The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 The Saker ArchiveBlogview
The Latest Escalation in Syria – What Is Really Going On?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_318318
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

By now most of you have heard the latest bad news of out Syria: on June 18th a US F/A-18E Super Hornet (1999) used a AIM-120 AMRAAM (1991) to shoot down a Syrian Air Force Su-22 (1970). Two days later, June 20th, a US F-15E Strike Eagle shot down an Iranian IRGC Shahed 129 drone. The excuse used each time was that there was a threat to US and US supported forces. The reality is, of course, that the US are simply trying to stop the advance of the Syrian army. This was thus a typical American “show of force”. Except that, of course, shooting a 47 year old Soviet era Su-22 fighter-bomber is hardly an impressive feat. Neither is shooting a unmanned drone. There is a pattern here, however, and that pattern is that all US actions so far have been solely for show: the basically failed bombing of the Syria military airbase, the bombing of the Syrian army column, the shooting down of the Syrian fighter-bomber and of the Iranian drone – all these actions have no real military value. They do, however, have a provocative value as each time all the eyes turn to Russia to see if the Russians will respond or not.

Russia did respond this time again, but in a very ambiguous and misunderstood manner. The Russians announced, amongst other measure that from now on “any airborne objects, including aircraft and unmanned vehicles of the [US-led] international coalition, located to the west of the Euphrates River, will be tracked by Russian ground and air defense forces as air targets” which I reported as “Russian MoD declares it will shoot down any aircraft flying west of the Euphrates river”. While I gave the exact Russian quote, I did not explain why I paraphrased the Russian words the way I did. Now is a good time to explain this.

First, here is the exact original Russian text:

«В районах выполнения боевых задач российской авиацией в небе Сирии любые воздушные объекты, включая самолёты и беспилотные аппараты международной коалиции, обнаруженные западнее реки Евфрат, будут приниматься на сопровождение российскими наземными и воздушными средствами противовоздушной обороны в качестве воздушных целей»

A literal translation would be:

“In areas of the combat missions of Russian aviation in the skies of Syria any airborne objects, including aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicle of the international coalition discovered to the West of the Euphrates river, will be tracked by Russian ground based an airborne assets as air targets”

So what does this exactly mean in technical-military terms?

A quick look inside a US fighter’s cockpit

When an F/A-18 flies over Syria the on-board emission detectors (called radar warning receivers or RWR) inform the pilot of the kind of radar signals the aircraft is detecting. Over Syria that means that the pilot would see a lot of search radars looking in all directions trying to get a complete picture of what is happening in the Syrian skies. The US pilot will be informed that a certain number of Syrian S-300 and Russian S-400 batteries are scanning the skies and most probably see him. So far so good. If there are deconfliction zones or any type of bilateral agreements to warn each other about planned sorties then that kind of radar emissions are no big deal. Likewise US radars (ground, sea or air based) are also scanning the skies and “seeing” the Russian Aerospace Forces’ aircraft on their radars and the Russians know that. In this situation neither side is treating anybody as “air targets”. When a decision is made to treat an object as an “air target” a completely different type of radar signal is used and a much narrower energy beam is directed at the target which can now be tracked and engaged. The pilot is, of course, immediately informed of this. At this point the pilot is in a very uncomfortable position: he knows that he is being tracked, but he has no way of knowing if a missile has already been launched against him or not. Depending on a number of factors, an AWACS might be able to detect a missile launch, but this might not be enough and it might also be too late.

ORDER IT NOW

The kind of missiles fired by S-300/S-400 batteries are extremely fast, over 4,000mph (four thousand miles per hour) which means that a missile launched as far away as 120 miles will reach you in 2 minutes or that a missile launched 30 miles away will reach you in 30 seconds. And just to make things worse, the S-300 can use a special radar mode called “track via missile” where the radar emits a pulse towards the target whose reflection is then received not by the ground based radar, but by the rapidly approaching missile itself, which then sends its reading back to the ground radar which then sends guidance corrections back to the missile. Why is that bad for the aircraft? Because there is no way to tell from the emissions whether a missile has been launched and is already approaching at over 4,000mph or not. The S-300 and S-400 also have other modes, including the Seeker Aided Ground Guidance (SAGG) where the missile also computes a guidance solution (not just the ground radar) and then the two are compared and a Home On Jam (HOJ) mode when the jammed missile then homes directly on the source of the jamming (such as an onboard jamming pod). Furthermore, there are other radar modes available such as the Ground Aided Inertial (GAI) which guides the missile in the immediate proximity of the target where the missile switches on its own radar just before hitting the target. Finally, there is some pretty good evidence that the Russians have perfected a complex datalink system which allows them to fuse into one all the signals they acquire from their missiles, airborne aircraft (fighter, interceptor or AWACS) and ground radars and that means that, in theory, if a US aircraft is outside the flight envelope (reach) of the ground based missiles the signals acquired by the ground base radars could be used to fire an air-to-air missile at the US aircraft (we know that their MiG-31s are capable of such engagements, so I don’t see why their much more recent Su-30/Su-35 could not). This would serve to further complicate the situational awareness of the pilot as a missile could be coming from literally any direction. At this point the only logical reaction would be for the US pilot to inform his commanders and get out, fast. Sure, in theory, he could simply continue his mission, but that would be very hard, especially if he suspects that the Syrians might have other, mobile, air defense on the way to, or near, his intended target.

Just try to imagine this: you are flying, in total illegality, over hostile territory and preparing to strike a target when suddenly your radar warning receiver goes off and tells you “you got 30 seconds or (much?) less to decide whether there is a 300lbs (150kg) warhead coming at you at 4000mph (6400kmh) or not”. How would you feel if it was you sitting in that cockpit? Would you still be thinking about executing your planned attack?

The normal US strategy is to achieve what is called “air superiority/supremacy” by completely suppressing enemy air defenses and taking control of the skies. If I am not mistaken, the last time the US fighters operated in a meaningfully contested air space was in Vietnam…

By the way, these technologies are not uniquely Russian, they are well known in the West, for example the US Patriot SAM also uses TVM, but the Russians have very nicely integrated them into one formidable air defense system.

The bottom line is this: once the US aircraft is “treated like a target” he has no way of knowing if the Syrians, or the Russians, are just being cheeky or whether has has seconds left to live. Put differently, “treating like a target” is tantamount to somebody putting a gun to your head and letting you guess if/when he will pull the trigger.

So yes, the Russian statement most definitely was a “threat to shoot down”!

Next, a look into the Russian side of the equation

To understand why the Russians used the words “treat like an air target” rather than “will shoot down” you need to remember that Russia is still the weaker party here. There is nothing worse than not delivering on a threat. If the Russians had said “we will shoot down” and then had not done so, they would have made an empty threat. Instead, they said “will treat as an air target” because that leaves them an “out” should they decided not to pull the trigger. However, for the US Navy or Air Force pilot, these considerations are all irrelevant once his detectors report to him that he is being “painted” with the beam of an engagement radar!

So what the Russians did is to greatly unnerve the US crews without actually having to shoot down anybody. It is not a coincidence that the Americans almost immediately stopped flying West of the Euphrates river while the Australians officially decided to bow out from any further air sorties.

It cannot be overemphasized that the very last thing Russia needs is to shoot down a US aircraft over Syria which is exactly what some elements of the Pentagon seem to want. Not only is Russia the weaker side in this conflict, but the Russians also understand the wider political consequences of what would happen if they took the dramatic step to shoot down a US aircraft: a dream come true for the Neocons and a disaster for everybody else.

A quick look from the US Neoconistan and the quest for a “tepid war”

The dynamic in Syria is not fundamentally different from the dynamic in the Ukraine: the Neocons know that they have failed to achieve their primary objective: to control the entire country. They also know that their various related financial schemes have collapsed. Finally, they are fully aware that they owe this defeat to Russia and, especially, to Vladimir Putin. So they fell back on plan B. Plan B is almost as good as Plan A (full control) because Plan B has much wider consequences. Plan B is also very simple: trigger a major crisis with Russia but stay short from a full-scale war. Ideally, Plan B should revolve around a “firm” “reaction” to the Russian “aggression” and a “defense” of the US “allies” in the region. In practical terms this simply means: get the Russians to openly send forces into Novorussia or get the Russians to take military actions against the US or its allies in Syria. Once you get this you can easily see that the latest us attacks in Syria have a minor local purpose – to scare or slow down the Syrians- and a major global purpose – to bait the Russians into using forces against the US or an ally. It bears repeating here that what the Neocons really want is what I call a “tepid” war with Russia: an escalation of tensions to levels not even seen during the Cold War, but not a full-scale “hot” WWIII either. A tepid war would finally re-grant NATO at least some kind of purpose (to protect “our European friends and allies” from the “Russian threat”): the already terminally spineless EU politicians would all be brought into an even more advanced state of subservience, the military budgets would go even higher and Trump would be able to say that he made “America” “great” again. And, who knows, maybe the Russian people would *finally* rise against Putin, you never know! (They wouldn’t – but the Neocons have never been deterred from their goofy theories by such minor and altogether irrelevant things as facts or logic).

[Sidebar: I noticed this time again that each time the US tries to bait Russia into some kind of harsh reaction and Russia declines to take the bait, this triggers in immediate surge into the number of comments which vehemently complain that Russia is acting like a pussy, that Putin is a fake, that he is “in cahoots” with the US and/or Israel and that the Russians are weak or that they have “sold out”. I am getting a sense that we are dealing with paid US PSYOP operatives whose mission is to use the social media to try to put the Kremlin under pressure with these endless accusations of weakness and selling-out. Since I have no interest in rewarding these folks in any way, I mostly send their recriminations where they belong: to the trash]

Does the Russian strategy work?

To reply to this, don’t look at what the Russians do or do not do in the immediate aftermath of a US provocation. Take a higher level look and just see what happens in the mid to long term. Just like in a game of chess, taking the Gambit is not always the correct strategy.

I submit that to evaluate whether Putin’s policies are effective or not, to see whether he has “sold out” or “caved in” you need to, for example, look at the situation in Syria (or the Ukraine, for that matter) as it was 2 years ago and then compare with what it is today. Or, alternatively, look at the situation as it is today and come back to re-visit it in 6 months.

One huge difference between the western culture and the way the Russians (or the Chinese for that matter) look at geostrategy is that westerners always look at everything in the short term and tactical level. This is basically the single main reason why both Napoleon and Hitler lost their wars against Russia: an almost exclusive focus on the short term and tactical. In contrast, the Russians are the undisputed masters of operational art (in a purely military sense) and, just like the Chinese, they tend to always keep their eyes on the long-term horizon. Just look at the Turkish downing of a Russian Su-24: everybody bemoaned the lack of “forceful” reaction from Moscow. And then, six months later – what do we have? Exactly.

The modern western culture is centered on various forms of instant gratification, and that is also true for geopolitics. If the other guy does something, western leaders always deliver a “firm” response. They like to “send messages” and they firmly believe that doing something, no matter how symbolic, is better than even the appearance of doing nothing. As for the appearance of doing nothing, it is universally interpreted as a sign of weakness. Russians don’t think that way. They don’t care about instant gratification, they care only about one thing: victory. And if that means to look weak, that is fine. From a Russian perspective, sending “messages” or taking symbolic actions (like all 4 of the recent US attacks in Syria) are not signs of strength, but signs of weakness. Generally, the Russians don’t like to use force which they consider inherently dangerous. But when they do, they never threaten or warn, they take immediate and pragmatic (non-symbolic) action which gets them closer to a specific goal.

Conclusion

The Russian reaction to the latest US attack on Syria was not designed to maximize the approval of the many Internet armchair strategists. It was designed to maximize the discomfort of the US lead “coalition” in Syria while minimizing the risks for Russia. It is precisely by using an ambiguous language which civilians would interpret in one way, and military personnel in another, that the Russians introduced a very disruptive element of unpredictability into the planning of US air operations in Syria.

SyrianPilot The Russians are not without their own faults and bad habits and they make mistakes (recognizing the Ukronazi junta in Kiev after the coup was probably such a mistake), but it is important to differentiate between their real weaknesses and mistakes and their very carefully designed strategies. Just because they don’t act in the way their putative “supporters” in the West would does not mean that they have “caved in”, “blinked first” or any other such nonsense. The first step towards understanding how the Russians function is to stop expecting that they would act just like Americans would.

P.S: By the way, the Syrian pilot shot down made it out alive. Here is a photo of him following his rescue by Syrian special forces:

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Russia, Syria 
    []
  1. The modern western culture is centered on various forms of instant gratification, and that is also true for geopolitics. If the other guy does something, western leaders always deliver a “firm” response. They like to “send messages”

    Excellent point. That is why “West” (US mostly) can not win a single war in 70 years.

    Read More
    • Agree: Sergey Krieger
    • Replies: @TipTipTopKek
    It's been far more than 70 years since the West won a war. The Soviets won WWII, not the West.
    , @Joe Wong
    The Americans just want to know how good the Russian is to reassure themselves; all the top dogs do this test constantly to reassure themselves. As long as the Russian is not giving the American a real feedback, the American will be reckless and continue to probe.
    , @ROBERTO
    The war takes place in men's minds, the shooting is only a the echo.
    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/the-latest-escalation-in-syria-what-is-really-going-on/#comment-1913401
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    A good, interesting article. Much of what’s gone on is rather opaque and it’s difficult to understand what the meaning of some of these actions are such as in this shoot-down of the Syrian plane. People scratch their heads and try to come up with plausible explanations. Plain stupidity or rashness on the part of some military people? Are there American special forces disguised and embedded with some of these ‘rebel’ groups that they wanted to protect? Or, more sinisterly and as suggested, there’s a plan afoot to ratchet up US-Russian tensions by engineering incidents that could be used to fan war hysteria and panic. A new cold war, properly managed, could be good for business and divert money into the connected people’s bank accounts, funneling tax money upwards. It’s a racket that kills the expendables. At any rate we’ll need a few more pieces of the puzzle to see what the American game plan happens to be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    A new cold war, properly managed, could be good for business and divert money into the connected people’s bank accounts, funneling tax money upwards.
     
    A lot of people around the internet express similar opinions, and the more obtuse of them even festoon their delivery with the same Smedley Butler quote we've all read a million times already, as if there were no limit to the number of occasions upon we needed to be re-informed that "war is a racket."

    The problem is, it just isn't true. Nobody---not even the Neocons, not even government bureaucrats, not even the sleaziest defense contractor---could possibly look at America's fiscal predicament and conclude that a new Cold War is financially beneficial to anybody. Something else has to be motivating this, and that something is Boomer vanity.

    These guys are just itching for one last game of Cowboys & Indians against the Russians. I find the whole thing quite embarrassing but also rather alarming, considering how serious the consequences could be.

    However, I think it's time to retire the "war is a racket" meme. It has no explanatory power in today's world. The age of imperial expansion, of making Latin America safe for fruit companies or whatever Smedley Butler was on about, is well behind us. There is no longer any tincture of geopolitical or economic rationale in Washington's war-making. Every war we fight makes us weaker and poorer, whereas Butler's wars, however ignoble he thought the motives behind them, at least made us stronger and richer. The imperialists of yore knew what they were doing; they could point to some measure of worldly success as justification for their exploits. But nowadays we have only failures; and our imperialists, lacking the dignity even to be robber barons, have instead become dreamers and peddlers of ideology.

    The Age of the Neocon Wars, c. 1990-present, is all about vanity. These are "existential" wars in the Sartrian sense, i.e. they are deliberate fabrications and extensions of identity. The Boomers are going on their penultimate journey of self-discovery, predictably wrecking everything in their path as they make burnt offerings to their insatiable egos.

  3. An excellent article, but a depressing situation. What happens if the Turks start bombing the Kurdish forces supported by the yankee imperium?

    Read More
  4. @Andrei Martyanov

    The modern western culture is centered on various forms of instant gratification, and that is also true for geopolitics. If the other guy does something, western leaders always deliver a “firm” response. They like to “send messages”
     
    Excellent point. That is why "West" (US mostly) can not win a single war in 70 years.

    It’s been far more than 70 years since the West won a war. The Soviets won WWII, not the West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    But at least it was, without denigrating a decisive role of the Soviet Union, a formal coalition victory. Plus, let's not deny US Navy its well deserved victory in the Pacific. Pacific was largely an American victory, even considering Red Army's crushing defeat of Kwantung Army in 1945. Yet, uncritical and triumphalist lessons of WW II on European Theater in WW II played as tricky of a role in US post-WW II history as did a turkey shoot against third rate Saddam's force in the Gulf in 1990-91. One can not learn properly when the lessons are wrong.
    , @Quartermaster
    Right. Only Ivan was fighting the Germans. The Rooskis got a lot of war material from the US. The Red Army would have starved to death if not for the us. And that is far from the only thing that went from the US to Stalin.
    , @Romil
    Not true, the USA won a war with Grenada, Panama (Noriega), etc.

    Admittedly these wars were a little lopsided.

    What is clear since Vietnam is that the USA military/ Political System is not very good at occupying a country after initial battlefield success.

    Unless the chaos in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq etc is the intended result.
    , @The Alarmist
    I once had a pretty young Russian lady ask me (in a bar in Germany, of all places) why we celebrate VE day on 8 May, to which I replied, "That's the day we (she knew I meant Americans, and by that Americans alone) won the war ... with a bit of help from you guys, of course." If I hadn't said it with a light-hearted smile, I probably would have been run through with a broken vodka bottle on the spot, not to send a message, but, as Saker notes, as a pragmatic response to an arrogant Westerner.
    , @jacques sheete

    It’s been far more than 70 years since the West won a war. The Soviets won WWII, not the West.
     
    Actually, the Soviet leadership and the Western bankers did any "winning." The rest of us lost, big time, and are still paying.
    , @TG
    As regards TipTipTopKek: yes indeed the Soviets did the major fighting against the Nazis, sure, we in the West keep forgetting this, but I really don't think they could have won without the Western allies. History always looks inevitable after the fact, but I think WWII could easily have gone either way. Remember that the US took on the Japanese empire single-handed. Suppose that, while fighting the Nazis on one front, the Soviets had been faced with the Japanese empire striking into Siberia and taking out their eastern industries?

    So yes the Soviets did most of the heavy lifting in WWII, but bottom line, I'd say it was a team effort.
  5. @TipTipTopKek
    It's been far more than 70 years since the West won a war. The Soviets won WWII, not the West.

    But at least it was, without denigrating a decisive role of the Soviet Union, a formal coalition victory. Plus, let’s not deny US Navy its well deserved victory in the Pacific. Pacific was largely an American victory, even considering Red Army’s crushing defeat of Kwantung Army in 1945. Yet, uncritical and triumphalist lessons of WW II on European Theater in WW II played as tricky of a role in US post-WW II history as did a turkey shoot against third rate Saddam’s force in the Gulf in 1990-91. One can not learn properly when the lessons are wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    Let's call it a American / National-Chinese victory then.

    Binding a few hundred thousands imperial troops on the mainland sure counts for something, doesn't it?
  6. Because there is no way to tell from the emissions whether a missile has been launched and is already approaching at over 4,000mph or not.

    How little you know.

    Just try to imagine this: you are flying, in total illegality, over hostile territory and preparing to strike a target when suddenly your radar warning receiver goes off and tells you “you got 30 seconds or (much?) less to decide whether there is a 300lbs (150kg) warhead coming at you at 4000mph (6400kmh) or not”.

    Hilarious. You need to give some thought to what you post.

    More Saker. To paraphrase Mencken, If you don’t read him, your uninformed. If do, you’re misinformed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    So please enlighten us, O Wise One.
    , @jilles dykstra
    An explanation on why it is hilarious would be great.
  7. @TipTipTopKek
    It's been far more than 70 years since the West won a war. The Soviets won WWII, not the West.

    Right. Only Ivan was fighting the Germans. The Rooskis got a lot of war material from the US. The Red Army would have starved to death if not for the us. And that is far from the only thing that went from the US to Stalin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Begemot
    It is true that the Soviets got a lot of Lend-Lease from the US. Britain got much more (about 2/3's of the total). The Red Army would not have starved to death without the US. American lend-lease made the Soviet victory over Germany easier. It didn't make it possible. Since about 2/3's of the German army was engaged on the Russian front the Americans should be forever grateful that those German divisions weren't waiting for the Americans in Normandy. The desperate need of many Americans to appear to be indispensable is pathetic.
    , @Thirdeye
    Through 1944, 80% of German losses were on the eastern front. That's from German records.
    , @Russian1
    Americans are criminals killing all over the planet. Raped many girls during the war in many countries did American soldiers and nothing has changed they did the same on Vietnam and Iraq. Just savage animals with a penchant for war and buggery.
    Also Eisenhower starved to death 1.2million German soldiers and proof of that is he rerouted supplies and let them die in the open air prisons without food. A cruel nation of barbarians.
    The world is at the mercy of American mafia thugs and Russia is the savior behaving with principles.
  8. anon says: • Disclaimer

    “Pakistan’s Foreign Office has issued a statement today warning that they will not tolerate drone strikes inside their territory”

    Russia should lure Pak away from US orbit , get Taliban on its side and remove Iran from Indian influence- thus getting them rid of US. Russia can engineer a new reality against Saudi Israel US . Russia can prove Afghanistan as the tomb where empire comes to rest

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Russia should lure Pak away from US orbit
     
    Pakistan (together with India) became full member of Shanghai Cooperation Organization last week or two. This is very significant, to put it mildly, and it is certainly some long way from "US orbit".
  9. So just how cunning is Trump?

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    Cunning as a TV celebrity.
    , @Miro23

    So just how cunning is Trump?
     
    Maybe he's too cunning/clever by half - as in a neo-con collaborator. He was given a mandate to get out of ME conflicts and if he had done what he was elected to do, the US could be getting on with domestic affairs rather than evaluating the possibility of WW3.
  10. @anon
    "Pakistan’s Foreign Office has issued a statement today warning that they will not tolerate drone strikes inside their territory"

    Russia should lure Pak away from US orbit , get Taliban on its side and remove Iran from Indian influence- thus getting them rid of US. Russia can engineer a new reality against Saudi Israel US . Russia can prove Afghanistan as the tomb where empire comes to rest

    Russia should lure Pak away from US orbit

    Pakistan (together with India) became full member of Shanghai Cooperation Organization last week or two. This is very significant, to put it mildly, and it is certainly some long way from “US orbit”.

    Read More
  11. Begemot says:
    @Quartermaster
    Right. Only Ivan was fighting the Germans. The Rooskis got a lot of war material from the US. The Red Army would have starved to death if not for the us. And that is far from the only thing that went from the US to Stalin.

    It is true that the Soviets got a lot of Lend-Lease from the US. Britain got much more (about 2/3′s of the total). The Red Army would not have starved to death without the US. American lend-lease made the Soviet victory over Germany easier. It didn’t make it possible. Since about 2/3′s of the German army was engaged on the Russian front the Americans should be forever grateful that those German divisions weren’t waiting for the Americans in Normandy. The desperate need of many Americans to appear to be indispensable is pathetic.

    Read More
    • Agree: bluedog
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Since about 2/3′s of the German army was engaged on the Russian front}

    It was not 2/3rds or ~67%: it was about 80%.
    Also, about 80% of Wehrmacht's best, toughest divisions were ground up on the Eastern front. At a terribly high cost to the Red Army men and materiel.

    {.... that those German divisions weren’t waiting for the Americans in Normandy. }

    Even the completely bled out Wehrmacht put American troops through the ringer at the Battle of the Bulge in 1944. With notable exceptions, e.g. the heroic defense of Bastogne, GIs mostly ran as Germans advanced. The disaster was averted when skies cleared and USAF came in and saved the day.

    {The desperate need of many Americans to appear to be indispensable is pathetic.}

    Indeed.
    , @annamaria
    "The desperate need of many Americans to appear to be indispensable is pathetic."
    True.
    Though in a case of Quatermaster you are dealing with a Jewish-Ukrainian Russophobe. It does not matter how many times the UNZ readers have corrected her/his mistakes - the Quatermaster knows better. Like a petulant child.
    , @Alberto Campos
    Begemot, Quatermaster and others:
    The Soviets got nothing from the US, more useful than a greetings postcard. Too little too late: a couple of rusty planes when they didn't need them anymore, some trucks when they needed artillary, wheat for cattle that arrived rotten a.s.o

    That myth is a painful try to get a place among the victors, which they didn't deserve at all. They expected the destruction of the USSR (hence the blockade and the sanctions and the proxy wars since the 20's) and waited just until it was obvious that the Red Army will only stop at the Atlantic coast.

    The US gave *nothing* to the Soviet war effort. Stop believing in Mickey Mouse.
  12. Thirdeye says:
    @Quartermaster

    Because there is no way to tell from the emissions whether a missile has been launched and is already approaching at over 4,000mph or not.
     
    How little you know.

    Just try to imagine this: you are flying, in total illegality, over hostile territory and preparing to strike a target when suddenly your radar warning receiver goes off and tells you “you got 30 seconds or (much?) less to decide whether there is a 300lbs (150kg) warhead coming at you at 4000mph (6400kmh) or not”.
     
    Hilarious. You need to give some thought to what you post.

    More Saker. To paraphrase Mencken, If you don't read him, your uninformed. If do, you're misinformed.

    So please enlighten us, O Wise One.

    Read More
    • Replies: @mh505
    Who gives a damn what the "Quartermaster" thinks?
  13. Sean says:

    The oh so subtle Russian triumph in Syria that Saker keeps telling us about is apparently not understood by the US forces in Syria. The Assad regieme advances is 100% due to the US not supplying the popular forces with anti aircraft weapons. Assad’s pilots are brave when they know there is nothing to fear, but now know they are going to be shot out of the sky over US backed forces, so the Assad advance will halt.

    Read More
    • Disagree: chris
    • Troll: Che Guava
    • Replies: @anon
    Yes you rae correct US has not used the Nuclear bomb on Syria . That would ahve sealed Assad's fate and advanced IS if US wanted !!!!!1

    Your assertion only stirs a big LOL !!

    US has supplied more than enough way more than you can imagine

    https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/articles/western-plot-overthrow-assad/


    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/

    Enlighten yourself.
    , @annamaria
    "...the US not supplying the popular forces with anti aircraft weapon..."

    This is not true. In this not-true is easy to debunk:
    http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/syria-manpads-rebels-war-russia-609832353 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-arms-idUSKBN14G12Y
    http://www.skynews.com.au/news/world/europe/2016/12/28/weapons-could-end-up-with-jihadists--russia.html
    http://thegenerator.news/us-to-flood-syria-with-anti-aircraft-guns/

    , @annamaria
    In case you did not have time to look for the widely available information on how the US has been supplying certain "forces" in Syria with various weaponry, including anti aircraft weapons, here is a summary: "How America Armed Terrorists in Syria: Another Middle East debacle" By GARETH PORTER • June 22, 2017
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/

    "The Obama administration’s Syria policy effectively sold out the U.S. interest that was supposed to be the touchstone of the “Global War on Terrorism”—the eradication of al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates... In October 2012, U.S. officials acknowledged off the record for the first time to the New York Times that “most” of the arms that had been shipped to armed opposition groups in Syria with U.S. logistical assistance during the previous year had gone to “hardline Islamic jihadists”— obviously meaning al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, al Nusra. ...
    In early March 2015, the Harakat Hazm Aleppo branch dissolved itself, and al Nusra Front promptly showed off photos of the TOW missiles and other equipment they had captured from it. ... But that wasn’t the only way for al Nusra Front to benefit from the CIA’s largesse.
    The non-jihadist armed groups getting advanced weapons from the CIA assistance were not part of the initial assault on Idlib City. After the capture of Idlib the U.S.-led operations room for Syria in southern Turkey signaled to the CIA-supported groups in Idlib that they could now participate in the campaign to consolidate control over the rest of the province. According to Lister, the British researcher on jihadists in Syria who maintains contacts with both jihadist and other armed groups, recipients of CIA weapons, such as the Fursan al haq brigade and Division 13, did join the Idlib campaign alongside al Nusra Front without any move by the CIA to cut them off. As the Idlib offensive began, the CIA-supported groups were getting TOW missiles in larger numbers, and they now used them with great effectiveness against the Syrian army tanks. That was the beginning of a new phase of the war, in which U.S. policy was to support an alliance between “relatively moderate” groups and the al Nusra Front."
    And more of the same

  14. Mikel says:

    once the US aircraft is “treated like a target” he has no way of knowing if the Syrians, or the Russians, are just being cheeky or whether has has seconds left to live.

    It doesn’t look like the Israeli pilots feel that way when they bomb their targets inside Syria, which they successfully do on a regular basis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Macon Richardson
    You don't say where Israel is bombing in Syria and the conceits of Israel are so boring to me I don't wish to research the topic. Based on history, I assume that Israeli bombing is in the Golan area, extreme south-west Syria.

    Israeli "he-man" tactics in the Golan will have no effect on the defense of Syria against ISIS and the USA. Therefore, why should the Russians or the Syrians pay any attention at all to the little circus side show the Israelis present?

    As to the Ũbermenschen Israeli pilots flying kamakazi missions into Syria, ho-hum? Write up an outline of a script and we'll send it to Hollywood.
    , @El Dato
    Why should the Russians anatagonize the Israelis? It costs a lot and is politically inconvenient. Israel is nearby, Russia is not. The minute-long rush of adrenaline would certainly not be worth it.

    The clusterfuck is currently such that waiting & waltzing & carrying a stick, any stick, is likely to be the best policyless policy. (Asterixian Wars come to mind, sorry for the juvenile reference)

    A writeup in Haaretz (is this a premium page that is accessible via the print menu? well, I don't care)

    http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.797481

    “We’re working productively with Jordan, as we are working with Israel, and I’m not hiding anything from you,” Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu told his country’s parliament late last month. Shoygu even noted his “productive talks” with Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, with whom he speaks on the phone regularly. Arab media outlets report on continuous communication between Russian and Israeli fighter pilots, who coordinate planned flights, just as Israel coordinates its aerial and other actions in Syria with Russian command headquarters.

    The “other actions” include Israel’s shipments of humanitarian and military aid to the militias operating in the Syrian side of the Golan Heights, and in the Daraa area nearby. An intense battle has been underway in recent weeks in Daraa as the Syrian army tries to advance with Shi’ite militias and Iranian-backed Hezbollah to suppress the rebels. These efforts are at the heart of coordination talks between Jordan, Russia, the United States and Saudi Arabia. In some of the talks that took place in Jordan, Israelis were on hand, and in other cases coordination was by phone or through emissaries who visited Israel.
     
  15. Thirdeye says:
    @Quartermaster
    Right. Only Ivan was fighting the Germans. The Rooskis got a lot of war material from the US. The Red Army would have starved to death if not for the us. And that is far from the only thing that went from the US to Stalin.

    Through 1944, 80% of German losses were on the eastern front. That’s from German records.

    Read More
  16. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Sean
    The oh so subtle Russian triumph in Syria that Saker keeps telling us about is apparently not understood by the US forces in Syria. The Assad regieme advances is 100% due to the US not supplying the popular forces with anti aircraft weapons. Assad's pilots are brave when they know there is nothing to fear, but now know they are going to be shot out of the sky over US backed forces, so the Assad advance will halt.

    Yes you rae correct US has not used the Nuclear bomb on Syria . That would ahve sealed Assad’s fate and advanced IS if US wanted !!!!!1

    Your assertion only stirs a big LOL !!

    US has supplied more than enough way more than you can imagine

    https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/articles/western-plot-overthrow-assad/

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/

    Enlighten yourself.

    Read More
  17. Romil says:
    @TipTipTopKek
    It's been far more than 70 years since the West won a war. The Soviets won WWII, not the West.

    Not true, the USA won a war with Grenada, Panama (Noriega), etc.

    Admittedly these wars were a little lopsided.

    What is clear since Vietnam is that the USA military/ Political System is not very good at occupying a country after initial battlefield success.

    Unless the chaos in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq etc is the intended result.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "Not true, the USA won a war with Grenada ...."
     
    Urgent Fury was hardly a war. Been there, done that, and hit the break at Cherry Hill for a little surfing on day 4, 'cos the Rafters and Ivan don't surf.
    , @Che Guava
    I was about to mention Grenada and Panama as great examples nf US military prowess, nice to see someone else remembers!

    Seriously, I was sad to read of Noriega's death, the CIA's man in Panama, not one day of freedom, he must really have had some things he would have liked to have said.
    , @krollchem
    The US troops ended up fighting a few dozen Cuban construction workers and captured tons of pre-WWI weapons including some US civil war gatling guns. They also managed to kill a few patients at a hospital for the mentally ill. It was amazing own amny medals were passed out after that skirmish!

    The US invasion of Panama killed a lot of poor civilians in the Panama city slums. The number of dead has never been published as far as I know. Interesting that the retired Israeli general running security under Noriega was captured and quickly transported back to Israel. The Panama invasion was just a military training exercise for the US military as Noriega could have just been captured at the Officers Club at the US military base.
  18. @Mikel

    once the US aircraft is “treated like a target” he has no way of knowing if the Syrians, or the Russians, are just being cheeky or whether has has seconds left to live.
     
    It doesn't look like the Israeli pilots feel that way when they bomb their targets inside Syria, which they successfully do on a regular basis.

    You don’t say where Israel is bombing in Syria and the conceits of Israel are so boring to me I don’t wish to research the topic. Based on history, I assume that Israeli bombing is in the Golan area, extreme south-west Syria.

    Israeli “he-man” tactics in the Golan will have no effect on the defense of Syria against ISIS and the USA. Therefore, why should the Russians or the Syrians pay any attention at all to the little circus side show the Israelis present?

    As to the Ũbermenschen Israeli pilots flying kamakazi missions into Syria, ho-hum? Write up an outline of a script and we’ll send it to Hollywood.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikel
    As should be evident, all I did was provide a fact that seems to be in direct contradiction with Saker's technical explanations in this column.

    That you don't have any clue of where the Israelis have been bombing, even though it has been widely reported in the media and recognized by both sides, is your problem. And, talking about soporific subjects, discussions over the Israelis/Jews being evil, good, heroic or cowards could hardly be further away from my interest.

    I really have no idea about radar systems but the fact that nobody offered an explanation for this contradiction suggests that Saker may be, once again, exaggerating the Russian capabilities.
  19. mh505 says:
    @Thirdeye
    So please enlighten us, O Wise One.

    Who gives a damn what the “Quartermaster” thinks?

    Read More
  20. Rurik says: • Website

    the Syrian pilot shot down made it out alive.

    good!

    Read More
    • Agree: Intelligent Dasein
    • Replies: @chris
    It's amazing how rude the reporting of the incident in the MSM has been in not reporting the fate of the pilot. The point is to underscore his insignificance; they would have much preferred he was killed.
  21. Mikel says:
    @Macon Richardson
    You don't say where Israel is bombing in Syria and the conceits of Israel are so boring to me I don't wish to research the topic. Based on history, I assume that Israeli bombing is in the Golan area, extreme south-west Syria.

    Israeli "he-man" tactics in the Golan will have no effect on the defense of Syria against ISIS and the USA. Therefore, why should the Russians or the Syrians pay any attention at all to the little circus side show the Israelis present?

    As to the Ũbermenschen Israeli pilots flying kamakazi missions into Syria, ho-hum? Write up an outline of a script and we'll send it to Hollywood.

    As should be evident, all I did was provide a fact that seems to be in direct contradiction with Saker’s technical explanations in this column.

    That you don’t have any clue of where the Israelis have been bombing, even though it has been widely reported in the media and recognized by both sides, is your problem. And, talking about soporific subjects, discussions over the Israelis/Jews being evil, good, heroic or cowards could hardly be further away from my interest.

    I really have no idea about radar systems but the fact that nobody offered an explanation for this contradiction suggests that Saker may be, once again, exaggerating the Russian capabilities.

    Read More
  22. While Russia may want caution, Syrian and Iranian militias don’t care. ISIS is almost gone from SE Syria, so there is no need for an American base there to train anti-ISIS units. Americans have illegally invaded Syria, and the international community agrees. These militias have mortars and artillery, so can fire away and wait to see if the Americans dare counterattack by air. If they do, Russian missiles are ready for self-defense. Imagine a downed American pilot captured by ISIS.

    Meanwhile, Russia shows restraint to enjoy the Qatar situation, with new Saudi demands that compensation is due and the Turkish troops must leave. These dictators have long tolerated American military bases under the assumption it meant American protection. If the USA back stabs Qatar, what will the other Gulf State tyrants think? What if Iranian troops are invited to defend Qatar?

    And what about the Turks? They are itching for chance to reclaim NE Syria and its oil fields, which they say the Brits and French stole a hundred years ago. They can wipe out the Kurd forces there at the same time. They are building up forces in Syria for this move. They are just waiting for an excuse to attack.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "Americans have illegally invaded Syria, and the international community agrees. "

    True. As other "humanitarian" interventions by the US, this one is very expensive as well. This explains why the US is the only developed country that cannot afford a universal healthcare: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfYfjQEqg58
  23. El Dato says:
    @Andrei Martyanov
    But at least it was, without denigrating a decisive role of the Soviet Union, a formal coalition victory. Plus, let's not deny US Navy its well deserved victory in the Pacific. Pacific was largely an American victory, even considering Red Army's crushing defeat of Kwantung Army in 1945. Yet, uncritical and triumphalist lessons of WW II on European Theater in WW II played as tricky of a role in US post-WW II history as did a turkey shoot against third rate Saddam's force in the Gulf in 1990-91. One can not learn properly when the lessons are wrong.

    Let’s call it a American / National-Chinese victory then.

    Binding a few hundred thousands imperial troops on the mainland sure counts for something, doesn’t it?

    Read More
  24. El Dato says:
    @Mikel

    once the US aircraft is “treated like a target” he has no way of knowing if the Syrians, or the Russians, are just being cheeky or whether has has seconds left to live.
     
    It doesn't look like the Israeli pilots feel that way when they bomb their targets inside Syria, which they successfully do on a regular basis.

    Why should the Russians anatagonize the Israelis? It costs a lot and is politically inconvenient. Israel is nearby, Russia is not. The minute-long rush of adrenaline would certainly not be worth it.

    The clusterfuck is currently such that waiting & waltzing & carrying a stick, any stick, is likely to be the best policyless policy. (Asterixian Wars come to mind, sorry for the juvenile reference)

    A writeup in Haaretz (is this a premium page that is accessible via the print menu? well, I don’t care)

    http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.797481

    “We’re working productively with Jordan, as we are working with Israel, and I’m not hiding anything from you,” Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu told his country’s parliament late last month. Shoygu even noted his “productive talks” with Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, with whom he speaks on the phone regularly. Arab media outlets report on continuous communication between Russian and Israeli fighter pilots, who coordinate planned flights, just as Israel coordinates its aerial and other actions in Syria with Russian command headquarters.

    The “other actions” include Israel’s shipments of humanitarian and military aid to the militias operating in the Syrian side of the Golan Heights, and in the Daraa area nearby. An intense battle has been underway in recent weeks in Daraa as the Syrian army tries to advance with Shi’ite militias and Iranian-backed Hezbollah to suppress the rebels. These efforts are at the heart of coordination talks between Jordan, Russia, the United States and Saudi Arabia. In some of the talks that took place in Jordan, Israelis were on hand, and in other cases coordination was by phone or through emissaries who visited Israel.

    Read More
  25. Russian1 says:
    @Quartermaster
    Right. Only Ivan was fighting the Germans. The Rooskis got a lot of war material from the US. The Red Army would have starved to death if not for the us. And that is far from the only thing that went from the US to Stalin.

    Americans are criminals killing all over the planet. Raped many girls during the war in many countries did American soldiers and nothing has changed they did the same on Vietnam and Iraq. Just savage animals with a penchant for war and buggery.
    Also Eisenhower starved to death 1.2million German soldiers and proof of that is he rerouted supplies and let them die in the open air prisons without food. A cruel nation of barbarians.
    The world is at the mercy of American mafia thugs and Russia is the savior behaving with principles.

    Read More
  26. nickels says:

    The old western Shane is an example where Americans used to be able to take one on the chin for the bigger picture.
    But neocons are just animals. I remember in Josephus description of the sacking of Jerusalem, the Israelis were so out of their minds that they not only burnt their own grain during the siege, but their own temple as well.

    Read More
  27. The Scalpel says: • Website

    Certain sources state that a Russian S-300 shot down a US Global Hawk drone over the Mediterranean.

    Read More
  28. Avery says:
    @Begemot
    It is true that the Soviets got a lot of Lend-Lease from the US. Britain got much more (about 2/3's of the total). The Red Army would not have starved to death without the US. American lend-lease made the Soviet victory over Germany easier. It didn't make it possible. Since about 2/3's of the German army was engaged on the Russian front the Americans should be forever grateful that those German divisions weren't waiting for the Americans in Normandy. The desperate need of many Americans to appear to be indispensable is pathetic.

    {Since about 2/3′s of the German army was engaged on the Russian front}

    It was not 2/3rds or ~67%: it was about 80%.
    Also, about 80% of Wehrmacht’s best, toughest divisions were ground up on the Eastern front. At a terribly high cost to the Red Army men and materiel.

    {…. that those German divisions weren’t waiting for the Americans in Normandy. }

    Even the completely bled out Wehrmacht put American troops through the ringer at the Battle of the Bulge in 1944. With notable exceptions, e.g. the heroic defense of Bastogne, GIs mostly ran as Germans advanced. The disaster was averted when skies cleared and USAF came in and saved the day.

    {The desperate need of many Americans to appear to be indispensable is pathetic.}

    Indeed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato

    Even the completely bled out Wehrmacht put American troops through the ringer at the Battle of the Bulge in 1944. With notable exceptions, e.g. the heroic defense of Bastogne, GIs mostly ran as Germans advanced. The disaster was averted when skies cleared and USAF came in and saved the day.
     
    That's in the movies.

    "GIs" did not "run", indeed Patton mounted a skillfull counterattack on the move. This last show of the Wehrmacht and Party Armed Forces (who didn't let the occasion to "clean up" in the re-occupied territories pass them by) had little chance of success in any case. Germans ran out of fuel, manpower and maintained equipment while trying to get this Hitler-fairyland-push towards Anvers rolling. The Meuse was never even crossed. Yes, control of the air helped, and the extraordinarily harsh winter did the rest. It was too late in any case.

    (Also, in WWII, the US air wing was the "Army Air Forces", the USAF was created 1947, but that's just nitpicking)

    Now, if you want to consider a senseless WWI-style grind-war that can be considered Allied failure: Battle of Hürtgen Forest: "The over-all cost of the Siegfried Line Campaign in American personnel was close to 140,000."
    , @MarkinLA
    Come on, the landings at Normandy were the largest amphibious assault in the history of the world. The logistical requirements of such an attack were greater than anything the Red Army had to deal with. Nobody ran, regardless of the near failure at Omaha Beach.
  29. @anonymous
    A good, interesting article. Much of what's gone on is rather opaque and it's difficult to understand what the meaning of some of these actions are such as in this shoot-down of the Syrian plane. People scratch their heads and try to come up with plausible explanations. Plain stupidity or rashness on the part of some military people? Are there American special forces disguised and embedded with some of these 'rebel' groups that they wanted to protect? Or, more sinisterly and as suggested, there's a plan afoot to ratchet up US-Russian tensions by engineering incidents that could be used to fan war hysteria and panic. A new cold war, properly managed, could be good for business and divert money into the connected people's bank accounts, funneling tax money upwards. It's a racket that kills the expendables. At any rate we'll need a few more pieces of the puzzle to see what the American game plan happens to be.

    A new cold war, properly managed, could be good for business and divert money into the connected people’s bank accounts, funneling tax money upwards.

    A lot of people around the internet express similar opinions, and the more obtuse of them even festoon their delivery with the same Smedley Butler quote we’ve all read a million times already, as if there were no limit to the number of occasions upon we needed to be re-informed that “war is a racket.”

    The problem is, it just isn’t true. Nobody—not even the Neocons, not even government bureaucrats, not even the sleaziest defense contractor—could possibly look at America’s fiscal predicament and conclude that a new Cold War is financially beneficial to anybody. Something else has to be motivating this, and that something is Boomer vanity.

    These guys are just itching for one last game of Cowboys & Indians against the Russians. I find the whole thing quite embarrassing but also rather alarming, considering how serious the consequences could be.

    However, I think it’s time to retire the “war is a racket” meme. It has no explanatory power in today’s world. The age of imperial expansion, of making Latin America safe for fruit companies or whatever Smedley Butler was on about, is well behind us. There is no longer any tincture of geopolitical or economic rationale in Washington’s war-making. Every war we fight makes us weaker and poorer, whereas Butler’s wars, however ignoble he thought the motives behind them, at least made us stronger and richer. The imperialists of yore knew what they were doing; they could point to some measure of worldly success as justification for their exploits. But nowadays we have only failures; and our imperialists, lacking the dignity even to be robber barons, have instead become dreamers and peddlers of ideology.

    The Age of the Neocon Wars, c. 1990-present, is all about vanity. These are “existential” wars in the Sartrian sense, i.e. they are deliberate fabrications and extensions of identity. The Boomers are going on their penultimate journey of self-discovery, predictably wrecking everything in their path as they make burnt offerings to their insatiable egos.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "Nobody—not even the Neocons, not even government bureaucrats, not even the sleaziest defense contractor—could possibly look at America’s fiscal predicament and conclude that a new Cold War is financially beneficial to anybody."
     
    Oh you dear, sweet, but misguided soul. The war-profiteers and neo-cons know that when things get fiscally tight they can simply print more of the World's Indispensible Currency TM, and if it gets really bad they will simply do a cram down of the debt, because the ROW doesn't really have a say in the matter. When you owe the world $20T, it's the world that has the problem.
    , @anonymous

    that something is Boomer vanity.
     

    These guys are just itching for one last game of Cowboys & Indians
     

    is all about vanity
     

    insatiable egos.
     
    What a dumb comment. It's all reducible to the personal psychology of a particular generation, it's "all about vanity", all about "insatiable egos". We're trying to have a serious discussion about important issues and random comic book reading commenters insist on projecting their weird Freudian fantasies onto everything.
    Yeah, if everyone weren't so darn vain.
    , @Robert Bruce
    Only one class of people ever make a "killing" out of wars, and that is the international finance clique. The MIC makes a killing for awhile, but the financiers keep collecting on the massive debt well after the guns have stopped. Egos have nothing to do with it, it is all about making a ton of $$$$$$$$$ whether in the short to medium term, or in the case of the bankers, the long term. The politicians are just the paid off traitors who help get the ball rolling, and even they are becoming irrelevant as the US President becomes more of a Ceasar year by year since 9/11.
  30. If ‘peaceful’ countries want war the trick is to provoke the country you want to attack to make the first move.
    Hitler ran into the trap when he attacked Poland in Sept 1939, after Polish provocations since the British guarantee of March 1939.
    Japan ran into the trap of Roosevelt’s oil boycott.
    Saddam did nothing stupid enough to excuse war, therefore Sept 11 was created.
    Putin is not stupid, he knows quite well that the western war mongers are waiting for the excuse to attack Russia.
    Heightened tensions in Syria in my opinion have but one goal: getting an excuse to attack Russia.
    Some kind of Liberty ‘accident’ would be great.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Hitler ran into the trap when he attacked Poland in Sept 1939, after Polish provocations since the British guarantee of March 1939.

    What trap? Why did he sign the treaty with the USSR if not to start a war?

    Japan ran into the trap of Roosevelt’s oil boycott.

    Japan was illegally in China and knew that without US oil and scarp iron their military would soon ground to a halt. They did it to themselves.

    The US isn't always to blame.
  31. @Quartermaster

    Because there is no way to tell from the emissions whether a missile has been launched and is already approaching at over 4,000mph or not.
     
    How little you know.

    Just try to imagine this: you are flying, in total illegality, over hostile territory and preparing to strike a target when suddenly your radar warning receiver goes off and tells you “you got 30 seconds or (much?) less to decide whether there is a 300lbs (150kg) warhead coming at you at 4000mph (6400kmh) or not”.
     
    Hilarious. You need to give some thought to what you post.

    More Saker. To paraphrase Mencken, If you don't read him, your uninformed. If do, you're misinformed.

    An explanation on why it is hilarious would be great.

    Read More
  32. Miro23 says:
    @Philip Owen
    So just how cunning is Trump?

    So just how cunning is Trump?

    Maybe he’s too cunning/clever by half – as in a neo-con collaborator. He was given a mandate to get out of ME conflicts and if he had done what he was elected to do, the US could be getting on with domestic affairs rather than evaluating the possibility of WW3.

    Read More
  33. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    From an April 2003 Haaretz article.

    The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it’s possible.

    This is a war of an elite. [Tom] Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/white-man-s-burden-1.14110

    Then it was onto Libya, now Syria, then it will be onto Iran, all the glory of Apartheid Israel.

    Read More
  34. El Dato says:
    @Avery
    {Since about 2/3′s of the German army was engaged on the Russian front}

    It was not 2/3rds or ~67%: it was about 80%.
    Also, about 80% of Wehrmacht's best, toughest divisions were ground up on the Eastern front. At a terribly high cost to the Red Army men and materiel.

    {.... that those German divisions weren’t waiting for the Americans in Normandy. }

    Even the completely bled out Wehrmacht put American troops through the ringer at the Battle of the Bulge in 1944. With notable exceptions, e.g. the heroic defense of Bastogne, GIs mostly ran as Germans advanced. The disaster was averted when skies cleared and USAF came in and saved the day.

    {The desperate need of many Americans to appear to be indispensable is pathetic.}

    Indeed.

    Even the completely bled out Wehrmacht put American troops through the ringer at the Battle of the Bulge in 1944. With notable exceptions, e.g. the heroic defense of Bastogne, GIs mostly ran as Germans advanced. The disaster was averted when skies cleared and USAF came in and saved the day.

    That’s in the movies.

    “GIs” did not “run”, indeed Patton mounted a skillfull counterattack on the move. This last show of the Wehrmacht and Party Armed Forces (who didn’t let the occasion to “clean up” in the re-occupied territories pass them by) had little chance of success in any case. Germans ran out of fuel, manpower and maintained equipment while trying to get this Hitler-fairyland-push towards Anvers rolling. The Meuse was never even crossed. Yes, control of the air helped, and the extraordinarily harsh winter did the rest. It was too late in any case.

    (Also, in WWII, the US air wing was the “Army Air Forces”, the USAF was created 1947, but that’s just nitpicking)

    Now, if you want to consider a senseless WWI-style grind-war that can be considered Allied failure: Battle of Hürtgen Forest: “The over-all cost of the Siegfried Line Campaign in American personnel was close to 140,000.”

    Read More
  35. El Dato says:
    @The Scalpel
    Certain sources state that a Russian S-300 shot down a US Global Hawk drone over the Mediterranean.

    https://twitter.com/rofoca_lucifuge/status/877672944633126912

    US hasn’t confirmed. They would if true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Scalpel
    They did acknowledge it in a sideways manner

    https://twitter.com/potnusa/status/877681574233468928
  36. El Dato says:
    @El Dato
    Why should the Russians anatagonize the Israelis? It costs a lot and is politically inconvenient. Israel is nearby, Russia is not. The minute-long rush of adrenaline would certainly not be worth it.

    The clusterfuck is currently such that waiting & waltzing & carrying a stick, any stick, is likely to be the best policyless policy. (Asterixian Wars come to mind, sorry for the juvenile reference)

    A writeup in Haaretz (is this a premium page that is accessible via the print menu? well, I don't care)

    http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.797481

    “We’re working productively with Jordan, as we are working with Israel, and I’m not hiding anything from you,” Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu told his country’s parliament late last month. Shoygu even noted his “productive talks” with Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, with whom he speaks on the phone regularly. Arab media outlets report on continuous communication between Russian and Israeli fighter pilots, who coordinate planned flights, just as Israel coordinates its aerial and other actions in Syria with Russian command headquarters.

    The “other actions” include Israel’s shipments of humanitarian and military aid to the militias operating in the Syrian side of the Golan Heights, and in the Daraa area nearby. An intense battle has been underway in recent weeks in Daraa as the Syrian army tries to advance with Shi’ite militias and Iranian-backed Hezbollah to suppress the rebels. These efforts are at the heart of coordination talks between Jordan, Russia, the United States and Saudi Arabia. In some of the talks that took place in Jordan, Israelis were on hand, and in other cases coordination was by phone or through emissaries who visited Israel.
     
    Read More
  37. @TipTipTopKek
    It's been far more than 70 years since the West won a war. The Soviets won WWII, not the West.

    I once had a pretty young Russian lady ask me (in a bar in Germany, of all places) why we celebrate VE day on 8 May, to which I replied, “That’s the day we (she knew I meant Americans, and by that Americans alone) won the war … with a bit of help from you guys, of course.” If I hadn’t said it with a light-hearted smile, I probably would have been run through with a broken vodka bottle on the spot, not to send a message, but, as Saker notes, as a pragmatic response to an arrogant Westerner.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    More like the Russians would not have won had the U.S. not opened up a second front via the D-Day invasion. Stalin had been pestering Roosevelt and Churchill to do so for a long time and they both eventually complied with good ole "uncle Joe's" demand. Germany's army group center in Russia began disintegrating shortly after the Normandy invasion and allowed Russia to permanently stay on the offensive for the remainder of the war.

    Without the D-Day invasion the Russo-German war would have likely resulted in a stalemate with Germany still holding on to some Russian territory.

  38. @TipTipTopKek
    It's been far more than 70 years since the West won a war. The Soviets won WWII, not the West.

    It’s been far more than 70 years since the West won a war. The Soviets won WWII, not the West.

    Actually, the Soviet leadership and the Western bankers did any “winning.” The rest of us lost, big time, and are still paying.

    Read More
  39. Very interesting article with too many great points to comment on all.

    Some of the best points are:

    Plan B is also very simple: trigger a major crisis with Russia

    It helps keep dollars flowing to the Pentagon and its Israeli masters.

    a dream come true for the Neocons and a disaster for everybody else.

    As always.

    It bears repeating here that what the Neocons really want is what I call a “tepid” war with Russia:

    This also keeps the dollars flowing, keeps the usual nut cases in power and provides a huge source of distraction from the continued hosing of the American goyim,

    One huge difference between the western culture and the way the Russians (or the Chinese for that matter) look at geostrategy is that westerners always look at everything in the short term and tactical level.

    I’ve noticed that as a teen and it’s still true today. Seems to have worked for the thugs in power, but not so much for the rest of us cattle. Apparently the American doofi (aka doofusses) will remain content to prance around waving their corny flags and proclaiming their “heroism” or whatever BS is fashionable at the time.

    Read More
  40. @Romil
    Not true, the USA won a war with Grenada, Panama (Noriega), etc.

    Admittedly these wars were a little lopsided.

    What is clear since Vietnam is that the USA military/ Political System is not very good at occupying a country after initial battlefield success.

    Unless the chaos in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq etc is the intended result.

    “Not true, the USA won a war with Grenada ….”

    Urgent Fury was hardly a war. Been there, done that, and hit the break at Cherry Hill for a little surfing on day 4, ‘cos the Rafters and Ivan don’t surf.

    Read More
  41. @Intelligent Dasein

    A new cold war, properly managed, could be good for business and divert money into the connected people’s bank accounts, funneling tax money upwards.
     
    A lot of people around the internet express similar opinions, and the more obtuse of them even festoon their delivery with the same Smedley Butler quote we've all read a million times already, as if there were no limit to the number of occasions upon we needed to be re-informed that "war is a racket."

    The problem is, it just isn't true. Nobody---not even the Neocons, not even government bureaucrats, not even the sleaziest defense contractor---could possibly look at America's fiscal predicament and conclude that a new Cold War is financially beneficial to anybody. Something else has to be motivating this, and that something is Boomer vanity.

    These guys are just itching for one last game of Cowboys & Indians against the Russians. I find the whole thing quite embarrassing but also rather alarming, considering how serious the consequences could be.

    However, I think it's time to retire the "war is a racket" meme. It has no explanatory power in today's world. The age of imperial expansion, of making Latin America safe for fruit companies or whatever Smedley Butler was on about, is well behind us. There is no longer any tincture of geopolitical or economic rationale in Washington's war-making. Every war we fight makes us weaker and poorer, whereas Butler's wars, however ignoble he thought the motives behind them, at least made us stronger and richer. The imperialists of yore knew what they were doing; they could point to some measure of worldly success as justification for their exploits. But nowadays we have only failures; and our imperialists, lacking the dignity even to be robber barons, have instead become dreamers and peddlers of ideology.

    The Age of the Neocon Wars, c. 1990-present, is all about vanity. These are "existential" wars in the Sartrian sense, i.e. they are deliberate fabrications and extensions of identity. The Boomers are going on their penultimate journey of self-discovery, predictably wrecking everything in their path as they make burnt offerings to their insatiable egos.

    “Nobody—not even the Neocons, not even government bureaucrats, not even the sleaziest defense contractor—could possibly look at America’s fiscal predicament and conclude that a new Cold War is financially beneficial to anybody.”

    Oh you dear, sweet, but misguided soul. The war-profiteers and neo-cons know that when things get fiscally tight they can simply print more of the World’s Indispensible Currency TM, and if it gets really bad they will simply do a cram down of the debt, because the ROW doesn’t really have a say in the matter. When you owe the world $20T, it’s the world that has the problem.

    Read More
  42. The Russians are far better victory-strategists (long-term) than the US maddogs Trump/Mattis/McMaster. They are for show and fireworks (white-phosphorous bombs) and show theiir Satanic nature.

    The final Victory strategy = turn your ennemies into friends/partners in trade.

    Putin has turned Erdogan into a partner with the south-stream pipeline.
    And even Qatar may join the East front (Putin gave them majort shares in Russian energy companies).

    The Al Sauds and Likudi’s, the Jewish extremists on Golan, are the only problems left. But even with Netanyahu, Putin is trying to get a solution, using the Russian Leviathan basin suppport.

    Putin may get there in the end.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    http://luftpost-kl.de/luftpost-archiv/LP_16/LP10517_250617.pdf
    The document begins in german, the english original is after the german version.
  43. chris says:
    @Rurik

    the Syrian pilot shot down made it out alive.
     
    good!

    It’s amazing how rude the reporting of the incident in the MSM has been in not reporting the fate of the pilot. The point is to underscore his insignificance; they would have much preferred he was killed.

    Read More
  44. headrick says:

    There is no site than can come close to Saker for this ego-political military analysis.
    Thanks Vin.

    Read More
  45. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @El Dato
    US hasn't confirmed. They would if true.

    They did acknowledge it in a sideways manner

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    But this is in California.

    If it was shot down in Syria, ysure that neocons would take to the Sunday morning TV programme and basically spoil eveyone's breakfast.

    Plus, Russia would certainly recount the why & wherefore of this shootdown. It would be a "message".

    After all, it's not as if you could sic an S-300 missile onto a Global Hawk under a sudden panicky impulse. The Good Drone would be readily identifiable as such (high-altitude, slow, possibly with a transponder on)
  46. […] dritten Mal innerhalb weniger Wochen möchte ich auf einen Beitrag von The Saker zu Syrien / Russland / USA hinweisen. Er macht […]

    Read More
  47. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Intelligent Dasein

    A new cold war, properly managed, could be good for business and divert money into the connected people’s bank accounts, funneling tax money upwards.
     
    A lot of people around the internet express similar opinions, and the more obtuse of them even festoon their delivery with the same Smedley Butler quote we've all read a million times already, as if there were no limit to the number of occasions upon we needed to be re-informed that "war is a racket."

    The problem is, it just isn't true. Nobody---not even the Neocons, not even government bureaucrats, not even the sleaziest defense contractor---could possibly look at America's fiscal predicament and conclude that a new Cold War is financially beneficial to anybody. Something else has to be motivating this, and that something is Boomer vanity.

    These guys are just itching for one last game of Cowboys & Indians against the Russians. I find the whole thing quite embarrassing but also rather alarming, considering how serious the consequences could be.

    However, I think it's time to retire the "war is a racket" meme. It has no explanatory power in today's world. The age of imperial expansion, of making Latin America safe for fruit companies or whatever Smedley Butler was on about, is well behind us. There is no longer any tincture of geopolitical or economic rationale in Washington's war-making. Every war we fight makes us weaker and poorer, whereas Butler's wars, however ignoble he thought the motives behind them, at least made us stronger and richer. The imperialists of yore knew what they were doing; they could point to some measure of worldly success as justification for their exploits. But nowadays we have only failures; and our imperialists, lacking the dignity even to be robber barons, have instead become dreamers and peddlers of ideology.

    The Age of the Neocon Wars, c. 1990-present, is all about vanity. These are "existential" wars in the Sartrian sense, i.e. they are deliberate fabrications and extensions of identity. The Boomers are going on their penultimate journey of self-discovery, predictably wrecking everything in their path as they make burnt offerings to their insatiable egos.

    that something is Boomer vanity.

    These guys are just itching for one last game of Cowboys & Indians

    is all about vanity

    insatiable egos.

    What a dumb comment. It’s all reducible to the personal psychology of a particular generation, it’s “all about vanity”, all about “insatiable egos”. We’re trying to have a serious discussion about important issues and random comic book reading commenters insist on projecting their weird Freudian fantasies onto everything.
    Yeah, if everyone weren’t so darn vain.

    Read More
  48. El Dato says:
    @The Scalpel
    They did acknowledge it in a sideways manner

    https://twitter.com/potnusa/status/877681574233468928

    But this is in California.

    If it was shot down in Syria, ysure that neocons would take to the Sunday morning TV programme and basically spoil eveyone’s breakfast.

    Plus, Russia would certainly recount the why & wherefore of this shootdown. It would be a “message”.

    After all, it’s not as if you could sic an S-300 missile onto a Global Hawk under a sudden panicky impulse. The Good Drone would be readily identifiable as such (high-altitude, slow, possibly with a transponder on)

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Scalpel
    You are assuming a lot. Doesn't it seem like a huge coincidence that a Global Hawk crashes in California immediately after one is claimed to have been shot down in the Mediterranean? An S-300 launch was noted by locals. Why? And What?

    It seems to me that the Russians did send the message, but did not want to start World War III over it. It seems that the US received the message and also did not want to start World War III over it
  49. KenH says:
    @The Alarmist
    I once had a pretty young Russian lady ask me (in a bar in Germany, of all places) why we celebrate VE day on 8 May, to which I replied, "That's the day we (she knew I meant Americans, and by that Americans alone) won the war ... with a bit of help from you guys, of course." If I hadn't said it with a light-hearted smile, I probably would have been run through with a broken vodka bottle on the spot, not to send a message, but, as Saker notes, as a pragmatic response to an arrogant Westerner.

    More like the Russians would not have won had the U.S. not opened up a second front via the D-Day invasion. Stalin had been pestering Roosevelt and Churchill to do so for a long time and they both eventually complied with good ole “uncle Joe’s” demand. Germany’s army group center in Russia began disintegrating shortly after the Normandy invasion and allowed Russia to permanently stay on the offensive for the remainder of the war.

    Without the D-Day invasion the Russo-German war would have likely resulted in a stalemate with Germany still holding on to some Russian territory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Churchill never agreed, he wanted an invasion in the Adriatic.
    For FDR Stalin was Uncle Joe, never for Churchill.
    FDR died before Uncle Joe showed his real nature through the Berlin blockade.
    The obliteration of Dresden had not impressed him enough.
    , @for-the-record

    More like the Russians would not have won had the U.S. not opened up a second front via the D-Day invasion. . . Germany’s army group center in Russia began disintegrating shortly after the Normandy invasion and allowed Russia to permanently stay on the offensive for the remainder of the war.

     

    On D-Day the Red Army was already beyond the frontiers of Russia, having entered northern Romania and (pre-War) Poland.



    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1944-06-01GerWW2BattlefrontAtlas.jpg
    , @Avery
    {Without the D-Day invasion the Russo-German war would have likely resulted in a stalemate with Germany still holding on to some Russian territory.}

    Highly unlikely.
    You are correct that "Dear Uncle Joe" was begging US&UK to come in in full force soon after Nazi Germany invaded. However, US&UK found various reasons not to do so until 1944. Stalin suspected, not without reason, that US&UK wanted Hitler and Stalin to wipe each other out: both to lose.

    Don't know about Roosevelt, who was unduly influenced by Stalin (....he tried to get up from his wheelchair when Stalin walked into their meetings...fashionably late), but Churchill knew Stalin better: I have no doubt that Churchill hoped Nazi Germany and USSR would wipe each other out.

    Anyway, after the epic Battle of Stalingrad, Nazi Germany's faith was sealed. In the Summer of 1944, the Red Army was at the border of Poland. It had about 15 million battled hardened troops and by that time a highly experienced officer corps and generalship. War production was at its peak.

    Germany was exhausted. In desperation, teenagers and senior citizens were sent to stop the Red Army (...and Americans, and British).
    The _only_ power that could stop the Red Army was US. And it did.

    What the 1944 landing accomplished is this: it stopped Uncle Joe from racing all the way to the English Channel and placing Western Europe also under Communist rule.

    Ironically, Western Europe may have been better off - in the long run - if it was not saved from Communism. Not economically, but culturally.

    Eastern Europeans - not infected by the various viruses of the West - today are famously fighting tooth and nail the forced Islamization edicts emanating from EU/Brussels. Poland, Hungary, other former Warsaw member countries are being threatened by EU for refusing to be Islamized (!). I saw a map somewhere (can't find it just now), that showed there are hardly _any_ mosques in former East Germany.

    , @Begemot

    Germany’s army group center in Russia began disintegrating shortly after the Normandy invasion and allowed Russia to permanently stay on the offensive for the remainder of the war.
     
    The "disintegration" you refer to was the result of the Soviet offensive operation "Bagration". Your phrasing suggests this "disintegration" just sort of happened. The Soviets tore the guts out of the Wehrmacht. Even without the Normandy invasion the Soviets would have defeated Germany.

    Another American who has to believe that nothing is possible in this world unless America allows it.
  50. @Max Havelaar
    The Russians are far better victory-strategists (long-term) than the US maddogs Trump/Mattis/McMaster. They are for show and fireworks (white-phosphorous bombs) and show theiir Satanic nature.

    The final Victory strategy = turn your ennemies into friends/partners in trade.

    Putin has turned Erdogan into a partner with the south-stream pipeline.
    And even Qatar may join the East front (Putin gave them majort shares in Russian energy companies).

    The Al Sauds and Likudi's, the Jewish extremists on Golan, are the only problems left. But even with Netanyahu, Putin is trying to get a solution, using the Russian Leviathan basin suppport.

    Putin may get there in the end.

    http://luftpost-kl.de/luftpost-archiv/LP_16/LP10517_250617.pdf

    The document begins in german, the english original is after the german version.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Max Havelaar
    Yes, maddogs Trump/Mattis/McMaster in action. This is all excercise for show and creating continuous fear of a fake ennemy to serve Banksters + Defense contractors.

    If you don't bankrupt the Big Banksters of Goldman Sachs crime cartel, nothing will ever change in US congress & CIA + friends & US military they pay.
  51. @KenH
    More like the Russians would not have won had the U.S. not opened up a second front via the D-Day invasion. Stalin had been pestering Roosevelt and Churchill to do so for a long time and they both eventually complied with good ole "uncle Joe's" demand. Germany's army group center in Russia began disintegrating shortly after the Normandy invasion and allowed Russia to permanently stay on the offensive for the remainder of the war.

    Without the D-Day invasion the Russo-German war would have likely resulted in a stalemate with Germany still holding on to some Russian territory.

    Churchill never agreed, he wanted an invasion in the Adriatic.
    For FDR Stalin was Uncle Joe, never for Churchill.
    FDR died before Uncle Joe showed his real nature through the Berlin blockade.
    The obliteration of Dresden had not impressed him enough.

    Read More
  52. @KenH
    More like the Russians would not have won had the U.S. not opened up a second front via the D-Day invasion. Stalin had been pestering Roosevelt and Churchill to do so for a long time and they both eventually complied with good ole "uncle Joe's" demand. Germany's army group center in Russia began disintegrating shortly after the Normandy invasion and allowed Russia to permanently stay on the offensive for the remainder of the war.

    Without the D-Day invasion the Russo-German war would have likely resulted in a stalemate with Germany still holding on to some Russian territory.

    More like the Russians would not have won had the U.S. not opened up a second front via the D-Day invasion. . . Germany’s army group center in Russia began disintegrating shortly after the Normandy invasion and allowed Russia to permanently stay on the offensive for the remainder of the war.

    On D-Day the Red Army was already beyond the frontiers of Russia, having entered northern Romania and (pre-War) Poland.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    You're right. I was approximately one year off. I shouldn't have relied on memory alone.

    But German army resistance to repeated Soviet offensives began breaking down after D-Day due to the resource strain of fighting on both the Eastern and now Western fronts.

  53. Avery says:
    @KenH
    More like the Russians would not have won had the U.S. not opened up a second front via the D-Day invasion. Stalin had been pestering Roosevelt and Churchill to do so for a long time and they both eventually complied with good ole "uncle Joe's" demand. Germany's army group center in Russia began disintegrating shortly after the Normandy invasion and allowed Russia to permanently stay on the offensive for the remainder of the war.

    Without the D-Day invasion the Russo-German war would have likely resulted in a stalemate with Germany still holding on to some Russian territory.

    {Without the D-Day invasion the Russo-German war would have likely resulted in a stalemate with Germany still holding on to some Russian territory.}

    Highly unlikely.
    You are correct that “Dear Uncle Joe” was begging US&UK to come in in full force soon after Nazi Germany invaded. However, US&UK found various reasons not to do so until 1944. Stalin suspected, not without reason, that US&UK wanted Hitler and Stalin to wipe each other out: both to lose.

    Don’t know about Roosevelt, who was unduly influenced by Stalin (….he tried to get up from his wheelchair when Stalin walked into their meetings…fashionably late), but Churchill knew Stalin better: I have no doubt that Churchill hoped Nazi Germany and USSR would wipe each other out.

    Anyway, after the epic Battle of Stalingrad, Nazi Germany’s faith was sealed. In the Summer of 1944, the Red Army was at the border of Poland. It had about 15 million battled hardened troops and by that time a highly experienced officer corps and generalship. War production was at its peak.

    Germany was exhausted. In desperation, teenagers and senior citizens were sent to stop the Red Army (…and Americans, and British).
    The _only_ power that could stop the Red Army was US. And it did.

    What the 1944 landing accomplished is this: it stopped Uncle Joe from racing all the way to the English Channel and placing Western Europe also under Communist rule.

    Ironically, Western Europe may have been better off – in the long run – if it was not saved from Communism. Not economically, but culturally.

    Eastern Europeans – not infected by the various viruses of the West – today are famously fighting tooth and nail the forced Islamization edicts emanating from EU/Brussels. Poland, Hungary, other former Warsaw member countries are being threatened by EU for refusing to be Islamized (!). I saw a map somewhere (can’t find it just now), that showed there are hardly _any_ mosques in former East Germany.

    Read More
    • Agree: bluedog
    • Replies: @KenH

    Anyway, after the epic Battle of Stalingrad, Nazi Germany’s faith was sealed.
     
    No it wasn't at least according to B.H. Liddel Hart, David Irving and several other historians. While the Stalingrad defeat was certainly a major setback and Army Group South was in retreat it wasn't fatal and Von Manstein delivered a stunning defeat to the overconfident Red army at Kharkov shortly thereafter.

    The battle at Kursk-Orel, where the Germans initially gained ground but at the expense of a large number of tanks and experienced, battle hardened soldiers and officers, destroyed their offensive capabilities and handed the initiative to the Red Army for the rest of the war. The Germans were no longer able to replace their losses in men and equipment.

    But even then the westward progress of the Red army was slow against dogged German resistance which began slackening and breaking down after the successful D-Day invasion just as Stalin knew it would.


    Ironically, Western Europe may have been better off – in the long run – if it was not saved from Communism. Not economically, but culturally.
     
    No argument here. It was originally said that Hitler would up saving half of Europe from communism but in light of recent events it could probably be said that Stalin saved Eastern Europe from the political correctness and spiritual syphilis now infecting Western Europeans and which could be characterized as the new bubonic plague. Of course, if Germany had won then Western Europe and Germany especially wouldn't be infected by racial self hate and suicidal liberalism.
    , @for-the-record
    I saw a map somewhere (can’t find it just now), that showed there are hardly _any_ mosques in former East Germany.

    Here's a map as of 2011:

    http://tundratabloids.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/moscheen.jpg
  54. Very good article. Russian actions both in this and other conflicts always remind me how another people who were great at winning and achieving their long term goals at minimal expense – Romans. Both in Syria and Ukraine Russia actions would perfectly be described by Augustus coined phrase which he used to describe Tiberius Claudius actions against Illirians – slow jaws. As Tiberius chewed Illirians and spit them out at the end of his campaign executed in typical Roman way for imperial period so will do Russia with USA. While as Sacker pointed Americans as proverbal busy bodies always looking for quick action and gratification they are playing in Russia hands, wasting their hard and soft resources and looking like fools in the process. Well, fools cannot be considered sole indispensable power to lead the world, couldn’t they?

    Read More
  55. War between nations causes the many governed to suffer at the pleasure of the few governors.

    Why do the many governed, place the conduct and security of their own lives, and personal fitness, at the disposal of those few governors who direct and conduct the war games?

    It is absolutely amazing to me, that a person, raising his or her family, living a comfortable, independent, and secure life, would drop everything, leave home, endure training, give up independence of life-style and expose him:herself to personal death or destruction, in order to be a member of an effort, that may bring personal death and destruction to the governed persons led by the governors of the other side.

    The best outcome possible to a person of the governed class, can only be that the whims of those who governed may be satisfied?

    Read More
  56. Agent76 says:

    May 15, 2017 Ukraine: US-Installed Fascist Rule in Europe’s Heartland. Will Donetsk Rejoin Russia?

    The nation shares a near-1,500 mile land and sea border with Russia. Stop NATO’s Rick Rozoff earlier explained Ukraine is “the decisive linchpin in plans by the US and its NATO allies to effect a military cordon sanitaire, severing Russia from Europe” – a sinister plot perhaps intended as prelude to nuclear war.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-us-installed-fascist-rule-in-europes-heartland-will-donetsk-rejoin-russia/5590150

    Sep 9, 2016 US-funded Ukrainian army is terrorizing civilians

    Russell Bentley is a former US marine, that now fights for the Donbass, Eastern Ukraine, against the US-funded Ukrainian army.

    Read More
  57. KenH says:
    @for-the-record

    More like the Russians would not have won had the U.S. not opened up a second front via the D-Day invasion. . . Germany’s army group center in Russia began disintegrating shortly after the Normandy invasion and allowed Russia to permanently stay on the offensive for the remainder of the war.

     

    On D-Day the Red Army was already beyond the frontiers of Russia, having entered northern Romania and (pre-War) Poland.



    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1944-06-01GerWW2BattlefrontAtlas.jpg

    You’re right. I was approximately one year off. I shouldn’t have relied on memory alone.

    But German army resistance to repeated Soviet offensives began breaking down after D-Day due to the resource strain of fighting on both the Eastern and now Western fronts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    I disagree with your earlier analysis: Russia would have ultimately rolled over the Reich. The second front in the west merely made it easier for Russia and, ironically, harder for the Western Allies since many of the German forces in the west were resting, recuperating, and re-equipping there for re-deployment to the eastern front. Monty learned that famously at Arnhem, and he was not alone in that experience.
  58. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @El Dato
    But this is in California.

    If it was shot down in Syria, ysure that neocons would take to the Sunday morning TV programme and basically spoil eveyone's breakfast.

    Plus, Russia would certainly recount the why & wherefore of this shootdown. It would be a "message".

    After all, it's not as if you could sic an S-300 missile onto a Global Hawk under a sudden panicky impulse. The Good Drone would be readily identifiable as such (high-altitude, slow, possibly with a transponder on)

    You are assuming a lot. Doesn’t it seem like a huge coincidence that a Global Hawk crashes in California immediately after one is claimed to have been shot down in the Mediterranean? An S-300 launch was noted by locals. Why? And What?

    It seems to me that the Russians did send the message, but did not want to start World War III over it. It seems that the US received the message and also did not want to start World War III over it

    Read More
  59. @KenH
    You're right. I was approximately one year off. I shouldn't have relied on memory alone.

    But German army resistance to repeated Soviet offensives began breaking down after D-Day due to the resource strain of fighting on both the Eastern and now Western fronts.

    I disagree with your earlier analysis: Russia would have ultimately rolled over the Reich. The second front in the west merely made it easier for Russia and, ironically, harder for the Western Allies since many of the German forces in the west were resting, recuperating, and re-equipping there for re-deployment to the eastern front. Monty learned that famously at Arnhem, and he was not alone in that experience.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    I disagree with your earlier analysis: Russia would have ultimately rolled over the Reich.
     
    You're entitled to your opinion but that is unlikely based on the facts. Stalin goaded Roosevelt and Churchill for a second front until he got his wish. He wouldn't have done that if he was so supremely confident in the ability of the red army to march to Berlin unaided by a Western front. An eventual stalemate and truce was the more likely scenario absent a Western front.

    The second front in the west merely made it easier for Russia and, ironically, harder for the Western Allies since
     
    That's the point. If critical Wehrmact resources are in the West they can't be brought to bear against the red army on the eastern front essentially allowing the red army to blast huge breaches in the undermanned & under equipped German defenses. In reality Monty was a highly overrated general who had great difficulty defeating the mostly 3rd and 4th stringers from the Wehrmact.

    The second front (actually third if you count Italy) stretched the German military resources to the breaking point which was the whole objective. Without the second/third front Hitler could have elected to shower the red army with V-1 & V-2 rockets instead of punishing England with them.

    Germany also possessed lethal sarin and tabun nerve gas which they could have used to devastating effect much like the strong circumstantial case that the Russians employed chemical weapons against the Wehmact to slow their advance on Stalingrad and arguably win that pivotal battle.
    http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/12792/title/Ken-Alibek--For-the-Biodefense/

  60. Begemot says:
    @KenH
    More like the Russians would not have won had the U.S. not opened up a second front via the D-Day invasion. Stalin had been pestering Roosevelt and Churchill to do so for a long time and they both eventually complied with good ole "uncle Joe's" demand. Germany's army group center in Russia began disintegrating shortly after the Normandy invasion and allowed Russia to permanently stay on the offensive for the remainder of the war.

    Without the D-Day invasion the Russo-German war would have likely resulted in a stalemate with Germany still holding on to some Russian territory.

    Germany’s army group center in Russia began disintegrating shortly after the Normandy invasion and allowed Russia to permanently stay on the offensive for the remainder of the war.

    The “disintegration” you refer to was the result of the Soviet offensive operation “Bagration”. Your phrasing suggests this “disintegration” just sort of happened. The Soviets tore the guts out of the Wehrmacht. Even without the Normandy invasion the Soviets would have defeated Germany.

    Another American who has to believe that nothing is possible in this world unless America allows it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    Your phrasing suggests this “disintegration” just sort of happened.
     
    Nothing happens in a vacuum. The Germans were always heavily outnumbered in men, tanks and equipment. Hell, the Wehrmact was still using horse drawn carriages for supply when they invaded in 1941. There came a point in 1943 when they couldn't replace their losses in men and equipment as successfully as the Russians.

    German civilian and industrial centers were being relentlessly carpet bombed by the U.S. and Royal Air Forces. How do you think the war would have turned out for Russia if the Japanese air force was carpet bombing Soviet weapons factories in the Urals as well as pummeling Moscow 24/7?

    Germany was fighting the U.S., U.K. and Russia at the same time. Russia only had to fight Germany.

    Another American who has to believe that nothing is possible in this world unless America allows it.
     
    Russia paid the bulk of the butcher's bill, but if you don't think the contributions of America and Britain helped the Russian war effort then you subscribe to a highly partisan account of the war. Lend-lease played a pivotal role in the early years, as did the "Red Orchestra" spy ring and the treason of Admiral Wilhelm Canaris.

    http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm
  61. KenH says:
    @Avery
    {Without the D-Day invasion the Russo-German war would have likely resulted in a stalemate with Germany still holding on to some Russian territory.}

    Highly unlikely.
    You are correct that "Dear Uncle Joe" was begging US&UK to come in in full force soon after Nazi Germany invaded. However, US&UK found various reasons not to do so until 1944. Stalin suspected, not without reason, that US&UK wanted Hitler and Stalin to wipe each other out: both to lose.

    Don't know about Roosevelt, who was unduly influenced by Stalin (....he tried to get up from his wheelchair when Stalin walked into their meetings...fashionably late), but Churchill knew Stalin better: I have no doubt that Churchill hoped Nazi Germany and USSR would wipe each other out.

    Anyway, after the epic Battle of Stalingrad, Nazi Germany's faith was sealed. In the Summer of 1944, the Red Army was at the border of Poland. It had about 15 million battled hardened troops and by that time a highly experienced officer corps and generalship. War production was at its peak.

    Germany was exhausted. In desperation, teenagers and senior citizens were sent to stop the Red Army (...and Americans, and British).
    The _only_ power that could stop the Red Army was US. And it did.

    What the 1944 landing accomplished is this: it stopped Uncle Joe from racing all the way to the English Channel and placing Western Europe also under Communist rule.

    Ironically, Western Europe may have been better off - in the long run - if it was not saved from Communism. Not economically, but culturally.

    Eastern Europeans - not infected by the various viruses of the West - today are famously fighting tooth and nail the forced Islamization edicts emanating from EU/Brussels. Poland, Hungary, other former Warsaw member countries are being threatened by EU for refusing to be Islamized (!). I saw a map somewhere (can't find it just now), that showed there are hardly _any_ mosques in former East Germany.

    Anyway, after the epic Battle of Stalingrad, Nazi Germany’s faith was sealed.

    No it wasn’t at least according to B.H. Liddel Hart, David Irving and several other historians. While the Stalingrad defeat was certainly a major setback and Army Group South was in retreat it wasn’t fatal and Von Manstein delivered a stunning defeat to the overconfident Red army at Kharkov shortly thereafter.

    The battle at Kursk-Orel, where the Germans initially gained ground but at the expense of a large number of tanks and experienced, battle hardened soldiers and officers, destroyed their offensive capabilities and handed the initiative to the Red Army for the rest of the war. The Germans were no longer able to replace their losses in men and equipment.

    But even then the westward progress of the Red army was slow against dogged German resistance which began slackening and breaking down after the successful D-Day invasion just as Stalin knew it would.

    Ironically, Western Europe may have been better off – in the long run – if it was not saved from Communism. Not economically, but culturally.

    No argument here. It was originally said that Hitler would up saving half of Europe from communism but in light of recent events it could probably be said that Stalin saved Eastern Europe from the political correctness and spiritual syphilis now infecting Western Europeans and which could be characterized as the new bubonic plague. Of course, if Germany had won then Western Europe and Germany especially wouldn’t be infected by racial self hate and suicidal liberalism.

    Read More
  62. @jilles dykstra
    http://luftpost-kl.de/luftpost-archiv/LP_16/LP10517_250617.pdf
    The document begins in german, the english original is after the german version.

    Yes, maddogs Trump/Mattis/McMaster in action. This is all excercise for show and creating continuous fear of a fake ennemy to serve Banksters + Defense contractors.

    If you don’t bankrupt the Big Banksters of Goldman Sachs crime cartel, nothing will ever change in US congress & CIA + friends & US military they pay.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean

    Robert Reich, Clinton’s labour secretary, described progressive globalisation in his 1991 book, The Work of Nations. “There will be no national products or technologies, no national corporations, no national industries. There will no longer be national economies. At least as we have come to understand that concept.”
     
    That is the world in which there is no need for war. Just pay your tax and be glad you don't have to be a soldier unless you want to.
  63. annamaria says:
    @Begemot
    It is true that the Soviets got a lot of Lend-Lease from the US. Britain got much more (about 2/3's of the total). The Red Army would not have starved to death without the US. American lend-lease made the Soviet victory over Germany easier. It didn't make it possible. Since about 2/3's of the German army was engaged on the Russian front the Americans should be forever grateful that those German divisions weren't waiting for the Americans in Normandy. The desperate need of many Americans to appear to be indispensable is pathetic.

    “The desperate need of many Americans to appear to be indispensable is pathetic.”
    True.
    Though in a case of Quatermaster you are dealing with a Jewish-Ukrainian Russophobe. It does not matter how many times the UNZ readers have corrected her/his mistakes – the Quatermaster knows better. Like a petulant child.

    Read More
  64. annamaria says:
    @Sean
    The oh so subtle Russian triumph in Syria that Saker keeps telling us about is apparently not understood by the US forces in Syria. The Assad regieme advances is 100% due to the US not supplying the popular forces with anti aircraft weapons. Assad's pilots are brave when they know there is nothing to fear, but now know they are going to be shot out of the sky over US backed forces, so the Assad advance will halt.
    Read More
  65. annamaria says:
    @Carlton Meyer
    While Russia may want caution, Syrian and Iranian militias don't care. ISIS is almost gone from SE Syria, so there is no need for an American base there to train anti-ISIS units. Americans have illegally invaded Syria, and the international community agrees. These militias have mortars and artillery, so can fire away and wait to see if the Americans dare counterattack by air. If they do, Russian missiles are ready for self-defense. Imagine a downed American pilot captured by ISIS.

    Meanwhile, Russia shows restraint to enjoy the Qatar situation, with new Saudi demands that compensation is due and the Turkish troops must leave. These dictators have long tolerated American military bases under the assumption it meant American protection. If the USA back stabs Qatar, what will the other Gulf State tyrants think? What if Iranian troops are invited to defend Qatar?

    And what about the Turks? They are itching for chance to reclaim NE Syria and its oil fields, which they say the Brits and French stole a hundred years ago. They can wipe out the Kurd forces there at the same time. They are building up forces in Syria for this move. They are just waiting for an excuse to attack.

    “Americans have illegally invaded Syria, and the international community agrees. ”

    True. As other “humanitarian” interventions by the US, this one is very expensive as well. This explains why the US is the only developed country that cannot afford a universal healthcare: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfYfjQEqg58

    Read More
  66. Sean says:
    @Max Havelaar
    Yes, maddogs Trump/Mattis/McMaster in action. This is all excercise for show and creating continuous fear of a fake ennemy to serve Banksters + Defense contractors.

    If you don't bankrupt the Big Banksters of Goldman Sachs crime cartel, nothing will ever change in US congress & CIA + friends & US military they pay.

    Robert Reich, Clinton’s labour secretary, described progressive globalisation in his 1991 book, The Work of Nations. “There will be no national products or technologies, no national corporations, no national industries. There will no longer be national economies. At least as we have come to understand that concept.”

    That is the world in which there is no need for war. Just pay your tax and be glad you don’t have to be a soldier unless you want to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Max Havelaar
    It's about Injustice, crime and War.

    In a oneworldgovernment (=communism), the war will be covert, using militarized militia's of the different megacorporate-fascist orgs, competing for revenue.

    And the internal war's will contnue, like now, in the USA, the crimes are done by CIA/FBI/DHS and affiliated intelligence agencies, making up Fake ennemies to keep the masses divided.

    A planet with sovereign, independent nations, armies and central banks, no few Big bully's dominating others like now, who come together to create:

    International Law based on Justice for all (Declaration of human rights). Only for countires agreeing.
    Fair trade between all nations, a ban on trade embargo's forever. Only high-tech arms.
    Planetary disaster emergency centers around the globe, to deliver aid fast everywhere.
    And much more to boost real wages and so economic growth.
  67. KenH says:

    Great analysis and I hope the Saker is correct in the restrained and measured way cool hand Luke Putin is responding. It seems to me that the U.Srael is testing the limits of both Assad’s and Putin’s patience and trying to see how far they can push each party. Each needs to understand that when you give the U.S. an inch they take a mile. If the U.S. continues to up the ante then Putin will need to respond militarily and should make a plea to the American people about the implications of our reckless and Israel first foreign policy.

    I’ve lost even more respect for Trump since he allows this state of affairs to continue probably because it works against the fake “Trump-Russia collusion” narrative. This means he’s ok with illegally killing Syrians and their allies and possibly some U.S. servicemen if it vindicates him of these charges. This is evidence of low moral character.

    Trump seems to have delegated all military decisions to his generals with no oversight. This is dangerous. It’s time to fire the likudnik madman Mattis and McMaster of disaster.

    Maybe if the Syrians and Russians wait long enough they’ll be facing homosexual and transgendered U.S. troops which they can make short shrift of.

    Read More
  68. KenH says:
    @Begemot

    Germany’s army group center in Russia began disintegrating shortly after the Normandy invasion and allowed Russia to permanently stay on the offensive for the remainder of the war.
     
    The "disintegration" you refer to was the result of the Soviet offensive operation "Bagration". Your phrasing suggests this "disintegration" just sort of happened. The Soviets tore the guts out of the Wehrmacht. Even without the Normandy invasion the Soviets would have defeated Germany.

    Another American who has to believe that nothing is possible in this world unless America allows it.

    Your phrasing suggests this “disintegration” just sort of happened.

    Nothing happens in a vacuum. The Germans were always heavily outnumbered in men, tanks and equipment. Hell, the Wehrmact was still using horse drawn carriages for supply when they invaded in 1941. There came a point in 1943 when they couldn’t replace their losses in men and equipment as successfully as the Russians.

    German civilian and industrial centers were being relentlessly carpet bombed by the U.S. and Royal Air Forces. How do you think the war would have turned out for Russia if the Japanese air force was carpet bombing Soviet weapons factories in the Urals as well as pummeling Moscow 24/7?

    Germany was fighting the U.S., U.K. and Russia at the same time. Russia only had to fight Germany.

    Another American who has to believe that nothing is possible in this world unless America allows it.

    Russia paid the bulk of the butcher’s bill, but if you don’t think the contributions of America and Britain helped the Russian war effort then you subscribe to a highly partisan account of the war. Lend-lease played a pivotal role in the early years, as did the “Red Orchestra” spy ring and the treason of Admiral Wilhelm Canaris.

    http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carlo
    "How do you think the war would have turned out for Russia if the Japanese air force was carpet bombing Soviet weapons factories in the Urals as well as pummeling Moscow 24/7? "
    Do you have any idea how far the Urals are from Japan, or Japanese occupied Manchuria, or even the Russian Far East? No bomber had the range to get to the Urals at that time, this argument is just ridiculous.
  69. annamaria says:
    @Sean
    The oh so subtle Russian triumph in Syria that Saker keeps telling us about is apparently not understood by the US forces in Syria. The Assad regieme advances is 100% due to the US not supplying the popular forces with anti aircraft weapons. Assad's pilots are brave when they know there is nothing to fear, but now know they are going to be shot out of the sky over US backed forces, so the Assad advance will halt.

    In case you did not have time to look for the widely available information on how the US has been supplying certain “forces” in Syria with various weaponry, including anti aircraft weapons, here is a summary: “How America Armed Terrorists in Syria: Another Middle East debacle” By GARETH PORTER • June 22, 2017

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/

    “The Obama administration’s Syria policy effectively sold out the U.S. interest that was supposed to be the touchstone of the “Global War on Terrorism”—the eradication of al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates… In October 2012, U.S. officials acknowledged off the record for the first time to the New York Times that “most” of the arms that had been shipped to armed opposition groups in Syria with U.S. logistical assistance during the previous year had gone to “hardline Islamic jihadists”— obviously meaning al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, al Nusra. …
    In early March 2015, the Harakat Hazm Aleppo branch dissolved itself, and al Nusra Front promptly showed off photos of the TOW missiles and other equipment they had captured from it. … But that wasn’t the only way for al Nusra Front to benefit from the CIA’s largesse.
    The non-jihadist armed groups getting advanced weapons from the CIA assistance were not part of the initial assault on Idlib City. After the capture of Idlib the U.S.-led operations room for Syria in southern Turkey signaled to the CIA-supported groups in Idlib that they could now participate in the campaign to consolidate control over the rest of the province. According to Lister, the British researcher on jihadists in Syria who maintains contacts with both jihadist and other armed groups, recipients of CIA weapons, such as the Fursan al haq brigade and Division 13, did join the Idlib campaign alongside al Nusra Front without any move by the CIA to cut them off. As the Idlib offensive began, the CIA-supported groups were getting TOW missiles in larger numbers, and they now used them with great effectiveness against the Syrian army tanks. That was the beginning of a new phase of the war, in which U.S. policy was to support an alliance between “relatively moderate” groups and the al Nusra Front.”
    And more of the same

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    CIA judged to be “relatively moderate” anti-Assad groups

    These CIA assessments are always loaded with weasel words and half truths like some child admitting he stuck his hand in the cookie jar but didn't actually take one. It is all designed as a silly whitewash of their actions. Admit just enough but stop short of something illegal.

    When the CIA finally had to admit they were aware of the drug dealing during the Reagan administration by the Contras, they came out with some lame report where they admitted they were aware that some elements were trafficking drugs but the CIA wasn't directly involved. Of course, the pilots flying the arms in and drugs out all had CIA connections. The DEA also never made any significant arrests.

    The CIA knows there are no "relatively moderates".
  70. @Sean

    Robert Reich, Clinton’s labour secretary, described progressive globalisation in his 1991 book, The Work of Nations. “There will be no national products or technologies, no national corporations, no national industries. There will no longer be national economies. At least as we have come to understand that concept.”
     
    That is the world in which there is no need for war. Just pay your tax and be glad you don't have to be a soldier unless you want to.

    It’s about Injustice, crime and War.

    In a oneworldgovernment (=communism), the war will be covert, using militarized militia’s of the different megacorporate-fascist orgs, competing for revenue.

    And the internal war’s will contnue, like now, in the USA, the crimes are done by CIA/FBI/DHS and affiliated intelligence agencies, making up Fake ennemies to keep the masses divided.

    A planet with sovereign, independent nations, armies and central banks, no few Big bully’s dominating others like now, who come together to create:

    International Law based on Justice for all (Declaration of human rights). Only for countires agreeing.
    Fair trade between all nations, a ban on trade embargo’s forever. Only high-tech arms.
    Planetary disaster emergency centers around the globe, to deliver aid fast everywhere.
    And much more to boost real wages and so economic growth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Theoretical deductions all, because the world has never been like that, and unless one believes in a God who created the world so that economies would grow if left alone (or tampered with), no reason to believe any particular system would result in stable growth. Moreover, and as Galbraith said, economists attack what they find inconvenient and nations are inconvenient for a world order based on economics. Every economist (and philosopher, scientist, thinker, or Miss Universe) has thought abolishing aggressive nationalism to be the urgent objective humanity should strive for, so I expect nations would find their freedom of maneuver under attack.

    While you are certainly correct that your agreed international order would mean a greatly increased capacity for humanity to solve practical problems, that would include those in the technological realm, which would advance beyond all imagining. Singularity self extermination by delimited technology resolves the Fermi paradox by my way of thinking. War and conflict are found between nations, within nations within groups, and even within individuals. We all know we inherently have inner conflict.

    Not quite true admittedly, some blame inner conflict on the CIA beaming radio waves into their brain, just as some think the CIA foments wars externally and internally.. I think if the CIA was good enough to mount false flag terror and start wars it would be better at winning them. Korea , Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Iraq ect are not the most persuasive evidence for the CIA having any such effectiveness. Well, not unless you are of the tinfoil hat persuasion.

  71. Tokyo made the long term mistake against the U.S. in WWII as well, immediate gratification versus inevitable long term defeat once implacable hostilities started.

    What I would like to see is an end to killing and hostilities. As long as the sociopathic personalities who crave leadership positions don’t experience any discomfort themselves, and remain in power, the rest of us are either cannon fodder or collateral damage.

    Read More
  72. MarkinLA says:
    @jilles dykstra
    If 'peaceful' countries want war the trick is to provoke the country you want to attack to make the first move.
    Hitler ran into the trap when he attacked Poland in Sept 1939, after Polish provocations since the British guarantee of March 1939.
    Japan ran into the trap of Roosevelt's oil boycott.
    Saddam did nothing stupid enough to excuse war, therefore Sept 11 was created.
    Putin is not stupid, he knows quite well that the western war mongers are waiting for the excuse to attack Russia.
    Heightened tensions in Syria in my opinion have but one goal: getting an excuse to attack Russia.
    Some kind of Liberty 'accident' would be great.

    Hitler ran into the trap when he attacked Poland in Sept 1939, after Polish provocations since the British guarantee of March 1939.

    What trap? Why did he sign the treaty with the USSR if not to start a war?

    Japan ran into the trap of Roosevelt’s oil boycott.

    Japan was illegally in China and knew that without US oil and scarp iron their military would soon ground to a halt. They did it to themselves.

    The US isn’t always to blame.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {The US isn’t always to blame.}


    Of course not.

    Imperial Japan occupied most of East Asia and murdered and enslaved millions of other Asians: Chinese, Koreans, Philippinos, .......

    The Rape of Nanking, 1937-1938, happened long before US came into the picture.
    The savage Japanese Imperial scum massacred up to 300,000 Chinese civilians.
    As bad as, albeit not as efficient, as the Nazi mass murders.

    To this day Japanese supremacist scum refuse to acknowledge their WW2 war crimes, including the massacre of Nanking.
    Hopefully some day Chinese will force the savages to pay for their crimes of Naking, occupation of China and war crimes committed there; occupation of Korea and war crimes committed there,....

  73. MarkinLA says:
    @Avery
    {Since about 2/3′s of the German army was engaged on the Russian front}

    It was not 2/3rds or ~67%: it was about 80%.
    Also, about 80% of Wehrmacht's best, toughest divisions were ground up on the Eastern front. At a terribly high cost to the Red Army men and materiel.

    {.... that those German divisions weren’t waiting for the Americans in Normandy. }

    Even the completely bled out Wehrmacht put American troops through the ringer at the Battle of the Bulge in 1944. With notable exceptions, e.g. the heroic defense of Bastogne, GIs mostly ran as Germans advanced. The disaster was averted when skies cleared and USAF came in and saved the day.

    {The desperate need of many Americans to appear to be indispensable is pathetic.}

    Indeed.

    Come on, the landings at Normandy were the largest amphibious assault in the history of the world. The logistical requirements of such an attack were greater than anything the Red Army had to deal with. Nobody ran, regardless of the near failure at Omaha Beach.

    Read More
  74. MarkinLA says:
    @annamaria
    In case you did not have time to look for the widely available information on how the US has been supplying certain "forces" in Syria with various weaponry, including anti aircraft weapons, here is a summary: "How America Armed Terrorists in Syria: Another Middle East debacle" By GARETH PORTER • June 22, 2017
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/

    "The Obama administration’s Syria policy effectively sold out the U.S. interest that was supposed to be the touchstone of the “Global War on Terrorism”—the eradication of al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates... In October 2012, U.S. officials acknowledged off the record for the first time to the New York Times that “most” of the arms that had been shipped to armed opposition groups in Syria with U.S. logistical assistance during the previous year had gone to “hardline Islamic jihadists”— obviously meaning al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, al Nusra. ...
    In early March 2015, the Harakat Hazm Aleppo branch dissolved itself, and al Nusra Front promptly showed off photos of the TOW missiles and other equipment they had captured from it. ... But that wasn’t the only way for al Nusra Front to benefit from the CIA’s largesse.
    The non-jihadist armed groups getting advanced weapons from the CIA assistance were not part of the initial assault on Idlib City. After the capture of Idlib the U.S.-led operations room for Syria in southern Turkey signaled to the CIA-supported groups in Idlib that they could now participate in the campaign to consolidate control over the rest of the province. According to Lister, the British researcher on jihadists in Syria who maintains contacts with both jihadist and other armed groups, recipients of CIA weapons, such as the Fursan al haq brigade and Division 13, did join the Idlib campaign alongside al Nusra Front without any move by the CIA to cut them off. As the Idlib offensive began, the CIA-supported groups were getting TOW missiles in larger numbers, and they now used them with great effectiveness against the Syrian army tanks. That was the beginning of a new phase of the war, in which U.S. policy was to support an alliance between “relatively moderate” groups and the al Nusra Front."
    And more of the same

    CIA judged to be “relatively moderate” anti-Assad groups

    These CIA assessments are always loaded with weasel words and half truths like some child admitting he stuck his hand in the cookie jar but didn’t actually take one. It is all designed as a silly whitewash of their actions. Admit just enough but stop short of something illegal.

    When the CIA finally had to admit they were aware of the drug dealing during the Reagan administration by the Contras, they came out with some lame report where they admitted they were aware that some elements were trafficking drugs but the CIA wasn’t directly involved. Of course, the pilots flying the arms in and drugs out all had CIA connections. The DEA also never made any significant arrests.

    The CIA knows there are no “relatively moderates”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    The infamy and moral death that the US has been undergoing thanks to the Mid.Eastern wars has three main causes:
    1. A dream of Eretz Israel
    2. Hegemonic aspirations
    3. Oil
    All three happened to be treasonous with regard to the US citizenry at large.
  75. What is happening in Syria is an Extreme Steroidal version of what is happening in the West.

    Westerners are told ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ are highest values.

    Well, Syria wouldn’t have been such a powder keg if it weren’t so diverse filled with so many resentments. And it was the weakening of borders and ‘inclusion’ of Jihadis and foreign military that made things much worse. So, much for blessings of diversity and inclusion(euphemism for intrusion and invasion).

    Two sicknesses of the globalized world: Diversease and Incluenza.

    Read More
  76. MENA since the Gulf War has been a horror show. I’ll bet all those nations that helped the US out against Iraq are now sorry. Series of events that flowed from that post-cold-war mess metastasized
    into a cancer that just won’t stop, especially with US and its allies continuing to feed blood to the cancer cells.

    It is unending horror, and it’s fitting that a horror movie, SESSION 9, perfectly dramatizes the mindset involved in the tragedy.
    Oliver Stone’s W. gives us a comic view.
    SESSION 9, which takes place in an abandoned loony bin, is like a journey inside the mind of troubled souls who take on ‘missions’ they can’t fulfill as escapism from their own personal failings. It’s uncanny, but the main character of S9 even looks like George W. Bush.

    Read More
  77. Joe Wong says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    The modern western culture is centered on various forms of instant gratification, and that is also true for geopolitics. If the other guy does something, western leaders always deliver a “firm” response. They like to “send messages”
     
    Excellent point. That is why "West" (US mostly) can not win a single war in 70 years.

    The Americans just want to know how good the Russian is to reassure themselves; all the top dogs do this test constantly to reassure themselves. As long as the Russian is not giving the American a real feedback, the American will be reckless and continue to probe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cortes
    A very true statement. Blindingly obvious on reflection and it must be frustrating as hell not to get the rise expected from the series of provocations. Plenty of attention has been focused on "failure" of the RF to respond adequately to events instigated by or at the behest of the USA. As you have pointed out, the reverse holds true. Why should the RF "telegraph" its intentions to a potential adversary or adversaries? Why deploy ALL its new hardware unless totally required?
  78. Avery says:
    @MarkinLA
    Hitler ran into the trap when he attacked Poland in Sept 1939, after Polish provocations since the British guarantee of March 1939.

    What trap? Why did he sign the treaty with the USSR if not to start a war?

    Japan ran into the trap of Roosevelt’s oil boycott.

    Japan was illegally in China and knew that without US oil and scarp iron their military would soon ground to a halt. They did it to themselves.

    The US isn't always to blame.

    {The US isn’t always to blame.}

    Of course not.

    Imperial Japan occupied most of East Asia and murdered and enslaved millions of other Asians: Chinese, Koreans, Philippinos, …….

    The Rape of Nanking, 1937-1938, happened long before US came into the picture.
    The savage Japanese Imperial scum massacred up to 300,000 Chinese civilians.
    As bad as, albeit not as efficient, as the Nazi mass murders.

    To this day Japanese supremacist scum refuse to acknowledge their WW2 war crimes, including the massacre of Nanking.
    Hopefully some day Chinese will force the savages to pay for their crimes of Naking, occupation of China and war crimes committed there; occupation of Korea and war crimes committed there,….

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    At the Japanese war trial show just the USA judges condemned, all the other judges did not see any war crimes.
    Among them the Indian and Dutch judge.
  79. annamaria says:
    @MarkinLA
    CIA judged to be “relatively moderate” anti-Assad groups

    These CIA assessments are always loaded with weasel words and half truths like some child admitting he stuck his hand in the cookie jar but didn't actually take one. It is all designed as a silly whitewash of their actions. Admit just enough but stop short of something illegal.

    When the CIA finally had to admit they were aware of the drug dealing during the Reagan administration by the Contras, they came out with some lame report where they admitted they were aware that some elements were trafficking drugs but the CIA wasn't directly involved. Of course, the pilots flying the arms in and drugs out all had CIA connections. The DEA also never made any significant arrests.

    The CIA knows there are no "relatively moderates".

    The infamy and moral death that the US has been undergoing thanks to the Mid.Eastern wars has three main causes:
    1. A dream of Eretz Israel
    2. Hegemonic aspirations
    3. Oil
    All three happened to be treasonous with regard to the US citizenry at large.

    Read More
  80. TG says:
    @TipTipTopKek
    It's been far more than 70 years since the West won a war. The Soviets won WWII, not the West.

    As regards TipTipTopKek: yes indeed the Soviets did the major fighting against the Nazis, sure, we in the West keep forgetting this, but I really don’t think they could have won without the Western allies. History always looks inevitable after the fact, but I think WWII could easily have gone either way. Remember that the US took on the Japanese empire single-handed. Suppose that, while fighting the Nazis on one front, the Soviets had been faced with the Japanese empire striking into Siberia and taking out their eastern industries?

    So yes the Soviets did most of the heavy lifting in WWII, but bottom line, I’d say it was a team effort.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parbes
    "Remember that the US took on the Japanese empire single-handed."

    This is laughable historical ignorance on parade here. The U.S. did NOT "take on the Japanese empire single-handed" in World War II. The bulk of the Japanese land troops in World War II were preoccupied fighting in and trying to conquer China and Southeast Asia - NOT fighting the U.S. In fact, the Japanese attempt to conquer China and mainland Asia started LONG BEFORE Pearl Harbor in 1941; so for the Japanese, Pearl Harbor and the resulting Pacific War with the U.S. were actually a DISTRACTION from their main aim of conquering China and Southeast Asia. Pearl Harbor itself was a WARNING attack born of Japanese frustration with the U.S.' typically backstabbing, provocative aggressive moves toward Japan, just when Japanese forces were committed in Asia - as evidenced by the fact that it was not followed up by any attempted invasion of the mainland U.S. Western coast.

    Also, at the beginning of World War II the Japanese DID try to invade the Asian part of the Soviet Union in force, via Manchuria - but they were soundly defeated and repelled by the Soviets together with their Mongolian allies, so they gave up the attempt and concentrated instead on China and Southeast Asia.

    Plus, to say nothing of the fact that there were many British, Indian, Indochinese, Malay, Filipino etc. forces IN ADDITION TO the Chinese, who were fighting and tying down Japanese troops in Asia all through World War II - Japanese troops which therefore were prevented from facing the Americans.

    In short, the U.S. in World War II fought and defeated only A PART OF the Japanese Empire's forces in the Pacific - the mostly defensive part that could be spared from the Japanese Empire's all-out attempt to conquer mainland Asia. And even then, even AFTER the bulk of the Japanese forces were broken, the U.S. was forced to resort to nuclear weapons twice at the end because they were afraid of the losses that would have resulted from trying to invade the Japanese home islands a la Normandy.
  81. Che Guava says:
    @Romil
    Not true, the USA won a war with Grenada, Panama (Noriega), etc.

    Admittedly these wars were a little lopsided.

    What is clear since Vietnam is that the USA military/ Political System is not very good at occupying a country after initial battlefield success.

    Unless the chaos in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq etc is the intended result.

    I was about to mention Grenada and Panama as great examples nf US military prowess, nice to see someone else remembers!

    Seriously, I was sad to read of Noriega’s death, the CIA’s man in Panama, not one day of freedom, he must really have had some things he would have liked to have said.

    Read More
  82. @Avery
    {Without the D-Day invasion the Russo-German war would have likely resulted in a stalemate with Germany still holding on to some Russian territory.}

    Highly unlikely.
    You are correct that "Dear Uncle Joe" was begging US&UK to come in in full force soon after Nazi Germany invaded. However, US&UK found various reasons not to do so until 1944. Stalin suspected, not without reason, that US&UK wanted Hitler and Stalin to wipe each other out: both to lose.

    Don't know about Roosevelt, who was unduly influenced by Stalin (....he tried to get up from his wheelchair when Stalin walked into their meetings...fashionably late), but Churchill knew Stalin better: I have no doubt that Churchill hoped Nazi Germany and USSR would wipe each other out.

    Anyway, after the epic Battle of Stalingrad, Nazi Germany's faith was sealed. In the Summer of 1944, the Red Army was at the border of Poland. It had about 15 million battled hardened troops and by that time a highly experienced officer corps and generalship. War production was at its peak.

    Germany was exhausted. In desperation, teenagers and senior citizens were sent to stop the Red Army (...and Americans, and British).
    The _only_ power that could stop the Red Army was US. And it did.

    What the 1944 landing accomplished is this: it stopped Uncle Joe from racing all the way to the English Channel and placing Western Europe also under Communist rule.

    Ironically, Western Europe may have been better off - in the long run - if it was not saved from Communism. Not economically, but culturally.

    Eastern Europeans - not infected by the various viruses of the West - today are famously fighting tooth and nail the forced Islamization edicts emanating from EU/Brussels. Poland, Hungary, other former Warsaw member countries are being threatened by EU for refusing to be Islamized (!). I saw a map somewhere (can't find it just now), that showed there are hardly _any_ mosques in former East Germany.

    I saw a map somewhere (can’t find it just now), that showed there are hardly _any_ mosques in former East Germany.

    Here’s a map as of 2011:

    Read More
  83. Cortes says:
    @Joe Wong
    The Americans just want to know how good the Russian is to reassure themselves; all the top dogs do this test constantly to reassure themselves. As long as the Russian is not giving the American a real feedback, the American will be reckless and continue to probe.

    A very true statement. Blindingly obvious on reflection and it must be frustrating as hell not to get the rise expected from the series of provocations. Plenty of attention has been focused on “failure” of the RF to respond adequately to events instigated by or at the behest of the USA. As you have pointed out, the reverse holds true. Why should the RF “telegraph” its intentions to a potential adversary or adversaries? Why deploy ALL its new hardware unless totally required?

    Read More
  84. Avery says:
    @for-the-record
    I saw a map somewhere (can’t find it just now), that showed there are hardly _any_ mosques in former East Germany.

    Here's a map as of 2011:

    http://tundratabloids.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/moscheen.jpg

    thanks [for-the-record].

    Read More
  85. More reckless stupidity.

    After Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, why would anyone ascribe the slightest bit of intelligence to our Middle East Wars?

    In Syria, we created ISIS. Then we spent half a billion to “poof” moderate Arab rebels into existence and created zero of them. Now we’re using Kurds to conquer Arab parts of Syria, and risking war with both Russia and Turkey to do it.

    The level of stupidity is so incredible that people can’t help but ascribe more intelligence to it.

    This is not a policy problem. It is a structural problem. The Founders kept the war power from the President. We’ve given it back.

    There is no legal, constitutional authority for the USA to be at war in Syria. That alone is reckless stupidity. Just as stupid as eviscerating the Bill of Rights. Conjuring up the right of the executive branch to write law with so-called “regulations”.

    Our Republic is so broken now it is only a matter of time before we’re in the dust bin of history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "In Syria, we created ISIS. Then we spent half a billion to “poof” moderate Arab rebels into existence and created zero of them. Now we’re using Kurds to conquer Arab parts of Syria, and risking war with both Russia and Turkey to do it."
    Correct.
    "How America Armed Terrorists in Syria" https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/
  86. I despise Erdogan on lots of things, but he’s doing a great thing here:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/istanbul-pride-riot-police-turkey-lgbt-rights-march-dogs-rubber-bullets-tear-gas-a7807656.html

    Some might call this Islam vs Secular, but Homomania is a New Religion that demands that we accept, ON FAITH, that homosexuality has equal value with real sexuality, has something to do with the rainbow, and is all about ‘pride’.

    So, if this is about religion, it is about Islam vs Homomania(a new religion). Homomania demands obedience and it condemns those who speak honestly and critically about homo as heretical ‘homophobes’.
    Also, Homomania creeps into churches and even demands that it be associated with Jesus and God. They insist that Sodom is the true home of spirituality.

    Ataturk was a great man and he founded a modern secular Turkey of sanity, decency, and dignity, not a decadent degenerate Turkey where the population would indulge and celebrate Homo ‘pride’ as a new religion.

    Back then, the West was indeed the most advanced and accomplished part of the world, and Turkey had much to learn by emulating nations like France, UK, and Germany.
    That was then, this is now. West is now only more advanced in science and technology. It is morally and culturally filthy. Worse, it’s not even honest about its decadence and degeneracy but elevate them as the New Decency and New Holiness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Ataturk was a great man and he founded a modern secular Turkey of sanity, decency, and dignity, not a decadent degenerate Turkey where the population would indulge and celebrate Homo ‘pride’ as a new religion.}

    Mustafa Kemal aka Ataturk was a psychopath, a genocidal mass murderer, and possibly a Dönmeh. He was also a closet homosexual.

    There is nothing, quote, 'sane', or 'decent', or 'dignified' about the genocidal state of Türkiye. Turkey banning the Homo pride march has nothing to do with Kemal: it is strictly an AKP Islamist thing.
    , @jilles dykstra
    Atatürk's mistake was that he thought he could westernise Turkey by force.
    Even Stalin was unable to suppress religion, it was religion that liberated Iran from the USA puppet shah.
    Since Luther common people could talk and think about religion, in W Europe a process of hundreds of years was needed to liberate ourselves from church oppression.
  87. Avery says:
    @Priss Factor
    I despise Erdogan on lots of things, but he's doing a great thing here:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/istanbul-pride-riot-police-turkey-lgbt-rights-march-dogs-rubber-bullets-tear-gas-a7807656.html

    Some might call this Islam vs Secular, but Homomania is a New Religion that demands that we accept, ON FAITH, that homosexuality has equal value with real sexuality, has something to do with the rainbow, and is all about 'pride'.

    So, if this is about religion, it is about Islam vs Homomania(a new religion). Homomania demands obedience and it condemns those who speak honestly and critically about homo as heretical 'homophobes'.
    Also, Homomania creeps into churches and even demands that it be associated with Jesus and God. They insist that Sodom is the true home of spirituality.

    Ataturk was a great man and he founded a modern secular Turkey of sanity, decency, and dignity, not a decadent degenerate Turkey where the population would indulge and celebrate Homo 'pride' as a new religion.

    Back then, the West was indeed the most advanced and accomplished part of the world, and Turkey had much to learn by emulating nations like France, UK, and Germany.
    That was then, this is now. West is now only more advanced in science and technology. It is morally and culturally filthy. Worse, it's not even honest about its decadence and degeneracy but elevate them as the New Decency and New Holiness.

    {Ataturk was a great man and he founded a modern secular Turkey of sanity, decency, and dignity, not a decadent degenerate Turkey where the population would indulge and celebrate Homo ‘pride’ as a new religion.}

    Mustafa Kemal aka Ataturk was a psychopath, a genocidal mass murderer, and possibly a Dönmeh. He was also a closet homosexual.

    There is nothing, quote, ‘sane’, or ‘decent’, or ‘dignified’ about the genocidal state of Türkiye. Turkey banning the Homo pride march has nothing to do with Kemal: it is strictly an AKP Islamist thing.

    Read More
    • Agree: Intelligent Dasein
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Mustafa Kemal aka Ataturk was a psychopath, a genocidal mass murderer, and possibly a Dönmeh. He was also a closet homosexual.

    The Armenian business was ugly but how was it worse than what US did to Japan and Germany in WWII? Wars are ugly and bring out the worst side of a people.

    Btw, US even went totally crazy in mass killings in Korea and Vietnam, and those nations posed NO THREAT to the US, and unlike Japan, never attacked the US.

    In contrast, Turks acted extreme with Armenians because Turks felt an existential threat. They really feared the foreign great powers would cut up and destroy Turkey forever. And Armenians, as Christians, were working with Russians and foreign powers.

    Now, I'm not gonna justify the Armenian horror, but it was hardly different from similar such massacres all over Europe and Asia and Latin America and etc in the 20th century. US actions in Philippines were ugly too. And Japanese horrors in China, German horrors in Russia, French horrors in Algeria, etc. were worse.
    At least the Turks were trying to secure their own borders that were then under attack by all sides.

    As for Ataturk being a closet-Jew or closet-homo, I'll leave that up to you.

    I'm just judging him by what he did, not what he may have been. He was a great fascist leader who combined nationalism, modernism, and humanism. One thing for sure, if Mussolini and Hitler had been like him, the 20th century would have been a wonderful century.

    And even if he was a homo, he kept it to himself. It's like Frederick the Great was prolly a homo, but he was a great leader. A homo can act dignified.
  88. annamaria says:
    @Backwoods Bob
    More reckless stupidity.

    After Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, why would anyone ascribe the slightest bit of intelligence to our Middle East Wars?

    In Syria, we created ISIS. Then we spent half a billion to "poof" moderate Arab rebels into existence and created zero of them. Now we're using Kurds to conquer Arab parts of Syria, and risking war with both Russia and Turkey to do it.

    The level of stupidity is so incredible that people can't help but ascribe more intelligence to it.

    This is not a policy problem. It is a structural problem. The Founders kept the war power from the President. We've given it back.

    There is no legal, constitutional authority for the USA to be at war in Syria. That alone is reckless stupidity. Just as stupid as eviscerating the Bill of Rights. Conjuring up the right of the executive branch to write law with so-called "regulations".

    Our Republic is so broken now it is only a matter of time before we're in the dust bin of history.

    “In Syria, we created ISIS. Then we spent half a billion to “poof” moderate Arab rebels into existence and created zero of them. Now we’re using Kurds to conquer Arab parts of Syria, and risking war with both Russia and Turkey to do it.”
    Correct.
    “How America Armed Terrorists in Syria” https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/

    Read More
  89. @Avery
    {Ataturk was a great man and he founded a modern secular Turkey of sanity, decency, and dignity, not a decadent degenerate Turkey where the population would indulge and celebrate Homo ‘pride’ as a new religion.}

    Mustafa Kemal aka Ataturk was a psychopath, a genocidal mass murderer, and possibly a Dönmeh. He was also a closet homosexual.

    There is nothing, quote, 'sane', or 'decent', or 'dignified' about the genocidal state of Türkiye. Turkey banning the Homo pride march has nothing to do with Kemal: it is strictly an AKP Islamist thing.

    Mustafa Kemal aka Ataturk was a psychopath, a genocidal mass murderer, and possibly a Dönmeh. He was also a closet homosexual.

    The Armenian business was ugly but how was it worse than what US did to Japan and Germany in WWII? Wars are ugly and bring out the worst side of a people.

    Btw, US even went totally crazy in mass killings in Korea and Vietnam, and those nations posed NO THREAT to the US, and unlike Japan, never attacked the US.

    In contrast, Turks acted extreme with Armenians because Turks felt an existential threat. They really feared the foreign great powers would cut up and destroy Turkey forever. And Armenians, as Christians, were working with Russians and foreign powers.

    Now, I’m not gonna justify the Armenian horror, but it was hardly different from similar such massacres all over Europe and Asia and Latin America and etc in the 20th century. US actions in Philippines were ugly too. And Japanese horrors in China, German horrors in Russia, French horrors in Algeria, etc. were worse.
    At least the Turks were trying to secure their own borders that were then under attack by all sides.

    As for Ataturk being a closet-Jew or closet-homo, I’ll leave that up to you.

    I’m just judging him by what he did, not what he may have been. He was a great fascist leader who combined nationalism, modernism, and humanism. One thing for sure, if Mussolini and Hitler had been like him, the 20th century would have been a wonderful century.

    And even if he was a homo, he kept it to himself. It’s like Frederick the Great was prolly a homo, but he was a great leader. A homo can act dignified.

    Read More
    • Agree: L.K
    • Replies: @Avery
    Regarding the homosexual stuff:
    I don't care either way, as long as it is not flaunted or 'paraded'.
    There are homosexuals and there are homosexuals.
    But I didn't bring up the homosexual stuff: you did.
    I pointed out that Kemal had nothing to do with Turkey, in 2017, banning homo pride marches. If you want to give credit, then it goes to the Islamist AK Party and Erdogan, not Kemal. Islamist AK Party and Erdogan are the diametric opposite of Kemal and secular Kemalists.

    In fact, I do not know a single Muslim country that allows open display of homosexuality (.....although behind close doors there is aplenty homosexuality, including homosexual paedophilia.)


    {He was a great fascist leader who combined nationalism, modernism, and humanism. }

    Humanism?
    Really?
    You have a very strange notion what 'humanism' means.
    Kemal continued the Armenian Genocide started by the Young Turks in 1915. He is responsible for the murders of several hundred thousand additional Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek victims up to 1923.

    He also ordered the massacre of Dersim Kurds/Zaza/Alevis in 1937-1938, just before his death. Up 90,000, mostly civilians, were savagely murdered by Turks on his orders. E.g. people seeking shelter in caves were burnt and smoke-gassed to death.


    {.... Armenians, as Christians, were working with Russians and foreign powers.}

    A regurgitation of Turkish denialist disinformation and propaganda.
    Your irrational admiration for Kemal and Turks is an indication that you know very little about the history of Armenians, Assyrians, Pontic Greeks, invadonomad Turks, and Asia Minor.

    btw: in 1894-1896 Turk Sultan Hamid massacred 300,000 Armenians. Were Armenians working with Russians then too?

    Were Christian Assyrians supposedly working with Russians too, that they too were subjected to Genocide by Muslim Turks starting 1915?

  90. Parbes says:
    @TG
    As regards TipTipTopKek: yes indeed the Soviets did the major fighting against the Nazis, sure, we in the West keep forgetting this, but I really don't think they could have won without the Western allies. History always looks inevitable after the fact, but I think WWII could easily have gone either way. Remember that the US took on the Japanese empire single-handed. Suppose that, while fighting the Nazis on one front, the Soviets had been faced with the Japanese empire striking into Siberia and taking out their eastern industries?

    So yes the Soviets did most of the heavy lifting in WWII, but bottom line, I'd say it was a team effort.

    “Remember that the US took on the Japanese empire single-handed.”

    This is laughable historical ignorance on parade here. The U.S. did NOT “take on the Japanese empire single-handed” in World War II. The bulk of the Japanese land troops in World War II were preoccupied fighting in and trying to conquer China and Southeast Asia – NOT fighting the U.S. In fact, the Japanese attempt to conquer China and mainland Asia started LONG BEFORE Pearl Harbor in 1941; so for the Japanese, Pearl Harbor and the resulting Pacific War with the U.S. were actually a DISTRACTION from their main aim of conquering China and Southeast Asia. Pearl Harbor itself was a WARNING attack born of Japanese frustration with the U.S.’ typically backstabbing, provocative aggressive moves toward Japan, just when Japanese forces were committed in Asia – as evidenced by the fact that it was not followed up by any attempted invasion of the mainland U.S. Western coast.

    Also, at the beginning of World War II the Japanese DID try to invade the Asian part of the Soviet Union in force, via Manchuria – but they were soundly defeated and repelled by the Soviets together with their Mongolian allies, so they gave up the attempt and concentrated instead on China and Southeast Asia.

    Plus, to say nothing of the fact that there were many British, Indian, Indochinese, Malay, Filipino etc. forces IN ADDITION TO the Chinese, who were fighting and tying down Japanese troops in Asia all through World War II – Japanese troops which therefore were prevented from facing the Americans.

    In short, the U.S. in World War II fought and defeated only A PART OF the Japanese Empire’s forces in the Pacific – the mostly defensive part that could be spared from the Japanese Empire’s all-out attempt to conquer mainland Asia. And even then, even AFTER the bulk of the Japanese forces were broken, the U.S. was forced to resort to nuclear weapons twice at the end because they were afraid of the losses that would have resulted from trying to invade the Japanese home islands a la Normandy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    The real world-class force in Japan was the Imperial Navy, which the United States almost single-handedly sent to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.

    The Japanese land forces were not a match for any western country. They only won against western forces when they had huge naval support and numbers in their favor like against the British in Singapore and the US in the Philippines. Their weaponry was out-dated and of poor quality. They relied on their Bushido code and the willingness of their soldiers to tolerate dreadful conditions such as when they were starved to near death on New Guinea. They couldn't even beat a poorly equipped Chinese Army.

    In short, the U.S. in World War II fought and defeated only A PART OF the Japanese Empire’s forces in the Pacific – the mostly defensive part that could be spared from the Japanese Empire’s all-out attempt to conquer mainland Asia. And even then, even AFTER the bulk of the Japanese forces were broken, the U.S. was forced to resort to nuclear weapons twice at the end because they were afraid of the losses that would have resulted from trying to invade the Japanese home islands a la Normandy.

    This is nothing but pure stupidity. The Japanese were beaten and completely defenseless against a US invasion. Yes, they were planning bonzai attacks with spears and sticks and would have killed a lot of Americans in those senseless charges but the US didn't have to resort to anything. The US could simply have kept the US Navy and Army Air Force running sortie after sortie for 5 years destroying their crops and bombing their cities until Japan starved to death, if they wanted to.
  91. ” And Armenians, as Christians, were working with Russians and foreign powers. ”

    Correct.
    As the Treaty of Sèvres of 1921 shows, the objective was to add nearly all of E Anatolia to the then Armenian kingdom.
    Therefore the Armenians in that area rebelled, the Ottomans defeated them, and deported them direction Syria.
    Armenians died during the deportation, never more than the names of 15.000 deaths could be specified.

    Henry Morgenthau, ‘Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story’, New York, 1918
    Heath W. Lowry, ‘The story behind Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story’, Istanbul 1990
    ‘The Armenians in the Late Ottoman Period’, edited Türkkaya Atatöv, Ankara, 2002.
    Howard M. Sachar, ‘The emergence of the Middle East 1914-1924’, New York, 1969
    Halil Gülbeyaz, ´Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Vom Staatsgründer zum Mythos’, Berlin 2004

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Correct.}

    Nope: Incorrect.

    {Therefore the Armenians in that area rebelled, the Ottomans defeated them, and deported them direction Syria.
    Armenians died during the deportation, never more than the names of 15.000 deaths could be specified.}

    You citing denialist shills like Heath W. Lowry, working for the Turk Denial Machine, and writing the nonsense above shows your desperation.

    Fortunately, we are slowly chipping away at the AG denial wall.
    You and your denialist ilk are a dwindling, disappearing minority.

    Your beloved Turkey will break apart into 3-4 pieces.
    Kemalist Turkistan, Islamist Turkistan, Alevi Turkistan, and Kurdistan.
    It will turn into another Iraq, with everybody killing everybody else forever.

    Armenians been around 5,000+ years.
    Have survived a lot, including a very nearly successful attempt by Turks to wipe them out.
    Armenians will have their day and Turks and their denialist allies will be processed.

    Have no doubt.

  92. @Priss Factor
    I despise Erdogan on lots of things, but he's doing a great thing here:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/istanbul-pride-riot-police-turkey-lgbt-rights-march-dogs-rubber-bullets-tear-gas-a7807656.html

    Some might call this Islam vs Secular, but Homomania is a New Religion that demands that we accept, ON FAITH, that homosexuality has equal value with real sexuality, has something to do with the rainbow, and is all about 'pride'.

    So, if this is about religion, it is about Islam vs Homomania(a new religion). Homomania demands obedience and it condemns those who speak honestly and critically about homo as heretical 'homophobes'.
    Also, Homomania creeps into churches and even demands that it be associated with Jesus and God. They insist that Sodom is the true home of spirituality.

    Ataturk was a great man and he founded a modern secular Turkey of sanity, decency, and dignity, not a decadent degenerate Turkey where the population would indulge and celebrate Homo 'pride' as a new religion.

    Back then, the West was indeed the most advanced and accomplished part of the world, and Turkey had much to learn by emulating nations like France, UK, and Germany.
    That was then, this is now. West is now only more advanced in science and technology. It is morally and culturally filthy. Worse, it's not even honest about its decadence and degeneracy but elevate them as the New Decency and New Holiness.

    Atatürk’s mistake was that he thought he could westernise Turkey by force.
    Even Stalin was unable to suppress religion, it was religion that liberated Iran from the USA puppet shah.
    Since Luther common people could talk and think about religion, in W Europe a process of hundreds of years was needed to liberate ourselves from church oppression.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Atatürk’s mistake was that he thought he could westernise Turkey by force.
    Even Stalin was unable to suppress religion, it was religion that liberated Iran from the USA puppet shah.


    Even so, the two are not comparable.

    Stalin & Bolshies destroyed 50,000 churches and sent priests to gulag, even killed many of them.

    Ataturk modernized much of Turkish society, esp state and education, but he allowed Islam to carry on in its own religious sphere.
  93. @Avery
    {The US isn’t always to blame.}


    Of course not.

    Imperial Japan occupied most of East Asia and murdered and enslaved millions of other Asians: Chinese, Koreans, Philippinos, .......

    The Rape of Nanking, 1937-1938, happened long before US came into the picture.
    The savage Japanese Imperial scum massacred up to 300,000 Chinese civilians.
    As bad as, albeit not as efficient, as the Nazi mass murders.

    To this day Japanese supremacist scum refuse to acknowledge their WW2 war crimes, including the massacre of Nanking.
    Hopefully some day Chinese will force the savages to pay for their crimes of Naking, occupation of China and war crimes committed there; occupation of Korea and war crimes committed there,....

    At the Japanese war trial show just the USA judges condemned, all the other judges did not see any war crimes.
    Among them the Indian and Dutch judge.

    Read More
  94. MarkinLA says:
    @Parbes
    "Remember that the US took on the Japanese empire single-handed."

    This is laughable historical ignorance on parade here. The U.S. did NOT "take on the Japanese empire single-handed" in World War II. The bulk of the Japanese land troops in World War II were preoccupied fighting in and trying to conquer China and Southeast Asia - NOT fighting the U.S. In fact, the Japanese attempt to conquer China and mainland Asia started LONG BEFORE Pearl Harbor in 1941; so for the Japanese, Pearl Harbor and the resulting Pacific War with the U.S. were actually a DISTRACTION from their main aim of conquering China and Southeast Asia. Pearl Harbor itself was a WARNING attack born of Japanese frustration with the U.S.' typically backstabbing, provocative aggressive moves toward Japan, just when Japanese forces were committed in Asia - as evidenced by the fact that it was not followed up by any attempted invasion of the mainland U.S. Western coast.

    Also, at the beginning of World War II the Japanese DID try to invade the Asian part of the Soviet Union in force, via Manchuria - but they were soundly defeated and repelled by the Soviets together with their Mongolian allies, so they gave up the attempt and concentrated instead on China and Southeast Asia.

    Plus, to say nothing of the fact that there were many British, Indian, Indochinese, Malay, Filipino etc. forces IN ADDITION TO the Chinese, who were fighting and tying down Japanese troops in Asia all through World War II - Japanese troops which therefore were prevented from facing the Americans.

    In short, the U.S. in World War II fought and defeated only A PART OF the Japanese Empire's forces in the Pacific - the mostly defensive part that could be spared from the Japanese Empire's all-out attempt to conquer mainland Asia. And even then, even AFTER the bulk of the Japanese forces were broken, the U.S. was forced to resort to nuclear weapons twice at the end because they were afraid of the losses that would have resulted from trying to invade the Japanese home islands a la Normandy.

    The real world-class force in Japan was the Imperial Navy, which the United States almost single-handedly sent to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.

    The Japanese land forces were not a match for any western country. They only won against western forces when they had huge naval support and numbers in their favor like against the British in Singapore and the US in the Philippines. Their weaponry was out-dated and of poor quality. They relied on their Bushido code and the willingness of their soldiers to tolerate dreadful conditions such as when they were starved to near death on New Guinea. They couldn’t even beat a poorly equipped Chinese Army.

    In short, the U.S. in World War II fought and defeated only A PART OF the Japanese Empire’s forces in the Pacific – the mostly defensive part that could be spared from the Japanese Empire’s all-out attempt to conquer mainland Asia. And even then, even AFTER the bulk of the Japanese forces were broken, the U.S. was forced to resort to nuclear weapons twice at the end because they were afraid of the losses that would have resulted from trying to invade the Japanese home islands a la Normandy.

    This is nothing but pure stupidity. The Japanese were beaten and completely defenseless against a US invasion. Yes, they were planning bonzai attacks with spears and sticks and would have killed a lot of Americans in those senseless charges but the US didn’t have to resort to anything. The US could simply have kept the US Navy and Army Air Force running sortie after sortie for 5 years destroying their crops and bombing their cities until Japan starved to death, if they wanted to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parbes
    "The real world-class force in Japan was the Imperial Navy..."

    Says who?? It is nothing but your biased subjective personal opinion to assert that the Japanese Imperial Navy was the "real" or the "only" world-class force that they had.

    "The Japanese land forces were not a match for any western country..."

    Oh really? They did pretty well against the Russians in 1904-1905 and against the British and allies in Southeast Asia in World War II - neither of which were negligible powers. Just another assertive opinion pulled out of your a__, which you try to present as incontrovertible truth.

    Anyhow, all this is not even the point. The commenter I was replying to said "the U.S. beat Japan singlehandedly in World War II", which is manifestly NOT true, given all the different foes I listed above that the Japanese were fighting on multiple fronts at the same time. And then he went on to construct a totally ignorant "what if" hypothetical by asking "What would have happened if the U.S. hadn't beaten Japan and Japan had been attacking the Soviet Union" when, in fact, as I wrote, Japan DID attack the Soviet Union along the Manchuria-Mongolia axis even BEFORE starting to fight the U.S., and was beaten back soundly - thereafter concentrating her conquest attempts on China and Southeast Asia.

    "This is nothing but pure stupidity. The Japanese were beaten and completely defenseless against a US invasion. Yes, they were planning bonzai attacks with spears and sticks..."

    The "pure stupidity" is nothing but yours. Your whole approach to this issue is simply jingoistic celebration of U.S. military "feats" and mindless repetition of self-serving U.S. World War II military mythology - not objective analysis based on facts and fair logic. Only an idiot would think that the Japanese would have fought against a U.S. amphibious invasion of their home islands with nothing but "spears and sticks"; or that the U.S. government chose to refrain from an amphibious landing invasion, instead preferring to use atomic bombs, against defenders who were capable of solely this sort of defense.
    , @Eagle Eye

    bonzai attacks with spears and sticks
     
    You mean spears and sticks from miniature "bonzai" trees? Most Japanese soldiers were not of giant stature, but this miniaturization seems excessive.

    Or is this a variation on Macbeth: "Japan shall never vanquished be, until Bonzai Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill Shall come against her?"

    Or did you mean "banzai!" attacks, i.e. suicide attacks while screaming "banzai!" - i.e. "[may the emperor live] ten thousand years!" - the Shinto equivalent of "Allahu Akbar!"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_thousand_years

    (Sorry couldn't resist responding to the typo ...)

  95. Carlo says:
    @KenH

    Your phrasing suggests this “disintegration” just sort of happened.
     
    Nothing happens in a vacuum. The Germans were always heavily outnumbered in men, tanks and equipment. Hell, the Wehrmact was still using horse drawn carriages for supply when they invaded in 1941. There came a point in 1943 when they couldn't replace their losses in men and equipment as successfully as the Russians.

    German civilian and industrial centers were being relentlessly carpet bombed by the U.S. and Royal Air Forces. How do you think the war would have turned out for Russia if the Japanese air force was carpet bombing Soviet weapons factories in the Urals as well as pummeling Moscow 24/7?

    Germany was fighting the U.S., U.K. and Russia at the same time. Russia only had to fight Germany.

    Another American who has to believe that nothing is possible in this world unless America allows it.
     
    Russia paid the bulk of the butcher's bill, but if you don't think the contributions of America and Britain helped the Russian war effort then you subscribe to a highly partisan account of the war. Lend-lease played a pivotal role in the early years, as did the "Red Orchestra" spy ring and the treason of Admiral Wilhelm Canaris.

    http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm

    “How do you think the war would have turned out for Russia if the Japanese air force was carpet bombing Soviet weapons factories in the Urals as well as pummeling Moscow 24/7? ”
    Do you have any idea how far the Urals are from Japan, or Japanese occupied Manchuria, or even the Russian Far East? No bomber had the range to get to the Urals at that time, this argument is just ridiculous.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    { No bomber had the range to get to the Urals at that time, this argument is just ridiculous.}

    During WW2 only 2 countries had battle-worthy long range bombers: US and UK.

    Neither Japan, nor Germany, nor USSR had anything that was in the league of the Lancaster and B29.

    Germany and Japan had excellent fighters, but no long-range bombers.

    , @KenH
    Do you have any idea how far the Urals are from Japan, or Japanese occupied Manchuria, or even the Russian Far East?
    I'm well aware of the incredible distance and the fact that Japan didn't have four engine, long distance bombers or that even then it wouldn't have been possible unless they had air bases deep inside Eastern Russia or perhaps on China's northwest border. I was trying to make a point that Russia's war effort would have been severely hampered if its factories were being bombed by a hostile third party much like Germany's were.

    I used Japan as an example since they were hostile to Soviet Russia and were at one time planning an invasion of Russia via Manchuria.
  96. @jilles dykstra
    Atatürk's mistake was that he thought he could westernise Turkey by force.
    Even Stalin was unable to suppress religion, it was religion that liberated Iran from the USA puppet shah.
    Since Luther common people could talk and think about religion, in W Europe a process of hundreds of years was needed to liberate ourselves from church oppression.

    Atatürk’s mistake was that he thought he could westernise Turkey by force.
    Even Stalin was unable to suppress religion, it was religion that liberated Iran from the USA puppet shah.

    Even so, the two are not comparable.

    Stalin & Bolshies destroyed 50,000 churches and sent priests to gulag, even killed many of them.

    Ataturk modernized much of Turkish society, esp state and education, but he allowed Islam to carry on in its own religious sphere.

    Read More
  97. annamaria says:

    The 2014 coup d’etat in Kiev had been plotted by US in advance:
    “…the U.S. government tenders to build NATO bases in Crimea, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia:” http://redpilltimes.com/u-s-navy-tender-construction-work-sevastopol-crimea-hints-u-s-military-coveted-controlling-historic-russian-peninsula/ http://thesaker.is/russia-sitrep-june-25-2017/
    the document was issued in Sep 05, 2013

    https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=2bb691b61c59be3a68180bd8c614a0cb&tab=core&_cview=1

    I light of the evidence, the US cooperation with neo-Nazis in Ukraine looks natural.
    “Support the troops,” neocon style.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eagle Eye
    Good and scary info - thanks.

    BTW as a little contribution to pushing back the MSM-emitted propaganda fog, I suggest each of us follow the Saker's suggestion (made some time ago) and go back to using the definite article in referring to this benighted border region: the Ukraine.

    The word "ukraina" simply means "border region" or, to use an ancient Western term, "march" (from which titles such as Marquis are derived). Kiev was the home of the Kiev Rus and thus of Russian civilization as such. There was never a cognizable nation called "the Ukraine."

    Ironically, Russian itself uses neither definite nor indefinite articles. The so-called Ukrainian language is basically Russian with g's pronounced as h's, thus Igor, Sergei and Grigoriy become Ihor, Serhei and Hrihoriy.

  98. Avery says:
    @Priss Factor
    Mustafa Kemal aka Ataturk was a psychopath, a genocidal mass murderer, and possibly a Dönmeh. He was also a closet homosexual.

    The Armenian business was ugly but how was it worse than what US did to Japan and Germany in WWII? Wars are ugly and bring out the worst side of a people.

    Btw, US even went totally crazy in mass killings in Korea and Vietnam, and those nations posed NO THREAT to the US, and unlike Japan, never attacked the US.

    In contrast, Turks acted extreme with Armenians because Turks felt an existential threat. They really feared the foreign great powers would cut up and destroy Turkey forever. And Armenians, as Christians, were working with Russians and foreign powers.

    Now, I'm not gonna justify the Armenian horror, but it was hardly different from similar such massacres all over Europe and Asia and Latin America and etc in the 20th century. US actions in Philippines were ugly too. And Japanese horrors in China, German horrors in Russia, French horrors in Algeria, etc. were worse.
    At least the Turks were trying to secure their own borders that were then under attack by all sides.

    As for Ataturk being a closet-Jew or closet-homo, I'll leave that up to you.

    I'm just judging him by what he did, not what he may have been. He was a great fascist leader who combined nationalism, modernism, and humanism. One thing for sure, if Mussolini and Hitler had been like him, the 20th century would have been a wonderful century.

    And even if he was a homo, he kept it to himself. It's like Frederick the Great was prolly a homo, but he was a great leader. A homo can act dignified.

    Regarding the homosexual stuff:
    I don’t care either way, as long as it is not flaunted or ‘paraded’.
    There are homosexuals and there are homosexuals.
    But I didn’t bring up the homosexual stuff: you did.
    I pointed out that Kemal had nothing to do with Turkey, in 2017, banning homo pride marches. If you want to give credit, then it goes to the Islamist AK Party and Erdogan, not Kemal. Islamist AK Party and Erdogan are the diametric opposite of Kemal and secular Kemalists.

    In fact, I do not know a single Muslim country that allows open display of homosexuality (…..although behind close doors there is aplenty homosexuality, including homosexual paedophilia.)


    {He was a great fascist leader who combined nationalism, modernism, and humanism. }

    Humanism?
    Really?
    You have a very strange notion what ‘humanism’ means.
    Kemal continued the Armenian Genocide started by the Young Turks in 1915. He is responsible for the murders of several hundred thousand additional Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek victims up to 1923.

    He also ordered the massacre of Dersim Kurds/Zaza/Alevis in 1937-1938, just before his death. Up 90,000, mostly civilians, were savagely murdered by Turks on his orders. E.g. people seeking shelter in caves were burnt and smoke-gassed to death.


    {…. Armenians, as Christians, were working with Russians and foreign powers.}

    A regurgitation of Turkish denialist disinformation and propaganda.
    Your irrational admiration for Kemal and Turks is an indication that you know very little about the history of Armenians, Assyrians, Pontic Greeks, invadonomad Turks, and Asia Minor.

    btw: in 1894-1896 Turk Sultan Hamid massacred 300,000 Armenians. Were Armenians working with Russians then too?

    Were Christian Assyrians supposedly working with Russians too, that they too were subjected to Genocide by Muslim Turks starting 1915?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Regarding the homosexual stuff:
    I don’t care either way, as long as it is not flaunted or ‘paraded’.
    There are homosexuals and there are homosexuals.
    But I didn’t bring up the homosexual stuff: you did.


    The issue isn't homosexuality. It is homomania. Every nation has homos. The thing is globalism urges nations to CELEBRATE and even WORSHIP homosexuality.
    I support Erdogan's move against homomania.

    I pointed out that Kemal had nothing to do with Turkey, in 2017, banning homo pride marches. If you want to give credit, then it goes to the Islamist AK Party and Erdogan, not Kemal. Islamist AK Party and Erdogan are the diametric opposite of Kemal and secular Kemalists.

    Of course, he didn't. He's been dead for a long time.
    Also, today's Kemalists are not the same as the ones of Ataturk's time. Many are opportunists, materialists, and cynical operators. They will DO ANYTHING to be good graces with the decadent West. We can't blame Kemal Ataturk for the state of today's Kemalism anymore than we can blame the degeneracy of today's 'liberalism' on FDR and Truman, who for all their faults, were nationalists.

    Humanism?
    Really?
    You have a very strange notion what ‘humanism’ means.
    Kemal continued the Armenian Genocide started by the Young Turks in 1915. He is responsible for the murders of several hundred thousand additional Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek victims up to 1923.


    Everything has to be seen in context. The fact is Ataturk didn't ideologically regard certain peoples as less-than-human based on ethnicity or class. That violence happened in the context of the fall of Ottoman Empire and all the violence it unleashed. So, as horrible as it was, what happened in Turkey wasn't any different from what happened in other parts of the world under similar circumstances. The North committed some serious atrocities in the Civil War. And US expansion westward led to much violence against Indians. Andrew Jackson was a great president but he has blood on his hands. Eisenhower was a great commander, but some of his decisions led to horrors visited on Germans. And Poles and Czechs after WWII took horrific revenge on Germans who were ethnically cleansed. By some estimates, close to a million died.
    The warring state period in China after fall of central government led to much bloodshed. The breakup of Yugoslavia led to horrible atrocities committed by all sides. US sanctions on Iraq killed a lot of people, though probably not as high as some have estimated: in the 100,000s.
    Also, we have to keep in mind that when, say, Greeks or Armenians or any other people got an upperhand against Turks, they also carried out atrocities.
    So, the violence back then in Turkey has to be seen in that context. Also, Turkish borders were not so secure. Also, as a modern nation with restless minorities, Turkish government felt a need to send a strong message to all groups to accept central authority. But the same thing happened in all newly created nations, especially if they were diverse. Consider how the creation of India and Pakistan led to a war that led to at least 1 million deaths, by some estimates as high as 3 million.

    Also, the British and French used ruthless methods to suppress unrest in all parts of the empire. And Zionists have shown the will to use harsh measures against Palestinians.

    Now, it's true enough that Turkey hasn't faced up to the full extent of its horrors and atrocities, but this is true of so many peoples. Chinese have yet to square thing about Mao. Jews haven't been honest about their role in the 20th century as communist mass-killers and globalist neo-imperialists and as Zionists. It took a long long time for Soviets to finally fess up about Katyn.
    And US still maintains the myth that it needed to nuke Japan. And how many Americans really know about the full extent of bombing of Korea. Or how the US aided not only Afghan patriots but foreign Jihadi terrorist elements in Afghanistan in the 80s?

    Another thing. We have to compare Ataturk with other men of his time. Considering that the 20th century was filled with leaders like Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, and others, I think Ataturk comes across much better. He was no saint, but he was comparatively sane and balanced.
  99. […] The Latest Escalation in Syria – What Is Really Going On? Just try to imagine this: you are flying, in total illegality, over hostile territory and preparing to strike a target when suddenly your radar warning receiver goes off and tells you “you got 30 seconds or (much?) less to decide whether there is a 300lbs (150kg) warhead coming at you at 4000mph (6400kmh) or not”. […]

    Read More
  100. Avery says:
    @jilles dykstra
    " And Armenians, as Christians, were working with Russians and foreign powers. "

    Correct.
    As the Treaty of Sèvres of 1921 shows, the objective was to add nearly all of E Anatolia to the then Armenian kingdom.
    Therefore the Armenians in that area rebelled, the Ottomans defeated them, and deported them direction Syria.
    Armenians died during the deportation, never more than the names of 15.000 deaths could be specified.

    Henry Morgenthau, 'Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', New York, 1918
    Heath W. Lowry, 'The story behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', Istanbul 1990
    'The Armenians in the Late Ottoman Period', edited Türkkaya Atatöv, Ankara, 2002.
    Howard M. Sachar, ‘The emergence of the Middle East 1914-1924’, New York, 1969
    Halil Gülbeyaz, ´Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Vom Staatsgründer zum Mythos’, Berlin 2004

    {Correct.}

    Nope: Incorrect.

    {Therefore the Armenians in that area rebelled, the Ottomans defeated them, and deported them direction Syria.
    Armenians died during the deportation, never more than the names of 15.000 deaths could be specified.}

    You citing denialist shills like Heath W. Lowry, working for the Turk Denial Machine, and writing the nonsense above shows your desperation.

    Fortunately, we are slowly chipping away at the AG denial wall.
    You and your denialist ilk are a dwindling, disappearing minority.

    Your beloved Turkey will break apart into 3-4 pieces.
    Kemalist Turkistan, Islamist Turkistan, Alevi Turkistan, and Kurdistan.
    It will turn into another Iraq, with everybody killing everybody else forever.

    Armenians been around 5,000+ years.
    Have survived a lot, including a very nearly successful attempt by Turks to wipe them out.
    Armenians will have their day and Turks and their denialist allies will be processed.

    Have no doubt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    You are always good for a laugh!!

    In this new hysterical rant of yours you have demonstrated very clearly that you don't believe in free speech and inquiry at all, and "history" for you is just something to be used as a weapon.
    Of course this ain't surprising, given that to this day u repeat the imbecilic claim that modern Turks from Turkey are nomad savages(uighers) from China!! What an Idiot... and sad little liar...

    P.S. The massacre of Nanking, as alleged, is atrocity propaganda... a big hoax...
  101. L.K says:
    @Avery
    {Correct.}

    Nope: Incorrect.

    {Therefore the Armenians in that area rebelled, the Ottomans defeated them, and deported them direction Syria.
    Armenians died during the deportation, never more than the names of 15.000 deaths could be specified.}

    You citing denialist shills like Heath W. Lowry, working for the Turk Denial Machine, and writing the nonsense above shows your desperation.

    Fortunately, we are slowly chipping away at the AG denial wall.
    You and your denialist ilk are a dwindling, disappearing minority.

    Your beloved Turkey will break apart into 3-4 pieces.
    Kemalist Turkistan, Islamist Turkistan, Alevi Turkistan, and Kurdistan.
    It will turn into another Iraq, with everybody killing everybody else forever.

    Armenians been around 5,000+ years.
    Have survived a lot, including a very nearly successful attempt by Turks to wipe them out.
    Armenians will have their day and Turks and their denialist allies will be processed.

    Have no doubt.

    You are always good for a laugh!!

    In this new hysterical rant of yours you have demonstrated very clearly that you don’t believe in free speech and inquiry at all, and “history” for you is just something to be used as a weapon.
    Of course this ain’t surprising, given that to this day u repeat the imbecilic claim that modern Turks from Turkey are nomad savages(uighers) from China!! What an Idiot… and sad little liar…

    P.S. The massacre of Nanking, as alleged, is atrocity propaganda… a big hoax…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {You are always good for a laugh!!}

    I didn't know Schweinhunden could laugh !!!!!!!!! (more !!....!!! than U, pig: so there).

    { What an Idiot… and sad little liar…}

    Brownshirt lowbrow Neanderthal mongrel.POS™ calling a noble ethnos, an Armenian, a, quote, 'Idiot'.
    Who is the idiot, pig?

    Remember the picture of chunks of pork of your Nazi forbears being turned into fertilizer outside Stalingrad ?
    And Red Army troops pissing on the bio-chars of Nazi pig-scum?
    Who is the idiot, Schweinhund.

    neo-Nazi VaginaHund mongrel.POS™.

  102. Avery says:
    @L.K
    You are always good for a laugh!!

    In this new hysterical rant of yours you have demonstrated very clearly that you don't believe in free speech and inquiry at all, and "history" for you is just something to be used as a weapon.
    Of course this ain't surprising, given that to this day u repeat the imbecilic claim that modern Turks from Turkey are nomad savages(uighers) from China!! What an Idiot... and sad little liar...

    P.S. The massacre of Nanking, as alleged, is atrocity propaganda... a big hoax...

    {You are always good for a laugh!!}

    I didn’t know Schweinhunden could laugh !!!!!!!!! (more !!….!!! than U, pig: so there).

    { What an Idiot… and sad little liar…}

    Brownshirt lowbrow Neanderthal mongrel.POS™ calling a noble ethnos, an Armenian, a, quote, ‘Idiot’.
    Who is the idiot, pig?

    Remember the picture of chunks of pork of your Nazi forbears being turned into fertilizer outside Stalingrad ?
    And Red Army troops pissing on the bio-chars of Nazi pig-scum?
    Who is the idiot, Schweinhund.

    neo-Nazi VaginaHund mongrel.POS™.

    Read More
    • LOL: L.K
    • Replies: @L.K
    Asshat avery: "Brownshirt lowbrow Neanderthal mongrel.POS™ calling a noble ethnos, an Armenian, a, quote, ‘Idiot’.
    Who is the idiot, pig?"

    You are, of course; Idiot, liar and hysteric!

    You kill me with this 'noble ethnos' BS... too funny, keep it coming! :-)
    BTW, not all Armenians are idiots... but you are an idiot who happens to be Armenian... a typical village idiot!

    Say, imbecile, given that all serious records indicate that Nanking, which was not a very large city, had at most some 200.000 people in it at the time of the alleged incident, the 35.000-50.000 combatant contingent included, how could the Japanese have killed 300.000?
    Did they kill some of them twice?
    After the fighting in the city subsided many refugees who had left returned. Would they have returned if the evil japs had killed every Chinese in sight?
    By late May the population had swelled to nearly 280.000.
  103. @Avery
    Regarding the homosexual stuff:
    I don't care either way, as long as it is not flaunted or 'paraded'.
    There are homosexuals and there are homosexuals.
    But I didn't bring up the homosexual stuff: you did.
    I pointed out that Kemal had nothing to do with Turkey, in 2017, banning homo pride marches. If you want to give credit, then it goes to the Islamist AK Party and Erdogan, not Kemal. Islamist AK Party and Erdogan are the diametric opposite of Kemal and secular Kemalists.

    In fact, I do not know a single Muslim country that allows open display of homosexuality (.....although behind close doors there is aplenty homosexuality, including homosexual paedophilia.)


    {He was a great fascist leader who combined nationalism, modernism, and humanism. }

    Humanism?
    Really?
    You have a very strange notion what 'humanism' means.
    Kemal continued the Armenian Genocide started by the Young Turks in 1915. He is responsible for the murders of several hundred thousand additional Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek victims up to 1923.

    He also ordered the massacre of Dersim Kurds/Zaza/Alevis in 1937-1938, just before his death. Up 90,000, mostly civilians, were savagely murdered by Turks on his orders. E.g. people seeking shelter in caves were burnt and smoke-gassed to death.


    {.... Armenians, as Christians, were working with Russians and foreign powers.}

    A regurgitation of Turkish denialist disinformation and propaganda.
    Your irrational admiration for Kemal and Turks is an indication that you know very little about the history of Armenians, Assyrians, Pontic Greeks, invadonomad Turks, and Asia Minor.

    btw: in 1894-1896 Turk Sultan Hamid massacred 300,000 Armenians. Were Armenians working with Russians then too?

    Were Christian Assyrians supposedly working with Russians too, that they too were subjected to Genocide by Muslim Turks starting 1915?

    Regarding the homosexual stuff:
    I don’t care either way, as long as it is not flaunted or ‘paraded’.
    There are homosexuals and there are homosexuals.
    But I didn’t bring up the homosexual stuff: you did.

    The issue isn’t homosexuality. It is homomania. Every nation has homos. The thing is globalism urges nations to CELEBRATE and even WORSHIP homosexuality.
    I support Erdogan’s move against homomania.

    I pointed out that Kemal had nothing to do with Turkey, in 2017, banning homo pride marches. If you want to give credit, then it goes to the Islamist AK Party and Erdogan, not Kemal. Islamist AK Party and Erdogan are the diametric opposite of Kemal and secular Kemalists.

    Of course, he didn’t. He’s been dead for a long time.
    Also, today’s Kemalists are not the same as the ones of Ataturk’s time. Many are opportunists, materialists, and cynical operators. They will DO ANYTHING to be good graces with the decadent West. We can’t blame Kemal Ataturk for the state of today’s Kemalism anymore than we can blame the degeneracy of today’s ‘liberalism’ on FDR and Truman, who for all their faults, were nationalists.

    Humanism?
    Really?
    You have a very strange notion what ‘humanism’ means.
    Kemal continued the Armenian Genocide started by the Young Turks in 1915. He is responsible for the murders of several hundred thousand additional Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek victims up to 1923.

    Everything has to be seen in context. The fact is Ataturk didn’t ideologically regard certain peoples as less-than-human based on ethnicity or class. That violence happened in the context of the fall of Ottoman Empire and all the violence it unleashed. So, as horrible as it was, what happened in Turkey wasn’t any different from what happened in other parts of the world under similar circumstances. The North committed some serious atrocities in the Civil War. And US expansion westward led to much violence against Indians. Andrew Jackson was a great president but he has blood on his hands. Eisenhower was a great commander, but some of his decisions led to horrors visited on Germans. And Poles and Czechs after WWII took horrific revenge on Germans who were ethnically cleansed. By some estimates, close to a million died.
    The warring state period in China after fall of central government led to much bloodshed. The breakup of Yugoslavia led to horrible atrocities committed by all sides. US sanctions on Iraq killed a lot of people, though probably not as high as some have estimated: in the 100,000s.
    Also, we have to keep in mind that when, say, Greeks or Armenians or any other people got an upperhand against Turks, they also carried out atrocities.
    So, the violence back then in Turkey has to be seen in that context. Also, Turkish borders were not so secure. Also, as a modern nation with restless minorities, Turkish government felt a need to send a strong message to all groups to accept central authority. But the same thing happened in all newly created nations, especially if they were diverse. Consider how the creation of India and Pakistan led to a war that led to at least 1 million deaths, by some estimates as high as 3 million.

    Also, the British and French used ruthless methods to suppress unrest in all parts of the empire. And Zionists have shown the will to use harsh measures against Palestinians.

    Now, it’s true enough that Turkey hasn’t faced up to the full extent of its horrors and atrocities, but this is true of so many peoples. Chinese have yet to square thing about Mao. Jews haven’t been honest about their role in the 20th century as communist mass-killers and globalist neo-imperialists and as Zionists. It took a long long time for Soviets to finally fess up about Katyn.
    And US still maintains the myth that it needed to nuke Japan. And how many Americans really know about the full extent of bombing of Korea. Or how the US aided not only Afghan patriots but foreign Jihadi terrorist elements in Afghanistan in the 80s?

    Another thing. We have to compare Ataturk with other men of his time. Considering that the 20th century was filled with leaders like Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, and others, I think Ataturk comes across much better. He was no saint, but he was comparatively sane and balanced.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {...the 20th century was filled with leaders like Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, and others, I think Ataturk comes across much better.}

    You putting Idi Amin (WTF ?!) and Saddam Hussein (WTF) in the same league as Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, and Mao shows that you have no clue, Homes.
    Idi Amin ?
    Seriously?

    Your assessment of Mustafa Kemal as 'much better' is therefore just as vacuous and just as clueless.

  104. Avery says:
    @Carlo
    "How do you think the war would have turned out for Russia if the Japanese air force was carpet bombing Soviet weapons factories in the Urals as well as pummeling Moscow 24/7? "
    Do you have any idea how far the Urals are from Japan, or Japanese occupied Manchuria, or even the Russian Far East? No bomber had the range to get to the Urals at that time, this argument is just ridiculous.

    { No bomber had the range to get to the Urals at that time, this argument is just ridiculous.}

    During WW2 only 2 countries had battle-worthy long range bombers: US and UK.

    Neither Japan, nor Germany, nor USSR had anything that was in the league of the Lancaster and B29.

    Germany and Japan had excellent fighters, but no long-range bombers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Japanese fighters weren't all that. The Zero had a decent flight envelope but a lot of that was due to it's serious weaknesses. They did not have self sealing fuel tanks and the cockpit wasn't armored. The plane was not very survivable in combat.

    After Pearl Harbor and their initial success, the Japanese planes never did keep up technologically with those of the west and we had the Marianas Turkey Shoot.

    http://www.vf31.com/sorties/marianas_turkey_shoot.html
  105. Parbes says:
    @MarkinLA
    The real world-class force in Japan was the Imperial Navy, which the United States almost single-handedly sent to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.

    The Japanese land forces were not a match for any western country. They only won against western forces when they had huge naval support and numbers in their favor like against the British in Singapore and the US in the Philippines. Their weaponry was out-dated and of poor quality. They relied on their Bushido code and the willingness of their soldiers to tolerate dreadful conditions such as when they were starved to near death on New Guinea. They couldn't even beat a poorly equipped Chinese Army.

    In short, the U.S. in World War II fought and defeated only A PART OF the Japanese Empire’s forces in the Pacific – the mostly defensive part that could be spared from the Japanese Empire’s all-out attempt to conquer mainland Asia. And even then, even AFTER the bulk of the Japanese forces were broken, the U.S. was forced to resort to nuclear weapons twice at the end because they were afraid of the losses that would have resulted from trying to invade the Japanese home islands a la Normandy.

    This is nothing but pure stupidity. The Japanese were beaten and completely defenseless against a US invasion. Yes, they were planning bonzai attacks with spears and sticks and would have killed a lot of Americans in those senseless charges but the US didn't have to resort to anything. The US could simply have kept the US Navy and Army Air Force running sortie after sortie for 5 years destroying their crops and bombing their cities until Japan starved to death, if they wanted to.

    “The real world-class force in Japan was the Imperial Navy…”

    Says who?? It is nothing but your biased subjective personal opinion to assert that the Japanese Imperial Navy was the “real” or the “only” world-class force that they had.

    “The Japanese land forces were not a match for any western country…”

    Oh really? They did pretty well against the Russians in 1904-1905 and against the British and allies in Southeast Asia in World War II – neither of which were negligible powers. Just another assertive opinion pulled out of your a__, which you try to present as incontrovertible truth.

    Anyhow, all this is not even the point. The commenter I was replying to said “the U.S. beat Japan singlehandedly in World War II”, which is manifestly NOT true, given all the different foes I listed above that the Japanese were fighting on multiple fronts at the same time. And then he went on to construct a totally ignorant “what if” hypothetical by asking “What would have happened if the U.S. hadn’t beaten Japan and Japan had been attacking the Soviet Union” when, in fact, as I wrote, Japan DID attack the Soviet Union along the Manchuria-Mongolia axis even BEFORE starting to fight the U.S., and was beaten back soundly – thereafter concentrating her conquest attempts on China and Southeast Asia.

    “This is nothing but pure stupidity. The Japanese were beaten and completely defenseless against a US invasion. Yes, they were planning bonzai attacks with spears and sticks…”

    The “pure stupidity” is nothing but yours. Your whole approach to this issue is simply jingoistic celebration of U.S. military “feats” and mindless repetition of self-serving U.S. World War II military mythology – not objective analysis based on facts and fair logic. Only an idiot would think that the Japanese would have fought against a U.S. amphibious invasion of their home islands with nothing but “spears and sticks”; or that the U.S. government chose to refrain from an amphibious landing invasion, instead preferring to use atomic bombs, against defenders who were capable of solely this sort of defense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    All the forces fighting the "foes" of Japan would have been totally useless in the defense of Japan since the Imperial Navy was at the bottom of the ocean. The Japanese Army left in the home islands was short on everything and their equipment was so outdated to be almost useless. That is why the Japanese government was having the entire country drill for suicide attacks by the civilian population in the hopes of giving the US forces one big punch in the nose in the hopes of getting a peace agreement that did not include unconditional surrender. Of course, the real result would have been similar to those silly human wave attacks where hundreds of Japanese were mowed down by machine guns without so much a inflicting any significant casualties.

    See, being stupid, you don't see the difference between the war in Japan and the war in Europe. The US Navy DID single handedly beat Japan because it cut off any meaningful Japanese forces from their ability to fight in any meaningful way. Plenty of cut off Japanese forces were left to rot and starve to death on islands not worth retaking. The only reason why the US recaptured the Philippines was because they didn't want to embarrass MacArthur - there was no military need for doing it.
    , @MarkinLA
    The use of an atomic bomb was a political one. Of course, some Americans are going to die in any amphibious invasion. However, given the Japanese military's sorry state of supply, the casualty rate for the US would have been far lower than during the island hoping done earlier. Truman didn't want to hear from mothers who sons died for nothing in Japan when it was announced the US had an atomic bomb but chose not to use it for "humanitarian" reasons.

    Truman made the decision that the bomb might finally let the fools in the Japanese military see they were beaten and surrender with far less loss of life to both sides than if there was an invasion.

    Try using your head for a change. Japan is an island with little in the way of natural resources of it's own that can be utilized for military purposes. It's factories were in ruins and it's shipyards destroyed. The US had complete air superiority. The US Navy simply could have strangled Japan into capitulation.
  106. Eagle Eye says:
    @MarkinLA
    The real world-class force in Japan was the Imperial Navy, which the United States almost single-handedly sent to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.

    The Japanese land forces were not a match for any western country. They only won against western forces when they had huge naval support and numbers in their favor like against the British in Singapore and the US in the Philippines. Their weaponry was out-dated and of poor quality. They relied on their Bushido code and the willingness of their soldiers to tolerate dreadful conditions such as when they were starved to near death on New Guinea. They couldn't even beat a poorly equipped Chinese Army.

    In short, the U.S. in World War II fought and defeated only A PART OF the Japanese Empire’s forces in the Pacific – the mostly defensive part that could be spared from the Japanese Empire’s all-out attempt to conquer mainland Asia. And even then, even AFTER the bulk of the Japanese forces were broken, the U.S. was forced to resort to nuclear weapons twice at the end because they were afraid of the losses that would have resulted from trying to invade the Japanese home islands a la Normandy.

    This is nothing but pure stupidity. The Japanese were beaten and completely defenseless against a US invasion. Yes, they were planning bonzai attacks with spears and sticks and would have killed a lot of Americans in those senseless charges but the US didn't have to resort to anything. The US could simply have kept the US Navy and Army Air Force running sortie after sortie for 5 years destroying their crops and bombing their cities until Japan starved to death, if they wanted to.

    bonzai attacks with spears and sticks

    You mean spears and sticks from miniature “bonzai” trees? Most Japanese soldiers were not of giant stature, but this miniaturization seems excessive.

    Or is this a variation on Macbeth: “Japan shall never vanquished be, until Bonzai Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill Shall come against her?”

    Or did you mean “banzai!” attacks, i.e. suicide attacks while screaming “banzai!” – i.e. “[may the emperor live] ten thousand years!” – the Shinto equivalent of “Allahu Akbar!”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_thousand_years

    (Sorry couldn’t resist responding to the typo …)

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Yes, there is old captured documentary film about the civilian population of Japan being trained with sticks to do human wave attacks on the Americans when they invade the home islands. Now when the real attacks came they probably would have had farm implements instead of sticks but against machine guns and semi-automatic rifles it would have been hard for the people in the back to climb over the wall of dead bodies. These were the same silly attacks done by Japanese troops when they finally ran out of ammunition during those island battles.

    Sorry about the incorrect spelling.
    , @MarkinLA
    Good comment actually, I learned something about those attacks. I already knew about the horticulture but didn't do as good a search as I needed for the correct spelling.
  107. KenH says:
    @Carlo
    "How do you think the war would have turned out for Russia if the Japanese air force was carpet bombing Soviet weapons factories in the Urals as well as pummeling Moscow 24/7? "
    Do you have any idea how far the Urals are from Japan, or Japanese occupied Manchuria, or even the Russian Far East? No bomber had the range to get to the Urals at that time, this argument is just ridiculous.

    Do you have any idea how far the Urals are from Japan, or Japanese occupied Manchuria, or even the Russian Far East?
    I’m well aware of the incredible distance and the fact that Japan didn’t have four engine, long distance bombers or that even then it wouldn’t have been possible unless they had air bases deep inside Eastern Russia or perhaps on China’s northwest border. I was trying to make a point that Russia’s war effort would have been severely hampered if its factories were being bombed by a hostile third party much like Germany’s were.

    I used Japan as an example since they were hostile to Soviet Russia and were at one time planning an invasion of Russia via Manchuria.

    Read More
  108. Eagle Eye says:
    @annamaria
    The 2014 coup d'etat in Kiev had been plotted by US in advance:
    "...the U.S. government tenders to build NATO bases in Crimea, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia:" http://redpilltimes.com/u-s-navy-tender-construction-work-sevastopol-crimea-hints-u-s-military-coveted-controlling-historic-russian-peninsula/ http://thesaker.is/russia-sitrep-june-25-2017/
    the document was issued in Sep 05, 2013
    https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=2bb691b61c59be3a68180bd8c614a0cb&tab=core&_cview=1
    I light of the evidence, the US cooperation with neo-Nazis in Ukraine looks natural.
    "Support the troops," neocon style.

    Good and scary info – thanks.

    BTW as a little contribution to pushing back the MSM-emitted propaganda fog, I suggest each of us follow the Saker’s suggestion (made some time ago) and go back to using the definite article in referring to this benighted border region: the Ukraine.

    The word “ukraina” simply means “border region” or, to use an ancient Western term, “march” (from which titles such as Marquis are derived). Kiev was the home of the Kiev Rus and thus of Russian civilization as such. There was never a cognizable nation called “the Ukraine.”

    Ironically, Russian itself uses neither definite nor indefinite articles. The so-called Ukrainian language is basically Russian with g’s pronounced as h’s, thus Igor, Sergei and Grigoriy become Ihor, Serhei and Hrihoriy.

    Read More
  109. Avery says:
    @Priss Factor
    Regarding the homosexual stuff:
    I don’t care either way, as long as it is not flaunted or ‘paraded’.
    There are homosexuals and there are homosexuals.
    But I didn’t bring up the homosexual stuff: you did.


    The issue isn't homosexuality. It is homomania. Every nation has homos. The thing is globalism urges nations to CELEBRATE and even WORSHIP homosexuality.
    I support Erdogan's move against homomania.

    I pointed out that Kemal had nothing to do with Turkey, in 2017, banning homo pride marches. If you want to give credit, then it goes to the Islamist AK Party and Erdogan, not Kemal. Islamist AK Party and Erdogan are the diametric opposite of Kemal and secular Kemalists.

    Of course, he didn't. He's been dead for a long time.
    Also, today's Kemalists are not the same as the ones of Ataturk's time. Many are opportunists, materialists, and cynical operators. They will DO ANYTHING to be good graces with the decadent West. We can't blame Kemal Ataturk for the state of today's Kemalism anymore than we can blame the degeneracy of today's 'liberalism' on FDR and Truman, who for all their faults, were nationalists.

    Humanism?
    Really?
    You have a very strange notion what ‘humanism’ means.
    Kemal continued the Armenian Genocide started by the Young Turks in 1915. He is responsible for the murders of several hundred thousand additional Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek victims up to 1923.


    Everything has to be seen in context. The fact is Ataturk didn't ideologically regard certain peoples as less-than-human based on ethnicity or class. That violence happened in the context of the fall of Ottoman Empire and all the violence it unleashed. So, as horrible as it was, what happened in Turkey wasn't any different from what happened in other parts of the world under similar circumstances. The North committed some serious atrocities in the Civil War. And US expansion westward led to much violence against Indians. Andrew Jackson was a great president but he has blood on his hands. Eisenhower was a great commander, but some of his decisions led to horrors visited on Germans. And Poles and Czechs after WWII took horrific revenge on Germans who were ethnically cleansed. By some estimates, close to a million died.
    The warring state period in China after fall of central government led to much bloodshed. The breakup of Yugoslavia led to horrible atrocities committed by all sides. US sanctions on Iraq killed a lot of people, though probably not as high as some have estimated: in the 100,000s.
    Also, we have to keep in mind that when, say, Greeks or Armenians or any other people got an upperhand against Turks, they also carried out atrocities.
    So, the violence back then in Turkey has to be seen in that context. Also, Turkish borders were not so secure. Also, as a modern nation with restless minorities, Turkish government felt a need to send a strong message to all groups to accept central authority. But the same thing happened in all newly created nations, especially if they were diverse. Consider how the creation of India and Pakistan led to a war that led to at least 1 million deaths, by some estimates as high as 3 million.

    Also, the British and French used ruthless methods to suppress unrest in all parts of the empire. And Zionists have shown the will to use harsh measures against Palestinians.

    Now, it's true enough that Turkey hasn't faced up to the full extent of its horrors and atrocities, but this is true of so many peoples. Chinese have yet to square thing about Mao. Jews haven't been honest about their role in the 20th century as communist mass-killers and globalist neo-imperialists and as Zionists. It took a long long time for Soviets to finally fess up about Katyn.
    And US still maintains the myth that it needed to nuke Japan. And how many Americans really know about the full extent of bombing of Korea. Or how the US aided not only Afghan patriots but foreign Jihadi terrorist elements in Afghanistan in the 80s?

    Another thing. We have to compare Ataturk with other men of his time. Considering that the 20th century was filled with leaders like Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, and others, I think Ataturk comes across much better. He was no saint, but he was comparatively sane and balanced.

    {…the 20th century was filled with leaders like Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, and others, I think Ataturk comes across much better.}

    You putting Idi Amin (WTF ?!) and Saddam Hussein (WTF) in the same league as Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, and Mao shows that you have no clue, Homes.
    Idi Amin ?
    Seriously?

    Your assessment of Mustafa Kemal as ‘much better’ is therefore just as vacuous and just as clueless.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Idi Amin ?
    Seriously?


    You may be right. He laughed at the comparison.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XqejqUK83A

    But he was prophetic about American politics.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HGr9lxkwvA
  110. @Avery
    {...the 20th century was filled with leaders like Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, and others, I think Ataturk comes across much better.}

    You putting Idi Amin (WTF ?!) and Saddam Hussein (WTF) in the same league as Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, and Mao shows that you have no clue, Homes.
    Idi Amin ?
    Seriously?

    Your assessment of Mustafa Kemal as 'much better' is therefore just as vacuous and just as clueless.

    Idi Amin ?
    Seriously?

    You may be right. He laughed at the comparison.

    But he was prophetic about American politics.

    Read More
  111. L.K says:
    @Avery
    {You are always good for a laugh!!}

    I didn't know Schweinhunden could laugh !!!!!!!!! (more !!....!!! than U, pig: so there).

    { What an Idiot… and sad little liar…}

    Brownshirt lowbrow Neanderthal mongrel.POS™ calling a noble ethnos, an Armenian, a, quote, 'Idiot'.
    Who is the idiot, pig?

    Remember the picture of chunks of pork of your Nazi forbears being turned into fertilizer outside Stalingrad ?
    And Red Army troops pissing on the bio-chars of Nazi pig-scum?
    Who is the idiot, Schweinhund.

    neo-Nazi VaginaHund mongrel.POS™.

    Asshat avery: “Brownshirt lowbrow Neanderthal mongrel.POS™ calling a noble ethnos, an Armenian, a, quote, ‘Idiot’.
    Who is the idiot, pig?”

    You are, of course; Idiot, liar and hysteric!

    You kill me with this ‘noble ethnos’ BS… too funny, keep it coming! :-)
    BTW, not all Armenians are idiots… but you are an idiot who happens to be Armenian… a typical village idiot!

    Say, imbecile, given that all serious records indicate that Nanking, which was not a very large city, had at most some 200.000 people in it at the time of the alleged incident, the 35.000-50.000 combatant contingent included, how could the Japanese have killed 300.000?
    Did they kill some of them twice?
    After the fighting in the city subsided many refugees who had left returned. Would they have returned if the evil japs had killed every Chinese in sight?
    By late May the population had swelled to nearly 280.000.

    Read More
  112. Sean says:
    @Max Havelaar
    It's about Injustice, crime and War.

    In a oneworldgovernment (=communism), the war will be covert, using militarized militia's of the different megacorporate-fascist orgs, competing for revenue.

    And the internal war's will contnue, like now, in the USA, the crimes are done by CIA/FBI/DHS and affiliated intelligence agencies, making up Fake ennemies to keep the masses divided.

    A planet with sovereign, independent nations, armies and central banks, no few Big bully's dominating others like now, who come together to create:

    International Law based on Justice for all (Declaration of human rights). Only for countires agreeing.
    Fair trade between all nations, a ban on trade embargo's forever. Only high-tech arms.
    Planetary disaster emergency centers around the globe, to deliver aid fast everywhere.
    And much more to boost real wages and so economic growth.

    Theoretical deductions all, because the world has never been like that, and unless one believes in a God who created the world so that economies would grow if left alone (or tampered with), no reason to believe any particular system would result in stable growth. Moreover, and as Galbraith said, economists attack what they find inconvenient and nations are inconvenient for a world order based on economics. Every economist (and philosopher, scientist, thinker, or Miss Universe) has thought abolishing aggressive nationalism to be the urgent objective humanity should strive for, so I expect nations would find their freedom of maneuver under attack.

    While you are certainly correct that your agreed international order would mean a greatly increased capacity for humanity to solve practical problems, that would include those in the technological realm, which would advance beyond all imagining. Singularity self extermination by delimited technology resolves the Fermi paradox by my way of thinking. War and conflict are found between nations, within nations within groups, and even within individuals. We all know we inherently have inner conflict.

    Not quite true admittedly, some blame inner conflict on the CIA beaming radio waves into their brain, just as some think the CIA foments wars externally and internally.. I think if the CIA was good enough to mount false flag terror and start wars it would be better at winning them. Korea , Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Iraq ect are not the most persuasive evidence for the CIA having any such effectiveness. Well, not unless you are of the tinfoil hat persuasion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Max Havelaar
    Famous conspiracy theorists (skeptics or distrust in authority), are: Socrates. Plato, Jesus Christ, Mahondas Ghandi, ML King, John F. Kennedy, John Lennon and many more.

    The Pentagon and the CIA 's headoffice in fairfax county Vir. are pretty impressive buildings, with many people highly paid with Tax money, todo state crime.

    JFK was right: defund and minimize the US crime agencies: FBI/CIA/DHS/NSA/...

    Human conduct is a matter of morality and should be governed by just Laws for all. These Laws should be taught in schools, for all to know, and be based on individual liberty and (property) rights.

    True democracy, meaning: grassroot level controll of national parlements(and not $$$ like now) and parlementary control of the central bank's money creation!!. And as much direct democracy as possible.

    Not a megacorporate-controlled society/economy and congress like now: the corporate-fascists.
  113. MarkinLA says:
    @Parbes
    "The real world-class force in Japan was the Imperial Navy..."

    Says who?? It is nothing but your biased subjective personal opinion to assert that the Japanese Imperial Navy was the "real" or the "only" world-class force that they had.

    "The Japanese land forces were not a match for any western country..."

    Oh really? They did pretty well against the Russians in 1904-1905 and against the British and allies in Southeast Asia in World War II - neither of which were negligible powers. Just another assertive opinion pulled out of your a__, which you try to present as incontrovertible truth.

    Anyhow, all this is not even the point. The commenter I was replying to said "the U.S. beat Japan singlehandedly in World War II", which is manifestly NOT true, given all the different foes I listed above that the Japanese were fighting on multiple fronts at the same time. And then he went on to construct a totally ignorant "what if" hypothetical by asking "What would have happened if the U.S. hadn't beaten Japan and Japan had been attacking the Soviet Union" when, in fact, as I wrote, Japan DID attack the Soviet Union along the Manchuria-Mongolia axis even BEFORE starting to fight the U.S., and was beaten back soundly - thereafter concentrating her conquest attempts on China and Southeast Asia.

    "This is nothing but pure stupidity. The Japanese were beaten and completely defenseless against a US invasion. Yes, they were planning bonzai attacks with spears and sticks..."

    The "pure stupidity" is nothing but yours. Your whole approach to this issue is simply jingoistic celebration of U.S. military "feats" and mindless repetition of self-serving U.S. World War II military mythology - not objective analysis based on facts and fair logic. Only an idiot would think that the Japanese would have fought against a U.S. amphibious invasion of their home islands with nothing but "spears and sticks"; or that the U.S. government chose to refrain from an amphibious landing invasion, instead preferring to use atomic bombs, against defenders who were capable of solely this sort of defense.

    All the forces fighting the “foes” of Japan would have been totally useless in the defense of Japan since the Imperial Navy was at the bottom of the ocean. The Japanese Army left in the home islands was short on everything and their equipment was so outdated to be almost useless. That is why the Japanese government was having the entire country drill for suicide attacks by the civilian population in the hopes of giving the US forces one big punch in the nose in the hopes of getting a peace agreement that did not include unconditional surrender. Of course, the real result would have been similar to those silly human wave attacks where hundreds of Japanese were mowed down by machine guns without so much a inflicting any significant casualties.

    See, being stupid, you don’t see the difference between the war in Japan and the war in Europe. The US Navy DID single handedly beat Japan because it cut off any meaningful Japanese forces from their ability to fight in any meaningful way. Plenty of cut off Japanese forces were left to rot and starve to death on islands not worth retaking. The only reason why the US recaptured the Philippines was because they didn’t want to embarrass MacArthur – there was no military need for doing it.

    Read More
  114. MarkinLA says:
    @Eagle Eye

    bonzai attacks with spears and sticks
     
    You mean spears and sticks from miniature "bonzai" trees? Most Japanese soldiers were not of giant stature, but this miniaturization seems excessive.

    Or is this a variation on Macbeth: "Japan shall never vanquished be, until Bonzai Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill Shall come against her?"

    Or did you mean "banzai!" attacks, i.e. suicide attacks while screaming "banzai!" - i.e. "[may the emperor live] ten thousand years!" - the Shinto equivalent of "Allahu Akbar!"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_thousand_years

    (Sorry couldn't resist responding to the typo ...)

    Yes, there is old captured documentary film about the civilian population of Japan being trained with sticks to do human wave attacks on the Americans when they invade the home islands. Now when the real attacks came they probably would have had farm implements instead of sticks but against machine guns and semi-automatic rifles it would have been hard for the people in the back to climb over the wall of dead bodies. These were the same silly attacks done by Japanese troops when they finally ran out of ammunition during those island battles.

    Sorry about the incorrect spelling.

    Read More
  115. MarkinLA says:
    @Parbes
    "The real world-class force in Japan was the Imperial Navy..."

    Says who?? It is nothing but your biased subjective personal opinion to assert that the Japanese Imperial Navy was the "real" or the "only" world-class force that they had.

    "The Japanese land forces were not a match for any western country..."

    Oh really? They did pretty well against the Russians in 1904-1905 and against the British and allies in Southeast Asia in World War II - neither of which were negligible powers. Just another assertive opinion pulled out of your a__, which you try to present as incontrovertible truth.

    Anyhow, all this is not even the point. The commenter I was replying to said "the U.S. beat Japan singlehandedly in World War II", which is manifestly NOT true, given all the different foes I listed above that the Japanese were fighting on multiple fronts at the same time. And then he went on to construct a totally ignorant "what if" hypothetical by asking "What would have happened if the U.S. hadn't beaten Japan and Japan had been attacking the Soviet Union" when, in fact, as I wrote, Japan DID attack the Soviet Union along the Manchuria-Mongolia axis even BEFORE starting to fight the U.S., and was beaten back soundly - thereafter concentrating her conquest attempts on China and Southeast Asia.

    "This is nothing but pure stupidity. The Japanese were beaten and completely defenseless against a US invasion. Yes, they were planning bonzai attacks with spears and sticks..."

    The "pure stupidity" is nothing but yours. Your whole approach to this issue is simply jingoistic celebration of U.S. military "feats" and mindless repetition of self-serving U.S. World War II military mythology - not objective analysis based on facts and fair logic. Only an idiot would think that the Japanese would have fought against a U.S. amphibious invasion of their home islands with nothing but "spears and sticks"; or that the U.S. government chose to refrain from an amphibious landing invasion, instead preferring to use atomic bombs, against defenders who were capable of solely this sort of defense.

    The use of an atomic bomb was a political one. Of course, some Americans are going to die in any amphibious invasion. However, given the Japanese military’s sorry state of supply, the casualty rate for the US would have been far lower than during the island hoping done earlier. Truman didn’t want to hear from mothers who sons died for nothing in Japan when it was announced the US had an atomic bomb but chose not to use it for “humanitarian” reasons.

    Truman made the decision that the bomb might finally let the fools in the Japanese military see they were beaten and surrender with far less loss of life to both sides than if there was an invasion.

    Try using your head for a change. Japan is an island with little in the way of natural resources of it’s own that can be utilized for military purposes. It’s factories were in ruins and it’s shipyards destroyed. The US had complete air superiority. The US Navy simply could have strangled Japan into capitulation.

    Read More
  116. MarkinLA says:
    @Avery
    { No bomber had the range to get to the Urals at that time, this argument is just ridiculous.}

    During WW2 only 2 countries had battle-worthy long range bombers: US and UK.

    Neither Japan, nor Germany, nor USSR had anything that was in the league of the Lancaster and B29.

    Germany and Japan had excellent fighters, but no long-range bombers.

    Japanese fighters weren’t all that. The Zero had a decent flight envelope but a lot of that was due to it’s serious weaknesses. They did not have self sealing fuel tanks and the cockpit wasn’t armored. The plane was not very survivable in combat.

    After Pearl Harbor and their initial success, the Japanese planes never did keep up technologically with those of the west and we had the Marianas Turkey Shoot.

    http://www.vf31.com/sorties/marianas_turkey_shoot.html

    Read More
  117. MarkinLA says:
    @Eagle Eye

    bonzai attacks with spears and sticks
     
    You mean spears and sticks from miniature "bonzai" trees? Most Japanese soldiers were not of giant stature, but this miniaturization seems excessive.

    Or is this a variation on Macbeth: "Japan shall never vanquished be, until Bonzai Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill Shall come against her?"

    Or did you mean "banzai!" attacks, i.e. suicide attacks while screaming "banzai!" - i.e. "[may the emperor live] ten thousand years!" - the Shinto equivalent of "Allahu Akbar!"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_thousand_years

    (Sorry couldn't resist responding to the typo ...)

    Good comment actually, I learned something about those attacks. I already knew about the horticulture but didn’t do as good a search as I needed for the correct spelling.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eagle Eye
    Thanks for the gracious comment in response to this parenthetical.
  118. annamaria says:

    Finally: “US threats to Syria are Israelgate NOT Russiagate:”

    http://theduran.com/us-threats-syria-israelgate-not-russiagate/

    More evidence for Israelgate:
    “Israel Supports Militant [ISIS] Advance In Quneitra:” http://thesaker.is/syrian-war-report-june-26-2017-israel-supports-militant-advance-in-quneitra/
    “Trump‘s Red Line,” by Seymour M. Hersh

    https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red-Line.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    NO GAS THEN........... NO GAS NOW.

    Best report & analysis on Ghouta, 2013 -
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_rhY-R1VAU
    Ray McGovern addresses the 2013 Ghouta Syrian gas attack accusations


    Q&A referred to abouve
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrMdA4vvL_s
    Flynn Answers Question About Ghouta Attack in December 2015
  119. @Sean
    Theoretical deductions all, because the world has never been like that, and unless one believes in a God who created the world so that economies would grow if left alone (or tampered with), no reason to believe any particular system would result in stable growth. Moreover, and as Galbraith said, economists attack what they find inconvenient and nations are inconvenient for a world order based on economics. Every economist (and philosopher, scientist, thinker, or Miss Universe) has thought abolishing aggressive nationalism to be the urgent objective humanity should strive for, so I expect nations would find their freedom of maneuver under attack.

    While you are certainly correct that your agreed international order would mean a greatly increased capacity for humanity to solve practical problems, that would include those in the technological realm, which would advance beyond all imagining. Singularity self extermination by delimited technology resolves the Fermi paradox by my way of thinking. War and conflict are found between nations, within nations within groups, and even within individuals. We all know we inherently have inner conflict.

    Not quite true admittedly, some blame inner conflict on the CIA beaming radio waves into their brain, just as some think the CIA foments wars externally and internally.. I think if the CIA was good enough to mount false flag terror and start wars it would be better at winning them. Korea , Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Iraq ect are not the most persuasive evidence for the CIA having any such effectiveness. Well, not unless you are of the tinfoil hat persuasion.

    Famous conspiracy theorists (skeptics or distrust in authority), are: Socrates. Plato, Jesus Christ, Mahondas Ghandi, ML King, John F. Kennedy, John Lennon and many more.

    The Pentagon and the CIA ‘s headoffice in fairfax county Vir. are pretty impressive buildings, with many people highly paid with Tax money, todo state crime.

    JFK was right: defund and minimize the US crime agencies: FBI/CIA/DHS/NSA/…

    Human conduct is a matter of morality and should be governed by just Laws for all. These Laws should be taught in schools, for all to know, and be based on individual liberty and (property) rights.

    True democracy, meaning: grassroot level controll of national parlements(and not $$$ like now) and parlementary control of the central bank’s money creation!!. And as much direct democracy as possible.

    Not a megacorporate-controlled society/economy and congress like now: the corporate-fascists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "True democracy, meaning: grassroot level controll of national parlements(and not $$$ like now) and parlementary control of the central bank’s money creation!!. And as much direct democracy as possible.
    Not a megacorporate-controlled society/economy and congress like now: the corporate-fascists."
    Thank you. On point.
    , @Sean

    True democracy, meaning: grassroot level controll of national parlements(and not $$$ like now) and parlementary control of the central bank’s money creation!!. And as much direct democracy as possible.
     
    Intellectuals want to get rid of religion and aggressive realist nation-states so the world could make great progress in every way, but I think it would be a leap into the grave (check out my comments for more detail).

    Anyway, the most satisfying entity to be allegiant to is the nation state, but its institutions are the object of deep suspicion not only by libertarians and socialists but by those who are in a country not their own. Your idea won't work now because the immigrant communities are an alien wedge. They would not play the game, but rather band together as a nation against the rest, who would have to reciprocate, and so there would be two nations. Democracy as in Switzerland (which by the way is run by and for the rich and has a double electoral system to prevent the election of a popular government) would require “resolute and urgent action”.

  120. annamaria says:
    @Max Havelaar
    Famous conspiracy theorists (skeptics or distrust in authority), are: Socrates. Plato, Jesus Christ, Mahondas Ghandi, ML King, John F. Kennedy, John Lennon and many more.

    The Pentagon and the CIA 's headoffice in fairfax county Vir. are pretty impressive buildings, with many people highly paid with Tax money, todo state crime.

    JFK was right: defund and minimize the US crime agencies: FBI/CIA/DHS/NSA/...

    Human conduct is a matter of morality and should be governed by just Laws for all. These Laws should be taught in schools, for all to know, and be based on individual liberty and (property) rights.

    True democracy, meaning: grassroot level controll of national parlements(and not $$$ like now) and parlementary control of the central bank's money creation!!. And as much direct democracy as possible.

    Not a megacorporate-controlled society/economy and congress like now: the corporate-fascists.

    “True democracy, meaning: grassroot level controll of national parlements(and not $$$ like now) and parlementary control of the central bank’s money creation!!. And as much direct democracy as possible.
    Not a megacorporate-controlled society/economy and congress like now: the corporate-fascists.”
    Thank you. On point.

    Read More
  121. ROBERTO says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    The modern western culture is centered on various forms of instant gratification, and that is also true for geopolitics. If the other guy does something, western leaders always deliver a “firm” response. They like to “send messages”
     
    Excellent point. That is why "West" (US mostly) can not win a single war in 70 years.

    The war takes place in men’s minds, the shooting is only a the echo.

    Read More
  122. RobinG says:
    @annamaria
    Finally: "US threats to Syria are Israelgate NOT Russiagate:"
    http://theduran.com/us-threats-syria-israelgate-not-russiagate/

    More evidence for Israelgate:
    "Israel Supports Militant [ISIS] Advance In Quneitra:" http://thesaker.is/syrian-war-report-june-26-2017-israel-supports-militant-advance-in-quneitra/
    "Trump‘s Red Line," by Seymour M. Hersh
    https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red-Line.html

    NO GAS THEN……….. NO GAS NOW.

    Best report & analysis on Ghouta, 2013 -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_rhY-R1VAU

    Ray McGovern addresses the 2013 Ghouta Syrian gas attack accusations

    Q&A referred to abouve

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrMdA4vvL_s

    Flynn Answers Question About Ghouta Attack in December 2015

    Read More
  123. @annamaria
    "True democracy, meaning: grassroot level controll of national parlements(and not $$$ like now) and parlementary control of the central bank’s money creation!!. And as much direct democracy as possible.
    Not a megacorporate-controlled society/economy and congress like now: the corporate-fascists."
    Thank you. On point.

    Thanks.

    So what does your ideal Society look like?

    Read More
  124. Sean says:
    @Max Havelaar
    Famous conspiracy theorists (skeptics or distrust in authority), are: Socrates. Plato, Jesus Christ, Mahondas Ghandi, ML King, John F. Kennedy, John Lennon and many more.

    The Pentagon and the CIA 's headoffice in fairfax county Vir. are pretty impressive buildings, with many people highly paid with Tax money, todo state crime.

    JFK was right: defund and minimize the US crime agencies: FBI/CIA/DHS/NSA/...

    Human conduct is a matter of morality and should be governed by just Laws for all. These Laws should be taught in schools, for all to know, and be based on individual liberty and (property) rights.

    True democracy, meaning: grassroot level controll of national parlements(and not $$$ like now) and parlementary control of the central bank's money creation!!. And as much direct democracy as possible.

    Not a megacorporate-controlled society/economy and congress like now: the corporate-fascists.

    True democracy, meaning: grassroot level controll of national parlements(and not $$$ like now) and parlementary control of the central bank’s money creation!!. And as much direct democracy as possible.

    Intellectuals want to get rid of religion and aggressive realist nation-states so the world could make great progress in every way, but I think it would be a leap into the grave (check out my comments for more detail).

    Anyway, the most satisfying entity to be allegiant to is the nation state, but its institutions are the object of deep suspicion not only by libertarians and socialists but by those who are in a country not their own. Your idea won’t work now because the immigrant communities are an alien wedge. They would not play the game, but rather band together as a nation against the rest, who would have to reciprocate, and so there would be two nations. Democracy as in Switzerland (which by the way is run by and for the rich and has a double electoral system to prevent the election of a popular government) would require “resolute and urgent action”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Max Havelaar
    I want the large middleclass to rule the nation. This will garantee peace, individual freedom, Justice for all and prosperity for most.

    Like JM Keynes said: an economy of Bliss.

    What does your ideal society look like? Leaving aside gloomy forecasts.
  125. @Sean

    True democracy, meaning: grassroot level controll of national parlements(and not $$$ like now) and parlementary control of the central bank’s money creation!!. And as much direct democracy as possible.
     
    Intellectuals want to get rid of religion and aggressive realist nation-states so the world could make great progress in every way, but I think it would be a leap into the grave (check out my comments for more detail).

    Anyway, the most satisfying entity to be allegiant to is the nation state, but its institutions are the object of deep suspicion not only by libertarians and socialists but by those who are in a country not their own. Your idea won't work now because the immigrant communities are an alien wedge. They would not play the game, but rather band together as a nation against the rest, who would have to reciprocate, and so there would be two nations. Democracy as in Switzerland (which by the way is run by and for the rich and has a double electoral system to prevent the election of a popular government) would require “resolute and urgent action”.

    I want the large middleclass to rule the nation. This will garantee peace, individual freedom, Justice for all and prosperity for most.

    Like JM Keynes said: an economy of Bliss.

    What does your ideal society look like? Leaving aside gloomy forecasts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    As a Middle Class ruled state, England used military force all over the world. The peaceful Indus valley civilization was stagnant and vanished. Assuming that a Utopian society that worked perfectly was instituted, it would still have to fight wars. Democracy in Athens was accompanied by many foreign wars.
  126. krollchem says:
    @Romil
    Not true, the USA won a war with Grenada, Panama (Noriega), etc.

    Admittedly these wars were a little lopsided.

    What is clear since Vietnam is that the USA military/ Political System is not very good at occupying a country after initial battlefield success.

    Unless the chaos in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq etc is the intended result.

    The US troops ended up fighting a few dozen Cuban construction workers and captured tons of pre-WWI weapons including some US civil war gatling guns. They also managed to kill a few patients at a hospital for the mentally ill. It was amazing own amny medals were passed out after that skirmish!

    The US invasion of Panama killed a lot of poor civilians in the Panama city slums. The number of dead has never been published as far as I know. Interesting that the retired Israeli general running security under Noriega was captured and quickly transported back to Israel. The Panama invasion was just a military training exercise for the US military as Noriega could have just been captured at the Officers Club at the US military base.

    Read More
  127. […] that they would necessarily avoid it either. For the time being, the Russians seem to have chose a strategy of deliberate uncertainty and harassment of the US aircraft, but they could decide to engage US aircraft using their ground based […]

    Read More
  128. @Intelligent Dasein

    A new cold war, properly managed, could be good for business and divert money into the connected people’s bank accounts, funneling tax money upwards.
     
    A lot of people around the internet express similar opinions, and the more obtuse of them even festoon their delivery with the same Smedley Butler quote we've all read a million times already, as if there were no limit to the number of occasions upon we needed to be re-informed that "war is a racket."

    The problem is, it just isn't true. Nobody---not even the Neocons, not even government bureaucrats, not even the sleaziest defense contractor---could possibly look at America's fiscal predicament and conclude that a new Cold War is financially beneficial to anybody. Something else has to be motivating this, and that something is Boomer vanity.

    These guys are just itching for one last game of Cowboys & Indians against the Russians. I find the whole thing quite embarrassing but also rather alarming, considering how serious the consequences could be.

    However, I think it's time to retire the "war is a racket" meme. It has no explanatory power in today's world. The age of imperial expansion, of making Latin America safe for fruit companies or whatever Smedley Butler was on about, is well behind us. There is no longer any tincture of geopolitical or economic rationale in Washington's war-making. Every war we fight makes us weaker and poorer, whereas Butler's wars, however ignoble he thought the motives behind them, at least made us stronger and richer. The imperialists of yore knew what they were doing; they could point to some measure of worldly success as justification for their exploits. But nowadays we have only failures; and our imperialists, lacking the dignity even to be robber barons, have instead become dreamers and peddlers of ideology.

    The Age of the Neocon Wars, c. 1990-present, is all about vanity. These are "existential" wars in the Sartrian sense, i.e. they are deliberate fabrications and extensions of identity. The Boomers are going on their penultimate journey of self-discovery, predictably wrecking everything in their path as they make burnt offerings to their insatiable egos.

    Only one class of people ever make a “killing” out of wars, and that is the international finance clique. The MIC makes a killing for awhile, but the financiers keep collecting on the massive debt well after the guns have stopped. Egos have nothing to do with it, it is all about making a ton of $$$$$$$$$ whether in the short to medium term, or in the case of the bankers, the long term. The politicians are just the paid off traitors who help get the ball rolling, and even they are becoming irrelevant as the US President becomes more of a Ceasar year by year since 9/11.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Egos have nothing to do with it
     
    I don't know about that

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDXkQWmUIAEUW25.jpg
  129. Rurik says:
    @Robert Bruce
    Only one class of people ever make a "killing" out of wars, and that is the international finance clique. The MIC makes a killing for awhile, but the financiers keep collecting on the massive debt well after the guns have stopped. Egos have nothing to do with it, it is all about making a ton of $$$$$$$$$ whether in the short to medium term, or in the case of the bankers, the long term. The politicians are just the paid off traitors who help get the ball rolling, and even they are becoming irrelevant as the US President becomes more of a Ceasar year by year since 9/11.

    Egos have nothing to do with it

    I don’t know about that

    Read More
  130. […] that they would necessarily avoid it either. For the time being, the Russians seem to have chose a strategy of deliberate uncertainty and harassment of the US aircraft, but they could decide to engage US aircraft using their ground based […]

    Read More
  131. Sean says:
    @Max Havelaar
    I want the large middleclass to rule the nation. This will garantee peace, individual freedom, Justice for all and prosperity for most.

    Like JM Keynes said: an economy of Bliss.

    What does your ideal society look like? Leaving aside gloomy forecasts.

    As a Middle Class ruled state, England used military force all over the world. The peaceful Indus valley civilization was stagnant and vanished. Assuming that a Utopian society that worked perfectly was instituted, it would still have to fight wars. Democracy in Athens was accompanied by many foreign wars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "As a Middle Class ruled state, England..."
    Amazing statement.
  132. UK colonial empire was run by the Rothschild & central bankster Billionaire friends. The colonies were run under strict military rule, top-down. And slave labour was rule.

    From the time of Farao’s divine rule and other feudal systems, the rulers and the rich few always declared themselves Gods and the masses slaves. So the obvious antidote to divine rule by a few ultra-rich, is universal, individual (property) rights and liberty FOR ALL!

    This also entails NO repeat of Totalitarian communism or Total state central planning = rule thru the barrel of a gun(Mao Tse Tung). Putin and the Chinese leaders Xi Jinping will acknowledge this.

    Driving force in human ruling classes, from the Farao’s to the US Billionaires now: self-aggrandizing in greed, material wealth and controll over the masses by force.

    This eternal “animal spirit” (Socrates, Keynes) of the ruling rich, also called immorality, must change to end the eternal war’s between ruling elites.

    Uncorrupted by material wealth, middle class leaders must take-over from the corrupted incumbent politians, who implement the Wallstreet agenda: corporate-fascism all over the world!

    And first and foremost regrant the money-creation to parlementary (like in US constitution) to create a Full-employment economy and rising real wages.

    Read More
  133. Eagle Eye says:
    @MarkinLA
    Good comment actually, I learned something about those attacks. I already knew about the horticulture but didn't do as good a search as I needed for the correct spelling.

    Thanks for the gracious comment in response to this parenthetical.

    Read More
  134. […] that they would necessarily avoid it either. For the time being, the Russians seem to have chose a strategy of deliberate uncertainty and harassment of the US aircraft, but they could decide to engage US aircraft using their ground based […]

    Read More
  135. annamaria says:
    @Sean
    As a Middle Class ruled state, England used military force all over the world. The peaceful Indus valley civilization was stagnant and vanished. Assuming that a Utopian society that worked perfectly was instituted, it would still have to fight wars. Democracy in Athens was accompanied by many foreign wars.

    “As a Middle Class ruled state, England…”
    Amazing statement.

    Read More
  136. KenH says:
    @The Alarmist
    I disagree with your earlier analysis: Russia would have ultimately rolled over the Reich. The second front in the west merely made it easier for Russia and, ironically, harder for the Western Allies since many of the German forces in the west were resting, recuperating, and re-equipping there for re-deployment to the eastern front. Monty learned that famously at Arnhem, and he was not alone in that experience.

    I disagree with your earlier analysis: Russia would have ultimately rolled over the Reich.

    You’re entitled to your opinion but that is unlikely based on the facts. Stalin goaded Roosevelt and Churchill for a second front until he got his wish. He wouldn’t have done that if he was so supremely confident in the ability of the red army to march to Berlin unaided by a Western front. An eventual stalemate and truce was the more likely scenario absent a Western front.

    The second front in the west merely made it easier for Russia and, ironically, harder for the Western Allies since

    That’s the point. If critical Wehrmact resources are in the West they can’t be brought to bear against the red army on the eastern front essentially allowing the red army to blast huge breaches in the undermanned & under equipped German defenses. In reality Monty was a highly overrated general who had great difficulty defeating the mostly 3rd and 4th stringers from the Wehrmact.

    The second front (actually third if you count Italy) stretched the German military resources to the breaking point which was the whole objective. Without the second/third front Hitler could have elected to shower the red army with V-1 & V-2 rockets instead of punishing England with them.

    Germany also possessed lethal sarin and tabun nerve gas which they could have used to devastating effect much like the strong circumstantial case that the Russians employed chemical weapons against the Wehmact to slow their advance on Stalingrad and arguably win that pivotal battle.

    http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/12792/title/Ken-Alibek–For-the-Biodefense/

    Read More
  137. @Begemot
    It is true that the Soviets got a lot of Lend-Lease from the US. Britain got much more (about 2/3's of the total). The Red Army would not have starved to death without the US. American lend-lease made the Soviet victory over Germany easier. It didn't make it possible. Since about 2/3's of the German army was engaged on the Russian front the Americans should be forever grateful that those German divisions weren't waiting for the Americans in Normandy. The desperate need of many Americans to appear to be indispensable is pathetic.

    Begemot, Quatermaster and others:
    The Soviets got nothing from the US, more useful than a greetings postcard. Too little too late: a couple of rusty planes when they didn’t need them anymore, some trucks when they needed artillary, wheat for cattle that arrived rotten a.s.o

    That myth is a painful try to get a place among the victors, which they didn’t deserve at all. They expected the destruction of the USSR (hence the blockade and the sanctions and the proxy wars since the 20′s) and waited just until it was obvious that the Red Army will only stop at the Atlantic coast.

    The US gave *nothing* to the Soviet war effort. Stop believing in Mickey Mouse.

    Read More
  138. […] …the-latest-escalation-in-syria, …Trouble in the Gulf, […]

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All The Saker Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored