Tag: war

It’s not hard to see why the “Syrian rebels” are losing so badly to the Syrian government forces. Guess who has more support from the Syrian people. Applying the principles of 4GW, it should be obvious that Assad is going to win, because despite being an Alawite, he is still Syrian. The so-called rebels no more represent the Syrian people than the US military for whom they are a proxy do, which is why the usual rules about 4GW insurgencies don’t apply to them. They’re invaders, not insurgents.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, you are Vladimir Putin. Consider the following facts and assumptions:

• Hillary Clinton appears increasingly likely to win the presidential election.
• Hillary Clinton is a member of the globalist elite and is heavily influenced by Wall Street, the Saudis, and the neocons.
• Hillary Clinton has a little girl’s conception of military action. “We came, we saw, he died.”
• Hillary Clinton has always shown a tendency to overcompensate to prove how tough and ruthless she is.
• Hillary Clinton doesn’t negotiate, she dictates.
• Donald Trump is not a member of the globalist elite.
• Donald Trump has openly expressed his desire to avoid war with Russia.
• Donald Trump prides himself on negotiation, not confrontation.
• The USA is already engaged in a war-by-proxy with Russia in Syria.
• The globalist elite is already waging economic war on Russia.
• Ukraine is not a member of NATO

You don’t want Ukraine. You don’t want war with the USA. You prefer to have an opponent like Donald Trump with whom you know you can negotiate to an enemy like Hillary Clinton with whom you cannot. Now consider the following possibilities:

• The neocons are actively pushing for war with Russia in order to force Assad out of Syria
• Ukraine will join NATO under a Hillary administration.
• Wall Street needs some sort of major global event to pop the current asset bubble.

Also, Russia has made it very clear that they will never accept Ukraine in NATO, but the US has blatantly ignored every Russian warning and instead engaged in a series of provocative steps in Ukraine, in the Baltics, and in Poland.

If you were Vladimir Putin and you expect that a Hillary Clinton administration will make war with the USA inevitable, would it not logically make sense to start the conflict while there is still a chance to totally transform the shape of the US election? Right now, Trump is in trouble because the media is relentlessly away pounding on a few remarks about women from more than a decade ago and the public awareness of the war-by-proxy between Russia and the USA is totally nonexistent.

But if Russia invades Ukraine, takes Kiev, and scares the pants off the Baltics, Eastern Europe, and Western Europe alike, that will completely transform the election picture. For all her bellicosity, no one can take Hillary Clinton seriously as a war president, particularly anyone in the military after Benghazi.

So, are there any signs that Putin might be in a position to invade Ukraine on short notice?

• “As many as 40,000 Russian troops are massing on the country’s border with Ukraine – prompting fears of a new military invasion. Among the units deployed to the area are armoured vehicles, tanks and fighter jets.” (August 2016)
• “Russia has amassed some 100,000 soldiers in occupied Crimea and Donbas as well as along the eastern border with Ukraine.” (October 2016)
• “Russian state officials and government workers were told to bring back their children studying abroad immediately, even if means cutting their education short and not waiting until the end of the school year.”
• “Amid escalating U.S.-Russia tensions, the Russian military said Tuesday it will co-operate with China on efforts to fend off a threat posed by the U.S. missile defence program.”
• “At the end of last week, Latvia identified several Russian planes near its borders: Su-24 tactical bombers, Su-27 multipurpose fighters and an An-26 military transport plane. Russia also conducts military drills near Latvian land border. Two airborne divisions – 76th and 98th – take part in joint exercises with elements of full-fledged combat activities.”

Now, I’m not predicting Russia is going to invade Ukraine. I’m not in any contact with anyone on the ground or in Russian circles.. I am merely observing that logic suggests Putin should invade Ukraine before the US election if it seems likely to him that Hillary is going to win it. The third debate is October 20th. Barring Donald Trump turning things between now and then, which looks increasingly unlikely given the 24-7 media assault, logic would dictate that a Russian invasion of Ukraine will begin the weekend after next, most likely on the morning of October 23rd.

I don’t know whether Putin will dare to roll the dice on such a potentially dangerous gamble, particularly because it is clear that Russia doesn’t want Ukraine. But with the neocons relentlessly pressing for war with Russia, the Russian president would be better off starting a regional war now in the hopes of avoiding a global one than holding off and having it forced upon him in one or two years time. And aside from Duerte, Vladimir Putin is the one world leader who might have the steel to think through the logic and grasp the adder.

