• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Russia's Undeniable War Preparations

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Russia's Undeniable War Preparations

    As Nyquist rightly points out, although it is unpalatable to the average Westerner (particularly our silly "beyond war" generation), to whom even the faintest modicum of conflict and discomfort is unacceptable, Russian hostility and military preparations continue unabated.

    RUSSIA'S UNDENIABLE WAR PREPARATIONS
    by J. R. Nyquist

    Since 1998 I have publicly warned of Russia’s war preparations. The idea of preparing for nuclear war is absurd for most Americans, because the idea of nuclear war makes no sense in a consumer society. However that may be, Russia’s war preparations were as undeniable then as they are today. And Russia is not a consumer society. In the late 1990s Russia was refurbishing huge nuclear war bunkers and building underground cities. The only purpose such bunkers and cities could serve is in relation to a future nuclear war. For a country that was supposedly broke to be spending its precious resources on something so expensive, so far out of the way of “normal” expectations, seemed inexplicable. “Oh well,” people would shrug. “The Russians are used to doing this sort of thing. It gives them psychological comfort. Let them do what they want. It needn’t trouble us.” The public missed the fact, however, that Russia was continuing to violate arms control agreements. It was not admitting to all the nuclear warheads it possessed, and was not reliably disposing of them. It was developing new, deadly, biological and chemical weapons.

    Why in the midst of peace, a few short years after the end of the Cold War, were the Russians adhering to this insane path? Were they anticipating a future war?

    The answer must be yes. And the answer continues to be yes. In the 1990s Russia forged an alliance with China that involved a growing series of joint military exercises. Why would the Russians do this? Why would they seek to develop a joint military capability that would link Russian missile power with Chinese manpower? For over a decade the Russians have been providing the Chinese with technology and weapons. This is not merely a commercial transaction, as some would insist. These transactions are carefully considered strategic steps. Since the mid-1990s, Russia and China have initiated joint-armaments programs that further solidified their military partnership. It is obsolete thinking to suppose Russia and China are enemies. It must be understood, as a practical matter, that Russia and China are underdog powers locked in a struggle for primacy with the United States. The only sensible strategy, if Russia and China expect to emerge on top, is to unite against the Americans. And that is what the two countries have been doing for the past decade.

    A week ago today, on August 17, the Russians and Chinese conducted joint military exercises on Russian soil, in the southern Ural Mountains. These coincided with strategic air operations involving Russian nuclear bombers. The combination of ground exercises with nuclear bomber exercises is a characteristic of Soviet nuclear war theory, which holds that troops must be used to follow up nuclear strikes. President Putin and China’s President Hu Jintao watched the exercises while holding a summit in Bishkek (the capital of former Soviet Kyrgyzstan). While China and Russia insist that their preparations aren’t aimed at any specific power, only a simpleton would believe them. (I am sad to acknowledge that many Americans, in this regard, are simpletons.)

    Last week, in an obvious upgrading of nuclear war readiness, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the resumption of long-range nuclear bomber patrols that had previously been suspended in 1992. “I made the decision to restore flights of Russian strategic bombers on a permanent basis,” said Putin. “Combat duty has begun.” For some reason, Americans cannot digest Putin’s statement or his decision to resume bomber patrols. Why is this happening? Well, we say to ourselves, there is no reason other than the peculiar psychology of the Russians. President Bush has not put U.S. strategic bombers on patrol. And why should he? Russia isn’t our enemy. We are all friends. We are all economic partners and allies in the war against terror.

    In Washington the State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, responded to the Russian announcement of permanent strategic bomber patrols by saying, “It’s interesting. We certainly are not in the kind of posture we were with what used to be the Soviet Union. It’s a different era. If Russia feels as though they want to take some of these old aircraft out of mothballs and get them flying again, that’s their decision.”

    It’s as if the Russian military had resumed stamp collecting or archery. There is no strategic alarm, no threat, no difficulty and no discomfiture. Let them play with their obsolete toys. We are living in a new era, and these activities no longer trouble us. The Cold War ended and the animosity between the great powers is gone. Say good-bye to it. Any evidence to the contrary is not evidence. We’re living in “a different era.” Anyone who doesn’t know this, even if they are the president of the Russian Federation, is out-of-step. One might imagine Washington’s reaction to a Russian missile strike against U.S. targets. “It’s interesting,” the State Department would purr. “This is not the sort of missile strike we would have expected from the Soviet Union. Of course, it’s a different era. If Russia feels that they want to launch some old, useless missiles, that’s their decision.”

    Our lack of imagination, our inability to grasp our enemy’s thought process, leads us to dismiss what is obvious. The Russians are getting ready. Why isn’t the American side responding? Why aren’t the Americans getting ready? We have been seduced by a series of comforting illusions. We are also absorbed in a struggle against Islamic terrorism (only we are at pains to admit the “Islamic” aspect of it). The American shopping mall regime produces stupefaction and complacency. The regime is predicated on economic optimism and entertainment. This optimism is about to be shattered. The Russians know this is going to happen, and they are preparing even as we fail to prepare.

    © 2007 Jeffrey R. Nyquist
    LINK

    #2
    Nicky, do you take a Geiger counter to lunch these days?

    Despite the link coming from loontown it does highlight (and I hate to say this) some valid issues around the absurdity of the "phew, its all over now" consensus that emerged the minute the ussr was dismantled.

    Not directly linked to thsi, but I would also say that our assumption that european land wars are a thing of the past is a wee bit premature.

    I feel all dirty now.....
    Last edited by Rantor; 26 August 2007, 19:35.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Nicky G View Post
      Americans cannot digest Putin’s statement or his decision to resume bomber patrols. Why is this happening? Well, we say to ourselves, there is no reason other than the peculiar psychology of the Russians. President Bush has not put U.S. strategic bombers on patrol.
      No reason? My arse...at what point did the USA think siting a missile shield in former Warsaw Pact countries was not going to antagonise Russia at the very least.
      "Washington has been pushing the Czech Republic to host a radar station which would form part of the US missile shield - a system designed to intercept and destroy hostile missiles, but which Moscow sees as a threat to its security"

      As usual, what applies to others does not apply to the USA.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...-mostviewedrss

      http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2287033.ece

      Comment


        #4
        .. The NAZI has talked.

        Russia Preparing for war ? Well, you bet they will since you already started it , you feckin fascist.


        Fact: US raging wars.
        Fact: US spending more on military/wars than the next 20 countries combined.

        The NAZIs are here. We can only hope for Russians/Chinese and hopefully others to stand against it.

        Comment


          #5
          My arse...at what point did the USA think siting a missile shield in former Warsaw Pact countries was not going to antagonise Russia at the very least.
          Propaganda cover for the new stealth missile they tested. Besides the missile shield is useless against a Russian attack, which would come from submarines and involve hundreds of warheads. Pershing II was a far better weapon to have in Eastern Europe / Germany.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by 2uk View Post
            .. The NAZI has talked.

            Russia Preparing for war ? Well, you bet they will since you already started it , you feckin fascist.


            The NAZIs are here. We can only hope for Russians/Chinese and hopefully others to stand against it.

            I thought this was a troll until I read your Sep 11th post. Anyway, this is just for you, assuming your attention span can handle it.



            The Dismal Mind - JR Nyquist

            To read my e-mail is to sample the progress of the "progressives," the decay of public opinion, the lunacy of the common folk, the resurgence of anti-Semitism and the howling idiocy of the raging fool. Week before last, after I detailed the realities of Russian culture as described long ago by the Marquis de Custine, a reader from New Zealand sarcastically remarked, "Ah yes, America [as opposed to Russia]: always defending the rights of other countries. How noble you are, of course. Right in some cases; defending the rights of Israelis to imprison, kill, steal land and water from the inhabitants of that area." Referring to my "almost fanatical jingoism," the reader noted that the mainstream media is "almost exclusively owned by Zionists, where there is NEVER an anti-Israel article...."

            As a resident of New Zealand he forgets a simple and obvious fact of history. That is, without the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps his country of residence, New Zealand, would be under the Japanese Empire. And so, like one who wishes his own retroactive destruction, he reveals the soul of a self-hating Westerner, stricken into idiocy by anti-Western propaganda. "I do not see any difference in the totalitarion government of some other countries and your country," he wrote.

            Here is blindness -- the blindness of the liberal and the socialist. Never mind the facts in this fictitious reality of fanciful construction, cribbed from the poison pen of enemies. "Do you have at least two parties in America?" He asked. "By name maybe, but there certainly are not two policies out there and you know as well as I that if a candidate for any high office in America does not utter vocal and undying support for Israel his chances of being elected is virually nil!"

            And next from this poisoned mind comes a revised history: "First," he noted, "there was National Socialism nurtured in part by American interests, and English for that matter. Then there was communism supported by Wall Street and Zionist interests. And no sooner was communism vanquished and everyone was looking for the peace dividend and along comes Islamic Fundamentalism!"

            Here we find anti-Americanism side-by-side with anti-Jewish themes. Who are the enemies of mankind? Israel and America. But this, I'm afraid, is straight from the text of a bin Laden speech, and the common refrain of every Soviet and Red Chinese textbook. Here is the totalitarian mind, laid bare. Here we find the conspiracy theory of history in place of real history. Here is the intellectual dust bunny of every unclean mind, with its laziness, resentment of power and shabby mental shortcuts laid bare. "I had a great admiration for America and Americans most of my life and especially when I travelled extensively through America," he explained. "But I believe I take ... an unbiased view ... and, thanks to the internet, feel confident that the criticims that I level against America are real and justified and it is sad to see the level of denial, jingoism and outright hostility when your faults are pointed out and when some of your 'enemies' are defended...."

            He doesn't even realize what he is saying. What kind of moral idiot defends the enemies of the United States? What kind of joker defends totalitarian dictators, terrorists, international criminals and mass murdering thugs? Who in their right mind makes a case for the mullahs of Iran, Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden? "I am an Australian," he admitted, "but choose to live in New Zealand, as far away from you lunatics in the Northern Hemisphere and your endless posturing and infantile power games as I can."

            Lucky New Zealand. So far from America, so easily targetted by Chinese missiles! How long will Auckland or Wellington remain standing once America falls? Thirty minutes, maybe? Or else, New Zealand can capitulate and suffer an existence worse than death. But the reader hasn't a clue. He never thinks to ask the question: If American power fails, then which countries will rise to dominance? The reader's existence depends on this question. And yet, this question is never considered.

            The reader also says there is "jingoism" in the United States. I look to the right and I look to the left. I see no jingoists. Not one of prominence. Is Fox News "jingoistic"? Is J.R. Nyquist jingoistic? Is the Republican Party jingoistic? Are the Democrats? This is a ludicrous assertion! The patriotism of the United States is muted by a shopping mall culture. In recent days we've seen protestors carrying Mexican flags throughout the U.S.A. Have Americans raised American flags in Mexico? Have they dared to block traffic in Paris or London? Members of the Mexican cabinet have publicly spoken of American arrogance. The French President, of all people, has called us arrogant. And yet, we humbly stand by while our traffic is blocked by foreign nationals. We let resident aliens disrupt classrooms and schools. Students in Colorado who've dared to raise the American flag were suspended by the principal! So where is the jingoism? We punish jingoism in this country. We look down on it as stupid! Americans aren't motivated by nationalism, and nobody sees any advantage in the Iraq War; though President Bush is following through in a desperate attempt to find a strategic solution to violent region that exported its violence to New York and Washington on September 11, 2001.

            Too many people don't understand the kind of world we live in. And they refuse to consider facts. Yesterday I received the following inquiry: "Are you an 'end timer'? I would be surprised, after reading ... your retarded attempts at prophecy, if you were not. Jesus was a hoax and your grasp of the meaning of historical events is puerile. You are a piece of crap and your Jesus/Christianity is easily the most evil concept of post-deluvian history. Marx said 'religion is the opium of the people.' You are a junkie. I hate communism/socialism and I hate fascism. But, mainly, I hate fools and I truly despise you beyond hatred. Rot in your own imbecilic, fetid self-made hell."

            This is amusing. A doctrine that teaches men to love their neighbors as themselves is "the most evil concept of post-deluvian history"? And this from a correspondent that approvingly quotes Karl Marx, whose doctrine of revolutionary world war caused 100 million deaths in the 20th century. Once again, stuff and nonsense is under foot and nobody is safe. I have received hundreds of emails like this one. Truthfully, I seldom answer. But an answer is due, because the mean intelligence of the mass man is likely to believe the unchecked lies that daily roll over him like so much fog. What I write is analysis based on the work of many hands. I do not make up my own ideas! I do not invent a fictional history and rail at straw men. I relate facts and calculate what is likely.

            Once again, a false notion of history leads to a false position. This false position entails a kind of cultural or civilizational suicide. One might call it, with James Burnham, "the suicide of the West." We find this impulse throughout our universities, the press and the public. Intellectual poisons circulate freely, are imbibed freely. And the average man swallows it, and thinks he has swallowed a wholesome brand of truth!

            Another reader explained to me: "The disaster on September 11, 2001 signals the gross incompetence of those who should have protected us from this barbarism instead of using it to foment larger scale barbarity in the form of a Middle East War, the antecedent to your apocalypse-wish."

            Comment


              #7
              Continued.......

              What subtle analysis! If a man sees a banana peal he obviously wants someone to slip on it! What else could explain his warnings to all who will listen: LOOK OUT FOR THE BANANA PEAL! Oh yes, isn't it obvious? He wants someone to slip and fall, and even die. But ask yourself: Who is courting destruction in this scenario? Is it the man who warns of a hazard, or the man who thinks the warning is malevolent?

              In response to my column on the importance of Christianity to the rise of capitalism and liberty, this same self-lacerating analyst noted: "It’s bizarre to read about 'Christian moral foundations' ... as you promote your construct of Islamo-Commie ideology versus the West, i.e., Christianity.... The same foolishness, venality and lust for power drive all men, no matter which mythology they choose to inflame the masses under their sway. Limiting the power of governments, not expanding it to encompass global wars or jihads is the appropriate Hayek-inspired response. Unfortunately, as history well proves, there’s quite a killing to be made adopting your worldview!"

              Since my column was based on Hayek's essay, "Religion and the Guardians of Tradition," his argument is with Hayek and history. Here is what he needs to know: Most men will never understand the precepts of political economy, though they have recourse to the simple precepts of faith. If they abandon these, confusion is sure to follow (as it has). Property will not be safe. The family will decline (as it has). This is obviously true. Any close observer of the last fifty years is forced to admit as much. And yet, my reader has a problem understanding what I write. This is because I write about real civilization while he is thinking of an ideal civilization. The difference between the two is simple. The first exists, the second will never exist. The first was built on a Christian foundation, the second cannot be built at all. Utopia is Latin for "nowhere." And that is precisely where rationalist and atheist philosophy is headed. Furthermore, I do not wish to see another world war, but such a war is inevitable just as sunrise is inevitable. Mankind cannot avoid war and genocide because we are essentially forgetful. My writings emphasize this fact because it sticks in the craw of my contemporaries. The importance of an unacknowledged truth may be measured by the hostility it arouses. The more hostility, the more important the truth. A writer might explain that the ocean is wet, which is a certain fact. But nobody will be upset. Nobody will write him an angry letter. And so, I write about Russia and China. I merely repeat what the newspapers have already reported. I take this material and line it end-to-end. After a while the world comes into focus.

              And people don't like what they see.

              Comment


                #8
                I can quote too :

                http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolit...igBusiness.asp


                Arms Trade Post September 11, 2001

                To counter the horrific act of terrorism in the United States, on September 11, 2001, George Bush has started a War on Terrorism. However, Human Rights Watch has argued that in the pursuit of military policies which include selling arms or providing assistance to other countries, the U.S. has “expressed minimal concern about the potential side effects”. That is, the increase in militarism itself is risking both the restriction of people’s rights, and the entrenching of power of those who violate human rights.



                AND


                Last year [2000] the U.S. controlled half of the developing world’s arms market…. This dominance of the global arms market is not something in which the American public or policy makers should take pride in. The U.S. routinely sells weapons to undemocratic regimes and gross human rights abusers.

                — Uncle Sam World’s Arms Merchant Again; In 2000 U.S. Sells $18.6 Billion Worldwide, $12.6 Billion to Developing Countries, Arms Trade Insider—#53, Arms Trade Oversight Project, Council for a Livable World, August 20, 2001

                Comment


                  #9
                  AND


                  http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterro...583254,00.html


                  Bush:

                  "If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents," George Bush announced on the day he began bombing Afghanistan, "they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril." I'm glad he said "any government", as there's one which, though it has yet to be identified as a sponsor of terrorism, requires his urgent attention.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Last year [2000] the U.S. controlled half of the developing world’s arms market…. This dominance of the global arms market is not something in which the American public or policy makers should take pride in. The U.S. routinely sells weapons to undemocratic regimes and gross human rights abusers.

                    — Uncle Sam World’s Arms Merchant Again; In 2000 U.S. Sells $18.6 Billion Worldwide, $12.6 Billion to Developing Countries, Arms Trade Insider—#53, Arms Trade Oversight Project, Council for a Livable World, August 20, 2001
                    The US only spends a fraction of it's GDP on defence. North Korea spends something like 20% of its economy on it’s military. Having said that the American Military Industrial Complex dominates arms production. That was true for a long time before Sep 11th and will not change. America profits from arms. So what? Military expenditure is too low to provide most countries with profit opportunities.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X