the opportunity than enlisting in the Army etc. Great majority of our soldiers in the Middle East know very well that we are fighting the war for Israel and not for America! This is why all the difference it makes when we compare American soldiers with any other in the war theater of the Middle East. Most of our soldier are so spooked out that they shoot first before they figure out what they are shooting at!

    You have a great imagination.
    It’s wasted here @UNZ writing posts: you should self-publish and become famous.

    btw: no American who has been American for any length of time writes sentences like you wrote in your post. I won’t point what the tells are, but there are a whole bunch that scream “not an American”. And I doubt very much you were anywhere near Iraq or that you witnessed any of the things you claim you witnessed.

    Read More
  215. L.K says:
    @peterAUS

    I guess it boils down to what you’re definition of “better” is.
     
    Precisely.

    For me just three:
    Rule of law.
    Corruption.
    Work ethics.

    Now, COMPARE those three elements in US (or West in general) and Russia.

    As for military, say, an average mechanized brigade:
    Alcoholism in ranks.
    Relationship between officers/senior NCOs and troopers.
    Combat support services (quality and availability of spare parts and quality of maintenance....related to work ethics and alcohol, naturally).
    Quality of training.....related to personal example of officers/senior NCOs.


    @Rurik
    Same as above.

    I get "virtue signalling".
    I also get a certain hypocrisy.
    LIVING in the West and preferring Russia sounds a bit....weird?

    But to get back to Syria.
    The forces engaged there are the selected professionals (and "contractors") from both sides.
    In essence....mercenaries.
    Top pros from both sides doing what they do the best.

    Nothing to do, in fact, with big confrontation between US/West and Russia.
    Pulling Stalingrad and Iwo Jima makes no sense whatsoever.

    There will be death and mutilation on personnel engaged there on both sides, huge buhaha in media but nothing on substance in real world. There will be shot down drones, planes from both sides with the same result.

    The goal of The Empire is to keep the chaos there.
    The goal of Russia is to stabilize Syria.

    The overall goal of The Empire is to weaken Putin regime and, ultimately, replace it with a "friendly" one.
    The overall goal of Putin regime is to survive long enough for The Empire to lose its power to expand.

    Time will tell.

    Like I said, you are sort of full of sh*t…

    Re the ZUSA’s modern military, let’s hear the opinion of one of its most decorated veterans, who fought in Korea and Vietnam, Colonel David Haskell Hackworth;

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/29/afghanistan.terrorism2

    America’s ‘elite’ troops
    So how come the country’s most decorated soldier thinks they are only good for playing video games?

    Marcus Scriven
    Monday 29 October 2001 01.40 GMT

    Colonel David H Hackworth, America’s most decorated soldier, does not mince his words. “I would be reluctant to jump into a battle zone with any conventional American unit. I would hate to take them into battle – they ain’t ready, they are not ‘good to go’.”

    What did the Colonel think of the elite units though?

    … And his verdict on “crack” American troops such as those likely to be deployed in Afghanistan, is scarcely more complimentary. The soldiers of the vaunted 82nd Airborne are only “a little better” than ordinary infantry. And of the supposedly fearsome 10th Mountain Division, he says, “I hear a lot of rhetoric about the famous 10th Mountain Division. In World War II it was unquestionably America’s finest unit – trained for three years, made up with men from Colorado, Montana, Idaho, really tough men, experts in mountain fighting. What we have now in the 10th Mountain Division is a bunch of kids that are better qualified to play computer games than they are to fight in that kind of terrain.”

    Since you mention training, you should read what Hackworth wrote after spending time around the modern, all-volunteer US army recruits, during basic combat training, in South Carolina.
    The title of his article says it all: “The March of the Porcelain Soldiers”. It makes for a sobering & extremely funny read! A small sample;

    Welcome to Basic Combat Training. Welcome to Camp Snoopy, the U.S. Army’s let’s-play-soldiers theme park tucked in the piney hills of South Carolina. …
    To check the progress of grunts at the end stages of Basic, I go out to the Omaha Course, one of the combat ranges. These soldiers are heading down the homestretch towards graduation. Two soldiers shoot and scoot forward toward a large bunker. It’s live fire. They hit the ground like two-hundred pound flour sacks; neither can get into a correct prone firing position: their boot heels stick up in the air, their faces say help me, help me. While the first crawls forward and uncorks his dummy grenade, his buddy “covers” him, firing wildly at the pop-up targets, missing at least half of them. The objective, an open sandpit big enough and wide enough to swallow an SUV, lies only 20 paces ahead of the lead grunt. He lobs his grenade. POP. Short. Exercise over. POP, POP, POP, POP. Four more teams. No one hits the target.

