For the previous article in this series posted at RogueMoney, see Rumors of War with Russia, Part 12: Tanks Alot Obama from January 2017
These are the basic four points I wanted to emphasize from Putin's speech, without rehashing what X22's Dave, London Paul, Helga Zepp LaRouche and others featured here at RogueMoney have said about it:
Putin Message 1: The JFK Cuban Missile Crisis Doctrine in Reverse, or How Any American Nuclear Strike on China, Syria or Iran Will Be Treated as an Atomic Attack on Russia
This point has been quibbled with by United States Naval War College (USNWC) Professor Tom Nichols, a #NeverTrump er who appears to spend considerably more time on Twitter than studying the country that is the subject of his expertise. If Nichols had more closely followed Russia's military modernization like his colleague Nikolas Gvosdev, he may have avoided his spectacularly wrong August 2013 prediction that Russia not only would not intervene to save Bashir al-Assad's government in Syria, it lacked the capacity to do so in defiance of Washington's wishes.
Putin embodies a gnawing and well-deserved insecurity at the root of the Russian defense establishment. The Russian military still relies on conscription and is still a nightmare of poor training, hazing and dodgy equipment. It is improving quickly — which should actually reassure the West, since a military in free-fall is more dangerous than a professional and competent force — but it is so weak that Putin knows he must rely on nuclear threats to punch above its weight.
Part of this make-believe is to invoke the defense of a nonexistent Russian alliance system. Putin promised nuclear retaliation for any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or “its allies.” Russia’s allies? Who would they be? Russia, at best, has clients like Syria. Putin’s stab at a NATO-like extended deterrence is both laughable and pitiable, as Russia has no real friends over which to extend it.
According to Nichols, never one to learn from his arrogant underestimation of the Russian military in Syria, Moscow has no allies to defend with Putin's implied guarantee, that a nuclear strike on Russia's allies would be treated as an atomic attack on Russian soil. In a historic irony, this is not all that different from President John F. Kennedy's warning in October 1962, that any missile fired from Cuba against the USA would be regarded as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States to be met with massive retaliation. Or subsequent Cold War American presidents' efforts to assure Moscow that a Soviet tactical nuke dropped on West Germany would be treated the same as an SS18 ICBM MIRV taking out Omaha.
However, the cliche 'Russia has no allies but her army and navy' increasingly looks false, at least when it comes to Syria. It's true Moscow has shown no appetite for directly confronting Israel or the U.S. over their air strikes against Syrian government forces, but it's also clear that had Russia not intervened in 2015, both Washington and Tel Aviv would've gone far beyond the painful but militarily meaningless strikes they've launched against pro-Damascus forces. Also, the Soviet legacy supersonic S200 missile which brought down an Israeli F16 in early February and/or the BUK SAM that badly damaged an IAF F15I likely received data links from the S350+/S400 Russian SAM radars at Kheimmim Air Base.
On a related point, Iran's acquisition of S300 systems after years of delays at Washington and Tel Aviv's behest means Tehran has the capacity to data-link its air defenses with those of Russia and eventually, Moscow's ally China. So Prof. Nichols like much of the Russia-bashing 'experts' of his stripe is in denial regarding the emerging Shanghai Cooperation Organization/SCO Eurasian alliance, even if it lacks the formalities and top down direction of NATO.
Putin Message 2: If There's to Be a Cold War-Style Arms Race, You Americans Will Go Bankrupt Before Us -- Russia is Getting Far More 'Bang' for Its Buck or Rubles Than Your Bloated U.S./NATO Military Industrial Complex (don't take our word for it, see this study admitting Russia's intervention in Syria has been deadly and highly cost effective by Matthew Rojansky and Michael Kofman "What Kind of Victory for Russia in Syria?" published in Military Review, a publication widely read by ranking U.S. Army officers)
I'm sure you've been as chagrined as I in examining government and corporate media analysis (or lack thereof) of Putin's recent presentation of new Russian strategic weapons.
It appears that the US corporate media is simply telling the American people that Putin is bluffing and that the weapons are not real. I find this shocking. I assume the game plan from the deep state is to keep the citizenry willfully ignorant so as not to see the kind of outrage expressed against Reagan during the 80s for his belligerence towards Russia. In addition, instead of rethinking its current flawed missile defense, which is being sold to the citizenry as a shield against any surprise attack from another country, the deep state, as far as I can tell, plans to continue to spend trillions on a missile shield that is unproven and has failed every test.
What Putin was really saying in his presentation - and which has not been mentioned by the corporate media - is that any attack on our country will result in the extermination of your country - and we have the weaponry to make it so. In many respects, the new cold war is now over. Russian weapons are clearly superior to our weapons. Does that make our weapons any less deadly if they were fired at Russia? No. But the concept of MAD was supposed to be overthrown by missile defense. The USA could fire first and survive a retaliatory strike. There was to be no more "mutual assured destruction." Now MAD is back on the table (I'm not sure it ever was removed from the table, but this is what the Pentagon and CIA were telling the USA populace).
Another telling part of Putin's speech was the claim that the USA had 5 cruisers and 30 destroyers patrolling near Russia. Why? This statement has been ignored by the corporate media but one can surmise, based on The Saker and others, that these ships are ways of bringing "missile defense" closer to Russia. The understanding I have is that to be effective, our anti-missile missiles must be staged close enough to hit Russian rockets before they enter the atmosphere. Hence the sea-based Aegis systems and the forward staging of THAAD in Romania, Poland, and South Korea.
Of course this aggressive positioning has been whitewashed in the corporate media. So the USA citizenry is again unaware.
I hope that experts in nuclear weapons will lend credence to Putin's disclosure and will provide context to these moves by Russia. It's important for the USA citizenry to realize that these weapons exist and to some extent are operational now. And they should also be informed that these weapons are being developed on a defense budget of $70 billion (vs. the USA $1 trillion dollar budget). Clearly much of USA defense spending is simply lining the pockets of the shareholders of the military industrial complex.
Much of what reader 'DP' wrote to us a week ago above is true. Russia is getting far more bang for its bucks or rubles than the massively bloated US/NATO military industrial complex (often abbreviated in the alternative or new media as the MIC). The U.S. MIC outspends nearly the rest of the planet combined on arms, and Russia and China's combined military spending is probably (even on the highest end estimates) a quarter of what the Pentagon will haul in this fiscal year. Yet the American generals aren't embarrassed to admit in front of Congress that in certain areas they need more money because they're falling behind, or at least not rolling out new anti-ship or ground-targeting cruise missiles of their own to match Russia's bristling new arsenal. Either Uncle Sam has been playing possum and there's all sorts of super secret weapons at Area 51 using alien technology that will allow Amurica to prevail in World War III/IV, or perhaps it really is true: the U.S. blew trillions on pork and in the Mideast sandbox while the Russians and Chinese quietly figured out ways to negate American military advantages. Which bring us to the systems that since the 1980s 'Star Wars', have given many Americans false hopes of a winnable global war or at least, scaring the Russians into crying uncle like Ronnie 'Raygun' allegedly did to Gorby back in the 80s: ballistic missile defenses.
The stated justification for the missile defense system, that it is all about the threat Iran's rockets tipped with non-existent Persian nuclear warheads pose to Europe, was always laughable. Particularly after Putin called then President George W. Bush and later in the 'Reset' era, Barack Obama's bluff about the Iranian threat to Europe by offering Russian radar stations in the Caucuses to the Americans in return for them cancelling their planned ABM systems in Poland. While the handful of interceptors the U.S. planned to place in Alaska, Poland and especially closer to Russia's southern Black Sea fleet in Romania never would stop a Russian retaliatory strike over the North Pole, the land-based AEGIS system vertical launch tubes for the SM3 rockets could easily be fitted with Tomahawk land attack missiles.
That is, in the event the Intermediate Forces Treaty (INF) of 1987 were torn up. Which is precisely what Washington's neocons like Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) have been urging for the last few years, alleging Russian violations of the treaty via secret missile tests of flatter trajectory IRBMs/ICBMs as a pretext. But the notion that the Russians would need to violate the INF Treaty in order to develop hypersonic weapons capable of blowing past any U.S. defenses on land or at sea was always farcical, particularly given the Russians' advances in quiet submarines and existing stock of large cruise missile launch capable fighters or bombers like the SU34, MiG31, TU22M, TU160. It was also ridiculous after the Russians demonstrated that in autumn 2015, via launches from relatively small tonnage corvette type warships in the Caspian Sea against targets in Syria, that their Kalibr cruise missiles have longer range and are more difficult to jam and crash than the older generation American Tomahawks.
Which leads us to point no. 3...not only the previously imagined shield of BMD is a Maginot Line, a monumental waste of money, but so too is a great deal of American conventional superiority, principally (in an actual shooting war with great powers Russia, China or someday soon even Iran) the carrier battle groups and shiny AEGIS ships of the US Navy...
Putin Message 3: Even in a 'Limited' Conventional War that Miraculously Does Not Go Nuclear Immediately, Your Bases and AEGIS Missile Shield Ships Surrounding Russia Are Gone
While many Americans particularly those plugged in to the alternative media take Russia seriously as a military power, the rants of those like Prof. Nichols posted above clearly demonstrate that not everyone is willing to acknowledge reality. Bursting the bubble of martial impunity that the neocons have puffed up, most recently inflated by wildly exaggerated reports of Americans slaughtering Russian 'Wagner' mercenaries by the hundreds in a few minutes of Syria action, is no easy task.
If Putin stated his case too aggressively, he stood the risk of simply playing into the caricature of hardline neo-Soviet dictator that has been painted of him across a highly controlled legacy media landscape. If on the other hand, Putin continued to keep the accelerating pace of Russian weapons development and military modernization a secret, then the neocons could continue to sell their 'Moscow is a paper tiger' rhetoric all the way up to the highest levels of the Trump White House, even if the Commander in Chief doesn't desire any war with Russia. We don't know what covert intelligence regarding U.S. intentions or planned globalist false flags forced Putin's hand into playing the bad guy threatening to nuke America and its carriers role. But we do know that Putin is exasperated by the unwillingness of anyone in Washington if not the capitals of U.S. vassals to take his warnings about the risks of war and a missile build up near Russia's borders seriously.
Since the brief 08/08/08 war with Georgia, the Russian military has emphasized moving beyond nuclear deterrence. Even though many non-neocons never doubted MAD, re-emphasizing Russia's capacity to inflict massive strikes on US/NATO forces without using its atomic arsenal remains important. It allows voices of reason to prevail, at least in the Pentagon (though maybe not in the more delusional and Russophobic ideology plagued CIA) regarding neocon fantasies of sweeping Russian forces out of Syria. Many of the more lunatic neocons such as retired Army officer and New York Post columnist Ralph Peters have advocated for 'limited' air strikes on Russian forces in the Levant, while the more polished and smug Michael D. Weiss has insisted Moscow would do nothing if the Americans pummeled the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) so long as the US Air Force and Navy launched Tomahawks skirted Kheimmim. The assumption being that Moscow wouldn't dare a strong conventional response to even a humiliating (rather than pinprick) conventional attack, because it would fear Washington's presumed as superior escalation dominance climbing all the way up to a nuclear war neither side would want, but which Washington could dare. But this is nonsense, and the fact that it's nonsense is clearly demonstrated by no one at the Pentagon being willing to go all the way to achieve regime change in Syria. It's also belied in three words entering the Cold War 2 lexicon: Nuclear Posture Review.
The erosion of Washington's once overwhelming conventional 'edge', demonstrated during the destruction of Iraqi conventional forces in 1991 and overawing of the Milosevic led Serbs in 1999, as well as Moscow's military success in Syria has already fueled the 2018 NPR. Where the roles of 'escalate to deescalate', which was said to be Moscow's nuclear doctrine of using atomic weapons to compensate for its conventional weakness, are now partially reversed. After years of listening to bilious Tom Nichols types claiming American conventional dominance was so great even over the likes of Russia and China as to make the old B61 tactical nukes in Europe superfluous, the NPR firmly puts reliance on tactical nuclear bombs back on the table.
Suddenly it's as if the year were 1980 and the hollow Carter era US Army in Germany is staring down vastly numerical if not qualitatively superior Soviet Shock Armies. But the reconstituting of the 1st Guards Tank Army, and the awareness Washington and NATO wouldn't be able to do a damn thing to stop it if Putin ordered this massed armored fist to roll to Kiev if not all the way to the pro-Russian exclave of Transnistria and the Moldovan-Romanian border, surely factors in the equation. So too does the non-hypothetical shock of seeing a Russian Khibny, or more likely a land based Krasukha electronic warfare system, blind the systems of the AEGIS destroyer USS Donald Cook when it sailed near Crimea in April 2014. Also don't forget the moment when Russian Kalibr missiles allegedly incinerated a covert GCC/NATO command center that was directing jihadists inside Syrian territory.
But again, don't take our word for it regarding Russia's conventional capacity to negate the pride and joy of the American fleet. Read what Andrei Martyanov, a former contributor to Proceedings (the prestigious publication of the US Naval Institute USNWC Profs like Tom Nichols apparently don't read) has to say:
While Western punditry was discussing all those exotic and, no doubt, stunning weapon systems designed for the delivery of nuclear weapons to any point on the globe with very high precision, many true professionals were gasping for the air when the Dagger (Kinzhal) was unveiled. This is a complete game changer geopolitically, strategically, operationally, tactically and psychologically.
It was known for some time now that Russian Navy was already deploying a revolutionary M=8 capable 3M22 Zircon anti-shipping missile. As impressive and virtually uninterceptable by any air defenses the Zircon is, the Kinzhal is simply shocking in its capabilities. This, most likely based on the famed Iskander airframe, M=10+ capable, highly maneuverable, aero-ballistic missile with a range of 2000 kilometers, carried by MiG-31BMs, just rewrote the book on naval warfare. It made large surface fleets and combatants obsolete. No, you are not misreading it. No air-defense or anti-missile system in the world today (maybe with the exception of the upcoming S-500 specifically designed for the interception of hyper-sonic targets) is capable of doing anything about it, and, most likely, it will take decades to find the antidote.
More specifically, no modern or perspective air-defense system deployed today by any NATO fleet can intercept even a single missile with such characteristics. A salvo of 5-6 such missiles guarantees the destruction of any Carrier Battle Group or any other surface group, for that matter–all this without use of nuclear munitions.
The usage of such a weapon, especially since we know now that it is deployed already in Russia’s Southern Military District is very simple–the most likely missile drop spot by MiG-31s will be in the international waters of the Black Sea, thus closing off the whole Eastern Mediterranean to any surface ship or group of ships. [In case of world war - JWS] Russia can also close off the Persian Gulf completely. It also creates a massive no-go zone in the Pacific, where MiG-31BMs from Yelizovo in Kamchatka or Centralnaya Uglovaya Air Base in Primosrky Krai will be able to patrol vast distances over the ocean. It is, though, remarkable that the current platform for the Kinzhal is the MiG-31–arguably the best interceptor in history. Obviously, the MiG-31′s ability to reach very high supersonic speeds (well in excess of M=2) is a key factor in the launch. But no matter what the procedures for the launch of this terrifying weapon are, the immediate strategic consequences of Kinzhal’s operational deployment are as follows:
It finally moves aircraft carriers into the niche of pure power projection against weak and defenseless adversaries, and away from the remote sea zone of Russia, be it the Mediterranean, Pacific or North Atlantic. This also means a complete no-go zone for any of the 33 Aegis-equipped US Navy destroyers and cruisers which are crucial for American Ballistic Missile Defense;
It makes classic CBGs [carrier battle groups] as a main strike force against a peer or near-peer completely obsolete and useless, it also makes any surface combat ship defenseless regardless of its air-defense or anti-missile capabilities. It completely annuls hundreds of billions of dollars investment into those platforms and weapons, which suddenly become nothing more than fat defenseless targets. The whole concept of Air-Sea Battle, aka Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons (JAM-GC), which is a cornerstone of American global dominance becomes simply useless—this is a doctrinal and fiscal catastrophe.
Sea Control and Sea Denial change their nature and merge. Those who have such weapons, simply own vast spaces of the sea limited by the ranges of the Kinzhal and its carriers. It also removes completely any crucial surface support for submarines in the area, thus exposing them for Patrol/ASW aviation and surface ships. The effect is multiplicative and it is profound.
Putin Message 4: The Survival of All But the Tiniest of U.S. Elite Cohorts is Doubtful in Even a 'Limited' Nuclear War -- and No Even Being in Patagonia or Antarctica Won't Save the Globalists from a Date With Their infernal father
Finally we return to the subject of nuclear weapons, and the thought of Armageddon delivered via multiple Mach 20 'Avangard' MIRVs from a Sarmat ICBM. If as 'W the Intelligence Insider' believes, both sides of the Cold War 2 dialectic are being manipulated by the globalist string pullers, what can ordinary citizens make of the nukyulur side of Putin's message? What can they imagine regarding to and for whom it was intended? Was there a message beyond dispelling any lingering Strangelovian fantasies of the U.S. launching a first strike on Russia, and being able to blunt the few surviving Russian missiles launched in retaliation by the 'Dead Hand'/Perimetr system after Moscow disappears in a fireball?
We believe there was a separate, non-nation state audience intended for Putin's speech. One that would have some reason to wonder why the Sarmat ICBM's circum-ante-polar capability is being advertised. Why indeed would an ICBM capable of hitting any target on Earth, even without going over the traditional polar route of Russian nuclear missiles, be programmed to go sub-orbital over the Antarctic or South America?
The answer may lie in Dr. Joseph P. Farrell, Bankster Slayer and W's speculation surrounding a 'breakaway civilization' running a secret space program from Patagonia or Antarctica. If the '4th Reich' or breakaway civ expects to emerge as the winners of a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia that wipes out much of humanity -- the goal alt/conspiracy media types have harped on since the mysterious population reduction demanding Georgia Guidestones were erected -- Putin may have told them, "think again". There's enough Sarmat, or more likely multi-megaton Status 6 nuclear torpedo warheads, to put multiple megatons on Patagonia's peculiar (invisible to Google Earth) post-WW2 colonies or permanently irradiate and entomb the entrance to the Antarctic Shangrila. And while President Ronald Reagan once famously asked if it would be better to save lives than avenge them, in this case letting the globalists who expect to survive Armageddon know some Orthodox Christian Russian officer may at a future date avenge Mother Russia by sending them to hell, could very well save billions.