Yes,
Russia is *still* ready for war – even nuclear war
2
April, 2015
On
March 1st of last year I wrote an article entitled “Obama
just made things much, much worse in the Ukraine – now Russia is
ready for war” in which I wrote the following: “I hope and
pray that Obama, and his advisers, stop and think carefully about
their next step, because make
no mistake about that
RUSSIA
IS READY FOR WAR.”
Using bolded red caps was my hope to get everybody’s attention,
including the various US analysts reading my blog and thinking that
maybe I knew a little something about Russia. This was the
first time in my (now ex-) career as a military analyst that I
delivered such a warning, and it is a sweet irony for me that it was
made publicly and not behind all sorts of secrecy walls.
a) Russia is morally and psychologically willing to use military force to defend herself against the Empire
b) Russia does have the military means to defend herself against the Empire.
I fully agree with a recent article on Russia Insider entitled “NATO Would Probably Lose A War Against Russia“. I don’t know who the “Shellback” who wrote this article is, but I can immediately recognize a fellow “cold warrior” who, like me, must have spent many hours studying the works of V.G. Reznichenko and David Glantz and who knows what he is talking about. You can take what “Shellback” wrote to the bank.
Recently, the Times of London posted an article about threats allegedly made by senior Russian intelligence officers to their western colleagues. Since the Times’ website is behind a pay-wall, I will direct you to this reprint from The Australian.
Let me immediately say, that all the details given about the alleged meeting sound totally true to me and that I have no reason whatsoever to doubt that this time around, The Times actually printed a true story. I am aware of the fact that Putin’s spokesman, Peskov, has immediately denied the story, but in this (very rare) case, I still believe the western corporate media. Why? Because everything in the story is absolutely credible. In particular these excerpts:
Among the “key messages delivered by Russian participants” was a warning that any military move by the West on Crimea would trigger a Russian response, possibly involving nuclear force. “The United States should also understand it would also be at risk.”
The Russian delegation said that any NATO build-up in the Baltics would prompt an increase in Russia’s “nuclear posture”, according to notes drawn up by a US participant. The warning is baldly recounted: “Russia will use its nuclear weapons against NATO.”
When discussing possible Russian action in the Baltics, it reported: “Russian members mentioned a spectrum of responses from nuclear to non-military.”
The most trenchant Russian remarks on eastern Europe were delivered by the former military intelligence chief Valentin Korabelnikov, who remains a senior adviser to the defence ministry. Since the GRU masterminded the annexation of Crimea, he is likely to have been involved in the planning. He said that the biggest threat to Russia was US activity along its borders, according to notes taken by Kevin Ryan, a retired US brigadier-general who served as defence attaché in Moscow.Most people in the West, especially those who have not yet ditched their Idiot-Tube, are getting influenced by propaganda, whether they realized it or not. Just living in a highly propagandized society makes you absorb a lot of that propaganda, as if by osmosis. One such propaganda myth is about the condition and readiness of the Russian military. Of course, it is a very cozy “feel good” feeling to “know” that your military is just “the best”, as if by definition, but the reality is very different and ignoring it is very dangerous. Here are the raw facts:
1. In the Ukraine Russia has a *huge* terrain advantage over the US/NATO, simply because the Ukraine is right across Russia’s border. NATO simply does not have the power projection capability or numbers to intervene in the Ukraine.
2. The Russian Ground Forces are much tougher, better trained and better commanded that their NATO counterparts.
3. The Russian Air Force is more capable that NATO’s, both in terms of personnel and in terms of Бequipment.
4. Russian Air Defense Forces are the best on the planet.
5. Russian nuclear forces are much more modern and capable than the US ones.
Spetsnaz GRU Operator
[Sidebar: Western propaganda always makes loud claims about this or that kind of training, this or that kind of weapons, this or that kind of quotes and statements about super-dooper, super-secret, “best in the world”, special forces, but I simply look at the combat record. You can train all you want, and spend 100 days in the desert eating lizards, but unless you have some real war time combat success to show, I don’t take your claims seriously. Recently, a commentator wrote that the best infantry in the world was the Australian one, because they had learned their skills from the Bushman. Great. One look at the territory currently controlled by the Bushmen and the size of Russia will tell you everything you need to know about that claim :-]
Now, make no mistake: Russia does not want war. If Russia wanted war, Putin would have sent the Russian military into the Donbass last year. In fact, Russia does not even want another “cold” war in Europe. But Russia is prepared to defend herself, if the AngloZionist Empire insists on making her submit to its hegemony.
As for Crimea, it is simply not negotiable. Any attempt to break Crimea away from Russia will be considered as an attack on Russia. You might as well try to seize the Kremlin.
Lastly, notice that I said “Russia is ready”. Not “Putin is ready”. Not only is Putin supported by something in the range of 85%+ of Russians, even though those who oppose him (LDPR, Communist Party, Just Russia) fully and totally support Putin’s refusal to surrender to the Empire. The size of the pro-western part of the Russian population must be roughly in the 3%-5% max, not even enough to get one single deputy into the Duma.
Let me explain something about Russian history here.
Russia began as a rather small principality, much smaller and weaker than Poland. And then Russia got invaded by a multi-ethnic mix of nomads from the East. Russia did not have any natural borders. Not only that, but most of Russia is, in military terms, much more similar to an ocean than to dry land: huge forests, infinite steppes, extreme climates, etc. Finally, unlike western Europe, where a surrendering force was usually spared, in the vast expanses of Russia, surrender was simply not an option. Surrender meant death. The Russian gene pool was directly affected by this selective pressure. As was Russian culture.
[Sidebar: my daughter always laughs that Russian songs are all about only three topics: love, the Motherland and war. She is right. War and everything it represents in an integral part of the Russian culture as is sacrificing your life for the Motherland.]
For those still dubious, I would recommend machine translating this page. It is an analysis of all the wars and battles Russia fought between 1700 and 1940. The results are clear:
For 250 years of its existence of the Russian military fought 392 regular army battles against the Swedes, the French, the Germans, the Turks, the Poles, the Tatars, the Finns, various ethnic groups from the Caucasus, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Austrians, the Hungarians, the British, the Italians, and Central Asian nations. Of those Russia won – 279.
Russia only lost 3 out of 34 wars:
1. Crimea
2. Russian-Japanese
3. Polish-Soviet 1920.
And in most these battles Russia has inferior numbers of troops and inferior weapons.So much for the usual western myths about “winning by numbers” or “General Winter” (these myths are the output of bruised western egos, not military analysis).
This history creates a paradox: Russians absolutely hate war and even fear it, but in war they are determined and fearless. Furthermore, the “ocean like” terrain results in the Russians being unbeatable at two things: maneuver warfare and intelligence/reconnaissance. As for “retreat” on an ocean-like terrain, it has very different meaning than in traditional land warfare.
I believe that this is what the Russian intelligence officers were trying to convey to their counterpart at the meeting reported by The Times: we don’t want war, but if you force us to, we will defeat you.
You might ask about nuclear war – would the Russians really risk death rather than surrender? After all, the USA *does* really have the means to wipe most Russian cities off the world map! Again, the answer is simple: Russia has almost always fought an existential threat. Sure, the US has nukes, but Hitler’s project for Russia was hardly any better (to turn the Russian subhumans into slaves for the Master’s Race). Unlike westerner, who have hardly ever faced a real existential threat (Hitler does not count – he was very much “our son of a bitch”), Russians have, numerous times. That is the big advantage of imperialism, especially for a power protected by the seas: wars happen away from home. In a nuclear war, both Russia and the USA would lose 20-50 million people. Now take a guess, which country is more capable of loosing anywhere between 1/5 to 1/2 of its population and then survive the nuclear winter and radioactive fallout?
In conclusion, I want to say the following to those who will dismiss all of the above as nonsense and still believe that the western military forces could prevail against Russia: you are welcome to dismiss all of the above, but please realize that the vast majority of Russians really do believe it! And as a direct result of that – they will not submit, they will not “blink”, they will not surrender and they will fight you with everything they have.
This topic makes me sick to my stomach. I hate it. I am also frustrated to tears that having survived the Cold War, I am now facing by far the most dangerous international situation since the Cuban Missile Crisis (and then, at least, everybody was terrified; today the propaganda zombified public is utterly unaware of what is happening). The only reason I feel that I have to repeat all these things is in the hope that somebody somewhere will take my warnings seriously and warn his/her bosses.
If you are that person – please do the right thing now.
The Saker
Murdoch
likes to keep his newspapers behind paywalls – so here is the
article the Saker is referring to
Putin:
try to take Crimea away and I will give you a nuclear war
The Ukraine crisis has brought the world closer to nuclear war than at any point for a generation, according to an account of a secret meeting between Russian and American military and intelligence figures.
Vladimir Putin speaks during a meeting in the Kremlin last week.
Source: AP
2
April, 2015
Behind closed doors, over two days, the Russians delivered a series of blunt warnings from Moscow that reveal just how precarious Europe’s security has become over the past year, and how broad the gulf between the Kremlin and the West now is.
The US party at the Elbe Group talks appears to have been surprised to discover that Russian security experts believe that the US is bent on destroying their country — and that Russia is both entitled and fully prepared to use nuclear force to defend itself. That point of view reflects both Mr Putin’s assessment of Russia’s vulnerability and the KGB background shared by him and his closest advisers, according to Kremlin insiders.
Swaggering nuclear rhetoric has increasingly permeated Russian life. In a recent documentary, Mr Putin said that when he gave the instruction to annex Crimea, he also ordered that Russia’s nuclear forces be placed on full alert.
He has referred to Russia’s nuclear might many times since the Ukraine crisis began, including in remarks to a group of schoolchildren in August, when he reminded them that “Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers”, and “it’s best not to mess with us”.
Notes of the Elbe Group meeting indicate some areas where the Kremlin is open to dialogue, namely on the “future nature and composition” of the contested territory in eastern Ukraine which, the generals say, Russia wants to see become “an autonomous entity in a confederated Ukraine”.
However, they also show the detailed thinking behind the nuclear bluster. Among the “key messages delivered by Russian participants” was a warning that any military move by the West on Crimea would trigger a Russian response, possibly involving nuclear force. “The United States should also understand it would also be at risk.”
The Russian delegation said that any NATO build-up in the Baltics would prompt an increase in Russia’s “nuclear posture”, according to notes drawn up by a US participant. The warning is baldly recounted: “Russia will use its nuclear weapons against NATO.”
When discussing possible Russian action in the Baltics, it reported: “Russian members mentioned a spectrum of responses from nuclear to non-military.”
The most trenchant Russian remarks on eastern Europe were delivered by the former military intelligence chief Valentin Korabelnikov, who remains a senior adviser to the defence ministry. Since the GRU masterminded the annexation of Crimea, he is likely to have been involved in the planning. He said that the biggest threat to Russia was US activity along its borders, according to notes taken by Kevin Ryan, a retired US brigadier-general who served as defence attaché in Moscow.
Russia regards the US as an ailing superpower which is trying to create crisis situations to preserve its position of strategic superiority around the world. NATO expansion to the borders of Russia, including “NATO troop deployments in eastern Europe and the Balkans” could lead to unpredictable situations. “For nuclear powers, this is particularly dangerous.”
Russia also believes that “Ukraine could be a launching point” for unleashing fascist and Islamic extremist groups against Moscow. The “fight for resources in the Arctic” was another Russian security concern.
The Elbe Group forum was set up to improve mutual understanding between the two countries’ military and intelligence agencies, and has met six times in five years.
The Russian delegation was briefed by Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, about what messages to deliver to the Americans, according to its leader, Anatoly Kulikov, the former minister of the interior. Mr Kulikov said that Mr Putin had been briefed.
Both delegations agreed that there was a growing risk of an accidental clash between Russian and US or NATO troops in eastern Europe which could lead to “unintended escalation” and devastating consequences for the world at large.
In language that recalled the darkest days of the Cold War, they urged their respective administrations to set up a military hotline to defuse such escalations by allowing “both sides to quickly and accurately establish the facts surrounding an accident” so that commanders on the ground could “communicate with each other in a manner that avoids combat”.
The report’s conclusions, written from a US perspective, emphasise Russia’s interest in trying to involve the US in legitimising the new status quo in Ukraine.
The American conclusions play down the threat of nuclear attack, suggesting that the Russians “threaten nuclear war in an effort to shock the US back to the table”.
More than 6,000 people have been killed since a Russian-backed uprising began in east Ukraine a year ago. The fighting is in a lull at the moment, with a ceasefire largely holding, but there are widespread concerns that violence will flare again with the arrival of summer.
President Obama has so far resisted a growing clamour in Washington to provide Kiev with lethal military aid to defend itself against the rebels.
The Times
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.