    Read More
  216. peterAUS says:
    @L.K
    Listen here,
    While this Alberto Campos guy seems to be another Stalinist nut, you have been trolling on several issues;
    Re the Saker - with whom I agree with possibly most of what he says but also disagree sharply on certain topics - you have been saying the man has no military background, but you are entirely WRONG.
    Had you done a little research, instead of just trolling, you would have found this to be of interest:
    http://thesaker.is/submarines-in-the-desert-as-my-deepest-gratitude-to-you/

    I was born in Zurich, Switzerland, from a Dutch father and Russian mother....
    In 1984 I did my military service in electronic warfare and I was later transferred to the military intelligence service (UNA) as a language specialist where did some work with the Swiss Air Force. I then traveled to the USA where I got a BA in International Relations from the School of International Service (SIS) at the American University and a MA in Strategic Studies from the Paul H. Nitze School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at the Johns Hopkins University. Upon my return to Switzerland, I worked as a civilian consultant for the Swiss Strategic Intelligence Service (SND) writing strategic analyses, primarily about the Soviet/Russian military. In the military, I was given the Major-equivalent rank of “Technical Officer”, which is a fancy way of saying that I was an analyst. I also worked as an “enemy operations” (“Red Team” in US parlance) specialist for the operational-level training of the General Staff of Swiss armed forces. I then accepted a position for the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) where I specialized in peacekeeping tactics and operations. This gave me the opportunity to co-author a book on Russian peacekeeping operations with the Major-General I. N. Vorob’ev, of the Russian General Staff Academy. My last work at UNIDIR was about psychological operations and intelligence in peacekeeping which can be downloaded here. At the same time, I also wrote an evaluation of the performance of the Russian military during the first Chechen war for the Journal of Slavic Military Studies which somebody has since uploaded here.
     

    I am sure that any combat vet, anywhere, just gets amused by that resume.

    A food for thought:
    Say, you are an embedded reporter, and Saker, in his prime, is infantry company commander. I mean, Major rank ain’t a joke.
    Just an exercise, not real combat.
    Night attack with live ammunition. Illumination, support fires, the works. He is in charge of course, from preparations, rehearsals, checks……to actual approach….attack….assault, coordinating all that, you know, machineguns, mortars…….
    Nobody would be shooting at you (well…at least not intentionally….those strays….especially from mortars…..).
    All you need to do is to keep close to a grenadier in leading squad and record what you deem interesting on your camera. Dropping hand grenades in trench/bunker is always exciting.
    Would you be comfortable with playing your role?

    Actually, something tells me you would.

    Just seen your post from……Guardian……..
    Guardian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    I too saw the article linked to the Guardian but what stood out for me was the name Hackworth.

    I agree that the old Graun is now a mere shadow of what was once a reputable news media outlet and I almost nearly wet my (very pricey) pants when I read the bit at the end of every article begging for a subscription to support their "fearless journalism" but I read it often because like the blind chicken, they sometimes stumble on a nugget of a good story. I agree with you on that but Hackworth himself seems like he was quite a guy to have on your side in a scrap, surely you have to concede that much, no? I mean Hackworth surely loves the military and would prefer for it to meet his own high standards, no?

    If what Hackworth wrote is even half true there's cause for concern, especially when the people spoiling for a fight are not the actual people who'll do the fighting and the dying.
    , @L.K
    Hmm... you were claiming the Saker had no military background but he does. Not good enough for you , I see.

    However the next thing I note is that you 100% ignored what one of the most highly decorated US veterans had to say about US ground forces. We are talkin' about Colonel David H Hackworth here, a soldier's soldier!
    What do you do then? Blow up a bunch of smoke & pathetically attempts to shift the conversation away into the unreliability of the Guardian! But of course the Guardian did not make up the interview and Hackworth's opinions can be found elsewhere.
    I even provided you with the title of a key article he wrote, you just ignored it.
    What is clear by now is that you are a total intellectual fraud.

    Clearly the facts piss you off. A little more reality, now from U.S. Marine Corps, Lt. Col. John Sayen:


    Our military forces have become high-cost dinosaurs that are insufficiently lethal against most of the enemies we are likely to face. Our forces have also broken free of their constitutional controls to the point where they have essentially become a presidential military...
    The large standing forces were supposed to facilitate professional preparation for war, but the essential officer corps never truly professionalized itself....
    The result, especially today, has been notably mediocre senior military leadership – with only the rarest exceptions. At the same time, our armed forces have become ruinously expensive, as they simultaneously shrink, age, and become remarkably less capable.
    In Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, the Army and Marine Corps have been stretched to the
    limits of their strength to fight enemies not even a tenth as numerous as those they faced in Vietnam. We have become a pampered, sluggish, weak-muscled elephant that cannot even deal effectively with mice.

     

  217. @peterAUS
    I am sure that any combat vet, anywhere, just gets amused by that resume.

    A food for thought:
    Say, you are an embedded reporter, and Saker, in his prime, is infantry company commander. I mean, Major rank ain't a joke.
    Just an exercise, not real combat.
    Night attack with live ammunition. Illumination, support fires, the works. He is in charge of course, from preparations, rehearsals, checks......to actual approach....attack....assault, coordinating all that, you know, machineguns, mortars.......
    Nobody would be shooting at you (well...at least not intentionally....those strays....especially from mortars.....).
    All you need to do is to keep close to a grenadier in leading squad and record what you deem interesting on your camera. Dropping hand grenades in trench/bunker is always exciting.
    Would you be comfortable with playing your role?

    Actually, something tells me you would.

    Just seen your post from......Guardian........
    Guardian.

    I too saw the article linked to the Guardian but what stood out for me was the name Hackworth.

    I agree that the old Graun is now a mere shadow of what was once a reputable news media outlet and I almost nearly wet my (very pricey) pants when I read the bit at the end of every article begging for a subscription to support their “fearless journalism” but I read it often because like the blind chicken, they sometimes stumble on a nugget of a good story. I agree with you on that but Hackworth himself seems like he was quite a guy to have on your side in a scrap, surely you have to concede that much, no? I mean Hackworth surely loves the military and would prefer for it to meet his own high standards, no?

    If what Hackworth wrote is even half true there’s cause for concern, especially when the people spoiling for a fight are not the actual people who’ll do the fighting and the dying.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    I agree with you on that but Hackworth himself seems like he was quite a guy to have on your side in a scrap, surely you have to concede that much, no? I mean Hackworth surely loves the military and would prefer for it to meet his own high standards, no?
     
    Agree.

    What would be good do remember is, CIVILIANS/amateurs read/get those quotes/writings in a quite different way than military personnel/professionals.
    And that's the catch here.
    In order to understand you already have to know ....a lot.
    In modern society, Internet in particular, "chattering classes" ...speak....the loudest.
    And they despise the military. Hence, they have, actually, no clue how all that really works. But, of course, their opinions just overwhelm the sphere. And, naturally, they just love lecturing those who sort of doubt all that........knowledge and wisdom. If lecturing doesn't work they are quite adept of employing other methods to shut down different opinions.

    You see, those quotes are just.......bad.
    Badly written.

    In military, as in any organized structure, there are memos, reports, suggestions....
    There is a defined methodology how to write those.
    Those quotes are written in a way that a company commander would read first sentence and then toss them in rubbish.

    I'll tell you how I read those (just as a little learning exercise...)


    I would be reluctant to jump into a battle zone with any conventional American unit. I would hate to take them into battle – they ain’t ready, they are not ‘good to go’

     

    Written in 2001.
    In 2003 invasion of Iraq, US forces annihilated the opposition.
    Maybe Hackworth was bit harsh?
    Or, more likely, the military took his words onboard and used the time and resources to remedy the issue?

    Second example is beteter.

    What we have now in the 10th Mountain Division is a bunch of kids that are better qualified to play computer games than they are to fight in that kind of terrain.”

     

    Data?
    Why?
    Are the standards too low? Are the standards O.K. but leadership isn't enforcing them? Is that because of failure of leadership or lack or time/resources?
    And, the MOST important:"Well...Colonel....how would YOU remedy that?"
    Because at the end of each critical opinion must be a suggestion how to remedy the issue.
    I'd suggest remembering this sentence.

    Third example:

    neither can get into a correct prone firing position: their boot heels stick up in the air,
     
    Not good.
    Anything done to remedy that?
    If not, why?
    What would YOU suggest?

    their faces say help me, help me
     
    Personally, ain't buying the Colonel said this.
    If he did, maybe, just maybe, the old man is slipping a bit.

    firing wildly at the pop-up targets, missing at least half of them.
     
    Not that bad.
    The task is suppressing the enemy, so they can't effectively engage the assaulters.
    It would help to know range of those targets, how many there were, and how long they were up.
    Suppressive fire...not destroy the enemy.
    Besides, two men do not assault a trench. They are the leading pair/buddy team of at least a squad. The drop of pair and, most importantly, the firebase, suppress the assault area so those two can get in. Those two, at most, should suppress just that point where they'll toss their hand grenade(s).
    For bunker it's even more.........organized and executed. For example, add "bunker buster" launcher.
    Little details...left out of article/quote.
    Of course.
    Could confuse the readers.
    Gotta keep the message short and simple.

    the objective, an open sandpit big enough and wide enough to swallow an SUV, lies only 20 paces ahead of the lead grunt. He lobs his grenade. POP. Short.
     
    Not that bad.
    Get another one.
    Keep going.
    It's a fight.

    Exercise over
     
    OK.
    Did they do it again...and again....until they got it right?
    Why not?
    Suggestions?

    You know, it, most of the time, boils down to RESOURCES.
    In this case, ammunition. Expensive.
    But, we don't want MIC to make profits on our tax money.
    Ah, yes, another thing, training casualties.
    I mean, if somebody gets hurt (tired men and live ammo....) a lot of careers just grind to halt.
    So, CIVILIANS aren't happy with the level of expertise.
    They are even less happy if somebody gets hurt.
    And totally unhappy with money spent on those games.


    Anyway, that was 2001.
    Iraq invasion was 2003.
    Maybe that training was improved in meantime?

    the people spoiling for a fight are not the actual people who’ll do the fighting and the dying.
     
    That's how the world works...."old men talking young men dying....".

    But, we again missed the point here.

    Why we do NOT see any of this regarding Russian military?
    No books, articles, debates, Internet fencing/trolling.
    Why not?

    Maybe somebody can point us to that forum/Website....book....article.....?
  218. MarkinLA says:
    @Alberto Campos
    Slavs and other peoples LOVED Stalin. Until now, as you should know. Smersh wouldn't be so effective, hence the war wouldn't be won without (among other things) that feeling. In 15 years he made a miracle in that country and average people recognized the enormous improvement in their lives. Only aristocrats and ex-landords hated the new regime. And fyi at that time no one talked of "bolsheviks" anymore, rather of the "old time" and the present.

    Yeah, they loved Stalin so much that they remember him by the national holiday called the Holodomor.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alberto Campos
    "They", who? The banderites, those third rate nazis? Don't make me laugh, you've already made me waste my time answering your Hearst's holohoax discover.

    "They", if you want, are these:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/4000381/Josef-Stalin-named-among-greatest-Russians-in-nationwide-TV-vote.html
  219. MarkinLA says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    So Germans had better moral you say? They also had all possible advantages and by the end of 1941 they occupied USSR territory with 90 million population. Hence, USSR was fighting the whole of Western Europe with barely 110 million population left until 1943 and managed to change the course of war handing Germans crashing defeats at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. and you dare to speak of moral?
    According to your logic Hannibal and his troops also had better moral but somehow Romans won.
    Moral in that case was paramount to Roman eventual victory as it was to Soviet victory. Moral allowed Soviet troops to resist German onslaught despite horrible losses which exhausted German military machine and allowed Soviet leadership to implement measures which without high moral of Soviet fighting troops would have been impossible. Look at France...for example.
    The proof is in the pudding as saying goes. The best man won., Get over it. Germany is no more by the way... it was thoroughly castrated. Germans while indeed having high moral were crashed and now they have no moral even to protect their women against people whom they would consider lower race just 77 years ago.

