The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 The Saker ArchiveBlogview
The Russia-U.S. Conventional Military Balance
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_277714133
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

In a recent column for the Unz Review I wrote that “under any conceivable scenario Russia does have the means to basically completely destroy the USA as a country in about 30min (the USA, of course, can do the same to Russia). Any US war planner would have to consider the escalatory potential of any military action against Russia.”

This still begs the question of whether Russia could challenge the USA militarily if we assume, for demonstration’s sake, that neither side would be prepared to use nuclear weapons, including tactical ones. If, by some mysterious magic, all nuclear weapons were to disappear, what would the balance of power between Russian and the US look like?

Why Bean Counting Makes Absolutely No Sense

The typical reply to this kind of question resorts to what US force planners call “bean counting”. Typically, journalists use the yearly IISS Military Balance or a source like Global Firepower and tallies of the number of men, main battle tanks, armored personnel carriers, infantry combat vehicles, combat aircraft, artillery pieces, bombers, missiles, surface ships, submarines, etc. presented by each side in a chart. The reality is that such bean counting means absolutely and strictly nothing. Let’s take a simple example: if a war happens between, say, China and Russia then the fact that China has, say, 1000 tanks in its Yunnan province, will make no difference to the war at all, simply because they are too distant. When we apply this caveat to the Russian-US conventional military balance we immediately ought to ask ourselves the following two basic questions:

a) What part of the US military worldwide would be immediately available to the US commanders in case of a war with Russia?

b) On how many reinforcements could this force count and how soon could they get there?

Keep in mind that tanks, bombers, soldiers and artillery do not fight separately – they fight together in what is logically called “combined arms” battles. So even if the USA could get X number of soldiers to location A, if they don’t have all the other combined arms components to support them in combat they are just an easy target.

Furthermore, any fighting force will require a major logistics/supply effort. It is all very well to get aircraft X to location A, but if its missiles, maintenance equipment and specialists are not there to help, they are useless. Armored forces are notorious for expending a huge amount of petroleum, oil and lubricants. According to one estimate, in 1991 a US armored division could sustain itself for only 5 days, and after that it needed a major supply effort.

Finally, any force that the US would move from point A to point B would become unavailable to execute its normally assigned role at point A. Now consider that “point A” could mean the Middle-East, or Far East Asia and you will see that this might be a difficult decision for US commanders.

Heavy” warfare

ORDER IT NOW

We have one very good example of how the US operates: Operation Desert Shield. During this huge operation it took the US six months and an unprecedented logistical effort to gather the forces needed to attack Iraq. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia had been prepared for decades to receive such a massive force (in compliance with the so-called Carter Doctrine) and the US efforts was completely unopposed by Saddam Hussein. Now ask yourself the following questions:

a) In case of war with Russia, which country neighboring Russia would have an infrastructure similar to the one of the KSA, prepositioned equipment, huge bases, runways, deep ports, etc. ? (Answer: none)

b) How likely is it that the Russians would give the USA six months to prepare for war without taking any action? (Answer: impossible)

One might object that not all wars run according to the “heavy” scenario of Desert Storm. What if the US was preparing a very ‘light’ military intervention using only US and NATO immediate or rapid reaction forces?

Light (or rapid reaction) warfare

I will repeat here something I wrote in December of last year:

The Russians have no fear of the military threat posed by NATO. Their reaction to the latest NATO moves (new bases and personnel in Central Europe, more spending, etc.) is to denounce it as provocative, but Russian officials all insist that Russia can handle the military threat. As one Russian deputy said “5 rapid reaction diversionary groups is a problem we can solve with one missile”. A simplistic but basically correct formula. As I mentioned before, the decision to double the size of the Russian Airborne Forces and to upgrade the elite 45th Special Designation Airborne Regiment to full brigade-size has already been taken anyway. You could say that Russia preempted the creation of the 10’000 strong NATO force by bringing her own mobile (airborne) forces from 36’000 to 72’000. This is typical Putin. While NATO announces with fanfare and fireworks that NATO will create a special rapid reaction “spearhead” force of 10’000, Putin quietly doubles the size of the Russian Airborne Forces to 72’000. And, believe me, the battle hardened Russian Airborne Forces are a vastly more capable fighting force then the hedonistic and demotivated multi-national (28 countries) Euroforce of 5’000 NATO is struggling hard to put together. The US commanders fully understand that.

In other words, “light” or “rapid reaction” warfare is where the Russians excel and not the kind of conflict the US or NATO could ever hope to prevail in. Besides, if the “light warfare” was to last longer than planned and had to be escalated to the “heavy” kind, would the USA or Russia have its heavy forces nearer?

Shock and Awe

There is, of course, another model available to the US commanders: the “shock and awe” model: massive cruise missile attacks backed by bomber strikes. Here I could easily object that bombing Russia is not comparable to bombing Iraq and that the Russian air defenses are the most formidable on the planet. Or I could say that while the USA has an excellent record of success when bombing civilians, its record against a military force like the Serbian Army Corps in Kosovo was an abject failure.

[Sidebar: 78 days of non-stop US/NATO airstrikes, 1000+ aircraft and 38’000+ air sorties and all that to achieve what? Ten or so Serbian aircraft destroyed (most on the ground), 20+ APC and tanks destroyed and 1000+ Serbian soldiers dead or wounded. That is out of a force of 130’000+ Serbian soliders, 80+ aircraft, 1’400 artillery pieces, 1’270 tanks and 825 APCs (all figures according to Wikipedia). The 3rd Serbian Army Corps basically came out unharmed from this massive bombing campaign which will go down in history as arguably the worst defeat of airpower in history!]

But even if we assume that somehow the US succeeded in its favorite “remote” warfare, does anybody believe that this would seriously affect the Russian military or breaking the will of the Russian people? The people of Leningrad survived not 78, but 900 (nine hundred!) days of a infinitely worse siege and bombing and never even considered surrendering!

The reality is that being on the defense gives Russia a huge advantage against the USA even if we only consider conventional weapons. Even if the conflict happened in the Ukraine or the Baltic states, geographic proximity would give Russia a decisive advantage over any conceivable US/NATO attack. American commanders all understand that very well even if they pretend otherwise.

Conversely, a Russian attack on the USA or NATO is just as unlikely, and for the same reasons. Russia cannot project her power very far from her borders. In fact, if you look at the way the Russian military is organized, structured and trained, you will immediately see that it is a force designed primarily to defeat an enemy on the Russian border or within less than 1000km from it. Yes, sure, you will see Russian bombers, surface ships and submarines reaching much further, but these are also typical “showing the flag” missions, not combat training for actual military scenarios.

The sole real purpose of the US military is to regularly beat up on some small, more or less defenseless country, either in order to rob it of its resources, overthrow a government daring to defy the World Hegemon, or just to make an example of it. The US military was never designed to fight a major war against a sophisticated enemy. Only the US strategic nuclear forces are tasked to defend the USA against another nuclear power (Russia or China) or actually fight in a major war. As for the Russian military, it was designed to be purely defensive and it has no capability to threaten anybody in Europe, much less so the United States.

Of course, the western corporate media will continue to “bean count” US and Russian forces, but that is pure propaganda designed to create a sense of urgency and fear in the general public. The reality for the foreseeable future will remain that neither the USA nor Russia have the means to successfully attack each other, even with only conventional forces.

The only real danger left is an unprepared and unforeseen sudden escalation which will lead to a confrontation neither side wants nor is prepared for. The Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006 or the Georgian attack on Russian peacekeepers in 2008 are two scary reminders that sometimes dumb politicians take fantastically dumb decisions. I am confident that Putin and his team would never make such a dumb decision, but when I look at the current pool of US Presidential candidates I will tell you that I get very, very frightened.

Do you?

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

    {“….I look at the current pool of US Presidential candidates I will tell you that I get very, very frightened.”}

    I am not sure a crazy US President would be able to start a nuclear war with Russia on his own.
    Same with Russia.
    Don’t know any details, but there has to be multiple levels of checks and balances so that a POTUS who has lost his mind or something cannot start a WW3.
    I read somewhere the Joint Chiefs secretly ordered the military to ignore any orders from Nixon as he was being forced to resign.

    My fear is that WW3 can easily start accidentally.
    Reportedly there have been about 3 very, very close calls.

    Even the Cuban missile crises reportedly came a lot closer to nuclear WW3 than is publicized.
    There is a story that a Soviet submarine was ready to launch nukes at US navy targets chasing and harassing it, and one of the three officers on the boat refused to go along with the other two: he insisted that they needed to be sure a war had started above before launching their nukes. So luckily nothing happened.

    But all it takes is for one nuke to go off, and both sides will most likely start launching everything under the “use it or lose it” assumption.

    And then it’s good night.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    There is a story that a Soviet submarine was ready to launch nukes at US navy targets chasing and harassing it, and one of the three officers on the boat refused to go along with the other two: he insisted that they needed to be sure a war had started above before launching their nukes. So luckily nothing happened.
     
    Yes, the name of the officer (at that time Captain 2nd Rank, Chief of Staff of 69th BRPL) was Vasily Alexandrovich Arkhipov, later Vice-Admiral, superintendent of my naval academy. In Baku, no less;-)
    , @boogerbently
    This administration has proven there is NO "checks and balances".
    He has a phone and a pen.
    EVERYTHING is decided by the Judicial Branch. (SCOTUS)
    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-russia-u-s-conventional-balance/#comment-1024649
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. “The sole real purpose of the U.S. military is to regularly beat up on some small, more or less defenseless country, either in order to rob it of its resources, overthrow a government daring to defy the World Hegemon, or just to make an example of it. . . .”

    Damn straight.

    ” . . . I am confident that Putin and his team would never make such a dumb decision, but when I look at the current pool of U.S. presidential candidates I will tell you that I get very, very frightened.

    “Do you?”

    Well, uh . . . yeah!

    Read More
  3. The US military was never designed to fight a major war against a sophisticated enemy.

    I read the whole article, but I’m having trouble wrapping my head around this one. Kind of got that one backwards. The U.S. military was modeled to fight oponents like the Soviets and Russians and Chinese. That it focused so heavily on conventional warfare was the reason it got tied down in Afghanistan/Iraq by unsophisticated enemies, among other reasons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    Yeah, I had a similar reaction. I think I get where the columnist is coming from with that point, but those missions don't really explain the US military's force structure.

    On the other hand, the US military was never big enough to win a purely conventional war against the Russians during the Cold War either. Now, perhaps it could do so against China but only in a very time and space-limited setting. Certainly not a ground war.

    The US military was last organized for an all-out conventional war in WW2, and even then it would not have won against Germany without the Soviets. Amazing to consider, but the US was hurting for infantry manpower and worried about political risks of casualties in the winter of '45, having by then endured a tiny fraction of the losses being sustained by Germany or Russia. The US probably could have defeated Germany by itself, but not that way.

    The force structure is better explained by the assumption that it has to have a lot of expensive kit in great numbers to deter any hegemonic challengers, and to support the projection of power against smaller targets in practice. It produces a force not optimized for either, of course. Britain ultimately faced comparable problems, though it was never as dominant as the US.
    , @tbraton
    " The U.S. military was modeled to fight opponents like the Soviets and Russians and Chinese. "

    I am no military expert, but I understood that the U.S. forces in Europe were designed to counteract an invasion from the U.S.S.R. I long ago concluded that Stalin and his successors had absolutely no intention of invading Western Europe, despite all the talk to the contrary. You must remember that the Soviets lost something like 25 million people fighting the Germans, compared to 400,000 for the U.S. (300,000 in Europe, 100,000 in Asia). With a loss of that magnitude, it would have been madness for the Soviets to wage another war. The Soviets also had to worry about the loyalty of their Eastern European "allies." The reason for their aggressive attitude was to discourage any invasion from the West. (The same reason some people keep loud barking large dogs in their back yard.) As confirmation, look at Saddam Hussein who modeled his regime after Stalin's. Hussein continued to talk about using WMDs up to the end (despite not having any) in order to dissuade his opponents (like Iran) from taking advantage of his weakened position. Furthermore, as the author points out, the Russians have designed their military not for conquest but for defense of the Fatherland (or is it Motherland?). Just my two bits.
    , @Jeff77450
    You are correct. --signed, a retired army master sergeant
  4. In the case of Russia-NATO war, Russia will invade the Baltic States to link with the forces in East Prussia, while the US will concentrate its forces in Germany where it already has major bases and vast stores since the Cold War, protected by one of the largest armies in Europe, the well equipped and competent Bundeswehr.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vendetta
    Bundeswehr is not in very great shape. If you evaluate military forces solely by the list of equipment in their inventory, you'd think Saudi Arabia was a dominant military power.
    , @annamaria
    "In the case of Russia-NATO war..."
    But then this would be the US-Russian war. It is highly unlikely that Germany has any inclinations for a war with Russian Federation; the same can be safely said about France and Spain and Italy. The midgety Baltic states (and other former members of the extinct Warsaw Pact, which have entered EU relatively recently) are happy to show their closeness to the Hegemon by making the loud and annoying noises towards the giant Russia, like little decorative dogs showing up to please the Hegemon.
    The EU actually wants and needs a mutually-beneficial cooperation with RF. But that need is of no interest for the US plutocracy.
    The great danger, that accompanies the lives of humankind today, is the accidental triggering of the WWIII just because the nuclear weaponry is ready for action.
  5. unit472 says:

    Yeah, yeah, yeah. The Russians are 10 feet tall and their ‘battle hardened forces’ got their ass handed to them in Chechnya in the 1990′s including having brigade sized armor columns wiped out by guys with RPG’s and assault rifles. I’ll agree Putin has tried to modernize and professionalize his military and he does have some good special forces units but the bulk of his army is still short term conscripts and Russian reliance on heavy mechanized forces gives their military an atavistic look Marshal Zhukov might appreciate but the last time heavy mechanized forces went into battle was 1973 in the Sinai and Golan Heights it didn’t turn out so well for Soviet equipped and trained Arab armies. Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom were more ‘drive by shootings’ in which Anglo American tank forces just blew through ‘the battle hardened’ Iraqi Army and achieved their objectives in 100 hours in the former and two weeks to Baghdad in the latter.

    I would grant you NATO would be hard pressed to mass enough combat power to pose a serious threat to Russian territorial integrity though its only two hours by tank from the Estonian border to St. Petersburg, a reality that no doubt concerns Russian military planners as much as it would US military brass if Russia could put an armored division two hours away from Chicago. That said the Russian military is a slow moving dinosaur as compared to the US as Russia lacks a serious Navy, air and sealift capacity and its fixed and rotary winged forces are no match for American aviation. The Russians may have a decent submarine force on paper but the after the Kursk disaster in 2000 and more recent incidents where nuclear submarines were barbequed in drydock makes one wonder just how ‘operational’ their sub fleet really is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Afghanistan was an insurgency operation..this is completely different from Russia facing an existential threat.

    An attack on Russia by Nato would be seen as an existential threat by every Russian soldier. What would be the fighten...ethnic Northern Irish pronounciation... motivation for the US Soldier to be part of instigating nuclear WW3?

    Even without nukes..Russia could easily kill 10,00 US soldiers in a week...even in a few hours. The US population would immediately turn against a war waged in the name of homo-filth rights.

    A war against against Conservative Orthodox Christian Russia would completely undermine the phony-fraudulent "Christian" foundations of the US. A war with Russia would also ignite a violent race war in the US.

    Saker must never underestimate the evil and stupidity of Samantha Powers...Susan Rice...and Victoria Nuland...and the scale 0f end-stage-moral- dissipation in the US 2015....The US is a nation that worships the filthy rectum.....

    My prediction on Unz Review:War with Russia before Nov 3 2016....
    , @Talha
    We just had ours handed to us by tribal Afghans (with less military capability than the Chechens) - unless you call Afghanistan a victory...
    , @Seraphim
    This kind of approach reminds me of these old people for whom the Germans won the war because in the first weeks they wiped out entire Russian armies, but the bloody winter came! How unfair. True, they had several times more tanks than the Germans, but the German ones were the best.
    , @Jean
    Your bellitling comments are just ludicrous when it comes to facts and you carefully avoided adressing ANY of most modern and recognized strategic and tactical assets at the disposal of the russian armed forces that would critically tip the balance of power in their favor, assuming we're talking about the USA coming as an agressor force with regards to Russia sitting in defensive posture using its homeland as a gigantic base to defend and strike back with little to no concern to the establishment of logistical lines in comparison to a logistical nightmare on the US side operating far from home.

    1 - When was last time the US had to face off an opponent with the certified ability to pound every single of its armed columns and both forward and rear airbases with metric precision hypersonic ballistic missiles like the Iskander M pre-positonned in the hundreds within easy reach every NATO and American installation in eastern Europe? The Pentagon itself acknowledges their deadliness and the inability if existing american ABM system to deal with their evasive manoeuvers.

    2 - When was the last time the USN/USAF had to achieve air superiority in areas defended by thousands of multi-layered air defence cells including the worlds deadlist arsenal of anti-air weaponry such as Pantsyr-S1, Tor'm2s , Buk-m2s and of course S-400s ? The latter are officially deemed impossible to jam with current generation Prowlers (and next generation jammers currently barely even exist on maper in DOD' planning), mach 12+ interception speeds, 400km range and an array of VHF sensors able to detect low rCS taegets in the 100+km range, augmented by chaff dispensers and short range self-defence missiles in the unlikely case where a HARM missile or some other JDAM ordnance somehow manages to lock onto it. Good luck for putting up a survivable Apha strike package with such networks waiting for them with 4000km+ early warningof their approach fused from hundreds of long range sruveillance radars, OTH sites and AEW-C Antonovs. Not even bothering counting Su-30s air defense squadrons deployed around sensitive regions aeound the capital and other big cities in the mix, you'd get a joke of a takedown scenario while attacking folks deep into their turf with a combination of GCI and latest generation AAMs helping Russian pilots tear a new one in your formations.

    3 - Ever heard about Kh-55 and Kalibr cruise missiles ? Basically Russian tomahawks available in as many numbers as the latter to take down zvery piece of critical infrastructure America would need to wage its war effort. Ever heard of the supersonic sea-skimming P-800 anti-ship missile which, again, the Pentagon says RAM and CIWS can baremy sustain in salvo attacks ? They are stand-off ammo with 500km+ range and they do a perfect job in AA/A2 against USN carrier groups. Launched from fighter planes as well as long range supersonic Tu-22s. What about the submarine-launched Sizzlers then ? Worlds only supersonic anti-carrier torpedoes. And the list goes on. So many counter-asset developping over decades along with the doctrine and training honed duringthe Cold War and the experience garnered by observing America's campaign arpund the globe.

    Basically your problem is that your vision of Russia and its failures are stuck in tome and anachronistic to the present. Grozny was fought by a post-Soviet collapse bankrupt army of demotivated conscripts never trained for counter-insurgency and urban warfare. The Kursk incident is an antique news belonging to the very same era, long gone now. 75% of the Russian navy is now on par technologically with the USN, not quantitatively of course but in a war scenario the Russian navy will mean little.

    So instead of beating suchbdead horses, why not turn our eyes to the lightning victory the same army scored on Georgia ? A tiny state and army clmpared to Russia yes, but its not much different from Panama and Granada for the US army. I'm sure you won't count these out as glaring proofs of american military grandor. And the 6 months it took their air power alone in turning the table against a 80,000-strong umbrella of well-euipped western and gulf proxies in Syria ? Besides, counter-insurgency and big losses were sustained in Vietnam for the US too in its time. Even underarmed and disorganized Iraqi militia and groups made a difference and provoked terrible war fatigue for the US force that ultimately had to pull out of a country at the advantage of Iran, Russia and China. As for Afghanistan,the taliban have proved to be totally resurgent and have score catastrophic victories over US-trained Afghan security forces in important provinces in the past months. Again,no miracle, no wipe-out of the taliban in sight contrary to your proud testimony.

    The author is right to point out the inefficiency of the American war machine considering the overwhelming power it had to apply for very little actual military effect on a much smaller army such as the Serbs,it speaks actually a lot towards the US military's prowess at handling a technologically advanced enemy in the future with defensive assets on par with their offensive ones.

    Your analysis is as biased as it is factually flawed in its assertions I'm afraid, time to revise it with the present.
  6. AnAnon says:

    The Russian rationale for maintaining their massive stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons is that they have no hope of matching the west in a conventional conflict.

    “b) How likely is it that the Russians would give the USA six months to prepare for war without taking any action? (Answer: impossible)” – Russia doesn’t have the global reach to take very many actions of the sort that would stop us, short of nuclear weapons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    ANY, I underscore ANY, conventional combined arms operation in Russia's "near abroad" against Russian Armed Forces will have NATO (not just USA) see the level of losses it never encountered--purely in conventional war. Because neocons and liberal interventionists are badly educated in general, and in the art of real war in particular--they still think that conventionally fighting Russia is the same as fighting Arabs. Just to give you some taste, Russia is the ONLY, other than US, nation in the world which possesses a credible arsenal of the stand-off high precision weapons which can deliver necessary payload of high explosives to any point in Europe, London including, let alone to the any staging areas or bases. This could be done because Russia is the only, other than US, nation in the world which possesses world-class C4ISR complex and is, actually, in the process of transition to the full Net Centric Capability. I am sure, you are aware of this, since your competence shines through. As per "global reach", sure--fighting in the third world sh.tholes seems like a good strategy to me. I am sure it will pay off...oh, wait.
  7. @Sean the Neon Caucasian
    The US military was never designed to fight a major war against a sophisticated enemy.

    I read the whole article, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this one. Kind of got that one backwards. The U.S. military was modeled to fight oponents like the Soviets and Russians and Chinese. That it focused so heavily on conventional warfare was the reason it got tied down in Afghanistan/Iraq by unsophisticated enemies, among other reasons.

    Yeah, I had a similar reaction. I think I get where the columnist is coming from with that point, but those missions don’t really explain the US military’s force structure.

    On the other hand, the US military was never big enough to win a purely conventional war against the Russians during the Cold War either. Now, perhaps it could do so against China but only in a very time and space-limited setting. Certainly not a ground war.

    The US military was last organized for an all-out conventional war in WW2, and even then it would not have won against Germany without the Soviets. Amazing to consider, but the US was hurting for infantry manpower and worried about political risks of casualties in the winter of ’45, having by then endured a tiny fraction of the losses being sustained by Germany or Russia. The US probably could have defeated Germany by itself, but not that way.

    The force structure is better explained by the assumption that it has to have a lot of expensive kit in great numbers to deter any hegemonic challengers, and to support the projection of power against smaller targets in practice. It produces a force not optimized for either, of course. Britain ultimately faced comparable problems, though it was never as dominant as the US.

    Read More
  8. Flower says:

    Why are we having a discussion about “conventional” war? In truth, this article reminds me of one of those late night Fraternity arguments: What if Davey Crockett had had a Piper Cub at the Alamo? I’m surprised that we aren’t including mounted cavalry charges in this discussion. There will never again be a “conventional” war against nuclear powers. Oh, it might start out that way, but do you know when the decision will be made to escalate the war into ICBM throwing ? The instant that one of the participants starts to lose. Conventionally.

    I am curious, however, is the author’s middle name “Salt”? Just kidding. But, please, someone tell me what good it is to have neat weapon after neat weapon, an army the size of most countries’ population, a military swollen to the size on which the sun can never set, when the very borders of our country are as wide open as a 2 dollar prostitute? What good is a military when the enemy can simply walk up behind you a run a 9mm through your brain pan?

    There won’t be a nuke confrontation between the USSA and Russia, because there is simply too much to lose on both sides. And the idea that having bigger, ballsier tanks and artillery pieces and guns and planes is some how going to stop any nuke confrontation is the height of insanity.

    But you guys keep scaring yourselves, the Pentagon will surely send you a Christmas card.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Abraham Lincoln
    I just love the fact that we spend two-thirds of a trillion-with-a-T dollars every single year on aircraft carriers, tanks, unusable F35s, (literally) millions of military personnel, drone missile-ing Moslem weddings, and military golf courses, but can't defend ourselves from illiterate peasant Mexican dullards.
    , @Jeff77450
    Tactical nukes would almost certainly be used before ICBMs but otherwise very well said.
  9. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Great Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @unit472
    Yeah, yeah, yeah. The Russians are 10 feet tall and their 'battle hardened forces' got their ass handed to them in Chechnya in the 1990's including having brigade sized armor columns wiped out by guys with RPG's and assault rifles. I'll agree Putin has tried to modernize and professionalize his military and he does have some good special forces units but the bulk of his army is still short term conscripts and Russian reliance on heavy mechanized forces gives their military an atavistic look Marshal Zhukov might appreciate but the last time heavy mechanized forces went into battle was 1973 in the Sinai and Golan Heights it didn't turn out so well for Soviet equipped and trained Arab armies. Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom were more 'drive by shootings' in which Anglo American tank forces just blew through 'the battle hardened' Iraqi Army and achieved their objectives in 100 hours in the former and two weeks to Baghdad in the latter.

    I would grant you NATO would be hard pressed to mass enough combat power to pose a serious threat to Russian territorial integrity though its only two hours by tank from the Estonian border to St. Petersburg, a reality that no doubt concerns Russian military planners as much as it would US military brass if Russia could put an armored division two hours away from Chicago. That said the Russian military is a slow moving dinosaur as compared to the US as Russia lacks a serious Navy, air and sealift capacity and its fixed and rotary winged forces are no match for American aviation. The Russians may have a decent submarine force on paper but the after the Kursk disaster in 2000 and more recent incidents where nuclear submarines were barbequed in drydock makes one wonder just how 'operational' their sub fleet really is.

    Afghanistan was an insurgency operation..this is completely different from Russia facing an existential threat.

    An attack on Russia by Nato would be seen as an existential threat by every Russian soldier. What would be the fighten…ethnic Northern Irish pronounciation… motivation for the US Soldier to be part of instigating nuclear WW3?

    Even without nukes..Russia could easily kill 10,00 US soldiers in a week…even in a few hours. The US population would immediately turn against a war waged in the name of homo-filth rights.

    A war against against Conservative Orthodox Christian Russia would completely undermine the phony-fraudulent “Christian” foundations of the US. A war with Russia would also ignite a violent race war in the US.

    Saker must never underestimate the evil and stupidity of Samantha Powers…Susan Rice…and Victoria Nuland…and the scale 0f end-stage-moral- dissipation in the US 2015….The US is a nation that worships the filthy rectum…..

    My prediction on Unz Review:War with Russia before Nov 3 2016….

    Read More
  10. Talha says:
    @unit472
    Yeah, yeah, yeah. The Russians are 10 feet tall and their 'battle hardened forces' got their ass handed to them in Chechnya in the 1990's including having brigade sized armor columns wiped out by guys with RPG's and assault rifles. I'll agree Putin has tried to modernize and professionalize his military and he does have some good special forces units but the bulk of his army is still short term conscripts and Russian reliance on heavy mechanized forces gives their military an atavistic look Marshal Zhukov might appreciate but the last time heavy mechanized forces went into battle was 1973 in the Sinai and Golan Heights it didn't turn out so well for Soviet equipped and trained Arab armies. Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom were more 'drive by shootings' in which Anglo American tank forces just blew through 'the battle hardened' Iraqi Army and achieved their objectives in 100 hours in the former and two weeks to Baghdad in the latter.

    I would grant you NATO would be hard pressed to mass enough combat power to pose a serious threat to Russian territorial integrity though its only two hours by tank from the Estonian border to St. Petersburg, a reality that no doubt concerns Russian military planners as much as it would US military brass if Russia could put an armored division two hours away from Chicago. That said the Russian military is a slow moving dinosaur as compared to the US as Russia lacks a serious Navy, air and sealift capacity and its fixed and rotary winged forces are no match for American aviation. The Russians may have a decent submarine force on paper but the after the Kursk disaster in 2000 and more recent incidents where nuclear submarines were barbequed in drydock makes one wonder just how 'operational' their sub fleet really is.

    We just had ours handed to us by tribal Afghans (with less military capability than the Chechens) – unless you call Afghanistan a victory…

    Read More
    • Replies: @unit472
    I agree we failed in our 'nation building' exercise in Afghanistan and everywhere else we've tried it in the Third World but we never had brigades or even battalions destroyed by Afghans, Iraqis or anyone else. As a pure military exercise US airpower virtually alone toppled the Taliban regime. We only had one brigade in country when Mullah Omar and his merry men hightailed it into Pakistan but plenty of B-1 bombers and cruise missiles to convince them to get out of Dodge while the getting was good. I believe some Iraqi units surrendered to an American battleship in Desert Storm too which was also a first. Stood on the beach waving white flags to stop another salvo of 16 inch shells from heading their way.
  11. Vendetta says:
    @Pseudonymic Handle
    In the case of Russia-NATO war, Russia will invade the Baltic States to link with the forces in East Prussia, while the US will concentrate its forces in Germany where it already has major bases and vast stores since the Cold War, protected by one of the largest armies in Europe, the well equipped and competent Bundeswehr.

    Bundeswehr is not in very great shape. If you evaluate military forces solely by the list of equipment in their inventory, you’d think Saudi Arabia was a dominant military power.

    Read More
  12. @Flower
    Why are we having a discussion about "conventional" war? In truth, this article reminds me of one of those late night Fraternity arguments: What if Davey Crockett had had a Piper Cub at the Alamo? I'm surprised that we aren't including mounted cavalry charges in this discussion. There will never again be a "conventional" war against nuclear powers. Oh, it might start out that way, but do you know when the decision will be made to escalate the war into ICBM throwing ? The instant that one of the participants starts to lose. Conventionally.

    I am curious, however, is the author's middle name "Salt"? Just kidding. But, please, someone tell me what good it is to have neat weapon after neat weapon, an army the size of most countries' population, a military swollen to the size on which the sun can never set, when the very borders of our country are as wide open as a 2 dollar prostitute? What good is a military when the enemy can simply walk up behind you a run a 9mm through your brain pan?

    There won't be a nuke confrontation between the USSA and Russia, because there is simply too much to lose on both sides. And the idea that having bigger, ballsier tanks and artillery pieces and guns and planes is some how going to stop any nuke confrontation is the height of insanity.

    But you guys keep scaring yourselves, the Pentagon will surely send you a Christmas card.

    I just love the fact that we spend two-thirds of a trillion-with-a-T dollars every single year on aircraft carriers, tanks, unusable F35s, (literally) millions of military personnel, drone missile-ing Moslem weddings, and military golf courses, but can’t defend ourselves from illiterate peasant Mexican dullards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flower
    But, without all that hardware, wouldn't you feel un safe? The Pentagon would.
    , @Jeff77450
    There are no fortunes to be made by making a (serious) effort to stop the IPMDs.
  13. unit472 says:
    @Talha
    We just had ours handed to us by tribal Afghans (with less military capability than the Chechens) - unless you call Afghanistan a victory...

    I agree we failed in our ‘nation building’ exercise in Afghanistan and everywhere else we’ve tried it in the Third World but we never had brigades or even battalions destroyed by Afghans, Iraqis or anyone else. As a pure military exercise US airpower virtually alone toppled the Taliban regime. We only had one brigade in country when Mullah Omar and his merry men hightailed it into Pakistan but plenty of B-1 bombers and cruise missiles to convince them to get out of Dodge while the getting was good. I believe some Iraqi units surrendered to an American battleship in Desert Storm too which was also a first. Stood on the beach waving white flags to stop another salvo of 16 inch shells from heading their way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    It is curious that you have studiously avoided the factor of national solidarity. The wars are fought by people. When people defend their homes, families, and culture, this multiplies the strength of the defenders.
    The Russia is surely behind the US technologically for many obvious reasons. It would be dishonest to suggest that Russia has been looking for a conflict with the US. The absolute majority of main military conflicts in the world today have been initiated by a country that is not Russian Federation. Besides, RF has been looking for cooperation with EU and the US; perhaps it was the success of these efforts towards cooperation, which infuriated the US plutocracy. Would not it be better if we have the reliable mechanisms of democracy instead of "might is right?"
  14. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Where would a war between America and Russia take place? In America, or in Russia?
    Kind of tells you everything you need to know outside the propaganda war.

    Read More
  15. I found the article interesting. Unless the net assessers in the Pentagon have been replaced totally by racial/sexual preference hires, they are telling the Joint Chiefs something similar: any fight on Russia”s doorstep will be extremely difficult to win, since the U.S. would be dangling at the edge of a very long logistics line of communication.

    So why the provocative moves in the Baltic States and Poland? I have two explanations. The first is that it is all political and that there is no real intent to fight. Trouble is, those kind of moves can lead to an unintended (and losing) war. In the early 1980s Argentina invaded the Falklands and just couldn’t believe that the British would actually respond with a military task force to take them back. In the early 1960s the Indian government pushed large forces into untenable positions in the Himalayan border dispute with China. When China finally attacked, the Indians were overwhelmed. (The Indians died bravely; many were found with weapons frozen in their hands, but they still died. Nehru came close to a nervous breakdown; he feared Chinese paratroops landing in New Delhi.) Or as one of the corner men told Apollo Creed in the first Rocky movie: “This guy don’t know it’s a show, he thinks it’s a fight!”

    The second is much more frightening: NATO is comtemplating use of tactical nuclear weapons. I recall from my Naval War College days that every time NATO war-gamed the use of tactical nuclear weapons, it escalated into a strategic exchange in a week to ten days. 100 million American dead; bad scene.

    I hope that cooler heads will prevail in NATO, but a look at the present field of Presidential candidates leaves me wondering. The U.S. simply has no vital interest threatened by Russia that justifies the level of hostility presently expressed towards that country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Great Battle for Blair Mountain
    Here is what I think is going on:

    Irish Skank Samantha Powers....mulatto midget negro Susan Rice...and midget Aske..NAZI JEW Victoria Nuland...want to kill as many Conservative Orthodox Christian Russian Speaking Ukranians as is necessary to provoke Putin into invading Eastern Ukraine. Pick a number...pick a body count....
    , @Ron Unz
    I think America's main problem is that it is a country controlled and run by its Ministry of Propaganda.

    Obviously, having an effective Propaganda Ministry is an important strategic asset, especially in our media-dominated world. But when the propagandists are actually running the country, *extremely* unfortunate things can happen...
    , @The Saker
    So why the provocative moves in the Baltic States and Poland?

    My hope is that the main purpose is to create a sense of crisis and urgency in Europe. After all, if there is a crisis then Europe does "need" Uncle Sam to "protect" it, right? I believe that this is all a strategic PSYOP campaign to give the western ruling class the environment it loves so much: a Cold War.

    The US war planners I met and studied with in the late 1980s early 1990s were very smart folks and they openly told us in class that political statements have nothing to do with real warfare. I bet you that at the Naval War College they told you that even though officially the Navy had this plan for "forward deployment" and US carriers wings striking at the Kola Peninsula in case of war, it all was nonsense and that in reality the US carriers would never get so near to the Russian Backfire cruise missile range. A fellow student of mine was an officer on one of the carriers in question and he told me that in their own modeling the incoming waves of Russian cruise missiles always ended up sinking the carrier. One of my teachers - from ONA - said that he believed that the US carriers would remain south of the GIUK gap.
    I just think that the bottom line is simple: the closer to Russia's borders, the bigger the risk. I personally estimate this Russian domination zone as less than 1000km max and effective at roughly 500-600km. I may well be wrong, but I believe that US force planners will not consider any war-fighting scenario within that distance.

    This is even true if tactical nukes are used. By the way, I also did some nuclear wargaming during my studies in the USA and we had the same results as you did: tactical strikes eventually always escalated into strategic ones. And while we were pretty good a modeling escalation, we never found a way to model de-escalation.

    The real good news for Europe is that the Russians simply do not have the means to project their power much beyond their borders, so there is no "Russian threat" and no reason to fear "whom Putin will invade next" :-)

    Cheers,

    The Saker
    , @Jeff77450
    Very well said.
  16. @Diversity Heretic
    I found the article interesting. Unless the net assessers in the Pentagon have been replaced totally by racial/sexual preference hires, they are telling the Joint Chiefs something similar: any fight on Russia"s doorstep will be extremely difficult to win, since the U.S. would be dangling at the edge of a very long logistics line of communication.

    So why the provocative moves in the Baltic States and Poland? I have two explanations. The first is that it is all political and that there is no real intent to fight. Trouble is, those kind of moves can lead to an unintended (and losing) war. In the early 1980s Argentina invaded the Falklands and just couldn't believe that the British would actually respond with a military task force to take them back. In the early 1960s the Indian government pushed large forces into untenable positions in the Himalayan border dispute with China. When China finally attacked, the Indians were overwhelmed. (The Indians died bravely; many were found with weapons frozen in their hands, but they still died. Nehru came close to a nervous breakdown; he feared Chinese paratroops landing in New Delhi.) Or as one of the corner men told Apollo Creed in the first Rocky movie: "This guy don't know it's a show, he thinks it's a fight!"

    The second is much more frightening: NATO is comtemplating use of tactical nuclear weapons. I recall from my Naval War College days that every time NATO war-gamed the use of tactical nuclear weapons, it escalated into a strategic exchange in a week to ten days. 100 million American dead; bad scene.

    I hope that cooler heads will prevail in NATO, but a look at the present field of Presidential candidates leaves me wondering. The U.S. simply has no vital interest threatened by Russia that justifies the level of hostility presently expressed towards that country.

    Here is what I think is going on:

    Irish Skank Samantha Powers….mulatto midget negro Susan Rice…and midget Aske..NAZI JEW Victoria Nuland…want to kill as many Conservative Orthodox Christian Russian Speaking Ukranians as is necessary to provoke Putin into invading Eastern Ukraine. Pick a number…pick a body count….

    Read More
  17. Mulegino1 says:

    I agree with the Saker. A U.S.-NATO war with Russia in Russia’s “near abroad” would result in the myth of American invincibility being put to rest for all time.

    The most formidable fighting force ever assembled – the Wehrmacht along with its allies: Romanians, Hungarians, Italians, the Finns, the Spanish Blue Division, and thousands of non-German Western European volunteers could not defeat the Soviet Union. And this despite the enormous successes of the first months of Operation Barbarossa.

    The Germans and their allies surprised and caught the bulk of Stalin’s gigantic invasion force – which most likely was preparing to strike Europe in early or mid-July – in vulnerable salients, and captured enormous amounts of prisoners, equipment, and had destroyed virtually the entire forward deployed air force by the end of June 22, 1941. Yet not even this huge initial success was enough to bring the Soviet Union to its knees.

    And there is no way that the U.S. – in a conventional sense – could ever achieve anything like this surprise against Russia in its vicinity.

    America has not fought a war with an enemy at rough conventional parity since it faced the Chinese in Korea, and that ended in a truce. And that force was led by commanders who had seen the face of heavy combat in both World Wars – not affirmative action appointees.

    The increasingly feminized and mongrelized U.S. military is (with the possible exception of the Marines) increasingly becoming a hollowed out, demoralized shell.

    Just think about those male cadets who were ordered to march in red high heels. These are the men who are going to go toe to toe with the Russkies when they let themselves be humiliated in a p.r. stunt?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
    Let's hope the problem children in Washington, District of Corruption don't provoke a war with Russia. Of course, given their degenerate, warmongering nature, one can't be too sanguine. . . .

    OK. What'll happen if and when the crap hits the fan? Certainly, in conventional fighting, the Russians would give a good account of themselves. The famed hardihood of the Russian infantryman must never be underestimated. He can make do with less. The American soldier, by contrast, needs plenty in the way of logistical support to keep going. There's no feminism, no political correctness in the Russian ranks. Thus, there aren't any women serving in billets they can't hack. The American military is highly feminized and politically correct--possibly to its detriment.

    The fighting would be hard, with heavy casualties on both sides. And looming over everything is the threat of nuclear annihilation. . . .
    , @Jeff77450
    Sadly, you are all too correct. --signed, a retired army master sergeant
  18. Flower says:
    @Abraham Lincoln
    I just love the fact that we spend two-thirds of a trillion-with-a-T dollars every single year on aircraft carriers, tanks, unusable F35s, (literally) millions of military personnel, drone missile-ing Moslem weddings, and military golf courses, but can't defend ourselves from illiterate peasant Mexican dullards.

    But, without all that hardware, wouldn’t you feel un safe? The Pentagon would.

    Read More
  19. Ron Unz says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    I found the article interesting. Unless the net assessers in the Pentagon have been replaced totally by racial/sexual preference hires, they are telling the Joint Chiefs something similar: any fight on Russia"s doorstep will be extremely difficult to win, since the U.S. would be dangling at the edge of a very long logistics line of communication.

    So why the provocative moves in the Baltic States and Poland? I have two explanations. The first is that it is all political and that there is no real intent to fight. Trouble is, those kind of moves can lead to an unintended (and losing) war. In the early 1980s Argentina invaded the Falklands and just couldn't believe that the British would actually respond with a military task force to take them back. In the early 1960s the Indian government pushed large forces into untenable positions in the Himalayan border dispute with China. When China finally attacked, the Indians were overwhelmed. (The Indians died bravely; many were found with weapons frozen in their hands, but they still died. Nehru came close to a nervous breakdown; he feared Chinese paratroops landing in New Delhi.) Or as one of the corner men told Apollo Creed in the first Rocky movie: "This guy don't know it's a show, he thinks it's a fight!"

    The second is much more frightening: NATO is comtemplating use of tactical nuclear weapons. I recall from my Naval War College days that every time NATO war-gamed the use of tactical nuclear weapons, it escalated into a strategic exchange in a week to ten days. 100 million American dead; bad scene.

    I hope that cooler heads will prevail in NATO, but a look at the present field of Presidential candidates leaves me wondering. The U.S. simply has no vital interest threatened by Russia that justifies the level of hostility presently expressed towards that country.

    I think America’s main problem is that it is a country controlled and run by its Ministry of Propaganda.

    Obviously, having an effective Propaganda Ministry is an important strategic asset, especially in our media-dominated world. But when the propagandists are actually running the country, *extremely* unfortunate things can happen…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    @But when the propagandists are actually running the country, *extremely* unfortunate things can happen…

    Indeed, it always happened like that:
    "How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. ~ Karl Kraus (just before the start of WW1). Not much changed, except that there are no more diplomats.
    , @Kiza
    Yes, Seraphim has this very nice quote about believing in own propaganda (positive feedback).

    But all this US military fuss is just a distraction. Yes, they will bring more US, UK and NATO troops to the Russian border and, possibly, also the tactical nuclear weapons. But the sole purpose of all this activity and noise is to get Russia to spend on defense more than it earns. It is a Cold War 2.0, intended to have the same effect on Russia as the first one had on Soviet Union (plus our military-industrial says bye-bye to sequestration).

    One could call this a ledger war - the US neocons are attacking both the income and the expenditure side of Russia.

    For example, the MH17 shootdown worked its magic to initiate sanctions on Russia (this was its sole purpose). Setting aside the poor victims of MH17, one has to admire coordination and precision of this operation and its complete achievement of its goal. The oil price is working its magic now and there is more where that came from.

    The five main arrows in the US necon quiver are:
    1) sanctions, expect more false-flags to make them deeper,
    2) oil-price depression, further down then even the current disastrous global economic downturn would justify,
    3) turn Russia into Greece, the neoliberals/neconservatives in Russian banking and finance are ready to do the US bidding as soon as the NGO network in Russia is activated for a color revolution,
    4) Liquefied Natural Gas from the US to replace the Russian gas (in the works), despite its higher price, and
    5) fighting in Ukraine and military threats to Russia to spend more resources.

    They may come up with other and new ideas, but these five are plenty for a regime-change in Russia. Optimistically, Putin promised to Russia an economic recovery in two years. Russia will be very lucky if its economy does not get much worse in two years due to global economic downturn and all these Western pressures. We can expect endless repeats of this promise by the Western media in the Russian language, in preparation for color revolution in Russia.

  20. The Saker says: • Website
    @Diversity Heretic
    I found the article interesting. Unless the net assessers in the Pentagon have been replaced totally by racial/sexual preference hires, they are telling the Joint Chiefs something similar: any fight on Russia"s doorstep will be extremely difficult to win, since the U.S. would be dangling at the edge of a very long logistics line of communication.

    So why the provocative moves in the Baltic States and Poland? I have two explanations. The first is that it is all political and that there is no real intent to fight. Trouble is, those kind of moves can lead to an unintended (and losing) war. In the early 1980s Argentina invaded the Falklands and just couldn't believe that the British would actually respond with a military task force to take them back. In the early 1960s the Indian government pushed large forces into untenable positions in the Himalayan border dispute with China. When China finally attacked, the Indians were overwhelmed. (The Indians died bravely; many were found with weapons frozen in their hands, but they still died. Nehru came close to a nervous breakdown; he feared Chinese paratroops landing in New Delhi.) Or as one of the corner men told Apollo Creed in the first Rocky movie: "This guy don't know it's a show, he thinks it's a fight!"

    The second is much more frightening: NATO is comtemplating use of tactical nuclear weapons. I recall from my Naval War College days that every time NATO war-gamed the use of tactical nuclear weapons, it escalated into a strategic exchange in a week to ten days. 100 million American dead; bad scene.

    I hope that cooler heads will prevail in NATO, but a look at the present field of Presidential candidates leaves me wondering. The U.S. simply has no vital interest threatened by Russia that justifies the level of hostility presently expressed towards that country.

    So why the provocative moves in the Baltic States and Poland?

    My hope is that the main purpose is to create a sense of crisis and urgency in Europe. After all, if there is a crisis then Europe does “need” Uncle Sam to “protect” it, right? I believe that this is all a strategic PSYOP campaign to give the western ruling class the environment it loves so much: a Cold War.

    The US war planners I met and studied with in the late 1980s early 1990s were very smart folks and they openly told us in class that political statements have nothing to do with real warfare. I bet you that at the Naval War College they told you that even though officially the Navy had this plan for “forward deployment” and US carriers wings striking at the Kola Peninsula in case of war, it all was nonsense and that in reality the US carriers would never get so near to the Russian Backfire cruise missile range. A fellow student of mine was an officer on one of the carriers in question and he told me that in their own modeling the incoming waves of Russian cruise missiles always ended up sinking the carrier. One of my teachers – from ONA – said that he believed that the US carriers would remain south of the GIUK gap.
    I just think that the bottom line is simple: the closer to Russia’s borders, the bigger the risk. I personally estimate this Russian domination zone as less than 1000km max and effective at roughly 500-600km. I may well be wrong, but I believe that US force planners will not consider any war-fighting scenario within that distance.

    This is even true if tactical nukes are used. By the way, I also did some nuclear wargaming during my studies in the USA and we had the same results as you did: tactical strikes eventually always escalated into strategic ones. And while we were pretty good a modeling escalation, we never found a way to model de-escalation.

    The real good news for Europe is that the Russians simply do not have the means to project their power much beyond their borders, so there is no “Russian threat” and no reason to fear “whom Putin will invade next” :-)

    Cheers,

    The Saker

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    All very good points, thank you. I hope that the present war planners are as competent as the ones you describe (I was similarly impressed by the quality of my fellow students at the Naval War College (1990 era) and the quality of the commentary at the Naval War College Review). I fear that racial and sexual preference promotions within the military and political pressure to predict a desired result might lead to bad advice being given. Or moves taken for a political reason lead to military confrontation. "This guy don't know it's a show, he thinks it's a fight!"
  21. Rurik says:

    Russia doesn’t have the global reach to take very many actions of the sort that would stop us, short of nuclear weapons.

    (my emphasis)

    who are the “us” you speak of?

    are you a neocon?

    most of the Americans I know would prefer Putin as our commander in chief rather than go to war under Obama (or Hilary or Jeb or any of the other treasonous scum) currently occupying our White House and federal government.

    I have to wonder at how many of our military commanders would be willing to march on Russia under the leadership of Obama or Hilary. I know how most of the people I talk to would feel about it. We’d be happy to pay for McCain’s and Lindsey’s helmet and M16 and send them over pronto. But our own sons and daughters?

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "I have to wonder at how many of our military commanders would be willing to march on Russia under the leadership of Obama or Hilary. I know how most of the people I talk to would feel about it. We’d be happy to pay for McCain’s and Lindsey’s helmet and M16 and send them over pronto. But our own sons and daughters?"

    Everybody hails NATO as a successful alliance. The reason why NATO was such a success is that it was a DEFENSIVE alliance designed to deter the Soviet Union that never, fortunately, had to fight a war because, in my opinion, the USSR never had any intention of invading Western Europe. So NATO was basically assigned a task that was meaningless. When the Soviet Union was disbanded by Yeltsin we should have declared "mission accomplished" and disbanded NATO. Instead we expanded NATO to cover virtually every country that had been part of the Soviet bloc, despite promising Russia we wouldn't do so. What insanity! I know that if I had children in the military I wouldn't want them losing their lives fighting to defend Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia from Russia regardless of who the President was, male or female, Republican or Democrat, black or white or purple. Why is that any of our business? And I recall recent polls show that Western European countries are not especially thrilled at coming to the aid of those countries either. Rather than worrying about a possible invasion from the East, the Western Europeans should be worrying instead about the present invasion from the South, i.e., Africa and the Middle East.
    , @AnAnon
    "are you a neocon?" - the US. I am not, and do not view their attempt to poke Russia as particularly productive or good for America.
  22. tbraton says:
    @Sean the Neon Caucasian
    The US military was never designed to fight a major war against a sophisticated enemy.

    I read the whole article, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this one. Kind of got that one backwards. The U.S. military was modeled to fight oponents like the Soviets and Russians and Chinese. That it focused so heavily on conventional warfare was the reason it got tied down in Afghanistan/Iraq by unsophisticated enemies, among other reasons.

    ” The U.S. military was modeled to fight opponents like the Soviets and Russians and Chinese. ”

    I am no military expert, but I understood that the U.S. forces in Europe were designed to counteract an invasion from the U.S.S.R. I long ago concluded that Stalin and his successors had absolutely no intention of invading Western Europe, despite all the talk to the contrary. You must remember that the Soviets lost something like 25 million people fighting the Germans, compared to 400,000 for the U.S. (300,000 in Europe, 100,000 in Asia). With a loss of that magnitude, it would have been madness for the Soviets to wage another war. The Soviets also had to worry about the loyalty of their Eastern European “allies.” The reason for their aggressive attitude was to discourage any invasion from the West. (The same reason some people keep loud barking large dogs in their back yard.) As confirmation, look at Saddam Hussein who modeled his regime after Stalin’s. Hussein continued to talk about using WMDs up to the end (despite not having any) in order to dissuade his opponents (like Iran) from taking advantage of his weakened position. Furthermore, as the author points out, the Russians have designed their military not for conquest but for defense of the Fatherland (or is it Motherland?). Just my two bits.

    Read More
  23. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @AnAnon
    The Russian rationale for maintaining their massive stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons is that they have no hope of matching the west in a conventional conflict.

    "b) How likely is it that the Russians would give the USA six months to prepare for war without taking any action? (Answer: impossible)" - Russia doesn't have the global reach to take very many actions of the sort that would stop us, short of nuclear weapons.

    ANY, I underscore ANY, conventional combined arms operation in Russia’s “near abroad” against Russian Armed Forces will have NATO (not just USA) see the level of losses it never encountered–purely in conventional war. Because neocons and liberal interventionists are badly educated in general, and in the art of real war in particular–they still think that conventionally fighting Russia is the same as fighting Arabs. Just to give you some taste, Russia is the ONLY, other than US, nation in the world which possesses a credible arsenal of the stand-off high precision weapons which can deliver necessary payload of high explosives to any point in Europe, London including, let alone to the any staging areas or bases. This could be done because Russia is the only, other than US, nation in the world which possesses world-class C4ISR complex and is, actually, in the process of transition to the full Net Centric Capability. I am sure, you are aware of this, since your competence shines through. As per “global reach”, sure–fighting in the third world sh.tholes seems like a good strategy to me. I am sure it will pay off…oh, wait.

    Read More
  24. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Avery
    {"....I look at the current pool of US Presidential candidates I will tell you that I get very, very frightened."}

    I am not sure a crazy US President would be able to start a nuclear war with Russia on his own.
    Same with Russia.
    Don't know any details, but there has to be multiple levels of checks and balances so that a POTUS who has lost his mind or something cannot start a WW3.
    I read somewhere the Joint Chiefs secretly ordered the military to ignore any orders from Nixon as he was being forced to resign.

    My fear is that WW3 can easily start accidentally.
    Reportedly there have been about 3 very, very close calls.

    Even the Cuban missile crises reportedly came a lot closer to nuclear WW3 than is publicized.
    There is a story that a Soviet submarine was ready to launch nukes at US navy targets chasing and harassing it, and one of the three officers on the boat refused to go along with the other two: he insisted that they needed to be sure a war had started above before launching their nukes. So luckily nothing happened.

    But all it takes is for one nuke to go off, and both sides will most likely start launching everything under the "use it or lose it" assumption.

    And then it's good night.

    There is a story that a Soviet submarine was ready to launch nukes at US navy targets chasing and harassing it, and one of the three officers on the boat refused to go along with the other two: he insisted that they needed to be sure a war had started above before launching their nukes. So luckily nothing happened.

    Yes, the name of the officer (at that time Captain 2nd Rank, Chief of Staff of 69th BRPL) was Vasily Alexandrovich Arkhipov, later Vice-Admiral, superintendent of my naval academy. In Baku, no less;-)

    Read More
  25. tbraton says:
    @Rurik

    Russia doesn’t have the global reach to take very many actions of the sort that would stop us, short of nuclear weapons.
     
    (my emphasis)

    who are the "us" you speak of?

    are you a neocon?

    most of the Americans I know would prefer Putin as our commander in chief rather than go to war under Obama (or Hilary or Jeb or any of the other treasonous scum) currently occupying our White House and federal government.

    I have to wonder at how many of our military commanders would be willing to march on Russia under the leadership of Obama or Hilary. I know how most of the people I talk to would feel about it. We'd be happy to pay for McCain's and Lindsey's helmet and M16 and send them over pronto. But our own sons and daughters?

    “I have to wonder at how many of our military commanders would be willing to march on Russia under the leadership of Obama or Hilary. I know how most of the people I talk to would feel about it. We’d be happy to pay for McCain’s and Lindsey’s helmet and M16 and send them over pronto. But our own sons and daughters?”

    Everybody hails NATO as a successful alliance. The reason why NATO was such a success is that it was a DEFENSIVE alliance designed to deter the Soviet Union that never, fortunately, had to fight a war because, in my opinion, the USSR never had any intention of invading Western Europe. So NATO was basically assigned a task that was meaningless. When the Soviet Union was disbanded by Yeltsin we should have declared “mission accomplished” and disbanded NATO. Instead we expanded NATO to cover virtually every country that had been part of the Soviet bloc, despite promising Russia we wouldn’t do so. What insanity! I know that if I had children in the military I wouldn’t want them losing their lives fighting to defend Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia from Russia regardless of who the President was, male or female, Republican or Democrat, black or white or purple. Why is that any of our business? And I recall recent polls show that Western European countries are not especially thrilled at coming to the aid of those countries either. Rather than worrying about a possible invasion from the East, the Western Europeans should be worrying instead about the present invasion from the South, i.e., Africa and the Middle East.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {"When the Soviet Union was disbanded by Yeltsin"}

    Soviet Union was not disbanded by Yeltsin: it was Gorbachev.
    Yeltsin was the first elected President of independent Russian Federation.
    Incompetent drunkard Yeltsin's "gift" to Russia was to allow wholesale looting of national treasures and wealth by crooks, while he sang and danced.
    $100s of billions were siphoned out of Russia into the Western financial institutions.
    Most of the crooks escaped to Israel or London.
    One of the biggest, Berezovsky, who plotted from London to overthrow Putin, died mysteriously in London, reportedly by suicide.

    {"we should have declared “mission accomplished” and disbanded NATO..."}

    For a couple of hundred years at least, Anglo-American imperialists/capitalists have coveted the vast natural wealth of Russia (USSR).
    NATO was never a defensive alliance.
    Its purpose was to encircle USSR from day one and break it up.
    The idea has always been to break up Russia, so its immense natural wealth can be "developed" (looted) by Western money men.
    When Wolfowitz was trying to "sell" the Iraqi invasion to skeptical US Congress (or US voters), he openly said the US will use (steal) Iraqi oil to pay for the invasion (aka, the privilege of being “liberated”.)
    This is how these sick people think.
    Stealing, killing, destroying.... is normal to them

    Neocons/NATO will keep pushing towards Russia.
    They will keep at it, until the costs of the Empire become untenable, i.e. US taxpayers stop carrying the load.
    Right now, because US dollar is the worldwide reserve currency, US can keep freely printing dollars to pay for the empire.
    It's a great gig: you pay for valuable commodities with pieces of paper that only you can print and others have no choice but to use (Bretton Woods).
    But that party is coming to end too.
    Little counties (Libya, Iraq) who tried to sell their oil in Euros or other currencies, for example, were destroyed.
    But Russia and China, which are working to de-dollarize the worldwide commodities trade are too strong to attack directly.

    So it will be interesting to see how this will all end.
    The Empire will not give up its top perch without a fight.
    , @Rurik

    So NATO was basically assigned a task that was meaningless.
     
    NATO is about projecting the power of the Fed militarily over all of Europe and increasingly Russia. That's how I see this conflict. The Fed (NATO as its rabid dog) vs. Putin's Russia as the last domino to fall in their insane imperative for total dominance of the planet by the megalomaniacs running the big banks.


    Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia from Russia ... ... And I recall recent polls show that Western European countries are not especially thrilled at coming to the aid of those countries either.
     
    I'd be very upset at the idea that the Baltic countries were under some kind of threat from Russia. They suffered enough under the Soviet madness that gripped that part of the world for so many decades, as indeed did Russia herself. But there is just no evidence of any threat. Rather the only threat that these countries potentially suffer would be to allow themselves to be used like they're using Ukraine today, as their cheap bitch ('let's you and him fight'). And force a conflict with Russia that could cause the otherwise perfectly charming Baltic countries to suffer slaughter in the streets.

    As an American, I wish there were some way I could shout to the people of Estonia and Ukraine, who have long and bad memories of Russian transgressions under Soviet rule, that the fiend today is emanating not out of Moscow, as in the last century, but in this century it is very much in the west. Specifically Washington DC, London and Tel Aviv. And that if they look to the west for cultural ties, that what they'll find once they get the loans from the banks is a culture they wont recognize. One that pisses on their ancient heritage and promotes sodomy as a preferred lifestyle for their youth. God help Eastern Europe if it looks west to Hollywood and New York for its salvation. God help you. Take if from an average, working class American, that what they're dangling in front of you, is not what you're going to like.

    Putin may have his warts, and Russia may still rankle Europe and the Baltic states with their hysterical chest thumping over the "liberations" of the red army, but if they think there is something better happening in the former and now occupied West, then they're in for a terrible shock.

    Our societies are in decline. We are bankrupt, both morally and spiritually and economically. They're looking at your lands as a ripe looting ground. And their final stepping stone to Total Power. Reconcile with Putin's Russia, I beg you my brothers and sisters in Latvia and Hungary and Ukraine and Lithuania. Russia is no longer under the thrall of the Beast. Today it lurks and drools in the former west, and its appetite never sates.
  26. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website

    Submarine in the last, bottom, row (with number 23 on sail) looks more like British Upholder-class, what is next to it to the left–my qualifications fail me:-) The set of toys, though, is cute.

    Read More
  27. Seraphim says:
    @unit472
    Yeah, yeah, yeah. The Russians are 10 feet tall and their 'battle hardened forces' got their ass handed to them in Chechnya in the 1990's including having brigade sized armor columns wiped out by guys with RPG's and assault rifles. I'll agree Putin has tried to modernize and professionalize his military and he does have some good special forces units but the bulk of his army is still short term conscripts and Russian reliance on heavy mechanized forces gives their military an atavistic look Marshal Zhukov might appreciate but the last time heavy mechanized forces went into battle was 1973 in the Sinai and Golan Heights it didn't turn out so well for Soviet equipped and trained Arab armies. Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom were more 'drive by shootings' in which Anglo American tank forces just blew through 'the battle hardened' Iraqi Army and achieved their objectives in 100 hours in the former and two weeks to Baghdad in the latter.

    I would grant you NATO would be hard pressed to mass enough combat power to pose a serious threat to Russian territorial integrity though its only two hours by tank from the Estonian border to St. Petersburg, a reality that no doubt concerns Russian military planners as much as it would US military brass if Russia could put an armored division two hours away from Chicago. That said the Russian military is a slow moving dinosaur as compared to the US as Russia lacks a serious Navy, air and sealift capacity and its fixed and rotary winged forces are no match for American aviation. The Russians may have a decent submarine force on paper but the after the Kursk disaster in 2000 and more recent incidents where nuclear submarines were barbequed in drydock makes one wonder just how 'operational' their sub fleet really is.

    This kind of approach reminds me of these old people for whom the Germans won the war because in the first weeks they wiped out entire Russian armies, but the bloody winter came! How unfair. True, they had several times more tanks than the Germans, but the German ones were the best.

    Read More
    • Replies: @unit472
    There is a profound difference today between 1941 and 2o15. In any clash between modern nation states, their military strength will never be greater than on Day 1 of hostilities. The reason is the range, accuracy and lethality of modern weaponry. There can be no moving tank factories beyond the Urals or the United States sheltering behind the vast distances of the Pacific Ocean in order to rebuild its navy. Searing sun, or freezing cold makes no difference to a precision guided missile. Orbiting satellites or UAV will find targets and relay that information to command centers who will strike at them. You can have 1000 tanks somewhere but they can't travel much more than 100 miles without a railroad or heavy vehicles to move them to the front and a single missile can take down a bridge or highway overpass and leave them stranded.
  28. AnAnon says:
    @Rurik

    Russia doesn’t have the global reach to take very many actions of the sort that would stop us, short of nuclear weapons.
     
    (my emphasis)

    who are the "us" you speak of?

    are you a neocon?

    most of the Americans I know would prefer Putin as our commander in chief rather than go to war under Obama (or Hilary or Jeb or any of the other treasonous scum) currently occupying our White House and federal government.

    I have to wonder at how many of our military commanders would be willing to march on Russia under the leadership of Obama or Hilary. I know how most of the people I talk to would feel about it. We'd be happy to pay for McCain's and Lindsey's helmet and M16 and send them over pronto. But our own sons and daughters?

    “are you a neocon?” – the US. I am not, and do not view their attempt to poke Russia as particularly productive or good for America.

    Read More
  29. Avery says:
    @tbraton
    "I have to wonder at how many of our military commanders would be willing to march on Russia under the leadership of Obama or Hilary. I know how most of the people I talk to would feel about it. We’d be happy to pay for McCain’s and Lindsey’s helmet and M16 and send them over pronto. But our own sons and daughters?"

    Everybody hails NATO as a successful alliance. The reason why NATO was such a success is that it was a DEFENSIVE alliance designed to deter the Soviet Union that never, fortunately, had to fight a war because, in my opinion, the USSR never had any intention of invading Western Europe. So NATO was basically assigned a task that was meaningless. When the Soviet Union was disbanded by Yeltsin we should have declared "mission accomplished" and disbanded NATO. Instead we expanded NATO to cover virtually every country that had been part of the Soviet bloc, despite promising Russia we wouldn't do so. What insanity! I know that if I had children in the military I wouldn't want them losing their lives fighting to defend Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia from Russia regardless of who the President was, male or female, Republican or Democrat, black or white or purple. Why is that any of our business? And I recall recent polls show that Western European countries are not especially thrilled at coming to the aid of those countries either. Rather than worrying about a possible invasion from the East, the Western Europeans should be worrying instead about the present invasion from the South, i.e., Africa and the Middle East.

    {“When the Soviet Union was disbanded by Yeltsin”}

    Soviet Union was not disbanded by Yeltsin: it was Gorbachev.
    Yeltsin was the first elected President of independent Russian Federation.
    Incompetent drunkard Yeltsin’s “gift” to Russia was to allow wholesale looting of national treasures and wealth by crooks, while he sang and danced.
    $100s of billions were siphoned out of Russia into the Western financial institutions.
    Most of the crooks escaped to Israel or London.
    One of the biggest, Berezovsky, who plotted from London to overthrow Putin, died mysteriously in London, reportedly by suicide.

    {“we should have declared “mission accomplished” and disbanded NATO…”}

    For a couple of hundred years at least, Anglo-American imperialists/capitalists have coveted the vast natural wealth of Russia (USSR).
    NATO was never a defensive alliance.
    Its purpose was to encircle USSR from day one and break it up.
    The idea has always been to break up Russia, so its immense natural wealth can be “developed” (looted) by Western money men.
    When Wolfowitz was trying to “sell” the Iraqi invasion to skeptical US Congress (or US voters), he openly said the US will use (steal) Iraqi oil to pay for the invasion (aka, the privilege of being “liberated”.)
    This is how these sick people think.
    Stealing, killing, destroying…. is normal to them

    Neocons/NATO will keep pushing towards Russia.
    They will keep at it, until the costs of the Empire become untenable, i.e. US taxpayers stop carrying the load.
    Right now, because US dollar is the worldwide reserve currency, US can keep freely printing dollars to pay for the empire.
    It’s a great gig: you pay for valuable commodities with pieces of paper that only you can print and others have no choice but to use (Bretton Woods).
    But that party is coming to end too.
    Little counties (Libya, Iraq) who tried to sell their oil in Euros or other currencies, for example, were destroyed.
    But Russia and China, which are working to de-dollarize the worldwide commodities trade are too strong to attack directly.

    So it will be interesting to see how this will all end.
    The Empire will not give up its top perch without a fight.

    Read More
    • Replies: @athEIst
    You are absolutely correct except that the disbanding of the USSR was dictated by Sheik Yamani and Saudi Arabia's decision to retake control of OPEC(at a cost of 2-3 trillion dollars) through low oil prices. The KSA probably considered this just a minor side benefit of their ultimately successful project.
  30. Seraphim says:
    @Ron Unz
    I think America's main problem is that it is a country controlled and run by its Ministry of Propaganda.

    Obviously, having an effective Propaganda Ministry is an important strategic asset, especially in our media-dominated world. But when the propagandists are actually running the country, *extremely* unfortunate things can happen...

    @But when the propagandists are actually running the country, *extremely* unfortunate things can happen…

    Indeed, it always happened like that:
    “How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. ~ Karl Kraus (just before the start of WW1). Not much changed, except that there are no more diplomats.

    Read More
  31. annamaria says:
    @Pseudonymic Handle
    In the case of Russia-NATO war, Russia will invade the Baltic States to link with the forces in East Prussia, while the US will concentrate its forces in Germany where it already has major bases and vast stores since the Cold War, protected by one of the largest armies in Europe, the well equipped and competent Bundeswehr.

    “In the case of Russia-NATO war…”
    But then this would be the US-Russian war. It is highly unlikely that Germany has any inclinations for a war with Russian Federation; the same can be safely said about France and Spain and Italy. The midgety Baltic states (and other former members of the extinct Warsaw Pact, which have entered EU relatively recently) are happy to show their closeness to the Hegemon by making the loud and annoying noises towards the giant Russia, like little decorative dogs showing up to please the Hegemon.
    The EU actually wants and needs a mutually-beneficial cooperation with RF. But that need is of no interest for the US plutocracy.
    The great danger, that accompanies the lives of humankind today, is the accidental triggering of the WWIII just because the nuclear weaponry is ready for action.

    Read More
  32. annamaria says:
    @unit472
    I agree we failed in our 'nation building' exercise in Afghanistan and everywhere else we've tried it in the Third World but we never had brigades or even battalions destroyed by Afghans, Iraqis or anyone else. As a pure military exercise US airpower virtually alone toppled the Taliban regime. We only had one brigade in country when Mullah Omar and his merry men hightailed it into Pakistan but plenty of B-1 bombers and cruise missiles to convince them to get out of Dodge while the getting was good. I believe some Iraqi units surrendered to an American battleship in Desert Storm too which was also a first. Stood on the beach waving white flags to stop another salvo of 16 inch shells from heading their way.

    It is curious that you have studiously avoided the factor of national solidarity. The wars are fought by people. When people defend their homes, families, and culture, this multiplies the strength of the defenders.
    The Russia is surely behind the US technologically for many obvious reasons. It would be dishonest to suggest that Russia has been looking for a conflict with the US. The absolute majority of main military conflicts in the world today have been initiated by a country that is not Russian Federation. Besides, RF has been looking for cooperation with EU and the US; perhaps it was the success of these efforts towards cooperation, which infuriated the US plutocracy. Would not it be better if we have the reliable mechanisms of democracy instead of “might is right?”

    Read More
  33. unit472 says:
    @Seraphim
    This kind of approach reminds me of these old people for whom the Germans won the war because in the first weeks they wiped out entire Russian armies, but the bloody winter came! How unfair. True, they had several times more tanks than the Germans, but the German ones were the best.

    There is a profound difference today between 1941 and 2o15. In any clash between modern nation states, their military strength will never be greater than on Day 1 of hostilities. The reason is the range, accuracy and lethality of modern weaponry. There can be no moving tank factories beyond the Urals or the United States sheltering behind the vast distances of the Pacific Ocean in order to rebuild its navy. Searing sun, or freezing cold makes no difference to a precision guided missile. Orbiting satellites or UAV will find targets and relay that information to command centers who will strike at them. You can have 1000 tanks somewhere but they can’t travel much more than 100 miles without a railroad or heavy vehicles to move them to the front and a single missile can take down a bridge or highway overpass and leave them stranded.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    But that's would happen only if the aim of America would be simply to destroy Russia, to wipe her out and the Russian people from the surface of the Earth. But it is a fair bet that they want to exploit Russia and to humiliate Russians, to show them!For that they have to occupy the country and let some people live. And it is doubtful that would be easy.
  34. tsotha says:

    These kinds of exercises are silly without a scenario. A scenario which has the US invading Russia (why?) is very much different from one that has Russia invading the US (again, why?), or one that has the Russians and the Americans duking it out on a desert island.

    That said, some of what’s written here is simply wrong. Like this:

    In other words, “light” or “rapid reaction” warfare is where the Russians excel and not the kind of conflict the US or NATO could ever hope to prevail in.

    Or this:

    The sole real purpose of the US military is to regularly beat up on some small, more or less defenseless country, either in order to rob it of its resources, overthrow a government daring to defy the World Hegemon, or just to make an example of it.

    The US military was designed from the bottom up to beat the Soviets. That’s how it’s organized. That’s how it’s equipped. The idea the Russians are better at “rapid reaction” is fanciful in the extreme. They rapid-reacted into Chechnya and were promptly defeated by a few thousand hungry, badly equipped locals without armor, artillery, or air power. Then they spent years building up for a second invasion in which they used artillery to completely flatten Grozny so they wouldn’t have to actually engage the Chechens.

    Russia has also been unable (for various domestic reasons) to impose a modern command structure on its military. The US still has a large technical edge in air power and anti-tank weaponry, and the Russians are completely dependent on tank forces, the vast majority of which are hopelessly obsolete. It was fine for defeating the Georgians, but a matchup with the US doesn’t end well for the Russians at all.

    We spent six months building the Iraq invasion force because that meant the fewest US casualties, not because we couldn’t have beaten the Iraqis without the large buildup. And one of the reasons the Iraqi army was swept aside so easily is it was equipped, trained, and led according to Soviet doctrine. Just like the Russian army.

    The only place the Russian military has any hope of defeating the US military is on Russian soil. And while they might not nuke us over a proxy war in Africa, they most certainly would nuke us over a full blown invasion of the mother country. This point has not escaped the notice of US politicians and military planners either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Everyone is talking about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, so it must still be 1994. I congratulate you on your discovery.
    , @annamaria
    "We spent six months building the Iraq invasion force because that meant the fewest US casualties, not because we couldn’t have beaten the Iraqis without the large buildup."
    You decided to not complete the paragraph, so here it is:
    "During this huge operation it took the US six months and an unprecedented logistical effort to gather the forces needed to attack Iraq. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia had been prepared for decades to receive such a massive force (in compliance with the so-called Carter Doctrine) and the US efforts was completely unopposed by Saddam Hussein." In other words, "The sole real purpose of the US military is to regularly beat up on some small, more or less defenseless country, either in order to rob it of its resources, overthrow a government daring to defy the World Hegemon, or just to make an example of it."
    Only mercenaries could be used for such military operations. There is nothing remotely reminding the "defense of fatherland" and "the democracy of the march." This is a moral decay. When a rot takes something seemingly robust to the marrow, expect a collapse that could start at some unexpected points.
    , @Seraphim
    @The only place the Russian military has any hope of defeating the US military is on Russian soil.

    There is the only place that the US military could get in touch with the Russian one.
    And again one brings irrelevant examples (Chechnya, why not the first months of 1941?) to show the essential weakness of Russian military in contrast with the invincible Americans.
  35. athEIst says:
    @Avery
    {"When the Soviet Union was disbanded by Yeltsin"}

    Soviet Union was not disbanded by Yeltsin: it was Gorbachev.
    Yeltsin was the first elected President of independent Russian Federation.
    Incompetent drunkard Yeltsin's "gift" to Russia was to allow wholesale looting of national treasures and wealth by crooks, while he sang and danced.
    $100s of billions were siphoned out of Russia into the Western financial institutions.
    Most of the crooks escaped to Israel or London.
    One of the biggest, Berezovsky, who plotted from London to overthrow Putin, died mysteriously in London, reportedly by suicide.

    {"we should have declared “mission accomplished” and disbanded NATO..."}

    For a couple of hundred years at least, Anglo-American imperialists/capitalists have coveted the vast natural wealth of Russia (USSR).
    NATO was never a defensive alliance.
    Its purpose was to encircle USSR from day one and break it up.
    The idea has always been to break up Russia, so its immense natural wealth can be "developed" (looted) by Western money men.
    When Wolfowitz was trying to "sell" the Iraqi invasion to skeptical US Congress (or US voters), he openly said the US will use (steal) Iraqi oil to pay for the invasion (aka, the privilege of being “liberated”.)
    This is how these sick people think.
    Stealing, killing, destroying.... is normal to them

    Neocons/NATO will keep pushing towards Russia.
    They will keep at it, until the costs of the Empire become untenable, i.e. US taxpayers stop carrying the load.
    Right now, because US dollar is the worldwide reserve currency, US can keep freely printing dollars to pay for the empire.
    It's a great gig: you pay for valuable commodities with pieces of paper that only you can print and others have no choice but to use (Bretton Woods).
    But that party is coming to end too.
    Little counties (Libya, Iraq) who tried to sell their oil in Euros or other currencies, for example, were destroyed.
    But Russia and China, which are working to de-dollarize the worldwide commodities trade are too strong to attack directly.

    So it will be interesting to see how this will all end.
    The Empire will not give up its top perch without a fight.

    You are absolutely correct except that the disbanding of the USSR was dictated by Sheik Yamani and Saudi Arabia’s decision to retake control of OPEC(at a cost of 2-3 trillion dollars) through low oil prices. The KSA probably considered this just a minor side benefit of their ultimately successful project.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    A lot of Americans believe that, but it is clearly false. The USSR's economy was not such that it could be toppled by a year of low oil prices. Perestroika had quite different causes.
  36. @Mulegino1
    I agree with the Saker. A U.S.-NATO war with Russia in Russia's "near abroad" would result in the myth of American invincibility being put to rest for all time.

    The most formidable fighting force ever assembled - the Wehrmacht along with its allies: Romanians, Hungarians, Italians, the Finns, the Spanish Blue Division, and thousands of non-German Western European volunteers could not defeat the Soviet Union. And this despite the enormous successes of the first months of Operation Barbarossa.

    The Germans and their allies surprised and caught the bulk of Stalin's gigantic invasion force - which most likely was preparing to strike Europe in early or mid-July - in vulnerable salients, and captured enormous amounts of prisoners, equipment, and had destroyed virtually the entire forward deployed air force by the end of June 22, 1941. Yet not even this huge initial success was enough to bring the Soviet Union to its knees.

    And there is no way that the U.S. - in a conventional sense - could ever achieve anything like this surprise against Russia in its vicinity.

    America has not fought a war with an enemy at rough conventional parity since it faced the Chinese in Korea, and that ended in a truce. And that force was led by commanders who had seen the face of heavy combat in both World Wars - not affirmative action appointees.

    The increasingly feminized and mongrelized U.S. military is (with the possible exception of the Marines) increasingly becoming a hollowed out, demoralized shell.

    Just think about those male cadets who were ordered to march in red high heels. These are the men who are going to go toe to toe with the Russkies when they let themselves be humiliated in a p.r. stunt?

    Let’s hope the problem children in Washington, District of Corruption don’t provoke a war with Russia. Of course, given their degenerate, warmongering nature, one can’t be too sanguine. . . .

    OK. What’ll happen if and when the crap hits the fan? Certainly, in conventional fighting, the Russians would give a good account of themselves. The famed hardihood of the Russian infantryman must never be underestimated. He can make do with less. The American soldier, by contrast, needs plenty in the way of logistical support to keep going. There’s no feminism, no political correctness in the Russian ranks. Thus, there aren’t any women serving in billets they can’t hack. The American military is highly feminized and politically correct–possibly to its detriment.

    The fighting would be hard, with heavy casualties on both sides. And looming over everything is the threat of nuclear annihilation. . . .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    I agree - there is no feminization in the Russian military.

    Don't women serve in separate units, like our own WAC units during the Second World War?

    I was watching the Victory Parade in Moscow (on RT) and it appeared that all of the formations of the different units were either all men or all women.

    Contrast that with this:

    http://universalfreepress.com/army-humiliates-male-soldiers-forces-them-to-wear-womens-clothing-as-part-of-training/

    These people are insane, and the worst part of this is that not one of these "soldiers" had the courage to defend his dignity and honor - as well as defying an unlawful order (out of uniform).
    If they didn't have the courage to refuse to do a p.r. stunt, can you imagine how they will fare if they were to go "toe to toe with the Russkies"?
  37. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    A couple points I didn’t see mentioned.

    The U.S. No longer has the premier jet fighter. The Russians have eclipsed the U.S. here and air superiority is something I don’t think America has ever been without in warfare. How vulnerable will the rest of the armed forces be if Russian fighter jets can penetrate deep into defenses and take out vulnerable targets like AWACS planes. The F35 is an albatross that could cost America dearly in a real war.

    The second is the relationship Russia now has with China, where both countries see each other as vital to their own defense. The U.S. Could try to surround and strangle Russia into starvation and try to win a protracted war. But with China deepening supply routes through Russia, it would be very difficult to get anywhere without expanding the war to China.

    This brings up another point. Who brings a more competent ally? The U.S. has Europe and Russia has China. To me at here is little Europe can bring to the table in a war like this as I don’t think the populous is united in identity and I don’t think they are ready for war.

    China on the other hand has a huge ground force and enormous productive capability. If China becomes involved, as I am sure they would be, how could America bring enough firepower to take on Russia and China at once?

    Read More
  38. 5371 says:
    @tsotha
    These kinds of exercises are silly without a scenario. A scenario which has the US invading Russia (why?) is very much different from one that has Russia invading the US (again, why?), or one that has the Russians and the Americans duking it out on a desert island.

    That said, some of what's written here is simply wrong. Like this:

    In other words, “light” or “rapid reaction” warfare is where the Russians excel and not the kind of conflict the US or NATO could ever hope to prevail in.
     
    Or this:

    The sole real purpose of the US military is to regularly beat up on some small, more or less defenseless country, either in order to rob it of its resources, overthrow a government daring to defy the World Hegemon, or just to make an example of it.
     
    The US military was designed from the bottom up to beat the Soviets. That's how it's organized. That's how it's equipped. The idea the Russians are better at "rapid reaction" is fanciful in the extreme. They rapid-reacted into Chechnya and were promptly defeated by a few thousand hungry, badly equipped locals without armor, artillery, or air power. Then they spent years building up for a second invasion in which they used artillery to completely flatten Grozny so they wouldn't have to actually engage the Chechens.

    Russia has also been unable (for various domestic reasons) to impose a modern command structure on its military. The US still has a large technical edge in air power and anti-tank weaponry, and the Russians are completely dependent on tank forces, the vast majority of which are hopelessly obsolete. It was fine for defeating the Georgians, but a matchup with the US doesn't end well for the Russians at all.

    We spent six months building the Iraq invasion force because that meant the fewest US casualties, not because we couldn't have beaten the Iraqis without the large buildup. And one of the reasons the Iraqi army was swept aside so easily is it was equipped, trained, and led according to Soviet doctrine. Just like the Russian army.

    The only place the Russian military has any hope of defeating the US military is on Russian soil. And while they might not nuke us over a proxy war in Africa, they most certainly would nuke us over a full blown invasion of the mother country. This point has not escaped the notice of US politicians and military planners either.

    Everyone is talking about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, so it must still be 1994. I congratulate you on your discovery.

    Read More
  39. 5371 says:
    @athEIst
    You are absolutely correct except that the disbanding of the USSR was dictated by Sheik Yamani and Saudi Arabia's decision to retake control of OPEC(at a cost of 2-3 trillion dollars) through low oil prices. The KSA probably considered this just a minor side benefit of their ultimately successful project.

    A lot of Americans believe that, but it is clearly false. The USSR’s economy was not such that it could be toppled by a year of low oil prices. Perestroika had quite different causes.

    Read More
  40. Kiza says:
    @Ron Unz
    I think America's main problem is that it is a country controlled and run by its Ministry of Propaganda.

    Obviously, having an effective Propaganda Ministry is an important strategic asset, especially in our media-dominated world. But when the propagandists are actually running the country, *extremely* unfortunate things can happen...

    Yes, Seraphim has this very nice quote about believing in own propaganda (positive feedback).

    But all this US military fuss is just a distraction. Yes, they will bring more US, UK and NATO troops to the Russian border and, possibly, also the tactical nuclear weapons. But the sole purpose of all this activity and noise is to get Russia to spend on defense more than it earns. It is a Cold War 2.0, intended to have the same effect on Russia as the first one had on Soviet Union (plus our military-industrial says bye-bye to sequestration).

    One could call this a ledger war – the US neocons are attacking both the income and the expenditure side of Russia.

    For example, the MH17 shootdown worked its magic to initiate sanctions on Russia (this was its sole purpose). Setting aside the poor victims of MH17, one has to admire coordination and precision of this operation and its complete achievement of its goal. The oil price is working its magic now and there is more where that came from.

    The five main arrows in the US necon quiver are:
    1) sanctions, expect more false-flags to make them deeper,
    2) oil-price depression, further down then even the current disastrous global economic downturn would justify,
    3) turn Russia into Greece, the neoliberals/neconservatives in Russian banking and finance are ready to do the US bidding as soon as the NGO network in Russia is activated for a color revolution,
    4) Liquefied Natural Gas from the US to replace the Russian gas (in the works), despite its higher price, and
    5) fighting in Ukraine and military threats to Russia to spend more resources.

    They may come up with other and new ideas, but these five are plenty for a regime-change in Russia. Optimistically, Putin promised to Russia an economic recovery in two years. Russia will be very lucky if its economy does not get much worse in two years due to global economic downturn and all these Western pressures. We can expect endless repeats of this promise by the Western media in the Russian language, in preparation for color revolution in Russia.

    Read More
  41. Seraphim says:
    @unit472
    There is a profound difference today between 1941 and 2o15. In any clash between modern nation states, their military strength will never be greater than on Day 1 of hostilities. The reason is the range, accuracy and lethality of modern weaponry. There can be no moving tank factories beyond the Urals or the United States sheltering behind the vast distances of the Pacific Ocean in order to rebuild its navy. Searing sun, or freezing cold makes no difference to a precision guided missile. Orbiting satellites or UAV will find targets and relay that information to command centers who will strike at them. You can have 1000 tanks somewhere but they can't travel much more than 100 miles without a railroad or heavy vehicles to move them to the front and a single missile can take down a bridge or highway overpass and leave them stranded.

    But that’s would happen only if the aim of America would be simply to destroy Russia, to wipe her out and the Russian people from the surface of the Earth. But it is a fair bet that they want to exploit Russia and to humiliate Russians, to show them!For that they have to occupy the country and let some people live. And it is doubtful that would be easy.

    Read More
  42. @The Saker
    So why the provocative moves in the Baltic States and Poland?

    My hope is that the main purpose is to create a sense of crisis and urgency in Europe. After all, if there is a crisis then Europe does "need" Uncle Sam to "protect" it, right? I believe that this is all a strategic PSYOP campaign to give the western ruling class the environment it loves so much: a Cold War.

    The US war planners I met and studied with in the late 1980s early 1990s were very smart folks and they openly told us in class that political statements have nothing to do with real warfare. I bet you that at the Naval War College they told you that even though officially the Navy had this plan for "forward deployment" and US carriers wings striking at the Kola Peninsula in case of war, it all was nonsense and that in reality the US carriers would never get so near to the Russian Backfire cruise missile range. A fellow student of mine was an officer on one of the carriers in question and he told me that in their own modeling the incoming waves of Russian cruise missiles always ended up sinking the carrier. One of my teachers - from ONA - said that he believed that the US carriers would remain south of the GIUK gap.
    I just think that the bottom line is simple: the closer to Russia's borders, the bigger the risk. I personally estimate this Russian domination zone as less than 1000km max and effective at roughly 500-600km. I may well be wrong, but I believe that US force planners will not consider any war-fighting scenario within that distance.

    This is even true if tactical nukes are used. By the way, I also did some nuclear wargaming during my studies in the USA and we had the same results as you did: tactical strikes eventually always escalated into strategic ones. And while we were pretty good a modeling escalation, we never found a way to model de-escalation.

    The real good news for Europe is that the Russians simply do not have the means to project their power much beyond their borders, so there is no "Russian threat" and no reason to fear "whom Putin will invade next" :-)

    Cheers,

    The Saker

    All very good points, thank you. I hope that the present war planners are as competent as the ones you describe (I was similarly impressed by the quality of my fellow students at the Naval War College (1990 era) and the quality of the commentary at the Naval War College Review). I fear that racial and sexual preference promotions within the military and political pressure to predict a desired result might lead to bad advice being given. Or moves taken for a political reason lead to military confrontation. “This guy don’t know it’s a show, he thinks it’s a fight!”

    Read More
  43. tsotha says:

    The U.S. No longer has the premier jet fighter. The Russians have eclipsed the U.S. here and air superiority is something I don’t think America has ever been without in warfare.

    Yeah… no. The F-22 is far superior to anything the Russians can field. Eventually they’ll have a pale imitation in the T-50, but so far they can’t get it to work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Yes. The US is world-known for their technological advances. But how come that two (2) jets were never intercepted, stopped, prevented from hitting the Trade World Center. It is impossible to have it both ways. Either the US are superior re airspace control or the US is governed by a manipulative fraud.
  44. Rurik says:
    @tbraton
    "I have to wonder at how many of our military commanders would be willing to march on Russia under the leadership of Obama or Hilary. I know how most of the people I talk to would feel about it. We’d be happy to pay for McCain’s and Lindsey’s helmet and M16 and send them over pronto. But our own sons and daughters?"

    Everybody hails NATO as a successful alliance. The reason why NATO was such a success is that it was a DEFENSIVE alliance designed to deter the Soviet Union that never, fortunately, had to fight a war because, in my opinion, the USSR never had any intention of invading Western Europe. So NATO was basically assigned a task that was meaningless. When the Soviet Union was disbanded by Yeltsin we should have declared "mission accomplished" and disbanded NATO. Instead we expanded NATO to cover virtually every country that had been part of the Soviet bloc, despite promising Russia we wouldn't do so. What insanity! I know that if I had children in the military I wouldn't want them losing their lives fighting to defend Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia from Russia regardless of who the President was, male or female, Republican or Democrat, black or white or purple. Why is that any of our business? And I recall recent polls show that Western European countries are not especially thrilled at coming to the aid of those countries either. Rather than worrying about a possible invasion from the East, the Western Europeans should be worrying instead about the present invasion from the South, i.e., Africa and the Middle East.

    So NATO was basically assigned a task that was meaningless.

    NATO is about projecting the power of the Fed militarily over all of Europe and increasingly Russia. That’s how I see this conflict. The Fed (NATO as its rabid dog) vs. Putin’s Russia as the last domino to fall in their insane imperative for total dominance of the planet by the megalomaniacs running the big banks.

    Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia from Russia … … And I recall recent polls show that Western European countries are not especially thrilled at coming to the aid of those countries either.

    I’d be very upset at the idea that the Baltic countries were under some kind of threat from Russia. They suffered enough under the Soviet madness that gripped that part of the world for so many decades, as indeed did Russia herself. But there is just no evidence of any threat. Rather the only threat that these countries potentially suffer would be to allow themselves to be used like they’re using Ukraine today, as their cheap bitch (‘let’s you and him fight’). And force a conflict with Russia that could cause the otherwise perfectly charming Baltic countries to suffer slaughter in the streets.

    As an American, I wish there were some way I could shout to the people of Estonia and Ukraine, who have long and bad memories of Russian transgressions under Soviet rule, that the fiend today is emanating not out of Moscow, as in the last century, but in this century it is very much in the west. Specifically Washington DC, London and Tel Aviv. And that if they look to the west for cultural ties, that what they’ll find once they get the loans from the banks is a culture they wont recognize. One that pisses on their ancient heritage and promotes sodomy as a preferred lifestyle for their youth. God help Eastern Europe if it looks west to Hollywood and New York for its salvation. God help you. Take if from an average, working class American, that what they’re dangling in front of you, is not what you’re going to like.

    Putin may have his warts, and Russia may still rankle Europe and the Baltic states with their hysterical chest thumping over the “liberations” of the red army, but if they think there is something better happening in the former and now occupied West, then they’re in for a terrible shock.

    Our societies are in decline. We are bankrupt, both morally and spiritually and economically. They’re looking at your lands as a ripe looting ground. And their final stepping stone to Total Power. Reconcile with Putin’s Russia, I beg you my brothers and sisters in Latvia and Hungary and Ukraine and Lithuania. Russia is no longer under the thrall of the Beast. Today it lurks and drools in the former west, and its appetite never sates.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    An excellent post. The good news is that so many people see it now.
  45. annamaria says:
    @tsotha
    These kinds of exercises are silly without a scenario. A scenario which has the US invading Russia (why?) is very much different from one that has Russia invading the US (again, why?), or one that has the Russians and the Americans duking it out on a desert island.

    That said, some of what's written here is simply wrong. Like this:

    In other words, “light” or “rapid reaction” warfare is where the Russians excel and not the kind of conflict the US or NATO could ever hope to prevail in.
     
    Or this:

    The sole real purpose of the US military is to regularly beat up on some small, more or less defenseless country, either in order to rob it of its resources, overthrow a government daring to defy the World Hegemon, or just to make an example of it.
     
    The US military was designed from the bottom up to beat the Soviets. That's how it's organized. That's how it's equipped. The idea the Russians are better at "rapid reaction" is fanciful in the extreme. They rapid-reacted into Chechnya and were promptly defeated by a few thousand hungry, badly equipped locals without armor, artillery, or air power. Then they spent years building up for a second invasion in which they used artillery to completely flatten Grozny so they wouldn't have to actually engage the Chechens.

    Russia has also been unable (for various domestic reasons) to impose a modern command structure on its military. The US still has a large technical edge in air power and anti-tank weaponry, and the Russians are completely dependent on tank forces, the vast majority of which are hopelessly obsolete. It was fine for defeating the Georgians, but a matchup with the US doesn't end well for the Russians at all.

    We spent six months building the Iraq invasion force because that meant the fewest US casualties, not because we couldn't have beaten the Iraqis without the large buildup. And one of the reasons the Iraqi army was swept aside so easily is it was equipped, trained, and led according to Soviet doctrine. Just like the Russian army.

    The only place the Russian military has any hope of defeating the US military is on Russian soil. And while they might not nuke us over a proxy war in Africa, they most certainly would nuke us over a full blown invasion of the mother country. This point has not escaped the notice of US politicians and military planners either.

    “We spent six months building the Iraq invasion force because that meant the fewest US casualties, not because we couldn’t have beaten the Iraqis without the large buildup.”
    You decided to not complete the paragraph, so here it is:
    “During this huge operation it took the US six months and an unprecedented logistical effort to gather the forces needed to attack Iraq. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia had been prepared for decades to receive such a massive force (in compliance with the so-called Carter Doctrine) and the US efforts was completely unopposed by Saddam Hussein.” In other words, “The sole real purpose of the US military is to regularly beat up on some small, more or less defenseless country, either in order to rob it of its resources, overthrow a government daring to defy the World Hegemon, or just to make an example of it.”
    Only mercenaries could be used for such military operations. There is nothing remotely reminding the “defense of fatherland” and “the democracy of the march.” This is a moral decay. When a rot takes something seemingly robust to the marrow, expect a collapse that could start at some unexpected points.

    Read More
  46. annamaria says:
    @tsotha

    The U.S. No longer has the premier jet fighter. The Russians have eclipsed the U.S. here and air superiority is something I don’t think America has ever been without in warfare.
     
    Yeah... no. The F-22 is far superior to anything the Russians can field. Eventually they'll have a pale imitation in the T-50, but so far they can't get it to work.

    Yes. The US is world-known for their technological advances. But how come that two (2) jets were never intercepted, stopped, prevented from hitting the Trade World Center. It is impossible to have it both ways. Either the US are superior re airspace control or the US is governed by a manipulative fraud.

    Read More
  47. The USA has lost every war that we have started,hurt the veterans and still want more. enough !

    We US tax payers have had our collective asses kicked way to many times, if we must have wars then lets win one for a change!

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    The world is not unipolar anymore:
    http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/how_china_and_russia_are_running_rings_around_washington_20150724
    "At the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum last month, Vladimir Putin told PBS’s Charlie Rose that Moscow and Beijing had always wanted a genuine partnership with the United States, but were spurned by Washington. Hats off, then, to the “leadership” of the Obama administration. Somehow, it has managed to bring together two former geopolitical rivals, while solidifying their pan-Eurasian grand strategy."
    "...geo-strategically Iran is all about location, location, location. That country offers the best access to open seas in the region apart from Russia and is the only obvious east-west/north-south crossroads for trade from the Central Asian “stans.” Little wonder then that Iran will soon be an SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization] member, even as its “partnership” with Russia is certain to evolve. Its energy resources are already crucial to and considered a matter of national security for China and, in the thinking of that country’s leadership, Iran also fulfills a key role as a hub in those Silk Roads they are planning."
    "In its latest National Military Strategy, the Pentagon suggests that the risk of an American war with another nation (as opposed to terror outfits), while low, is “growing” and identifies four nations as “threats”: North Korea, a case apart, and predictably the three nations that form the new Eurasian core: Russia, China, and Iran. They are depicted in the document as “revisionist states,” openly defying what the Pentagon identifies as “international security and stability”; that is, the distinctly un-level playing field created by globalized, exclusionary, turbo-charged casino capitalism and Washington’s brand of militarism.
    The Pentagon, of course, does not do diplomacy. Seemingly unaware of the Vienna negotiations, it continued to accuse Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons. And that “military option” against Iran is never off the table."
    Sigh...
  48. Today conventional warfare is a sinkhole that swallows up vast wealth and resources, but rarely ends in outright victory or outright defeat. Today’s conventional conflicts begin with a big bang (recall “Shock and Awe”) but, like the pail of water dumped onto the floor, the big bang loses momentum so that conventional wars just maunder on until fatigue overcomes the combatants, so that a flawed diplomatic “solution” ensues.

    Today’s conventional wars peter out for lack of political will to commit the resources requisite to see the task through, and for lack of will to apply the degree of ruthlessness requisite for outright victory (also for the repeatedly demonstrated utter lack of capacity to impose a post-WWII kind of nation-rebuilding upon the warred-upon, shattered, failed polyglot “states”). This is why the U.S. lost in Southeast Asia, why the USSR (and now the U.S. or “coalition”) lost in Afghanistan, why the U.S. lost in Iraq, and why nobody won in Libya. (The exception here is Israel, which fights limited defensive campaigns purely to restore the status quo ante, in which the Moslem jihadi outfits are set back to again amass sufficient resources to launch yet another foredoomed assault-cum-p.r.-world-sympathy operation.)

    Today’s peter-out-&-maunder-on conventional wars mean that profit is made by the arms industries in supplying the materiel for the opening big bang of such wars and from resupplying the worn out, destroyed or left behind impedimenta of the stronger combatant force/nation-state (which is why ISIS forces swan about in Humvees that the U.S. left behind in the hands of the Iraqi regime). These wars also deliver to national leaderships the fig leaf
    “reasons” – excuses – to increase the size and power of their domestic police-surveillance state security apparati, with consequential additional burdening of their citizen tax bases and increasing of their national debt to foreign powers (in the case of the U.S. the consequences to the citizenry of foreign wars of choice include ramped-up imposition of “refugees” and the costs of furnishing these incomers with lavish welfare benefits, plus the costs to the citizenry of ever-increasing social tensions which are then exploited by the venal Social Justice Grievance-Shakedown Industries).

    Both the U.S. and Russia are and would be loath to unleash tactical or strategic nuclear weapons, simply because both countries’ leaders comprehend that the nuclear effort-reward calculus yields massively rebounding negative “reward” to a putative victor. This is why today nation-states launch conventional wars of limited objectives, e.g. , “regime change,” irredentist takeover of the Crimea and the Donbass, “degrading” Al Qaida/ISIS, &c.. In conventional war today, military resources are simply insufficient to attain outright victory – even the 1991 Gulf War ended with U.S. de-commitment to regime change in Iraq, followed by the Bush II administration’s botched attempt to accomplish successful regime change in Iraq.

    Thus a conventional U.S vs. Russia war would begin with the usual big bang then, following the big splurge of initial “Shock & Awe” power, peter out into long, low-intensity fighting characterized by the unsuccessful effort of both sides to replace today’s costly big bang-splurge opening materiel (and personnel) expenditure – rather as with what followed the big bang-splurge openings of conventional war in Afghanistan (twice, once for the USSR, a second time for the U.S.), the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Western/NATO obliteration of Libya’s central authoritarian regime, and the Russian deployment into eastern Ukraine and the Crimea.

    Today’s ultra-sophisticated front line weapons systems are simply too costly to be replaced following the opening big bang-splurge. The tactic of using those big bang openings, supposedly to decapitate and destroy the enemy’s command & control personnel & centers, has never resulted in outright victory but has merely assured the maunder-on morass of prolonged lower-intensity operations in which intelligence gathering becomes evermore problematical and, most often, deeply flawed and unreliable as enemy forces shape-shift (as with Al Qaida morphing into or being eclipsed by ISIS, as with factions in Afghanistan and Iraq colluding in ever-changing alliances for expected mutual advantage while tying down U.S. forces until in the U.S. fatigue sets in, followed by humiliating draw-down of U.S. forces, and as with the domestic “color” revolutions in former Soviet republics).

    Were the U.S. to go to war against Russia, all of the above – big bang-splurge followed by peter-out/maunder-on and the consequences thereto – would ensue, only on a larger scale. There would be no outright victor or loser, and geographical boundaries might be shifted somewhat. But no clear objective or desideratum will have been attained by either side. And for such meager objectives or desiderata, neither one side, nor the other, would escalate to mutual nuclear annihilation.

    Read More
  49. annamaria says:
    @NobodysaysBOO
    The USA has lost every war that we have started,hurt the veterans and still want more. enough !

    We US tax payers have had our collective asses kicked way to many times, if we must have wars then lets win one for a change!

    The world is not unipolar anymore:

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/how_china_and_russia_are_running_rings_around_washington_20150724

    “At the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum last month, Vladimir Putin told PBS’s Charlie Rose that Moscow and Beijing had always wanted a genuine partnership with the United States, but were spurned by Washington. Hats off, then, to the “leadership” of the Obama administration. Somehow, it has managed to bring together two former geopolitical rivals, while solidifying their pan-Eurasian grand strategy.”
    “…geo-strategically Iran is all about location, location, location. That country offers the best access to open seas in the region apart from Russia and is the only obvious east-west/north-south crossroads for trade from the Central Asian “stans.” Little wonder then that Iran will soon be an SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization] member, even as its “partnership” with Russia is certain to evolve. Its energy resources are already crucial to and considered a matter of national security for China and, in the thinking of that country’s leadership, Iran also fulfills a key role as a hub in those Silk Roads they are planning.”
    “In its latest National Military Strategy, the Pentagon suggests that the risk of an American war with another nation (as opposed to terror outfits), while low, is “growing” and identifies four nations as “threats”: North Korea, a case apart, and predictably the three nations that form the new Eurasian core: Russia, China, and Iran. They are depicted in the document as “revisionist states,” openly defying what the Pentagon identifies as “international security and stability”; that is, the distinctly un-level playing field created by globalized, exclusionary, turbo-charged casino capitalism and Washington’s brand of militarism.
    The Pentagon, of course, does not do diplomacy. Seemingly unaware of the Vienna negotiations, it continued to accuse Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons. And that “military option” against Iran is never off the table.”
    Sigh…

    Read More
  50. tbraton says:

    ” In conventional war today, military resources are simply insufficient to attain outright victory – even the 1991 Gulf War ended with U.S. de-commitment to regime change in Iraq, ”

    The reason we didn’t go to Baghdad in 1991 as some neocons like Paul Wolfowitz were urging was not because we lacked sufficient military resources. Applying the Weinberg-Powell Doctrine, we had assembled a force of half a million men before starting the attack. That force, in retrospect, was more than sufficient to defeat the retreating Iraqi army and capture Baghdad.

    The reason why we chose not to do that was because we had people in power who possessed something more important than troops on the ground: HWBush, Brent Scowcroft and Jim Baker had brains. First, they concluded that both Congress and the UN Security Council had authorized only the eviction of Iraqi troops from Kuwait and nothing more. Thus there was no legal authorization to go Baghdad after evicting the Iraqis from Kuwait. Secondly going to Baghdad would have cost more American lives. As it was, I initially favored the war and estimated the loss of American and allied life at less than a thousand. I was far off in my estimate as the final figure was about 150. Thirdly, we faced the same problem as any dog chasing a car: what do you do with it once you catch it? Had we overthrown Saddam Hussein in 1991, we would have found ourselves bogged down in the same mess as HW Bush’s lamebrained son WBush found himself in 12 years later: forced to nation-build a destroyed regime (which W said during the 2000 campaign he was opposed to) at great cost and no guarantee we would be successful. Fourthly, it was essential that we allow Hussein to survive because of geopolitical concerns. Going back as far as the Roman Empire, the area occupied by present day Iraq (the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers) has been viewed as a bulwark for the West against the force occupying present day Iran, regardless what name they go under, Persian Empire, Sassanid Empire, Iranians.

    Therefore, what you say about the Gulf War in 1991 is off the mark.

    Read More
  51. Seraphim says:
    @tsotha
    These kinds of exercises are silly without a scenario. A scenario which has the US invading Russia (why?) is very much different from one that has Russia invading the US (again, why?), or one that has the Russians and the Americans duking it out on a desert island.

    That said, some of what's written here is simply wrong. Like this:

    In other words, “light” or “rapid reaction” warfare is where the Russians excel and not the kind of conflict the US or NATO could ever hope to prevail in.
     
    Or this:

    The sole real purpose of the US military is to regularly beat up on some small, more or less defenseless country, either in order to rob it of its resources, overthrow a government daring to defy the World Hegemon, or just to make an example of it.
     
    The US military was designed from the bottom up to beat the Soviets. That's how it's organized. That's how it's equipped. The idea the Russians are better at "rapid reaction" is fanciful in the extreme. They rapid-reacted into Chechnya and were promptly defeated by a few thousand hungry, badly equipped locals without armor, artillery, or air power. Then they spent years building up for a second invasion in which they used artillery to completely flatten Grozny so they wouldn't have to actually engage the Chechens.

    Russia has also been unable (for various domestic reasons) to impose a modern command structure on its military. The US still has a large technical edge in air power and anti-tank weaponry, and the Russians are completely dependent on tank forces, the vast majority of which are hopelessly obsolete. It was fine for defeating the Georgians, but a matchup with the US doesn't end well for the Russians at all.

    We spent six months building the Iraq invasion force because that meant the fewest US casualties, not because we couldn't have beaten the Iraqis without the large buildup. And one of the reasons the Iraqi army was swept aside so easily is it was equipped, trained, and led according to Soviet doctrine. Just like the Russian army.

    The only place the Russian military has any hope of defeating the US military is on Russian soil. And while they might not nuke us over a proxy war in Africa, they most certainly would nuke us over a full blown invasion of the mother country. This point has not escaped the notice of US politicians and military planners either.

    @The only place the Russian military has any hope of defeating the US military is on Russian soil.

    There is the only place that the US military could get in touch with the Russian one.
    And again one brings irrelevant examples (Chechnya, why not the first months of 1941?) to show the essential weakness of Russian military in contrast with the invincible Americans.

    Read More
  52. If Nato invaded Russian territory, the Russian Army would go through Nato like crack through a 10 dollar whore.

    Wouldnt even be close.

    Read More
  53. @Rurik

    So NATO was basically assigned a task that was meaningless.
     
    NATO is about projecting the power of the Fed militarily over all of Europe and increasingly Russia. That's how I see this conflict. The Fed (NATO as its rabid dog) vs. Putin's Russia as the last domino to fall in their insane imperative for total dominance of the planet by the megalomaniacs running the big banks.


    Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia from Russia ... ... And I recall recent polls show that Western European countries are not especially thrilled at coming to the aid of those countries either.
     
    I'd be very upset at the idea that the Baltic countries were under some kind of threat from Russia. They suffered enough under the Soviet madness that gripped that part of the world for so many decades, as indeed did Russia herself. But there is just no evidence of any threat. Rather the only threat that these countries potentially suffer would be to allow themselves to be used like they're using Ukraine today, as their cheap bitch ('let's you and him fight'). And force a conflict with Russia that could cause the otherwise perfectly charming Baltic countries to suffer slaughter in the streets.

    As an American, I wish there were some way I could shout to the people of Estonia and Ukraine, who have long and bad memories of Russian transgressions under Soviet rule, that the fiend today is emanating not out of Moscow, as in the last century, but in this century it is very much in the west. Specifically Washington DC, London and Tel Aviv. And that if they look to the west for cultural ties, that what they'll find once they get the loans from the banks is a culture they wont recognize. One that pisses on their ancient heritage and promotes sodomy as a preferred lifestyle for their youth. God help Eastern Europe if it looks west to Hollywood and New York for its salvation. God help you. Take if from an average, working class American, that what they're dangling in front of you, is not what you're going to like.

    Putin may have his warts, and Russia may still rankle Europe and the Baltic states with their hysterical chest thumping over the "liberations" of the red army, but if they think there is something better happening in the former and now occupied West, then they're in for a terrible shock.

    Our societies are in decline. We are bankrupt, both morally and spiritually and economically. They're looking at your lands as a ripe looting ground. And their final stepping stone to Total Power. Reconcile with Putin's Russia, I beg you my brothers and sisters in Latvia and Hungary and Ukraine and Lithuania. Russia is no longer under the thrall of the Beast. Today it lurks and drools in the former west, and its appetite never sates.

    An excellent post. The good news is that so many people see it now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    They do? What club do you guys hang out in, and how do I become a member? Because the only place I find sane Americans is on the internet. And only about a hundred there.
  54. John says:

    Good article. I agree with major premise of the author. Even with weaken army and outdated equipment, the West simply cannot win a war of conquest over Russia due to logistics and lack of political will power. However, the Western leadership currently is not trying to destroy Russia militarily at the moment. The goal is to degrade the capability of Russia. If you remember, the cold war was won by the West not because we can take on U.S.S.R. militarily, it was won because the West out produce and out spend U.S.S.R. If anything, the economy of Russia is even more precarious today compared to the West. The U.S.S.R. had industries, however disfunctional they were. I can’t think of one single thing that the Russians produce today, aside from natural resources and Military. Even with the military, while the design team is still excellent, the execution leaves a lot to be desired. So the U.S. adds 10,000 troops and the Russians adds 50,000. That would work out to Russia’s favor if a war actually breaks out. As it is, it is a significantly more draining move for Russia as it is for the West, assuming all of this is just for show. Now tell me, who is the smart one? Putin or Obama? I am no fan of Obama, but what the West is doing makes more sense if their goal is not military conquest, but a continuation of what Ronald Reagan was doing during the cold war days.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    I can’t think of one single thing that the Russians produce today, aside from natural resources and Military.
     
    Which betrays in you a product of US "educational" system. Just for you from CIA fact book.

    complete range of mining and extractive industries producing coal, oil, gas, chemicals, and metals; all forms of machine building from rolling mills to high-performance aircraft and space vehicles; defense industries (including radar, missile production, advanced electronic components), shipbuilding; road and rail transportation equipment; communications equipment; agricultural machinery, tractors, and construction equipment; electric power generating and transmitting equipment; medical and scientific instruments; consumer durables, textiles, foodstuffs, handicrafts

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html

    If that wasn't bad enough, the actual share of machines and products of high degree of processing in Russia's exports is more than 50%, so much for "gas station". And then comes other horror story--Russia does produce own processors (this is for iMoron public who thinks that iPhones are high-tech). This whole discussion board is a parade of such Russia "scholars" and "military strategists", as well as of regurgitated, to the point of being a vomit, MSM cliches, that it does qualify to be transferred to some forum on psychiatry. Just give it a rest, literally, live in you bubble and don't write on the subject you (as well as many others here) have no clue about.
    , @Avery
    {“I can’t think of one single thing that the Russians produce today, aside from natural resources and Military.”}

    That’s because you are a typical consumer of MSM news (aka misinformation, disinformation, propaganda).
    There is no doubt that Western free enterprise produces high quality consumer goods at competitive prices.
    However, Soviet Union (…Russia being its largest member) produced many non-military technological firsts.

    People know about Sputnik and Gagarin.
    But how many people know about Lunokhod, for example (designed by Alexander Kemurdzhian.)
    Lunokhod pioneered the robotic exploration of space (in 1970).
    It was more than about 25 years before US successfully landed a robot on a space object, the Mars Pathfinder (in 1996).

    Today, US military depends on the highly reliable Russian RD-180 rocket engines for space access. There are many other such examples from today's Russia, but you have to know where to look: MSM’s purpose is to dumb-down the American public by feeding it tailored information.
    You don’t want the cattle asking too many questions: just keep them happily ignorant inside the fence, provide abundant hay, and they will keep happily producing milk and beef.

    As to US successfully repeating what Reagan administration did.

    US has more than $15 trillion in national debt: we are paying for it by printing dollars, not producing wealth.
    Our military technological edge is eroding.
    We are wasting money on useless black holes.
    Example: US spent close to $20 billion on its newest super-carrier, the Gerald Ford.
    Total waste.
    Useless against a major power like Russia or China.
    The era of carriers ended after WW2.
    Both Russia and China can easily sink most of US carriers in case of all out war.

    Russia’s debt is 100%.
    Russia GDP to debt is <20%.
    The roles have reversed now: US is now the overextended empire.
    US has about 900 bases all over the world, sucking up taxpayer dollars – for no good reason.
    American taxpayers are already overtaxed.
    The US dollar's reserve currency status is being undermined by the BRICS.
    Russia can spend a fraction of what US spends and successfully defend itself.
    Unlike the USSR, Russia does not need to battle US/NATO all over the world.
    All Russia needs to do is defend its periphery.

    US on the other hand, has to be all over the world fighting off multiple "threats".
    All empires have crumbled when they inevitably overextend themselves.
    US will not disappear, of course, any more than England disappeared after the British Empire dissolved.
    America will be a better place.
    There is no benefit to the average American in maintaining an Empire: only the top 1% benefits.

  55. @john

    Fair points, but keep in mind the former West, especially the U.S., has its own serious economic weaknesses, namely blood-sucking, parasitical finance capital, which isn’t free market at all (quite the opposite).

    Read More
  56. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @John
    Good article. I agree with major premise of the author. Even with weaken army and outdated equipment, the West simply cannot win a war of conquest over Russia due to logistics and lack of political will power. However, the Western leadership currently is not trying to destroy Russia militarily at the moment. The goal is to degrade the capability of Russia. If you remember, the cold war was won by the West not because we can take on U.S.S.R. militarily, it was won because the West out produce and out spend U.S.S.R. If anything, the economy of Russia is even more precarious today compared to the West. The U.S.S.R. had industries, however disfunctional they were. I can't think of one single thing that the Russians produce today, aside from natural resources and Military. Even with the military, while the design team is still excellent, the execution leaves a lot to be desired. So the U.S. adds 10,000 troops and the Russians adds 50,000. That would work out to Russia's favor if a war actually breaks out. As it is, it is a significantly more draining move for Russia as it is for the West, assuming all of this is just for show. Now tell me, who is the smart one? Putin or Obama? I am no fan of Obama, but what the West is doing makes more sense if their goal is not military conquest, but a continuation of what Ronald Reagan was doing during the cold war days.

    I can’t think of one single thing that the Russians produce today, aside from natural resources and Military.

    Which betrays in you a product of US “educational” system. Just for you from CIA fact book.

    complete range of mining and extractive industries producing coal, oil, gas, chemicals, and metals; all forms of machine building from rolling mills to high-performance aircraft and space vehicles; defense industries (including radar, missile production, advanced electronic components), shipbuilding; road and rail transportation equipment; communications equipment; agricultural machinery, tractors, and construction equipment; electric power generating and transmitting equipment; medical and scientific instruments; consumer durables, textiles, foodstuffs, handicrafts

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html

    If that wasn’t bad enough, the actual share of machines and products of high degree of processing in Russia’s exports is more than 50%, so much for “gas station”. And then comes other horror story–Russia does produce own processors (this is for iMoron public who thinks that iPhones are high-tech). This whole discussion board is a parade of such Russia “scholars” and “military strategists”, as well as of regurgitated, to the point of being a vomit, MSM cliches, that it does qualify to be transferred to some forum on psychiatry. Just give it a rest, literally, live in you bubble and don’t write on the subject you (as well as many others here) have no clue about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John
    @SmoothiX12

    Since the fall of the U.S.S.R., the world is converging. To make a living in this world, one must produce something that the world wants at the price they want to pay. So, we have Ikea making furniture for the world, the Japanese making cars for the world, etc. A few economies tried to make an exception of this by isolating themselves from the world. Just to name a few, North Korea, India, Russia. This is not a list that one would consider to be economic luminaries. While these countries technically produce stuff that their people consume because there were no other choice, the rest of the world do not buy their products, because of their inferior quality and higher prices. When I said Russia didn't make any products besides natural resources and military, I mean that they did not make anything that the world wanted to buy. In the long run, the country is only as strong as its economy. Putin is doing the best he can with a very weak hand.

    For the record, I do not like the unipolar world that we are in. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. You can say that part of the economy of the West is fake and in trouble. One thing you cannot argue is that the Russians have a more robust economies compared to the U.S.S.R. In the long run, this will be the undoing of Russia.
  57. Bill says:
    @Cagey Beast
    An excellent post. The good news is that so many people see it now.

    They do? What club do you guys hang out in, and how do I become a member? Because the only place I find sane Americans is on the internet. And only about a hundred there.

    Read More
  58. Avery says:
    @John
    Good article. I agree with major premise of the author. Even with weaken army and outdated equipment, the West simply cannot win a war of conquest over Russia due to logistics and lack of political will power. However, the Western leadership currently is not trying to destroy Russia militarily at the moment. The goal is to degrade the capability of Russia. If you remember, the cold war was won by the West not because we can take on U.S.S.R. militarily, it was won because the West out produce and out spend U.S.S.R. If anything, the economy of Russia is even more precarious today compared to the West. The U.S.S.R. had industries, however disfunctional they were. I can't think of one single thing that the Russians produce today, aside from natural resources and Military. Even with the military, while the design team is still excellent, the execution leaves a lot to be desired. So the U.S. adds 10,000 troops and the Russians adds 50,000. That would work out to Russia's favor if a war actually breaks out. As it is, it is a significantly more draining move for Russia as it is for the West, assuming all of this is just for show. Now tell me, who is the smart one? Putin or Obama? I am no fan of Obama, but what the West is doing makes more sense if their goal is not military conquest, but a continuation of what Ronald Reagan was doing during the cold war days.

    {“I can’t think of one single thing that the Russians produce today, aside from natural resources and Military.”}

    That’s because you are a typical consumer of MSM news (aka misinformation, disinformation, propaganda).
    There is no doubt that Western free enterprise produces high quality consumer goods at competitive prices.
    However, Soviet Union (…Russia being its largest member) produced many non-military technological firsts.

    People know about Sputnik and Gagarin.
    But how many people know about Lunokhod, for example (designed by Alexander Kemurdzhian.)
    Lunokhod pioneered the robotic exploration of space (in 1970).
    It was more than about 25 years before US successfully landed a robot on a space object, the Mars Pathfinder (in 1996).

    Today, US military depends on the highly reliable Russian RD-180 rocket engines for space access. There are many other such examples from today’s Russia, but you have to know where to look: MSM’s purpose is to dumb-down the American public by feeding it tailored information.
    You don’t want the cattle asking too many questions: just keep them happily ignorant inside the fence, provide abundant hay, and they will keep happily producing milk and beef.

    As to US successfully repeating what Reagan administration did.

    US has more than $15 trillion in national debt: we are paying for it by printing dollars, not producing wealth.
    Our military technological edge is eroding.
    We are wasting money on useless black holes.
    Example: US spent close to $20 billion on its newest super-carrier, the Gerald Ford.
    Total waste.
    Useless against a major power like Russia or China.
    The era of carriers ended after WW2.
    Both Russia and China can easily sink most of US carriers in case of all out war.

    Russia’s debt is 100%.
    Russia GDP to debt is <20%.
    The roles have reversed now: US is now the overextended empire.
    US has about 900 bases all over the world, sucking up taxpayer dollars – for no good reason.
    American taxpayers are already overtaxed.
    The US dollar's reserve currency status is being undermined by the BRICS.
    Russia can spend a fraction of what US spends and successfully defend itself.
    Unlike the USSR, Russia does not need to battle US/NATO all over the world.
    All Russia needs to do is defend its periphery.

    US on the other hand, has to be all over the world fighting off multiple "threats".
    All empires have crumbled when they inevitably overextend themselves.
    US will not disappear, of course, any more than England disappeared after the British Empire dissolved.
    America will be a better place.
    There is no benefit to the average American in maintaining an Empire: only the top 1% benefits.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    Typo correction (less than or greater than signs in text apparently cause some strange side-effects)

    incorrect:
    [Russia’s debt is 100%.
    Russia GDP to debt is <20%.]

    correct:
    [Russia’s debt is less than $600 billion.
    US GDP to debt ratio is greater than 100%.
    Russia GDP to debt is less than 20%.]
  59. Avery says:
    @Avery
    {“I can’t think of one single thing that the Russians produce today, aside from natural resources and Military.”}

    That’s because you are a typical consumer of MSM news (aka misinformation, disinformation, propaganda).
    There is no doubt that Western free enterprise produces high quality consumer goods at competitive prices.
    However, Soviet Union (…Russia being its largest member) produced many non-military technological firsts.

    People know about Sputnik and Gagarin.
    But how many people know about Lunokhod, for example (designed by Alexander Kemurdzhian.)
    Lunokhod pioneered the robotic exploration of space (in 1970).
    It was more than about 25 years before US successfully landed a robot on a space object, the Mars Pathfinder (in 1996).

    Today, US military depends on the highly reliable Russian RD-180 rocket engines for space access. There are many other such examples from today's Russia, but you have to know where to look: MSM’s purpose is to dumb-down the American public by feeding it tailored information.
    You don’t want the cattle asking too many questions: just keep them happily ignorant inside the fence, provide abundant hay, and they will keep happily producing milk and beef.

    As to US successfully repeating what Reagan administration did.

    US has more than $15 trillion in national debt: we are paying for it by printing dollars, not producing wealth.
    Our military technological edge is eroding.
    We are wasting money on useless black holes.
    Example: US spent close to $20 billion on its newest super-carrier, the Gerald Ford.
    Total waste.
    Useless against a major power like Russia or China.
    The era of carriers ended after WW2.
    Both Russia and China can easily sink most of US carriers in case of all out war.

    Russia’s debt is 100%.
    Russia GDP to debt is <20%.
    The roles have reversed now: US is now the overextended empire.
    US has about 900 bases all over the world, sucking up taxpayer dollars – for no good reason.
    American taxpayers are already overtaxed.
    The US dollar's reserve currency status is being undermined by the BRICS.
    Russia can spend a fraction of what US spends and successfully defend itself.
    Unlike the USSR, Russia does not need to battle US/NATO all over the world.
    All Russia needs to do is defend its periphery.

    US on the other hand, has to be all over the world fighting off multiple "threats".
    All empires have crumbled when they inevitably overextend themselves.
    US will not disappear, of course, any more than England disappeared after the British Empire dissolved.
    America will be a better place.
    There is no benefit to the average American in maintaining an Empire: only the top 1% benefits.

    Typo correction (less than or greater than signs in text apparently cause some strange side-effects)

    incorrect:
    [Russia’s debt is 100%.
    Russia GDP to debt is <20%.]

    correct:
    [Russia’s debt is less than $600 billion.
    US GDP to debt ratio is greater than 100%.
    Russia GDP to debt is less than 20%.]

    Read More
  60. Mulegino1 says:
    @Orville H. Larson
    Let's hope the problem children in Washington, District of Corruption don't provoke a war with Russia. Of course, given their degenerate, warmongering nature, one can't be too sanguine. . . .

    OK. What'll happen if and when the crap hits the fan? Certainly, in conventional fighting, the Russians would give a good account of themselves. The famed hardihood of the Russian infantryman must never be underestimated. He can make do with less. The American soldier, by contrast, needs plenty in the way of logistical support to keep going. There's no feminism, no political correctness in the Russian ranks. Thus, there aren't any women serving in billets they can't hack. The American military is highly feminized and politically correct--possibly to its detriment.

    The fighting would be hard, with heavy casualties on both sides. And looming over everything is the threat of nuclear annihilation. . . .

    I agree – there is no feminization in the Russian military.

    Don’t women serve in separate units, like our own WAC units during the Second World War?

    I was watching the Victory Parade in Moscow (on RT) and it appeared that all of the formations of the different units were either all men or all women.

    Contrast that with this:

    http://universalfreepress.com/army-humiliates-male-soldiers-forces-them-to-wear-womens-clothing-as-part-of-training/

    These people are insane, and the worst part of this is that not one of these “soldiers” had the courage to defend his dignity and honor – as well as defying an unlawful order (out of uniform).
    If they didn’t have the courage to refuse to do a p.r. stunt, can you imagine how they will fare if they were to go “toe to toe with the Russkies”?

    Read More
  61. Ah, but we have govt media, which would tell us we won…..therefore, we won.
    How many DECADES did it take to admit VietNam was indeed a war, and WE lost it.

    Read More
  62. @Avery
    {"....I look at the current pool of US Presidential candidates I will tell you that I get very, very frightened."}

    I am not sure a crazy US President would be able to start a nuclear war with Russia on his own.
    Same with Russia.
    Don't know any details, but there has to be multiple levels of checks and balances so that a POTUS who has lost his mind or something cannot start a WW3.
    I read somewhere the Joint Chiefs secretly ordered the military to ignore any orders from Nixon as he was being forced to resign.

    My fear is that WW3 can easily start accidentally.
    Reportedly there have been about 3 very, very close calls.

    Even the Cuban missile crises reportedly came a lot closer to nuclear WW3 than is publicized.
    There is a story that a Soviet submarine was ready to launch nukes at US navy targets chasing and harassing it, and one of the three officers on the boat refused to go along with the other two: he insisted that they needed to be sure a war had started above before launching their nukes. So luckily nothing happened.

    But all it takes is for one nuke to go off, and both sides will most likely start launching everything under the "use it or lose it" assumption.

    And then it's good night.

    This administration has proven there is NO “checks and balances”.
    He has a phone and a pen.
    EVERYTHING is decided by the Judicial Branch. (SCOTUS)

    Read More
  63. a German says:

    You US boys think you have a “military”? Stupid, you can’t win (whatever that means) against rice farmers and goat herders. You proofed several times.

    Conventional wars against an industrial country? Totally crazy. Your 20 mph carriers will be sunk within hours, your bases destroyed and your army is hated like the rest of your culture. All over the world. You have to buy your allies, with fiat money, and they know.

    A simple war against an east asia developing country without any technology drives you to the edge of financial default. In good times. Bombing civilians is best you can do. And converting the Nobel Price into a piss price.

    Posing and threaten is your best, you’re dirt mene tekel upharsim.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Some Germans just can't wait to get cucked by the Russians again.
  64. […] Par le Saker Original – Le 24 juillet 2015 – Source Russia Insider via The Unz Review […]

    Read More
  65. Saker,

    Your alarm is misplaced. If our political class is good at anything, it’s self-preservation. You may be confident that, whatever fools you take them to be, they will not endanger their pampered situations by engaging a conflict where there is a real risk of losing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Disagree. The US political class is maybe eager for physical self-preservation, but the plutocracy overall has been so accustomed to somebodies always at hand for cleaning the plutocracy-created mess, that the normal assessment of reality could be too difficult for the "deciders."
    The gravest problem today is the proverbial "gun on a wall" ready for using. The real danger is not a someone's decision (and order) to start a nuclear conflict - the horror is the multitude of accidental triggers created here and there by the aggressive policies spurred by major war profiteers and by mentality of the "chosen" and "exceptional." The scoundrels will indeed take the whole world with them inadvertently.
  66. […] Par le Saker Original – Le 24 juillet 2015 – Source Russia Insider via The Unz Review […]

    Read More
  67. John says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    I can’t think of one single thing that the Russians produce today, aside from natural resources and Military.
     
    Which betrays in you a product of US "educational" system. Just for you from CIA fact book.

    complete range of mining and extractive industries producing coal, oil, gas, chemicals, and metals; all forms of machine building from rolling mills to high-performance aircraft and space vehicles; defense industries (including radar, missile production, advanced electronic components), shipbuilding; road and rail transportation equipment; communications equipment; agricultural machinery, tractors, and construction equipment; electric power generating and transmitting equipment; medical and scientific instruments; consumer durables, textiles, foodstuffs, handicrafts

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html

    If that wasn't bad enough, the actual share of machines and products of high degree of processing in Russia's exports is more than 50%, so much for "gas station". And then comes other horror story--Russia does produce own processors (this is for iMoron public who thinks that iPhones are high-tech). This whole discussion board is a parade of such Russia "scholars" and "military strategists", as well as of regurgitated, to the point of being a vomit, MSM cliches, that it does qualify to be transferred to some forum on psychiatry. Just give it a rest, literally, live in you bubble and don't write on the subject you (as well as many others here) have no clue about.

    @SmoothiX12

    Since the fall of the U.S.S.R., the world is converging. To make a living in this world, one must produce something that the world wants at the price they want to pay. So, we have Ikea making furniture for the world, the Japanese making cars for the world, etc. A few economies tried to make an exception of this by isolating themselves from the world. Just to name a few, North Korea, India, Russia. This is not a list that one would consider to be economic luminaries. While these countries technically produce stuff that their people consume because there were no other choice, the rest of the world do not buy their products, because of their inferior quality and higher prices. When I said Russia didn’t make any products besides natural resources and military, I mean that they did not make anything that the world wanted to buy. In the long run, the country is only as strong as its economy. Putin is doing the best he can with a very weak hand.

    For the record, I do not like the unipolar world that we are in. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. You can say that part of the economy of the West is fake and in trouble. One thing you cannot argue is that the Russians have a more robust economies compared to the U.S.S.R. In the long run, this will be the undoing of Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    You seem to have a natural gift for vacuity and tautology.
    , @annamaria
    "One thing you cannot argue is that the Russians have a more robust economies compared to the U.S.S.R. In the long run, this will be the undoing of Russia."
    Why? - What if the strengthening of her economy results in designing and creating products desirable in other countries? Perhaps this is the major sin of Russian Federation (from the US point of view): The RF has a chance of transitioning from extraction-economy, based on the fabulous mineral riches, towards economy based on advanced technology and superb agriculture. Hard to say whether this happens, but it is not impossible.
    , @Andrei Martyanov
    I don't care if you love or hate Russia. Even if you love Russia more than yourself--it doesn't matter, you still have no idea what REAL economy is, not some Walmart junk, which IS produced overwhelmingly NOT in USA. Real economic capability is counted by the number of enclosed technological cycles and degree of complexity of product. That is why your remark about "military" sounds (reads) preposterous--for you, evidently, iPhone and Su-35 are the same. I will break you some news--to produce SU-35, Borey-class SSBN or Armata tank, one has to have a massive national R&D, educational, industrial and other bases, starting from ability to produce energy to the ability to produce such things as advanced electronics. Russia has it, India--well....As for North Korea, yeah, sure. Look in the sky at night in binoculars, you will see ISS--half of it was produced in Russia and Russia is the one, which keeps it running. But then again, you probably never heard of GLONASS either. I wonder why the only two nations in the world are capable to produce and operate such things as GPS (USA) and GLONASS (Russia).

    Most of US hi-tech today is concentrated in the MIC. Stop production of iJunk (in Asia) and you will get some hysterical teen morons committing suicide. Stop Boeing--and American nation dies. Most of economic "theory" taught today in US Ivy (and not only) League madradsas is monetarist garbage having very little connection to real economy. I'll ask you to do mental experiment: consider how many countries currently producing iPhone or Sony TVs (with the exception of Japan proper) actually CAN produce advanced jet engine? Or modern jet liner, or modern state-of-the-art submarine, or modern diagnostic equipment? I'll give you a hint--less than 10. How many actually--do your own research and stop writing about subjects you do not understand.

    P.S. Get yourself Huntington's The Clash Of Civilizations, open the Chapter 4 and read what constitutes REAL power.
    , @Seraphim
    @Russia didn’t make any products besides natural resources... they did not make anything that the world wanted to buy.

    Hmm, sure they want to have them for free and then sell it back to the Russians!
    , @annamaria
    "A few economies tried to make an exception of this by isolating themselves from the world. Just to name a few, North Korea, India, Russia. "
    What is the basis for this statement?
    Neither India nor Russian Federation have had any desire to isolate themselves from the global economy, financial system, and cultural/technological exchange. That Russia has provoked the wrath of the US by not kneeling obediently to the Hegemon does not mean that Russians wanted to be isolated from the world. On the contrary. The consequence of US/RF conflict in Ukraine was the implementation of various sanctions designed to weaken the growing cooperation between RF and Europe, but the conflict was not instigated by Russia. Moreover, the conflict is dangerous and costly for RF (but not for the US). Cui bono...
    The incorporation of Crimea back to Russia is not the US business, as Dr. Paul succinctly stated. The US are known for the art of isolating other countries, where the choice of a country is not related to a level of democratic development (see Saudi Arabia versus Iran before and after shah).
    It is a global headache that the US stubbornly refuse to do diplomacy and that the US do not want to use their considerable power of a mighty empire to create a nuclear-weapon-free world.
  68. 5371 says:
    @John
    @SmoothiX12

    Since the fall of the U.S.S.R., the world is converging. To make a living in this world, one must produce something that the world wants at the price they want to pay. So, we have Ikea making furniture for the world, the Japanese making cars for the world, etc. A few economies tried to make an exception of this by isolating themselves from the world. Just to name a few, North Korea, India, Russia. This is not a list that one would consider to be economic luminaries. While these countries technically produce stuff that their people consume because there were no other choice, the rest of the world do not buy their products, because of their inferior quality and higher prices. When I said Russia didn't make any products besides natural resources and military, I mean that they did not make anything that the world wanted to buy. In the long run, the country is only as strong as its economy. Putin is doing the best he can with a very weak hand.

    For the record, I do not like the unipolar world that we are in. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. You can say that part of the economy of the West is fake and in trouble. One thing you cannot argue is that the Russians have a more robust economies compared to the U.S.S.R. In the long run, this will be the undoing of Russia.

    You seem to have a natural gift for vacuity and tautology.

    Read More
  69. annamaria says:
    @The Grate Deign
    Saker,

    Your alarm is misplaced. If our political class is good at anything, it's self-preservation. You may be confident that, whatever fools you take them to be, they will not endanger their pampered situations by engaging a conflict where there is a real risk of losing.

    Disagree. The US political class is maybe eager for physical self-preservation, but the plutocracy overall has been so accustomed to somebodies always at hand for cleaning the plutocracy-created mess, that the normal assessment of reality could be too difficult for the “deciders.”
    The gravest problem today is the proverbial “gun on a wall” ready for using. The real danger is not a someone’s decision (and order) to start a nuclear conflict – the horror is the multitude of accidental triggers created here and there by the aggressive policies spurred by major war profiteers and by mentality of the “chosen” and “exceptional.” The scoundrels will indeed take the whole world with them inadvertently.

    Read More
  70. annamaria says:
    @John
    @SmoothiX12

    Since the fall of the U.S.S.R., the world is converging. To make a living in this world, one must produce something that the world wants at the price they want to pay. So, we have Ikea making furniture for the world, the Japanese making cars for the world, etc. A few economies tried to make an exception of this by isolating themselves from the world. Just to name a few, North Korea, India, Russia. This is not a list that one would consider to be economic luminaries. While these countries technically produce stuff that their people consume because there were no other choice, the rest of the world do not buy their products, because of their inferior quality and higher prices. When I said Russia didn't make any products besides natural resources and military, I mean that they did not make anything that the world wanted to buy. In the long run, the country is only as strong as its economy. Putin is doing the best he can with a very weak hand.

    For the record, I do not like the unipolar world that we are in. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. You can say that part of the economy of the West is fake and in trouble. One thing you cannot argue is that the Russians have a more robust economies compared to the U.S.S.R. In the long run, this will be the undoing of Russia.

    “One thing you cannot argue is that the Russians have a more robust economies compared to the U.S.S.R. In the long run, this will be the undoing of Russia.”
    Why? – What if the strengthening of her economy results in designing and creating products desirable in other countries? Perhaps this is the major sin of Russian Federation (from the US point of view): The RF has a chance of transitioning from extraction-economy, based on the fabulous mineral riches, towards economy based on advanced technology and superb agriculture. Hard to say whether this happens, but it is not impossible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John
    Annamarina,

    Nothing would give me more pleasure then to see Russia finally get off her feet and make this transition. Russia has intelligent people and a large enough population base. They should be able to do this. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this is happening 24 years after the collapse of the U.S.S.R.

  71. Jeff77450 says:
    @Sean the Neon Caucasian
    The US military was never designed to fight a major war against a sophisticated enemy.

    I read the whole article, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this one. Kind of got that one backwards. The U.S. military was modeled to fight oponents like the Soviets and Russians and Chinese. That it focused so heavily on conventional warfare was the reason it got tied down in Afghanistan/Iraq by unsophisticated enemies, among other reasons.

    You are correct. –signed, a retired army master sergeant

    Read More
  72. Jeff77450 says:
    @Flower
    Why are we having a discussion about "conventional" war? In truth, this article reminds me of one of those late night Fraternity arguments: What if Davey Crockett had had a Piper Cub at the Alamo? I'm surprised that we aren't including mounted cavalry charges in this discussion. There will never again be a "conventional" war against nuclear powers. Oh, it might start out that way, but do you know when the decision will be made to escalate the war into ICBM throwing ? The instant that one of the participants starts to lose. Conventionally.

    I am curious, however, is the author's middle name "Salt"? Just kidding. But, please, someone tell me what good it is to have neat weapon after neat weapon, an army the size of most countries' population, a military swollen to the size on which the sun can never set, when the very borders of our country are as wide open as a 2 dollar prostitute? What good is a military when the enemy can simply walk up behind you a run a 9mm through your brain pan?

    There won't be a nuke confrontation between the USSA and Russia, because there is simply too much to lose on both sides. And the idea that having bigger, ballsier tanks and artillery pieces and guns and planes is some how going to stop any nuke confrontation is the height of insanity.

    But you guys keep scaring yourselves, the Pentagon will surely send you a Christmas card.

    Tactical nukes would almost certainly be used before ICBMs but otherwise very well said.

    Read More
  73. Jeff77450 says:
    @Abraham Lincoln
    I just love the fact that we spend two-thirds of a trillion-with-a-T dollars every single year on aircraft carriers, tanks, unusable F35s, (literally) millions of military personnel, drone missile-ing Moslem weddings, and military golf courses, but can't defend ourselves from illiterate peasant Mexican dullards.

    There are no fortunes to be made by making a (serious) effort to stop the IPMDs.

    Read More
  74. Jeff77450 says:
    @Mulegino1
    I agree with the Saker. A U.S.-NATO war with Russia in Russia's "near abroad" would result in the myth of American invincibility being put to rest for all time.

    The most formidable fighting force ever assembled - the Wehrmacht along with its allies: Romanians, Hungarians, Italians, the Finns, the Spanish Blue Division, and thousands of non-German Western European volunteers could not defeat the Soviet Union. And this despite the enormous successes of the first months of Operation Barbarossa.

    The Germans and their allies surprised and caught the bulk of Stalin's gigantic invasion force - which most likely was preparing to strike Europe in early or mid-July - in vulnerable salients, and captured enormous amounts of prisoners, equipment, and had destroyed virtually the entire forward deployed air force by the end of June 22, 1941. Yet not even this huge initial success was enough to bring the Soviet Union to its knees.

    And there is no way that the U.S. - in a conventional sense - could ever achieve anything like this surprise against Russia in its vicinity.

    America has not fought a war with an enemy at rough conventional parity since it faced the Chinese in Korea, and that ended in a truce. And that force was led by commanders who had seen the face of heavy combat in both World Wars - not affirmative action appointees.

    The increasingly feminized and mongrelized U.S. military is (with the possible exception of the Marines) increasingly becoming a hollowed out, demoralized shell.

    Just think about those male cadets who were ordered to march in red high heels. These are the men who are going to go toe to toe with the Russkies when they let themselves be humiliated in a p.r. stunt?

    Sadly, you are all too correct. –signed, a retired army master sergeant

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    It is sad. The Armed Forces reflect the corruption that society has been undergoing for the last fifty years.
  75. Jeff77450 says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    I found the article interesting. Unless the net assessers in the Pentagon have been replaced totally by racial/sexual preference hires, they are telling the Joint Chiefs something similar: any fight on Russia"s doorstep will be extremely difficult to win, since the U.S. would be dangling at the edge of a very long logistics line of communication.

    So why the provocative moves in the Baltic States and Poland? I have two explanations. The first is that it is all political and that there is no real intent to fight. Trouble is, those kind of moves can lead to an unintended (and losing) war. In the early 1980s Argentina invaded the Falklands and just couldn't believe that the British would actually respond with a military task force to take them back. In the early 1960s the Indian government pushed large forces into untenable positions in the Himalayan border dispute with China. When China finally attacked, the Indians were overwhelmed. (The Indians died bravely; many were found with weapons frozen in their hands, but they still died. Nehru came close to a nervous breakdown; he feared Chinese paratroops landing in New Delhi.) Or as one of the corner men told Apollo Creed in the first Rocky movie: "This guy don't know it's a show, he thinks it's a fight!"

    The second is much more frightening: NATO is comtemplating use of tactical nuclear weapons. I recall from my Naval War College days that every time NATO war-gamed the use of tactical nuclear weapons, it escalated into a strategic exchange in a week to ten days. 100 million American dead; bad scene.

    I hope that cooler heads will prevail in NATO, but a look at the present field of Presidential candidates leaves me wondering. The U.S. simply has no vital interest threatened by Russia that justifies the level of hostility presently expressed towards that country.

    Very well said.

    Read More
  76. Jeff77450 says:
    @tbraton
    " In conventional war today, military resources are simply insufficient to attain outright victory – even the 1991 Gulf War ended with U.S. de-commitment to regime change in Iraq, "


    The reason we didn't go to Baghdad in 1991 as some neocons like Paul Wolfowitz were urging was not because we lacked sufficient military resources. Applying the Weinberg-Powell Doctrine, we had assembled a force of half a million men before starting the attack. That force, in retrospect, was more than sufficient to defeat the retreating Iraqi army and capture Baghdad.

    The reason why we chose not to do that was because we had people in power who possessed something more important than troops on the ground: HWBush, Brent Scowcroft and Jim Baker had brains. First, they concluded that both Congress and the UN Security Council had authorized only the eviction of Iraqi troops from Kuwait and nothing more. Thus there was no legal authorization to go Baghdad after evicting the Iraqis from Kuwait. Secondly going to Baghdad would have cost more American lives. As it was, I initially favored the war and estimated the loss of American and allied life at less than a thousand. I was far off in my estimate as the final figure was about 150. Thirdly, we faced the same problem as any dog chasing a car: what do you do with it once you catch it? Had we overthrown Saddam Hussein in 1991, we would have found ourselves bogged down in the same mess as HW Bush's lamebrained son WBush found himself in 12 years later: forced to nation-build a destroyed regime (which W said during the 2000 campaign he was opposed to) at great cost and no guarantee we would be successful. Fourthly, it was essential that we allow Hussein to survive because of geopolitical concerns. Going back as far as the Roman Empire, the area occupied by present day Iraq (the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers) has been viewed as a bulwark for the West against the force occupying present day Iran, regardless what name they go under, Persian Empire, Sassanid Empire, Iranians.

    Therefore, what you say about the Gulf War in 1991 is off the mark.

    Valid points very well said.

    Read More
  77. Mulegino1 says:
    @Jeff77450
    Sadly, you are all too correct. --signed, a retired army master sergeant

    It is sad. The Armed Forces reflect the corruption that society has been undergoing for the last fifty years.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jeff77450
    • Replies: @Jeff77450
    A nation's institutions, to include its armed forces, are a reflection of that society. Yeah, we're in sad shape.
  78. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @a German
    You US boys think you have a "military"? Stupid, you can't win (whatever that means) against rice farmers and goat herders. You proofed several times.

    Conventional wars against an industrial country? Totally crazy. Your 20 mph carriers will be sunk within hours, your bases destroyed and your army is hated like the rest of your culture. All over the world. You have to buy your allies, with fiat money, and they know.

    A simple war against an east asia developing country without any technology drives you to the edge of financial default. In good times. Bombing civilians is best you can do. And converting the Nobel Price into a piss price.

    Posing and threaten is your best, you're dirt mene tekel upharsim.

    Some Germans just can’t wait to get cucked by the Russians again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Go back to your fetish porn, boy. There's nothing for you here.
  79. John says:
    @annamaria
    "One thing you cannot argue is that the Russians have a more robust economies compared to the U.S.S.R. In the long run, this will be the undoing of Russia."
    Why? - What if the strengthening of her economy results in designing and creating products desirable in other countries? Perhaps this is the major sin of Russian Federation (from the US point of view): The RF has a chance of transitioning from extraction-economy, based on the fabulous mineral riches, towards economy based on advanced technology and superb agriculture. Hard to say whether this happens, but it is not impossible.

    Annamarina,

    Nothing would give me more pleasure then to see Russia finally get off her feet and make this transition. Russia has intelligent people and a large enough population base. They should be able to do this. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this is happening 24 years after the collapse of the U.S.S.R.

    Read More
  80. Jeff77450 says:
    @Mulegino1
    It is sad. The Armed Forces reflect the corruption that society has been undergoing for the last fifty years.

    A nation’s institutions, to include its armed forces, are a reflection of that society. Yeah, we’re in sad shape.

    Read More
  81. 5371 says:
    @Anonymous
    Some Germans just can't wait to get cucked by the Russians again.

    Go back to your fetish porn, boy. There’s nothing for you here.

    Read More
  82. Sean says:

    Russia could challenge the USA militarily but could not hope to win the global conflict that would follow. Why would the US chooseto use nuclear weapons (inevitably leading to fools mate) for a war they would win eventually anyway?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    Russia could challenge the USA militarily but could not hope to win the global conflict that would follow.

    Please, elaborate.
  83. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @John
    @SmoothiX12

    Since the fall of the U.S.S.R., the world is converging. To make a living in this world, one must produce something that the world wants at the price they want to pay. So, we have Ikea making furniture for the world, the Japanese making cars for the world, etc. A few economies tried to make an exception of this by isolating themselves from the world. Just to name a few, North Korea, India, Russia. This is not a list that one would consider to be economic luminaries. While these countries technically produce stuff that their people consume because there were no other choice, the rest of the world do not buy their products, because of their inferior quality and higher prices. When I said Russia didn't make any products besides natural resources and military, I mean that they did not make anything that the world wanted to buy. In the long run, the country is only as strong as its economy. Putin is doing the best he can with a very weak hand.

    For the record, I do not like the unipolar world that we are in. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. You can say that part of the economy of the West is fake and in trouble. One thing you cannot argue is that the Russians have a more robust economies compared to the U.S.S.R. In the long run, this will be the undoing of Russia.

    I don’t care if you love or hate Russia. Even if you love Russia more than yourself–it doesn’t matter, you still have no idea what REAL economy is, not some Walmart junk, which IS produced overwhelmingly NOT in USA. Real economic capability is counted by the number of enclosed technological cycles and degree of complexity of product. That is why your remark about “military” sounds (reads) preposterous–for you, evidently, iPhone and Su-35 are the same. I will break you some news–to produce SU-35, Borey-class SSBN or Armata tank, one has to have a massive national R&D, educational, industrial and other bases, starting from ability to produce energy to the ability to produce such things as advanced electronics. Russia has it, India–well….As for North Korea, yeah, sure. Look in the sky at night in binoculars, you will see ISS–half of it was produced in Russia and Russia is the one, which keeps it running. But then again, you probably never heard of GLONASS either. I wonder why the only two nations in the world are capable to produce and operate such things as GPS (USA) and GLONASS (Russia).

    Most of US hi-tech today is concentrated in the MIC. Stop production of iJunk (in Asia) and you will get some hysterical teen morons committing suicide. Stop Boeing–and American nation dies. Most of economic “theory” taught today in US Ivy (and not only) League madradsas is monetarist garbage having very little connection to real economy. I’ll ask you to do mental experiment: consider how many countries currently producing iPhone or Sony TVs (with the exception of Japan proper) actually CAN produce advanced jet engine? Or modern jet liner, or modern state-of-the-art submarine, or modern diagnostic equipment? I’ll give you a hint–less than 10. How many actually–do your own research and stop writing about subjects you do not understand.

    P.S. Get yourself Huntington’s The Clash Of Civilizations, open the Chapter 4 and read what constitutes REAL power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John
    No doubt the skill set needed to produce SU-35 is higher in some sense then consumer products, which is puzzling why can't Russia turn this skill set into making other none military or natural resource related products. For the record, the U.S. has a very robust economy. iPhone certainly is part of it, Despite the fact that China makes much of the consumer products, the U.S. per capita GDP is still 4 or more times higher than the Chinese. There is a productive farming industry, something that the Russians should do well but don't. The manufacturing is still very large here in the U.S. Despite the rise of China. The service economy is bigger, things like software(another thing that the Russians should do well but absent) internet commerce, legal, financial, and the entertainment industry, just to name a few. Finally, DNA and drug research, the stuff that will form the future of Microsoft the Facebook, are virtually all done in the U.S.

    My point is, however talented the Russians are, and I have no doubt that they are very talented, they must turn this into something that they can sell to the world to make a living. It is from part of this economy that come the strength for everything else.

    I lumped Russia with North Korea and India in the sense that they run closed economies, which, in my opinion, is never a good thing in the long haul. Look how well Fortress Europe is working out for the Europeans.

    So here is the simple premise that I have repeated over several comments: Russia has an economy (in the sense of producing stuff for the world) made up mostly of Natural Resources and the Military. If this is not fixed in the future, it will be the undoing of Russia. I don't see you refuting that premise in all of your comments.
  84. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Sean
    Russia could challenge the USA militarily but could not hope to win the global conflict that would follow. Why would the US chooseto use nuclear weapons (inevitably leading to fools mate) for a war they would win eventually anyway?

    Russia could challenge the USA militarily but could not hope to win the global conflict that would follow.

    Please, elaborate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Neither side would dare use nuclear weapons to avoid losing so it would stay conventional, because a war could not be won or avoid being lost by using a nuclear weapon; the opponent would be compelled to retaliate and so on leading to escalating exchanges and the contested territory being totally devastated. Russia could start the war on a ground of its choosing but the US is a global superpower, not just in its backyard. The US has more productive capacity for making conventional weapons, so it would inevitably grind Russia down. The immediate balance is not what makes the US scary to Russia, it's that American productive capacity.
  85. Seraphim says:
    @John
    @SmoothiX12

    Since the fall of the U.S.S.R., the world is converging. To make a living in this world, one must produce something that the world wants at the price they want to pay. So, we have Ikea making furniture for the world, the Japanese making cars for the world, etc. A few economies tried to make an exception of this by isolating themselves from the world. Just to name a few, North Korea, India, Russia. This is not a list that one would consider to be economic luminaries. While these countries technically produce stuff that their people consume because there were no other choice, the rest of the world do not buy their products, because of their inferior quality and higher prices. When I said Russia didn't make any products besides natural resources and military, I mean that they did not make anything that the world wanted to buy. In the long run, the country is only as strong as its economy. Putin is doing the best he can with a very weak hand.

    For the record, I do not like the unipolar world that we are in. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. You can say that part of the economy of the West is fake and in trouble. One thing you cannot argue is that the Russians have a more robust economies compared to the U.S.S.R. In the long run, this will be the undoing of Russia.

    @Russia didn’t make any products besides natural resources… they did not make anything that the world wanted to buy.

    Hmm, sure they want to have them for free and then sell it back to the Russians!

    Read More
  86. John says:
    @Andrei Martyanov
    I don't care if you love or hate Russia. Even if you love Russia more than yourself--it doesn't matter, you still have no idea what REAL economy is, not some Walmart junk, which IS produced overwhelmingly NOT in USA. Real economic capability is counted by the number of enclosed technological cycles and degree of complexity of product. That is why your remark about "military" sounds (reads) preposterous--for you, evidently, iPhone and Su-35 are the same. I will break you some news--to produce SU-35, Borey-class SSBN or Armata tank, one has to have a massive national R&D, educational, industrial and other bases, starting from ability to produce energy to the ability to produce such things as advanced electronics. Russia has it, India--well....As for North Korea, yeah, sure. Look in the sky at night in binoculars, you will see ISS--half of it was produced in Russia and Russia is the one, which keeps it running. But then again, you probably never heard of GLONASS either. I wonder why the only two nations in the world are capable to produce and operate such things as GPS (USA) and GLONASS (Russia).

    Most of US hi-tech today is concentrated in the MIC. Stop production of iJunk (in Asia) and you will get some hysterical teen morons committing suicide. Stop Boeing--and American nation dies. Most of economic "theory" taught today in US Ivy (and not only) League madradsas is monetarist garbage having very little connection to real economy. I'll ask you to do mental experiment: consider how many countries currently producing iPhone or Sony TVs (with the exception of Japan proper) actually CAN produce advanced jet engine? Or modern jet liner, or modern state-of-the-art submarine, or modern diagnostic equipment? I'll give you a hint--less than 10. How many actually--do your own research and stop writing about subjects you do not understand.

    P.S. Get yourself Huntington's The Clash Of Civilizations, open the Chapter 4 and read what constitutes REAL power.

    No doubt the skill set needed to produce SU-35 is higher in some sense then consumer products, which is puzzling why can’t Russia turn this skill set into making other none military or natural resource related products. For the record, the U.S. has a very robust economy. iPhone certainly is part of it, Despite the fact that China makes much of the consumer products, the U.S. per capita GDP is still 4 or more times higher than the Chinese. There is a productive farming industry, something that the Russians should do well but don’t. The manufacturing is still very large here in the U.S. Despite the rise of China. The service economy is bigger, things like software(another thing that the Russians should do well but absent) internet commerce, legal, financial, and the entertainment industry, just to name a few. Finally, DNA and drug research, the stuff that will form the future of Microsoft the Facebook, are virtually all done in the U.S.

    My point is, however talented the Russians are, and I have no doubt that they are very talented, they must turn this into something that they can sell to the world to make a living. It is from part of this economy that come the strength for everything else.

    I lumped Russia with North Korea and India in the sense that they run closed economies, which, in my opinion, is never a good thing in the long haul. Look how well Fortress Europe is working out for the Europeans.

    So here is the simple premise that I have repeated over several comments: Russia has an economy (in the sense of producing stuff for the world) made up mostly of Natural Resources and the Military. If this is not fixed in the future, it will be the undoing of Russia. I don’t see you refuting that premise in all of your comments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    So, presumably Russia would starve if she can't sell her oil and gas to make money to buy the food it produces.
    , @Andrei Martyanov
    No doubt the skill set needed to produce SU-35 is higher in some sense then consumer products, which is puzzling why can’t Russia turn this skill set into making other none military or natural resource related products.

    Ah, so it is in "some sense" only. Again, you, evidently, do not understand the chain (and the sequence) of the events and industries involved in producing state-of-the-art plane domestically and producing some consumer toy.

    For the record, the U.S. has a very robust economy. iPhone certainly is part of it, Despite the fact that China makes much of the consumer products, the U.S. per capita GDP is still 4 or more times higher than the Chinese.

    You just proved my point exactly--you have no idea what you are talking about. As for the record, US "robust" economy today is mostly the matter of cooking books and finishing off what used to be a robust American working (middle) class, which was involved in creating a value. Calling the economy which turned into the service and banking sector, with some notable exceptions, "robust" is akin to me calling for curing cancer with aspirin. Look at US public school system STEM programs, for starters, and if you will not get horrified then you are the product of this system and nothing could be done about it. As per GDP per capita--if US would have experienced what either Russia or China experienced in 20th century, as opposed to US comfortable accumulation of the wealth, while the rest of the world fought bloody wars, we would be having a very different conversation.
  87. Seraphim says:
    @John
    No doubt the skill set needed to produce SU-35 is higher in some sense then consumer products, which is puzzling why can't Russia turn this skill set into making other none military or natural resource related products. For the record, the U.S. has a very robust economy. iPhone certainly is part of it, Despite the fact that China makes much of the consumer products, the U.S. per capita GDP is still 4 or more times higher than the Chinese. There is a productive farming industry, something that the Russians should do well but don't. The manufacturing is still very large here in the U.S. Despite the rise of China. The service economy is bigger, things like software(another thing that the Russians should do well but absent) internet commerce, legal, financial, and the entertainment industry, just to name a few. Finally, DNA and drug research, the stuff that will form the future of Microsoft the Facebook, are virtually all done in the U.S.

    My point is, however talented the Russians are, and I have no doubt that they are very talented, they must turn this into something that they can sell to the world to make a living. It is from part of this economy that come the strength for everything else.

    I lumped Russia with North Korea and India in the sense that they run closed economies, which, in my opinion, is never a good thing in the long haul. Look how well Fortress Europe is working out for the Europeans.

    So here is the simple premise that I have repeated over several comments: Russia has an economy (in the sense of producing stuff for the world) made up mostly of Natural Resources and the Military. If this is not fixed in the future, it will be the undoing of Russia. I don't see you refuting that premise in all of your comments.

    So, presumably Russia would starve if she can’t sell her oil and gas to make money to buy the food it produces.

    Read More
  88. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @John
    No doubt the skill set needed to produce SU-35 is higher in some sense then consumer products, which is puzzling why can't Russia turn this skill set into making other none military or natural resource related products. For the record, the U.S. has a very robust economy. iPhone certainly is part of it, Despite the fact that China makes much of the consumer products, the U.S. per capita GDP is still 4 or more times higher than the Chinese. There is a productive farming industry, something that the Russians should do well but don't. The manufacturing is still very large here in the U.S. Despite the rise of China. The service economy is bigger, things like software(another thing that the Russians should do well but absent) internet commerce, legal, financial, and the entertainment industry, just to name a few. Finally, DNA and drug research, the stuff that will form the future of Microsoft the Facebook, are virtually all done in the U.S.

    My point is, however talented the Russians are, and I have no doubt that they are very talented, they must turn this into something that they can sell to the world to make a living. It is from part of this economy that come the strength for everything else.

    I lumped Russia with North Korea and India in the sense that they run closed economies, which, in my opinion, is never a good thing in the long haul. Look how well Fortress Europe is working out for the Europeans.

    So here is the simple premise that I have repeated over several comments: Russia has an economy (in the sense of producing stuff for the world) made up mostly of Natural Resources and the Military. If this is not fixed in the future, it will be the undoing of Russia. I don't see you refuting that premise in all of your comments.

    No doubt the skill set needed to produce SU-35 is higher in some sense then consumer products, which is puzzling why can’t Russia turn this skill set into making other none military or natural resource related products.

    Ah, so it is in “some sense” only. Again, you, evidently, do not understand the chain (and the sequence) of the events and industries involved in producing state-of-the-art plane domestically and producing some consumer toy.

    For the record, the U.S. has a very robust economy. iPhone certainly is part of it, Despite the fact that China makes much of the consumer products, the U.S. per capita GDP is still 4 or more times higher than the Chinese.

    You just proved my point exactly–you have no idea what you are talking about. As for the record, US “robust” economy today is mostly the matter of cooking books and finishing off what used to be a robust American working (middle) class, which was involved in creating a value. Calling the economy which turned into the service and banking sector, with some notable exceptions, “robust” is akin to me calling for curing cancer with aspirin. Look at US public school system STEM programs, for starters, and if you will not get horrified then you are the product of this system and nothing could be done about it. As per GDP per capita–if US would have experienced what either Russia or China experienced in 20th century, as opposed to US comfortable accumulation of the wealth, while the rest of the world fought bloody wars, we would be having a very different conversation.

    Read More
  89. annamaria says:
    @John
    @SmoothiX12

    Since the fall of the U.S.S.R., the world is converging. To make a living in this world, one must produce something that the world wants at the price they want to pay. So, we have Ikea making furniture for the world, the Japanese making cars for the world, etc. A few economies tried to make an exception of this by isolating themselves from the world. Just to name a few, North Korea, India, Russia. This is not a list that one would consider to be economic luminaries. While these countries technically produce stuff that their people consume because there were no other choice, the rest of the world do not buy their products, because of their inferior quality and higher prices. When I said Russia didn't make any products besides natural resources and military, I mean that they did not make anything that the world wanted to buy. In the long run, the country is only as strong as its economy. Putin is doing the best he can with a very weak hand.

    For the record, I do not like the unipolar world that we are in. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. You can say that part of the economy of the West is fake and in trouble. One thing you cannot argue is that the Russians have a more robust economies compared to the U.S.S.R. In the long run, this will be the undoing of Russia.

    “A few economies tried to make an exception of this by isolating themselves from the world. Just to name a few, North Korea, India, Russia. ”
    What is the basis for this statement?
    Neither India nor Russian Federation have had any desire to isolate themselves from the global economy, financial system, and cultural/technological exchange. That Russia has provoked the wrath of the US by not kneeling obediently to the Hegemon does not mean that Russians wanted to be isolated from the world. On the contrary. The consequence of US/RF conflict in Ukraine was the implementation of various sanctions designed to weaken the growing cooperation between RF and Europe, but the conflict was not instigated by Russia. Moreover, the conflict is dangerous and costly for RF (but not for the US). Cui bono…
    The incorporation of Crimea back to Russia is not the US business, as Dr. Paul succinctly stated. The US are known for the art of isolating other countries, where the choice of a country is not related to a level of democratic development (see Saudi Arabia versus Iran before and after shah).
    It is a global headache that the US stubbornly refuse to do diplomacy and that the US do not want to use their considerable power of a mighty empire to create a nuclear-weapon-free world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John
    AnnaMarina,

    "Neither India nor Russian Federation have had any desire to isolate themselves from the global economy, financial system, and cultural/technological exchange. "

    I am sure even North Korea is not happy with their isolation, so you can add this to your list of not wishing to isolate themselves. However, if you look at what international corporations actually did set up shop in these countries, the list is quite short. In the case of India, a handful of tech firms set up shop to make use of the talents in India. In the case of Russia, Western natural resource companies. Both also have the typical McDonalds etc. After that I don't see a lot. Contrast this with China, where many manufacturing companies and retail shops rushed in to set up shop there. The result is the rise of the Chinese versions of these companies which led to the rise of China.

    SmoothieX12, it is obvious that we disagree on how the economy works and I do not wish to have a protracted discussion here. Unlike you, I believe that the U.S. financial system is a big reason why the U.S. economy is as strong as it is today( I am sure Ron Unz will not agree with this statement).
  90. Sean says:
    @Andrei Martyanov
    Russia could challenge the USA militarily but could not hope to win the global conflict that would follow.

    Please, elaborate.

    Neither side would dare use nuclear weapons to avoid losing so it would stay conventional, because a war could not be won or avoid being lost by using a nuclear weapon; the opponent would be compelled to retaliate and so on leading to escalating exchanges and the contested territory being totally devastated. Russia could start the war on a ground of its choosing but the US is a global superpower, not just in its backyard. The US has more productive capacity for making conventional weapons, so it would inevitably grind Russia down. The immediate balance is not what makes the US scary to Russia, it’s that American productive capacity.

    Read More
  91. John says:
    @annamaria
    "A few economies tried to make an exception of this by isolating themselves from the world. Just to name a few, North Korea, India, Russia. "
    What is the basis for this statement?
    Neither India nor Russian Federation have had any desire to isolate themselves from the global economy, financial system, and cultural/technological exchange. That Russia has provoked the wrath of the US by not kneeling obediently to the Hegemon does not mean that Russians wanted to be isolated from the world. On the contrary. The consequence of US/RF conflict in Ukraine was the implementation of various sanctions designed to weaken the growing cooperation between RF and Europe, but the conflict was not instigated by Russia. Moreover, the conflict is dangerous and costly for RF (but not for the US). Cui bono...
    The incorporation of Crimea back to Russia is not the US business, as Dr. Paul succinctly stated. The US are known for the art of isolating other countries, where the choice of a country is not related to a level of democratic development (see Saudi Arabia versus Iran before and after shah).
    It is a global headache that the US stubbornly refuse to do diplomacy and that the US do not want to use their considerable power of a mighty empire to create a nuclear-weapon-free world.

    AnnaMarina,

    “Neither India nor Russian Federation have had any desire to isolate themselves from the global economy, financial system, and cultural/technological exchange. ”

    I am sure even North Korea is not happy with their isolation, so you can add this to your list of not wishing to isolate themselves. However, if you look at what international corporations actually did set up shop in these countries, the list is quite short. In the case of India, a handful of tech firms set up shop to make use of the talents in India. In the case of Russia, Western natural resource companies. Both also have the typical McDonalds etc. After that I don’t see a lot. Contrast this with China, where many manufacturing companies and retail shops rushed in to set up shop there. The result is the rise of the Chinese versions of these companies which led to the rise of China.

    SmoothieX12, it is obvious that we disagree on how the economy works and I do not wish to have a protracted discussion here. Unlike you, I believe that the U.S. financial system is a big reason why the U.S. economy is as strong as it is today( I am sure Ron Unz will not agree with this statement).

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    John,
    Our respective comments were on unrelated issues: My comment was about the US tactic of isolating other countries for the detriment of these countries. Your comment was about the political/economic inadequacies in India and Russia as compared to China.

    To reiterate: "The US are known for the art of isolating other countries, where the choice of a country is not related to a level of democratic development (see Saudi Arabia versus Iran before and after shah). It is a global headache that the US stubbornly refuse to do diplomacy."

    You are absolutely correct with your statement "The U.S. financial system is a big reason why the U.S. economy is as strong as it is today." Though let me to parse this statement a bit:
    1. The US financial system relies on the dominance of US dollar worldwide (the US treasury can print the dollars at libitum)
    2. The dominance of the US dollar has been achieved to a large extend through the regime changes, blackmailing, and wars (worldwide). In other words, the dollar dominance has been propped by weaponry, boots on the ground, and dirty diplomacy, including "pro-democracy" movement of Nuland-Kagan kind.
  92. annamaria says:
    @John
    AnnaMarina,

    "Neither India nor Russian Federation have had any desire to isolate themselves from the global economy, financial system, and cultural/technological exchange. "

    I am sure even North Korea is not happy with their isolation, so you can add this to your list of not wishing to isolate themselves. However, if you look at what international corporations actually did set up shop in these countries, the list is quite short. In the case of India, a handful of tech firms set up shop to make use of the talents in India. In the case of Russia, Western natural resource companies. Both also have the typical McDonalds etc. After that I don't see a lot. Contrast this with China, where many manufacturing companies and retail shops rushed in to set up shop there. The result is the rise of the Chinese versions of these companies which led to the rise of China.

    SmoothieX12, it is obvious that we disagree on how the economy works and I do not wish to have a protracted discussion here. Unlike you, I believe that the U.S. financial system is a big reason why the U.S. economy is as strong as it is today( I am sure Ron Unz will not agree with this statement).

    John,
    Our respective comments were on unrelated issues: My comment was about the US tactic of isolating other countries for the detriment of these countries. Your comment was about the political/economic inadequacies in India and Russia as compared to China.

    To reiterate: “The US are known for the art of isolating other countries, where the choice of a country is not related to a level of democratic development (see Saudi Arabia versus Iran before and after shah). It is a global headache that the US stubbornly refuse to do diplomacy.”

    You are absolutely correct with your statement “The U.S. financial system is a big reason why the U.S. economy is as strong as it is today.” Though let me to parse this statement a bit:
    1. The US financial system relies on the dominance of US dollar worldwide (the US treasury can print the dollars at libitum)
    2. The dominance of the US dollar has been achieved to a large extend through the regime changes, blackmailing, and wars (worldwide). In other words, the dollar dominance has been propped by weaponry, boots on the ground, and dirty diplomacy, including “pro-democracy” movement of Nuland-Kagan kind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John
    AnnaMarina,

    I see the points you are making and agree that economics is used as instruments of politics. This is not just U.S. but world wide. For example, the Russians are certainly using the leverage of energy dependence of Ukraine to achieve their political aim. Democracy is a slogan that U.S. and the West uses when it is convenient. Again, this is not unique to the West, since the beginning of time, regimes always need to have two sets of values, one for public consumption and another to use for power competition between different poles of power. In many cases, these two sets of values are not compatible and the whole craft of politics (lies) are developed to reconcile these two.

    The countries that are weaker are more susceptible to this isolation. For example, the West is equally unhappy about the Chinese, but it is much harder to isolate them as they are much more interconnected with the West. So I think the road to combat economic isolation is still to fix ones own problems.

    When I was talking about the strength of the U.S. financial system, I was thinking of something different. Competition is the reason the companies in the West is as strong as they are. The financial system acts as the apex predator that strengthens the herd. In theory, it strengthen the strong and takes out the weak. In practice, it still is working out the kinks, but with each crisis, it adapts and gets stronger. Other countries that did not start with this tradition are trying to copy it, with various degree of success.

  93. John says:
    @annamaria
    John,
    Our respective comments were on unrelated issues: My comment was about the US tactic of isolating other countries for the detriment of these countries. Your comment was about the political/economic inadequacies in India and Russia as compared to China.

    To reiterate: "The US are known for the art of isolating other countries, where the choice of a country is not related to a level of democratic development (see Saudi Arabia versus Iran before and after shah). It is a global headache that the US stubbornly refuse to do diplomacy."

    You are absolutely correct with your statement "The U.S. financial system is a big reason why the U.S. economy is as strong as it is today." Though let me to parse this statement a bit:
    1. The US financial system relies on the dominance of US dollar worldwide (the US treasury can print the dollars at libitum)
    2. The dominance of the US dollar has been achieved to a large extend through the regime changes, blackmailing, and wars (worldwide). In other words, the dollar dominance has been propped by weaponry, boots on the ground, and dirty diplomacy, including "pro-democracy" movement of Nuland-Kagan kind.

    AnnaMarina,

    I see the points you are making and agree that economics is used as instruments of politics. This is not just U.S. but world wide. For example, the Russians are certainly using the leverage of energy dependence of Ukraine to achieve their political aim. Democracy is a slogan that U.S. and the West uses when it is convenient. Again, this is not unique to the West, since the beginning of time, regimes always need to have two sets of values, one for public consumption and another to use for power competition between different poles of power. In many cases, these two sets of values are not compatible and the whole craft of politics (lies) are developed to reconcile these two.

    The countries that are weaker are more susceptible to this isolation. For example, the West is equally unhappy about the Chinese, but it is much harder to isolate them as they are much more interconnected with the West. So I think the road to combat economic isolation is still to fix ones own problems.

    When I was talking about the strength of the U.S. financial system, I was thinking of something different. Competition is the reason the companies in the West is as strong as they are. The financial system acts as the apex predator that strengthens the herd. In theory, it strengthen the strong and takes out the weak. In practice, it still is working out the kinks, but with each crisis, it adapts and gets stronger. Other countries that did not start with this tradition are trying to copy it, with various degree of success.

    Read More
  94. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Military is no Politics, all you discuss in webs is political wars, as for a fire real war ignorance is not a defence

    Read More
  95. Jean says:
    @unit472
    Yeah, yeah, yeah. The Russians are 10 feet tall and their 'battle hardened forces' got their ass handed to them in Chechnya in the 1990's including having brigade sized armor columns wiped out by guys with RPG's and assault rifles. I'll agree Putin has tried to modernize and professionalize his military and he does have some good special forces units but the bulk of his army is still short term conscripts and Russian reliance on heavy mechanized forces gives their military an atavistic look Marshal Zhukov might appreciate but the last time heavy mechanized forces went into battle was 1973 in the Sinai and Golan Heights it didn't turn out so well for Soviet equipped and trained Arab armies. Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom were more 'drive by shootings' in which Anglo American tank forces just blew through 'the battle hardened' Iraqi Army and achieved their objectives in 100 hours in the former and two weeks to Baghdad in the latter.

    I would grant you NATO would be hard pressed to mass enough combat power to pose a serious threat to Russian territorial integrity though its only two hours by tank from the Estonian border to St. Petersburg, a reality that no doubt concerns Russian military planners as much as it would US military brass if Russia could put an armored division two hours away from Chicago. That said the Russian military is a slow moving dinosaur as compared to the US as Russia lacks a serious Navy, air and sealift capacity and its fixed and rotary winged forces are no match for American aviation. The Russians may have a decent submarine force on paper but the after the Kursk disaster in 2000 and more recent incidents where nuclear submarines were barbequed in drydock makes one wonder just how 'operational' their sub fleet really is.

    Your bellitling comments are just ludicrous when it comes to facts and you carefully avoided adressing ANY of most modern and recognized strategic and tactical assets at the disposal of the russian armed forces that would critically tip the balance of power in their favor, assuming we’re talking about the USA coming as an agressor force with regards to Russia sitting in defensive posture using its homeland as a gigantic base to defend and strike back with little to no concern to the establishment of logistical lines in comparison to a logistical nightmare on the US side operating far from home.

    1 – When was last time the US had to face off an opponent with the certified ability to pound every single of its armed columns and both forward and rear airbases with metric precision hypersonic ballistic missiles like the Iskander M pre-positonned in the hundreds within easy reach every NATO and American installation in eastern Europe? The Pentagon itself acknowledges their deadliness and the inability if existing american ABM system to deal with their evasive manoeuvers.

    2 – When was the last time the USN/USAF had to achieve air superiority in areas defended by thousands of multi-layered air defence cells including the worlds deadlist arsenal of anti-air weaponry such as Pantsyr-S1, Tor’m2s , Buk-m2s and of course S-400s ? The latter are officially deemed impossible to jam with current generation Prowlers (and next generation jammers currently barely even exist on maper in DOD’ planning), mach 12+ interception speeds, 400km range and an array of VHF sensors able to detect low rCS taegets in the 100+km range, augmented by chaff dispensers and short range self-defence missiles in the unlikely case where a HARM missile or some other JDAM ordnance somehow manages to lock onto it. Good luck for putting up a survivable Apha strike package with such networks waiting for them with 4000km+ early warningof their approach fused from hundreds of long range sruveillance radars, OTH sites and AEW-C Antonovs. Not even bothering counting Su-30s air defense squadrons deployed around sensitive regions aeound the capital and other big cities in the mix, you’d get a joke of a takedown scenario while attacking folks deep into their turf with a combination of GCI and latest generation AAMs helping Russian pilots tear a new one in your formations.

    3 – Ever heard about Kh-55 and Kalibr cruise missiles ? Basically Russian tomahawks available in as many numbers as the latter to take down zvery piece of critical infrastructure America would need to wage its war effort. Ever heard of the supersonic sea-skimming P-800 anti-ship missile which, again, the Pentagon says RAM and CIWS can baremy sustain in salvo attacks ? They are stand-off ammo with 500km+ range and they do a perfect job in AA/A2 against USN carrier groups. Launched from fighter planes as well as long range supersonic Tu-22s. What about the submarine-launched Sizzlers then ? Worlds only supersonic anti-carrier torpedoes. And the list goes on. So many counter-asset developping over decades along with the doctrine and training honed duringthe Cold War and the experience garnered by observing America’s campaign arpund the globe.

    Basically your problem is that your vision of Russia and its failures are stuck in tome and anachronistic to the present. Grozny was fought by a post-Soviet collapse bankrupt army of demotivated conscripts never trained for counter-insurgency and urban warfare. The Kursk incident is an antique news belonging to the very same era, long gone now. 75% of the Russian navy is now on par technologically with the USN, not quantitatively of course but in a war scenario the Russian navy will mean little.

    So instead of beating suchbdead horses, why not turn our eyes to the lightning victory the same army scored on Georgia ? A tiny state and army clmpared to Russia yes, but its not much different from Panama and Granada for the US army. I’m sure you won’t count these out as glaring proofs of american military grandor. And the 6 months it took their air power alone in turning the table against a 80,000-strong umbrella of well-euipped western and gulf proxies in Syria ? Besides, counter-insurgency and big losses were sustained in Vietnam for the US too in its time. Even underarmed and disorganized Iraqi militia and groups made a difference and provoked terrible war fatigue for the US force that ultimately had to pull out of a country at the advantage of Iran, Russia and China. As for Afghanistan,the taliban have proved to be totally resurgent and have score catastrophic victories over US-trained Afghan security forces in important provinces in the past months. Again,no miracle, no wipe-out of the taliban in sight contrary to your proud testimony.

    The author is right to point out the inefficiency of the American war machine considering the overwhelming power it had to apply for very little actual military effect on a much smaller army such as the Serbs,it speaks actually a lot towards the US military’s prowess at handling a technologically advanced enemy in the future with defensive assets on par with their offensive ones.

    Your analysis is as biased as it is factually flawed in its assertions I’m afraid, time to revise it with the present.

    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
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored