Category Archives: Military Doctrine

The Answer to the Problems of Imperialism/Militarism Is Much More Imperialism/Militarism

Wow, the Deep State is actually this insane.

Truth is the ultra-militaristic USA is hated and of course feared all over the world due to the fact that the US is Dictator of the World, and we have the whole world by the balls via the ultraviolent military of the US World Dictatorship which is called the Pentagon. Of course this makes sense. The only resistance against Emperor Obama’s ultraviolent miltarism and imperialism comes from Republicans DINO’s who say he isn’t a violent enough emperor! In other words, the only opposition to US imperialism in the US comes from a group that says US imperialism needs to be dramatically ramped up! Amazing, what a lunatic country we live in.

From here:

During a discussion of the Gaza War, ABC pundit Cokie Roberts (7/13/14) argued that the problem with US foreign policy was that no one fears the United States.

You know, we just haven’t made a strong enough presence in that region to have people be afraid of this country. And so I think there’s a sense that, you know, they can get away with anything they want to get away with.

So the problem with the Iraq invasion, which killed roughly half a million people, along with a 13-year occupation of Afghanistan, the destruction of the Libyan government and drone strikes that have killed thousands in Pakistan and elsewhere – is that they don’t instill enough fear.

Cokie Roberts is nothing less than the voice of the Deep State. Here she is just channeling the CIA like she always does. I wonder how much they pay this slatternly whore?

Yeah, so we simply haven’t slaughtered enough people yet in the Middle East, so they whole region thinks we are a bunch of pussy faggots. 1.4 million in Iraq wasn’t enough. Only fags would slaughter such a tiny number of people. They laugh at America, a nation of small-dicked Frenchmen who wet their pants when asked to pull a trigger.

I can’t believe this actually passes for political discussion in this surreal country. America is insane.


Filed under Africa, Democrats, Government, Imperialism, Iraq War, Journalism, Libya, Military Doctrine, North Africa, Obama, Pakistan, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, South Asia, US Politics, US War in Afghanistan, USA, War

US Foreign Policy: Create Chaos and Failed States in Enemy Countries

Iraq: Invasion, no more Saddam, now filled with “extremists”, low intensity civil war.

Libya: “No fly zone”, no more Gaddafi, now filled with Al Qaeda extremists, low intensity civil war.

Somalia: US backed Ethiopians, etc., waging war on Al Shahab, low intensity civil war.

Sudan: Now split in half., low intensity civil war

Syria: Being bombed actively, now filled with Al Qaeda extremists, high intensity civil war

Lebanon: Tied tightly to the events in Syria, now filled with Salafist extremists, low intensity fighting

Iran: War TBA, Israel head fakes a strike ever other year.

Venezuela: Constant US subversion attempts, full of fascist extremists, major street rioting and chaos.

Colombia: Largest military aid to any country. Filled with leftist guerrillas and fascist death squads, low intensity civil war.

Ukraine: Democratic government overthrown by NATO coup, Nazi government installed, filled with armed factions including Nazi extremists, low intensity civil war.


Filed under Africa, Americas, Asia, Colombia, East Africa, Europe, Geopolitics, Iran, Iraq, Latin America, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, Military Doctrine, North Africa, Regional, Somalia, South America, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, War

US, Canada, Europe Vote in Favor of Nazism at the UN

The UN had an absolutely amazing vote the other day. The Assembly voted on a measure condemning the heroization and veneration of Nazis by member countries. Most countries of course supported this reasonable measure, but the US, Canada and the Ukraine voted against it. In other words, the US, Canada and Ukraine voted in favor of Nazism at the UN. That the Nazi government in the Ukraine would against it is not surprising; after all, they are Nazis – what do you expect? However, the US and Canada vote is shocking. Think of the implications of this – the US and Canada just voted in favor of Nazism at the United Nations General Assembly. Why? Are the US and Canada becoming Nazi countries or do they just support Nazis. It is a known fact that the US and Canada are supplying military supplies to Nazi governments involved in wars against their own people. The US has also sent advisors, apparently to assist the Nazis with their genocidal project.

People wonder why I’m an America-hater. I would answer that if you’re a decent person no matter where you live on Earth, how could you not be an America-hater. I mean, come on – this is a government that is arming and advising Nazis as they commit genocide against their own people.

I must say I have never been more disgusted to be an American. Looking around the Net, I see a lot of Canadians saying the same thing. The Harper government just voted in favor of Nazism at the General Assembly.

Is the EU really the Nazi EU? The entire EU voted to abstain on the resolution. In other words, they didn’t want to take a position on whether Nazis were good or bad. Amazing! One wonders if the EU is becoming a Nazi organization.

Other nations that voted pro-Nazi by abstaining are Australia, New Zealand, Turkey, Japan, Libya, Mali, South Sudan, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Belize, South Korea, Samoa, and Yemen.

The Libyan government is nothing but a NATO colony right now. Australia and New Zealand are part of the Anglosphere, and the Anglosphere is leading the way with pro-Nazi sentiment these days. The votes of Turkey, Japan and South Korea are understandable, as all have long histories of being fascist countries. Samoa is a colony of the US. The votes of Chad, Mali, South Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo and Yemen are hard to figure.

This is truly a dark day in history. The West creeps onward towards fascism, slowly but surely.

The US, Canada and the Ukraine Refuse to Condemn the Heroization of Nazism

It is often argued whether the Ukrainian junta is Nazi or not. I would strongly argue that even though Poroshenko did not come out, make a Nazi salute and declare “I am a Nazi” all the signs point to the conclusion that the regime in Kiev has its ideological roots in the Nazi past. The latest example of that “filiation” can be found in this absolutely amazing event last week: only three countries – the US, Canada and the Ukraine voted against a UN Resolution condemning the heroization of Nazism. The EU was not much better: it abstained. This development is so crazy, so insane, that it is important to have access to the original document which was voted on.

Here is the full text of the Resolution:

You can also get this text from here:

Here is the official voting record:

To me, this is disgusting beyond belief. Here we have two countries who try to positions themselves as the most pro-Israeli on the planet (the US and Canada) and the EU which has even passed laws making not only Nazi propaganda illegal but jailing those who would dare investigate the mass murder of Jews by the Nazis in the Holocaust.

And yet these putatively anti-Nazi and “democratic” countries are now refusing to condemn the heroization of Nazism not so much because they particularly like Nazis, but because they want to “protect” the Ukrainian junta.

As for the Ukrainians themselves, they have suffered more from Nazis then any other country or ethnic group, and yet they also refused to condemn the heroization of Nazism. This makes a mockery not only of all their so-called principles and values, it also is an act of obscene disrespect for the millions of Ukrainian murdered by the Nazis. There is one good thing about all this: it shows clearly and unequivocally how much the western elites truly hate Russia and that this hate clearly trumps any other considerations or values.

Russian disgust

For the past few days, or weeks, really, I have seen more and more signs of total Russian disgust with the West. If, in the past, Russian diplomats and politicians were mostly trying to sound polite, now they are openly expressing their disgust. For example, they are now openly saying the Europe does not have a foreign policy or an opinion, that Europe is just a subservient colony of the US.

As for the US, the Russians are now openly saying that this entire Ukrainian crisis was just a pretext and that the US are really out there to submit Russia. Putin said that openly last week, adding that nobody had every succeeded in subduing Russia and neither would the USA. This goes further than words, Russia has already announced that she was going to boycott the 2016 Summit on Nuclear Security. This became known when the Russian informed the other members of this Summit that Russia would not participate in its preparatory work.

Sergei Lavrov also made a remarkable speech today, but since the pathetic website of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not even bother providing a translation on the same day, we will have to wait before I can post it here.


Filed under Canada, Eurasia, Europe, Fascism, Military Doctrine, National Socialism, Nazism, North America, Nuclear Weapons, Political Science, Regional, Russia, Ukraine, USA, War

The Truth about the Second Amendment


The Founders were actually crazy. They did not even believe that we should have a standing army! So, if we want to be strict Constitutionalists, we need to bulldoze the Pentagon and wipe out the US Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force. In lieu of an army, a marine corps, a navy and an air force, the founders thought we should have a militia instead.

So the very existence of the US Military itself violates the spirit of the Constitution! In lieu of the Pentagon, an armed militia. Keep in mind that this militia-army had just defeated the British Army. Fear of a standing army continued all through the Revolution and this silly fear almost kept us from winning the war. This is the modern NRA view of the Second Amendment:

The purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the people would be able to resist a tyrannical state.

No more, no less.

This view is simply false. It could be called the modern, 21st Century  Libertarian view. However, the wording makes it quite clear that this is not what they intended at all. The amendment explicitly states that the militias are for “the security of a free state,” that is, the militias are the equivalent of the US military – the militias were to be the armed forces of the state itself, not to overthrow the state, tyrannical or otherwise.

The Federalists were the rightwing section of the Founders, led by elitist and advocate of aristocratic rule Alexander Hamilton. One of the events that led to the thinking behind the 2nd Amendment was Shay’s Rebellion, which was a guerrilla war against the US government. The Founders were very alarmed by this subversive movement to violently overthrow the government, and the militias of the 2nd Amendment were specifically intended to be the armed forces of the state to protect the state against subversion by violent revolutionaries. The modern view would be that the Federalists thought the 2nd Amendment was intended to spur on revolt’s like Shay’s Rebellion. That is most certainly not the case.


Filed under Government, History, Law, Libertarianism, Military Doctrine, Political Science, Regional, US, USA

Why Would Anyone Be a Patriotard in the First Place?

I honestly cannot understand patriotards. They make no sense at all to me. In order to be a patriotard, you have to believe that your government never does anything bad or evil. How could anyone believe that?

What I am people like me are doing is pointing out the evil stuff that my country is doing. I am not doing to say how much I hate the country, which is a dumb argument anyway. For the record anyway, I hate almost all of the West. All of the Western governments are pretty much evil. I do not think any of them are any good. And I do not like most other governments either.

I hate to sound like a Libertarian, but it seems like almost all governments do some really slimy, sleazy and evil stuff. I realize the solution to that is the Libertarian one, to get rid of the state, but that won’t fix anything. First of all, one of the main reasons that states act so evil is because their foreign policy is to act in benefit of the capitalists who run the economy. So the capitalists are pretty much ordering these states to do all this evil stuff. Because at the end of the day, the capitalists and the state are the same under capitalism. Just read Marx or Lenin, and this is absolutely clear.

The CIA is the armed to the teeth intelligence force of the US corporations. The Pentagon is the ultra armed-to the-teeth militia of the US corporations and the US rich. The US military is their private army. The task of the US military and the CIA is to run around the world doing all sorts of ugly and nasty things for the sole benefit of the 1% of the US and the US corporations.

If you are not a wealthy elitist or you don’t run a corporation, why would you support such a thing? It’s not like what they are doing is to benefit you. Come to think of it, if you are not rich and don’t own a corporation, why would you support the US military? After all, it’s just the private militia of George Soros, Mitt Romney, the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, Chevron and ATT. Why would anyone put on a uniform and go risk their ass to fight for a bunch of slimeballs and nasty corporations like that. You are going to go overseas and kill people for Goldman Sachs? You will fight, get hurt or be killed for Bank of America? Why would anyone do that? Come to think of it, why would anyone “support the troops”? What’s go good about “the troops?”

So anyway people like me are simply pointing out that our government does some really evil stuff. That makes us mad, probably because we love our country and do not want to see it doing bad stuff. So we are rubbing the American dog’s face in the mess it shit on the floor so to speak. What do we want? We want our country to knock it off! We request that we stop doing this evil things. How does that make us America-haters?

Furthermore, why do I have to leave? Anyone who points out that their government does evil shit has to leave? Why? How bout we take this line around the world. Anyone, in any country, who points out that their government does evil shit has to leave the country? Because the only people who are allowed to stay in any country are those who say the government never does any evil shit?

Why does everyone have to be happy with their country? Honestly, I doubt if I would be happy with any country I lived in. I would probably hate the government because I really dislike most governments. As far as the country itself, I am not sure. I might like some of the populations. But for a lot of countries in the world, if I were living there, I would look around at the citizens of my land and say, “You know what? These people suck.”

Looking around the world from a First World Country, it is obvious that most countries in the world blow. You would think most people who live in these countries would have figured that out by now. So, everyone who isn’t wild about their government or their country has to take off? You realize we are talking about maybe 4 billion people here? Why do they have to leave? Where are they supposed to go?

What is the mindset of the patriotard? My country never does anything bad? Everything we do is sweetness, good and light? Is that honestly what they think?

Patriotards always think they live in a great country. American patriotards are rather unique because I believe 80-85% of them believe that they actually live in the greatest country in the world, which seems like a weird thing to believe. I have even met US Marxists who firmly believe this. Why do we have to be a great country? What would happen if we were not a great country?


1 Comment

Filed under Capitalism, Capitalists, Economics, Government, Libertarianism, Military Doctrine, Political Science, Regional, Scum, USA

“Thinking the Unthinkable”

This is an old article from the Saker that really needs to be read. In it, the Saker suggests the various responses the US/NATO might make to intervene in the war. I agree with him that the Pentagon is generally full of sane people who do not want to risk all-out war with Russia. However, the US civilian leadership has gone insane, and I believe that they have been insane and drunk on power and stupid for some time now, maybe even a couple of decades. This are the people who really worry me, not the generals. And sadly, I believe that Saker’s most apocalyptic scenarios are probably very much possible.

The Ukraine mess has the potential to be utterly terrifying; in fact, I would argue that it already is.

Why do most Americans, and most in the West even, not care about this Ukraine mess? Because Americans no longer care about anything we do overseas and they are lulled into a false sense of security by the corporate takeover of the media which turned the US media into a state propaganda organ. Americans are fat, lazy, stupid, apathetic and ignorant. They don’t care what we do overseas. In fact, they love it whenever we attack and kill people. The more the merrier.

We can kill as many people as we want to overseas as long as parades of soldiers are not coming back in body bags. This was the only reason for the opposition to the Vietnam War – too many Americans were being killed. Really the only thing Americans seem to understand and the only way to get through to them is to kill lots of US soldiers in a war with an easy out. In any case like that, the US public will simply bail and for good reason.

There is nothing too evil or sinister that the US can do overseas because the vast majority of Americans continue to believe in the Indispensable Nation, the City on the Hill, and Great and Good America that fights for freedom and democracy, confronting Evil everywhere on Earth. The idea that America itself might be the Evil, and that folks we are fighting are the Good Guys is simply too much for most Americans to deal with. They simply flat out refuse to believe it.

The Americans are always the Good Guys and our enemies are always the Bad Guys. Even Democratic Party liberals hold this attitude as one of their core beliefs. If you tell these liberals otherwise, they start jumping up and down, screaming and yelling and ordering you to get out of their homes. US patriotardism runs extremely deep in society. I estimate 80% of Americans are hardcore patriotards.

In fact, for much of my life, I believed the bolded lie myself until I finally wised up and learned the very painful truth.


Thinking the Unthinkable

By Saker


I have been putting off writing about this topic for a very long while. In fact, I wrote several articles trying to explain the self-evident truism that the US/NATO/EU does not have a military option in the Ukrainian war. First, in an article entitled Remembering the Important Lessons of the Cold War, I tried to explain that the reason the Cold War did not turn into a hot shooting war is that both sides understood that they simply could never win and that any escalation in strikes and counter-strikes could very rapidly lead to a intercontinental nuclear war, something which neither side was willing to risk.

In a piece entitled Making Sense of Obama’s Billion Dollar Hammer, I tried to show that all the money the US will be pouring into “European security” is just a grandiose bribe for some European elites and that it had no real effect on the ground. A few days later I posted an article entitled Why the US-Russian Nuclear Balance is as Solid as Ever in which I tried to dispel the myth prevalent in the West about the putative state of disrepair of the Russian military in general and of the Russian nuclear forces in particular. Lastly, in a piece entitled Short Reminder about US and Russian Nuclear Weapons, I tried to show that in reality it was the US nuclear forces who were in a state of disrepair.

And over and over, in many comments, I tried to lay out the reasons why I simply did not believe that the US/NATO/EU would dare to attack Russia.

In summary, I will say this: the US is not nearly as powerful as US propaganda claims. Without going into long debates about what “victory” and “defeat” mean, I will just say that in my personal opinion is that the last time the US military fought well was in Korea, and even there it had to accept a draw. After that, it was all downhill. This is not the fault of the US solider, by the way, but instead is caused by the fact that big money and politics got so heavily involved in the US military that they corrupted everything.

This is most evident in the USAF which still has superb pilots but who are given a terrible choice: either fly on good but old aircraft or fly on new but terrible ones (I believe that given the choice, most would chose the former). As for the European NATO allies, they are such a joke that they hardly deserve mention. They even look bad on a parade.

As for a military option in the Ukraine, it appears unthinkable to me not only because, frankly, I don’t see a single military in the West capable of taking on the Russian military in full-scale battle but also because geography powerfully argues against such a crazy idea (the very same geography which would make it impossible for Russia to try to invade western or even central Europe).

And yet, something in all this very logical reasoning felt wrong to me. A few days ago it finally hit me. What bothered me was this:

The American Duck

Among the many beautiful and witty expressions and neologisms Americans use, I always loved this one: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. This so-called “Duck test” is funny, but it is also a powerful logical method which ended up chewing at me day after day after day. Here I was, all sure and certain that the US/NATO/EU would never consider such a ludicrous notion as a military attack on Russia or Russian forces.

But kept hearing the voice of the American Duck telling me: look at what they are doing, what does that look like to you? Suspend your conclusions and just tell me what are you observing? Tell me, if they had decided to escalate to the point of a military confrontation with Russia, would they be doing things differently?

And a few days ago, I threw in the towel (at the duck, of course) and had to accept that while I did not know what they were thinking or what their intentions really were, it sure looked to me like the western plutocrats had decided to escalate the crisis has much as possible.

In truth, I have to admit that when I studied the theory of deterrence in the 1980’s, my teachers always insisted that this theory of deterrence was predicated on what they called a “rational player”.

To put it simply – how do you deter a lunatic? Or a desperate man with nothing to lose? Or a person hell-bent on mutual destruction? The truth is, you cannot. Deterrence assumes a rational actor making a logical decision about unacceptable costs. As far as I know, nobody has ever developed a theory of deterrence applicable to a madman.

When I initially wrote my pieces explaining why I believed that a US/NATO/EU attack was impossible, a lot readers posted comments saying that while maybe the top US military command was still mainly composed of rational men, the US imperial elites had clearly gone crazy a long time ago and that they were so stuck in their arrogance, imperial hubris, delusions of invincibility and knee-jerk and systematic use of violence that they could no more be considered as rational. At the time I replied that, yeah, sure, maybe, but what is the point of analyzing something crazy? How do you try to make sense of the suicidally insane?

And yet, this is what I propose to do today. I will try as best I can to try to place myself in the mind of these lunatics and see what they could try doing and what the consequences of that would be. I will go through several possible plans that these crazies might have starting from the most limited one and then going up the insanity slope.

Plan One: a Symbolic and Limited Intervention

This plan is already underway. We know that there are US military advisers in the Ukraine, including at least one general, we know that the Dutch and Australians will be sending in a lightly armed force to “protect” the investigators at the crash site of MH17 (although how a few men armed with assault rifles can protect anybody from Ukie artillery, tank or mortar fire is anybody’s guess).

Then there are all the reports of foreign mercenaries, mostly US and Polish, fighting with the Ukie death squads. There is also some good evidence that Poland is sending military equipment, including aircraft and possibly crews. Well, all of that is dumb and serves very little useful purpose, but that is what the West is so good at: pretending. If this plan stays at this level, I would say that it is not very important. But, alas, there is a nastier possibility here:

Plan Two: A Tripwire Force

This is just an extension of plan one: bring in a few men and then have them killed. This would trigger the needed “popular outrage” (carefully fanned and reported by the corporate media) to force the Europeans to accept more US sanctions in Europe or even some kind of “EU-mandated peacekeeping force”.

Of course, if the Russians or Novorussians do not take the bait and fail to kill the “observers”, US/NATO false flag teams could easily do that. Just imagine what a heavy mortar strike on a building with these OSCE observers would look like. The junta in Kiev would be more than happy to “invite” such a “peacekeeping” force into Novorussia and since this would be an “invited” force, no UNSC Resolution would be needed.

Finally, such a “peacekeeping” force would be regularly reinforced and augmented until it could basically cover the flanks of the Ukies in their attacks against Novorussia. This force would also assume the command and control of Ukie forces, something which the Ukies could greatly benefit from (their current command and control is a mess).

Plans One and Two assume that Russian forces stay on the other side of the border and that the only opposition to such a deployment could come from the Novorussians. But what if the Russians decided to move into Novorussia either to protect the locals or to stop this limited US/NATO/EU “peacekeeping force”? Then the US/NATO/EU would have to take a dramatic escalatory step and send in a much bigger force, more capable of defending itself.

Plan Three: UPROFOR on the Dniepr?

This is the Yugoslav scenario. The West would send in something on the order of 10 battalions which would each be given an area of responsibility for “peacekeeping”. Then police forces would be also sent to “maintain law and order,” and EU commissars would be sent in to “help” the local population “express their will” and “organize” a local government. Soon there would be some kind of EU-run election, and all the Novorussian forces would be declared “bandits” from which the local population need to be “protected”.

Since Strelkov himself fought in Yugoslavia as did many other Russians, I don’t believe that the Russians or Novorussians would fall for this one. I think that Russia would express its opposition to such a plan and that if she was ignored, she would move in her own forces along the line of contact.

This might be the US/NATO/EU end goal: to create a Korea-like “line of demarcation” which would isolate the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics from the rest of Novorussia and the rest of the Ukraine. This would mean getting plenty of Kosovo-like “Camp Bonsteels” all along the Russian border, and it would make it look like the “Wartime President of the One Indispensable Nation stopped the Russian Bear”. Finally, it would create a perfect Cold War-like environment in which the western 1%ers could continue to exploit the 99% while constantly scaring them with the “Russian threat”.

Plan Four: Operation Storm in Novorussia and Crimea?

I would not put it past the folks in the Pentagon and Mons to try to pull off an “Operation Storm” in Novorussia and even possibly Crimea. That is the scenario Glazev fears: the US/NATO/EU would put enough forces inside the Ukraine to allow it to survive long enough to mobilize a sufficient number of men and equipment for a lightning-fast attack on Novorossia and even possibly Crimea.

And in theory, if we assume that Banderstan does not collapse under its own weight and economic disaster, the Ukraine has the resources to mobilize far more men and equipment that the tiny People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk or even Crimea. But that again assumes that Russia will let that happen, which she won’t, so now we have to look at the really crazy plans:

Plan Five: First “Desert Steppe Shield,” Then “Desert Steppe Storm”

That is a crazy notion: to do with Russia what the US did with Iraq. First, to place down a “protection force” in the Ukraine, isolate Russia, and then attack in a full-depth and full-scale determined attack. We are definitely talking about a continental war with a fantastic potential to turn into a world war. This plan would have be based on two crucial assumptions:

  1.  The US/NATO/EU conventional forces would be capable of defeating the Russian military.
  2. If facing conventional defeat, Russia would not use nuclear weapons.

I think that both of these assumptions are deeply mistaken. The first one is based on a mix of propaganda, bean counting and ignorance. The propaganda is something which western military are very good at. They are not. Most western armies are a pathetic joke, and those who can fight well (the Brits, the Turks) are too little to matter.

That leaves the US military which have capabilities far in excess of what its NATO allies can muster. Just as in WWII all the serious fighting had to be done by German units, in case of a WWIII (or IV?), all the serious fighting would have to be done by Americans. The problem is that the Americans would have an extremely hard time bringing in enough forces to really make the difference. In any case, I have the biggest doubt about the current fighting capabilities of the US Army and Marine Corps. Faced with a Russian battalion defending its own soil, I think that an equivalent US Army/Marine force would get slaughtered.

The “bean counting” is when you compare all the NATO APC’s or tanks to the number available to the Russian military. The corporate media loves these sorts of charts in which soldiers, APC’s, tanks, aircraft and other gear are compared. Professional analysts never use them simply because they are meaningless.

What matters is how much of that gear is actually available for battle, the kind of tactics used, the training and morale of the soldiers, the skills of their commanding officers, and stuff which is never mentioned: supplies, logistics, petroleum, lubricants, ammunition, lines of supply, medical standards, and even food and weather. Bean counters simply never see that. But one could argue that the number of trucks is more important to a military than the number of tanks. Yet trucks are never counted. But yes, on paper NATO looks huge. Even though most NATO gear could not even survive your average Ukrainian road, never mind the winter.

But let us assume that the Hollywood image of the US military is true: invincible, best trained, best armed, with a fantastic morale, led by the very best of the best officers, it would easily defeat the primitive Russian military, armed with antiquated weapons and commanded by fat drunken generals.

Okay, and then what? If the official Russian nuclear deterrence doctrine is examined, in this case Russia would use nuclear weapons.

Since even in Hollywood movies nobody makes the claim that the US anti-missile systems could stop Iskanders, cruise missiles or even gravity bombs, we would have to accept that the invincible US force would be turned into radioactive particulates and that in turn would leave the US President two terrible choices: a) take the loss and stop b) retaliate, and the second option would have to include the location from where the strike came from: Russia proper. That, of course, would place the following choices for the Russian President: a) take the loss or b) strike at the continental United States. At this points nuclear mushrooms would start appearing all over the map.

Now please make no mistake: Russia can not only destroy Mons, the Pentagon and Cheyenne Mountain (just a matter of placing enough warheads on the right spot) but also every single major city in the United States. Sure, the USA can retaliate in kind, but what kind of consolation would that be for anybody left?

I cannot believe that the US Deep State would truly, deliberately, want to start a planetary nuclear war. For one thing, US leaders are cowards, and they will not want to take such a monumental decision. A far more likely version is that being stupid, arrogant cowards, they will stumble upon just that outcome. Here is how:

Plan Six: American Football’s “Hail Mary”

In American football there is a specific pass which is used only when seconds are left on the clock, and your team is badly losing anyway. Basically it works like this: every single person who is not defending the quarterback rushes to the end zone, as do all the defenders, and the quarterback then just throws the ball straight into that zone with the very slim hope that one of his own players will catch it and score a touchdown. This is called a “Hail Mary” for very good reason as only a miracle makes such a desperate plan work. Most of the time the ball is either fumbled or caught by the other team. But, very rarely, it works.

I can very much imagine a desperate Obama trying to show the American people that he “has hair on his chest” and that he is not going to let “regional power” challenge the “indispensable nation”. So what he and, really, his administration risks doing is the following: to play a game of chicken hoping against all odds that the Russian will yield. This is my worst nightmare and the worst possible assumption to make because Russia cannot yield.

In March of this year I issued a warning which I entitled Obama just made things much, much worse in the Ukraine – now Russia is ready for war. What prompted me to issue that warning was the fact that the Council of the Russian Federation has just unanimously passed a resolution allowing Putin to use Russian armed forces in the Ukraine. Since then, this resolution has been repealed at Putin’s request and for obvious political motives, but the mood and determination are still there. In fact, I think that it has grown much stronger.

There has been much useless speculation about Putin, his motives and strategy. This is way bigger than just Putin. If the US/NATO/EU really push too far, and that includes a genocide in Novorussia, an attack on Crimea or an attack on Russian forces, Russia will go to war, Putin or no Putin. And Putin knows that. His real base of support is not the Russian elites (who mostly fear him), but the Russian people (with whom his current rating are higher than ever before). And Putin himself openly spoke about the “threats to Russian sovereignty” though he did add that because of the Russian nuclear forces, there was, in his opinion, no immediate threat to Russian territory.

If the US decides to play a game of chicken with Russia, then it will do the same thing as a car driver playing a game of chicken against an incoming train: regardless of the train’s driver, the train is on tracks and its momentum is too great: it cannot stop or veer away.

The problem is that the USA has a long record of making absolutely irresponsible statements which end up putting them into a corner from which they cannot bulge without losing face. Just look at the MH17 disaster: the Obama administration immediately rushed to blame the Russians for it, but what will it do when the evidence to the contrary comes out? What if Obama also draws a red line somewhere (it does not really matter where) and then forces Russia to cross it?

Sadly, I can imagine the USA declaring that the US/NATO will defend the Ukie airspace. I think that they are dumb enough to try to seize a Russian ship entering or leaving the Black Sea.

Remember – these are the folks who hijacked the aircraft of Bolivian President Evo Morales to try to find Snowden on board. These are the folks who regularly kidnap Russian citizens worldwide (the last time the son of a well-know Russian member of Parliament who was kidnapped in the Maldive Islands). And, of course, these are the folks who did 9/11.

Their arrogance knows no limits because they are profoundly evil sociopaths. For them, the organization of false flag operations is a normal standard procedure. They almost triggered a war between the DPRK and South Korea by sinking a South Korean military vessel. They used chemical weapons in Syria not once, but several times. And the last time we had a Democrat in the White House, he was crazy enough to send two US Aircraft Carrier Groups into the Strait of Taiwan to threaten China.

My Biggest Fears

This is my biggest fear: some kind of desperate “Hail Mary” maneuver in which the US will try to convince Russia that “look, we are crazy enough to start this thing, so you better back off” not realizing that Russia cannot back off. The other thing which really scares me is that during the Cuban Missile Crisis everybody was aware of the stakes, and most people were truly terrified. Now, thanks to the propaganda of the corporate media, almost nobody is afraid and hardly anybody is paying attention. Russia and the USA are on a clear collision course and nobody cares! How come?

Because if 9/11 proved anything, it is that there are things which most people are simply unwilling to contemplate, no matter how close and real they are. It would only make sense that the Empire of Illusion would be populated by a people in total denial. After all, illusion and denial usually go hand in hand.

Most of you, dear readers and friends, seem to be sharing with me a sense of total distrust in the sanity of our leaders. When I asked you whether you believed that the US/NATO were crazy enough to use military forces against Russia, an overwhelming number of you answered “yes,” and a good part of you were even emphatically sure of that. Why? Because we all know how crazy and deluded our Imperial Overlords are. Crazy and deluded enough not to quality as “rational actor”? Crazy and deluded enough to play a game a chicken with a train? Crazy and deluded enough to risk the planet on “Hail Mary? Alas, I think that this is a very real possibility.

But What Does Uncle Sam Really Want?

There is a gradual realization in Russia that for Uncle Sam this is not about the Ukraine. It is about Russia and specifically about regime change in Russia. A vast majority of Russian experts seem to believe that the US wants to overthrow Putin and that this entire war in the Ukraine is a means to achieve that. As a very cynical joke going around now says “Obama is willing to fight Putin down to the very last Ukrainian”. I think that this is correct. The US hopes that one of the following will happen:

  1. A Russian military intervention in Novorussia which will allow the US to restart a Cold War v2 on steroids and which will also fully re-enslave Europe to the USA. Putin would then be blamed for falling in the US trap.
  2. The creation of a US-run “Banderastan” in the Ukraine. That would ‘contain’ and destabilize Russia. Again, Putin would be blamed for letting that happen.
  3. A “nationalist Maidan” in Russia: this is what is behind the current Putin-bashing campaign in the blogosphere: to paint Putin as a weak and/or corrupt man, who traded Crimea for the Donbass (you know the tune – these folks even comment on this blog). These efforts are supported and sometimes even financed by Russian oligarchs who have a great deal of money involved in the EU and don’t need the current tensions. Here Putin would be blamed for not doing enough.

In all three cases, Putin would risk a (patriotically) color coded revolution which would, inevitably, bring either crazy rogue or a clueless fossil to power (a la Zhirinovsky or Zuganov) or, much better, a pro-American “liberal” (a la Medvedev). I think that all of these plans will fail.

Putin will not give Uncle Sam the intervention he wants. Instead, Russia continue to support the Resistance in Novorussia until Banderastan goes “belly up”, i.e. for another 30-60 days or so. As for the “nationalist Maidan”, the Russian people see straight through this “black PR campaign” and their support for Putin is higher than it ever was. It’s not Putin who does not want to intervene overtly in the Donbass, it is the Russian people. The attempts at stirring up anti-Putin by first stirring up anti-Strelkov feelings have completely failed and, in fact, they have backfired. A lot of these “hurray-patriots” are now overly called “useful idiots” for the CIA or even provocateurs.

Finally, while they are at this point in time only rumors, there seem to be more and more specialists of the opinion that MH17 was a deliberate false flag by the US. If the news that the Ukies did it ever becomes public, then the entire destabilization plan will go down the tubes. At this point, I would not put anything, no matter how crazy, past the US Deep State.

And that is a very scary thought.

The Saker


Filed under Asia, China, Cold War, Democrats, Eurasia, Europe, Geopolitics, Government, History, Imperialism, Journalism, Liberalism, Middle East, Military Doctrine, NE Asia, Nuclear Weapons, Obama, Poland, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Russia, South Korea, Syria, Ukraine, US Politics, USA, War

A Brief History of the Neoconservatives

Jason Y writes:

How does this relate to the neocons, as some have said they had Trotskyite roots? I always had a hard time understanding this. I mean, how could W. Bush, the furthest thing from a leftist or communist you can think of, could be in with communists?

I am not sure. Many of the Trots were Jewish. For whatever reason, many Trots turned into neocons. They began turning away from Communism with the revelations about Stalin and Stalinism, including Khrushchev’s secret speech.

A lot of them simply left Communism and formed the anti-Communist Left, or became anti-Communist liberals like my later father. The CIA set up a number of organizations and journals to work out of starting in the 1950’s. One was called the Congress for Cultural Freedom.

It was during the 6-Day War that many really turned against the Left. As I said, most were Jews, and Jews the world over who had never cared much about Israel rallied round the Israeli flag in 1967. This was the start of this group’s big break with the Left.

The Vietnam War was going on too at this time, and many of this group were pro-war. They were sickened by the pro-Viet Cong and what they saw as anti-patriotic attitudes of the antiwar crowd. Many of this crowd were older conservative Jewish guys, and they were disgusted and sickened by the counterculture, especially by the fact that many of its leaders were Jewish, which they saw as bringing shame on the Jews.

This group began to merge with Jewish conservatives who had always been around but had not been very common. This goes back to the time when Jews first came here and many were poor and living as renters. Many of their landlords were rich Jews. A lot of these poor Jewish renters became leftwingers and specialized in taking their Jewish slumlords to court all the time. This caused a major split in Jewish society and the Jewish landlords saw the Jewish leftwing tenants as some sort of treasonous
“enemies of the people.”

This group nevertheless stayed with the Democratic Party, but they had started to become the rightwing of the Democratic Party. In the 1970’s, they began to congregate around Henry “Scoop” Jackson’s office. Jackson was known as “the Senator from Boeing” and he was widely known as a super hawk. He strongly supported Israel and the Vietnam War. Support for Israel and the Vietnam War became intertwined in this crowd.

In the 1970’s, some early proto-neoconservative publications came out, mostly published by Jewish rightwing Democrats.

When the Reagan Administration came around, many of these proto-neocons got jobs in the Reagan Administration. Most of them specialized in Cold War politics where they become wild, crazed, fanatical Cold Warriors. Particular focus was on ramping up military spending and opposing nuclear arms reduction.

They made alliances with such characters as Frank Gaffney, a wild-eyed Cold Warrior. This was the trajectory of characters like Richard Perle who cut their teeth as Cold Warriors under Reagan. Paul Nitze was another proto-neocon from this era. Jean Kirkpatrick can also be seen as a proto-neocon. Really Reagan’s foreign policy was already a neocon activist foreign policy as we supported fascists and mass murderers the world over in the name of opposing the USSR.

I am not quite sure what happened to the neocons during the 1990’s. I think they may have formed a lot of their classic neocon organizations. Some of them worked closely with Israel’s rightwing government during this period.

With Bush’s selection and theft of the election in 2000, many neocons ascended into power. After 9-11, they gained a lot of prominence.

Both Trotskyites and neocons could be seen as radical revolutionaries. Generally conservatives are supposed to be cautious folks. The Trotskyite plan was always “world revolution.” Since socialism in one country was not possible, Communist revolutions the world over would have to be sparked in order to ensure that large states like the USSR could succeed. The neocons are also wild revolutionaries like the neocons and they also believe in a sort of world revolution involving attacking and undermining their enemies all over the world and instituting regime change in many enemies of the US.


Filed under Capitalism, Cold War, Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Jews, Left, Marxism, Middle East, Military Doctrine, Neoconservatism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Republicans, Revolution, Trotskidiots, US Politics, USSR, Vietnam War, War

Robert Stark Interviews John Robb on Open Source Warfare

Interview here.

Topics include:

  • John Robb’s book Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization
  • The Four Generations of Warfare theory
  • How Open Source Warfare became predominant when nuclear weapons deterred conflicts between major nations
  • How decentralization is the asset of non state actors such as ISIS
  • Why John does not view ISIS as a proxy for nations such as Saudi Arabia
  • How ISIS got its start during the Syrian conflict
  • His prediction that we will never win in Iraq
  • Hamas and Hezbollah
  • How an open source movement is not an  organized organization
  • iWarfare
  • Why it’s inevitable that Open Source Warfare will spread will spread to the West due to economic stagnation
  • How an economy based on financial institutions is unsustainable
  • How a managerial economy is a zero sum game
  • Why education and healthcare costs have gone up is because of an increase in loans
  • How the FDA shut down the 23andme website which does genetic testing and could of revolutionized medicine
  • The commercial use of drones
  • Edward Snowden

Leave a comment

Filed under Economics, Education, Health, Iraq, Medicine, Middle East, Military Doctrine, Nuclear Weapons, Regional, Syria, Terrorism, War

Resolved: The Deep State Killed JFK

Case is laid out here.

Feel free to debate. Open forum for JFK assassination theory.


Filed under Americas, Caribbean, Cold War, Conspiracies, Cuba, Democrats, Government, History, Latin America, Military Doctrine, Nuclear Weapons, Politics, Regional, The Americas, US, US Politics, USA, USSR, Vietnam War, War

Short Primer on the Foreign Policy of the West

Who controls the foreign policy of the West, or certainly the Anglosphere? In a broad sense, the United States.

Who controls US foreign policy? The Foreign Policy Elite.

What is the US Foreign Policy Elite? Let us call it the Deep State.

Does the Deep State control American politics? Yes.

What happens when a President defies the Deep State? He is killed. They give him the “Kennedy Treatment.” The “Kennedy Treatment” is a warning to any Presidents who defy the Deep State.

How does the US media figure into this? The media is controlled by the Deep State. Many US reporters actually work for the CIA. The foreign policy views of the US media are the views of the Deep State.

Is the US media a controlled propaganda system? In terms of foreign policy, it is. The US media is not that different from the Soviet Union when you had many papers, magazines, TV and radio stations all saying the same thing.

Is there is a dissident or opposition press in the US? Since all major US media is controlled by the Deep State, the answer is no. An opposition press exists, but they do not control any large US papers or newsmagazines and they do not run any large US TV or radio news shows. US opposition press is relegated to the margins. One has to actively seek it out and often spend money to partake of it, and most folks don’t bother. For all intents and purposes, the US opposition is worthless since it is impotent and irrelevant.

Who controls the foreign policy of both the Democratic and Republican Parties? The Deep State.

Is there divergence of opinion in the Deep State? Not really. The goals are same among all factions; they only differ on the means. They range from somewhat hawkish to extremely hawkish. Two factions are the Neocons and the Realists (the Old School). They do not differ as much as you think, mostly in means, not ends.

Are the owners of large US media part of the Deep State? Yes.

Are most Washington DC stink tanks part of the Deep State? Yes, and their ideological differences are not large.

How does corporate American fit into all of this? In a sense, the Deep State works for the US rich and large corporations. US foreign policy is the foreign policy of the US rich and huge corporations.

What is the Pentagon? The Pentagon is simply the military force of huge corporations, banks and the rich. Those are only people they fight for? Any working class person who signs up for this mercenary army is a fool.

Is the Pentagon part of the Deep State? Yes. Believe it or not, the military is actually one of the saner members of this group. The real crazies in the Deep State are the civilians, not the brass. The neocon chickenhawks are the worst.

How does the US 1% fit into all of this? The 1% actually control the Deep State. US foreign policy is simply the foreign policy of the 1%. The Pentagon is the armed force of the 1%. US foreign policy really boils down to what the 1% want. If the 1% want it, it gets done. In a sense, the Deep State itself is just following orders.


Filed under Conservatism, Democrats, Government, Journalism, Military Doctrine, Neoconservatism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, US Politics, USA