Sunday, June 15, 2014

A scorecard for the US "lukewarm war" on Russia - strategic and tactical levels

First, I have to explain the title: "A scorecard for US war on Russia": what we are witnessing today is beyond any doubt a US war on Russia, except that it that is is neither quite "cold" nor "hot": it's tepid, lukewarm.  Not for the people dying of course, but by it's choice of methods.  It is not a Cold War because people are dying, because tanks, artillery and airpower is being used on a daily basis now, but it is not a Hot War either, because while people in the Ukraine are being killed, the real target of this war is, of course, Russia.  In other words, this is not a Russian-Ukrainian war, nor is it a US-Ukrainian war, it is a US-Russian war, fought in the Ukraine with "Hot War" methods, but whose real target are not the murdered people in the Ukraine but Russia as a country and a civilizational project.  I think that it is crucial to state that to make a correct analysis of what is going on.


The USA has no special interests in the Ukraine at all.  The only reason why Uncle Sam got so heavily involved is the (totally mistaken) belief - expressed by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Hillary Clinton - that "without the Ukraine Russia cannot be a superpower" and that "Putin is trying to recreate the Soviet Union".  Since a reborn USSR would be the single major threat to the US domination of the planet, the US shall spare no effort into making sure that the Ukraine not only breaks away from Russia, but turns into a US colonial protectorate like Poland or Lithuania: rabidly anti-Russian, administered by the EU and controlled by NATO.  Of course, the "prize of prizes" would have been Crimea with Sevastopol as a base for the USN and a fantastic "unsinkable carrier" to project US subversive efforts throughout southern Russia, the Caucasus and even the Middle- East.  Alas, Putin's lightening fast action in Crimea completely foiled this part of the plan: instead of getting the entire Ukraine including its crown jewel, Crimea, the AngloZionists were left in full control of West-Central Ukraine (aka "Banderastan") and an uprising in East-Central Ukraine (aka "Novorossia).  However, Uncle Sam also walked away with some real successes: not only was the democratically elected President Yanukovich "regime-changed", the secession of Crimea and the uprising in the Donbass made the "more or less election" of a pro-US puppet like Poroshenko finally possible.   So far so good, but remember, this is not about the Ukraine at all, this is about Russia and only Russia.  So the relevant question is not whether the US succeeded in putting a puppet regime in power, but what good it does to the AngloZionist Empire to have Poroshenko in power in Kiev.  The answer to that is, of course, very little, if any.

Again, to understand the US position you have to stop thinking like a rational and mentally sane person, and try to think like an imperialistic maniac hell-bent on world domination who sincerely sees Russia at the #1 obstacle to the realization of this goal.  Such a maniac will ask himself a basic question: how much, if at all, is Russia weakened by the current situation in the Ukraine?  And, again, the obvious answer is only marginally.  Here is how a hypothetical US "1% deep-stater" will think about Russia's current position:

They got Crimea, so all our hopes about the Black Sea region, the Caucasus and the Middle-East are gone.  In fact, now that Crimea is fully Russia, it is the Russian position in the Black Sea region, the Caucasus and even the Middle-East which has become stronger, much stronger in fact.  Worse, by chopping off the Crimea from the rest of the Ukraine, the Russikies have not only created a very dangerous precedent, they have deeply destabilized the richest and best educated part of the Ukraine - the Donbass - leaving us with the a poor, phenomenally corrupt basically broke "Banderastan" to run.  Worse, if we did not have our various CIA run death-squads ("Maindanites", "Right Sector", "National Guard", "soccer hooligans", etc.) then Poroshenko would probably last less than 1 month in power anyway, especially with the accursed Russikes about to turn off the gas spigot if the Ukies don't come up with a payment plan they cannot afford anyway.  The only thing our symbolic pseudo-sanctions against Russia have achieved so far was to push the Russkies to do what they should have done a decade ago: to lower their dependence on the US-controlled banking system, to sever their ties with the Ukie military-industrial complex and to push the Russian business community towards seeking stronger ties with Asia.

The bottom line is that at least so far the AngloZionist Empire has failed to secure any strategic objective.  Russia is as powerful as ever, arguably even more powerful than before the crisis began.

What about the association agreement with the EU then?  It means nothing to the Americans.  All that agreement would really achieve would be to further impoverish the rump-Ukraine and create a bloody mess for the EU.  Yes, for Russia this would mean maybe two to three years of minor headaches (dealing with illegal immigrants, finding new suppliers, etc.) but nothing truly meaningful.  And since it was the EU the broke the Ukraine, they now own it, but then since it is the US which own the EU to begin with, you might as well say that the US now owns what is left of the Ukraine.  Hardly a coveted prize...

There is only one way for the AngloZionists to turn defeat into victory and that way is most obviously to pull Russia into an overt military intervention in the Donbass.  An overt Russian military intervention in the Donbass would achieve all the following goals:
  • Create a fantastic justification for the continued existence of NATO.
  • Create a fantastic justification for a new Cold War in Europe which would strengthen the US grip on the Old Continent.
  • Create a fantastic justification for an increase in military spending for all NATO states.
  • Create a fantastic scapegoat upon which to blame upcoming economic collapse of Banderastan.
  • Create a fantastic opportunity to demonize Russia and Putin personally.
  • Create a perfect justification for the CIA to initiate another Operation Cyclone, this time in Novorossia.
  • Create a great way to show the US public opinion that Obama is a tough, "war President", with "hair on his chest" and who can show the Russkies who is boss thereby overturning the image of a flaccid and incompetent loser which Obama presently "enjoys".
  • Make the Russians pay for the failed war in Syria.
  • Show all the BRICS countries that nobody can defy Uncle Sam
  • Re-vitalize the currently comatose and desperate (CIA-controlled) "liberal" opposition in Russia.
Needless to say, seen this time from the point of view of Russia, all of the above are crucial reasons to avoid being sucked into an overt military intervention in the Ukraine.  However, non-intervention by itself is hardly a "policy" and it cannot constitute a strategic goal.  So let us now look at the strategic goals of Russia.

Initially, Russia wanted something rather basic: an independent, more or less neutral, but prosperous Ukraine.  Not because Russians are inherently just so nice and compassionate, but because the best thing for Russia is to have a prosperous neighbor for which she hold no responsibility but with which she can built mutually beneficial economic ties.  Yes, sure, Kiev is the mother of all Russian cities, and the so-called Ukraine is an invention - no such state of nation ever existed before - and it is true that the "Small Russia" (in the meaning of "Core" or "Central" Russia) is the cradle of the Russian civilization, but these are all things of the past.  Nowadays, if the Ukies want to call themselves something other than "Russians", and if they want to try to re-invent themselves a culture ex nihilo - let them.  Who cares really?  It's their loss: instead being a part of one of the (relatively) ancient nations and cultures in history they chose to become, well, who knows what?  But who cares, it's their right after all.  Their "arguments" might not get much traction with most Russians, especially the educated ones, but this is hardly a reason for conflict.  Over the past two decades there never has been a movement of any relevance in Russia to oppose the Ukrainian independence.  Basically, most Russians did not give a damn and, frankly, they were right.

But, again, we need to remember that this is not a Russian-Ukrainian problem.  It is a US-Russian problem.  And for the USA, the kind of independent and more or less prosperous Ukraine which Russia would have been happy to have as a neighbor was absolutely unacceptable.  If Russia wanted a "Ukrainian Finland", the USA wanted a "Ukrainian Poland".  That is something which Russia cannot allow to happen.  So, in strategic terms, the three key strategic goals for Russia are, by order of importance:
  1. To prevent the creation of a "Banderastan" on Russia's borders
  2. To avoid being sucked into an overt military intervention
  3. To protect the people of Novorossia
Two comments about these goals:

First, you will notice that if the choice comes down to an overt military intervention and the creation of a Banderastan on the western border of Russia a military intervention is preferable, at least in my opinion.  I have no way of knowing whether the folks in the Kremlin would agree with me or not, but my sense is that that would if only because of the long-term consequences of having a Banderastsan along over 2'000km of its western border and less than 500km from downtown Moscow.  So make no mistake - Russia will intervene militarily in Novorossia if there is absolutely no other choice.  Even if that means a risk of war with NATO.  Even if that means a war with NATO.  For Russia, this is not an elective conflict, but an existential threat and there is a national consensus on that.

Second, there is the issue of human rights and the plight of the people of Novorossia. 

Considering how many of us have become disillusioned with our fellow human being and cynics about any and all politicians, I won't even go into the "brother nations" argument, nor will I claim that Putin, Lavrov or anybody else in the Kremlin sincerely cares about the atrocities committed against what are, of course, really fellow Russians who happened to live in what is called "the Ukraine" because of Soviet internal administrative borders.  I personally am convinced that Putin and Lavrov really do care - but I will not use that personal belief of mine as an argument.  I will use only a fully pragmatic argument which is fully compatible with the hypothesis that the folks in the Kremlin care only about their own narrow self-interest.  And the argument is this:

There is a lot of pent-up rage and outrage in Russia.  Unlike the western MSM, the Russian media is full of daily reports about the atrocities committed by the Ukie death squads.  Day after day after day the Russians see neo-Nazi thugs marching around Kiev, Odessa and other cities with neo-Nazi symbols, they see the bombed out houses of Slaviansk and Kramatorsk, they see the endless interviews with maimed civilians and terrified refugees.  Day after day after day the most famous Russian journalists and reporters openly pour out their scorn and disgust for the lying bastards of the junta in Kiev, the the West's endless double-standards, on the fact that there is apparently no such crime or action which the West would not approve of as long as it is committed by neo-Nazis and against Russians.  So whether Putin, Lavrov & Co. are bleeding hearts or cynical politicians makes no difference at all: they cannot, repeat, cannot, ignore the atrocities committed by the Ukie death-squads in Novorossia.  So far, Putin's ratings are sky high (in the 80% range), but this can change, rapidly if events get out of hands.  Furthermore, while the current three official "opposition" parties are more or less a joke (LDPR and Just Russia will fall in line if/when needed, the Communists are really a lame joke), there are other parties being formed right now who have a huge political potential, such as Starikov's "Great Fatherland Party".  And Putin is acutely aware that the only real danger to his rule comes not from the completely tiny discredited "liberal" "non-system" opposition parties (no more than 1%-3% of popular support) or from the hopelessly antiquated and clueless "official" or "system" opposition parties, but from the "next generation" young, dynamic and visionary parties lead not by clowns, but by very sharp young men like Starikov (don't judge all Russian Communists by the likes of Zyuganov!).  And, remember, Putin did promise to intervene and protect the people of Novorossia if a real bloodbath begins there.  So this is why I do believe that protecting the people of Novorossia (point #3 above) is crucial even if we assume that Putin would be willing to betray and sacrifice the Russian population of the Donbass (which, again, I personally do not believe!).

At this point the Russian policy becomes, I think, clear: to covertly support the resistance movement of Novorossia without yielding any proof of intervention which could be used by the AngloZionists to demonize Russia (they already do that, but with very little credibility in the public opinion).

Now that we have identified the strategic goals of both sides, we can look at the methods (tactics) they are using to achieve them.


On the US side the plan is simple: to provoke Russia in every possible way.  So far these have include (in no special order):
  • Recognition of an illegal regime which came to power with violence.
  • Support for a neo-Nazi regime.
  • Massive anti-Russian propaganda.
  • Limitless amount of double-standards.
  • Repeated kidnapping of fully accredited journalists.
  • Whitewashing of massacres (Odessa, Mariupol).
  • Support for armed assaults on opposition politicians (Tsarev).
  • Murder of political opponents (murdered Communists Party members).
  • Attacks on political parties (torched Communist Party offices).
  • Illegal use of cluster bombs on civilians.
  • Illegal use of White Phosphorus on civilians.
  • Use of heavy weapons against entire towns.
  • Assault and murder of opposition journalists
  • Attacks on the Russian Embassy in Kiev
  • Overt glorification of Stepan Bandera by Ukie officials
  • Blocking by the AngloZionists of Russian UNSC Resolution condemning the attack on its embassy
  • Denial of anti-Jewish hatred amongst the Ukie nationalists
  • Invention of anti-Jewish feelings in Novorossia
  • Car-bombing of Novorossian officials
  • Probable use of gas in the Odessa massacre
  • Creation of a hysterically russophobic campaign in the MSM
  • Attempts at imposing sanctions on Russia
  • Covert sending by NATO countries of fixed and rotary wing aircraft
  • Covert use of several hundred western mercenaries (Academi)
  • Massacres of wounded soldiers in a hospital
  • Sniper killing of random civilians
  • Systematic rejection of any negotiations with the people of Novorossia
  • Almost systematic rejection of any negotiation with Russia
  • Systematic violation of any agreement reached with Russia
  • Bombing of churches and hospitals (just happened in the last 24 hours)
  • Refusal to provide real escape corridors for trapped civilians
  • Illegal cutting-off of water supplies to Crimea (now provided from Russia courtesy of the corps of Russian military engineers)
This is not a full list, of course, just those events which first came to my mind.  Connecting the dots here is easy: to provoke Russia at all costs.  Well, provoke it does.  Does that achieve anything else? Specifically, if we take a more "macro" point of view and ask ourselves this: if we accept that the Ukie goal of war in Novorossia is to get the Russians to intervene and if we accept that the Russian goal is to stay out, and if we finally accept that the crucial factor which will eventually decide of the outcome is the ability of the Novorossians to defend themselves without overt Russian intervention - then who does the tactical scorecard look?

From my point of view - one of an ex-military analyst - I would say that I am extremely unimpressed by the junta's performance so far.

The junta's death squads have used all the means at their disposal to try to terrorize the people of Novorossia: they began with baseball bats, then knives, then guns, they assault-rifles, then machine guns, then heavy machine guns, then mortars, then heavy mortars, then regular artillery, then multiple rocket launchers, then attack helicopters, then attack aircraft, then cluster munitions, now even white phosphorus.  And what did they achieve in military terms:

1) they are more or less holding an airport and one hill near Slaviansk/Kramatorsk
2) they have taken Krasnyi Liman (and committed a massacre in its hospital)
3) they apparently have 1000 or so men surrounded in the Lugansk airport

That's it.  They could not even take Slaviansk!  This is with force ratios anywhere between 5:1 to 100:1, with heavy firepower, armor and total air supremacy.  Sub-pathetic, really...

And, in the process, they have lost hundreds of soldiers who defected to the other side - often with weapons - they have gotten a huge number of their own conscripts killed, one group of senior "Alpha" officers was caught and several paratrooper recon units were made prisoner (the latest one yesterday).  In Lugansk Ukie forces appear surrounded and the latest shooting down of an Il-76 by the NDF air defense forces was part of a desperate attempt of the junta to free these forces or, at least, to resupply them.  In fact, there are all the signs of a desperate movement by land of Ukrainian armor and infantry to break through these units some of which, according to unconfirmed reports, have already switched sides.

As for the Novorossian Defense Forces (NDF), they now clearly have a solid air-defense network up and running, they seem to have plenty of weapons (even though they still lack some specific types) and most, but not all, of these weapons are truly trophy weapons taken from the Ukies (such as the 3 T-64 tanks recently shown in the news).  The initial trickle of volunteers has slowly but steadily become larger (including volunteers from Russia proper) and the NDF is now clearly enjoying some fancy systems which could have only have been provided by Russia (electronic warfare, advanced anti-air systems, etc.).  Yes, there are lots of Ukie tanks around Luganks, but as late as this morning a senior NDF officer in the area has said that "we can hold them for at least several months".  Finally, and for the very first time, there are signs that the NDF are mounting offensive operations.

I am basing all of the above on admittedly partial information, but to me all the signs are clear and point to one and only one reality: the Ukie offensive is going absolutely nowhere and unless Uncle Sam comes up with a dramatic way of changing the face of the battle, Novorossia will probably withstand the Ukie assault without over Russian intervention.


So far, I see the strategic-level scorecard for the AnlgoZionist as a complete failure.  As for the tactical-level scorecard, it is probably too early to call, but I would say that it looks like the Empire is headed for a complete defeat.  Of course, these are temporary conclusions and I don't want to sound like Dubya with his notorious "Mission accomplished".  But I think that for all of us who get sick in their stomachs each time we hear of the latest Ukie atrocity it is important to keep in mind that so far the neo-Nazis and their AngloZionist masters are losing and that there is no reason to suspect that this trend will somehow reverse itself in the foreseeable future.

We have to also always keep in mind that "lukewarm" as it may be, this is a major war of planetary importance because as Dugin correctly points it is the future of Russia, and therefore of all of Eurasia, which is being decided.  Russian parity (I would even argue superiority) in strategic nuclear weapons have made a hot war impossible (at least for a rational actor), but that does not mean that both sides are not engaged in this apparently "lukewarm" war with every bit of energy and power they got! What we are witnessing today is nothing short of a major struggle for survival between the AngloZionist Empire and the "Eurasian project" (for lack of a better word) centered around Russia and China and their attempt to replace the old order by new, multi-polar, dollar-independent, militarily balanced one.  Hegemony vs collective security for the entire planet is what is at stake.  This is why every time we listen to the latest reports out of Novorossia we have to constantly keep in mind that in reality this is a US-Russian war over the future international order of the planet and not an "ethnic civil war".

As you know, I have been living with a knot in my stomach for weeks now, and with each additional report about the neo-Nazi atrocities committed against the people of Novorossia I get more desperate, more angry and more frustrated.  And I have to admit that if the Russians finally openly intervene and beat the crap out of the Ukie death squads (which won't last 24 hours against a real military force) I won't be able to contain myself - I will open a bottle of champagne and dance with my wife across the house.  But I also know that the right thing to do is keep our "eyes on the prize" and let this abomination I called "Banderstan" self-destruct without any over Russian help.  The latest attack on the Russian embassy in Kiev is not only an outrageous violation of the Vienna Convention, it is also a fantastic admission of impotence, of powerlessness, of irrelevance really.  Think of it, a crowd of neo-Nazi thugs overturns a few cars and tosses eggs and stones at an embassy building in downtown Kiev and all the Ukie authorities can do is to order the cops to move out of the way and to send the deputy Foreign Minister to express his support for the crowd.  "Слава Україні — Героям Слава" (glory to the Ukraine - to the Heroes Glory!) indeed - some heroic Ukie nationalism at work, there is an "operation" the Ukies can be proud of, something to add to the pantheon of Ukrainian national pride.

[They are as pathetic as they are disgusting, of course.  I really wonder how any putative "sane Ukrainian" can live without dying of a combination of shame and self-disgust.  But then, that ain't my problem, thank God.]

There is probably more of that sickening Ukie mix of atrocities and buffoonery on the way.  Normal civilized people cannot imagine the kind of stuff that these hate-filled psychopaths can come up with.  Frankly, I would not put it past them to try an air or missile strike on, say, a kindergarten in Crimea or even in Belgorod.  They could also kidnap a delivery man for a Russian company still operating in Kiev or heroically massacre of minibus with an Aeroflot crew on the way to the airport.  Whatever!  We have to accept the inevitability of such actions because this is all this junta can do - they simply have no civilized diplomatic, commercial, military or other means to prevail against Russia and their own people.  But always always keep this in mind: with each such action the Ukies are confessing to their own impotence while digging their own grave.

So even if "ще не вмерла україна" ("the Ukraine is not dead yet" - from the Ukie "national anthem" with words copied from the Polish one and a melody composed by [what else?] a Uniat priest),  it's days are counted and, as doctors like to say, the prognosis is poor.

The Saker