Israel Vows to ‘Eliminate’ Assad if He Keeps Letting Iran Operate From Syria – By SPUTNIK

Syrian men walk past a poster bearing a portrait of President Bashar al-Assad in the capital Damascus, on February 27, 2016, as the first major ceasefire of the five-year war takes hold and an international task force prepares to begin monitoring the landmark truce

“If Assad lets Iran turn Syria into a military base against us, to attack us from Syrian territory, he should know that will be the end of him,” Steinitz said.

This development takes place only a day after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that his country won’t tolerate alleged Iranian military presence on its northern borders, even if it means resorting to military actions.Netanyahu claimed that in recent months the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had been sending modern weaponry to Syria, including drones, air defense systems and ground-to-surface missiles.

READ MORE: Netanyahu: Israel Ready for Iranian “Aggression” Even if it Means Conflict

Earlier on April 9, a pair of Israeli F-15 warplanes carried out an airstrike against the T-4 airbase in Syria, killing seven Iranians operating in the country.

Iranian authorities promised a response to this attack, prompting Israeli media to speculate that Iran may carry out a missile strike against Israel from sites inside Syria.

READ MORE: Israel on Edge Over Possible Missile Attack by Iran After April Strike — Reports

Despite Israeli and US claims, Iran has denied having military presence in Syria, although, admitted sending military a

Syria SITREP: How the Russian General Staff is fooling the US and Israel – By The SAKER

RUSSIANDEFENSEMINISTRY

https://dxczjjuegupb.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/S-300-200x200_c.jpg

 

How the Russian General Staff is fooling the US and Israel

Source: https://cont.ws/@vitimbabi4ev/928860

Translated by Eugenia

The day before yesterday, the world media have published the new of the meeting in Sweden of the Western European UN representatives regarding implementation of the UN general Assembly resolution 377 “Uniting for Peace”. The meeting made clear the strategy of the West to exclude Russia from discussions of all critical political and military issues anywhere in the world.

Judging by the experience of the mid-20th century when our so-called “partners” easily unleashed the bloody Korean was of 1950-1953 getting around the Soviet veto in the UN Security Council, this resolution in likely to succeed in achieving its objectives.

Let us reviews the situation regarding the delivery to Syria of the newest anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense systems as well as the details of the use in case of further attack by the coalition.

The first information, with the reference to informed sources in the Tartus province, about the possibility of the delivery to the Syrian Arabic Republic of an unknown number of S-300 systems of unknown modification appeared across the space of the Western and Russian Internet approximately a week ago. It has been reported that the systems have been delivered to Syria in the dock for armored vehicles of the large amphibious assault ship “Nikolai Filchenkov” of the Russian Black Sea Fleet and unloaded under aerosol screen in order to hide from the watchful eye of the electron complex SYERS-2B/C installed in the rotary turret of the RQ-4B drone “Global Hawk”.

The new was reinforced by the information from the online traffic monitors about the arrival to the airbase Khmeimim of the heavy transport aircraft AN-124 “Ruslan”, which in 2015 delivered to Syria the first C-400 “Triumf”, as well as the statement by the Syrian ambassador in Russia Riad Haddad that it has been a month since the Syrian Army have had S-300 in its arsenal.

Nevertheless, in spite of all this disparate information, our military and diplomatic sources and other agencies close to the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff of Russia are not in a hurry to announce the transfer to Syria of S300 systems as a fait accompli. Why is that?

This could be an attempt by our military to mislead the opponents regarding the time of delivery or the actual availability of C-300 systems to Damascus. This would create an effect of a sudden shock when the crews of “Rivet Joints” and “Raptors” see for the first time on the panels of their electronic support measures systems 55000 or AN/ALR-94 the signals indicating engagement of the low-altitude search and acquisition radar CLAM SHELL 76H6, long-range surveillance radar BIG BIRD 64H4 and tracking and missile guidance radar TOMB STONE 30H6E. This could force the coalition to completely change the tactics of the future missile attacks, which, in its turn, will postpone the next attack and allow for further improvement in the Syrian air defense capabilities. Importantly, the Air Force of the US and Israel will not be able to detect the presence of S-300 systems until they start working.

For example, missile launchers 5P85SD(SE) with radars 30H6E, 76H6 with their 5H63S(54K6E) command post could be located on the eastern slope of the mountain ridge of Lubnan ash-Sharquiyah under the cover of the all-purpose camouflage systems UBM-1/2 and frameless camouflage “Shatyor”, which reduce manifold the radar and infrared signatures as well as visibility for aerial and space surveillance in the radar and visual modes. The mountain ridge also serves as a natural “screen” hiding the presence of S-300 from AN/ZPY-2 Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program sensors on “Global Hawks”, which survey the territory west of the Lubnan ash-Sharquiyah mountains.

When the command post 54K6E receives from early warning and control aircraft Beriev A-50 (MAINSTAY) and the space surveillance system the information about the launch of the enemy cruise missiles from the sea or air platforms, within 20 min all the elements of the complex can deploy at the predetermined positions, get ready in 5 min, and wait until “Tomahawk” or other attacking elements, including low-altitude airplanes, reach the target detection and missile range of the complex.

It is likely that the Syrian crews for S-300 will be trained to act in the mode “deploy-do the job-withdraw from the position”, with the emphasis on the minimization of the time the systems operate in the zone of activity of the enemy radar surveillance. It would be rather stupid to waste expensive self-guiding anti-aircraft missiles to intercept ordinary anti-radiation missiles AGM-88E AARGM when there could be 200 of those just in one wing of F/A-18E/F “Super Hornet” strike aircraft! A relative safety of the S-300 group in Syria could only be ensured by using the tactics of “fast massive intercepts and change of position”, since the Israel and US Air Force, which have complete numerical superiority, could attack each complex with literally hundreds of high precision weapons (from small diameter precision guided glide bomb “Spice 250” and GRU-53/B to cruise missiles AGM-84H SLAM-ER and “Popeye-II”).

A separate issue is the inflatable models of the S-300 elements, which could be provided to the engineer-camouflage units of the Syrian Arab Army.

These models, which could be installed very quickly, have the optic characteristics and the surface dispersion similar to that of the real launch units, radars and command post of the S-300 system. These models would confuse practically any air surveillance system from Global Hawk to the Boing E-8C-based JSTARS (Joint Surveillance and Target Detection System) equipped with the most advanced scanned array radars AN/ZRY-2 MP-RTIP and AN/APY-3. By using high frequency centimeter X-range and the synthetic aperture mode, these radars are capable of producing very high-resolution images allowing for classification and, in some cases, identification of the land and sea surface objects. However, inflatable models are able to fool even these radars but only until the radar of the real complex becomes active.

Now let us talk about the most “piquant” technical details, which cause a feeling of fear and uncertainty in fighter pilots of the US and Israel Air Force.

The thing is that considering how secret the process of delivery of the S-300 complexes to Syria is, neither Tel-Aviv nor Washington is likely to be able to figure our the modification of these complexes. And there could be no less than 3 of those.

The most likely modification to be delivered is S-300PMU-2 “Favourit” (GARGOYLE). This is the most advanced version with the improved command post 54K6E2 equipped with better control unit 53P6-2 based on new software base. In contrast to the older command post 54K6E, the new unit allows for the integration of the S-300 command post with practically any air defense network, which are still centered on automated control system “Baikal-1ME” and “Polyana-D4M1”. The information and control system of the S-300PMU-2 is the closest to the control 30K6E system of the S-400 “Triumf”, which means that the Syrians crews would be able to receive radar information via Baikals as well as directly via all-altitude radar station RLS 96L6 located in Tartus and Khmeimim.

The best feature of the S-300PMU-2 is the medium range anti-aircraft guided missile 48H6E2 with the range of 200 km. From that point on, everyone inclined to bomb with impunity strategic objects of the Syrian government would have a problem. That is because the tracking and missile guidance radar 30H6E2 located in the equipment container F1M of the S-300PMU-2 has the same working frequency (X range) and energy potential as the 30H6E radar of the S-300PMU-1, which could also be delivered to Damascus. Therefore, even when the S-300 complexes are engaged, the electronic support measures systems like AN/ALR-67(V)3 of “Super Hornets”, SPS-3000 of Israeli F16I “Sufa”, or specialized complexes like 55000 of RC-135W “Rivet Joints” would not be able to distinguish the two modifications. However, the anti-aircraft missiles on these systems are quite different.

For example, a pilot of F/A-18E/F would be taking a risk if he moves within 170 km of S300, since he would have no way of knowing whether the system would use against him anti-aircraft guided missile 48H6E with the 150 km range or 48H6E2 with its 200 km range. The latter would be much harder to avoid, since it has significantly higher maximum height of its trajectory, which means that the slowing effect of the aerodynamic resistance would be felt at a longer distance.

This situation causes serious concern in the Israeli Air Force command, since S-300PMU-2 would provide control of the middle- and high altitudes over the entire air space of Israel all the way to Tel-Aviv.

Deploying the complexes in the mountains regions west of Damascus would widen the range of intercept of the Hel HaAvir aviation and the US Air Force acting from the south and southeast. Anti-aircraft missiles 48H6E and 48H6E2 have unique speed characteristics: in the acceleration range, they accelerate to 6900-7100 km/hour, which leaves very little time for the enemy pilots to execute anti-missile maneuvers. Consequently, Israel’s F16C/D/I stationed at the Ramat David Airbase would be automatically in the range of the Syrian S-300PMU-1/2 immediately after they take off and ascend to several kilometers.

There is also an economy version of S-300 to improve the Syrian air defenses – 75P6 S-300PS introduced to the Russian Air Defense Force in distant 1982. The complex is equipped with an earlier version of the radar 30H6-1, which has the 75-90 km range of detection of a target with the radar signature of 2-3 sq.m. The anti-aircraft missiles have the same range due to low energy properties of the radar, but their speed is essentially the same (hypersonic) as of the later modifications, i.e. 6500 km/h.

The outdated electronics of the command post 5H63C (specifically, the equipment container F2K) does not allow for the intercept of the targets moving faster than 4700 km/h, whereas S-300PMU-1/2 are capable of destroying hypersonic cruise missiles and ballistic targets moving at 10,500 km/h. Hopefully, the American and Israeli Air Force will not be using such weapons in the Syrian war theater, so S-300PS might do. The radar 30H6-1 have 6 channels, the same number as in newer S-300PMU-2, and is capable of tracking up to 100 air targets in the multi-target mode. As a result, the system comprising 6 complexes could simultaneously intercept 36 targets. There is a possibility to coordinate with the different modifications of the automated control systems “Baikal” and Polyana”, which has been confirmed by the official information from the “Almaz-Antey” company.

The only thing that caused some concern before the 14th of April was the minimal detectable radar signature of 0.05 sq.km of the target (as opposed 0.02 sq. km of “Favourit”), since the reflective surface of the missiles used by our opponents in Syria could have been smaller. But the experience proved otherwise.

So, even the good old S-300PS is capable of making thing lively for for “smart and beautiful” missiles of Donald Tramp.

 

The Poliment-Redut: Russian Ships Get a Formidable and Unique Air-Defense Shield – By Arkady SAVITSKY (Strategic Culture Foundation)

The Poliment-Redut: Russian Ships Get a Formidable and Unique Air-Defense Shield

The updates to Russia’s Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier are scheduled to begin this month, and the ship will be put back into active service in 2021. Vice Admiral Viktor Bursuk, the Russian navy’s deputy commander-in-chief in charge of procurement, has stated that the revamp will include arming the flat top with the brand-new Poliment-Redut shipborne air-defense system, which is generally comparable to the US AEGIS.

The system boasts four or eight vertical launch systems. It can fire three types of surface-to-air (SAM) interceptors: the short-range 9M100, medium-range 9M96M, and long-range 9M96 missiles.

The 9M100 is a solid-propellant weapon with a range of 10–15 km. and an inertial guidance system with active infrared (IR). The 9M96M is an IR-guided missile with an active radar terminal homing guidance system. Its FRAG-HE 26 kg. warhead travels at a speed of 900m/s and it has a maximum range of 40-50 km.

The 9M96 is a new missile that is resistant to jamming and can intercept targets at a speed of Mach 15 (4,800-5,000 m/s) and at an altitude of 35 km. It can hit incoming threats at a range of 150 km. An active radar homing head and inertial navigation system are used for midcourse guidance. The thrust vectoring control system offers impressive maneuverability at any altitude or range.

The SAM is equipped with a directed explosion warhead to improve the chances of fully destroying fast moving and agile targets upon direct impact. The hit probability is 0.9 against aircraft, 0.8 against drones, and 0.7 against missiles. Thrust vectoring makes it possible to achieve high Gs and angular rate capability.

A datalink from the MFMTR X-band radar blast is used for midcourse guidance. Its 24 kg. fragmentation warhead produces a controlled pattern. A radar fuse controls the warhead’s timing.

The 9M96 missile was initially developed for the S-400 Triumf ground-based air-defense system that has already been delivered to China. It will soon be sent to Turkey. India, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar are also quite interested in this system.

The three vertical-launched, solid-fuel, one-stage missiles have a variable range of 1-150 km. at an altitude of 5 m. to 30 km. At a speed of 2,100 m/s they can hit targets traveling at 1000 m/s. A Poliment-Redut-equipped frigate can carry 32 medium/long-range or 128 short-range missiles. Any combination is possible — one launcher can house either one medium- or long-range weapon or four short-range SAMs. The four-faced phased array antenna can track 16 targets at once. The detection range is 200 km. Russian sources report that the system can engage surface targets as well.

The combination of various-range missiles makes it possible for one Poliment-Redut to carry out the missions of three air-defense systems. It provides multi-tier defense, reducing reaction time. It can fire at a rate of one launch per second. The vertical start is an important advantage, enabling the system to counter a target approaching from any direction. These highly agile missiles can use an optimal trajectory to kill highly maneuverable threats.

The lead ship of the Russian navy’s Admiral Gorshkov-class frigates has been equipped with this system, along with the Steregushchiy-class (Project 20380) and the Gremyaschiy-class (Project 20385) corvettes. The combination of the Poliment-Redut and the close-in weapon systems keep these ships well protected against any kind of air threat. For instance, the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier will also receive the naval version of the Pantsir cutting-edge close-in weapon. Because of the Poliment-Redut, these vessels can provide area defense, which is crucially important for a navy destined for a wide variety of peacetime and wartime missions all over the world.

48 years ago US troops massacred Ohio students and covered it up (VIDEO) – By Matt Agorist (The Free Thought Project) (SOTT)

troops Ohio campus 1970 massacre

© The Free Thought Project

Despite overwhelming evidence of US troops being given orders to open fire on peaceful antiwar protesters at Kent State, not a single person has ever been held accountable.

On May 4, 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard descended on the campus of Kent State University in Ohio to quash and antiwar protest. During the protest, soldiers opened fire on an unarmed group of students-firing 67 rounds in 13 seconds-killing four and injuring nine others. To this date, not a single person has been held accountable and the government still refuses to admit that it participated in the murder of its own citizens.

As the Free Thought Project reported in 2016, Kent State is the one school shooting that the US government wants you to forget.

It has been 48 years since that day and there has yet to be a credible and impartial investigation into the massacre. Also, no group or individual has faced a single consequence for opening fire on innocent students and killing them. Although eight of the National Guardsmen who opened fire that day were indicted by a grand jury, all of their charges were eventually dismissed.

The families of the victims were given $15,000, a statement of regret, and essentially told to get on with their lives.

For decades after the killings, the US government did their best to cover up the shooting. As an in depth explanation from Counter Punch points out, “the US government took complete control of the narrative in the press and ensuing lawsuits. Over the next ten years, authorities claimed there had not been a command-to-fire at Kent State, that the ONG had been under attack, and that their gunfire had been prompted by the “sound of sniper fire.” Instead of investigating Kent State, the American leadership obstructed justice, obscured accountability, tampered with evidence, and buried the truth. The result of these efforts has been a very complicated government cover-up that has remained intact for more than forty years.”

Not until 2010, after undeniable forensic evidence was dug up by independent and private researchers did the real truth of that day begin to surface.

Aurel Krause and Emily Kunstler founded the Kent State Truth Tribunal (KSTT), which helped to expose the sheer lies fed to the American public about what really happened that fateful day.

In spite of this overwhelming and indisputable evidence, in 2012, the US government, once again, refused to reopen the case. However, the truth still came out.

A crucial piece of the conspiracy was apparently uncovered in 2010 that played a pivotal role in exposing the crimes of the US government. Audio recordings were analyzed and subsequently found to record the Guardsmen being given orders to murder the protesters.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported on this revelation in 2010:

“Guard!” says a male voice on the recording, which two forensic audio experts enhanced and evaluated at the request of The Plain Dealer. Several seconds pass. Then, “All right, prepare to fire!”

“Get down!” someone shouts urgently, presumably in the crowd. Finally, “Guard! . . . ” followed two seconds later by a long, booming volley of gunshots. The entire spoken sequence lasts 17 seconds.

According to the reports, the review was done by Stuart Allen and Tom Owen, two nationally respected forensic audio experts with decades of experience working with government and law enforcement agencies and private clients to decipher recorded information.

Despite the troops’ claims of protesters throwing rocks at them, the shots were fired from 60 feet away. What’s more, as Allen and Owen point out, there is no audio indicating that the troops who opened fire were getting hit with rocks.

There is undeniable evidence, however, that the US government killed innocent civilians for protesting war and yet still, no one was held accountable and the government refuses to acknowledge it.

As Krause explains, “Kent State remains a glaring example of government impunity, it sends a message that protestors can be killed by the state for expressing their political beliefs. This lack of accountability and hostility towards peaceful expression flies in the face not only of our Constitution, but also our international human rights commitments.”

Indeed, the idea that one’s government can kill them for peaceful protest is chilling, which is why the establishment wants you to forget about it.

Below is a video of what oppression looks like. Americans would do well to remember this did not take place in some tyrannical other country, but right in their own backyard.

See Also:

US will face ‘regret like never before’ if it pulls out of Iran nuclear deal – Rouhani – By RT

US will face 'regret like never before' if it pulls out of Iran nuclear deal – Rouhani
The US will be faced with regret if it decides to pull out of the nuclear deal agreed with Tehran, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has warned, adding that his government has “plans to resist” the move.

“If the United States leaves the nuclear agreement, you will soon see that they will regret it like never before in history,” Rouhani said in a televised speech on Sunday, as quoted by Reuters.

Rouhani went on to state that Tehran has “plans to resist any decision by Trump on the nuclear accord,” and that “orders have been issued to our atomic energy organization… and to the economic sector to confront America’s plots against our country.

“America is making a mistake if it leaves the nuclear accord.”

His remarks come in the lead-up to May 12, a deadline by which US President Donald Trump says America’s European allies must rectify “flaws” in the nuclear agreement. If that isn’t done to Trump’s satisfaction, he says he will refuse to extend US sanctions relief for Iran.

The European allies – Britain, France, and Germany – are committed to sticking to the deal which was signed in 2015, with a recent statement from Downing Street saying they agree it is “the best way of neutralizing the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.” 

However, in an effort to keep Washington involved, the three nations are seeking to open talks on Iran’s ballistic missile program, its nuclear activities beyond 2025 – when the key provisions of the deal expire – and its role in Middle East crises including Syria and Yemen.

That notion was slammed by Rouhani on Sunday. “We will not negotiate with anyone about our weapons and defenses, and we will make and store as many weapons, facilities and missiles as we need,” he said, stressing the rejection by Iranian leaders to hold talks on Iran’s missile program, which it claims is purely for defensive purposes.

Just a few hours earlier, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani implied that the president would be nixing Washington’s commitment to the agreement. Trump has called the accord, which was signed under the Obama administration, the “worst deal ever negotiated.”

Trump has also said that he has the power to cancel US participation in the agreement “at any time,” and refused to certify Iran’s compliance with the deal in October, despite confirmation from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Tehran was in compliance with the deal.

Meanwhile, in a controversial television slideshow at the end of last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that Iran lied about its nuclear program, which makes the 2015 deal invalid. While the US says the slideshow proves that Iran had a “robust, clandestine nuclear weapons program,” the presentation was slammed by Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif as a “coordinated timing of alleged intelligence revelation by the boy who cries wolf.”

Analysts told RT that the timing of the seemingly well-rehearsed presentation was indeed crucial. Dr. Maged Botros, the head of the political science department at Helwan University in Egypt, said that Netanyahu’s presentation was “a setup for Trump,” suggesting it could be a solution for the US president to tear up the deal. 

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

Save

On sixth Friday of Gaza protests, Israeli snipers shoot 70, but kill none – By Ahmad Kabariti ( Mondoweiss )

Israel/Palestine

on 0 Comments

 
 
 

“You! the one with the red T-shirt that has just insulted me, as a the son of a bitch. I promise to respond to you. We are ready for everything.” An Israeli soldier says by loudspeaker to the young men demonstrating in the weekly march on the Gaza border.

But the soldier’s threat did not compel hundreds of young men who’d gathered close to the fence between Gaza and Israel to step back, despite the intensity of tear gas canisters fired by soldiers towards the masked protesters, as well as the heat of the day, reaching 35 degrees Celsius (104 F) east of the town of Khuza’a in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip.

“Give the one-finger salute, guys! ” One of the protesters cheered. And the protesters did so, responding to the threats of the soldier, who characterized them by shirt color, saying: “You the yellow T-shirt guy! I heard you and saw you when you insulted me, ​​I have no problem shooting you as I did during the past Fridays.”

Palestinians in Gaza held their sixth Friday rally as part of the Great March of Return. The protests commemorate the “Nakba,” or Catastrophe, the displacement of Palestinians from lands that would become Israel in 1948. On Friday demonstrators highlighted the plight of Palestinian workers and the unemployed in a demonstration labeled “Friday of Workers.”

Beginning in the morning, protesters brought tires to within 500 yards of the border, preparing to set fire to them and roll them toward the fence, and use them as a smokescreen to counter Israeli snipers behind the sandy hills.

The slingshot is the only ‘weapon’ of some demonstrators. Their small stones rarely reach beyond the fence, though slingshots managed to knock down two Israeli drones, causing them to crash in the sky of Khuza’a.

At least 70 Palestinians were injured by Israeli live fire Friday, the lowest casualty toll since the protests began. Medics also treated 1,073 people, for tear gas inhalation, the Gaza health ministry said.

The protests were backed by “logistical support” from women who had prepared large bags of croissants filled with thyme, cheese and spinach, to be distributed free to demonstrators. “I woke up early in the morning to prepare 300 croissants,” Fatima Dalloul, 44, told Mondoweiss.

Fatima, a mother of 8 children, prepared her fast food packages with her neighbors in the Abasan neighborhood. “The majority of these young people are poor and need to feel that their mothers support their weekly mobilizing. While it is true that we are concerned that youths might be killed, we must support them and their right to return to stolen lands.”

Since the first protest March 30, 44 Palestinians have been killed and more than 1,700 injured by Israeli fire. Friday marked the first weekly protest in which no Palestinian were reported killed by sunset.

One protester, Abdullah Al-Mughrabi, 39, came with his family and held a poster asserting the right of return. “I have nothing to lose,” he said. “The whole world must know our right to return.” Abdullah’s origins are the city of Jaffa, which his grandfather was forced to abandon in 1948.

“Seventy years of disaster is enough for us,” Abdullah added. “The siege treats us like animals in a stockyard without rights. Even a poor Somali can get medical treatment, travel and free trade. But we are not pirates, we are a people deprived of our rights, with the consent of the United Nations.”

Crowds were smaller today’s afternoon than in previous weeks, with Gazans saying they predict a large rally on May 14th, when the U.S will move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The U.S. move angered Palestinian leaders, who have refused to talk to the Trump administration, accusing it of pro-Israel bias. Israel’s government celebrated the U.S. decision, saying it recognized the “reality” that Jerusalem was the historic capital of the Jewish people.

In the “Malaka” area of protests, on the border 19 miles north of Khuza’a, demonstrators celebrated the arrival of Mahmoud Abu Araza, who was born in 1953, five years after his parents were displaced from al-Majdal, now called Ashkelon. He said he had stopped caring about the fog of teargas that did not fade away for all seven hours of protest.

“All these hundreds of young men are my sons, and I will not leave them until they return to Ashkelon, Jaffa and Jerusalem,” Abu Araza, a grandfather of 45 children, told Mondoweiss.

He asked, “Are the Palestinians to be forced to live in misery throughout their lives due to the last occupation in the world?”

The whole world is living in freedom, compared to Palestine, he said. “I think that slavery still exists as long as Israel breathes.. I have never seen a happy day in my life because of Israel,” Abu Araza said.

About Ahmad Kabariti

Ahmad Kabariti is a freelance journalist based in Gaza.

Other posts by .

The Warmakers – By The Saker

FB_IMG_1516129679815.jpg

[This analysis was written for the Unz Review]

Between the US strikes on Syria in April and the recent developments on the Korean Peninsula, we are in somewhat of a lull in the Empire’s search for a new war to start. The always helpful Israelis, in the person of the ineffable Bibi Netanyahu, are now beating the drums for, well, if not a war, then at least some kind of false flag or pretext to make the USA strike at Iran. And then there is the always bleeding Donbass (which I won’t address in today’s analysis). So let’s see where we stand and try to guesstimate where we might be heading. To be honest, trying to guess what ignorant warmongering psychopaths might do next is by definition a futile exercise, but since there are some not negligible signs that there are at least a few rational people still left in the US White House and/or Pentagon (as shown by the mostly “pretend strikes” on Syria last month), we can assume (hope) that some residual degree of sanity is still present. At the very least Americans in uniform have to ask themselves a very basic and yet fundamental question:

Do I want to die for Israel? Do I want to lose my job for Israel? How about my pension? Maybe just my stock options? Is it worth risking a major regional war for such a “wonderful” state?

A lot depends on whether the US military leaders (and people!) will have the courage to ask themselves this question and, if they do, what their reply will be.

But, first, let’s begin with the good news:

The DPRK and ROK are in direct talks with each other.

This is indeed a truly great development for at least two reasons. First, of course, the main and objective one: anything which lowers the risks of war on the Korean Peninsula is good. But there is a second reason which we should not discount: Trump can now take all the credit for this and claim that his (empty) threats are what brought the North Koreans to the negotiating table. I say – let him. In fact, I hope that they organize a parade for Trump somewhere in the USA, with confetti and millions of flags. Like for an astronaut. Let him feel triumphant, vindicated and very, very manly. MAGA, you know?!

Yeah, that will be sickening to the thinking (not to mention counter-factual), but if a little bit of intellectual nausea is the price to pay for peace, I say let’s do it. If Trump, Bolton, Haley and the rest of them can feel that they “kicked ass” and that their “invincible military” is what brought “Rocket Man” to “give up his nukes” (he never said any such thing, but never mind that) then I sincerely wish them a joyful and highly ego-pleasing celebration. Anything to stop them from looking for another war to start, at least for a now.

Now the bad news.

The Israelis are at it again

Amazing, isn’t it? The Israelis have been whining about “imminent” Iranian nukes for years, and they are still at it. Not only that, but these guys have the nerve to say “Iran lied”. Seriously, even by the already unique Israeli standards, that is chutzpah elevated to a truly stratospheric level. If it were just Bibi Netanyahu, then this would be comical. But the problem is that Israel has now fully subjugated all the branches of the US government to its agents (the Neocons) and that they now run everything: from the two branches of the Uniparty to Congress, to the media and, now that Trump has abjectly caved in to all their demands, they also run the White House. They apparently also run the CIA, but there still might be some resistance to their lunacy in the Pentagon. The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever.

So what are these guys really up to? Listen to the one man who knows them best, and whose every single word you can take to the bank, Hezbollah General Secretary Nasrallah (ever wondered why Hezbollah, which has not committed anything even remotely looking like a terrorist attack since the 1980s is called the “A-Team of terrorists”? Just saying…):

The first event is the Israeli blatant and manifest aggression against the T-4 base or airport on the outskirts of Homs, that targeted Iranian forces from the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution of Iran who were present there, hitting them with a large number of missiles, causing 7 martyrs among its officers and soldiers and wounding others. This was a new, significant and important event. Maybe some people do not pay attention to its importance and magnitude. In this operation, Israel has deliberately killed (Iranian soldiers). This is an unprecedented event. In the past, Israel has struck us [Hezbollah] for example in Quneitra, and it turned out that coincidentally Guardians [of the Islamic Revolution] officers were with us. Israel declared hastily that they did not know it, and thought that all (targeted soldiers) were Hezbollah’s. This is an event that has no precedent since 7 years, it is unprecedented since 7 years, that Israel openly targets the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution in Syria, killing deliberately, in an operation that caused a number of martyrs and wounded (…) I want to tell the Israelis that they must know – I wrote that statement accurately and I read it to them – they must know that they have committed a historic mistake. This is not a simple blunder. They committed an act of great stupidity, and by this aggression, they entered in a direct confrontation with Iran, the Islamic Republic of Iran. And Iran, O Zionists, is not a small country, it is not a weak country, and it is not a cowardly country. And you know it very well. As a comment on this incident, I stress that it constitutes a turning point in the situation of the region. What follows will be very different from what preceded it. This is an incident that cannot be considered lightly, contrary to what happens with many incidents here. It is a turning point, a historic turning point. And when the Israelis committed this stupid act, they had some assessment (of the situation), but I tell them that their evaluation is false. And even in the future, since you have opened a new path in the confrontation, (you should ensure) not to be wrong in your evaluations. In this new path you opened and initiated, don’t be wrong in your assessment, when you are face to face, and directly (in conflict) with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I can only agree with this evaluation. As does The Jerusalem Post, NBC News, and many others. Regardless of how crazy this notion might sound to rational people (see below), there are all the signs that the Israelis are now demanding that the USA start a war against Iran, either by choice or more likely, to “stand by our Israeli allies and friends” after they attack Iran first.

Israel is truly a unique and amazing country: not only does it openly and brazenly completely ignore international law, not only is it the last overtly racist country on the planet, not only has it been perpetuating a slow-motion genocide against the Palestinians for decades, it also constantly uses its considerable propaganda resources to advocate for war. And in order to achieve these goals, it does not mind allying itself with a regime almost as despicable and evil as the Zionist one – I am talking about the Wahabi nutcases in the KSA. And all that under the high patronage of the United States. Some “Axis of Kindness” indeed!

What is their plan? Actually, it is fairly straightforward.

The Israeli plan “A” (failed)

Initially, the plan was to overthrow all the secular (Baathist) regimes in power and replace them by religious nutcases. That would not only weaken the countries infected by that spiritual rot, it would set them backwards for many decades, some of them would break up into smaller entities, Arabs and Muslims would kill each other in large numbers while the Israelis would proudly claim that they are a “western country” and the “only democracy in the Middle-East”. Even better, when the Daesh/ISIS/al-Qaeda/etc types commit atrocities on an industrial scale (and always on camera, professionally filmed, by the way), the slow-motion genocide of Palestinians would really be completely forgotten. If anything, Israeli would declare itself threatened by “Islamic extremism” and, well, extend a couple of “security zones” beyond its borders (legal or otherwise), and do regular bombing runs “because Arabs only understand force” (which would get the Israelis a standing ovation from the “Christian” Zionist rednecks in the USA who love the killing of any Aye-rabs and other “sand niggers”). At the end of all this, the Zionist wet dream: unleashing the Daesh forces against Hezbollah (which they fear and hate since the humiliating defeat the IDF suffered in 2006).

Now I will readily agree that this is a stupid plan. But contrary to the propaganda-induced myth, the Israelis are really not very bright. Pushy, arrogant, nasty, driven – yes. But smart? Not really. How could they not realize that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would result in Iran becoming the main player in Iraq? This is a testimony of how the Israelis always go for “quick-fix” short-term “solutions”, probably blinded by their arrogance and sense of racial superiority. Or how about their invasion of Lebanon in 2006? What in the world did they think they would achieve there? And now these folks are taking on not Hezbollah, but Iran. Hassan Nasrallah is absolutely correct, that is a truly stupid decision. But, of course, the Israelis now have a “plan B”:

The Israeli plan “B”

Step one, use your propaganda machine and infiltrated agents to re-start the myth about an Iranian military nuclear program. And never mind that the so-called “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” was agreed upon by all five of the UNSC Permanent Members, and Germany (P5+1) and even the European Union! And never mind that this plan places restrictions on Iran which no other country has ever had to ever face, especially considering that since 1970 Iran has been a member in good standing with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) while Israel, of course, is not. But the Zionists and their Neocon groupies are, of course, quite exceptional people, so they are constrained by neither facts nor logic. If Trump says that the JCPOA is a terrible deal, then this is so. Hey, we are living in the “post-Skripal” and “post-Douma” era – if some Anglo (or Jewish) leaders say “highly likely” then it behooves everybody to show instant “solidarity” lest they are accused of “anti-Semitism” or “fringe conspiracy theories” (you know the drill). So step one is the re-ignition ex nihilo of the Iranian military nuclear program canard.

Step two is to declare that Israel is “existentially threatened” and therefore has the right to “defend itself”. But there is a problem here: the IDF simply does not have the military means to defeat the Iranians. They can strike them, hit a couple of targets, yes, but then when the Iranians (and Hezbollah) unleash a rain of missiles on Israel (and probably the KSA) the Israelis will not have the means to respond. They know that, but they also know that the Iranian counter-attack will give them the perfect pretext to scream “oy vey!! oy, gevalt!!” and let the dumb Americans fight the Iranians.

You might object that the USA does not have a mutual defense treaty with Israel. You are wrong. It does, it is called AIPAC. Besides, last year the USA established a permanent US military base in Israel, making it a “tripwire”: just claim that “the Ayatollahs” tried to attack the US base with “chemical weapons” and, bingo, you now have a pretext to use all your military forces in retaliation, including, by the way, your tactical nuclear forces to “disarm” the “genocidal Iranians who want to wipe Israel off the map” or some variation of this nonsense.

You might wonder what the point of all that would be if Iran does, as I say, not have any military nuclear program?

5My answer would be simple: do you really think the Syrians have been using chemical weapons?!

Of course not!

All this nonsense about Saddam’s WMD, the Iranian nuclear program, the Syrian chemical weapons or, for that matter, Gaddafi’s “Viagra armed raping soldiers”, and before that the “Racak massacre” in Kosovo or the various “Markale market” atrocities in Sarajevo for that matter: these were just pretexts for aggression, nothing more.

In Iran’s case, what the Israelis fear is not that they will be “wiped off the map” (that is a mistranslation of words originally spoken by Ayatollah Khomeini) by Iranian nukes; what really freaks them out is to have a large, successful Muslim regional power like Iran openly daring to denounce Israel as an illegitimate, racist state. The Iranians are also openly denouncing the US imperialism and they are even denouncing the Wahabi dictatorship of the House of Saud. That is Iran’s real “sin”: to dare defy openly the AngloZionist Empire and be so successful at it!

So what the Israelis really want to do is:

  1. inflict a maximum amount of economic damage upon Iran
  2. punish the Iranian population for daring to support the “wrong” leaders
  3. overthrow the Islamic Republic (do to it what they did to Serbia)
  4. make an example to dissuade any other country who dares to follow in Iran’s footsteps
  5. prove the omnipotence of the AngloZionist Empire’s

To reach this objective, there is no need to invade Iran: a sustained cruise missile and bombing campaign will do the job (again, like in Serbia). Finally, we just have to assume that the Zionists are evil, arrogant and crazy enough to use nuclear weapons on some Iranian facilities (which they will, of course, designate as “secret military nuclear research” installations).

The Israelis hope that by making the USA hit Iran really hard, they will weaken the country enough to also weaken Hezbollah and the other allies of Iran in the region sufficiently and break the so-called “Shia crescent”.

In their own way, the Israelis are not wrong when they say that Iran is an existential threat to Israel. They are just lying about the nature of this threat and why it is dangerous for them.

Consider this:

IF the Islamic Republic is allowed to develop and prosper and IF the Islamic Republic refuses to be terrified by the IDF’s undisputed ability to massacre civilians and destroy public infrastructure, then the Islamic Republic will become an attractive alternative to the kind of repugnant Islam embodied by the House of Saud which, in turn, is the prime sponsor of all the collaborator regimes in the Middle-East from the Hariri types in Lebanon to the Palestinian Authority itself. The Israelis like their Arabs fat and corrupt to the bone, not principled and courageous. That is why Iran must, absolutely must, be hit: because Iran by its very existence threatens the linchpin upon which the survival of the Zionist entity depends: the total corruption of the Arab and Muslim leaders worldwide.

Risks with Israel’s plan “B”

Think of 2006. The Israelis had total air supremacy over Lebanon – the skies were simply uncontested. The Israelis also controlled the seas (at least until Hezbollah almost sank their Sa’ar 5-class corvette). The Israelis pounded Lebanon with everything they had, from bombs to artillery strikes, to missiles. They also engaged their very best forces, including their putatively ‘”invincible” “Golani Brigade”. And that for 33 days. And they achieved exactly *nothing*. They could not even control the town of Bint Jbeil right across the Israeli border. And now comes the best part: Hezbollah kept its most capable forces north of the Litany river so the small Hezbollah force (no more than 1000 man) was composed of local militias supported by a much smaller number of professional cadre. That a 30:1 advantage in manpower for the Israelis. But the “invincible Tsahal” got it’s collective butt kicked like few have ever been kicked in history. This is why, in the Arab world, this war is since known as the “Divine Victory”.

As for Hezbollah, it continued to rain down rockets on Israel and destroy indestructible Merkava tanks right up to the last day.

There are various reports discussing the reasons for the abject failure of the IDF (see here or here), but the simple reality is this: to win a war you need capable boots on the ground, especially against an adversary who has learned how to operate without air-cover or superior firepower. Should Israel manipulate the USA into attacking Iran, the exact same thing will happen: CENTCOM will establish air superiority and have an overwhelming firepower advantage over the Iranians, but other than destroying a lot of infrastructure and murdering scores of civilians, this will achieve absolutely nothing. Furthermore, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is no Milosevic, he will not simply surrender in the hope that Uncle Sam will allow him to stay in power. The Iranians will fight, and fight, and continue to fight for weeks, and months and then possibly years. And, unlike the “Axis of Kindness” forces, the Iranians do have credible and capable “boots on the ground”, and not only in Iran, but also in Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan. And they have the missiles to reach a very large number of US military facilities across the region. And they can also not only shut down the Strait of Hormuz (which the USN would eventually be able to re-open, but only at a cost of a huge military operation on the Iranian coast), they can also strike at Saudi Arabia proper and, of course, at Israel. In fact, the Iranian have both the manpower and know-how to declare “open season” on any and all US forces in the Middle-East, and there are plenty of them, mostly very poorly defended (that imperial sense of impunity “they would not dare”).

The Iran-Iraq war lasted for eight years (1980-1988). It cost the Iranians hundreds of thousands of lives (if not more). The Iraqis had the full support of the USA, the Soviet Union, France and pretty much everybody else. As for the Iranian military, it had just suffered from a traumatic revolution. The official history (meaning Wikipedia) calls the outcome a “stalemate”. Considering the odds and the circumstances, I call it a magnificent Iranian victory and a total defeat for those who wanted to overthrow the Islamic Republic (something which decades of harsh sanctions also failed to achieve, by the way).

Is there any reason at all to believe that this time around, when Iran has had almost 40 years to prepare for a full-scale AngloZionist attack the Iranians will fight less fiercely or less competently? We could also look at the actual record of the US armed forces (see Paul Craig Roberts’ superb summary here) and ask: do you think that the USA, lead by the likes of Trump, Bolton or Nikki Haley will have the staying power to fight the Iranians to exhaustion (since a land invasion of Iran is out of the question)? Or this: what will happen to the world economy if the entire Middle-East blows up into a major regional war?

Now comes the scary part: both the Israelis and the Neocons always, always, double-down. The notion of cutting their losses and stopping what is a self-evidently mistaken policy is simply beyond them. Their arrogance simply cannot survive even the appearance of having made a mistake (remember how both Dubya and Olmert declared that they had won against Hezbollah in 2006?). As soon as Trump and Netanyahu realize that they did something really fantastically stupid and as soon as they run out of their usual options (missile and airstrikes first, then terrorizing the civilian population) they will have a stark and simple choice: admit defeat or use nukes.

Which one do you think they will choose?

Exactly.

Going nuclear?

Here is the paradox: in purely military terms, using nukes on Iran will serve no pragmatic purpose. Nuclear weapons can be used in one of two ways: against military assets (“counterforce”) or against civilians (“countervalue”). The point is that by the time the Neocons and their Israeli patrons come to the point of considering using tactical nuclear forces against the Iranians, there won’t be a good target to hit. Iranian forces will be dispersed and mostly in contact with allied (or even US forces) and nuking an Iranian battalion or even a division won’t fundamentally alter the military equation. As for nuking Iranian cities just out of savagery, this will only serve one purpose: to truly get Israel wiped off the map of the Middle-East. I would not put it past the Neocons and their Israeli bosses to try to use a tactical nuclear weapon to destroy some Iranian civilian nuclear facility or some underground bunker with the very mistaken hope that such a show of force and determination will force the Iranians to submit to the AngloZionist Empire. In reality, this will only infuriate the Iranians and strengthen their resolve.

As for the currently “macronesque” Europeans, they will, of course, first show “solidarity” on the basis of “highly likely”, especially Poland, the Ukies and the Baltic statelets, but if nuclear weapons start going off in the Middle-East, then the European public opinion will explode, especially in Mediterranean countries, and this might just trigger yet another major crisis. Israel wouldn’t give a damn (or, as always, blame it all on some totally mysterious resurgence of anti-Semitism), but the USA most definitely does not want the Anglo grip on the continent compromised by such events.

Maybe a Korean scenario?

Is there a chance that all the huffing and puffing will result in some kind of peaceful resolution as what seems to be in the works in Korea? Alas, probably not.

A few months ago it sure looked like the USA might do something irreparably stupid in Korea (see here and here) but then something most unexpected happened: the South Koreans, fully realizing the inanity of Trump’s reckless threats, took the situation in their own hands and began making overtures to the North. Plus all the rest of the regional neighbors emphatically and clearly told Trump & Co. that the consequences of a US attack on the DPRK would be apocalyptic for the entire region. Alas, there are two fundamental differences between the Korean Peninsula and the Middle-East:

  1. On the Korean Peninsula, the local US ally (the ROK) does not want war. In the Middle-East it is the local US ally (Israel) which pushes the hardest for a war.
  2. In Far-East Asia all the regional neighbors were and are categorically opposed to war. In the Middle-East most regional neighbors are sold out to the Saudis who also want the US to attack Iran.

So while the risks and consequences of a conflagration are similar between the two regions, the local geopolitical dynamics are completely different?

What about Russia in all this?

Russia will never *choose* to go to war with the USA. But Russia also understands that Iran’s security and safety is absolutely crucial to her own security, especially along her southern borders. Right now there is a fragile equilibrium of sorts between the (also very powerful) Zionist lobby in Russia and the national/patriotic elements. In truth, the recent Israeli attacks in Syria have given more power to the anti-Zionist elements in Russia, hence all the talk about (finally!) delivering the S-300s to Syria. Well, we will see if/when that happens. My best guesstimate is that it might already have happened and that this is simply kept quiet to restrain both the Americans and the Israelis who have no way of knowing what equipment the Russians have already delivered, where it is located or, for that matter, who (Russians or Syrians) actually operate it. This kind of ambiguity is useful to placate the pro-Zionist forces in Russia and to complicate AngloZionist planning. But maybe this is my wishful thinking, and maybe the Russians have not delivered the S-300s yet or, if they have, maybe these are the (not very useful) S-300P early models (as opposed to the S-300PMU-2 which would present a huge risk to the Israelis).

The relationship between Russia and Israel is a very complex one (see here and here), but if Iran is attacked I fully expect the Russians, especially the military, to back Iran and provide military assistance short of overtly engaging US/Israeli/NATO/CENTCOM forces. If the Russians are directly attacked in Syria (and in the context of a wider war, they very well might be), then Russia will counter-attack regardless of who the attacker is, the USA or Israel or anybody else: the Zionist lobby in Russia does not have the power to impose a “Liberty-like event” on the Russian public opinion).

Conclusion: Accursed are the warmakers, for they shall be called the children of Satan

The Israelis can eat falafels, create “Israeli kufiyeh” and fancy themselves as “orientals”, but the reality is that the creation of the state of Israel is a curse on the entire Middle-East to which has only brought untold suffering, brutality, corruption and wars, wars and more wars. And they are still at it – doing all they can to trigger a large regional war in which many tens or even hundreds of thousands of innocent people will die. The people of the USA have now allowed a dangerous cabal of psychopathic Neocons to fully take control of their country and now those, who Papa Bush used to call the “crazies in the basement” have their finger on the nuclear button. So now it all boils down to the questions I opened this article with:

Dear US Americans – do you want to die for Israel? Do you want to lose your job for Israel? How about your pension? Maybe just your stock options? Because make no mistake, the US Empire will not survive a full-scale war against Iran. Why? Because all Iran needs to do to “win” is not to lose, i.e. to survive. Even bombed out and scorched by conventional or nuclear strikes, if Iran comes out of this war still as an Islamic Republic (and that is not something bombs or missiles will change) then Iran will have won. In contrast, for the Empire, the failure to bring Iran to its knees will mean the end of its status as the world Hegemon defeated not by a nuclear superpower, but by a regional conventional power. After that, it will just be a matter of time before the inevitable domino effect breaks up the entire Empire (check out John Michael Greer’s excellent book “Twilight’s Last Gleaming” for a very plausible account on how that could happen)

Okay, unlike Russia, Iran cannot nuke the USA or, for that matter, even reach it with conventional weapons (I don’t even think that the Iranians will successfully attack a US carrier as some pro-Iranian analysts say). But the political and economic consequences of a full-scale war in the Middle-East will be felt throughout the United States: right now the only thing “backing” the US dollar, so to speak, are USN aircraft carriers and their ability to blow to smithereens any country daring to disobey Uncle Sam. The fact that these carriers are (and, truly, have been for a long while) useless against the USSR and Russia is bad enough, but if it becomes known urbi et orbi that they are also useless against a conventional regional power like Iran, then that’s it, show over. The dollar will turn into monopoly money in a very short span of time.

Wars often have “Nietzschean consequences”: countries which wars don’t destroy often come out even stronger than before they were attacked, even if it is at a horrendous price. Both the Israelis and the Neocons are too dialectically illiterate to realize that by their actions they are just creating increasingly more powerful enemies. The old Anglo guard which ran the USA since its foundation was probably wiser, possibly because it was better educated and more aware of the painful lessons learned by the British (and other) Empire(s).

Frankly, I hope that the ruling 1%ers running the USA today (well, they are really much less than 1%, but never mind that) will care about their wealth and money more than they care about appeasing the Neocons and that the bad old Anglo imperialists who built this country will have enough greed in themselves to tell the Neocons and their Israeli patrons to get lost. But with the Neocons controlling both wings of the Uniparty and the media, I am not very hopeful.

Still, there is a chance that, like in Korea, somebody somewhere will say or do the right thing, and that awed by the potential magnitude of what they are about to trigger, enough people in the US military will follow the example of Admiral William Fallon and CENTCOM commander at the time who told the President “an attack on Iran will not happen on my watch”. I believe for his principled courage, the words of Christ “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God” (Matt 5:9) can be applied to Admiral Fallon and I hope that his example will inspire others.

The Saker

Military and non-military escalation into nuclear war. – by R.Lesnoix for The Saker blog

wp-1517041909713..jpg

by R.Lesnoix for The Saker blog

Recent events have put the prospect of nuclear war back into the limelight. We believed we had left this behind when the cold war ended. We were wrong. Not only is it back, it is back with a vengeance. We now face the real possibility of non-military confrontations escalating into all-out nuclear war. This worries me as it seems that the thresholds for these are both lower and more obfuscated. What’s worse is that at least some of the people who may trigger this appear to be both ignorant of these risks and have a less than desirable level of competence.

Nuclear war was typically associated with one of two scenario’s: either a gradual escalation of conventional warfare into (total) nuclear war or an all-out first strike. A first strike could be launched in the hope (or expectation) of destroying enough of the enemies nuclear firepower to make the counterstrike ‘survivable’ or it could be launched to preempt such a first strike by the enemy. If a side feels that it’s own counterstrike capabilities are vulnerable to a first strike, the chance of them launching a preemptive strike go up considerably should they feel threatened.

Still, the second scenario typically also involves an initial conventional military engagement. This would likely be a relatively small scale confrontation. Instead of the gradual escalation of the first scenario in this case one side skips the intermediate steps and goes straight for the jugular. This can be either the side who considers themselves strong enough to get away with a first strike or the side that feels it’s weaker and needs to use-it-or-lose-it.

The risk of the opponent opting for a first strike scenario is why sane people avoid any military confrontation between nuclear powers, especially between nuclear superpowers. Those with even a modest amount of military expertise or insight realize how easily even a small confrontation can get out of hand. During the Cuba-crisis in the 60’s a US warship dropped depth charges to force a Soviet submarine that was stalking the task-force to the surface, not to actually sink it. The Soviet crew thought otherwise. The commander and the XO wanted to fire their nuclear torpedo’s in response to what they felt was a genuine attack. The political officer wasn’t so sure and refused to consent to a launch. All three had to agree before the weapons could be fired. The world was spared nuclear war by what amounts to a ‘minority report’.

Did something similar happen a few weeks ago? Were there dissenting voices within the US government that managed to ‘de-escalate’ the confrontation into a mutually face-saving ‘non-event’? Maybe we’ll find out some day what exactly happened, maybe we won’t. Some give credit to Mattis and Dunford for being the ‘sane’ ones. If they did intervene I’m not so sure ‘sane’ is the right description for their motivation in doing so. See, you don’t get to their level in the US military without being a ‘political’ general with all the baggage that comes with it.

As you know the level of corruption in the DoD is quite large. But what does that really mean? Most think of current and former generals consulting in some way for big business and steering procurements but not much else. The implications of the corruption go much further. If most or all of the the top echelons are corrupt and expect to continue this as private consultants once they leave the military they’ll need to have successors who will let them. While still on active duty they need to make sure their colleagues and subordinates won’t rat them out either. So it is in their interest to ensure promotions of the corrupt(able) and stall the careers of the more conscientious. The same applies at lower levels of the hierarchy. It’s unavoidable. The armed forces are therefor filled with officers who owe their careers not to their military competencies but to either their corruptibility or to being too stupid to notice.

It goes further. When corruption is so incorporated into an organization it becomes dysfunctional. Which means it still functions, just not how it is supposed to. It will malfunction unexpectedly and unpredictably. And often. It will regularly fail to meet even minimum standards of performance. Severe underperformance will be standard. Trying to ascertain the cause of specific failures will be illusive and ‘fuzzy’. Fixes don’t work and no-one tends to be held accountable. This also applies to the corporations on the other side of the corruption. Their organizations are likely to be dysfunctional too in varying degrees. If you doubt it, how about the development issues of these: the F35, the Zumwalt, the LCS, the FCS, the Ford, etc.? They are not surprising if you understand the deeper effects of widespread systemic corruption on organizations.

Mattis an Dunford made their careers during this period of endemic corruption. What does that tell you about them? At the very least they had to know and look away. The difference between them and many of their colleagues looks to be that they do have enough military competence to see what’s going on and what it means for the ability of the US armed forces to wage war. I believe that they know all too well how the decades of ever growing corruption have turned the US military into a force incapable of confronting a (near) peer without unacceptable, even catastrophic, losses. So even if they would win, it would be a Pyrrhic victory.

So if Mattis and Dunford did intervene, don’t ascribe them the virtues of saints just yet. It’s more likely they wanted a scenario they could sell as a success without publicly exposing just how overrated the US armed force are. In a way they are tightrope walkers. They must ‘sell’ US supremacy to the rest of the world on the one hand and on the other hand they need to contain those in their own government (and behind the screens) who actually believe the propaganda and require from the military things they can’t deliver. The Pentagon can’t exactly go around telling all of those in the margins of power what the true state of affairs is. So they juggle and scheme to keep up appearances. Their job is to maintain the perceptions (and not risk their exposure) that allow the Empire to continue to cow and subdue around the world.

They also need to keep the ‘small’ wars going off course. Those are what justifies the Pentagons insane budgets. Because the higher this budget the more money is available for graft and other sorts of corruption. The US DoD has become in large part a financial scam to transfer public funds (tax dollars) into private pockets. These private pockets include current and former military officers, politicians, lobbyists and of course corporate America. A real war with an opponent that can actually fight back and inflict losses too serious to hide might ruin this very profitable scam. Lots of people in influential positions don’t want this to end. People like Mattis and Dunford make sure it doesn’t.

The US DoD is now a front for embezzlements and fraud on a scale counted in trillions (over the decades). In this regard the ability to wage war is mostly relevant in as far as its perception allows for greater sums of tax-payer money to be transferred to the Pentagon. Real capability comes second. With all the funds that are being bled off there has to be a significant difference between stated capabilities and actual capabilities. The stated capabilities are based on the official budgets while the actual capabilities are based on a much smaller amount (due to corruption) and has to take the dysfunctionality of both the military and its suppliers/contractors into account. It’s the logical conclusion of accepting the notion that they are thoroughly corrupt and have been for decades.

So far they have only been fighting colonial wars against opponents with very limited military capabilities of their own. The discrepancy between perceived and actual US military power is not obvious from those wars (although you can tell some things are off if you look really close). The perceived ‘size’ of the ability to wage war justifies inflated operating costs. So more tax dollars that can be diverted into private pockets. From this perspective it doesn’t really matter if a warship is operational or not. It’s mere existence justifies more budget for upkeep. If it is kept fully operational that means less money spent on graft and corruption and more or maintenance, training and functional upgrades. That’s not how the scam works.

Again it’s tightrope walking for the top brass. They need to project power to cow and subdue abroad but they also need to find justifications for increased spending (not to be confused with budget for existing operating costs). Those two tasks clash. Are you all-powerful already or aren’t you? So they’ve been looking for enemies to scare the domestic audience with fanciful what-if’s into forking over more and more of their hard earned dollars. It worked well for a long time. But not now. Russia is a whole other kettle of fish. Russia pushes back in many ways including military. Which is why people like Mattis and Dunford say one thing domestically but do other things behind the screens like having their underlings coordinate with the Russians in Syria. I believe they have a vested interest in steering away from any (near) peer military confrontation. It risks the scam and their careers.

Don’t get me wrong, there are elements in the US armed forces that are quite good at what they do. Some weapon systems are impressive and among the best in the world. There are plenty of capable soldiers and officers (who are unlikely to advance past the rank of major and are typically found in the field, not in staff positions). And overall they are still quite powerful, possibly even number one although I personally doubt it. It’s just that they’re not nearly as strong as they want us to believe. Nor is it anywhere near the level that the huge sums spent on it would warrant. And while elements might perform well on their own, together they don’t.

So when I say overrated that is exactly what I mean, overrated. It does not equal non-existent or absent even though the term is all too often misinterpreted as such. US military power is much less than is commonly believed it is. In other words, it’s overrated. Maybe it’s me but I’m just not impressed. Sure, they have the numbers, but quality wise? I don’t think so. Add in the lack of proper training, deferred maintenance, effectively untested systems (‘tests’, if conducted at all, are highly scripted and performed under ideal conditions to get desired outcomes) and a continued reliance in peacetime on contractor representatives to keep critical systems running (especially in the Navy) and I can’t help but wonder how bad they really are.

It comes down to this, you cannot have it both ways. Either they are quite corrupt indeed which means they are also significantly overrated as a military force or they are as strong as they claim they are which means they can’t be as corrupt as commonly viewed. Which one do you pick?

The title of this piece talks about ‘escalation into nuclear war’. Let’s apply what I mentioned above to that. I tried to make clear in the first part that the risk of such an escalation due to purely military events, while very real, is also seriously overrated. The US military is a lot more vulnerable than commonly believed. This vulnerability will make it hard, if not impossible, for the Americans to keep a war against (near) peers conventional. Especially given their reliance on the Navy and Air Force for force projection and the current level of anti-ship and anti-air missiles (and EW) available to potential adversaries, catastrophic losses seem unavoidable for the Americans in a conventional peer-to-peer setting. Then what?

People like Mattis know this. They cannot afford a military conflict with a (near) peer because it is highly likely it would lead to a situation where they would either have to use nukes tactically or admit defeat. Defeat would not just mean losing the specific engagement or conflict, it would also jeopardize the scam and publicly expose the Empire as much weaker than perceived. Their ability to cow and subdue would suffer or even disappear. So they actively work to prevent such a scenario by avoiding (near) peer conflicts even if they need to work around the White House to do so. While it could still happen, there are plenty of idiots in Washington after all, I am more worried about the risks of non-military escalation into nuclear war, given those same idiots.

As I mentioned in the second and third paragraph, escalation into nuclear war is commonly associated with military confrontation. The public perception is that such an escalation only becomes an issue if there is some kind of military on military incident first. Unfortunately this perception is false. There are several non-military escalatory roads that can lead to that same destination. It starts with a misconception of what war is, or what acts of war are. These are not limited to military confrontations or acts by armed forces of one country.

Those of you familiar with this blog will know that you can make the case that the US and Russia are already at war. At the moment most of it is informational, a big chunk is economic and a small portion is ‘kinetic’. In addition to these categories you could also include covert operations (including assassinations and sabotage), cyber-warfare and diplomacy as non-military means through which war can be waged. All of these have the potential to escalate dramatically, even into nuclear war. Keep in mind though that these are unlikely to be used on their own but probably in some sort of combination with each other. This can create synergistic effects that may be hard to contain.

Let’s look closer at informational warfare. Words have power. Words can have enormous power. Words can also trap you. When the fake video’s out of Douma were published a tweet from the White House promised retribution. That made it very difficult for the Americans not to attack Syria. Not doing so would now look weak. And in American politics looking weak is a mortal sin. So even though they must have had at least serious doubts about the validity of the claims they went ahead. If they had said, “sorry our bad, we were fooled by the video’s” they would have looked only a little bit foolish. Now that it’s glaringly obvious that the chemical attack was faked they look much worse. And they have to stick to their story now. They can’t go back without major loss of face. They hope it will blow over without too much backlash. Worse, they may feel they need a bigger incident (Iran?) to cover this one.

Words can have unforeseen consequences. In the context of international relations it takes smart and calculating people to know what to say and what not to say and when to say it and when not to say it. It takes even smarter people to know when to take something back in order to prevent greater harm to oneself. Diplomacy is an art. There’s a very good reason why it has been so important throughout history. These days I see those smart and calculating people in Moscow. I don’t see them in Washington. One of the most important diplomatic posts in a country these days is that of permanent representative at the UN. If like me you thought it couldn’t get worse than Samantha Power, now we have Nikki Haley for the US. We’ll get back to her later.

Words can also twist peoples perception of reality, especially when repeated again and again. Take the blind fanaticism of the Hitler Jugend in the end phase of the second world war. They had grown up with the constant indoctrination and didn’t know anything else. They became zealots. An indoctrinated populace can be dangerous to yourself. They can force you into directions you never intended to go. This makes the constant accusations against Russia of interfering in and undermining of US democracy very dangerous. Be very, very wary if the Democrats come back to power in the near future. Just like Trump had to act on his Tweet about Douma, the Democrats will have to act on their vilification of Russia. Given how strained US-Russian relations already are that will come with considerable risk to all of us.

The most dangerous of the non-military means to wage war would in my opinion be cyber-warfare and economic warfare. Cyber-warfare is so dangerous because it is all to easy to attribute attacks to the wrong party. These can be false-flag attacks where the ‘victim’ attacks itself and uses these as justification for their own agenda. It can also be mistakenly attributed to the wrong party. Damaging cyberattacks by non-state actors for example could be blamed on Russia, Iran, China or North Korea. Any retaliation against them would in fact not be retaliatory but the opening salvo against an innocent party. They in turn would see it as an unprovoked attack on them and be justified to respond in kind. Enter a cycle of escalations. With cyber-attacks you could also deliberately try to shift the blame on someone else for exactly this reason. There are numerous ways how this could go very wrong unless handled delicately and wisely.

The biggest risk would have to come from economic warfare though. We rarely mention or even think of economic measures as a form of warfare but we should. If an economic measure by one or more governments leads directly or indirectly to the deaths of many people in another country, let’s say more than a million, would the suffering country be right as considering it an act of war? Off course they would. Well, the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq between 1991 and 2003 are thought to have caused around 1.5 million deaths. Iraq was off course to weak to do something about it. Well Russia isn’t. Do you seriously believe they would not retaliate if they where in Iraq’s shoes?

We also tend to make the mistake to think of these spheres as separate. In our minds economic sanctions don’t justify a military response or cyberattacks but why wouldn’t they? If sanctions threaten the lives of millions? A threat to the nation is a threat to the nation and you hit the enemy back where it hurts. If that means switching to different types of actions why not? When the US cut off Japans supply of oil from the East-Indies in 1941 that constituted an existential threat to the Japanese nation. Their economy and armed forces needed that oil or face ruin. It was a de-facto declaration of war against Japan. I’m pretty sure they felt it was. And that’s all that matters. You may disagree or it may not have been your intention but if the aggrieved party considers it to be an act of war and responds on that basis your disagreement is moot.

We wrongly tend to think of non-military measures against countries as relatively harmless. We certainly consider them to be far below any sort of direct military act on the ladder of escalatory steps. Just look at the history books on who started a given war. We blame the one who fired first, not the ones who cut the economic lifeblood of the other. See where that kind of thinking, that as long as you don’t ‘shoot’ it’s not really war, can get us in a lot of trouble? Type ‘economic genocide’ in your favorite search engine and see what you get. It’s a thing.

Unfortunately it’s not just all theory. Recently Nikki Haley had stated that new sanctions against Russia were to be announced the following Monday. Instead of announcing these new sanctions however the White House stated, through Larry Kudlow, that she had been ‘confused’ and ‘mistaken’. You may recall her public rebuttal that she was ‘not confused’. Talk about someone who can’t read between the lines and who can’t put her ego aside for the greater good. But she was probably right. New sanctions were most likely on the table. But then those plans were cancelled. Given Haley’s response this was likely something serious. So what happened? Why were the new sanctions scrapped?

Maybe it’s a coincidence but between Haley’s announcement and the White House backpedalling something interesting happened. The Russian foreign minister had an interview with the BBC. He said a lot things in that interview. One little quote has received less attention than it deserves:

Question: Do you feel you are in a new Cold War?

Sergey Lavrov: I think it’s worse.

Question: Worse?

Sergey Lavrov: Because during the Cold War there were channels of communication; and there was no obsession with Russophobia which looks like, you know, genocide by sanctions.

Genocide by sanctions. Words uttered by the Russian foreign minister. Someone who is not known for hyperbole or exaggeration. Someone who’s words matter. A lot.

Now let’s get back to Putins Presidential address of March 1st 2018 for another quote:

“I should note that our military doctrine says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons solely in response to a nuclear attack, or an attack with other weapons of mass destruction against the country or its allies, or an act of aggression against us with the use of conventional weapons that threaten the very existence of the state. This all is very clear and specific.”

Putin mentions ‘an act of aggression against us with the use of conventional weapons that threaten the very existence of the state’. While not conducted with conventional weapons ‘genocide by sanctions’ would certainly qualify as an ‘act of aggression that threatens the very existence of the state’. That puts it awfully close to what the Russians themselves publicly state is a valid reason for responding with nuclear weapons. You could in fact make a case that economic sanctions are a form of ‘conventional weapons’.

It would go too far to state that Russia would likely respond with an nuclear first strike. It is likely though that they would respond with measures unacceptable to the US. These could be economic measures or something else entirely. What if the undersea cables that connect the US internet to the rest of the world would cease to function? Or what if the domestic energy network in the US would suddenly suffer major failures plunging large parts of the country in the dark? There are numerous non-military ways that they could use to try to ‘pull the plug’ on each other. Now if one were to get convinced the other is about to do just that who knows what action they might take? They might skip conventional military operations altogether.

Russia made it clear that they may use nuclear weapons first should the situation warrant it in their opinion. This year the US published its Nuclear Posture Review 2018. Like the Russians, they do not exclude first use. What’s also worrying is that their respective postures leave ambiguity over where they draw the line. This ambiguity may lead either side to seriously miscalculate the others likely response. Given the sort of people in Washington that would need to do the ‘calculating’ would you trust them to get the answer right? Please, let’s not get even close to that point.

The US main stream media is full of politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, accusing Russia of an ‘attack on the USA’ either because of alleged interference in the elections or unproven cyberattacks. While these are mainly for domestic consumption they also call for retaliatory measures such as more and more severe sanctions. Given the power of words and how hard it can be to take back earlier rhetoric that’s scary stuff. I can actually see the idiots in Washington talk themselves into a corner they can’t or won’t get out off and cross that line.

With regards to military escalation into nuclear war we have people like Mattis and Dunford to run interference no matter what their motivation is. When it comes to non-military acts of aggression against Russia (or China, Iran or North Korea) who do we have? Nikki Haley? John Bolton? Mike Pompeo? So yeah, I do worry a bit about getting into a nuclear war through non-military escalation.

R.Lesnoix is a concerned citizen who grew up during the Cold War under the constant fear of nuclear weapons. He is dismayed with the direction the western democracies are going in.

UK drones firing organ-destroying ‘vacuum bombs’ on the rise in Syria – FOI request reveals (VIDEO) – By RT

UK drones firing organ-destroying ‘vacuum bombs’ on the rise in Syria - FOI request reveals (VIDEO)
The UK is ‘indiscriminately’ using thermobaric missiles as part of its ongoing air war in Syria, a Freedom of Information (FoI) request has revealed.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) admitted, for the first time, using thermobaric weapons during strikes carried out by Royal Air Force MQ-9 Reaper drones during missions in January and February, in response to the FoI request by anti-war campaign group Drone Wars UK.

Thermobaric weapons, known colloquially as “vacuum bombs,” differ from conventional munitions – which cause damage by spreading shrapnel – as they create a high-temperature explosion with an extremely powerful blast radius. The pressure created causes severe internal damage to the organs of people caught in the blast radius.

According to Drone Wars, the request saw “officials give a breakdown of the type of Hellfire missiles fired, stating that 19 AGM-114N4 and 44 AGM-114R2 had been used. The ‘N’ version of the missile uses a Metal Augmented Charge (MAC) warhead that contains a thermobaric explosive fill using aluminum with the explosive mixture. When the warhead detonates, the aluminum mixture is dispersed and rapidly burns.”

While use of vacuum bombs remain legal under international law, their use has been criticized by human rights organizations as they have the potential to create unnecessary human suffering.

“Anyone in the vicinity is likely to die from internal organ damage,” the group added.

Manufactured by US arms giant Lockheed Martin, the company boasts that over 21,000 units of the missile have been delivered to the US Air Force and over 13 of Washington’s international partners, including the UK.

Coming in three configurations, Hellfires have been integrated on a variety of air platforms including the Apache and Super Cobra attack helicopters. As well as Predator and Reaper drones. They have also been added to turboprop fixed-wing aircraft, offering operators a cheaper platform to carry out counter-insurgency missions.

Increased use by the RAF

The UK’s use of thermobaric missiles was first reported in 2008 when the British military used Apache helicopters equipped with Hellfires to tackle Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. News that troops were using such weapons caused a stir in Westminster with The Times reporting that “MoD weapons and legal experts spent 18 months debating whether British troops could use them without breaking international law.”

They settled on redefining the missiles as “enhanced blast weapons” in order to get around any potential legal wrangling.

Since then, and until the request granted by the FoI, the MoD has tried to avoid answering questions on their use of the thermobaric variant of the Hellfire.

READ MORE: RAF strike killed one civilian in Syria as it targeted ISIS, defence secretary admits

Admission of their use comes the same week as UK Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson admitted that a recent RAF airstrike resulted in a civilian casualty. In a ministerial statement, Williamson said that the casualty “crossed into the strike area at the last moment,” during a targeted strike in northeastern Syria on March 26, that killed three militants of the Islamic State (IS).

In recent months, the RAF has been upping its use of drone strikes in Syria in favor of its dedicated multi-role strike bomber, the Tornado. According to Drone Wars, between January and March of this year, “UK drones fired as many weapons in Syria (92) as they have over the previous 18 months,” and is seeking further information on whether their use is increasing in favor of manned aircraft.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

 
Follow the news MSM ignores: Like RT UK Facebook
Reporting what MSM doesn’t: Follow RT UK Twitter account

Why the Deep State Hates Putin – ByChris Kanthan (Sott.net)

cold war nuke hysteria

Russophobia in America today is as intense as it was at the height of Cold War when terrified school kids had “Duck and Cover” drills and the public was obsessed with bomb shelters. However, all the drama hides the real conflict: geopolitical power struggle for world domination, which involves hundreds of trillions of dollars, massive egos of Machiavellian elites, and nations driven by memory of the past and visions of the future.

Here’s the big picture: it’s a geopolitical battle of USA + EU versus Russia + China. The US and EU are governed by the same banking and military-industrial overlords, while Russia and China – two independent countries – have made an alliance out of necessity. Why? If Russia falls, China will be the next.

Get the bear, you get the dragon, and thus you get the world.

But here is the kicker: the globalists did trap the bear in 1991 when the USSR collapsed. However, rather than befriending the bear, they caged it and then starved, tortured and humiliated it for the next eight years. That’s when the bear tore down the cage and fought back.

Betrayal in the 1990’s

The biggest theft of the century happened in Russia in the 1990’s, and the perpetrators were Wall Street shysters who promised miracles of capitalism, but instead dismantled the entire country. In the name of privatization, Russia was put up for fire sale. A handful of Russian oligarchs, carefully selected by the US, ended up with assets worth hundreds of billions of dollars. In exchange, each Russian citizen got a “share” worth $7. The US taxpayers even subsidized this disgusting racket.

Under this shock therapy administered by American vulture capitalists, Russia’s GDP fell 40%. The country was loaded up with crushing debt from the IMF and World Bank, and poverty and suicide soared.

yeltsin

The Russian military was decimated, demoralized and was badly losing wars to Islamic terrorists in Chechnya and Dagestan. Oh, these terrorists were the same Mujahideen from Afghanistan and were still funded by Saudi Arabia and armed by the US.

Most Russian politicians, including President Yeltsin, were bought off and controlled by Washington, as Bill Clinton bragged to Tony Blair.

Putin’s Empire

Under these dreadful circumstances, Putin became the Acting President of Russia on Dec 31, 1999. Over the next few years, he took on the powerful oligarchs, corrupt politicians and the elites who formed the fifth column. Putin was helped by rising oil prices, but he used the new wealth wisely. He grew the Russian economy, built up gold and foreign reserves, and significantly reduced the national debt.

  1. Between 1999 and 2014, Russia’s GDP grew 10-fold and it’s world rank surged from 22nd to 8th
  2. Russia’s debt-to-GDP ratio fell from 100% in 1999 to 17% in 2016
  3. Foreign reserves grew from virtually nothing to the 6th largest in the world
  4. Gold reserves grew to become the 5th largest in the world

Putin started RT – Russia’s own global news channel, banned GMO, turned Russia into the #1 exporter of wheat, kicked out George Soros, and fought Cultural Marxism. He built over 15,000 churches, encouraged families to have more children, and banned transgender/gay propaganda to children.

putin patriarch

Finally, Putin rebuilt Russia’s military, crushed Islamic terrorists in Chechnya and, in a geopolitical stunner that transpired in Syria, prevailed against a mighty coalition of the US, Israel, UK, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and up to 250,000 jihadists. Also, rather than getting into an arms race, Putin has developed hypersonic missiles which have made the former ability of US defense systems and aircraft carriers to attack other nations with impunity moot.

Putin’s diplomacy has also been remarkable. After the 2014 US sanctions and the precipitous fall in oil prices, every pundit and politician predicted the isolation of Putin and the demise of Russia’s economy. However, leaders around the world continued to work with Putin.

putin leaders

In other words, Putin made Russia great again. This is why his approval rating is still over 80% and he easily won the reelection in 2018.

Russia under attack

However, the globalists have had their own victories as well. In 2003-2004, pro-Russia governments in Georgia and Ukraine were overthrown by George Soros’ color revolutions. In 2014, the US staged a violent coup in Ukraine, overthrew a democratically elected leader, and replaced him with an unelected billionaire and a coterie of neo-Nazis.

Ukraine has been a CIA target for decades. As Brzezinski wrote in his book, The Grand Chessboard, Russia will be paralyzed without access to Crimea and the Black Sea – the only Russian gateway to the Mediterranean Sea. Sensing danger after the 2013 coup, Putin quickly held a referendum in Crimea and solved the issue.

Another area where Russia was backstabbed: NATO expansion. Contrary to the promises made during the dissolution of USSR, NATO has added 13 new European countries, which are all potential hosts for US/NATO military bases. Many of these countries are now part of the missile defense system. What this means is that the US could first launch a nuclear attack against Russia and then, theoretically, shoot down the missiles that Russia fires in response. The entire situation is extremely volatile and dangerous – Russia has 6,800 nuclear weapons.

All this bullying is just a symptom of the wounded egos of globalists who have failed in their attempts to conquer Russia definitively. In fact, they tried to do so six times in the last 200 years -1812, 1856, 1905, World War I, World War II, and the Wall Street takeover of Russia in the 1990’s.

Rothschilds, Bolshevism and Hitler

In 1812, funded by the Rothschilds, Napoleon invaded Russia. In 1856, Britain and France attacked and took over Crimea-for the same reason that the US staged a coup in Ukraine in 2013.

In 1905, banksters on Wall Street – Jacob Schiff and others – funded Japan to attack Russia. In the midst of the war, the banksters tried to foment a revolution and overthrow the Czar. The guy who lead the revolution was Leon Trotsky. He failed in 1905 and fled Russia, but came back in 1917 using the same playbook, using Germany instead of Japan.

Before World War I, Trotsky and Lenin raised millions of dollars from international banksters. Trotsky visited New York and got an American passport so he could sneak back into Russia. Flush with cash from capitalists, the communists (Bolsheviks) killed the Czar during World War I and quickly signed a peace treaty with Germany. Danke Schoen!

soviet posters

Thus the evil empire of Soviet Union was a creation of America and Europe – a fact that is erased from Western history books. The Soviet Union was the result of a civil war fomented by outside forces – a civil war in which the bad guys won. Bolshevism was a foreign virus that invaded Russia, killed tens of millions of Russians and tried to destroy Christianity – Russian’s religion for over 1000 years. However, when Americans think of “Russians,” they are only taught to think of the Soviet Union.

Fast forward to World War II, it was again Europe (Germany) that attacked Russia. 20 million Russians died fighting the Nazis, two million just in the city of Leningrad. Russia fought the Nazis for four years and destroyed 70% of Hitler’s army. However, the US came at the end of the game (in 1944) and got all the accolade for “defeating the Nazis.”

Moving Forward

Knowing all this, an honest person would not cast Russia as the enemy of the West. Russia will be an enemy only if we demand its subservience. Russia and China are determined to preserve their sovereignty. They are also trying to break free from the petrodollar system, which lets the US borrow trillions without repercussions.

Global conflicts and wars are very addictive for the military-industrial complex, which holds 800 military bases around the world, a $700 billion a year budget and $35 billion/year of weapons exports. Wars also mean massive debts for nations, which is exactly what the international banksters want. Global corporations are drawn to a unipolar world because that guarantees them monopoly, cheap labor and raw materials and access to customers. Social engineers rely on monolithic corporate media to spread the same propaganda all over the world. Will the confluence of these forces refuse to accept a multipolar world? Will they push us into disastrous wars, potentially even a nuclear war?

Let’s remember JFK’s “Peace Speech” from 1963:

jfk peace quote
Avatar

Chris Kanthan (Profile)

Chris Kanthan is the author of a new book, Deconstructing the Syrian war.. Chris lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, has traveled to 35 countries, and writes about world affairs, politics, economy and health. His other book is Deconstructing Monsanto.. Follow him on Twitter: @GMOChannel

%d bloggers like this: