The most insane kind of stupid

As the news (((media))) fights the rise of the God-Emperor with every possible method at their disposal, the really important news of our afflicted age seems to be going unnoticed. Namely, the news that the Russkies are preparing for the very real possibility of an actual shooting war with the United States of America's armed forces:
The only remaining logical steps left for the US in Syria is to accept Russia’s terms or leave. The problem is that I am not at all convinced that the Neocons, who run the White House, Congress and the US corporate media, are “rational” at all. This is why the Russians employed so many delaying tactics and why they have acted with such utmost caution: they are dealing with professional incompetent ideologues who simply do not play by the unwritten but clear rules of civilized international relations. This is what makes the current crisis so much worse than even the Cuban Missile Crisis: one superpower has clearly gone insane. 
Are the Americans crazy enough to risk WWIII over Aleppo? 
Maybe, maybe not. But what if we rephrase that question and ask: 
Are the Americans crazy enough to risk WWIII to maintain their status as the “world’s indispensable nation”, the “leader of the free world”, the “city on the hill” and all the rest of this imperialistic nonsense? 
Here I would submit that yes, they potentially are. 
After all, the Neocons are correct when they sense that if Russia gets away with openly defying and defeating the USA in Syria, nobody will take the AngloZionists very seriously any more. 
How do you think the Neocons think when they see the President of the Philippines publicly calling Obama a “son of a whore” and then tells the EU to go and “f*ck itself”? 
Of course, the Neocons can still find some solace in the abject subservience of the European political elites, but still – they know that the writing is on the wall and that their Empire is rapidly crumbling, not only in Syria, the Ukraine or Asia, but even inside the US. The biggest danger here is that the Neocons might try to rally the nation around the flag, either by staging yet another false flag or by triggering a real international crisis. 
At this point in time all we can do is wait and hope that there is enough resistance inside the US government to prevent a US attack on Syria before the next Administration comes in. And while I am no supporter of Trump, I would agree that Hillary and her evil cabal of russophobic Neocons is so bad that Trump does give me some hope, at least in comparison to Hillary.
If the globalist lunatics in charge of this country are truly stupid enough to tip America headfirst into an actual war with the Russians, then may God have mercy on us all.

Of course, it may be noted that history has often proven the maxim that whom God would destroy, He first drives mad.

Thing is, though, that when it comes to actually preparing for the possibility of war between two out of the world's five major powers- one of which is, even today, perhaps the single superpower left on Earth- only one of them is taking the threat seriously and acting accordingly. No prizes for guessing which one, of course- it's the one that ISN'T led by a cabal of gurning globalist crazies intent on seeing how far they can take their Great Game before they actually have to cash in their chips.

I am not a military man (obviously). I don't pretend to have any great insights about military tactics and strategy, or about global geopolitics. But I do know a little something about history, and what I know tells me that, if America goes to war with Russia over the quite idiotic interventions of both powers in the Middle East, America will almost certainly lose.

Three things motivate that statement, which most neocons would scoff at. As they themselves are so fond of saying, America's military is the greatest and most powerful in the world- surely it will not have a problem taking on and defeating a third-rate military power which could never match America's technological advantages even at the height of the Soviet Union's power!

I'm not nearly so sanguine about America's prospects.

The first reason for my scepticism has to do with the way that Russia has transformed herself under President, or Prime Minister- ah, what the hell, let's just call him what he is, Tsar- Vladimir Putin. The Russia of today is NOT the Russia of the Cold War, and for some reason, none of the chickenhawks who advise President Odoofuss or former Secretary of State Rottenmuncher seem to understand this.

(Speaking of those same chickenhawks- in my mind I tend to use a slightly different 12-letter word that starts with "chicken" when describing them. I'll leave you to decide whether that is appropriate.)

Russia today is a serious regional power with serious military capabilities. The days in which Russian Kilo-class submarines rusted in their docks at Murmansk and Kaliningrad, or were sold off by a desperately cash-strapped government to the Iranians and Libyans, are long done. Today's Russian army, navy, and air force might not have the overwhelming numbers and firepower that they did back in the bad old days of the Soviet Union, but they're nothing to sneeze at either.

Today the Russians have a clear command-and-control structure that shows that its military has learned the hard and painful lessons of Soviet-era and later failures that manifested themselves most plainly in Afghanistan and Chechnya. Today's Russian military is modern, technologically advanced, and fully capable of going toe-to-toe with just about anyone else.

Which brings me to my second point of deep pessimism about America's prospects. As far as I can tell, for the last forty years, the American doctrine of "deep-strike" has been preeminent among "mainstream" military thinkers that dominate America's strategic planning for war. The basic idea is that, against any large and organised state-led military like China's or Russia's, America's massive advantages in stealth technology can be used to send stealth fighters and bombers deep behind enemy lines to take out critical command-and-control centres with near-total surprise. This renders the enemy blind and deaf, allowing ground units to encircle and outmanoeuvre their foes with ease and limited casualties.

The evidence in support of this theory of war is, and has always been, Operation Desert Storm. There is actually good reason for this. Back then, when the F-117 Nighthawk stealth "fighter" (it's actually a tactical bomber) was a highly regarded but as yet untested piece of (very awesome looking) kit, stealth planes were used to penetrate deep into Iraqi airspace around Baghdad to deliver highly precise surgical strikes directly to the Iraqi military's critical communications and supply points.

This doesn't sound that impressive, until you realise that Baghdad at the time had perhaps the most extensive and terrifying air defences of ANY city anywhere in the world.

Make no mistake, "deep strike" works and it is frighteningly effective against a technologically inferior opponent.

The problem is that the Russians are anything but technologically inferior.

The big issue with stealth technology has always been that most of it is a massive marketing exercise. Don't get me wrong, the mathematics and technology behind "stealth" warfare is actually really cool, and it does work. Thing is, though, it only works against enemy radar systems that it was actually designed to defeat.

In the modern battlefield, those radar systems typically scan in the VHF and UHF ranges, with extremely high frequencies and very short wavelengths. These sorts of radar systems are very effective at painting a very precise picture of what is coming at you- if you can see it.

However, older radar systems that scan in much lower frequency ranges, with much longer wavelengths- such as, say, the radar systems that the RAF used with such devastating effect against the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain- will have little problem picking up so-called "stealth" aircraft like the F-117, the B-2, and the F-22.

Long-wave radar arrays are typically much less precise in terms of telling you exactly what is heading your way. But they can tell you that something is coming at you. And when combined with modern radar interpretation and cleanup algorithms, it is possible (as far as I know) to get a reasonably accurate picture of who and what is sending death and devastation at you.

In other words- America's perceived advantages in stealth don't really exist. Which means that, if America's leadership is actually so catastrophically stupid as to get this country into a hot war with Russia, its single greatest advantage on the battlefield is gone.

The third, and most terrible, problem with going to war against Russia has to do with leadership. Simply put- the Russians have it, and the Americans don't.

For the past 8 years, under Odumbass and his lickspittle clique of toadies, the American military has been growing increasingly more effete, fat, and useless. No longer is its primary function to be the best at breaking things and killing people- that might hurt people's feelings. No, today the military is the focus of some of the biggest and craziest social engineering experiments the country has ever seen.

Nowadays it is used as a petri dish to test out every single bizarrely stupid idea that comes into fashion. Gays and lesbians serving openly? Sure, why not. Self-mutilating, mentally ill "transsexuals" too? What the hell, let's do it. Women in combat roles? Yep, bring 'em on! Making male soldiers and sailors wear high heels and pregnancy bellies to get an idea of what women go through? Hey, it's all in the name of "understanding"! Impossibly stupid finger-wagging lectures about sexual harassment, rape culture, and other feminist brainwashing? Well it's not like soldiers have anything, y'know, important to do! Lowering standards so that just about anyone can qualify to be a rifleman or tanker or engineer? It's all for the greater good, don't you see!

The kind of military that is forced to indulge in these insane perversions of reason and logic is not a military designed to win wars. It is a military designed as the plaything of overgrown children who are too cruel and coddled to understand that they are playing games with people's lives.

Russia's military, as far as I am aware, does not suffer from most if any of these afflictions. It has been transformed since the fall of the Soviet Union, and the desperate 20 years that followed it, into a highly effective, highly motivated fighting force. And the government of Russia is led by a man who is the next best thing Russia has to one of its historical god-emperors, who knows what it means to command and who is not afraid or ashamed to use force in the interests of his country.

In the final analysis, if America goes to war with Russia, she won't just lose- she will be defeated so badly that the humiliation will be remembered in the very bones of the people of the once-United States of America for generations afterwards. The very scary problem in this specific case is not that America is going to lose this war- the case can be, and has been, very persuasively made that America has not actually won a real war since WWII.

No, the really scary part is that we now have two powers armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, and only one of them is actually thinking straight. And this time, it's the Russians.

Whenever someone mentions war with Russia, I am reminded of what Fred Reed wrote on the subject not too long ago:
A martial principle of great wisdom says that military stupidity comes in three grades: Ordinarily stupid; really, really, REALLY stupid; and fighting Russia. Think Charles XII at Poltava, Napoleon after Borodino, Adolf and Kursk. 
Letting dilettantes, grifters, con men, pasty Neocons, bottle-blonde ruins, and corporations decide on war is insane. We have pseudo-masculine dwarves playing with things they do not understand. So far as I am aware, none of these fern-bar Clausewitzes has worn boots, been in a war, seen a war, or faces any chance of being in a war started by themselves. They brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, and Isis, and can’t win wars against goatherds with AKs. They are going to fight…Russia? 
A point that the tofu ferocities of New York might bear in mind is that wars seldom turn out as expected, usually with godawful results. We do not know what would happen in a war with Russia. Permit me a tedious catalog to make this point. It is very worth making.

When Washington pushed the South into the Civil War, it expected a conflict that might be over in twenty-four hours, not four years with as least 650,000 dead. When Germany began WWI, it expected a swift lunge into Paris, not four years of hideously bloody static war followed by unconditional surrender. When the Japanese Army pushed for attacking Pearl, it did not foresee GIs marching in Tokyo and a couple of cities glowing at night. When Hitler invaded Poland, utter defeat and occupation of Germany was not among his war aims. When the US invaded Vietnam, it did not expect to be outfought and outsmarted by a bush-world country. When Russia invaded Afghanistan it did not expect…nor when America invaded Afghanistan, nor when it attacked Iraq, nor….

Is there a pattern here? 
The standard American approach to war is to underestimate the enemy, overestimate American capacities, and misunderstand the kind of war it enters. This is particularly true when the war is a manhood ritual for masculine inadequates–think Kristol, Podhoretz, Sanders, the whole Neocon milk bar, and that mendacious wreck, Hillary, who has the military grasp of a Shetland pony. If you don’t think weak egos and perpetual adolescence have a part in deciding policy, read up on Kaiser Wilhelm. 
Fighting Russia, with the current American military and leadership being what it is, has got to be the damned dumbest idea I've ever heard. And I work for a bank- where idiotic ideas abound on a daily basis.

The worst part of all of this is that war with Russia is absolutely the LAST thing that a sane American government should want. Russia, for all of its many faults, still has far more in common with the West than she does with our enemies. In fact, Russia has suffered far more from the predations of Islam than the West has over the last fifty years. They are a natural ally against the scourge of Islam; what kind of idiot would want to antagonise such a valuable potential friend?

Oh. Right.
Put another way- do you really want to screw with a country where they don't just keep and bear arms- they keep and arm freakin' BEARS?!?!?


  1. BTW -I'm on gab - @lastredoubt - and posting to this there...

  2. I'm a lot more worried about us coming close to winning than any possible loses to anti aircraft weapons.

    We hit too deep into Russia and look like we are winning and Russia uses its ICBM's . Game, set match

    However I suspect that we'll just skirmish with them in Syria and I don't know how that might go . If we take loses it might escalate or we might punk or Russian hardware might be overrated and we win

    1. Well, the problem with attacking the Russian homeland directly is that far better armies with far wiser and more skilled generals in charge have tried this in the past. Didn't work out so well for them either.

      You're right, though: if America's leadership is batshit insane enough to launch a direct attack on the Russian homeland, America is done. Attacking a nuclear power on their own soil with conventional warfare is a guaranteed way to see New York, Washington D.C., and Boston turned into radioactive cinders.

      All I can say is that America's leadership is truly crazy if it thinks that a war with Russia is desirable, winnable, and palatable to America's armed forces.

  3. Eduardo the Magnificent14 October 2016 at 20:55

    Remember from Tragedy & Hope, that in order for our modern economy to work and for government to continue its march toward global feudalism, one of two things must constantly be present: war or the threat of war. When there are wars, there can no longer be a distinct winner or loser. I don't think we'll fight Russia, but if we do, it will be a decade-long stalemate. Just like Korea, Vietnam, and both Iraq wars.

  4. The Russians have their S-300 and S-400 anti-aircraft defense systems, which I understand to be quite advanced.

    The Russians have good reason to do what they are doing in Syria. One out of seven people living in Russia is a Muslim, nearly all of them Sunni. Sunni jihadis is an existential threat to Russia and a serious (but not existential) threat to China. Russia and China have every reason to help support the Shia crescent in the northern Middle east as a buffer against Sunni Islamism. Lastly, they are doing what our government can't seem to bother with doing itself, namely taking out Sunni Islamists such as ISIS and Al Queda and its associates. Our Washington DC crowd is absolutely lunacy.


Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Popular Posts