Trump More Likely To Start A Nuclear War? Not Necessarily!

Robert Parry - thinks Hillary is more likely to unleash a nuclear war than Trump.

Hillary's militaristic speech yesterday, basically a "mental health indictment" of Donald Trump, according to Jeffrey Goldberg interviewed on CBS Early show this morning. Goldberg, national correspondent for The Atlantic, also noted that it is unusual to "go nuclear" as Clinton did so early in the race. (He compared Hillary's speech to the 1964 'Daisy' ad run by LBJ showing a little girl picking daisies then a nuclear explosion in the background - attesting to why Barry Goldwater was unqualified to hold office).

But is Hillary's over the top indictment really true? I mean, not in the sense the Donald is 'all over the map' with his positions, but rather more likely than her to resort to punching in the nuclear codes.

Robert Parry, a blogger on smirkingchimp.com doesn't believe so, e.g.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/67484/the-bigger-nuclear-risk-trump-or-Clinton

As Parry notes:

"Hillary Clinton made a strong case for why handing the nuclear codes over to a President Donald Trump would be a scary idea, but there may be equal or even greater reason to fear turning them over to her. In perhaps the most likely area where nuclear war could break out – along Russia’s borders – Clinton comes across as the more belligerent of the two.

In Clinton’s world view, President Vladimir Putin, who has been elected multiple times and has approval ratings around 80 percent, is nothing more than a “dictator” who is engaged in “aggression” that threatens NATO following the U.S.-backed “regime change” in Ukraine.

“Moscow has taken aggressive military action in Ukraine, right on NATO’s doorstep,” she declared. But stop for a second and think about what Clinton said: she sees Russia responding to an unconstitutional coup in Ukraine – which installed a virulently anti-Russian regime on Russia’s border – as Moscow acting aggressively “on NATO’s doorstep.”

That’s the same NATO, whose job it was to protect Western Europe from the Soviet Union, that — following the Soviet Union’s collapse — added country after country right up to Russia’s border. In other words, NATO muscled its way into Russia’s face and has announced plans to incorporate Ukraine as well, but when Russia reacts, it’s the one doing the provoking.

Clinton’s neoconservative interpretation of what’s happening in Eastern Europe is so upside-down and inside-out that it could ultimately become the flashpoint for a nuclear war between Russia and the West.

While she sees Russia as the “aggressor” against NATO, the Russians see NATO moving troops up to its borders and watch the deployment of anti-ballistic-missile systems in Romania and Poland, thus making a first-strike nuclear attack against Russia more feasible. Russia has made clear that it views these military deployments, just kilometers from major Russian cities, as an existential threat."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Readers can read the entire article at the above link, and may also wish to read my past posts on the State Dept. Neocons and their overthrow of Viktor Yanukovich in the Ukraine and all the problems ensuing (with HRC  neocon surrogate Victoria Nuland) in 2014:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/putin-is-acting-rationally-col-lawrence.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/news-from-outside-neoliberal-media.html


http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/obama-russia-is-regional-power-and.html


http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-game-theory-perspective-on-ukraine.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/chrystia-freeland-blows-it-on-russia.html


http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/geopolitical-chess-and-what-obama-and.html

----------------------------------

See also this Patrick L. Smith article:

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/04/we_cant_have_more_of_the_same_the_very_real_dangers_of_hillary_clintons_foreign_policy/

A Ground War - The Only Way To Crush The ISIS Bugs

John Sawer, in his Weekend Financial Times article  on ISIS and the Paris terror attacks,  put it bluntly and best on what ISIS absolutely does not want (among two things):

"First, ISIS does not want a ground intervention by NATO or Russia, as this would quickly cost the militants their base in eastern Syria and western Iraq".

However, he noted they have probably already calculated there is not stomach for such intervention in the NATO nations, despite 12 months of nonstop bombing having little effect. This 'no ground war' sentiment certainly holds in the U.S., despite Jeb Bush's call to "declare war", forgetting the attack was on France not the U.S.. With $18 trillion in debt  (and counting) already,  there is only a limited amount of further  trillions to support more wars, all Marco Rubio's jingoistic bloviations notwithstanding.

The second thing ISIS fears, according to Sawer, is "a peace deal bringing a new government to Syria"  Especially if the new deal accommodated the Syrian Sunnis (remember ISIS is largely comprised of Iraqi Sunnis who were disallowed in the gov't mutation later formed by the U.S. - comprised largely of Shi'ites).  This would "cause ISIS to lose its appeal"

But the probability of getting to that desirable state is a lot less than orchestrating a limited ground war.

Given the U.S. should stay out of such a ground war, for various reasons including we've already started enough of them with zero success, the question emerges as WHO should undertake it. (Note when I say 'stay out' I only mean only in terms of dispatching tens of thousands of ground pounders, but support and logistics advisors are a different matter, and perhaps small strike teams such as recently rescued ISIS prisoners in Iraq who were about to be slaughtered).

But the main thrust must come from: the Muslim nations in the region. They'd be fortified by two legitimate "outsiders",   Russia and France - the most recent ISIS victims. (Also their peoples would be most likely to support a ground invasion after what happened to their fellow citizens.)  Other NATO members from the EU may also join in support by invoking a NATO clause that "an attack on one is an attack on all". But the U.S., for all the reasons Obama laid out in his press conference this morning, has to leave the provision of sufficient ground troops to others. We've had our turn, now it's theirs.

Again, just as ISIS would most fear a peace settlement that includes Sunnis, so also they would most fear a ground war alliance that includes both the Sunnis (in Saudi Arabia) and the Shia (from Iran).  Such an entity would be seen as a "devil's alliance"  (much as Hitler saw the U.S. and U.S.S.R. joining forces in WWII) because two nations representing the antipodes of Islam (mutual enemies) would be seen to be strong -willed enough to band together to remove a scourge. This would send chills through all of the ISIS vermin.

The question is whether the Saudis and Iranians could put aside their differences long enough to bring down these pests.

As I noted in my post yesterday, on the Dem debates:

"as geopolitical expert Hillary Mann Leavitt noted this morning, the ISIS attacks are not intended to "take away our freedoms", but to change our policy. In other words, their desire is to get the West to go off half cocked and unilaterally launch a full scale war without ANY Muslim allies involved - so they can garner recruits and justify full out jihad. This is why it is essential that taking out the ISIS bugs be a full collaborative effort, not just with NATO and Russia involved, but ALL the Muslim nations in the region too. "

Meanwhile, there is the serious matter of ISIS local extremist recruitment and involvement and we now know that the two renegades who killed 89 innocents at the Paris concert hall were French nationals. How did they get recruited? Evidently, the vermin have been using apps like 'What's App' and also game platforms like Playstation which allows players to make contact with any others around the world and also text on the side while gaming.  Everything's hidden from prying eyes so it's the perfect medium with which to sneak plans by the authorities in whatever country.

These are all encrypted apps which have the following features:

- All messages are protected from surveillance

- Communications are set to delete

- It is difficult to break the encryption

Former CIA assistant director Michael Morrell, on CBS this morning, agreed that all of this is a result of the Edward Snowden debate. But why such encryptions should be stronger for games on PlayStation as well as chat apps is puzzling - say compared to internet sites for which more or less full surveillance still applies.

Morrell did go on to state that now, in the wake of the Paris attacks, a "new debate" will unfold on "whether the government should have access to the keys to open this stuff up and the result may be different".

I definitely agree, but the problem is, once the ISIS bugs are exterminated, can we then return to the non-surveilled state before?  The problem, as before, is fighting these vermin, subduing them - but not sacrificing our civil liberties in the process including those of the 4th amendment and "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"

U.S. Nuclear Counterforce Option Against Russia A Boneheaded Idea

It appears that the U.S. Neocon warmongers still ensconced in Obama's administration have a new plan to teach those Russians a lesson. According to a Denver Post piece ('U.S. Pondering Tougher Responses to Russia', June 5, p. 13A):

"The Obama administration is weighing a range of aggressive responses to Russia's alleged violations of a Cold War -era nuclear treaty, including deploying land based missiles in Europe that could pre-emptively destroy the Russian weapons."

Seriously? Hold strain, you haven't seen the half of it. As the piece goes on:

"The options go so far as one implied- but not stated explicitly - that would improve the ability of U.S. nuclear weapons to destroy military targets on Russian territory."


So, in other words, start World War III. To rejuvenate memories again, let's recall that the Russians have retained a “limited use" nuclear doctrine by which they reserve the right to employ nukes if they feel overwhelmed by conventional outside forces, say NATO’s, see e.g.

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/russ-wellen/54873/russia-still-addresses-conventional-weapons-gap-with-u-s-via-nukes

As noted therein:

"On March 13, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ran a piece by Nikolai Sokov with the paradoxical title Why Russia calls a limited nuclear strike “de-escalation.” He writes, “In 1999, at a time when renewed war in Chechnya seemed imminent, Moscow watched with great concern as NATO waged a high-precision military campaign in Yugoslavia.” It became concerned both that “the United States would interfere within its borders” and that the “conventional capabilities that the United States and its allies demonstrated seemed far beyond Russia’s own capacities.”

In response, Russia

… issued a new military doctrine whose main innovation was the concept of “de-escalation”—the idea that, if Russia were faced with a large-scale conventional attack that exceeded its capacity for defense, it might respond with a limited nuclear strike.

Of course, such response would also occur  if there is any U.S. nuclear first strike, especially on Russian targets.  You can therefore take it to the bank that any such U.S. belligerent tomfoolery would be met with an all -out Russian nuclear strike on those nuclear weapons and the nations hosting them.


Now, the other side - because that's important. As the article notes (ibid.):

"Russia denies violating the treaty and has in turn claimed violations by the U.S. in erecting missile defenses."

Which is spot-on true as I have pointed out before, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/03/do-we-need-missile-defense-system-in-e.html

In an April 22, 2012, Wall Street Journal article ('Missile Gaffe Leaves European Unfazed', WSJ, today, p. A8) even Stefan Niesiolowski, chairman of the defense committee in the Polish Lower House of Parliament, noted such a missile system was not needed in Poland. Quoting him from the WSJ piece:

"There's no military threat and we haven't had a situation as secure as this in 300 years. The level of U.S. military engagement in Poland therefore is not of top importance."

WOW! No military threat? Then WHY do it? Obviously, to further antagonize the Russians,  having already dismissed Russia as a third rate nation after abusing a 1991 agreement in which NATO was not to have moved one millimeter further to the east if the Soviet Union was dissolved. Mikhail Gorbachev held up his end of the deal, the U.S. didn't. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-game-theory-perspective-on-ukraine.html

The ultimate bellicose move, of course, was instigating the coup in the Ukraine, which lies right on Russia's geographical doorstep. Let us see how close:




Note Ukraine abuts Russia on its southwest border. Note it carefully!  Now, try to conceive a juxtaposition of events and conditions whereby Florida (on the U.S. SE coast) has somehow become a separate protectorate  - say like Puerto Rico - and is suddenly taken over by hundreds of thousands of Cuban Castro sympathizers.  They localize attention at Miami where they essentially take over and raise Cuban flags. All this on a state right next to Georgia.

In a  symmetrical situation  would the U.S. just sit back and let events unfold, especially if the commie Cubans were going around beating up upstanding citizens, defacing buildings, burning up synagogues or churches  etc.? In your dreams!  There'd be such a display of 'shock and awe' invasion it would make your head swim! So no one can prattle away nonsense and tell me the U.S. wouldn't do the very same thing Russia is now doing, if the situation were somehow reversed.

But see this is the problem with the Neoliberal Pax Americana meme: one standard for the U.S. and another for everyone else. And no other nation better dare try to extend hegemony outside its national borders.

According to the Post piece, quoting a Lt. Col. Joe Sowers:

"All the options under consideration are designed to ensure that Russia gains no significant military advantage from their violation."

Totally oblivious to the fact that it has been the U.S. trying to press such advantage. Indeed, Pentagon and White House officials are even considering admitting the Balkan nation of Montenegro into NATO - further arousing Russian ire (WSJ today, p. A5) .  Even Ret. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson agreed back in MARCH, 2014, that if he was Putin and faced the sort of belligerence and upheaval in the Ukraine instigated by U.S. neocons (like Victoria Nuland) , he'd have made the exact same responses. Including going into the Crimea.

So what is really behind all this U.S. huff and puff?  Most of it can be traced to the document known as NSC-68 prepared by Paul Nitze of the National Security Council – completed by 1950. The document essentially contained the blueprint for unending strife and undeclared wars, all of which would be invoked on the basis of a zero tolerance threshold for foreigners’ misbehavior. The putative basis? To enable U.S. agitation, overthrow (or assassination) of democratically-elected leaders, e.g. Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954,

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/ 

 and large and small occupations (ranging from the few thousand troops in the Dominican Republic in 1965, to more than 200,000 in Iraq by 2006.) 

The motivating force of the document was clear in this regard:

“a defeat of free institutions anywhere is a defeat everywhere”

In other words, any place for which the U.S. even remotely construes a “defeat of free institutions” gives it license to intervene at will. This critical aspect is described thusly by Morris Berman[1]:

“Nitze emphasized the importance of perception, arguing that how we were seen was as crucial as how militarily secure we actually were. This rapidly expanded the number of interests deemed relevant to national security”.

In other words, it provided the formula for unending war, and the building of Empire. The problem for the U.S. now is that countries like Russia and China are no longer prepared to kowtow to the spread of the Neoliberal Empire based on this misbegotten Nitze doctrine. They are going to aggressively engage and protect their own spheres of influence as robustly as the U.S. would for its own.

Russia, for its part, and after the U.S. has moved its influence right up to its border, is not prepared to sit still and wait for hammers to fall.

Of course, Russian aggression will be a key topic in the G-7 summit tomorrow. But perhaps these misfits would be better served focusing on U.S. and NATO aggression provoking the Russians to react as they have. See :NATO's Warmongers:

  http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/brian-cloughley/54851/the-belligerent-alliance-natos-warmongers

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-boardman/62512/french-rap-us-and-nato-for-playing-russian-roulette-with-ukraine

------

[1] Morris Berman: 2006, Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire, W.W. Norton, page 118.


 

Auschwitz Commemoration: Why Wasn't Russia Invited?

Let's get it clear that the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz and its commemoration in Poland (now a NATO puppet state) ought to have Vladimir Putin and the Russians front and center. It was the Soviet Army  that liberated that reprehensible Nazi concentration camp - not the U.S. (which was hundreds of miles to the west). Hence, by all standards of respect, civility and acknowledgement, the Russians ought to be there - and way, way before any appearance by Barack Obama (though I am glad he didn't go since Vladimir Putin isn't allowed).  Those who hammer Obama for not making an appearance really have no idea that he shouldn't be present in any case. The commemoration is mainly on behalf of the survivors and the nation state (Russia)  that actually liberated the damned camp. (Poland was a Nazi satellite state at the time)

The Russians also suffered far , far more than the U.S. and primarily in holding back the Nazi onslaught in Operation Barbarossa.  This "evil empire" (in Ronnie Reagan's Alzheimer's-  generated parlance)  saved the West's living ass as it turned back Hitler's troops in Barbarossa, at the cost of losing 20 million of their people. Think about that! How do you think America would have handled a vicious aggressor actually invading the nation and laying waste to major cities as the Hitlerites did to Russia? And losing 20 million?  (For some insight, google: "Battle of Stalingrad")

During Barbarossa, 5 to 6 million Red Army soldiers were taken captive by the Nazis, and of these more than three million died of disease (mainly typhus), forced labor and the brutal conditions to which they were subjected.  By contrast, the U.S. suffered 405,400 total  war deaths or barely 13.5 percent of the Russian losses - from deaths in captivity alone.

The Russians, having bravely decimated the Nazi war machine  to the point D-Day could succeed (without worrying about immense masses of troops and  thousands more Luftwaffe planes), then moved westward to meet up with the allies, on the way liberating concentration camps including Mauthausen, e.g.

Photograph of hundreds of the corpses Russian soldiers encountered at Mauthausen in May, 1945.

They then also went on to liberate Auschwitz, and were the first to see what the Nazi vermin had wrought (including from the horrific human experiments) and also caring for the hundreds of survivors - including many Jewish children, who had to be  treated following Josef Mengele's experiments gone awry.

In specific Auschwitz liberation film records, for example, the liberating Russians beheld a 12 year old boy who'd  been infected with Leprosy and the results after just 6 weeks. In another segment, one watches with heart break as the bandages are removed from a 10 year old girl's foot, showing blackened flesh - after she had been forced to stand ten hours in freezing temperatures. In yet another segment, a 9 year old boy is unable to exercise or move either of his arms - they had been amputated and replaced with the arms of a 9 month old infant.

Russian medical personnel also observed:

- Removed skin (treated with chemicals) from prisoners waiting to made into for chairs, and for use as art 'canvas':   In this case the selected bodies of certain gassed victims had their skin later removed and used to form the fabric for chairs - generally by the particular concentration camp Kommandant - and also for "art" canvas, with the art often pornographic.

- Bodies of fetuses (expelled by their mothers in the gas chambers) designated for autopsies.

Much of this is shown in vintage films finally accessible after the fall of the Soviet Union. I watched it in the 'Liberation of Auschwitz' part of the 5-pack collection, The Holocaust Testaments. Incredibly, the O.S.S. (forerunner of the CIA) was aware of many of the films but adamantly was opposed to any release or even exposure because they believed the materials to be Soviet propaganda. (The Auschwitz films are introduced by Simon Wiesenthal, of the Holocaust Museum, and I sincerely dispute he'd be introducing "propaganda"!)

I believe every American ought to see these films and see what part different allies had in liberating the Nazi death camps, especially the Russians who are given far too little credit and respect for their crucial role.

That the Russians, who liberated Auschwitz and actually treated survivors, are not present at the commemoration because of pique at certain recent Russian actions (in response to NATO incursions into Russia's sphere of influence, e.g. in the Ukraine) is absolutely abominable and unacceptable. For an occasion like this, political pique needs to be relegated to the sidelines to allow the proper recollection of the event - and acknowledgement of the Russian role. Poland and its NATO masters can return to their Russian -hating and subversive moves on her doorstep after the commemoration. See also:


http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/putin-is-acting-rationally-col-lawrence.html

and:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-game-theory-perspective-on-ukraine.html

To learn more about the history of Auschwitz:

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005189

Malaysian Flight 17: Who's To Blame? How Should They Be Punished?

As recriminations fly back and forth, investigators are ready to sift through the pieces of shattered airliner, Malaysian Airlines Flight 17. The flight, from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur with 298 on board, had entered airspace over eastern Ukraine traveling at 598 mph and at an altitude of 33,000'.  A question that immediately occurs is why the hell this aircraft was even flying over a de facto war zone - in which it was already known that several military cargo and transport planes had been shot down. Moreover, the MH 17 flight was actually even further north on its track than other planes also traveling to the same destination - from Amsterdam. Why? The more northerly path put it more directly into harm's way as several commentators noted last night.

Some new research also reported on smirkingchimp.com disclosed that the Ukrainian military transport, i.e. IL76, or Candid, "has the same echo as a 777 on a radar screen”. This would mean it had been even more critical NOT to fly into that airspace no matter what anyone was told about it being "safe" or how many other airlines foolishly did it to save fuel.

One Malaysian talking head this a.m. actually said:  "No one gave any instructions to change the route" - observing MH 17 flights had made 14 trips over the war zone the past two weeks. Yet an intelligent company wouldn't need "instructions", only common sense, and the U.S. had already warned about making flights over the area. It looks like, sad to say, the Malaysians screwed up again like they did with Flight 370 months ago. (Another Malaysian official stated that the Ukrainians hadn't closed the air space and 55 other international flights had transited the area the same day. This also is no excuse, and merely discloses ALL the aircraft had similarly played Russian Roulette with their passengers lives! It's still a freakin' war zone whether or not the air space was closed,  for god's sake!)

All the evidence so far, including the wide scatter area (nearly 10 miles) and debris pattern, clearly indicates a missile strike. The most probable culprit was one surface to air BUK battery missile - roughly 18 ft long, capable of a 1/2 mile per second velocity and with a range of 46,000 ft.  It is also known that such batteries have been supplied to the separatists by the Russians. It is also known they've been used to shoot down Ukrainian military transport planes. (Note: These BUK missile batteries are also possessed by the Ukrainian military so it is possible that the separatists liberated one or more from Ukrainian bases.)

Former Deputy CIA Director Mike Morrell's take this morning on CBS seems to be the accurate one:

"I think what happened here is that the separatists, who shot down a couple of aircraft this week, believed that they were targeting a Ukrainian military transport and they just made a mistake. That's what I think happened here.."

And I agree with this take, as it's the most logical conclusion given the information - including U.S. intelligence - available so far.  When asked by Charlie Rose 'What would it take to prove that?'  - Morrell responded:

"We have our own intelligence capabilities - radar tracking, satellite tracking and we marry that with any information the Ukrainians have, then when you get to the crash site you can put all those pieces together."

So okay,  the separatists are to blame, but the take is that it was not a deliberate targeting or shoot down as the paranoid Ukrainian puppet PM advanced. It was a very plausible error of the type which can be made in the inevitable 'fog of war'. (Another reason no aircraft should have been flying that route over eastern Ukraine - so the Malaysian Airlines also bears partial responsibility for wittingly or unwittingly putting its passengers in harm's way.)

Then there is the U.S. itself, which is not squeaky clean in this by any stroke. As I noted previously, this 'war zone' would never have evolved had U.S. neocons not interfered to push Ukraine into instability by ousting its democratically elected leader, Viktor Yanukyovich - replacing him with the Neocon-NATO puppet "Yats" (Arseniy Yatsenuk ).

The American -NATO aggression that initially spurred Russia to action to defend its own sphere of influence was described on the basis of game theory, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-game-theory-perspective-on-ukraine.html


Even Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (Ret.) at least understood enough Russian history to know that Putin would not tolerate a NATO client state set up on his very border via a coup. Indeed, Wilkerson even said flat out (on Chris Hayes’ All In program in March)  that if he were Putin, he’d have done the same thing! This after Gorbachev and Russia were PROMISED by Bush Sr. that NATO “would not move one more inch to the east”.

And then to foment a coup on Russia’s doorstep?  All of the chaos and conflict now could have been seen well in advance and the U.S. spy -military state knows it. Contrary to U.S. media mouthpieces, Putin’s vision is not of a “Russian-dominated former Soviet space” but of protecting his nation’s security at its border.

Lest some of us suffer from  historical memory deficits, let us also recall - since I see all kinds of talking heads like John McCain getting hysterical ("We have to do something about Russia!") that the U.S. also shot down a commercial airliner, back on July 3, 1988. Iran Air Flight 655 was an Iran Air civilian passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai that was shot down by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes. The attack took place in Iranian airspace, over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, and on the flight's usual flight path. The aircraft, an Airbus A300 B2-203, was destroyed by SM-2MR surface-to-air missiles fired from the Vincennes.All 290 on board, including 66 children and 16 crew, died. (As noted on Kornacki today also, the U.S. didn't offer ANY apology but instead advanced the question: "Why were they flying in a shooting zone?" In other words, if you're flying over a war zone you have no comebacks!)

As noted by Rachel Maddow last night, the U.S. ended up paying reparations of $62 million, an average of $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims.

In analogous fashion, and allowing that both the 1988 incident and the current one were not deliberate shoot downs  but mistakes(in 1988  the U.S. insisted the naval crew incorrectly identified the Iranian Airbus A300 as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter operated by the Islamic Republic of Iran) the solution is self-evident: Russia- which gave the BUK missile batteries to the separatists, needs to pay up reparations for each victim.

The amount of the reparations, I suggest, ought to be roughly what the U.S. paid to the Iranians back in 1988, but in 1988 dollars

That should be the end of it and the paranoia, including suggestions of more "sanctions" and more saber rattling.

The bottom line is that NO one's hands are clean here, no one is blameless. The Malaysian Airlines and Dutch KLM (which operated shared flights) for flying over a proven deadly war zone, the U.S. and Ukraine for installing a puppet government to begin with and destabilizing the country - leading to Russian entry and separatists, and the Russians themselves for delivering a powerful SAM- battery to the separatists who weren't savvy enough to use it properly and indeed ought not have been using it at all.

Everyone needs to settle down, think clearly and proceed with caution, especially the Amerikkan war hawks and neocons - never at a loss for more sanctimonious bullshit, and war mongering.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/57044/airline-horror-spurs-new-rush-to-judgment

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/57004/the-human-price-of-neocon-havoc

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/russ-wellen/57040/suddenly-putin-blaming-ukraine-for-flight-17-makes-a-shred-of-sense

and:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/walter-c-uhler/57020/whos-responsible-for-shooting-down-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/18/the_new_age_of_global_paranoia_russia_ukraine_and_the_plane_crash_heard_round_the_world/

 

Could the U.S. Alone Defeat Russia in a Conventional War? NO!

One stage of a recent game of GO.  The black markers could represent NATO,  expanded (via U.S. pressure)  to try to surround the white (Russia). All responses are merited therefore which are in the interest of the defense of white.

Our President, alas, continues to babble on the mounting Ukraine crisis from a perception that is more in line with Neocon thinking than that of a rational person who is geopolitically informed.  This is not surprising because the meme of American exceptionalism and hubris contaminates the thinking of most of our leaders - who seem - after a time, to just parrot each other's talking points. Thus, last night in a CBS interview (CBS Evening News) Obama - when asked about the current crisis - replied that Russia is "responding from a position of weakness".

This is, of course, Neocon drivel. If Obama understood even the basics of the strategic game of 'GO' (an ancient and complex game of oriental origin that predates chess) he would never have made such a dumb remark. In 'GO',  you see, the object is not to capture pieces, but to prevail by virtue of effectively surrounding the opponent's pieces. (Pieces are in the shape of black and white circular, or roundish discs.)  At the point of maximal surround, the hapless opponent either has no legal moves left, or he loses pieces (usually in the center of the board) because the encircling is so effective it allows them to be removed from play (not the same as capture, since they are effectively useless so are redundant).

Indeed, the image presented above shows white backed against the side of the board by an ever more aggressive black. For the purposes of illustration, I identify the U.S.- instigated NATO expansion as the black force. Meanwhile,  Russia - backed against the side of the board (or it would be if it allowed NATO to take Ukraine as one its puppets)-  is identified with the white force-pieces. This presentation or situation is totally in line with what I formerly described in terms of game theory . See e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-game-theory-perspective-on-ukraine.html

As I observed in that post, in terms of the game theory context of 'spheres of influence':

In this game context, I look at a 20-plus year sequential game played by the U.S. vs. Russia and for which the subtext and most basic assumption is the “sphere of influence”.  This is taken to mean the geographic and geo-political domain in which a nation’s actions are justified and wherein it exhibits maximal latitude to determine its own self-interest especially in matters of national security.

The most thoroughly studied solution concept is the Nash equilibrium (see e.g. the book, The Essential John Nash, Princeton University Press, 2002,  Ch. 6 ‘Non-Cooperative Games’ – facsimile of Nash’s Ph.D. Thesis, and Ch. 7, presented in regular book font format). This is the outcome that results when the players maximize their own payoffs – taking the other player’s behavior as given.

In the game space graphic shown, I place the Nash equilibrium for the U.S. – Russia contest just 2-3 yrs. past the point where in 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev refused to use force to keep the Soviet Union together and allowed Germany to peacefully reunify. In exchange, US President George H.W. Bush agreed not to expand NATO’s borders east, and certainly not to Russia’s borders.

This translated into a credible 'win-win' (analogous to both persons in the classic "Prisoner's Dilemma" refusing to rat on each other), and I argue that this equilibrium – if it had been preserved- would not have led to the current U.S. – Russian standoff.

Alas, the U.S. broke faith and began to play the “dominant” game (i.e. changing strategy to grab a seeming payoff and benefit  - breaking the then Nash equilibrium), egged on by its defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and others to grab former Soviet States like Latvia, Estonia etc. – suck them into NATO, and ply them with weapons sales.  The reason for adopting the dominant posture is still up for discussion, but according to blogger Eric Margolis, “Washington regarded Russia as a broken-down, third world nation beneath contempt”.

Thus, it is clear - as I also noted - the U.S. -NATO had "too many payoffs" and Russia had no choice other than to respond in aggressive fashion. But this response in the context was from one of defensive strength - not "weakness" - as Obama described it.

Obama was next asked about the buzzing of the U.S. destroyer in the Black Sea by the Russian SU-24 jet, and again delivered a clueless, Neocon -biased, American exceptionalist reply:

"They did that for display but they don't want to get into a war with us. They'd be defeated in a conventional war."

Really, Mr. Prez? You think so? I don't!  You need to stop ingesting those MJ 'edibles'. Here are some reasons why Obama is dreaming and the U.S, would be 'smoked' in any conventional engagement:

- After eleven plus years of  futile "wars" in which the U.S. couldn't even defeat a ragtag rabble in either Iraq or Afghanistan, the American military is spent, demoralized and literally crippled in mind and  body. Hell, the vets returning from these occupations can't even obtain the medical and other disability benefits they sorely need! The military, meanwhile, has featured the highest suicide rate of any group in this country for the last five years, and the brain-damaged toll (from IEDs, etc.) is estimated at possibly as high as 50 percent. That is 50 percent of all vets coming back with some type of PTSD or actual brain damage. You think these guys would be able to face off against a totally revamped Russian military on their turf?

- The sharp reduction of the American defense inventory over approximately the past twenty-five years has been predicated on two basic assumptions. First, that Russia, Washington’s chief Cold War adversary, was no longer a substantial threat following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Second, that no military force or collection of forces on the planet had the technological sophistication to rival the United States.   These assumptions are no longer valid.

Russia has already nearly completed a $723 billion modernization program that includes procuring 1,700 warplanes, including cutting edge fighters and new air defense batteries. Reliable German defense reports also note that  Russia has revamped its air force with many new craft, including some, like the T-50, that surpass America’s latest fighter, the F-22 Raptor..

- Acting on those concepts, America’s armed forces were substantially reduced. The Navy shrunk from 600 ships to 286, the Air Force from 37 combat air wings to 20, and the Army from 17 divisions to 10. Under the Obama administration, this process has deepened and accelerated. The President has also pursued a course of significant and, in large part unilateral, nuclear arms reduction.

- The costs of the two futile occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq are still being tallied but already best estimates put the total at over $4 trillion.  There is no way the American people - certainly the sensible, thinking ones - will go for another major ground war that could empty the Treasury in one fell swoop. Where will the U.S. get the money from such a venture? China? Not too likely!  (It is possible, however, that the hypocrite warmonger 'pukes would allow the debt ceiling to be raised past $20 trillion to enable this dubious move.)

-  According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London Russia is now firmly established as the world’s third-largest military spender, behind the U.S. and China. According to IISS, Russia now operates one aircraft carrier, five cruisers, 18 destroyers, nine frigates and 82 coastal warships as well as 64 submarines — 11 carrying ballistic missiles.

- From all points of view, given the U.S. the last 12 years hasn't been in a major conventional war defined by actual  battle lines, air attacks from the opponent, tank combat, facing targeted sophisticated missiles (as opposed to IEDs) and facing well trained troops - as opposed to rag tag goobers, it is doubtful whatever forces Obama lines up will last even one major battle. Most savvy observers see a rout like Dien Bien Phu all over again.   And where will these troops come from to fight the Russkies?  From the battered and bruised lot already mending wounds and mental pain after multiple tours in Eye-rack? Please.  They'd have to be pulled from South Korea (leaving N. Korea free to attack the South) and Afghanistan, where again, they've only faced the Taliban - not exactly the equivalent of the Russians.

-  The Russians would be fighting for and IN their own sphere of influence, so would be stoked to the max to defend their interests. In many respects it would be analogous to the massive wave attack of the Chinese after the U.S. -NATO forces pushed too far north in the Korean War.  With the advantage of nearby supply lines and forces, the U.S. would have to retreat .

The conclusion here is that the U.S. alone - given its demoralized, PTSD-wrought and diluted forces - would be no match for the vastly superior and improved Russian military which is no longer the 'joke' of the world as blow-dried moron Rob Lowe tried to portray on Bill Maher's Real Time last week. ("These guys couldn't even get locks on the doors of the hotel rooms in Sochi or keep dogs out of the halls!") That is an antiquated view the West and its PR lackeys best get rid of before it engages Russian troops anywhere in their sphere of influence.

The U.S. therefore would need to recruit all its NATO puppets to assist in any conventional ground attack on Russia. The problem with that is that the Russians have retained a “limited use" nuclear doctrine by which they reserve the right to employ nuclear weapons if they feel overwhelmed by conventional outside forces, say NATO’s, see e.g.

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/russ-wellen/54873/russia-still-addresses-conventional-weapons-gap-with-u-s-via-nukes

As noted therein:

On March 13, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ran a piece by Nikolai Sokov with the paradoxical title Why Russia calls a limited nuclear strike “de-escalation.” He writes, “In 1999, at a time when renewed war in Chechnya seemed imminent, Moscow watched with great concern as NATO waged a high-precision military campaign in Yugoslavia.” It became concerned both that “the United States would interfere within its borders” and that the “conventional capabilities that the United States and its allies demonstrated seemed far beyond Russia’s own capacities.”

In response, Russia:

… issued a new military doctrine whose main innovation was the concept of “de-escalation”—the idea that, if Russia were faced with a large-scale conventional attack that exceeded its capacity for defense, it might respond with a limited nuclear strike.

In the unnerving 1983 film ‘Threads’ such a scenario played out in a future Iran, after the U.S. and NATO allies bombed a nuclear plant at Isfahan. The Russians used tactical nukes to even the score and halt advancing NATO forces, the U.S. did likewise, and within days the exchange could no longer be controlled and had escalated into a full scale nuclear war. Is this what Obama really wants? Then he better be careful what promises he makes and how he wields his rhetoric.
 

Here's an even better recommendation: Maybe the Prez ought to first learn the game of GO before he babbles again in an interview about the Russians "acting out of weakness" or that "the U.S. can take them in a conventional war."

Give the American people the truth, Mr. Obama, not a bunch of bollocks and Neocon codswallop!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/walter-c-uhler/55436/dear-nato-are-you-lying-about-russia-or-simply-incompetent

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/55402/ukraine-through-the-us-looking-glass

and: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/john-stanton/55413/fido-and-general-wes-clark-in-ukraine-us-advisors-on-the-ground-deadly-messenger

U.S. Warship Buzzed By Russian Jet: So What's the Problem?

The U.S. Neocons and their warmonger rabble never fail to mystify as well as enrage me.  They've merrily pushed their aggression to the Russian border - with the Ukraine- and yet brand Russia as the "aggressor". They invade the Black Sea (a U.S. Destroyer) which is directly within Russia's sphere of influence and then get all perturbed when a Russian SU-24 buzzes their asses, flying within 1000 feet.

Now, my friends, as per my usual approach, kindly mirror the situation and then laugh with me. IF - I say IF - a Russian Destroyer or other warship was sitting some fifty miles off of Key West, Florida, just what the hell do you think the Mighty U.S. (behind its "Monroe Doctrine") would do?  If you can't fathom the answer I will give you a clue:  they'd have every F-22 Raptor and Stealth fighter from MacDill AFB in the air and buzzing the Russians non-stop. As would be their right because the Russian warship would be within the U.S. sphere of influence.

But extend that to the Russians, if WE are intruding in THEIR sphere of influence, under some bogus pretext? Oh no!  The Russkies are only a "second class, regional power" (according to Obama) so they merit no sphere of influence. The Amerikkan sphere governs the whole damned planet, including the Black Sea bordering Russia  And so we behold the Pentagon whining, at least its parrot....errrrr spokesman....one Col. Steve Warren:

"This provocative and unprofessional Russian action is inconsistent with their national protocols and previous agreements on the professional interaction between our militaries,......I have difficulty believing that two Russian pilots on their own would choose to take such an action." "


Well, uh no, you dumb pudsucker!  Obviously the command came from higher up, and why wouldn't it? You invade their space, their sphere of influence and you think they wouldn't do a thing - especially with CIA planted thugs - taking a break from their torture routines - now trying to instigate an entry for NATO forces in eastern Ukraine.   The truth is that it was the U.S.S. Taylor in February and March that  already violated the protocol with the Russians which calls for all NON-Black Sea states to have their war craft depart after 21 days. The Taylor stayed a full ten days past its due exit date.

As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has noted, in reference to the Montreux Convention:

"US warships have extended their deployment beyond the set terms a couple of times lately.”


So why should they not also be suspicious of the U.S.S. Donald Cook which entered Black Sea waters on April 11?

Again, it's because the U.S. miscreants, neocons and warmongers never want to see things from the other nation's perspective. It's always 'our way' the way WE see it, and devil take the hindmost. If this doesn't get under the skin of every REAL American, I don't know what the fuck would!  Because if it doesn't it means we're a nation of nationalist zombies prepared to grant our War state an endorsement for endless war. (Anyone raise your hand if you know another nation of zombots that did that: Clue one, it was in the 1930s. Clue Two: Third Reich. Clue Three: Nuremberg War Crimes Trials.)

Interesting side point: As Bill Maher observed on 'Real Time' last Friday, the less Americans knew of where Ukraine was located geographically,  the more they wanted some military action. As Maher put it: "Ignorance goes with the desire for aggression." (Maher displayed a map from a survey that showed at least a dozen idiot Americans placed the Ukraine inside the U.S. while another two dozen dummies put it in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean!)

Already the saber rattling, and clarion calls are being heard, from the usual neocon assholes like John McCain ('For God's sakes we gotta bomb 'em this time!') to the entrenched neocons at State, to the budding little warmonger (U.S. Ambassador to the UN)  Samantha Power.  Power actually got on her high horse and claimed that it was "obvious" Russia was instigating a new crisis by fomenting separatist discord in eastern Ukraine. Has she got her brain on backwards or what? It was Russia that called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council last night! Oh wait, wait....we are zomboids for believing that because it's all a put-on to justify invasion later! Or so the Neoliberal press and their hangers on would have you believe!

You see, the Neoliberal media and the Neoliberal Political class of poltroons wants you to remain deaf, dumb, blind and stupid so they can manipulate the planet to their own ends - including establishing a permanent global plutocracy. They want to do it via the use of leveraging debt  - say through the IMF and the banking system- or through the force of arms. They also want to intimidate any and all nations that might stand in their way, including Russia.

This is what the Ukraine crisis is all about and if you don't get that, you're not paying attention. It is indeed the last stand to be made for a bipolar world, as opposed to the unipolar one now on offer with the U.S. warmongers and "super power" ruling the roost, and driving all players into a debt -leveraged "free" market system which is anything but.

Recall here the words of author William Greider  ('Who Will Tell The People-The Betrayal of American Democracy', Touchstone, 1991), p. 401:

"It does not require great political imagination to see that the world system is heading toward a further dispersion of governing power so the closet dictator of the marketplace can command things more efficiently, from everywhere and nowhere.....

What is emerging now is a power system that more nearly resembles a kind of global feudalism- a system in which the private economic enterprises function like rival dukes and barons, warring for territories across the world and oblivious to local interests.......In that event, vast throngs of citizens are reduced to a political position resembling that of  the serfs....who followed church or nobility in the feudal system."

Serfs in a feudal system! This is the future the Neoliberal World Order has on offer for most of us  except the one percent.

Even as I write this the U.S. war mongers are pushing their luck and aggression to the hilt. Reuters actually reports US State Department Counselor Thomas Shannon — a senior diplomat and member of Kerry’s inner circle- talking about the possibility of supplying arms to the Ukraine government. Reuters actually quoted Shannon as saying:

"Obviously we are looking at that as an option ... but at this point I can't anticipate whether or not we are going to do that,”

This moron also had the nerve to say, with a straight face:

"From our point of view what we are seeing in a series of cities mimics what we saw in Crimea both in terms of the tactics and in terms of the people involved"

Despite the fact up to 25,000 Russian troops of whatever type, "identified" by uniform or not, were allowed according to a 1997 Treaty. See e.g.http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-us-intelligence-russia-ukraine-20140303,0,4657644.story#axzz2uy8lfu8m

So these dingbats at State can't even get their facts straight.

Not to be outdone, we had perpetual clueless parrot and puppet Jay Carney bloviating this afternoon:

"We're not actively considering lethal aid but we are reviewing the kinds of assistance we can provide,"

Let's hope this jerk's take is correct, and there is no "lethal" force or supply of arms being considered. We may all live to regret that! Let's also hope the inbred jerks at the State Dept. don't push their hands beyond what they have, lest the Russians call them on it!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/walter-c-uhler/55436/dear-nato-are-you-lying-about-russia-or-simply-incompetent

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/mike-whitney/55375/the-obama-game-is-putin-being-lured-into-a-trap

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-margolis/55348/patriotism-is-the-first-platform-of-fools

And:


http://www.salon.com/2014/04/03/someone_teach_john_kerry_about_history/