The Saker considers Russia’s options in Syria:

The key thing to understand in the Russian stance in this, and other, recent conflicts with the USA is that Russia is still much weaker than the USA and that she therefore does not want war. That does not, however, mean that she is not actively preparing for war. In fact, she very much and actively does. All this means is that should a conflict occur, Russia you try, as best can be, to keep it as limited as possible.

In theory, these are, very roughly, the possible levels of confrontation:

1) A military standoff à la Berlin in 1961. One could argue that this is what is already taking place right now, albeit in a more long-distance and less visible way.

2) A single military incident, such as what happened recently when Turkey shot down a Russian SU-24 and Russia chose not to retaliate.

3) A series of localized clashes similar to what is currently happening between India and Pakistan.

4) A conflict limited to the Syrian theater of war (say like the war between the UK and Argentina over the Malvinas Islands)

5) A regional or global military confrontation between the USA and Russia

6) A full scale thermonuclear war between the USA and Russia

During my years as a student of military strategy I have participated in many exercises on escalation and de-escalation and I can attest that while it is very easy to come up with escalatory scenarios, I have yet to see a credible scenario for de-escalation. What is possible, however, is the so-called “horizontal escalation” or “asymmetrical escalation” in which one side choses not to up the ante or directly escalate, but instead choses a different target for retaliation, not necessarily a more valuable one, just a different one on the same level of conceptual importance (in the USA Joshua M. Epstein and Spencer D. Bakich did most of the groundbreaking work on this topic).

The main reason why we can expect the Kremlin to try to find asymmetrical options to respond to a US attack is that in the Syrian context Russia is hopelessly outgunned by the US/NATO, at least in quantitative terms. The logical solutions for the Russians is to use their qualitative advantage or to seek “horizontal targets” as possible retaliatory options. This week, something very interesting and highly uncharacteristic happened: Major General Igor Konashenkov, the Chief of the Directorate of Media service and Information of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, openly mentioned one such option. Here is what he said:

“As for Kirby’s threats about possible Russian aircraft losses and the sending of Russian servicemen back to Russia in body bags, I would say that we know exactly where and how many “unofficial specialists” operate in Syria and in the Aleppo province and we know that they are involved in the operational planning and that they supervise the operations of the militants. 

Translation: shoot down our planes and bomb our troops and we and our allies go after your “military advisors”.

There isn’t any doubt that the USA can beat Russia in Syria. The question is if they are willing to pay the price both there, and potentially, in Ukraine and the Baltics.

That this is all absolutely stupid and utterly unnecessary doesn’t mean it won’t happen. In the meantime, we should really all focus on what is truly important: did you know that Donald Trump was once ungallant in speaking about women?

Anyhow, I had been extremely skeptical about the reports that Russian missiles had taken out a command center of US and Israeli advisers, but the sudden increase in US bellicosity makes me wonder if there might have actually been some substance to it.

No more “oops-sorry-we-bombed-your-allies” little “mistakes” will be permitted in Syria:

Russia’s Defense Ministry has cautioned the US-led coalition of carrying out airstrikes on Syrian army positions, adding in Syria there are numerous S-300 and S-400 air defense systems up and running.

Russia currently has S-400 and S-300 air-defense systems deployed to protect its troops stationed at the Tartus naval supply base and the Khmeimim airbase. The radius of the weapons reach may be “a surprise” to all unidentified flying objects, Russian Defense Ministry spokesperson General Igor Konashenkov said.

According to the Russian Defense Ministry, any airstrike or missile hitting targets in territory controlled by the Syrian government would put Russian personnel in danger. The defense official said that members of the Russian Reconciliation Center in Syria are working “on the ground” delivering aid and communicating with a large number of communities in Syria.

“Therefore, any missile or air strikes on the territory controlled by the Syrian government will create a clear threat to Russian servicemen. Russian air defense system crews are unlikely to have time to determine in a ‘straight line’ the exact flight paths of missiles and then who the warheads belong to. And all the illusions of amateurs about the existence of ‘invisible’ jets will face a disappointing reality,”  Konashenkov added.

Translation: if the US pretends to mistakenly bomb Syrian ground troops, Russia will pretend to mistakenly shoot down US planes.

Interesting that all the drums beating about how the evil Rooskies bombed an aid convoy have fallen completely silent. Sometimes, the probable truth of a narrative can be discerned by how quickly it is abandoned.

Russia is apparently taking the banging of the war drums seriously:

As relations between Russia and the US disintegrate as a result of the escalating proxy war in Syria, which today culminated with Putin halting a Plutonium cleanup effort with the US, shortly before the US State Department announced it would end negotiations with Russia over Syria, tomorrow an unprecedented 40 million Russian citizens, as well as 200,000 specialists from “emergency rescue divisions” and 50,000 units of equipment are set to take part in a four day-long civil defense, emergency evacuation and disaster preparedness drill, the Russian Ministry for Civil Defense reported on its website.

According to the ministry, an all-Russian civil defense drill involving federal and regional executive authorities and local governments dubbed “Organization of civil defense during large natural and man-caused disasters in the Russian Federation” will start tomorrow morning in all constituent territories of Russia and last until October 7. While the ministry does not specify what kind of “man-caused disaster” it envisions, it would have to be a substantial one for 40 million Russians to take part in the emergency preparedness drill. Furthermore, be reading the guidelines of the drill, we can get a rather good idea of just what it is that Russia is “preparing” for.

The website adds that “the main goal of the drill is to practice organization of management during civil defense events and emergency and fire management, to check preparedness of management bodies and forces of civil defense on all levels to respond to natural and man-made disasters and to take civil defense measures.” Oleg Manuilov, director of the Civil Defence Ministry explained that the exercise will be a test of how the population would respond to a “disaster” under an “emergency” situation.

Americans, meanwhile, are fretting over whether or not Kim Kardashian is going to need therapy or not after her recent trip to Paris.

This should go well.

The war in Syria may be the start of World War III or it may mark the end of the USA’s brief reign as sole planetary superpower:

Syrian Social Nationalist Party representative Tarek Ahmad says that the war in Syria has reached a dead end, with the intervention of foreign powers turning the situation into a chaotic mess. Moreover, the politician says that Syria is just one front in a Third World War being waged by Washington and its allies.

The Social Nationalist Party is one of Syria’s oldest and largest parties. Up to 8,000 members of its armed branch, known as ‘the Eagles of the Whirlwind’, have successfully fought alongside the Syrian Army against Islamist militants, including Daesh. At the same time, the party has remained a key member of the Popular Front for Change and Liberation, a bloc of opposition parties in the country’s parliament.

Speaking to Sputnik, party representative Tarek Ahmad said that the military situation in the country has come to an impasse, with the political crisis only fueled and intensified due to the intervention of multiple uninvited regional and global powers.

Commenting on the intensification of the conflict between Damascus, its allies, and the United States, following the US-led coalition’s attack on Syrian forces in Deir ez-Zor last week, Ahmad warned that it’s important to understand that the US position in Syria is tactical – not strategic.

“The US’s goal is not limited to Syria,” the politician emphasized. “The Syrian front is not the goal in and of itself. We need to look at this issue objectively, and to admit that a Third World War is taking place in Syria, one which is led by the US and its allies – even if these allies are simultaneously victims as well.”

“America’s main objective,” according to Ahmad, “is to bring any world power that threatens them under control. Consequently, [Washington] is waging a war with these powers; and these powers include China and Russia.”

Americans should hope and pray and vote for the end of global US hegemony, because it is bad for the USA and worse for Americans. The war in Syria is directly connected to the war in Ukraine, as both wars are being waged for the same reason. And while Russia and her allies are defeating the imperial USA and her allies in the Syria, and have fought them to an advantageous standstill in Ukraine, China is quietly expanding her strategic position in Africa and the Pacific.

This is why the neocons are so desperate to elect Hillary Clinton. They want to double-down on the wars their proxies are losing, and send substantial American forces into both Syria and Ukraine in order to defeat the Russian proxies there. Their two problems are that while US troops can defeat Russian troops, the Russian proxies are better than the US proxies in both Syria and Ukraine, and Russia can directly operate in both Syria and Ukraine while the USA cannot.

Donald Trump is smart enough to avoid fighting Russia and he understands that the USA has no legitimate national interests in either Syria or Ukraine. That is the real reason the neocon establishment is so hysterical about his increasing prospects for election, and why they are publicly throwing the full weight of their support to Hillary Clinton. They are entirely willing to risk a Syracuse-level disaster under a Clinton administration, which is something that should terrify any sober, historically-aware American.

Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan are already lost to the USA and have accepted the reality of Chinese regional dominance. Korea and the Philippines will likely be the next to do so; Korean unification will probably take place before 2030 in an attempt to mitigate Chinese dominance, while Taiwan will presumably reunite with China around that time. The Chinese are playing their cards with their customary patience, allowing Russia to keep the USA occupied while they improve their ability to force the US out of their own near-abroad.

One major potential flashpoint for China is Malaysia, where Islamic civilization confronts Sinic civilization. But that offers little potential to relieve the growing strategic pressure on the tottering US military hegemony.

On a related note, The Saker looks at the most likely options available to the USA:

Once the US comes to realize that its policy sending MANPADs to Syria did not work, it will have only one last card to play: attempt to impose a no-fly zone over Syria.

The good news is that judging by this exchange, US generals understand that any such US move would mean war with Russia. The bad news is that the Neocons seem to be dead-set on exactly that. Since such an event has now become possible, we need to look at what exactly this would entail.

The way the US doctrine mandates to impose a no-fly zone is pretty straightforward: it begins with an intensive series of USAF and USN cruise missile strikes and bombing raids whose aim is to disable the enemy air defenses and command and control capabilities. At this stage heavy jamming and anti-radiation missile strikes play a key role. This is also when the Americans, if they have any hope of achieving a tactical surprise, will also typically strikes at enemy airbases, with a special emphasis on destroying landed aircraft, runways and fuel storage facilities. This first phase can last anything between 48 hours to 10 days, depending on the complexity/survivability of the enemy air defense network. The second phase typically includes the deployment of air-to-air fighters into combat air patrols which are typically controlled by airborne AWACS aircraft. Finally, once the air defense network has been destroyed and air supremacy has been established, strike fighters and bombers are sent in to bomb whatever can be bombed until the enemy surrenders or is crushed.

In Syria, this ideal scenario would run into several problems.

First, while there are only a few S-400/S-300 systems in Syria, the US has never had to operate against them, especially not against the Russian version of these formidable systems. Worse, Russia also has very long range radars which will make it impossible for the USA to achieve a tactical surprise. Last but not least, Russia also has deployed powerful electronic warfare systems which are likely to create total chaos in key US command, control, communications and intelligence systems.

Second, these S-400/S-300 systems are mostly located on what is legally “Russian territory”: the Khmeimim airbase and the Slava-class or Kuznetsov-class cruisers off the Syrian coast. The same goes for the key nodes of the Russian communications network. If the Americans were crazy enough to try to hit a Russian Navy ship that would open up the entire USN to Russian attacks.

Third, while Russia has deployed relatively few aircraft in Syria, and while even fewer of them are air-to-air interceptors, those which Russia has deployed (SU-30SM and SU-35) are substantially superior to any aircraft in the US inventory with the possible exception of the F-22A. While the US will be able to overwhelm the Russians with numbers, it will be at a steep cost.

Fourth, the use of USAF AWACS could be complicated by the possibility that the Russians would decide to deploy their anti-AWACS very-long range missiles (both ground launched and air launched). It is also likely that Russia would deploy her own AWACS in Iranian airspace and protect them with MiG-31BMs making them a very difficult target.

Fifth, even if the USA was somehow able to establish something like an general air superiority over Syria, the Russians would still have three formidable options to continue to strike Daesh deep inside Syria:

1) cruise missiles (launched from naval platforms of Tu-95MS bombers)
2) SU-34/SU-35 strike groups launched from Russia or Iranian
3) supersonic long range bombers (Tu-22M3 and Tu-160)

It would be exceedingly difficult for the US to try to stop such Russian attacks as the USAF and USN have not trained for such missions since the late 1980s.

Sixth, even a successful imposition of a no-fly zone would do little to stop the Russians from using their artillery and attack helicopters (a difficult target for fixed-wing aircraft to begin with). Hunting them down at lower altitudes would further expose the USAF/USN to even more Russia air defenses.

TL;DR: A Syracuse in miniature. An attempted failure to impose a no-fly zone over Syria won’t break the US military, but it will destroy any remaining perceptions of the USA’s global superpower status.