    I am not sure you had a point but I will say this about Germany/USSR and the moral of the troops:

    When the Spartans faced the Persians at Thermopylae, all the moral in the world by the Spartans eventually meant nothing. This was the same as for the Germans. There were too many Russians to kill for Germany to win.

    Very few people from the areas captured by Germany fought for Germany. The German allies like the Romanians were not very capable so bringing up the population of western Europe makes no sense.

    As for Hannibal, he was winning but could not take Rome and the Romans sent forces to Carthage and Hannibal was called back to defend the city. I am not sure that Hannibal ever lost a battle until his defeat defending Carthage at Zama.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    Soviets did have means... But with means and without moral they would lose. While you are talking Hannibal, you forget about Africanus and his Spanish campaign. Hannibal lost in Spain. Spartans bought time for Greeks and their example arose Greeks moral. I also do not get an what do you mean there were too many Russians for Germans to kill?
  220. @MarkinLA
    I think the original comment was that it was about 3/4s of what was needed.

    However my main point was that it is less important as the weapons become more lethal. Will moral matter in a nuclear exchange?

    Will moral matter in a nuclear exchange?

    No, certainly not.

    Read More
  221. L.K says:
    @peterAUS
    I am sure that any combat vet, anywhere, just gets amused by that resume.

    A food for thought:
    Say, you are an embedded reporter, and Saker, in his prime, is infantry company commander. I mean, Major rank ain't a joke.
    Just an exercise, not real combat.
    Night attack with live ammunition. Illumination, support fires, the works. He is in charge of course, from preparations, rehearsals, checks......to actual approach....attack....assault, coordinating all that, you know, machineguns, mortars.......
    Nobody would be shooting at you (well...at least not intentionally....those strays....especially from mortars.....).
    All you need to do is to keep close to a grenadier in leading squad and record what you deem interesting on your camera. Dropping hand grenades in trench/bunker is always exciting.
    Would you be comfortable with playing your role?

    Actually, something tells me you would.

    Just seen your post from......Guardian........
    Guardian.

    Hmm… you were claiming the Saker had no military background but he does. Not good enough for you , I see.

    However the next thing I note is that you 100% ignored what one of the most highly decorated US veterans had to say about US ground forces. We are talkin’ about Colonel David H Hackworth here, a soldier’s soldier!
    What do you do then? Blow up a bunch of smoke & pathetically attempts to shift the conversation away into the unreliability of the Guardian! But of course the Guardian did not make up the interview and Hackworth’s opinions can be found elsewhere.
    I even provided you with the title of a key article he wrote, you just ignored it.
    What is clear by now is that you are a total intellectual fraud.

    Clearly the facts piss you off. A little more reality, now from U.S. Marine Corps, Lt. Col. John Sayen:

    Our military forces have become high-cost dinosaurs that are insufficiently lethal against most of the enemies we are likely to face. Our forces have also broken free of their constitutional controls to the point where they have essentially become a presidential military…
    The large standing forces were supposed to facilitate professional preparation for war, but the essential officer corps never truly professionalized itself….
    The result, especially today, has been notably mediocre senior military leadership – with only the rarest exceptions. At the same time, our armed forces have become ruinously expensive, as they simultaneously shrink, age, and become remarkably less capable.
    In Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, the Army and Marine Corps have been stretched to the
    limits of their strength to fight enemies not even a tenth as numerous as those they faced in Vietnam. We have become a pampered, sluggish, weak-muscled elephant that cannot even deal effectively with mice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    You do like to rely on articles from....authorities.
    That’s O.K. if you try to read them with critical eye.
    To have that critical eye you do need two things:
    -open mind (always the hardest)
    -some previous knowledge/expertise on the subject (most often quite unlikely; on top of that no desire to get it).

    This is how I’d read this:

    Lt.Colonel….rather low rank to talk about policy/strategy…even operations. Hell, based on his EXPERIENCE, I’d say (without reading his bio) he’s never COMMANDED unit larger than a battalion.

    Hence, I am, personally, more than happy to read his stuff about that battalion sized unit. That’s about combat related.
    Expertise wise, true, I can read his OPINIONS about certain topics. But, personally, I do not much value his input on combat on anything higher than a regiment/brigade.
    But, as for policy/strategy….just a bit over his pay grade I’d say. I mean, I can find 100 Lt.Cols with totally opposite opinion.

    Into your quote (take this as a chat over drinks, not “taking notes for my job” if you know what I mean):
    -What are those “enemies we are likely to face”?
    -“constitutional controls”……whoah…..policy, society in general; I’d leave serious conversation about that to somebody else, but, sure, we can CHAT about it. We can chat about fine dining too.
    -What is the “essential officer corps”? My impression is the officer corps is quite professional, especially comparing to the rest of the world. Could you explain that?
    -Ah, mediocre senior leadership, you mean from 3 star general up? Why?
    -Expensive, agree, shrink, don’t think so, age, how so, less capable, why?
    -Ah, COIN, so you think we should do better there? Or you mean conventional, as against Iran/Russia (say, confrontation in Ukraine)? Or both? OK, Colonel, say, you are the Charman of the Joint Chiefs, how would you do that?
    -Pampered etc, well, you do have a point a bit. So, Colonel, would you suggest something how to remedy that? I am listening………..again, say, you are the Chairman, how would you remedy that?

    Oh, BTW, could you point me, please, to similar information about Russian armed forces?
  222. peterAUS says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    I too saw the article linked to the Guardian but what stood out for me was the name Hackworth.

    I agree that the old Graun is now a mere shadow of what was once a reputable news media outlet and I almost nearly wet my (very pricey) pants when I read the bit at the end of every article begging for a subscription to support their "fearless journalism" but I read it often because like the blind chicken, they sometimes stumble on a nugget of a good story. I agree with you on that but Hackworth himself seems like he was quite a guy to have on your side in a scrap, surely you have to concede that much, no? I mean Hackworth surely loves the military and would prefer for it to meet his own high standards, no?

    If what Hackworth wrote is even half true there's cause for concern, especially when the people spoiling for a fight are not the actual people who'll do the fighting and the dying.

    I agree with you on that but Hackworth himself seems like he was quite a guy to have on your side in a scrap, surely you have to concede that much, no? I mean Hackworth surely loves the military and would prefer for it to meet his own high standards, no?

    Agree.

    What would be good do remember is, CIVILIANS/amateurs read/get those quotes/writings in a quite different way than military personnel/professionals.
    And that’s the catch here.
    In order to understand you already have to know ….a lot.
    In modern society, Internet in particular, “chattering classes” …speak….the loudest.
    And they despise the military. Hence, they have, actually, no clue how all that really works. But, of course, their opinions just overwhelm the sphere. And, naturally, they just love lecturing those who sort of doubt all that……..knowledge and wisdom. If lecturing doesn’t work they are quite adept of employing other methods to shut down different opinions.

    You see, those quotes are just…….bad.
    Badly written.

    In military, as in any organized structure, there are memos, reports, suggestions….
    There is a defined methodology how to write those.
    Those quotes are written in a way that a company commander would read first sentence and then toss them in rubbish.

    I’ll tell you how I read those (just as a little learning exercise…)

    I would be reluctant to jump into a battle zone with any conventional American unit. I would hate to take them into battle – they ain’t ready, they are not ‘good to go’

    Written in 2001.
    In 2003 invasion of Iraq, US forces annihilated the opposition.
    Maybe Hackworth was bit harsh?
    Or, more likely, the military took his words onboard and used the time and resources to remedy the issue?

    [MORE]

    Second example is beteter.

    What we have now in the 10th Mountain Division is a bunch of kids that are better qualified to play computer games than they are to fight in that kind of terrain.”

    Data?
    Why?
    Are the standards too low? Are the standards O.K. but leadership isn’t enforcing them? Is that because of failure of leadership or lack or time/resources?
    And, the MOST important:”Well…Colonel….how would YOU remedy that?”
    Because at the end of each critical opinion must be a suggestion how to remedy the issue.
    I’d suggest remembering this sentence.

    Third example:

    neither can get into a correct prone firing position: their boot heels stick up in the air,

    Not good.
    Anything done to remedy that?
    If not, why?
    What would YOU suggest?

    their faces say help me, help me

    Personally, ain’t buying the Colonel said this.
    If he did, maybe, just maybe, the old man is slipping a bit.

    firing wildly at the pop-up targets, missing at least half of them.

    Not that bad.
    The task is suppressing the enemy, so they can’t effectively engage the assaulters.
    It would help to know range of those targets, how many there were, and how long they were up.
    Suppressive fire…not destroy the enemy.
    Besides, two men do not assault a trench. They are the leading pair/buddy team of at least a squad. The drop of pair and, most importantly, the firebase, suppress the assault area so those two can get in. Those two, at most, should suppress just that point where they’ll toss their hand grenade(s).
    For bunker it’s even more………organized and executed. For example, add “bunker buster” launcher.
    Little details…left out of article/quote.
    Of course.
    Could confuse the readers.
    Gotta keep the message short and simple.

    the objective, an open sandpit big enough and wide enough to swallow an SUV, lies only 20 paces ahead of the lead grunt. He lobs his grenade. POP. Short.

    Not that bad.
    Get another one.
    Keep going.
    It’s a fight.

    Exercise over

    OK.
    Did they do it again…and again….until they got it right?
    Why not?
    Suggestions?

    You know, it, most of the time, boils down to RESOURCES.
    In this case, ammunition. Expensive.
    But, we don’t want MIC to make profits on our tax money.
    Ah, yes, another thing, training casualties.
    I mean, if somebody gets hurt (tired men and live ammo….) a lot of careers just grind to halt.
    So, CIVILIANS aren’t happy with the level of expertise.
    They are even less happy if somebody gets hurt.
    And totally unhappy with money spent on those games.

    Anyway, that was 2001.
    Iraq invasion was 2003.
    Maybe that training was improved in meantime?

    the people spoiling for a fight are not the actual people who’ll do the fighting and the dying.

    That’s how the world works….”old men talking young men dying….”.

    But, we again missed the point here.

    Why we do NOT see any of this regarding Russian military?
    No books, articles, debates, Internet fencing/trolling.
    Why not?

    Maybe somebody can point us to that forum/Website….book….article…..?

    Read More
  223. @Avery
    {Slavs and other peoples LOVED Stalin. }

    How would you know?

    There were no opinion polls at the time, and information and propaganda were strictly controlled by Soviet authorities.

    I am sure there were many people in USSR who loved and admired Stalin at the time, but no way to know what percentage of the population.

    Any public adulation was contrived and expected.
    Sort of like the milder version of North Koreans' public displays 'love' of the Kim Jong-un.

    Right, no polls – only elements to judge. But today’s polls show how those feelings passed through consecutive generations (despite all that followed) until now:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/4000381/Josef-Stalin-named-among-greatest-Russians-in-nationwide-TV-vote.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {But today’s polls show how those feelings passed through consecutive generations (despite all that followed) until now:}

    Nonsense.

    That poll is a non sequitur as far this discussion is concerned.
    This is what you wrote above: {Slavs and other peoples LOVED Stalin. }

    LOVED, in capital letters.
    All that poll says is that today, 60+ years after the man is dead, Russian people were asked who were the 'greatest historical figures'.

    Not who they loved most.

    Since the Great Patriotic War is one of the most - if not THE most - important/historic events in Soviet/Russian people's memory, and since Stalin - for better or worse* - was the leader of USSR during WW2, people naturally associate the historic WW2 victory with him, as a historical figure: quite natural.

    So where do you get that supposedly 'those feelings passed through consecutive generations'.

    Tell you what: in 2015, on the 70th anniversary of WW2 victory, 100s of 1,000s of Russian people marched throughout RF in countless Immortals marches. Russian people were carrying the pictures of their real loved ones. Not pictures of Stalin.
    That's the real poll.
    That's real love.

    btw: according to that poll, Russian people 'loved' Pyotr Stolypin even more than they 'loved' Stalin. Aaaaaand, they 'loved' Alexander Nevsky even, even, more, more than Stalin. So as far as LOVing or not LOVing Stalin, as you claimed - a non sequitur poll.
    _______
    * Peoples of USSR and the Red Army won WW2 not because of Stalin, but despite of him.

  224. @MarkinLA
    Yeah, they loved Stalin so much that they remember him by the national holiday called the Holodomor.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

    “They”, who? The banderites, those third rate nazis? Don’t make me laugh, you’ve already made me waste my time answering your Hearst’s holohoax discover.

    “They”, if you want, are these: