The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

 TeasersThe Saker Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
🔊 Listen RSS

According to RT, citing a Levada Center poll,

Over 50 percent of Russians are disappointed in the government of Dmitry Medvedev, which, they believe, is unable to curb growing prices and provide jobs for people, a new poll has revealed. Some 23 percent said they were absolutely sure that the government must resign, with another 30 percent telling Levada-Center that they were also leaning toward this opinion. This means that a total of 53 percent would like the country to have a new cabinet. Trust in the government has crumbled since September, when only 23 percent advocated its resignation. Meanwhile, the proportion of people who believed the government should stay in charge was 40 percent, with 14 percent expressing full confidence in the cabinet, and 26 percent saying that resignation wouldn’t be the best idea.

Source: Jan 15th 2019 (details here: )

This was very predictable and, in fact, I did predict just that when I wroteA comment I just saw on the YouTube chat of the inauguration was succinct and to the point: “Путин кинул народ – мы не за Медведева голосовали” or “Putin betrayed the people – we did not vote for Medvedev”. This is going to be a very widely shared feeling, I am afraid (…) Medvedev is unpopular and that most Russians hoped to see a new face. Yet Putin ignored this public sentiment. That is a very worrying sign, in my opinion“. In a subsequent article I wrote that “it is quite clear to me that a new type of Russian opposition is slowly forming. Well, it always existed, really – I am talking about people who supported Putin and the Russian foreign policy and who disliked Medvedev and the Russian internal policies. Now the voice of those who say that Putin is way too soft in his stance towards the Empire will only get stronger. As will the voices of those who speak of a truly toxic degree of nepotism and patronage in the Kremlin (again, Mutko being the perfect example). When such accusations came from rabid pro-western liberals, they had very little traction, but when they come from patriotic and even nationalist politicians (Nikolai Starikov for example) they start taking on a different dimension. For example, while the court jester Zhirinovskii and his LDPR party loyally supported Medvedev, the Communist and the Just Russia parties did not. Unless the political tension around figures like Kudrin and Medvedev is somehow resolved (maybe a timely scandal?), we might witness the growth of a real opposition movement in Russia, and not one run by the Empire. It will be interesting to see if Putin’s personal ratings will begin to go down and what he will have to do in order to react to the emergence of such a real opposition“.

Think about it in this way: we know from ALL the past elections that the pro-Western segment of the Russian population is somewhere around 1-3% (that is why they cannot make it into the Duma). But let’s generously give that hardcore, liberal, opposition 5%, for argument’s sake. So if 53% of Russians want a new cabinet, and if 5% of Russians are hardcore pro-Western liberals, then who are the remaining 48%?

Or in this way: if 53% of Russians want a new cabinet, and if Putin’s approval rating is still somewhere in the 65% range, who are those Russians who like Putin but dislike the Medvedev government?

There is an easy cop-out argument which I´ve often offered to explain away this fact:

Levada Center is officially classified as a “foreign agent” under Russian law. This makes sense: for one thing, Levada Center receives most of its financing from abroad, including the US and even the Pentagon! Furthermore, Levada is staffed by liberals (in the Russian meaning of the word which really means “pro-US”) whose biases are also reflected in their work. However, while this is all true, Levada is still credible enough to be cited even by Russian officials. Finally, the kind of results Levada publishes are often generally similar to the finding of the official VTsIOM polling institution, not down to the percentage point, but often reflecting similar trends (check out the VTsIOM English language page here: ). So the fact that Putin is much more popular than Medvedev or that the majority of Russian people are unhappy with the government really is not in doubt.

So regardless of the actual numbers, it is clear that the Russian government is only popular with those whom it allows to make a lot of money (corporations and various millionaires and billionaires) and that everybody else strongly dislikes it.

And yet, recently Putin was asked if he was happy with the government and his reply was “on the whole, yes“.

This type of political yoga is hard to sustain in the long term: if Putin is the champion of the interests of the common people, and if most common people feel that the government cares more for millionaires and billionaires, then how can the President say that he is “on the whole happy” with the government?

It is truly a crying shame that the basics of Marxism-Leninism is not taught in schools and colleges any more (even some self-described “Communists” are clearly clueless about what Marx, Lenin or even Hegel taught!). Not because the solutions advocated by Marx and his followers are so universally effective, but because one can use the Marxist-Leninist conceptual toolkit to better understand the world we live in and, one can do this without necessarily endorsing the solutions offered by Marxism. For example, in the West at least, very few people are aware of this very simple Marxist-Leninist definition of what a state, any state, really is. According to Lenin, the state is simply an “apparatus of coercion and violence by which the ruling class governs the society“. Specifically Lenin wrote:

In essence, the state is ruling apparatus created from the human society. When such a group of people appears, one which is only concerned with ruling over others, and which for that purpose needs a coercion apparatus which can force people to obey by means of jails, special units, armed forces, etc, – that is the moment when the state appears (Lenin, collective works, vol 39, page 69).

From a Marxist point of view, any state is always and by definition the dictatorship of the ruling class, which is a good thing, at least according to the Marxists, when this ruling class is the workers and people, and a very bad thing when the ruling class is the plutocracy.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Russia, Vladimir Putin 
🔊 Listen RSS

The West is rotting!
Yes, maybe, but what a nice smell…

Old Soviet joke

The word ‘catastrophe‘ has several meanings, but in its original meaning in Greek the word means a “sudden downturn” (in Greek katastrophē ‘overturning, sudden turn,’ from kata- ‘down’ + strophē ‘turning’). As for the word “superpower” it also has several possible definitions, but my preferred one is this oneSuperpower is a term used to describe a state with a dominant position, which is characterized by its extensive ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale. This is done through the combined-means of economic, military, technological and cultural strength, as well as diplomatic and soft power influence. Traditionally, superpowers are preeminent among the great powers” this one, “an extremely powerful nation, especially one capable of influencing international events and the acts and policies of less powerful nations” or this onean international governing body able to enforce its will upon the most powerful states“.

I have mentioned the very visible decline of the US and its associated Empire in many of my articles already, so I won’t repeat it here other than to say that the “ability to exert influence and impose its will” is probably the best criteria to measure the magnitude of the fall of the US since Trump came to power (the process was already started by Dubya and Obama, but it sure accelerated with The Donald). But I do want to use a metaphor to revisit the concept of catastrophe.

If you place an object in the middle of a table and then push it right to the edge, you will exert some amount of energy we can call “E1”. Then, if the edge of the table is smooth and you just push the object over the edge, you exercise a much smaller amount of energy we can call “E2”. And, in most cases (if the table is big enough), you will also find that E1 is much bigger than E2 yet E2, coming after E1 took place, triggered a much more dramatic event: instead of smoothly gliding over the table top, the object suddenly falls down and shatters. That sudden fall can also be called a “catastrophe”. This is also something which happens in history, take the example of the Soviet Union.

The fate of all empires…

Some readers might recall how Alexander Solzhenitsyn repeatedly declared in the 1980s that he was sure that the Soviet regime would collapse and that he would return to Russia. He was, of course, vitriolically ridiculed by all the “specialists” and “experts”. After all, why would anybody want to listen to some weird Russian exile with politically suspicious ideas (there were rumors of “monarchism” and “anti-Semitism”) when the Soviet Union was an immense superpower, armed to the teeth with weapons, with an immense security service, with political allies and supporters worldwide? Not only that, but all the “respectable” specialists and experts were unanimous that, while the Soviet regime had various problems, it was very far from collapse. The notion that NATO would soon replace the Soviet military not only in eastern Europe, but even in part of the Soviet Union was absolutely unthinkable. And yet it all happened, very, very fast. I would argue that the Soviet union completely collapsed in the span of less than 4 short years: 1990-1993. How and why this happened is beyond the scope of this article, but what is undeniable is that in 1989 the Soviet Union was still an apparently powerful entity, while by the end of 1993, it was gone (smashed into pieces by the very nomenklatura which used to rule over it). How did almost everybody miss that?

Because ideologically-poisoned analysis leads to intellectual complacence, a failure of imagination and, generally, an almost total inability to even hypothetically look at possible outcomes. This is how almost all the “Soviet specialists” got it wrong (the KGB, by the way, had predicted this outcome and warned the Politburo, but the Soviet gerontocrats were ideologically paralyzed and were both unable, and often unwilling, to take any preventative action). The Kerensky masonic regime in 1917 Russia, the monarchy in Iran or the Apartheid regime in South Africa also collapsed very fast once the self-destruction mechanism was in place and launched.

You can think of that “regime self-destruction mechanism” as our E1 phase in our metaphor above. As for E2, you can think of it as whatever small-push like event which precipitates the quick and final collapse, apparently with great ease and minimum energy spent.

At this point it is important to explain what exactly a “final collapse” looks like. Some people are under the very mistaken assumption that a collapsed society or country looks like a Mad Max world. This is not so. The Ukraine has been a failed state for several years already, but it still exists on the map. People live there, work, most people still have electricity (albeit not 24/7), a government exists, and, at least officially, law and order is maintained. This kind of collapsed society can go on for years, maybe decades, but it is in a state of collapse nonetheless, as it has reached all the 5 Stages of Collapse as defined by Dmitry Orlov in his seminal book “The Five Stages of Collapse: Survivors’ Toolkit” where he mentions the following 5 stages of collapse:

  • Stage 1: Financial collapse. Faith in “business as usual” is lost.
  • Stage 2: Commercial collapse. Faith that “the market shall provide” is lost.
  • Stage 3: Political collapse. Faith that “the government will take care of you” is lost.
  • Stage 4: Social collapse. Faith that “your people will take care of you” is lost.
  • Stage 5: Cultural collapse. Faith in “the goodness of humanity” is lost.

Having personally visited Argentina in the 1970s and 1980s, and seen the Russia of the early 1990s, I can attest that a society can completely collapse while maintaining a lot of the external appearances of a normal still functioning society. Unlike the Titanic, most collapsed regimes don’t fully sink. They remain about half under water, and half above, possibly with an orchestra still playing joyful music. And in the most expensive top deck cabins, a pretty luxurious lifestyle can be maintained by the elites. But for most of the passengers such a collapse results in poverty, insecurity, political instability and a huge loss in welfare. Furthermore, in terms of motion, a half-sunk ship is no ship at all.

Here is the crucial thing: as long as the ship’s PA systems keep announcing great weather and buffet brunches, and as long as most of the passengers remain in their cabins and watch TV instead of looking out of the window, the illusion of normalcy can be maintained for a fairly long while, even after a collapse. During the E1 phase outlined above, most passengers will be kept in total ignorance (lest they riot or protest) and only when E2 strikes (totally unexpectedly for most passengers) does reality eventually destroy the ignorance and illusions of the brainwashed passengers.

🔊 Listen RSS

The year 2018 will go down in history as a turning point in the evolution of the geostrategic environment of our planet. There are many reasons for that and I won’t list them all, but here are some of the ones which I personally consider the most important ones:

The Empire blinked. Several times

This is probably the single most important development of the year: the AngloZionist Empire issued all sorts of scary threats, and took some even scarier actual steps, but eventually it had to back down. In fact, the Empire is in retreat on many fronts, but I will only list a few crucial ones:

  1. The DPRK: remember all the grandiose threats made by Trump and his Neocon handlers? The Administration went as far as announcing that it would send as many as THREE(!) nuclear aircraft carrier strike groups to the waters off the DRPK while Trump threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea. Eventually, the South Koreans decided to take matters in their own hands, they opened a direct channel of communications with the North, and all the US sabre-rattling turned into nothing more than hot air.
  2. Syria in April: that was the time when the US, France and the UK decided to attack Syria with cruise missiles to “punish” the Syrians for allegedly using chemical weapons (a theory too stupid to be even worth discussing). Of 103 detected missiles, 71 were shot down by the Syrians. The White House and the Pentagon, along with their trusted Ziomedia, declared the strike a great success, but then, they also did that during the invasion of Grenada (one of the worst assault operation in military history) or after the humiliating defeat of Israel by Hezbollah in 2006, so this really means very little. The truth is that this operation was a total military failure and that it has not been followed up by anything (at least for now).
  3. The Ukraine: we spent almost all of 2018 waiting for an Ukronazi attack on the Donbass which never happened. Now, I am quite sure that some will argue that the Nazi junta in Kiev never had any such intentions, but anybody with even a basic knowledge of what took place in the Ukraine this year knows that this is pure bull: the junta did pretty much everything to execute an attack except the very last step: to actually order it. Putin’s open threat that any such attack would have “grave consequences for Ukraine’s statehood as such” probably played a key role in deterring the Empire. Oh sure, the Ukronazis might well attack in January or any time after that, but the fact is that in 2018 they did not dare do so. Yet again, the Empire (and its minions) had to back down.
  4. Syria in September: this time, it was the Israeli hypostasis of the Empire which triggered a massive crisis when the Israelis hid their strike aircraft behind a Russian Il-20 large turboprop airliner resulting in the loss of the aircraft and crew. After giving the Israelis a chance to come clean (which, predictably, they didn’t – they are, after all, Israelis), the Russians got fed up and delivered advanced air defense, electronic warfare and battle management systems to the Syrians. In response the Israelis (who had issued many threats about immediately destroying any S-300 delivered to the Syrians) had to basically stop their air strikes against Syria (well, not quite, they did execute two such strikes: one totally ineffective one and one in which the Zionist crazies again hid behind an aircraft, but in this case, no one but TWO civilian aircraft (more about this latest ziocrazy stunt further below). The Empire backed down again.
  5. Syria in December: apparently fed up with all the infighting amongst his advisors, Trump eventually ordered a full US withdrawal from Syria. Now, of course, since this is the US, we have to wait and see what actually happens. There is also a very complex kabuki dance being executed by Russia, Turkey, the US, Israel, Iran, the Kurds and the Syrians to stabilize the situation following a full US withdrawal. After all the years of huffing and puffing about how “Assad The Monster must go” it is quite amusing to see how the western powers are throwing in towels one after the other. This also begs the obvious question: if “The City On The Hill And Sole Superpower On The Planet, The Leader Of The Free World and the Indispensable Nation” can’t even deal with a weakened Syrian government and military, what can this military successfully do (besides provide Hollywood blockbusters to a gullible US public)?
  6. Various smaller defeats: too many to count, but they include the Khashoggi fiasco, the failure of the war in Yemen, the failure of the war in Afghanistan, the failure of the war in Iraq, the failure to remove Maduro from power in Venezuela, and the gradual loss of control over an increasing number of EU countries (Italy), Nikki Haley’s ridiculous antics at the UNSC, the inability to gather up the intellectual resources needed to have a real, productive, meeting with Vladimir Putin, the disastrous commercial war with China, etc. What all these events have in common is that they are a result of the inability of the US to get anything done, truly done. Far from being a real superpower, the US is in a full-spectrum decline and the main thing which still gives it its superpower status are its nuclear weapons, just like Russia in the 1990s.

All the internal problems resulting from the infighting of the US elites (roughly: the Clinton gang vs Trump and his Deplorables) only make things worse. Just the apparently never ending sequence of resignations and/or firing from the Trump Administration is a very important sign of the advanced state of collapse of the US polity. Elites don’t fight each other when all goes well, they do so when everything goes south. The saying “victory has many fathers but defeat is an orphan” reminds us that when a gang of thugs begins to lose control of a situation, it rapidly turns into an “every man for himself”, everybody blames everybody for the problems and nobody wants to stay anywhere near those who will go down in history as the pathetic losers who screwed everything up.

As for the US armed forces, they have been tremendously successful in killing a very large amount of people, as always, mostly civilians, but they failed to get anything actually done, at least not if one understands that the purpose of war is not just to kill people, but is the “continuation of politics by other means“. Let’s compare and contrast what Russia and the US did in Syria.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Neocons, Russia, Syria 
Rusty museum antiques or the Star War's Death Star?
🔊 Listen RSS

Remember what happened when the Admiral Kuznetsov carrier sailed around Europe to reach the eastern Mediterranean? NATO leaders were making fun of the black smoke coming out of the ship’s engine while at the same time shadowing the Kuznetsov as if it was the Death Star from the Star Wars series and as if its final goal was to obliterate the British Isles. Frankly, this is nothing new. Even during the Cold War, western propagandists liked to dismiss all Soviet weapons systems as junk while at the same time declaring that they were the terrifying weapons of a Mordor-like Evil Empire set to destroy the entire Free World. This time around, we are seeing exactly the same pattern yet again:

NATO is busy intercepting “museum pieces”
NATO is busy intercepting “museum pieces”

The US Ambassador to Colombia Kevin Whitaker declared that these aircraft were so old that they were “museum pieces.”

Mike Pompeo (who makes even Nikki Haley look almost smart and almost sweet!) angrily declared that this was a case of “two corrupt governments squandering public funds, and squelching liberty and freedom while their people suffer.”

Diego Moya-Ocampos, a senior analyst for IHS Markit Ltd, a London-based global information provider, declared that “This is Russia trying to force the U.S. to say, ‘listen if you withdraw from this and if you make these moves in Europe, we will make these moves as well.'” He also added that a “Russian base would represent a much larger investment in Venezuela than Russia has signaled it’s willing to make, as well as a larger provocation to the United States.”

There is so much military illiteracy in the AngloZionist Empire that, once again, I decided to engage in some much needed LikBez to try to set the record straight.

First, the basics: the Tu-160 is, indeed, a supersonic heavy strategic bomber, meaning that they have the speed and range to strike targets at long distance (how far depends on the load, the availability of in-flight refueling and flight profile; usually a max range of 12’000km is quoted). While the Tu-160 can carry regular (“dumb”) bombs, its primary weapons are cruise missiles, specifically six Raduga Kh-55SM/101/102/555 missiles or twelve AS-16 Kickback missiles. The former has a range of about 4,500–5,000–5,500 km (2,800–3,100–3,400 mi; some sources even claim as much as 10,000 km (6,200 mi) range with a flight endurance of 10 hours. The AS-16 is a short range weapon with a range of 300 km (160 nmi) which can fly at 40,000 m (130,000 ft) and then dive at a speed of Mach 5. Both of these missiles have a low radar cross-section, advanced guidance (including terminal), onboard electronic warfare kit and maneuvering capabilities. Finally, these missiles exist in several variants including conventional, nuclear and anti-ship. The first conclusion, these figures suggest, is that Russia does not need to send her bombers anywhere near the US to deliver a powerful conventional or nuclear strike: with a range anywhere between 4500km and 10000km the main missile armament of the Tu-160 does not require this bomber to be anywhere near the target at the moment of launch of the missile. Instead of attacking from Venezuela, the Tu-160 can fire its missiles from over the polar cap and still strike the continental US.

This is true for bombers, but this is even more true of ship or submarine-based ballistic and cruise missiles.

Second, this is hardly the first time the Russian military paid a visit to Venezuela: Russian Aerospace bombers visited the country in 2013, and Russian Navy ships did so in 2008. Nothing happened then, and nothing happened now.

I will admit, this is a scary looking “strateg” (as these supersonic heavy strategic bombers are called by their crews)
I will admit, this is a scary looking “strateg” (as these supersonic heavy strategic bombers are called by their crews)

So what’s all the hysterics all about?

I think that this is all about internal US politics and, shall we say, “information management”: every time the Russian military visits Venezuela, the US public comes dangerously close to finding out three things the Neocons and their Deep State desperately want to keep a secret from the US public:

  1. The US mainland is completely undefended for the very simple reason that (almost!) nobody is threatening it.
  2. Russia has the means to deliver conventional and nuclear strikes anywhere in the US.
  3. We have never been as close to a full-scale conventional and nuclear war as we are today.

Let’s look at each one of these statements one by one.

The US is totally undefended because nobody threatens it

True, Russia and (to a lesser degree) China, can strike the US. But since they could only do that at the cost of a terrible counter-strike by US conventional and nuclear forces, US force planners and analysts are pretty darn confident that neither Russia nor China will initiate such a strike. Besides, unlike the AngloZionist Empire, neither the Soviet Union nor Russia has ever planned for an attack on the US or Europe.

Quick reminder for the believers in “western values” – this is what the wonderful western allies had in store for the Soviet Union by the end of WWII:
Plan Totality (1945): earmarked 20 Soviet cities for obliteration in a first strike: Moscow, Gorki, Kuybyshev, Sverdlovsk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Saratov, Kazan, Leningrad, Baku, Tashkent, Chelyabinsk, Nizhny Tagil, Magnitogorsk, Molotov, Tbilisi, Stalinsk, Grozny, Irkutsk, and Yaroslavl.
Operation Unthinkable (1945) assumed a surprise attack by up to 47 British and American divisions in the area of Dresden, in the middle of Soviet lines. This represented almost half of roughly 100 divisions (ca. 2.5 million men) available to the British, American and Canadian headquarters at that time. (…) The majority of any offensive operation would have been undertaken by American and British forces, as well as Polish forces and up to 100,000 German Wehrmacht soldiers.
Operation Dropshot (1949): included mission profiles that would have used 300 nuclear bombs and 29,000 high-explosive bombs on 200 targets in 100 cities and towns to wipe out 85% of the Soviet Union’s industrial potential at a single stroke. Between 75 and 100 of the 300 nuclear weapons were targeted to destroy Soviet combat aircraft on the ground.
But the biggest proof is, I think, the fact that none of these plans was executed, even though at the time the Anglosphere was safely hidden behind its monopoly on nuclear weapons (and were Hiroshima and Nagasaki not destroyed in part to “scare the Russians”?) See here for more details

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Media, Nuclear War, Russia, Venezuela 
🔊 Listen RSS

Once a year I like to pretend like my blog is some kind of “respectable” mainstream outlet and I engage in the (admittedly totally silly!) exercise of nominating some “man” (sorry, “person” is unbearably politically correct and once you go down that route you end up calling mentally deranged freaks “ze/zir/zee/etc” and the like). Hey, if you cannot get the kind of financing AngloZionist propaganda outlets get, let us at least pretend like we are fighting on an even playing field once a year, no? So once a year I pretend like I am not a lonely “deplorable” and I chose my own heroes of the day and that sort of makes me feel the “momentary equal” to propaganda outlets like Time mag or The Economist 🙂

FYI – past nominees have included “the Syrian soldier” (2013), “the Russian soldier” (2014), “the Russian Airmen in Syria, Major-General Qasem Soleimani and Alexander Zakharchenko” (2015), “the American basket of deplorables” (2016) and “all those who gave their lives for Syria” (2017).

(Now please pretend like you hear a dramatic drum-roll…..)

Ladies and gentlemen, the 2018 “Saker man of the year” award jointly goes to: (in alphabetical order)

The American “Dissidents”: Stephen Cohen, Bonnie Faulkner, Paul Craig Roberts and Ron Unz

Here are the reasons for my choice:

For all the empty talk about freedom of speech, diversity, pluralism and the like, the sad truth is that the US is not a democracy, but a rather authoritarian plutocracy with strongly expressed elements of a totalitarian regime. True, nobody (that I know of) got sent to a labor camp (yet!) or shot in a cellar (yet!) for daring to speak up to power, but we must also remember the joke which says that “a totalitarian regime is one that commands you to “shut up!” whereas a liberal democracy simply says “keep talking!“. There is much truth to this. As an experienced anti-Soviet activist who opposed and fought against the Soviet regime, I can attest that it was much less effective at stifling dissent than the US regime. Furthermore, I am also sure that the Soviet regime had far more popular support than the current US plutocracy.

[sidetext] It is important to note here that with a few very important, and now sadly forgotten, exceptions (such as Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Igor Ogurtsov, Leonid Borodin and a few others), the vast majority of the so-called “Soviet dissidents” were not Russian patriots at all and many of them were, in fact, rabid russophobes, Furthermore, both the West and the Soviet regime treated the Russian patriotic opponents (they should not be called or associated with “dissidents”) much worse than the russophobes. In the West, Russian patriots were called “authoritarian monarchists” and, of course, “anti-Semites” while the pro-West dissidents were given full support on Radio Liberty, Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, the BBC Russian Service and the rest of the western propaganda outlets. As for the Soviet regime, it is also interesting to see how it differentiated between patriotic opponents and the pro-western, russophobic, “dissidents”: the former typically got harsh sentences under Article 70 of the Penal Code of the RSFSR (Anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda – 3 to 10 years) whereas the latter typically got sentenced under the much more lenient Article 190 (Distribution of knowingly false fabrications, discrediting the Soviet state and social system – up to 3 years). Finally, a lot of money was given to the russophobes, while the anti-Soviet patriots could only count on the help of the rather small patriotic Russian anti-Soviet resistance inside the USSR and abroad (including yours truly). It is even sadder that nowadays in Russia the Russian patriotic anti-Soviet opponents are either forgotten or, worse, assimilated to the russophobes by people who have never read much of Solzhenitsym or Ogurtsov or Borodin, but who categorically state that “show me an anti-Soviet activist and I will show you a russophobe” (which, by that definition, would also include me…). I understand that this is the inevitable “return of the historical pendulum” after decades when the anti-Soviet propaganda vastly exaggerated the evils of the Soviet regime (whose evils were very real, but not nearly as immense and evil as mistakenly accepted by the anti-Soviet activists, very much including myself, to my great regret). Right now the pendulum is way too far out towards quasi total whitewashing the evils and crimes of the Soviet regime, but with time it will reach some kind of fact-based equilibrium, at which point the anti-Soviet patriotic opponents will be recognized for what they really were and not lumped together with the russophobic dissidents.[sidetext]

The truth is that the level of education, including political education, was FAR HIGHER in the USSR than today in the US and that the Soviet propaganda machine was (comparatively) rather benign and wholly ineffective and clumsy when compared to the multi-billion dollar AngloZionist propaganda machine of the Empire. The Soviet official ideology, by the way, was much more pluralistic and the Soviet media much more diverse than the western corporate media (I know, I used to read both for a living for a few years). So, as a result, while western dissidents don’t get physically oppressed (at least not yet!!) their struggle is, in some ways, much harder and a much more lonely one. We can see that in the life of my four nominees (again, in alphabetical order):

Professor Stephen Cohen

Already during the Cold War, Professor Cohen was a (then recognized and hailed) world class expert on the Soviet Union and a respected voice of reason. The liberals especially loved him for his views. When Putin came to power, however, Stephen Cohen did not fall into the russophobic trap of the US liberals and he dared to speak up openly, taking a position diametrically opposed to that of many of his (now former) supporters. For that he was vilified, copiously insulted, and called stuff like “Putin’s American Apologist“, “Putin’s Pal“, a “Desperate Putin Apologist“, and even a “Pathetic Putin Dupe“! This goes to show that while the English language does not yet (yet!) have the equivalent of the “wonderful” German expression “Putinversteher“, the level of intellectual intolerance of the US liberals is just as rabid as the one of their German colleagues. The exact same phenomenon happened with Alexander Solzhenitsyn who initially was the West’s darling for criticizing the Soviet regime, but as soon as his critique turned to the West, he was immediately shunned and vilified (by the exact same folks who are now smearing and vilifying Professor Cohen, by the way).

🔊 Listen RSS

The AngloZionist propaganda machine is constantly warning us that Russia is about to invade some country. The list of candidates for invasion is long and ranges from Norway to the Ukraine and includes the Baltic statelets, Poland and even countries further West. Of course, we are also told that NATO and the US are here to prevent that. Well, thank God for them, right?

But what is conspicuously missing from this narrative is a discussion of the possible Russian motives for such a military move. Typically, we are merely told that Russia has broken the European post-Cold War order and borders by “annexing” Crimea and by sending military forces into the Donbass. Anybody with an IQ at room temperature or above by now realizes that both of these claims are total bunk. The ones who indeed broke the post-Cold War international order and borders were the NATO member states when they used military force, in complete illegality, to break-up Yugoslavia. As for the people of Crimea, they had the opportunity to vote about their future in a referendum, very much unlike the inhabitants of Kosovo which had no such opportunity. As for the 08.08.08 war, even the Europeans who eventually, and very reluctantly, agreed that it was, in fact, Saakashvili who started this conflict, not Russia.

But let’s set all this aside and assume that the Russian leaders would not hesitate to use military force again if it was to their advantage. Let’s assume that, yes, the Russians are up to no good and that they might well try to bite-off some other piece of land somewhere in Europe.

Such an assumption would immediately raise a crucial question: why would the Russians want to do that?

For some reason, this question is rarely, if ever, asked.

Oh sure, we are told that “Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet Union” or some other type of empire but, again, nobody seems to wonder why he would want that!

So let’s look at possible rationales for such an attack:

Reason number one: to gain more land

That is probably the least credible reason of all. Russia is a vast country (17,098,246 km2) with a relatively small population (144,526,636) resulting in a very low population density. Not only is Russia huge, but her territory has immense natural resources. The very last thing Russia needs is more land.

Reason number two: to increase the Russian population

Well, yes, Russia has a population deficit for sure. But that does not mean that just any population increase would be a bonanza for Russia. For example, Russia will only be in a worse shape if the number of people depending on unemployment, social services or pensions increases. Likewise, Russia would not benefit from a politically hostile population. So while Russia could benefit from having a larger population, what she needs is more young and well-educated *Russians*, not unemployed and destitute Ukrainians or Lithuanians! The massive influx of Ukrainian refugees, by the way, has already contributed to an increase in qualified specialists, including medical doctors and highly qualified engineers from the Ukrainian military-industrial specialists who, when they saw their bureaus and industries collapse in the Ukraine, moved to Russia to continue to work. There is no need for the Russia to invade anybody to get those highly qualified specliasts. As for Ukrainians without special qualifications, they have already shown up in Russia, and the last thing Russia needs is more of them (they can go scrub toilets in Poland or the UK). Furthermore, there are already a lot of immigrants from other parts of the world in Russia and getting more of them is hardly a good idea. So while Russia would benefit from more qualified young Russians, invading other countries is not the way to get them.

Reason number three: geostrategic reasons

What about the Baltic ports? What about the Ukrainian gas pipelines? The truth is that in the Soviet times the Baltic ports or the Ukrainian pipelines were crucial strategic assets. But since their independence, these countries have not only ruined themselves and destroyed the infrastructure they inherited from the “Soviet occupiers,” but Russia has also successfully replaced the infrastructure and industries she lost after 1991. Thus, for example, Russia has actively developed her own commercial ports on the Baltic Sea, and they have now outgrown the ones found in the Baltic states (see here for a good comparative chart). As for the Ukrainian pipelines, not only are they in terrible shape, Russia has successfully built “North” and “South” streams which allow her to completely bypass the Ukraine and the need to deal with the crazy Banderite junta in Kiev. The simple truth is that while the Baltic statelets or the Ukronazis can fancy themselves as a very precious prize, Russia has absolutely no need for them whatsoever.

In fact, the opposite is true: right now, Russia can barely finance all the reconstruction programs which are so urgently needed after decades of nationalist rule in Crimea. In the future, Russia will also have to help the Donbass rebuild. Does anybody seriously believe that the Russians can afford to rescue even more countries or territories?!

Reason number four: revanchist motives

That is the Hillary Clinton/Zbigniew Brzezinski argument: the Russians are inherently expansionists, imperialists, militarists, and revanchists and they don’t need a motive to invade somebody: that’s simply what they do – invade, terrorize, oppress. Well, a quick objective look at history would prove that it is the West which has always displayed such behavior, not Russia, but we can even ignore that fact. The truth is that while there are a lot of people in Russia who have good memories of their lives in the Soviet Union, there is just no constituency pushing for the re-birth of the Soviet Union or for any kind of imperialism. If anything, most Russians are much more isolationist, and they don’t want to get involved in wars or the invasion of foreign countries. This is not only a result of memories of wars in Afghanistan or interventions in Germany, Hungary or Czechoslovakia, but also the bitter realization that even the so-called “Orthodox brothers” (some of whom even owe the existence of their country on a world map to Russia!) have now fully turned against Russia and have become willing NATO-colonies (think Bulgaria or Romania here). Yes, Putin did say that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a tragedy (objectively, it was, and it brought immense suffering to millions of people), but that does not at all mean that Putin, or anybody else, actually wants to “resurrect” the Soviet Union, even if it was feasible (which it is not). If anything, it was the US, NATO, and the EU which, for purely ideological reasons chose to expand their influence to the East and which are now constantly engaged in a nonstop campaign of russophobia (phobia in both meanings of “fear” and “hatred”). Yes, Russians are disgusted with the West, but that hardly means that they want to invade it.

Reason number five: megalomania

🔊 Listen RSS

Petro Poroshenko is in deep trouble. His ratings have been in the single-digit range in spite of a vast propaganda effort, and his latest attempt to create a salvific crisis involving the usual “Russian aggression” has not only failed but appears to be backfiring.

The Ukronazi commander-in-chief hard at work :-)
The Ukronazi commander-in-chief hard at work :-)

It is now becoming abundantly clear that the Ukronazi provocation was not only breathtakingly stupid and irresponsible, but also poorly planned and executed. The documents seized by the FSB on the Ukrainian ships show that the Ukrainian captains were given the order to “covertly” sneak under the Kerch bridge. I have no idea what the Ukronazi junta leaders were thinking, maybe there were drunk or terrified to tell Poroshenko that this was a suicidal mission (most likely he was too drunk to care anyway), but the fact that they could even imagine that three old boats could somehow sneak around the Crimean Peninsula and then covertly pass under the Kerch bridge is just amazing (as is the fact that the crews failed to destroy this damning evidence!). One of the most heavily monitored sections of our planet, right next to a war zone, which has been the object of innumerable threats, and yet they thought that they could somehow avoid being detected and intercepted. Wow, just wow!

As for the crews of these three tiny ships, they all owe their lives to the FSB Coastguard officers, who could have merely blown all three ships away in seconds, but clearly did their utmost to avoid killing any of the Ukrainians. Only after many hours of absolutely ridiculous slow speed maneuvering (if you speak Russian, you can listen to the entire radio exchange between the two sides right here), did the Russians eventually fire a few shots and ram the Ukrainian tug. Frankly, these Coastguard officers deserve some kind of humanitarian award.

(Soviet and now) Russian Border Guards should in no case be assumed to be some kind of Russian version of the sort of border guards you see in the West. The truth is that the Russian border guards are an elite force whose level of training can be compared with the famous Airborne Forces. Their role is not only to check visas and look for contraband, but also to be a real fighting force which, in case of war, would be tasked with resisting the enemy until the regular armed forces take over. They are subordinated to the FSB (in the past to the KGB) because they do conduct intelligence operations and because they are a key element in the Russian counter-terrorist and counter-insurgency capabilities. This is why such elite special forces as the KGB Vympel Spetsnaz unit so often recruited border guards. A good friend of mine who used to be a Vympel commander with the rank of Colonel told me how in Afghanistan they recruited as many border guards as paratroopers because in his opinion “they were at least as tough and disciplined” as the airborne soldiers. The Russian border guards are also equipped with modern and powerful weapons and can conduct sub-unit level combat operations. The Ukrainian officers must have known this, and thus must have realized that regardless of the number of weapons they had onboard (quite a lot, actually, see here), they had no chance whatsoever to prevail. Besides, the Ukrainian ships are tiny and old while the Russian border guards could count on Black Sea Fleet and Aerospace and Ground Forces support – hence the Ka-52s and Su-25’s scrambled to meet the Ukrainian reinforcements coming from Odessa. Frankly, I don’t think that even a full US Marine Expeditionary Unit could cross the Kerch Strait, let alone the Ukrainians 🙂 the geography just favors the defending side too much

There is a broad consensus in both Russia and the Ukraine that the primary goal of Poroshenko was to create a pretext to introduce martial law and cancel the elections. Once introduced, such a martial law can easily be prolonged for as long as needed; see what the French did. He planned to introduce martial law over the entire Nazi-occupied Ukraine, and then prolong it for as long as needed; enough to cancel the elections and then harshly deal with any protests. The plan completely failed.

First, all the opposition parties immediately understood what this was all about, and they all vehemently protested. When the text came to a vote in the Rada, it was massively watered-down and, as a result, the martial law will only be introduced for one month and only in the following regions of the Ukraine:

Martial law areas marked in red
Martial law areas marked in red

This is bad, very bad news for Petro.

First, these areas are where the regime suspects the locals of pro-Russian sympathies (they are right, by the way). But the risk for Petro does not come at all from the pro-Russian folks; the real danger for him comes from the various nationalist legal opposition movements who have their power base in the blue areas which will not be covered by this law.

Second, since the law was introduced for only one month and since it includes an obligation not to cancel the upcoming elections, it will be hard for Petro to crack down on the propaganda capabilities of his opponents (lead by Iulia Timoshenko).

Third, Petro probably hoped that the Russians would simply use a few missiles or blow the Ukrainian three ship armada into smithereens. Alas, the evil Moskal’s did nothing of the sort, and they captured all three vessels and their crews. So as panic-generating incidents go, this one was a terrible flop. In fact, the Russians are now using these ships and crews for their own propaganda which ridicules Petro and (correctly) states that the regime in Kiev sent these sailors to certain death in total, abject indifference. None of that will increase Poroshenko’s ratings…

Fourth, it appears that Poroshenko is really going “full-Saakashvili” and might even become the Empire’s worst Uber-loser which, by the way, can get him into real trouble with his bosses in Washington and Langley (who ditched Saakashvili when he proved to be a worthless loser). Frankly, the Empire would be much better off with Timoshenko in charge rather than this Eltsin-like alcoholic imbecile.

So the big question #1 is: is there a viable alternative to Poroshenko for the Empire?

Latest EuroUkros rating according to a Ukrainian source
Latest EuroUkros rating according to a Ukrainian source

To answer that we first need to answer another basic question: is there a public, official opposition in Nazi-controlled Ukraine or not?

The answer is: both yes and no.

First, no, not in the sense of some more or less decent, real opposition.

But yes, in the sense that the junta which seized power is composed of many different factions including oligarch/mobsters à la Kolomoskii, neo-Nazis à la Farion, bona fide Nazis à la Tiagnibok and assorted nutcases like Liashko. There is also Iulia Timoshenko, a very sharp and therefore potentially dangerous foe who has powerful backers in the USA.

Take a look at these latest ratings, and you will see that in spite of a huge “administrative resource” (Russian euphemism for abuse of government power), Petro barely makes it to 9.9% which means that his real rating must be somewhere in the 3-5 percent range.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Neocons, Russia, Ukraine 
🔊 Listen RSS

First, here is a pretty good summary of what has taken place (including videos) posted by RT:

I will just add that at the time of writing (07:38 UTC) the cargo ship blocking the passage under the bridge has been removed, traffic has resumed and the situation has returned to normal.

Second, let me give you the single most important element to understand what is (and what is not) taking place: the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea are, in military terms, “Russian lakes”. That means that Russia has the means to destroy any and all ships (or aircraft) over these two seas: on the Black Sea the life expectancy of any intruder would be measured in minutes, on the Sea of Azov in seconds. Let me repeat here that any and all ships deployed in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov are detected and tracked by Russia and they can all easily be destroyed. The Russians know that, the Ukrainians know that and, of course, the Empire knows that. Again, keep that in mind when trying to make sense of what happened.

Third, whether the waters in which the incident happened belong to Russia or not is entirely irrelevant. Everybody knows that Russia considers these waters are belonging to her and those disagreeing with this have plenty of options to express their disagreement and challenge the legality of the Russian position. Trying to break through waters Russia considers her own with several armed military vessels is simply irresponsible and, frankly, plain stupid (especially considering point #2 above). That is simply not how civilized nations behave (and there are plenty of contested waters on our planet).

Fourth, one should not be too quick in dismissing Poroshenko’s latest plan to introduce martial law for the next 60 days. Albeit Poroshenko himself declared that this mobilization does not mean that the Ukronazi regime wants war with Russia, the fact is that the first-line reserves will be mobilized. This is important because the situation resulting from the introduction to martial law could be used to covertly increase the number of soldiers available for an attack on Novorussia or, God forbid, Russia herself. In fact, Poroshenko also officially appealed to the veterans of the war against Novorussia to be ready for deployment.

Fifth, while there are all sorts of caveats offered by the Ukronazi regime about the introduction of the martial law, including that it will not mean war or infringe on the right of the people, the truth is very different. Here is what a memo by the Unian agency says about what martial law means in legal terms: (emphasis added)

Martial law is a special legal regime that is introduced in Ukraine or its individual areas in the event of armed aggression or threat of attack, a threat to Ukraine’s state independence, its territorial integrity, and gives authorities, the military command and local self-government the powers that are necessary to prevent threats and ensure national security. It also foresees temporary threat-related limitations on constitutional rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen and the rights and legal interests of legal entities, indicating the duration of such restrictions (Article 1 of the Law on the Legal Regime of Martial Law).

Considering the current single-digit popularity rating of Poroshenko and the fact that he has no chance in hell to be re-elected (at least not in minimally credible elections) it is pretty darn obvious of why the Ukronazi regime in Kiev decided to trigger yet another crisis and then blame Russia for it. The very last thing Russia needs is yet another crisis, especially not before a possible Putin-Trump meeting at the G20 Buenos Aires summit later this month. In fact, Ukrainian bloggers immediately saw this latest provocation as an attempt to scrap upcoming elections.

So what’s next?

Well, the most likely options is just one more Ukie bawling about the “Russian aggression” with the hope that this will a) raise the value of the Poroshenko regime in the eyes of the Empire and b) disrupt the planned Trump-Putin meeting.

I am not so sure that Poroshenko will be given the option to simply cancel the elections. Yes, he cannot win, but the Empire can replace him. Not only that, but outright canceling the elections would be a PR disaster (but one which is sometimes chosen by the Empire’s “sons of bitches” like, say, Mahmoud Abbas). Still there is also a very good chance that the Ukronazis regime feeling that it has nothing to lose would take such an unprecedented step.

Some kind of limited Ukronazi military operations against Russia, Novorussia, Crimea or the Kerch bridge would be militarily suicidal but political very profitable as it would allow Poroshenko to a) blame Russia for all the Ukrainian problems and b) demand even more aid to “resist against the Russian aggression”. The problem with that option is that there are good signs that a lot of the Ukrainian military personnel does not have the courage to actually fight the Russians (for ex: look how ALL the Ukie soldiers folded in Crimea; also, the blog of “Colonel Cassad” reports that of the three ships which tried to breach the Russian border, at least one had a captain who voluntarily surrendered his ship to the Russians; finally, one Ukrainian sailor has apparently been shot for refusing to open fire against the Russians). It is worth mentioning that on Sunday the Urkonazis sent a few more ships obviously to aid the ships intercepted by the Russians, but as soon as the Russians closed the passage and Russian Su-25s and Ka-52 appeared in the skies, they quickly stopped and eventually left the scene. Did they do that under order or because they did not want to die? We will never find out I suppose.

Finally, there is the very real possibility of a full-scale war against Russia. Yes, the Ukronazis would last just a couple of days, but keep in mind that their goal will not be to win, but to force Russia into an overt military operation which the entire “collective West” will have to condemn like what happened with the Georgian attack in 08.08.08. (you know, in the name of “solidarity” like during the Skripal false flag). As for the leaders of the Anglo-Zionist Empire, they will gladly fight Russia down to the very last Ukrainian solider, we all understand that.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Russia, Ukraine 
🔊 Listen RSS

Depending on the context, the small word “why” can be totally innocuous or it can be just about the most subversive and even sacrilegious word one can utter. This is probably why I love this word so much: it’s ability to unleash tremendous power against all sorts of sacred cows and unchallenged beliefs. So, today I want to ask everybody why so many people feel the need to thank veterans for their “service”?

But first, let’s debunk a few myths:

First, let’s begin by getting myth #1 out of the way: the notion that Americans don’t like wars. That is totally false. Americans hate losing wars, but if they win them, they absolutely love them. In other words, the typical US reaction to a war depends on the perceived outcome of that war. If it is a success they love it (even if it is a turkey-shoot like Desert Storm). If it is a deniable defeat (say the US/NATO air operations against Serbian forces in Kosovo or the total clusterbleep in Grenada) they will simply “forget” it. And if it is an undeniable defeat (say Iraq or Afghanistan) then, yes, indeed, most Americans will be categorically opposed to it.

Veterans of foreign wars? Wait, I was not aware that there were any other types of vets!
Veterans of foreign wars? Wait, I was not aware that there were any other types of vets!

Next is myth #2: the truth is that no US serviceman or woman has fought a war in defense of the US since at least WWII (and even this one is very debatable considering that the US forced Japan to wage war and since the attack on Pearl Harbor was set-up as a pretext to then attack Japan). Since 1945 there has not been a single situation in which US soldiers defended their land, their towns, their families or their friends from an aggressor. Not one! All the wars fought by the US since 1945 were wars of aggression, wars of choice and most of them were completely illegal to boot (including numerous subversive and covert operations). At most, one can make the argument that US veterans defended the so-called “American way of life,” but only if one accepts that the said “American way of life” requires and mandates imperialist wars of aggression and the wholesale abandonment of the key concepts of international law.

Finally, there is the ugly dirty little secret that everybody knows but, for some reason, very few dare to mention: the decision to join the (all volunteer) US military is one primarily based on financial considerations and absolutely not some kind of generous “service” of the motherland for pure, lofty, ideals. Yes, yes, I know – there were those who did join the US military after 9/11 thinking that the US had been attacked and that they needed to help bring the fight to those who attacked the US. But even with a very modest degree of intelligence, it should have become pretty darn obvious that whether 9/11 was indeed the work of Bin Laden and al-Qaeda or not (personally I am absolutely certain that this was a controlled demolition) – this atrocity was used by the US government to justify a long list of wars which could not have possibly had anything to do with 9/11. Hey, after all, the US decided to attack Iraq (which self-evidently had nothing to do with 9/11) and not the KSA (even though most of the putative hijackers were Saudis and had official Saudi backing). Besides, even if some folks were not smart enough to see through the lies and even if THEY believed that they joined the US military to defend the US, why would the rest of us who by 2018 all know that the attack on Iraq was purely and solely based on lies, “thank” veterans for stupidly waging war for interests they cannot even identify? Since when do we thank people for making wrong and, frankly, immoral decisions?!

Corporate Pizza chains for wars…
Corporate Pizza chains for wars…

Now let’s look at another basic thing: what is military service? The way I see it, military personnel can roughly be split into two categories: those who actually kill people and those who help those who kill people kill people. Right? If you are a machine gunner or a tank driver, then you personally get to kill people. If you are a communications specialist, or a truck driver, or an electrician, you don’t get to kill people yourself, but your work is to make it easier for those who kill people to kill people. So I think that it would be fair to say that joining a military, any military, is to join an organization whose main purpose is to kill people. Of course, that killing can be morally justifiable and, say, in defense of your country and fellow citizens. But that can only be the case if you prepare for a defensive war and, as we all know, the US has not fought such a war for over 70 years now. Which means that with a few increasingly rare exceptions (WWII veterans) ALL the veterans which get thanked for their service did what exactly? If we put it in plain English, what fundamental, crucial decision did ALL these veterans make?

In simple and plain English, veterans are those who signed up to kill people outside the US for money.

Sorry, I know that this sounds offensive to many, but this is a fact. The fact that this decision (to join an organization whose primary purpose is to murder people in their own countries, hundreds and thousands of miles away from the US) could ALSO have been taken for “patriotic” reasons (i.e. by those who believed in what is most likely the most lying propaganda machine in history) or to “see the world” and “become a real man” does not change the fact that if the US military offered NO pay or benefits, NO scholarships, NO healthcare, etc. then the vast majority of those who claim that they joined to “serve” would never have joined in the first place. We all know that, let’s not pretend otherwise! Just look at the arguments recruiters use to convince people to join: they are all about money and benefits! Need more proof? Just look at the kind of social groups who compose the bulk of the US military: uneducated, poor, with minimal career prospects. The simple truth is that financially successful folks very rarely join the military and, when they do, they usually make a career out of it.

As somebody who has lived in the US for a total of 21 years now, I can attest that folks join the military precisely for the same reasons they enter the police force or become correctional officers: because in all those endeavors there is money to be made and benefits to enjoy. Okay, there must be, by definition, the 1% or less who joined these (all violent) careers for purely lofty and noble ideals. But these would be a small, tiny, minority. The overwhelming majority of cops, correctional officers and soldiers joined primarily for material and/or financial reasons.

By the way, since that is the case, is it not also true that the soldier (just like the cop or the correctional officers) has ALREADY received his/her “gratitude” from the society for their “service” in the form of a check? Why do folks then still feel the need to “thank them for their service”? We don’t thank air traffic controllers or logging workers (also very tough careers) for their service, do we? And that is in spite of the fact that air traffic controllers and logging workers did not choose to join an organization whose primary goal is to kill people in their own homes (whether private homes or national ones) which is what soldiers get paid for.

Let me repeat that truism once again, in an even more direct way: veterans are killers hired for money. Period. The rest is all propaganda.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Media, American Military 
🔊 Listen RSS

We now know a little more about which version of the S-300 family the Russians have delivered to the Syrians: the Russians have converted a number of S-300PM and S-300P2 systems to the export version S-300PMU-2 “Favorit” which, by the way, is also the version Russia delivered to the Iranians and to the Chinese. This system uses the 48N6E2 missile and has an official range of 195km. I will skip the rest of the technical details and just say that this is a recent modification with excellent capabilities, so all the rumors about Russia delivering some antiquated version of the S-300 are now proven false (as usual). In fact, this is not the first time that the Russians have delivered an “Israeli-restraining” air defense system: in 1983 the USSR delivered a number of S-200VE “Vega-E” (SA-5b) air defense systems to Syria which significantly limited Israeli operations over and even around (AWACS) Syria.

Combined with the EW systems also delivered by Russia, these air defense systems clearly are having an impact on US and Israeli operations. And while the Americans are admitting that this is a problem for them, the Israelis, as usual, have both complained about this delivery and boasted that they did not care at all. adding that they would continue to bomb Syria whenever they feel the need. The Israelis have even declared that they would be willing to kill Russian crews if their aircraft are shot at. Except, of course, that so far the Israelis have stayed out of the Syrian skies (keep in mind that according to Israeli sources in 2017 the IDF attacked Syria over 200 times, roughly one attack every 2nd day!).

This time around, not only are the Israelis facing a much more competent air defense system, this system is also highly mobile and therefore much harder to locate, which will greatly complicate future attacks. Furthermore, since one S-300PMU2 battalion can track 300 targets (and engage 36 with 72 missiles simultaneously) at a very long range, the Syrians will now improve their early warning capabilities tremendously, which will make it much harder for the Israelis to successfully conduct surprise attacks against Syria.

Sooner or later, however, we can be pretty confident that both the Israelis and the US will have to try to strike Syria again, if only for PR purposes. In fact, this should not be too difficult for them, here is why:

First, and contrary to what is often claimed, there are not enough S-300/S-400’s in Syria to indeed “lock” all of the Syrian airspace. Yes, the Russians did create a de-facto no-fly zone over Syria, but not one which could withstand a large and determined attack. What the combined Russian and Syrian forces have done so far is to deny some specific segments of the airspace above and around Syria to the AngloZionist aggressors. This means that they can protect some specific, high-value targets. However, as soon as the US/Israelis get a feel for what has been deployed and where, and how this entire integrated air defense network works, they will be able to plan strikes which, while not terribly effective, will be presented by the propaganda machine as a major success for the AngloZionists.

Second, air defense operations are always a game of numbers. Even if you assume that each of the air defense missile has a probability of a kill of 1 (meaning that every air defense missile fired will destroy one incoming missile), you still cannot shoot down more missiles than what your own stores allow you to fire. The US/NATO/CENTCOM can, if needed, engage many more missiles in a saturation attack than the Russians have available for defense. This is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

Third, the US/NATO/CENTCOM/IDF all have advanced EW capabilities which will allow them to try to disrupt the Russian fire and reconnaissance capabilities, especially if low RCS aircraft (such as the F-22, F-35, B-1B, etc.) are used in the attacks. Low-RCS aircraft (and missiles) don’t have to operate alone and, in reality, they are often engaged with the support of a determined EW effort.

Finally, the Empire also has long-range weapons which could be used to strike Syria (such as the AGM-158 JASSM low-RCS standoff air-launched cruise missile), especially during a combined electronic warfare and standoff antiradiation missile attack.

So, all the AngloZionists really need to do is to be very careful in their choice of paths of approach and choice of targets, use low-RCS aircraft and missiles under the cover of a robust EW engagement and then use a large enough number of missiles to give the appearance that the Empire has defeated the Russian and Syrian air defenses.

Judging by their past attacks against Syria, the US and the Israelis are far more concerned with the need to appear very powerful, effective and quasi-invulnerable than by actually achieving some meaningful military objective. Of course, this need to appear invulnerable also means that the AngloZionists really cannot afford to have one of their aircraft shot down, hence their current reluctance to test out the Syrian air defense capabilities.

Sooner or later, however, the Israelis will have to try to “defeat the S-300” as they would put it.

The problem for the Israelis is that they don’t really have any good options. The problem is not so much a technological one as it is a political one.

Let’s assume that the Israelis conduct a successful strike against a meaningful target (if their attack is symbolic, the Russians and Syrians can just limit their reply to the usual protests and denunciations, but take no real action). What would Russia do? Well, the Russians (Shoigu specifically) have already indicated that, if needed, they would increase the number of S-300 batteries (and required support systems) delivered to Syria. Thus, the main effect of a successful attack on Syria will be to make subsequent attacks even harder to plan and execute. Would that really be a desirable outcome for the Israelis? I don’t think so.

If each successful Israeli strike makes each subsequent strike even harder while increasing the danger for Israeli aircraft, what would be the point of such attacks? Are there any truly high-value targets in Syria whose destruction by the IDF would justify triggering a further degradation of the situation in Syria? Conversely, if you were Syrian (or Iranian), would you not want the Israelis to strike Syria (or even S-300 batteries) hard enough to force the Russians to deliver even more air defense systems (not necessarily S-300s by the way!)?

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Israel, Russia, Syria 
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?