Guest Post: 2014 - A Russian Viewpoint

Tyler Durden's picture

Via The Vineyard Of The Saker blog,

By any measure 2014 has been a truly historic year which saw huge, I would say, even tectonic developments. This year ends in very high instability, and the future looks hard to guess. I don't think that anybody can confidently predict what might happen next year. So what I propose to do today is something far more modest. I want to look into some of the key events of 2014 and think of them as vectors with a specific direction and magnitude. I want to look in which direction a number of key actors (countries) "moved" this year and with what degree of intensity. Then I want to see whether it is likely that they will change course or determination. Then adding up all the "vectors" of these key actors (countries) I want to make a calculation and see what resulting vector we will obtain for the next year. Considering the large number of "unknown unknowns" (to quote Rumsfeld) this exercise will not result in any kind of real prediction, but my hope is that it will prove a useful analytical reference.

The main event and the main actors
A comprehensive analysis of 2014 should include most major countries on the planet, but this would be too complicated and, ultimately, useless. I think that it is indisputable that the main event of 2014 has been the war in the Ukraine. This crisis not only overshadowed the still ongoing Anglo-Zionist attack on Syria, but it pitted the world's only two nuclear superpowers (Russia and the USA) directly against each other. And while some faraway countries did have a minor impact on the Ukrainian crisis, especially the BRICS, I don't think that a detailed discussion of South African or Brazilian politics would contribute much. There is a short list of key actors whose role warrants a full analysis. They are:

  1. The USA
  2. The Ukrainian Junta
  3. The Novorussians (DNR+LNR)
  4. Russia
  5. The EU
  6. NATO
  7. China

I submit that these seven actors account for 99.99% of the events in the Ukraine and that an analysis of the stance of each one of them is crucial.  So let's take them one by one:

1 - The USA

Of all the actors in this crisis, the USA is by far the most consistent and coherent one.  Zbigniew Brzezinski, Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland were very clear about US objectives in the Ukraine:

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Without Ukraine Russia ceases to be empire, while with Ukraine - bought off first and subdued afterwards, it automatically turns into empire…(...)  the new world order under the hegemony of the United States is created against Russia and on the fragments of Russia. Ukraine is the Western outpost to prevent the recreation of the Soviet Union.

Hillary Clinton: There is a move to re-Sovietise the region (...) It’s not going to be called that. It’s going to be called a customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that, (...) But let's make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it.

Victoria Nuland: F**k the EU!

Between the three, these senior US "deep-staters" have clearly and unambiguously defined the primary goal of the USA: to take control of the Ukraine to prevent Russia from becoming a new Soviet Union, regardless of what the EU might have to say about that.  Of course, there were other secondary goals which I listed in June of this year (see here):

As a reminder, what were the US goals in the Ukraine: (in no particular order)

  1. Sever the ties between Russia and the Ukraine
  2. Put a russophobic NATO puppet regime in power in Kiev
  3. Boot the Russians out of Crimea
  4. Turn Crimea into a unsinkable US/NATO aircraft carrier
  5. Create a Cold War v2 in Europe
  6. Further devastate the EU economies
  7. Secure the EU's status as "US protectorate/colony"
  8. Castrate once and for all EU foreign policies
  9. Politically isolate Russia
  10. Maintain the worldwide dominance of the US dollar
  11. Justify huge military/security budgets

I have color-coded objectives these objectives into the following categories:

Achieved - black 
Still possible - too early to call - blue
Compromised - pink
Failed - red

Current "score card": 1 "achieved", 5 "possible, 2 "compromised" and 3 "failed".

Here is how I would re-score the same goals at the end of the year:

  1. Sever the ties between Russia and the Ukraine
  2. Put a russophobic NATO puppet regime in power in Kiev
  3. Boot the Russians out of Crimea
  4. Turn Crimea into a unsinkable US/NATO aircraft carrier
  5. Create a Cold War v2 in Europe
  6. Further devastate the EU economies
  7. Secure the EU's status as "US protectorate/colony"
  8. Castrate once and for all EU foreign policies
  9. Politically isolate Russia
  10. Maintain the worldwide dominance of the US dollar
  11. Justify huge military/security budgets

New score card: 6 "achieved", 1 "possible", 1 "compromised" and 3 "failed"

At first glance, this is a clear success for the USA: from 1 achieved to 6 with the same number of "failed" is very good for such a short period of time.  However, a closer look will reveal something crucial: all the successes of the USA were achieved at the expense of the EU and none against Russia.  Not only that, but the USA has failed in its main goal: to prevent Russia from becoming a superpower, primarily because the US policy was based on a hugely mistaken assumption: that Russia needed the Ukraine to become a superpower again.  This monumental miscalculation also resulted in another very bad fact for the USA: the dollar is still very much threatened, more so than a year ago in fact.

This is so important that I will repeat it again: the AngloZionist Empire predicated its entire Ukrainian strategy on a completely wrong assumption: that Russia "needed" the Ukraine.  Russia does not, and she knows that.  As we shall see later, a lot of the key events of this year are a direct result of this huge miscalculation.

The US is now facing a paradox: "victory" in the Ukraine, "victory" in Europe, but failure to stop a rapidly rising Russia.  Worse, these "victories" came at a very high price which included creating tensions inside the EU, threatening the future of the US shale gas industry, alienating many countries at the UN, being deeply involved with a Nazi regime, becoming the prime suspect in the shooting down of MH17 and paying the costs for an artificially low price of gold.  But the single worst consequence of the US foreign policy in the Ukraine has been the establishment of a joint Russian-Chinese strategic alliance clearly directed against the United States (more about that later).

Can the US stay the course next year?  That is hard to predict but I would say that in terms of direction the US policy will be more of the same.  It is the magnitude (in the sense of will/energy to pursue) of this policy which is dubious.  Traditionally, US policies are typically very intensive in the short term, but lack the staying power to see them through in the long term and there is no reason to believe that this case will be different.  Furthermore, the US foreign policy establishment is probably simply unable to imagine a different approach: the United States do not really have a real foreign policy, rather they issue orders and directives to their vassal states and threats to all others.  Finally, just as some banks are considered "too big to fail" the US policy towards the Ukraine is "too crazy to correct" thus any change of course would result in a major loss of face for an Empire which really cannot afford one more humiliating defeat right now.  Still, when the political and financial costs of this policy become prohibitive, the US might have to consider the option to "declare victory and leave" (a time-honored US practice) and let the EU deal with the mess.  There is also the very real risk of war with Russia which might give some US decision-makers pause.  This is possible, but I am afraid that the US will try to play it's last card and trigger a full-scale war between the Ukraine and Russia.

Why would the US want to do that?  Imagine this:

A full scale war between Russia and the Ukraine

The Ukrainians are told to attack Novorussia again.  This time, they are more numerous, better equipped and their attack is fully supported, if not executed, by American "advisers" and retired US Army officers.  Imagine further that the Ukrainians are given full intelligence support by US/NATO and that their progress is monitored 24/7 by US/NATO commanders who will help them in the conduct of the attack.  Finally, let us assume that the Novorussians are overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude and speed of the attack and that Lugansk and Donetsk are rapidly surrounded.  At this point the Russians will face a stark choice: either to abandon Novorussia to the Nazis or intervene.  The first option would be catastrophic for Putin politically, and it would "solve" nothing: the Ukrainian junta, the US, EU, NATO have all clearly and repeatedly stated that they will never accept the reincorporation of Crimea into Russia.  Furthermore, if the Russians let the Nazis overrun Novorussia, the next logical step for the Ukrainians will be to move south and repeat the very same operation in Crimea at which point Russia will not even have a choice and she will be forced to engage the Ukrainians to defend Crimea.  Thus, if the Russians realize that the Ukrainians will push on no matter what, then Russia would be far better of engaging the Ukrainians over Novorussia then over Crimea.

If the Russians make the call that they have to openly intervene to save the Donbass from the Nazis, the Ukrainians don't stand a chance and everybody knows that.  The Russians would very rapidly defeat the Ukrainian forces.  Such a Russian move would be greeted by a massive media campaign denouncing the Russian "invasion" and Kiev would probably declare the Ukraine at war in which case the combat operations would probably spill over into other parts of the Ukraine or even Russia (the Ukrainians could, for example, try to strike Russians airports around Rostov or in Crimea). Whatever the Ukrainians decide, it is certain that they would have nothing to lose by escalating the situation further.  In military terms, Russia can easily handle whatever the Ukrainians can try to throw at them. However I would not expect the Russians push to Kiev or the Dniper River, even if they could.  They are most likely to do what they did to Saakashvili in 2008: protect the attacked region and only go as far as needed to disarm their enemy (in 2008 Russia could *easily* have occupied all of tiny Georgia, but she ended up withdrawing behind Ossetian and Abkhaz lines).

Such a Russian victory would be a crushing military defeat for Kiev, but not for the USA.  The Americans would have their 'proof' of Russian imperial "aggression" and declare that the EU needs "protection" from the "Russian bear".  The US would finally have the Cold War v2 it wants so badly, the EU politicians would play along, just to terrify their own population, and a "wonderful" arms race and a situation of extreme tension would pit all of Europe against Russia for a long, long time.  Even for the junta in Kiev a military defeat might be a wonderful opportunity to blame it all on Russia and a way to get the population to rally against the "aggressor".  Such a war between Russia and the Ukraine could also justify the introduction of martial law and a massive and vicious crackdown against "Russian agents" (i.e. any opposition) who would be designated as "saboteurs" and responsible for the inevitable Ukrainian defeat.

In the Ukraine and in Russia there is this black-humor joke which says that "the USA will fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian" and this is exactly what might happen as this option offers a lot of major advantages for the USA.  For one thing, it is a win-win proposition: either the Ukrainians re-take Novorussia and then the very same plan can be repeated in Crimea, or they are defeated by Russia, in which case the resulting crisis offers huge benefits for US imperial ambitions.

Now let's look at the options for the Ukrainian junta.

2 - The Ukrainian Junta

For the Nazi regime currently in power things are not going well and unless something changes they are headed for disaster: Crimea is gone, the Donbass is slowly but surely building up its instruments of statehood, the economy is basically dead and the "holes in the dam" harder and harder to plug.  An explosion of popular unrest is inevitable.  Worse, there are exactly *zero* future prospects for the Ukrainian economy and an official default is quasi inevitable.  So what can the junta do?

Here it is crucial to remember that no Ukrainian politician has any real power, not even Poroshenko, Iatseniuk or Turchinov.  The real rulers of the Ukraine are the US ambassador and the Kiev CIA station chief.  These are the people who literally administer the Nazi junta on behalf of the US deep state and its imperial interests.  As for the Ukrainian members of the junta, they all perfectly understand that their future is 100% dependent on being a faithful servant of the AngloZionist Empire.  They all understand that they came to power by means of an completely illegal coup, that the elections they organized this year were a total farce and that they will soon have to use repressive measures against their own population just to stay in power.  Last but not least, these are the folks who not only used chemical munitions, cluster bombs and even ballistic missiles against their own people, but who also send their own armed forces to be slaughtered in useless and criminally irresponsible "surprises" ordered by Poroshenko (the attempt to encircle Novorussia and to cut it off from the Russian border).  We are talking about hardened war criminals here, people with no conscience whatsoever, sociopaths with a total lack of any moral compass.  These are the folks who spoke a "barbecue of insects" in Odessa when 100+ people were tortured to death or burned alive and who giggled about shooting down the wrong place about MH-17 (Kolomoisky video).  In fact, they are currently engaged in a racist hate-campaign.

Check out these posters which were recently shown in Kiev as part of a competition of patriotic posters.  If a picture is worth one thousand words, just glancing at these few will tell you all you need to know about the wordview of the Nazi junta: (note: I translated the meaning of the slogans)

Russians don't get to speak
All together we will stop Russian terrorism
God's speaks through the people's voice
Fuck off Eurasian bastard!
May each slave wake up in a coffin
Getting a Russian passport makes you a Eurasian faggot
Don't pass by - kill!

I have to explain the last one: what you see is a  "Colorado beetle" (Leptinotarsa decemlineata) which has colors similar to the ones seen on the Russian Saint George Ribbon.  In other words, this poster says that if you pass by a Russian you should kill him.  Notice the other themes: the Maidan was God's voice, the Russians are "Eurasians" who are beasts who should have no right, not even the right to speak or live. This is exactly the same propaganda style as used by Hitler against Jews and we all know how this ended (yet again another proof that to refer to the junta as "Nazi" is perfectly justified).

But there is much more then just words to pay attention to.

The Ukrainian budget has finally been adopted by the Rada.  It can be summarized as such: less services, more taxes and everything for the military and security services (3% of the GDP for the former, 2% for the latter).  For a country which is essentially bankrupt this is a huge effort.  Not only that, but the junta has also announced that it will execute another mobilization next year (the 4th one in less than one year!!).  Now ask yourself a basic question: could such a truly titanic effort have been made without some very real expectations of a "return on investment"?  When you see a regime stirring up racial hatred against part of its own population and against a neighboring country while putting all of its tiny and much needed resources towards preparations for war - is that not a surefire sign that a war in imminent?

As a former military analyst myself I can tell you that by now the Russian intelligence community's "indicators and warnings" should be "flashing red" and that in all likelihood Russia is already preparing for war (more about Russia later).  But before we look at the Russian position, we need to look into the situation of Novorussia.

3 - The Novorussians (DNR+LNR)

The Novorussians are finishing the year in which they have achieved an absolutely amazing feat: from literally being *nothing* they spontaneously got together to stand up against the Nazi junta and they prevailed even with the entire Ukrainian military was launched at them.  It is hard to believe that just 12 months ago the Donbass only meekly requested some language rights and some local autonomy or that earlier this year very almost nobody predicted that the Donbass would rise up and defeat the junta's death squads.  And yet this miracle happened.  How much did Russia really help?  I would argue that not that much at all.

Initially, the Russian move to protect Crimea and the subsequent resolution of the Council of the Federation to allow Putin to use military power to protect the Russian minority in the Ukraine definitely played a key role in the first seizure of state buildings in Slaviansk and other town.  Furthermore, Strelkov apparently believed that if he held on long enough the Russian armed forces would come and relieve the exhausted Novorussian militias.  It never happened.

There is no doubt whatsoever that this apparent Russian "zag" left a lot of bad feelings in Novorussia and the theory that the Kremlin is about to "sell out" Novorussia is still discussed not only in the Russian blogosphere, but even on Russian TV (including yesterday on the most famous weekly talk show "Sunday evening with Vladimir Soloviev).  Here is how this version goes:  Putin is inherently weak and tries in vain to appease the West while Russian oligarchs are making a behind the scenes deal with their Ukrainian counterparts.  Truth be told, this version is plausible, even if incorrect.  The Kremlin's policy towards the West sure does look like appeasement while Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs have tried to arrange deals whether with or without the knowledge of the Russian government.

Any model is valid as long as it helps to explain the observed reality and this "Kremlin sells out Novorussia" does explain a lot.  But it fails in many crucial aspects:

  • It fails to explain why following Strelkov's removal the Novorussians went on their highly successful offensive which pushed the Ukrainians as far as Mariupol.
  • It fails to explain the Russian Voentorg.
  • It fails to explain why the Russian government has done nothing to stop the volunteers and supplies coming from Russia.
  • It fails to explain why Russia would provide full informational support for a region and it's leaders if she intended to trade it away.

But most importantly this theory is completely out-of-character if we look not only at what Putin says and writes, but at his entire political career.  Simply put, there is nobody on this planet which has done more to oppose the AngloZionist Empire than Vladimir Putin.  I think that the hysterical and vicious demonization campaign against him in the western media is the best proof of that.  I shall give my own explanation for the Russian zig-zags towards the West and the Ukrainian war in the next section, but so far let's just state that it created a lot of bad blood and anxiety amongst the Novorussians, including several of their field commanders.

For a while we witness the short lived but strong development of a "let's not stop before we win" party.  These are the folks who advocated at the very least liberating Slaviansk and Mariupol and who were absolutely disgusted when Russia clearly ordered the Novorussians to stop and pull back.  This party of what I could also call "let the strength of arms decide" has clearly lost as one after the other the top Novorussian commanders accepted, however bitterly, the Kremlin's demands.  Some gave their strong and total support to Putin (Givi, Motorola, Bezler) while others gave a more reluctant acceptance of the fait accompli (Mozgovoi, Strelkov).

I won't even bother discussing the "shoulda, coulda, woulda" about whether the Novorussians could have freed Mariupol, Slaviansk or other cities.  What is important here is something else: Novorussia and Russia have different priorities, different goals, different interests and if the two sides disagree, the bigger one - Russia - imposes her will.  In other words, the Novorussians simply cannot fight the Nazi death squads and try to politically prevail against Putin in the court of Russian public opinion.  They tried, and they failed.

So what's next?

The sad reality for the Novorussians is that they are stuck in the middle of a much bigger war and that what they see as "their" war is but a minor skirmish for the big players.  Yes, the future of Novorussia is crucial to Russia, but it is not enough.  Russia simply cannot live with a situation where a Ukrainian-Nazi equivalent of ISIS in Iraq remains in power in Kiev, regardless of who is in power in Novorussia (I would argue that neither can Novorussia, but that is an argument I made elsewhere already).  Clearly the Kremlin analysts made the call that while Novorussia should be protected from the Ukrainian Nazis it should not be allowed to fight an open-ended war to free all of Novorussia or, even less so, the entire Ukraine (I happen to agree with this conclusion, but that is immaterial for this discussion).

For a while I was under the impression that Strelkov might become a "spokesman for Novorussia" in Russia, but that clearly did not happen (for whatever reason).  In fact, right now there is no such ambassador or spokesman for Novorussia in Russia, nobody to make the Novorussian case in front of the Russian public opinion.  I don't think that this is a good thing, but that is the reality.

As a result, the Novorussians are basically stuck.  They have to prepare for the almost inevitable Ukrainian assault and pray that they will have the strength to push it back.  Should they fail, they will have no other option than to pray for a Russian intervention which, considering the undeniable Russian zigs-zags in this matter, will not appear certain to all.  This is a bad situation for the Novorussians, but they have no other options.  Putin has successfully imposed his will on the Novorussians and now their future depends on him, for better or for worse.

4 - Russia

So far Russia stands undefeated by the AngloZionist empire, but she is far from having prevailed either.  In fact, Russia is waging a much bigger war or, more accurately, a number of much bigger wars.

First, Russia is trying to survive the attempt by the AngloZionist Empire to economically blockade her.


Second, in order to survive that blockade, Russia is trying to reform her economy to make it less dependent on the export of raw materials, more autonomous and connected to new partners, especially in Asia and Latin America.


Third, Russia is trying to de-fang the Empire by pulling herself out from the dollar and the US/UK controlled international financial system.


Fourth, Russia is trying to prevent the USA from permanently installing a russophobic Nazi regime in power.


Fifth, Russia is preparing for both a major war in the Ukraine and a full scale US/NATO attack on Russia.

It is important to stress here that point #5 does not mean that the Kremlin has come to the conclusion that a full-scale war with the Empire is inevitable.  That only means that the Kremlin has decided that such a war is possible, even if most unlikely.  You think I am exaggerating?

Let me show you two videos.  One a commentary by the most senior journalist in Russia - Dimitri Kiselev - while the other one is a video report shown to President Putin at the end of the year by the Ministry of Defense during a conference on the status of the Russian military and later posted on the Ministry of Defenses' website.

First the political context:

And second, the military's preparations for war:

Combine the two and you will clearly see that a) nobody in Russia has any illusions about what the Empire really wants (submit Russia) or about the tools the Empire is willing to use (full scale war).  And to leave no doubt in anybody's mind, Russia has also revised her 2010 military doctrine to designate NATO expansion eastwards by name as the bigger threat to Russia and to restate that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons if her conventional forces fail to protect her.

When in Mach of this year I wrote that Russia was ready for war I got a lot of replies accusing me of being over-the-top.  Today the writing is all over the wall: Russia does not want war, but she is definitely preparing for it.

I would, however, argue that the biggest threat for Russia is internal, not external.  Nothing is more dangerous for the future of Russia then what I call the "Atlantic Integrationists" and which Putin even called the "5th column".  And make no mistake here, we are not talking about Khodorkovsy in New York or Navalnii in the streets of Moscow.  We are talking about powerful, rich, influential people who for decades (since Gorbachev's times, or even before) have infiltrated all the levels of government and who today are even in the government of Prime Minister Medvedev.  True, these pro-AngloZionist 5th columnists have suffered a series of setbacks and they have been weakened by Putin's relentless assault on their power, but what does "weaker" really mean in our context?  According to Mikhail Khazin the Eurasian Sovereignists and the Atlantic Integrationists are now roughly at 50/50 in terms of power.  That's right, Putin is far from having total control of Russia and he is in fact locked into a war for survival against a formidable foe who will try to capitalize on every setback Russia suffers, especially in her economy.  Putin knows that and he is therefore in a race against time to de-couple Russia from the economic and financial mechanisms which make it possible for the AngloZionists to hurt Russia.

How much does this 5th column account for the apparent zig-zags and apparent appeasement of the West by Russia?

I honestly don't know.  Neither does anybody else who is not a true Kremlin insider.  In some cases, such as the Minsk agreements, I think that this apparent "zag" was an true expression of Russian political goals.  But when I see that Russia is selling coal to the Ukraine on credit (?!) I can only conclude that this is a case of sabotage of Russian national interests.  But we will never know for sure.  All we can do is to accept that Russia is like a ship or aircraft which is generally holding a specific course, but which regularly zig-zags on the way because the folks in the cockpit are fighting for the control of the helm.  In practical terms this means that next year Russia will mostly stay the course.  Why?  Because time is on Russia's side.  For Russia every month, week or day which can delay an overt confrontation with the Ukraine or the West is one day won for preparation internal reform.  It is also one more day for the junta in Kiev to slide down one further notch, for the EU economies to carry the full impact of anti-Russian sanctions and for the US to suffer the political consequences of their arrogant, irresponsible and generally unpopular imperial policies.  

The single most important political development for Russia is the Russian-Chinese Strategic Alliance (RCSA) which fundamentally changes the entire strategic posture of Russia.  I will discuss this tectonic shift in world politics further below, but right now I want to the position of the EU.

5 - The EU

2014 was truly a historical year for the EU marked by the wholesale and abject surrender of the EU political leaders to the United States.  From the EU guaranteed agreement between the opposition and Yanokovich which was broken the very next day, the Victoria Nuland's famous words which were never challenged, to the introduction of sanctions the day after the signing of the Minsk agreement, to the political and economic seppuku against South Stream, to the shameful silence and even collaboration with the murderers of the passengers of MH17 - the EU has proven to all that it is only a spineless colony of the AngloZionist Empire and that the EU and the Ukraine are equally subservient puppets of the United States.  There is no EU to speak of.  It is a US controlled territory whose administration is entrusted to Germany to whose power all the EU nations have bowed.  And in this system, countries such as Poland or Lithuania have a special role: to lead the EU in subservience to the USA.

From the latest statements of Putin and Lavrov it is pretty clear that they fully share Victoria Nulands opinion of the EU which they now seem consider as some kind of "geopolitical Conchita Wurst" not worthy of any respect or credibility.

Truly, the EU and its Eurobureaucratic elites have passed a point of no return.  If in the past they could still pretend like the EU project was making the EU stronger and that in maintained the sovereignty of its member, now this kind of statement will only be met with a disgusted laughter.  As a system the EU has committed suicide and nothing can be further expected of it until it collapses.  The riots which have taken place in almost every country of western Europe are a clear sign that most Europeans are either fed-up or desperate or both.  In a way, we could say that the EU is run by a Soviet-style nomenklatura which lives in complete detachment from the rest of the European people in a kind of US-built ivory tower high above the common people.  Exactly the kind of situation which results in bloody uprisings and revolutions.  I am personally convinced that an explosion of anger could happen anytime, especially in the EU countries bordering the Mediterranean.  But unlike the Russians, the Europeans prefer their revolution in the warm weather.  So maybe next summer?

6 -NATO 

The Russians have now officially declared that the NATO expansion into the east was the biggest threat for Russia. And yet I will make the case that NATO is a paper tiger, at least in military terms and that NATO simply does not have what it takes to attack Russia (for my reasons for stating that, please see here).  I recently explained that on the blog, and I think that it is worth repeating this once more today:

One more thing: the Russians are most definitely upset about the very aggressive NATO stance because they - correctly - interpret it as a sign of hostility. But, contrary to what a lot of bloggers say, the Russians have no fear of the military threat posed by NATO. Their reaction to the latest NATO moves (new bases and personnel in Central Europe, more spending, etc.) is to denounce it as provocative, but Russian officials all insist that Russia can handle the military threat. As one Russian deputy said "5 rapid reaction diversionary groups is a problem we can solve with one missile". A simplistic but basically correct formula. Putin said the very same thing when he clearly spelled out that in case of a massive conventional attack by "anybody" Russia would engage tactical nukes. In fact, if NATO goes ahead with its stupid plan to deploy forces in Poland and/or the Baltics I expect Russia with withdraw from the IRNF Treaty and deploy advanced successors to the famous RSD-10 (SS-20). As I mentioned before, the decision to double the size of the Russian Airborne Forces and to upgrade the elite 45th Special Designation Airborne Regiment to full brigade-size has already been taken anyway. You could say that Russia preempted the creation of the 10'000 strong NATO force by bringing her own mobile (airborne) forces from 36'000 to 72'000.

This is typical Putin.  While NATO announces with fanfare and fireworks that NATO will create a special rapid reaction "spearhead" force of 10'000, Putin quietly doubles the size of the Russian Airborne Forces to 72'000.  And, believe me, the battle hardened Russian Airborne Forces are a vastly more capable fighting force then the hedonistic and demotivated multi-national (28 countries) Euroforce of 5'000 NATO is struggling hard to put together.  The US commanders fully understand that, and they also know that the real purpose of NATO is not to attack Russia, but to maintain the US control over Europe.  As early as in 1949 the first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, candidly admitted that NATO's true goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down" (notice that in the typical russophobic way of the western elites, Russians are considered as the source of the threat even though in 1949 a Georgian was at the helm of the Soviet Union and that Russians had paid a much higher price in repressions then the non-Russian ethnic groups).

Little has changed since, except that with the "Soviet threat" gone NATO had to scramble to find a justification for itself and that it now wants to find it in the "need to protect European democracy from the resurgent Russian Bear".  In other words, the ideal situation for NATO is a crisis just one notch below a full-scale war.  In case of a real, shooting, war against Russia NATO will be crushed, but as long as NATO can *pretend* it is defending Europe against Russia it is justifying its existence.  Hence the silly hunts for Russian ghost submarines, the "interception" of Russian aircraft in international airspace and the constant stream of dramatic statements that NATO will never allow Russia to attack Poland or Lithuania (as if Russia wanted to do that in the first place!).

NATO will continue doing exactly that: pretend like Russia was going to attack Moldova next and that NATO must prevent that.  The flow of incendiary and even frankly irresponsible statements will continue, NATO official will continue to deliver stark warnings to Russia with all the required gravitas and the Empire's corporate media will report them as if they had a factual connection to reality.  Keeping the Russians out, the German down and the Americans in will be an easy mission since the Russians don't want in, the Germans have totally surrendered along the rest of Europe, and the Americans are already fully in charge.

7 - China

It is amazing for me to see that most observers and analysts have apparently failed to realize that China is now a key actor in the Ukrainian war.  Anybody doubting this claim should read the Vineyard of the Saker White Paper written by Larchmonter 445 entitled The Russia-China Double Helix.  To make a long story short, China and Russia have decided to keep their own "hands" (their armed forces) and their own "heads" (their political leadership) but to share a common "torso" (their economies, natural and human resources, their industrial and technological know-how and everything else which allows a society to prosper).  I call this the Russia-China Strategic Alliance (RCSA) but really it is something even bigger then that - it is a long term decision to share a common fate and to take the risk to become inseparable.  An alliance, a treaty, can be broken or withdrawn from.  But once your "internal organs" are shared with another entity you are bound together, for better or for worse.  What has happened is truly a tectonic geopolitical shift: two empires have decided to join together while remaining sovereign and independent.  To my knowledge this has never happened in history and Putin and Xi have already changed the course of history by this monumental decision.

The two countries are ideal symbionts: everything one has the other needs and vice versa.  China needs Russian raw materials, especially energy, Russian high technology (aerospace, engines, power plants, etc.) and Russian armaments (everything from the rifle bullet to the ICBM).  Russia needs two things from China: money and "Walmart" (consumer goods).  Together these two giants not only have immense currency resources but the biggest stash of physical gold on the planet.  And, to make things even better, Russia and China are the undisputed leaders of BRICS and SCO.  Taken together these two countries are already far more powerful than the AngloZionist Empire and that trend will only grow.

A Russian, a Russian Asian and a Chinese solider

Of course, China will not intervene militarily in the Ukraine.  Remember - each country keeps its own "hands" so long as the other is not directly threatened.  But in the Pacific Russian and Chinese navies are already training together and even creating joint command centers.

In the Ukraine, China still play a crucial role by providing Russia will all the economic aid needed to overcome the western sanctions and restructure the Russian economy.  The Chinese have now officially declared that.  It is both ironic and beautiful that after decades of Russian fears that China might try to conquer Siberia (even Solzhenitsyn shared these fears) Putin and Xi have found a much more intelligent solution - Russia will sell Siberia's riches to China while China will protect Russia from the West.  Again, this is truly a historic development whose importance cannot be overstated.


*  *  *
Adding up all these vectors

So let's add it all up now.

In summary:

The USA now has no other option then to press on their assault on Russia because what is at stake is quite literally the future of the AngloZionist Empire and, therefore, the future of our planet.  China uniting with Russia is definitely bad news, but it is too late for the USA to back down now or even to change course.  The Americans probably realize that they have fired their best shots already and that the Ukrainian junta is in deep trouble and that the collapse of their Nazi "Banderastan" is just a matter of time.  In other words, the Empire is now in a "use them or lose them" situation and "fighting Russia down to the last Ukrainian" is now the best option for the US 1%ers.


The Ukrainian Junta members are basically in the same situation as the USA: they must realize that their days are numbered and that their best chance is to do the US bidding and trigger a huge crisis.


The Novorussians are stuck: they have to do whatever the Kremlin wants them to do, hope for the best, prepare for the worst and courageously face anything in the middle.


Russia needs to avoid an open confrontation with the West for as long as possible.


The EU will remain as irrelevant and pathetic as ever.


NATO will play a dangerous game of brinkmanship trying to create as much tensions as possible without triggering an actual conflict.


China will do whatever it takes to protect Russia from the economic war waged against her.


From the above I conclude that unless some major development substantially alters the current dynamic the resulting vector clearly points at the inevitability of a full-scale war between Russia and the Ukraine along the scenario outlined above ("A full scale war between Russia and the Ukraine").  There is no reason whatsoever to expect the US, the Nazi junta, NATO or the EU to begin acting in a responsible or constructive manner.  For these reasons, Russia will be alone in trying to avoid an intervention the Donbass and the inevitable war with the Ukraine following it.  The best way for Russia to achieve this goal is to arm Novorussia to the teeth, to provide much more humanitarian support then now, to try re-launch as much of the Novorussian economy as possible (preferably by investments and contracts, not just grants) and generally help to make Novorussia as viable as possible under the current conditions.  If the Novorussian could repeat their amazing feat once more and repel or, even better, deter the future Ukrainian attack this would be a crushing defeat not only for the junta in Kiev, but also for all its supporters in the AngloZionist Empire.  The "equation" is simple: if Novorussia can stand up to the Ukrainians and Russia is not forced to intervene the Nazi regime in Kiev is finished along with the entire Neocon plan against Russia.  If Russia is forced to intervene, Novorussia will be saved and the junta finished, but the Neocons plan will have succeeded and Russia will suffer a major geostrategic setback

Russia desperately needs more time and I expect the Russian diplomacy to try every possible delaying tactic imaginable to buy as much time as possible before the inevitable Ukrainian attack on Novorussia.  I am even willing to consider that the recent sale (really, a gift) of coal to Kiev might be such a delaying tactic, I don't know.  What is clear for me that most of these delaying tactics will look like "appeasement" to the external observer and that, in the end, our perception of these moves will depend on our assumptions and, basically, our take on the person of Vladimir Putin.  I might be wrong, but I personally trust him and short of very strong evidence I will never believe that he will "sell out" Novorussia or anybody else in the Ukraine.  Not only do I believe that he is way too smart to do such a stupid and self-defeating thing, but I have also come to the conclusion that he is a highly principled person who will never betray the people he took an oath to defend.

My very tentative "guesstimates" for 2015:

2014 has been a historic year and so will be 2015, if only because 2014 set a great deal of things in motion, but resolved none of them.  I have come to the conclusion that there is a 80% chance of a massive Ukrainian attack on Novorussia next year, probably in the first part of the year.  My best guesstimate is that Novorussia will probably be able to beat back this attack, albeit with great effort and big losses.  The Russian economy will continue to suffer and appear to be sinking for the next six months or so at which point it will gradually start reversing that trend.  The EU economy will enter into full and deep recession resulting in widespread social unrest.  As for the USA, they probably will be able to pretend like nothing big, not big disaster, is happening, if only thanks to the money printing machine and the best propaganda machine in history.  What the US will be unable to do is to prevent the gradual but inexorable de-dollarization of more and more of the world economy, lead by China and Russia.  The true and final collapse of the AngloZionist Empire is inevitable, but not for the next couple of years.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
CTG_Sweden's picture



conscious being:


“Hey CTG-Sweden-Tel-Aviv, China is next and they know this. [- - -]”




My comments:


But they don´t seem to prepare for that. Instead they build railways in the Balkans in order to facilitate even more exports to Europe.

If they really think that there is a risk for drastically increased tariffs or import duties for the cheap junk they sell to Europe and North America I reckon that they should try to substitute things they now buy from Europe and North America, such as aircraft, with domestically produced goods.


conscious being's picture

CTG_Sweden - don't play dumb. Next in the sense that if Russia is decapitated and reverts to a zionist colony, China, Chinese leadership knows that they are the inevitable next target. We are not talking about exporting junk. We are talking about war and conquest by the zino-anglo axis. Exporting junk is not germain. Preparing to defend sovereignty, likely nuclear war is what the zino franchise is pushing the world into. Sweden is likely to get seriously fucked up in such a scenario, so wake up and do what you can to get Sweden out of the zino camp ASAP, that is, assuming you are really a Swede.

messystateofaffairs's picture

Shouldn't that be the ZionistAnglo empire since its the Zio's who call the shots? They are a cute couple though, kind of like Pinky and the Brain.

TeraByte's picture

Should the blogger wish to make a statement by his message, he should avoid presenting it in a style of good old Pravda cold war semantics. This totally undermines credibility regardless of a weight of the content. I don´t have problems of analysing global events from contradicting different angles, but wrapping the message to the political liturgy turns on a red warning sign as the Bloomberg´s Bershidsky does.

CTG_Sweden's picture





"Should the blogger wish to make a statement by his message, he should avoid presenting it in a style of good old Pravda cold war semantics. This totally undermines credibility regardless of a weight of the content. [- - -]"



My comments:


The average media consumer in Western Europe would probably consider “The Vineyard Of The Saker” as an anti-Semitic nut case and would probably also think that is more likely that he is Nazi than the current Ukrainian government.

It is true that some soccer hooligan style Nazis are fighting for the Ukrainian government in Eastern Ukraine. Western media are also unwilling to inform their viewers/readers about that (because that would make Russia´s position stand out as more legitimate). But the current Ukrainian government is definitely not a Nazi government.




consider me gone's picture

Damn, there sure are some crazy MFs on this board. I am none too proud of the USSA these days, but to cry a river over the F'in Russians. WTF? Ya'll are f'n tools.

livefreediefree's picture

You know what hell is? Infinite dimension X-ray mirrors, half of which are perfectly reflective, and half of which portray the life and thoughts of the perceiver.

consider me gone's picture

Well this perceiver knows pseudointellectual bs when he hears or reads it. 

livefreediefree's picture

Somewhat astute, except you didn't account for the subtle, perhaps even obscure, wryness factor.

layman_please's picture

it's called propaganda, and clearly US is not the master of this art, anymore. i have provided numerous links to news covering both US and RF military astroturfing procurements, but somehow zh'ers can't accept the possibility, that one side is not using propaganda.

btw, propaganda, most often, is not lies. it's truths in a controlled context. the difference here is, that appart from west, russia can build their case using only truth, but that doesn't make them the good guys.

edit: found the comments if there are still some inquiring minds left. fyi, i have covered both sides, so don't waste your time blaming me being biased here.

4640992 (page 2)

4659399 (page 3)

conscious being's picture

You have a beef with the Truth? This is nonsense.

"russia can build their case using only truth, but that doesn't make them the good guys."

The only way they can build their case by telling the truth is by being "the good guys". Let me help you out here. If they are telling the truth AND building their case, as a result, they are "the good guys". You might not know this, and given the zino induced moral destruction of America, maybe you are not solely to blame, but that's basicly the definition of "the good guys". They build their case by telling the truth. If for example they are telling the truth and their actions are unjust, they would not be "building their case".

I hope this helps you out. Happy New Year.

layman_please's picture

i have no problem with the truth. but the truth is only half of the story. by pointing finger on somebody's wrongdoings, doesn't mean that they don't have a long history of corruption, aggression and imperial ambition, and these characteristics don't disappear overnight. i know that ukrainian crises was probably initiated by the US deep state, but this gives the RF the possibility to answer with the same.

i know these accusations are unpopular on this board, but this is the experience of a small country next to russia where i come from. we are, actually, so small of a country, that russia doesn't even consider us as a partner, and only policy from their side is provocation, especially targeting the large russian minority as a residue of the soviet occupation. estonia has never been a threat to russia, and even if russia doesn't have any issues with us, they just can't leave us to our devices, due to the location, even if they would like to. you really can't blame us for joining NATO after half a century of soviet hell. what other choice do we have? i'm well aware we have become the pawns in the geo-political game between west and east, but again, we cannot ignore the first hand experience of our history, that would be more than stupid. to stay neutral as finland, sweden, or norway, is just out of the question. we managed to defeat russia once, but that was 1918, as nowadays the advancements in military technology render any defensive attempts we might try, fruitless.

i hope this explains my position, or the predicament, to be more precise, why i have no trust in russian government. to tell you the truth, i don't trust any government on earth, especially our own. to do otherwise, is to fall victim to the state propaganda.

why would any sane person trust a party (government, not a political party), who is no equal partner to you, the citizen, with any governance, as they come from a position of power (the barrel of a gun), and will never respect you, as an individual with any rights or liberties, if you are not willing to die for them first? it's just insane to place your life in the hands of somebody/something, over which you have no control of. and i, silly me, cherished the hope that zh will be the place where this childish notion will not be fostered and perpetuated. until came ukrainian crises.

happy new year to you, too!

conscious being's picture

Why can't you/ Estonia do what Finland does? Russia wanted a decentralized, neutral Ukraine. Why is that so bad for you? By embracing NATO/ZATO the now obvious, sworn enemy of Russia, you are obviously provoking your neighbor. Yes or no? Why is that smart? NATO/ZATO is constantly provoking Russia in their attempt to turn Russia back into a colony they can pillage for resources. Why do you want to join in on that? How do you think the Russians feel about you joining up with a group that's out to destroy them?

I understand you might be concerned about the consequences of your state's actions, but why did your state put your state in the cross-hairs? Typically, these things happen when the banking cabal buys off, threatens or blackmails the leadership. Maybe you should be angry with your leaders?

I appreciate your post. I take your point about governments in general, except that one of the legitimate things a national government is supposed to do is organize the collective defense against an aggressor. Right now, the Russian Federation seems to be doing a pretty good job of this. Maybe you can think about some of these questions.

Last but not least, it was, I believe, the Estonian ambassador to Ukraine who called Cathrine Ashdown, the EU Human Rights Commisioner regarding the sniper shootings in the Maidan that hit and killed both police and protesters to enflame both sides. Asdown, being a good zino-toady promptly burried the whole thing. Aren't you concerned about being joined at the hip to such evil fucks? How can that be a good thing for you?

Happy New Year.

layman_please's picture

thanks for the reply. 

estonia has been battleground or occupied the last 800 years. ethnic estonians are less than one million in population. we could never stand a change to be independent competitive military force against russia, or against any other major foreign threat.

i guess for you it's difficult to imagine russia as a military threat, but we just can't ignore the history. the atrocities soviet union was responsible in our land and to our people, is something one could never forget, even if one would wish that. and if you take russian statesman like zhirinovsky, who publicly threatens total annihilation of baltic states, how can you assume we could remain neutral? i'm totally aware the tool NATO is, but for most estonians, it's a godsend. the reason to join NATO was obviously not to provoke russia, but to align the country to the west. it was calculated risk we were willing to take. 

it would be a mistake to expect that world is more civilized, and we could live peacefully side by side. it's not, especially in the light of recent events in ukraine. and we both know who is responsible for this.

i don't want to comment the collective defence issue, because this is one of the main self justifications governments always give. they are all in it together, if you ask me.

sorry if i was repeating myself. i'm not expecting you to agree with me, i just hope you understand my predicament.


KashNCarry's picture

WWIII was fought with nuclear weapons...WW IV with rocks and sticks...

Element's picture



So Russia doesn't need Ukraine? Really?


Crimea is south eastern Ukraine.

Donbass is eastern Ukraine.


It's not that hard to face basic facts ... if you want to ... harder not to actually, you have to lie to yourself quite a lot to pretend Crimea and Donbass are not the integral internationally recognized territory of a sovereign UN recognized state of Ukraine.

And no, a foreign power does not get to ruthlessly invade another state to change internationally recognize borders in this way and expect to just get away with it while pretending it's something else entirely that's occurred and shit-talking about sacred-sites and nuclear weapons, blah, blah, crap, crap, etc., etc.

So yes deniers, you do indeed want to take Ukraine, you just deny it's Ukraine! And such shallow dishonest fools have destabilized, militarized and commenced combat in Ukraine and invaded it with hostile forces supported materially and politically by Moscow.


Go ahead, deny it, and play absurd word-games, seek another way to hide from reality, who cares what you idiots do.

But everyone else can see that Russia is attacking and attempting to carve-off eastern and south eastern Ukraine. i.e. the very reason why most Ukrainians have consistently wanted to get closer to NATO for protection, since the Soviets collapsed. They strongly suspected this time would come where Russia would try to take Ukraine and put it in its imperial pocket. They knew what the Russian attitude would be to Ukraine, and what beligerent bullshit the Russians would spew out and make up a preferred fantasy that they then acted on with force.


So Russians are totally to blame for that being the case, and not just with one neighbour, but pretty much all of them.


Why is it so?


I recommend you have a read of Merkel's post G20 speech regarding German policy towards Russian territorial aggression, and also her 2015 New Year's eve speech for relevant commentary about future German State policy toward Russia.


"Nevertheless, we’ve seen that even in Europe there are still forces which refuse to accept the concept of mutual respect or the settlement of conflicts using democratic and rule-of-law means, which believe in the supposed law of the strong and disregard the strength of the law. That’s exactly what happened when Russia flouted international law and annexed Crimea at the start of the year. Russia is violating the territorial integrity and the sovereignty of Ukraine. It regards one of its neighbours, Ukraine, as part of a sphere of influence. After the horrors of two world wars and the end of the Cold War, this calls the entire European peaceful order into question. Russia is now seeking to exert influence in order to destabilise eastern Ukraine in Donetsk and Luhansk. /.../


And I ask you: who would have thought that, 25 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, after the end of the Cold War and the end of the division of Europe and the world into two blocs, something like this could happen in the heart of Europe? Outdated thinking in terms of spheres of influence which tramples international law underfoot must not be allowed to prevail. I firmly believe that it will not prevail, even though the road may be long, even though it may be arduous and bring with it many setbacks. The approach pursued by the European Union and its partners to overcome the Ukraine crisis serves this aim.


First of all, we are supporting Ukraine both politically and economically. Secondly, we will make every effort to reach a diplomatic solution to the conflict by talking to Russia. Thirdly, we have imposed economic sanctions on Russia on the necessary scale and for the requisite duration. The overriding goal of this approach is to maintain Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, thus enabling it to decide its own future.


I’m very grateful that Australia is supporting this political approach. We decided to adopt this strategy not least against the background of the lessons we learned from history. It took centuries before the peoples and nations of Europe found their way initially to economic and later to close political cooperation. One symbol of this process was the signing of the Rome Treaties 57 years ago. These treaties are based on the conviction that European integration was and remains a question of war and peace. Furthermore, it is the key guarantor that we – with our values, our way of life and of doing business – can hold our own, even in the globalized world of the twenty- first century."


Angela Merkel - 17th Nov 2014


See also


Merkel speaks about Ukraine and Europe's unity in her New Year's address
KYIV, December 31 /Ukrinform/. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said in her New Year's address that the unity of Europe is the key to resolving the Ukrainian crisis.
"We strive to achieve the security in Europe together with Russia, not against Russia," she said, speaking on Wednesday, December 31. But there is also no doubt that "Europe could not and would not accept the purported law of the mightier party, which ignored international laws," Deutsche Welle quoted Merkel as saying.
In response to Moscow's actions against Ukraine Europe is determined not to allow to split itself, Merkel said. According to her, the Europeans are united as never before and are working together to defend their values and the world order.


She's voiced, fairly eloquently, intelligently and diplomatically what Germany and the rest of the Western world are prepared to do about Russia, during this and coming years. This is what most G20 states are prepared to do about Putin's personality-cult based rank populism and promotion of Russian ultra-nationalism, and blatant twisted distortions about what he's been up to in militarizing fifth-columnist activities within neighboring pro-Russian colonies, fermenting combat, then leading to incremental invasion of neighboring States (i.e. to minimize and delay organized Western resistance to what he's doing, not what he's saying).

In other words, various partisans can make their preferred dopey excuses as they wish, but the underlaying reason NATO expanded at all, was that the intervening states of eastern Europe firmly believed and supported the strategic need to protect themselves against future Russian military expansion and empire-building.

Merkel came from East Germany, not the West, she understands the danger to those states of Russia playing geopolitics once again. Well, now that's all become a military and economic reality, No matter what anyone thinks of what Washington, and the IMF, did to bring this mess about. People somehow forgot the role the IMF has played in bringing all this to the current crisis point.

Unless Russia now relents and reverses direction in actual deed, not in words, Russia is going to be ground-down until it begins to act like a peaceful lawful country. If Moscow remains a recalcitrant hold-out, in the vain and foolish hope of prevailing either economically, financially or militarily, Russia is doing to be economically, financially and even possibly militarily reduced to a subsistence level ... again!

This can be fast, and put behind it fairly quickly, or it can be slow and excruciating, as well as bloody and horrible. But one way or another, Moscow is going to be forced to change its tactics, strategy, attitude and behavior.

Make no mistake Russia will be forced, entirely against its will, to capitulate.

Russia is a big power, it is, but it is fragile, if not frangible. But NATO's military power is far larger, far stronger, much more mobile, much more capable, much more developed, much more depth, and very experienced and proficient. And now it's also got a new unified determination which Russian militarist nationalism will not defeat. People expecting Russia to come out on top against a re-unified global front against Putin's military destabilization and adventurism are completely kidding themselves. About 18 months ago Russia had clear diplomatic superiority and cred, which it then totally failed to capitalize on, and instead it did the one thing which was guaranteed to fail, and turn the tables on Moscow in short order - via this very silly self-defeating military-backed territorial expansion.

Frankly, the general collapse in Moscow's influence that has followed since is one of the most spectacular failures of national policy, diplomacy and pending economic and financial rout that I've seen in my life time. I can not think of a single leader who's blown their national position quite so badly as Putin has. Putin has even out-done George W Bush's incredible failure of national policy which saw his last budget deficit top $1.1 trillion before he left office and left the US looking like a global pariah.

What is even more startling is that it was he, the formerly unassailable Vladimir Putin who did this to the Russian people! The guy who played chess, not checkers! Either Putin needs some new strategic advisers or else Russia needs a completely new leadership cohort, because something's gone terribly amiss in the Kremlin. Even Boris Yeltsin could have played this one far better than Vladimir Putin did.

All of the states of eastern Europe are entitled to determine their own protection needs and to make all such alliances as they see fit, and that includes Ukraine. Russia has no say in what any other independent country does, and they'd better come to terms with it.

Personally I don't have a partisan side which I would prefer to 'win', while the other side 'loses' per-sec. I don't give a fig about such puerile levels of partisan nationalistic empire-building shit-think (like double-think, but smellier).

This is what will occur to Russia now, is all, and frankly further sustained militaristic action by Russia would be extremely regrettable, potentially with regard to Moscow's physical existence. Want to play that game again? Really? If so, Russia's going to go down very hard. Which is a terrible waste, because no one even wants that.

The primary problem is Vladimir Putin and cohort are (not unjustifiably in some respects) totally paranoid about NATO, and Eastern Europe is now (justly) also totally paranoid about Putin. The result is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. personally, I think Putin's current more militaristic term and stance has been a catastrophic error and disaster for Russia, and is very far from over, it has just begun, unless Moscow wakes up fast.

Note: I do not deny Washington's meddling in Kiev's coup ferment post 19th Nov 2013 - the US clearly was deeply involved, Washington did do that. The problem is, what Russia then did about it. Moscow could have perhaps got way with annexing Crimea with a popular local vote, if things had remained short of combat. But the support for pro-Putin pro-Moscow pro-Russian Donbass and a military conflict ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEED that all of Moscow's recent gains would be brought to naught. It will be reversed. I've said from the beginning this is an extremely dangerous stand-off because it is definitely going to be protracted and amplify the military confrontation and millions of Russian ethics in Ukraine are definitely going to be slaughtered if this is not defused. However, the very suggestion, at this point, that Russia could (or would) get away with an invasion of Ukraine is so absurd and off with the fairies that it's difficult to imagine who would think that a viable 'option' for the Kremlin in 2015. Literally the whole world will turn against Russia in that case. The Russian military deployed within any part of Ukraine would be attacked and completely wiped-out in a monumental squall of high-tech combat. All the shit-talk coming out of Putin's regarding parts of Ukrainian territory constituting a Russian "sacred-site", will result in the destruction of every Russian military force deployed in the Ukraine, no matter how long it takes to smash them all, including every unit of the Black Sea Fleet. It can not hide and it can not survive and the eastern Mediterranean in that case would be an extremely dangerous place to visit. Getting the picture? No Black Sea Fleet any more. And once gone it will not be able, nor permitted to reconstitute and be built back, any time soon.

How about this for a lark? The cruise missiles and torpedoes, which scurrilously attack you, will all be retired volunteer torpedoes and cruise missiles acting independently, in response to their own patriotic impulses. You understand how it is with volunteer B2 crews dropping JASSM-ER cruise missiles all over the place and accidentally sinking whole fleets at anchor without warning, right? They're such naughty brats, those retired anonymous patriotic bomber crews! Very naughty. And the volunteer sub crews are positively incorrigible, you just can't restrain them from pressing buttons! They must get terribly bored down there with all those pretty buttons and nothing much to do but eye them off curiously. You know how it is, right? But this wouldn't be a NATO attack of course! NATO would never do that, it would just be some individual guys and girls acting on their own. Naughty hot-headed types. Gee, what can you do, eh?
Wake up, it's a game that can be played by many more than one.

anachronism's picture

I respect your passion; and I also believe that you ARE entitled to your own facts about what has happened in Ukraine AND Crimea.

If you connect Russia with images of Stalin, then it is difficult to think of Russia as threatened by US-directed sedition against Russia, nor the decision to position ABMs close to Russia, or grant NATO protections to the Baltics, Poland, and now Ukraine as acts of aggression. It is certain that Merkel of Germany and Tusk of Poland think of of Stalin when they speak of Russia the way they do..

There can be no doubt that many Ukrainians have scarred memories of Stalin's Russia: the famines, the purges, the reprisals, and the forced transfers to Siberian concentration camps. I am sure you know that several hundred thousand Ukrainians fought with Nazi Germany against Russia to the bitter end of WW II, even after the Soviets had pushed the Germans all the way back to Vienna.

But Ukraine, as organized by Stalin and amended by Kruschev, is a nation divided by language, religion, culture, and tradition. To remain a united country, all Ukrainians have to demonstrate a great deal of tolerance and deferrence to regional differences.

But, the "Ukrainian" Ukrainians refused to respect the "Russian" Ukrainians of the southern and eastern regions of their country. This is similar to the situation in Iraq, where Sunnis ruled over Shias and Kurds, and to Yugoslavia, where Serbs ruled over Bosnians and Croats. Iraq is in turmoil and Yugoslavia is dissolved.

Nearly half of the Ukraine speaks Russian as its primary language. Roughly the same percentage are Russian Orthodox Christians. And The Party Of Regions -largely pro-Russian- had recently won a majority of the elections to the Rada and won the Presidency as well. Yet, so great was the visceral hatred of the people of western Ukraine towards all things Russian, that they could not respect democracy and could not abide by the decisions of an elected government.

The riots in Maidan were not inspired by a national popular uprising against a dictatorship. It was a regional rebellion against a popularly elected governemnt, intent on subordinating the eastern and southern regions to the heavy-handed rule of the west. It is the west that has set out to subjugate the east. It is the east that is trying to defend its legitimate civil rights. It is the west that has violated the territorial integrity of the east. The east is not attacking or bombarding the west; it is the other way around.

In 1991, Crimea separated from the USSR first, several months before Ukraine did. The Crimeans preferred to have been treated as a separate state back then; but the much bigger Ukraine forced them to stay part of Ukraine -to which it had been assigned by Kruschev in 1954- along with assurances that it would enjoy substantial autonomy from the rest of Ukraine. The inhabitants of Crimea overwhelmingly consider themselves to be "Russian". That the Crimea swung over to Russia so easily without firing a shot or protesting en masse -a la Maidan- is testament to that "fact".

There is no doubt that the Russians are helping the defenders of the Donbass against the rabid Russophobes from the west. But the Russians have refused to accept these oblasts into the Russian Federation, insisting that they be given autonomy and respect within an Ukrainian Federation. So this charge of "territorial aggression" by Russia is poppycock propaganda; and is blatantly untrue.

Your bigotry can explain your viewpoint on the struggle within Ukraine. But it cannot excuse it.

Element's picture




There is no doubt that the Russians are helping the defenders of the Donbass against the rabid Russophobes from the west. But the Russians have refused to accept these oblasts into the Russian Federation, insisting that they be given autonomy and respect within an Ukrainian Federation. So this charge of "territorial aggression" by Russia is poppycock propaganda; and is blatantly untrue.

Your bigotry can explain your viewpoint on the struggle within Ukraine. But it cannot excuse it.


Well at least you're informed, civil and insult with adeptness.

But South Ossetia was also an autonomous zone, and now 100% beholden to Moscow for its very existence. That is very much a strategic Russian territorial gain and main access route south. It is not at all bigotry which leads me to see the very same thing occurring in this instance, as this how it's being done, piecemeal. It is also opportunistic. But the new territory is reliant of Moscow to exist, at all.

But consider; if Ukraine migrants sliced off a substantial part of Russia, say half of Dagestan, in the same ways and methods, and did the exact same things as we see now, what would you call that?

Tell me, what would the Russian military be doing about it do you think? You know perfectly well what would occur, why and how in that case. It is rediculous to play innocent, it fools no one.


"... But the Russians have refused to accept these oblasts into the Russian Federation, insisting that they be given autonomy and respect within an Ukrainian Federation. ..."


Which would explain all the artillery, mortar and sniper fire lately? It's not enough to be an informed commenter, you also have to be a bit realistic and reality-check your assertion. Moscow insisting the territory remain part of Ukraine, in name only, and supported with arms and Russian policy, is the height of arrogance and a joke at best.


" ... nor the decision to position ABMs close to Russia, ..."


You fellas need to get a little enlightened about this, one of the reasons cited for the ABM system in Europe was/is the development of a Iran 'Muslim' bomb. But what this really referred to was the existing and increasingly deliverable 'Muslim' bomb of Pakistan.

Surely you lot realize the Western world knows with utter certainty that there's no possibility of preventing a concerted strike launched from Russia, on Western targets? The notion that ABMs are going to work against such a missile barrage is bunk. Preliminary EMP pulses to soften up and aid penetration would proceed each incoming strike to degrade power, comms and sensors need for ABMs to be effective. Russia could easily assign 50 weapons for that task, alone, totally overloading any ABM system in minutes.

In other words, only a small strike from a small nuclear power, that's relatively unsophisticated could ever be intercepted with any reasonable expectation for a success. At best it's an untested (in actual nuclear combat condition) safety-net of arguable and dubious utility.

So, who does Moscow think they're fooling with its grandstanding about ABMs? It's a complete non-issue. ABM works for neither side ,in the event a major attack by the other side. That won't change.

The main danger of ABMs and also boost-phase DDG based interceptors close to your coast comes the illusions over time in the young and dumb, who don't actually understand that these missiles won't save them in any real nuclear conflict. In ignorance they may presume AMBs do work, only to discover that they don't work, almost at all. Logically Russia must therefore remind them that ABMs and DDGs can't protect them. A DDG close to your shore for boost phase intercept patrol creates a tension they really shouldn't want to ever exist.

But the real answer to preventing the worst of outcomes is via emptying both strategic arsenals of >5 kt devices so that all remaining weapons are in fact military-yield weapons, and not indiscriminate city-killer yield mass-murder devices (i.e. not valid military weapons, at all). Then humanity would not have to fear unrecoverable wipe-out. One day a miscalculation will occur, and if those arsenals are still full of 300 kt to 3 MT weapons on that day, then its all over.

anachronism's picture

Points well-made. Perhaps we are very near-sighted, observing the same elephant from opposite ends too close to gain a better perspective.

By the way, i apologize for using the word 'bigotry'. 'Bias' would have been a better description.

Element's picture

Not a problem, thanks for your comment.

conscious being's picture

Element - Absurdly long post with a great deal of bs. More than I can respond to, so I'll just address a couple of points. First this -

"...the integral internationally recognized territory of a sovereign UN recognized state of Ukraine." Here's my question to you. What is Kosovo? If you change Ukraine in your rant to Serbia, all the same points apply. Why aren't you all upset about the forced break up of Serbia like you are about Ukraine? Wouldn't be because ZATO instigated the break up of one and [not directly anyways] the other would it? ZATO can break up any country it wants, but nobody else can? Sorry, the precedent has been set some time ago. So unless you are going to start a campaign to reunite Kosovo with Serbia and mess up the heroin transfers from Afghanistan through Kosovo in the process, you are acting like a hypocrate.

Next, you never even touch on the known fact that NATO/ZATO, the CIA, and who knows who else, plotted to and succeeded in overthrowing the legitimately elected, internationally recognized goverment of Ukraine in a coup d'etat. You will say the guy was corrupt. What government is not corrupt these days? If you are going to go around the world over throwing governments because they are corrupt, you are going to be very busy for a long time. You can start with the USA. Simple example, not disputed by anybody. Did you know congress-critters are not subject to insider trading rules that everyone else is subject to? They take full advantage of the opportunity to enrich themselves via this loop hole. Plenty more examples. The point is, the way you are supposed to remove a democraticly elected government is via the ballot box. Isn't that right? Why should this not be the case in Ukraine? Why should the rest of Ukraine be forced to accept the results of this illegal coup?

Element's picture



"...the integral internationally recognized territory of a sovereign UN recognized state of Ukraine." Here's my question to you. What is Kosovo? If you change Ukraine in your rant to Serbia, all the same points apply. Why aren't you all upset about the forced break up of Serbia like you are about Ukraine?

Ridiculous. Yugoslavia broke itself up, Serbia was just one part of the territory of a wider conflict, it was an ethnic and religious civil war, and it was broken up long before NATO ever intervened. It went on for many years before NATO (i.e. the US, not Europe) did anything effective about putting an end to the heavy combat and command and supply elements of Serbia.

No one else put an end to that war, the US did almost all of it, and the Europeans only with considerable foot dragging. No one else was dropping masses of food to civilians caught up in it all, but the US dropped vast quantities of supplies to keep enormous numbers of people alive and healthy. And the US ended that war. Kosovo was one small miserable sideshow that stemmed from and came unstuck in the final break-up phase of Serbia itself. It was not the evil west who warred in Kosovo to break it up, it was an internal civil paramilitary conflict. The West only intervened (for a third time) to finally bring the entire conflict to an end. Thus ended the slaughter, the deprivation, illness and pain of millions of people in the resulting multiple countries that emerged.

War creates instability, which always rolls on for a decade at least every time, and that's why it's a really bad idea. Which is what Russia will be reminded of for at least the next decade, especially those Russians in Eastern Ukraine, because what has happened there will not be allowed to remain, it will be reversed.

"... Next, you never even touch on the known fact that NATO/ZATO, the CIA, and who knows who else, plotted to and succeeded in overthrowing the legitimately elected, internationally recognized goverment of Ukraine in a coup d'etat ..."

You just established you didn't even read my comment, I specifically referred to that above in the note, just as I have on numerous occasions. I've realised I have to keep links to these things for befuddled jerks like you who can't deal with the topic honestly, but always have to try and play this line, when your bullshit get called. 

Here's one from 3.5 weeks ago:

But despite this, turgid chaps like you love to crap on, and on, ... and on, about it as if it makes a difference to now. You seem to think it explains something and everything, that it mollifies with extenuating circumstance, provides a get-out-of-Jail-free card, acts as a multi-purpose fig-leaf for any and all aggressive Russian acts in Ukraine ever since.

No, sorry, it doesn't, even a tiny bit.

TIP: Try developing valid and compelling points. The emotive spasm is juvenile, plus getting basic stuff like reading comprehension wrong makes you sound pissant. Plus that NATO/ZATO thing... how to put it? ... look, do you think you will be taken seriously via writing like a parody of the stereotypical internet fuckwit?