Tucker: “What is the American national interest that will be served by regime change?”
Senator: “If you care about Israel… we have a strategic interest there.”
I don’t think I have a reputation for panicking. But I do think that we are now at probably the most dangerous point in world affairs since Russian and NATO troops faced off at Pristina Airport in 1999, if not since the Cold War.
It is now clear that there will almost certainly be strikes by the US against Syrian targets in coordination with France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, and that the scope of this attack will be much greater than last year.
- Naval force capable of a cruise missile strike is already off the coast of Syria, namely the destroyer USS Donald Cook and the cruise missile submarine USS Georgia. The destroyer Laboon will soon join up with them, while Carrier Strike Group 8 (USS Harry S. Truman) will be in the area in a week’s time.
- The French frigate Aquitaine is also in the area, and British forces in Cyprus are allegedly mobilizing for strikes.
- Russian Su-24’s have harassed the Donald Cook and Aquitaine, and the Black Sea Fleet has been placed on combat alert. Several senior officials have said there will be military retaliation if Russian troops are targeted, although there have been no clear commitments even as regards that. Current Russian naval forces in the area include two Kilo submarines. From my limited research, the Moskva cruiser is out of theater.
- Trump has canceled scheduled visits to Latin America to instead “oversee the American response to Syria”, while James Mattis has canceled visits to Arizona and California.
- Civilian overflights over Syria have completely ceased as Eurocontrols declares a no fly zone over the East Mediterranean for the next 72 hours.
- The US and Russia vetoed each others Douma investigation resolutions at the UN Security Council. The reason Russia vetoed is that the American version had a reference to Chapter VII, which would have opened an avenue for the US to go to war against Syria – that is, for the same reasons it vetoed the US resolutions in 2017. The Libyan experience taught Russia to pay attention to wording.
- While the US “welcomes” the OCPW mission to establish the facts on the ground, it openly says it will not affect the US decision on a response to Syria (sic). What can one say? At least they’re utterly forthright in their pretensions to exceptionalism.
- There has been a remarkable show of unity over this issue in Europe, and not just the usual suspects. Days after approving it, Angela Merkel chose today to announce that Nord Stream 2 must preserve a transit role for the Ukraine. This kind of annuls its entire purpose and puts the capstone on the Kremlin’s dismal gas policy and outreach to Germany.
- Meanwhile, Congress is already moving to enact further sanctions against Russia (forbids transactions relating to new Russian sovereign debt).
The Western media is beating the drumbeat for war, and unlike in 2003, during the Libyan Crisis, or even last year, I see hardly any skepticism about it in the comments. The few skeptics are invariably labeled Russian trolls. I am really getting the impression that the degree of popular hate in the West towards Russia is approaching what Allied citizens must have felt towards Nazi Germany by 1941. Kudos where its due: Neoliberalism.txt has programmed its peons well.
I still don’t think this will boil over into a major war, but the chances of that are now well above 0%.
If it does, though, it will constitute a stupidly appropriate end to Western civilization as we know it. As one commenter here has noted, current decision-makers make the statesmen of 1914 seem sane and rational.
Endings are never appropriate, and it would be such a waste. I agree that we have a non-zero chance of this escalating into an apocalypse. And that can kind of odds happen all the time.
Civilizations that end over disagreements about ‘who rules East Ghouta’ seem slightly wobbly already. By the way, who runs West Ghouta? Could they maybe just build a wall?
Popular hatred toward Russia in the West has reached irrational levels. It seems very widespread and at this point short of a cleansing conflict I don’t see how it can subside. Since Westerners are forbidden hating anyone else, all the accumulated hostility has turned against anything Russian. It is ok to hate Russia and the hunger for strong negative emotions is very deep. The argument seems to be that Russians are so absolutely evil that they will do stupid, self-defeating things because they cannot control their own evil instincts. It is – as a prominent deep-stater said – in their DNA. The obvious solution is to make sure that the ‘evil’ DNA doesn’t stick around. And that way lies the unsolvable cul-de-sac we are facing today.
Maybe a lucky distraction can help, or maybe Trump is playing it up but doesn’t mean it. That has been his style. At some point if we count on luck, we are bound to fail. All gamblers know this, but they can’t stop gambling anyway.
Trump’s Russophilia, still frequently expressed, seems like it would prevent a wider war. However he could undertake actions that he would not believe would invoke Russian retaliation but in fact do so.
Farcically, he can of course be removed from office (or simply assassinated) in which case all bets are off.
In any case he has shown no ability to deal with the Dweeb State or even know what he is up against. He is starting to get it based on his actions in the past month, but by now it could be too late.
At this point in time I am glad to live in a rural area and also to no longer be in my 20s.
This is something that truly requires investigation and explanation, and not just with respect to the present false flags. This Western elite unity did not exist prior to the Obama Administration, nor did it even exist during the Cold War when there was a genuine threat.
What the hell happened?
The best theory that I have is that many of today’s Western elites attended the same graduate schools and read the same English-language publications. This theory doesn’t explain Merkel, but then Merkel is a woman and a well-known opportunist weathervane.
Civilian planes told to clear the area for 48 hours.
If this implies, it is only 48 hours in which the operation takes place, is not going to make much difference in the war. Afterwards, everything will carry as before, but Trump will be boasting about it in the re-election campaign.
They will sit out for the short time the Americans bomb, and then go back to the long (over 2.5 years so far) airstrikes campaign, which – unlike 48 hour airstrikes – has the effect changing the war course.
In list of intelligence in the Syria conflict – we can see from least intelligent, to most intelligent (or equally from least long-term thinking, to most long-term thinking): America, Russia, Iran.
Meanwhile, tensions have made oil prices have now gone to the highest since 2014 – so Russian budget and economy will benefit some billions of dollars from Trump’s behaviour this week.
What’s Russophile about someone who states that Putin (just reelected by a majority of the Russian electorate and undoubtedly popular) has to “pay a big price” for the alleged gas attack? That’s just projection and wishful thinking, something Trump supporters have indulged in excessively since the very start of Trump’s campaign.
I don’t buy all those “Trump is really smart and has a plan, he’s a valiant knight secretly fighting the Deep state on our behalf, just has to make some tactical concessions” rationalizations for his conduct either. No one forced him to hire people like Haley or Bolton, he wanted to do that.
It seems most likely to me that Trump really is just as stupid, vulgar and uninformed as he generally comes across. He’s a fitting representative of the very worst strains of US nationalism whose mindless bellicosity he seems to have fully internalized.
Initially Tucker Carlson unenthusiastically supported G W Bush’s Iraq War. Carlson attributed his support to the arguments of a much smarter man. Carlson came to rue his support.
Carlson learned his lesson. Unfortunately virtually none of our erstwhile leaders and prognosticators have yet learned theirs.
Time to grill Porky’s forces in Donbas as an asymmetrical retaliation for Syria,… may be?
Certainly nothing with respect to the specific tweets.
But Trump has a long pattern of Russophilic behavior stemming from even before becoming a politician. Even back in the 1980s he suggested ending the Cold War in favor of the USA and USSR establishing a global condominium to prevent nuclear proliferation.
More recently he insisted on removing providing lethal aid to the Ukraine from the Republican 2016 platform, and immediately upon taking office attempted to implement detente with Russia which was sabotaged by Foggy Bottom faggots and their faggot allies in Congress.
More recent events have been disappointing to say the least, yet he keeps tweeting that he wants good relations with Russia. He received a bold faced document instructing him not to congratulate Walt (I refer to Putin as Walt–explanation at the end of this post) on his landslide win, yet did it anyway.
The man clearly wants good relations with Russia, but is unable to get them owing to the Dweeb State (and his own personal flaws).
This is a separate issue, and I have no disagreement with you. His personnel selection in particular is appalling. The man simply didn’t know what he was getting into, and he lacks several important skills and character traits to handle the situation he is in.
I remain sympathetic as I happen to like him on a personal level.
Well the man isn’t stupid–how much money are you worth? Could you take the kind of public heat he could?
Vulgar, yes, of course, but that was a selling point for us Deplorables.
But at the end of the day it seems he simply isn’t up to the job. I am sure you and I could do a better job running America…provided we had his piss and vinegar, pugilism, stamina, etc. You get what I am saying.
I am not going to defend his clear deficiencies, but to me he remains likeable on a personal level and has a number of admirable and important qualities. These qualities were clearly insufficient. We need someone who possesses these qualities (and perhaps subtracts a few deficiencies) but adds true intellectual rigor.
I’ll be running in 2024 if I clear a billion by then.
He never hides anything. During the election campaign you can hear his attitude about war things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm9T5xXKOFo
I enjoyed this clip during the campaign, though there is occasionally a case for a general officer being interviewed.
That said he is wrong about us having a General Patton today. The truth is that all of our general officers are pozzed, cucked, and worthless faggots who are simply LARPing.
This is one of many reasons we must avoid a general war with Russia, China, or other serious countries.
I hope his current immigration feud with Mad Duck Mattis leads him to discover this.
what’s the point of writing an article like this unless you address the question of whether you hold onto the fence or not during the nuclear blast?
Israel has misjudged Russia in Syria. The consequences could be grave
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/10/israel-russia-syria-netanyahu-iran-middle-east
At least the awful problem of wild horses would be solved.
I find him completely unlikeable on a personal level, the man is crassly materialistic, vulgar trash, his whoring around with porn stars and the like is reminiscent of some African big man (come to think of it, his nepotism regarding Ivanka and Jared is as well), not what I would expect from a real national leader, a world away from people like Franco, Mannerheim or De Gaulle. Which of course wouldn’t be terribly relevant if he had good political judgement and pursued sound policies…but he doesn’t.
That seems to be missing…why Walt?
This reminds me of talking to my father. And my father did not grow up in America, which is likely telling in this case.
I don’t mind any of these things, and I generally find African big men amusing and charming.
I am also in favor of nepotism as I am a monarchist. I hate Jared and Ivanka for other reasons.
I do agree of course that this behavior is not optimal in a head of state.
But I have always greatly enjoyed Trump’s antics on a personal level since I first discovered him.
Sorry, missed this in the previous post.
Vladimir = Walter
Vladimirovich = Walterson
Putin = Putnam
Walter Walterson Putnam
or Walt, for short
No question about it. It is possible that he is suffering some form of old age cognitive disorder, that he used to be smarter and could handle multitasking and do some planning. But in everything he showed in his presidency so far there is no rhyme or reason. If he had any plan, any coherent idea for the future he would staff his administration with different people. If he really wanted to do some detente with Russia he would not have Nikki Haley in the UN or John Bolton. People who believe that he is playing some kind of 6D chess and fighting on our behalf with the Swamp and the Deep State are really delusional succumbing to wishful thinking and hope dies last syndromes.
In addition to the truly critical problem of wild horses, many other very serious problems would be solved such as:
And that’s just the beginning.
Putin MUST BE STOPPED by any means necessary, 4-star general warns war with Russia ‘soon’
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/943847/world-war-3-Donald-Trump-war-Syria-Russia-Iran-conflict-strike-General-Jack-Keane
Wouldn’t it be rather Vladimir = Waldemar?
But then I suppose there aren’t that many people named Waldemar in the US today so it wouldn’t make as much sense as a translation (are there actually still that many people named Walt in the US? In Germany “Walter” is a totally old-fashioned name…the only Walter I can think of is my grandfather’s younger brother who was killed in action in 1942).
Oh man, you are a real American kook. Your father probably wishes that he stayed where he was born and never came to this forsaken country.
Like you realized, no one is named Waldemar. There was a great uncle in my family named Waldemar. He was a snake charmer.
The exercise is stylistic and amusing only.
And no Walter is not common in the new generations her either, but referring to Putin as Walt has people in stitches once they get it.
Walter Ulbricht?
My father and I are tight.
You should support me.
If you do not it means that you are objectively wrong.
And you know what that means.
I thought “Terminator 2” answered that question:
You pound the fence, preferably where there is a playground with kids on swings and merry-go-rounds. That is, before the blast, to try and warn them. What you do after the blast is up to you.
Walter Ulbricht was born in 1893.
Among the younger generations in Germany today there certainly are more Marvins and Mohammeds than Walters.
Even some of the smarter people I know have been completely accepting of this nonsensical propaganda. Only the most radical right people I know are against it. Probably a few far-lefties as well.
I find him entertaining to see as well, and watched many clips during the 2016 election.
The fact he talks about wanting to find the new General Patton or General MacArthur tells you all about his intention though – military, fighting, bombings stuff, etc, although he has been more peaceful than expected so far.
Yes also the more distant, and the less talking with people (and in America-Russia case there’s less dialogue between ordinary people due to the language differences, except for few people who step out and make an effort – and facebook deleted one of my accounts when I used it to talk about American politics on American sites), the easier this projection of negative aspects onto an external public becomes.
That said, it’s also very abstract – Americans are not killing our people, nor vice-versa (actually most people are quite friendly in real encounters).
And this abstract conflict/hatred can stay ephemeral, outside of online comments and so on.
Suuure. Just do not go hunting with him. Euthanasia is illegal while hunting accidents are easy to talk yourself out of.
The leadership in Russia, or at the top, is not so crazy, as to do anything that could cause this. In America, with Trump, there might be a bit more uncertainty – but it’s clear his aim is to get concessions, not any real conflicts, whether with Russia, or China, or even North Korea..
I hope you are correct but Russia can’t do or afford too deep concession. Their conventional weapons deterrence in Syria is too week. If they are really hurt it is either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear strike. Humiliating retreat means the end of Putin via some coup at Kremlin.
Russia is bombing in Syria for some 2.5 years so far (where it changes the course of events to keep the government they invested in on top). America will bomb for a couple of days, it won’t have much impact and will be a minor footnote in the story.
Russia already, more or less, won, but only with some short-term objectives and not much long-term clarity. The cleverer ones are Iran though, who will be there when everyone else has forgotten about Syria. Well the really cleverest ones are probably the Chinese – who will likely buy the country as a transit lane in a few decades. While the real losers are the EU, who get the Syrian immigrants.
https://twitter.com/KyleWOrton/status/983798866838544385
Is it just me or it seems like very weird insult? Why Marx? Why not Stalin or Lenin?
Yes, very weird. Perhaps this lady grew up on Marx was good and USSR was Marxist state.
I just do not really get you. You seem to be “Can’t We All Just Get Along?” kind of a guy. Russo-Israeli Rodney King?
Russia can’t afford having Syrian forces being bombed by the US. The same forces Russia has been actively supporting in fight against ISIS, Al-Qaeda and anti government rebellion.
Stalin supposedly corrupted the revolution and was just another Great Russian chauvinist, no different from the tsars (at least that’s what stupid Western lefties often professed to believe).
Lenin is trickier, but I guess it’s too hard nowadays to deny all the deaths he was responsible for (and the Bolsheviks actually used poison gas to crush peasant uprisings in 1921).
Karl Marx never held political power, so it’s easier to ascribe only the noblest and most humane of intentions to him.
Is there an exact quote of what this grotesque ambassador creature said at the UN? I’d like to know the context.
Telling though if Karl Marx is now supposed to be a Western hero.
The NSA also has a lot of dirt on each one of them. I would dismiss it as irrelevant and/or conspiracy theory, not the least because of the seemingly incompetent and disorganized nature of the American intelligence services, but now with this strange unity it needs to be taken seriously.
I’m surprised to hear it. I know I shouldn’t be, after all the tributes to Castro, but I am. The UK’s rhetoric at the UN is converging with the 3rd world’s rhetoric at the UN.
South Africa didn’t keep Laura Southern out but the UK did.
As AK pointed out, Russia has not won yet.
Regime change is still possible.
Collapse of the Syrian state is still possible
Being humiliated significantly is still possible.
Joke #1: Technically, Lenin isn’t buried
Joke #2: Maybe, she is familiar with the London grave of Marx, having dropped flowers on it.
Stalin is sort of taboo because the Party denounced him. As to Lenin, the US deported a lot of radicals to Russia, where they were disillusioned when they found out that they couldn’t achieve high power. The condition of them coming back was too denounce Lenin. Otherwise, the Left would be naturally quite naive about him, as HG Wells was.
Change of generations among the leaderships.
The current Western leaders’ careers happened in the post-Soviet war era when the USA is very much dominant.
Their predecessors were still familiar with a world where the USA had to compromise much more.
Russian gas policy is a disaster: after years of shipping gas to Ukraine for free we somehow ended up owing billions of dollars to the Ukraine. Some court in Sweden ruled so. Gazprom actually appointed them to mediate trade disputes between Russia and the Ukraine.
So the Russians will shoot back.
I’m somehow sure that the Russians treacherously shooting back will be used as further proof of their culpability in the chemical attack, and of the general depravity of Putin and Russia. There will be Pearl Harbor style outrage. The public will be propagandized into a frenzy. (They already are, so just imagine.)
Cet animal est très méchant: Quand on l’attaque, il se défend.
Some politicians and media in the US were very upset with Russia that it expelled American diplomats saying that they had no reason for doing so while expelling Russian diplomats was entirely justified because of Skripal affair while America did nothing wrong. I just could not put my mind around it.
It seems that for some people who thinks they are chosen or special the fundamental principles of symmetry are suspended. They live in a space with a different metric where ethics lack symmetry and chains of causality is broken. This kind of stupidity can function only in a space of distorted topology. Though the space can be easily rectified and symmetry can be restored once bombs start falling on Americans’ heads. This stupidity only grew because America was lucky to be spared experiences most other peoples on this Earth were subject to on regular basis.
I’d say it’s time for our (Polish) politicians to do some goodwill PR gestures towards Russia. Russia sure as hell cannot do anything in Syria (as AK have so acutely written in the past – Syria is too far from Russian bases) but it surely will want to do something and if it will want to do something, it would have to do something near Russian bases.
That makes things a bit scary for Polish citizen.
Its forces there could easily attack US warships in theater. Unless their weapons prove worthless against NATO weapons, in which case they might go nuclear right away.
somebody should gas her cats
I just can’t imagine Poland and “goodwill PR gestures towards Russia.” They haven’t try it in 1939 with respect to Hitler or Stalin and they won’t do it now because they have guarantees from allies in the West just like in 1939. Polish politicians never cared for Polish people and were willing to sacrifice their lives to the point of biological extermination. Wasn’t Churchill who said something about it that Poles are great, brave and noble, and so on but their leaders are despicable scoundrels. Not that I care for Churchill as an authority on anything.
Poland just voted gains Russian resolution. They could have abstained. Many countries did.
What happened to Andrei Martyanov?
I personally think the Russians will be able to sink at least one American vessel (without resorting to nukes, of course), or probably a few of them, if they really tried to. I don’t think they will be able to sink many of them, but Martyanov thinks they can sink many. I know people who think they cannot even sink one vessel, or just barely.
I don’t think even the Russians or Americans themselves know.
I did a cursory check and he seems to be busy writing angry, patriotic posts on his blog. Will be funny to watch his reaction if Russia fails to retaliate.
Putin has been hiding under a rock for the past week: no public statements, no meeting security council…Does this look like a man ready for war?
They could not have abstained. I guess you are an American, so cannot imagine what it’s like to be a junior partner in an alliance. A very junior partner, essentially dependent on the stronger partner for protection.
If there will be a world war, it will happen with or without Poland. I don’t even think Poland could do anything at this point to avoid a Russian nuclear strike. They are a NATO member, how can the government do anything to assure the Russians that they will trust?
But if there’s no war, then the Polish vote will be remembered. And they will get some reward from the Americans, or at least keep their goodwill.
Small countries can easily get destroyed even if they try to stay out of war. Poland didn’t try to go to war with Germany in 1939, it was attacked. If it gave in to German demands, it’d have become a German satellite, and would have participated in the war on the side of the Axis. Like Hungary. Did we do much better than Poland? No. So?
As I just looked out the window, and there was sunshine and birdsong and green trees and grass, and I thought about having a world war next week, I came to the conclusion that maybe a Russian capitulation would have its advantages.
“Well the man isn’t stupid–how much money are you worth?….”
Lots of money is a sure sign of virtue in the spiritually loathesome United States…
Russia should back down as long as its air base is not attacked.
Wasn’t Hungary pretty enthusiastic about fighting on Germany’s side? Unlike Romania which was dragged along.
It will only embolden the US. They already backed down last year, and now the American senators are demanding a sustained air campaign.
They now have a choice between war and dishonor. Even if they choose dishonor now, they will not avoid war later.
Inshallah, they shall and Chinese should do as well.
The so-called Cold War was a clown catfight compared to the serious business going on today.
Ultimately, the USA and USSR had no real ideological differences. The “Cold War” was a fight over who gets to install liberal western values on the darkies first.
It’s different today and USA and Russia actually have deep-seated and unfixable ideological rifts.
Enthusiastic? Hell no. The Romanians were actually somewhat enthusiastic, because they had something to gain from fighting, namely Bessarabia (and some further territories).
Hungary got most of what it wanted by fall 1940, and many in the political elite weren’t even enthusiastic to fight the Serbs (even though we had substantial territorial claims against them). Which is why our prime minister Teleki shot himself on 3 April, 1941, just a few days before the Yugoslav campaign.
We had no claims against the USSR, and the only reason we participated was fear of losing the good graces of Hitler. There literally was no Hungarian national interest in fighting the USSR.
True, there were a lot of people (including top level politicians) who liked Nazism and Germany, and obviously most people wanted Germany to win (instead of the USSR), but even the pro-Nazi far right didn’t like the way Hitler treated the Poles. (Fewer people cared for Jews or Russians.) The far right press wrote about the “tragedy of Poland” as a warning to Hungary that we should choose the right side. Hungarian troops sent to Poland frequently helped the Polish Home Army with weapons and warned them of German movements. Mind you, anywhere else (Belarus, Ukraine, Russia) our troops earned a reputation of extreme cruelty and incompetence. But at least there was a pro-Polish near consensus.
During the Cold War, the leadership of both superpowers were horrified of the idea of another world war. This is no longer true, because, at least in the US, no one believes in the possibility of nukes ever being used or of American arms ever getting defeated.
They think they will always be victorious, and war is just a question of internal political considerations, because whenever they have a will, they will be victorious, and the destruction will only affect other countries.
I cannot remember such a crisis with both sides’ ships moving closer to each other. The only similar crisis was the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Soviet fleet was moving there, while the Americans started blockading the place, and both sides authorized their vessels to use force if needed.
But then both sides had a point: the Americans were correct that Cuba had been their sphere of influence (so it was a kind of expansion by the Soviets) and that it was vital to their interests. The Soviets were correct that international law allowed this, and that if they managed to live with American missiles in Turkey, then the Americans should be able to live with Soviet missiles in Cuba. Also, despite their determination to fight a war if they need to, both sides genuinely were worried about the prospects of a new world war (and a nuclear one, to boot), so they both were genuinely interested in finding a way out. Because both sides had reasonable positions based on geopolitics, it was easy to find a way out.
Right now, the Americans and their satellites are not being reasonable. They are using emotional arguments, which make no sense whatsoever. If they so much cared for children, they wouldn’t participate in the blockade of Yemen, which is already starving hundreds of thousands of Yemeni children to death. They also don’t seem to be afraid of the prospect of a shooting war with Russia. They don’t think it will result in a world war, or they don’t care.
I seriously think the US elites are crazy (if any further proof was needed, and their support of feminism, BLM, LGBTQWERTY, etc. weren’t enough), and that it will prove near impossible to bring them to their senses. I still hope it will be possible (if there’s something I don’t want right now, it’s a nuclear war), but I’m a little bit worried.
The strange unity goes a lot deeper than just the few in office. This obsessive anti-Russian hatred seems to permeate almost the entire political and media classes and ensures that (at least in Britain) there is no real need for the government to police dissent on this – there is virtually no dissent to police, and what little there is, is crushed by the weight of heavily biased and often irrational anti-Russian opinion in the media and from political figures.
It is genuinely quite bizarre.
It is, I think, a reflection of the total triumph of the political left in US sphere societies. The elites are almost wholly of the left now, culturally speaking – socially radical, internationalist, anti-patriotic. And since Russia, at least as it is represented in the US sphere, stands against many of the dogmas of the left, it is hated. And it is particularly hated by many of the endlessly active minority lobbies that drive opinion in the US sphere via the media and their unsleeping, obsessive lobbying organisations – homos especially, for not sufficiently kowtowing to the complete triumph of their dogmas as US sphere societies have done, but also nationalist lobby groups that see Russia as acting against their national interests or have historical grievances- Israeli/jewish, Ukrainian, etc.
It’s a bizarre kind of “perfect storm” situation for Russia.
Russians should not blame themselves or their leaders – it’s mostly a refusal to kowtow (especially when perceived as weak, after the collapse of the Soviet Union) that has triggered the hatred, and if the options are kowtow or be hated then honour requires the latter.
My feeling is: if you have to destroy the world rather than knuckle under to the bullies, go ahead. Better dead than red.
Same thing here. My daughter is in the daycare, not suspecting any of this, though. It’d be nice if she survived and lived to give birth to many happy children later on. Hopefully in a better one than the one seemingly populated by people marching like lemmings to their destruction.
Looks like PM May is less than enthusiatic, no real support for bombing Syria here in Britain. Could this torpedo the whole adventure?
As I’ve warned before, in the teeth of those insisting the Yanks would never dare actually attack in Syria, there are senior people in the US who believe that the Russians will back down over Syria, that they will lose anyway if they don’t back down, and that they would never dare start a wider war over Syria still less go nuclear. All they think they need is the right pretext, to give them political cover in the US and to a lesser extent diplomatic cover, for the consequences. Clearly, they think they have that now.
My impression is that those types have not necessarily been reduced in influence by Trump’s personnel choices, but we will only know for sure when we see the actual choices the US regime makes. Doubtless after the fact, if they do back away from the edge we’ll hear the same voices triumphantly insisting there was never any chance of any other outcome, but such confidence is imo misplaced.
The point merely emphasises what Russia and Putin are up against, and the reasons for caution, and why Syria was a genuinely risky gamble by Putin. I think it was a worthwhile gamble, because a successful regime change in Syria would have meant renewed jihadist activity in and around Russia, a US move against Iran, and increasing isolation for Russia. In the end, faced with the kind of universalist unappeasable aggressors running the US sphere you have to take a stand somewhere.
That would be great.
Perhaps the experience of 2013 still worries May.
It’s difficult to see another such Commons defeat though – the Labour Party is still heavily infiltrated with Blairite scum, the establishment left seems to have completely given up on the quaint notion that we should abide by our treaty commitments not to wage war without UNSC approval, and jingoism seems to reign, as usual, amongst the Tories (and most of the other parties as well, in truth).
The literally childish Blairite notions of “humanitarian” intervention and an “unreasonable veto” that can simply be ignored seem to have become almost received elite opinion in the UK. Who is there left to point out the hypocritical absurdity of breaking the law in order to enforce it?
Not sure about that, I suspect more Conservative MPs would break ranks than Labour ones, 30 Conservatives broke ranks last time, May isn’t nearly as enthusiatic this time as Cameron and Osborne were then. The likes of Julian Lewis and John Baron have been vocal in criticism about the proposed action already. The British people, sorry I mean Russian trolls, aren’t in favour and Corbyn would benefit electorally.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/08/mps-who-voted-against-syria-motion-full-list
Six DUP MPs voted against action too, I didn’t know that.
I wonder if this AK article will get to see its tenth birthday.
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/thinking-nuclear-war/
So it seems the sanctions are finally having a real impact? For the first time since 2014-15, that is.
https://www.rt.com/business/423783-russian-stock-market-ruble/
Just one analyst and I’m not even sure if he’s talking about the current situation or just about some worst-case scenario.
Well, there goes the “stable ruble” in any case. I guess a (very) weak ruble is not such a good thing after all? But shouldn’t the increases in export earnings (Russia exports energy in dollars -> receives more rubles) more than mitigate that? The budget deficit was already pretty much non-existent last year, reserves growing rapidly. I guess not?
So where’s Mercouris?
Oh that reminded me: where’s Martyanov? His last blog post is from 10 months ago and on Unz from a few months ago? Because his cruise missile silver bullets are needed now.
All in all, it’s IMO telling that I’m also quite worried – just like many others here – and that just doesn’t happen often. A scary thought, for real.
I’ve been avoiding the MSM and especially their comment sections quite succesfully for the past few years (does wonders to your mental health), so I’m certainly out of the loop here, but that sounds almost unbelievable… at first anyway.
But I guess I really wasn’t overreacting at all about their Russia coverage back in 2014-15 (at the latest), when I realized that it was really nothing but propaganda, if any additional “evidence” was needed at this point. The situation really is that bad.
How is this not like the most obvious false flag ever? Why the fuck do they care? They don’t realize the potential risks, the Russian military being involved and all that?
Is this largely due to the Skripal incident? The straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak? The neoliberalism.txt has certainly built up the “Putler personally murders thousands of dissidents and journalists every year” meme extremely well, which is kind of amazing considering it pretty much couldn’t be farther from reality. Then you realize that nowadays we have things like Russiagate and Russian “election interference” in general, so no wonder…
The neocon/neolib and flat out Russia hating cabal, have a clear game plan in mind, that’s quite dangerous in terms of what it can trigger.
The likes of Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade, simplistically say that Russia’s strength in Syria is too limited to scare off a definitive US led strike. These folks simplistically ignore what Russia could do with its arsenal not in Syria.
At play is the potential for a kind of modern day Cuban Missile Crisis. Bluster has been reported from Russia’s ambassador in Lebanon – something that Western mass media has played up.
Neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters, will view a militarily weak Russia (relative to a US attack) as a means of gradually reducing Putin’s popularity.
Stay tuned.
In terms of “what the hell happened” [to this batch of Western ‘leaders’] I recall the comment by George Kennan one of the key architects of NATO and Soviet containment policy who after the Soviet Union imploded was appalled at NATO’s expansion in the 90s and not taking into account Russia’s interests and having no idea of Russian fears and hopes.
In this interview from 1998 https://mobile.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html
after railing against NATO expansion he ends with:
Trump’s Twitter, Jesus Christ… Oh boy, here we go!
Atleast the ‘smart’ part is somewhat encouraging.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/984022625440747520?s=20
Just cruise missiles but more than last time. Means Russia can ignore and try to shoot down as many as possible. So no big deal.
America is Russia’s Amalek, evidently.
It will have to be dealt with accordingly.
Yes, that is what I think the ‘smart’ means as well, so they probably won’t actually target the Russian bases.
But holy fucking SHIT (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)… You don’t see that everyday. For a few seconds I thought it was a parody account.
“Zaspikin stressed that the Russian forces will confront any US aggression on Syria, by intercepting the missiles and striking their launch pads.”
You may be right. Certainly it appears May agrees with you, or at any rate she fears a Commons defeat.
Will it torpedo the whole adventure? Well France seems fully on board, and May can promise all kinds of support short of actual military action. I don’t see it being a deal breaker for the Yanks making the decision, but every little helps.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/984022625440747520
This is truly the dankest timeline
I am probably in the top global percentile for least likelihood of surviving a nuclear war
They don’t simplistically ignore it. They argue that Russia will not risk such escalation. Their view is that the US has escalation superiority over Syria as a result.
Yes, they are positively salivating at the prospect of humiliating Russia.
Why would they bother attacking launch sites? Not sure if they will even utilise the S400 this time either. Meaningless gesture like Shayrat.
Doubt that. If it all does kick off, some missiles will always get through, some will be shot down. The advocates of stealth will claim victory based on the damage done and the advocates of defence will just argue that Russia’s defences Syria were overwhelmed by sheer numerical superiority.
So when is it going to start? Can’t be long now?
What is the situation with May? France?
Are they really going to wait until the carrier arrives? Probably not?
Martyanov, I hope you’re OK! (Really.)
She’s not wrong though. Karl Marx would be horrified with modern Russia (he’d be horrified with modern America too, for different reasons).
I think Russia is unquestionably less dangerous on the international scene than America, but that doesn’t mean I like their current political, social and economic model.
Depends how big the gesture is. A big enough gesture acquires meaning of its own.
Suppose, for instance, the US strikes include a decapitation attack in Damascus, and an ongoing campaign against the Syrian air force?
Trump just raised the stakes.
Russia now has to decide whether to accept this as another Shayrat and do damage limitation (they never committed to defending Syria, only Russian forces, etc) and concede the pot on this occasion, or raise the stakes themselves by maintaining the stance that they will oppose US strikes. Now, when some missiles get through, as they inevitably will, the US sphere militarists will crow that even when told exactly what’s coming the Russians could not prevent it. Passive defence is not a viable response – only a reiterated threat to target launch systems and locations. That’s a big step up the escalation ladder, but if the Russians are going to do it they should make a very big noise about it now. Any US or allied deaths will be portrayed as victims of Russian aggression (and incredible as it might seem, that portrayal will get traction in the US and to a lesser extent in Europe). Only a clear and loud advance notice will defuse that dangerous situation to some extent.
Does Russia have the nerve for the latter? Should it have?
By taunting Russia, he makes it more humiliating for the Russians to back down. This also means it just got less likely that they will back down.
Karl Marx, proud subject of the Tsar and Autocrat of all the Russias, King of Poland, Grand Duke of Finland, by Grace of God His Majesty Nicholas I Pavlovovich Romanov.
The likes of Kilmeade do ignore such, as he just did on Fox News within the last two hours or so.
Yeah I saw that Brit UN ambassador say such. Sovok objections aside, Marx was an anti-Russian bastard.
Who said anything about virtue?
If I were in Putin’s shoes, my response would be a tweet right back at Trump as follows;
“There was no chemical attack by the Syrians and you know it. If the US attacks Syria, we will respond, including sinking the USS Donald Cook”
And I would follow through in it (though in the event I would pick another ship probably, just for convenience and so as to evade any extra US countermeasures in response to the threat), and let the chips fall where they may. The point is to flag up the intention to kill Americans in response to their attack, in advance, so as to reduce their ability to portray such measures as “Russian aggression”.
Of course, fortunately Putin is a much more cautious and responsible man than I am.
Smart missiles: the servant exceeds the master.
And people tell me I’m exaggerating when I’m using the term ZOG unironically.
INB4 “oh he’s just a GOP Christian evangelical, ZOG is still unproven”.
Say again?
The great majority of those Democratic donors are very committed Zionists and will work overtime to accomplish the objectives and interests of Israel. And it isn’t just donors either. The owners of media of course also play in, as well as the editors in chief. As Orwell said: to notice what is in front of your nose requires a constant struggle.
I don’t think I’ve ever felt more strongly pro-Russian than now.
This honestly could be good news.
Trump has long said that telegraphing military strategy to enemies is idiotic (mostly correct). Contrary to myth, he does restrain his tweeting as well (see any Stormy Daniels tweets?).
The tweet also implies limiting the retaliation to missiles, which suggests no contact between the chair force and gayvy with RuAF.
That silence is a sign that shit can get real. Putin was awfully quiet after Georgians invaded Ossetia, and he was awfully quiet when Maidan overthrew Yanuk.
Does Russia have the weapons to respond in theatre? Do the strategic bombers have the anti-ship missiles?
How’s this for chutzpah, as the Skripal narrative rots on the floor in front of us (carefully not investigated or even mentioned much by the establishment media):
“But The Times reports that the UK’s Prime Minister Theresa May has urged Mr Trump to provide more evidence of the suspected chemical attack.
What is it you think will be carrying and launching those missiles?
This is exactly my thinking too. Trump made a blunder here by referencing Russia’s threat of retaliation in his tweet (“Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria”). If he were smart, he would have stayed quiet about that part to make it easier to sell a possible Russian retaliation as “unprovoked aggression,” or whatever term the PR people at Pentagon come up with.
To add to that, I think the key here is for the Russians to build an awareness in the EU of how serious this situation is. What about putting all Russian nuclear forces on red alert? Maybe that would wake the European people from their stupor?
Yes to both.
Noticeably, the pro-Russian site Southfront very pointedly carried a story yesterday about anti-ship missiles in theatre:
Russian Figter Jet Currying Kh-35 Cruise Anti-Ship Missiles Spotted Over Syria’s Tartus
Gayvy warships, though perhaps also chair force bombers launching from standoff range.
This isn’t good, but its different from attempting to gain air superiority in the theater.
Either Russia has to fold and start damage limitation, or they should be doing exactly that kind of thing and announcing it publicly. They should state publicly that the nuclear alert is a direct response to Trump’s open threat, as well.
And if they aren’t already, they should as a priority also be pushing China hard to make some kind of gestures, at least.
Also, despite their determination to fight a war if they need to, both sides genuinely were worried about the prospects of a new world war (and a nuclear one, to boot), so they both were genuinely interested in finding a way out.
The parallel is by no means exact, and the current situation is in some respects more worrisome. In October 1962 the Joint Chiefs of Staff was not really looking too hard for a peaceful solution:
In the end, Kennedy was the voice of reason and this was the determining factor. Are we really so sure the same will be the case with Trump?
Russian overreaction is just what the neocons want. This won’t alter the long term trend and is futile act that actually damages the US. Take a leaf out of Iran and Hezbollah’s book, retaliation at a place and time of your own choosing.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/11/politics/trump-missiles-tweet/index.html
It seems Putin will not fold.
My daughter is in the daycare, not suspecting any of this, though.
Look on the bright side, my childhood was seriously marked (or perhaps marred) by repeated drills against nuclear attack, as exemplified in this classic civil defence film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFT8hLjHtuE
this guy is a Russian poster, i can verify
https://kek.gg/i/8dXYpD.png
LOL!
Apologies, I thought I was addressing an adult. I’ll leave you to your playpen.
I have no lol button left. But here it is: LOL.
Then red-bar me, you big brain nibba.
You’re probably correct. That’s why I noted that fortunately Putin is a more cautious and responsible man than I am.
That’s not certain, though. It could certainly result in the fall of Syria if the attacks are on the larger side of the range (if for instance it involves a decapitation strike and an ongoing campaign against the Syrian military, which will reinvigorate rebel support).
But the Russians just promised to retaliate, no matter what.
And Trump just taunted Putin. I find it unlikely that Putin won’t respond. He has to, if he has any self-respect.
I actually think he’s among the most unreasonable voices in an already mad administration.
That will embolden the neocons, put you at a serious psychological disadvantage, also because if long enough time passes, the retaliation will look like an unprovoked attack. So you will look both weak and dangerous.
Unfortunately neocons are like dogs or little children, you need to teach them a lesson then and there.
I’d be happier if she had to participate in such drills (I bet you children can even enjoy it, at least out of the classroom), but no nuclear war took place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snTaSJk0n_Y
Hezbollah has never been stronger, weakness is allowing yourself to being goaded.
I can assure that it had nothing to do with some kind of respect of freedom of speech, South Africa is simply not as capable as the UK in the surveillance of thought criminals as the UK is. Once the USA becomes as non white as South Africa, the one benefit to that is that that government will be less capable of crushing dissent.
Hezbollah has reasonable foes. Israel is quite reasonable compared to the US neocons.
Welcome back, iffen.
And what about the OPCW inspectors who, it was announced yesterday, are shortly to arrive in Syria at the express invitation of the Russian and Syrian governments (and whose inspection the UN Security Council refused to endorse yesterday evening)? I am sure they must be receiving lots of pressure not to go, if only for “safety” reasons. The Russian Foreign Ministry’s Maria Zakharova has a slightly different take on the situation:
Nobody will attack Poland.
American and Russian UN ambassadors yesterday – behind the scenes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxQzRzTbDag
You could see that another way, though, as contributing to structuring popular expectations of any Russian response as essentially passive defence – trying to shoot down the incoming missiles, only. This is how the US regime wants people thinking, because they will seek to use the shock value of any US or allied deaths that do occur as propaganda against Russia. While the Russians have made plenty of references to responding against launch platforms, I don’t think the implications have really been taken on board by US sphere populations (and that’s no accident). Any deaths will indeed be “unprovoked aggression” by Russia.
So yes, he made reference to retaliation, but on the other hand he focussed attention on passive defence, with “retaliation” limited to shooting down missiles. That’s how the US regime wants it, because it’s a no-win situation for Russia.
That’s why I suggested they need to make the consequences clearer now, if they intend to do anything other than fold.
I’d certainly be choosing my accommodation in Damascus carefully, if I were one of them.
The German diplomats in Moscow cultivated a very nice relationship with their Soviet hosts up until the declaration of war. It probably reflected their personal sympathies. The German ambassador, von Schulenburg often hinted at the coming invasion, trying to warn his hosts of the coming invasion.
I agree with your general point, but I don’t think it can be said it was easy to find a peaceful solution to the Cuban missile crisis. Despite JFK and Crushchev both being fundamentally rational people, who had lived through WW2 and didn’t want another war, it was a very close-run thing, with several incidents that could easily have led to war due to decisions taken by military people on the spot (e.g. that Soviet sub with nuclear-armed torpedoes that had depth charges used it against it by US destroyers). There were strong pressures on Kennedy to escalate to using military force against Cuba. To his credit he resisted them.
Which makes the present situation all the scarier. I don’t think Trump with his character flaws, surrounded by war-mongering advisers like Bolton and egged on by a hysterical media, can be trusted to see the need for deescalation. There seems to be no one to rein him in, with a lot of forces pushing him towards bellicosity.
Putin doesn’t respond to insults – he’s been called worse: “Hitler”, “dictator” etc. He doesn’t personalize an issue – something that Western politicians/pundits and especially Trump for whom everything is personal, don’t understand.
This doesn’t mean that Russia won’t retaliate to the coming USGov attacks as it warned it would. But unless there are unacceptable and deliberate Russian casualties – as happened with Turkey’s shootdown of a Russian plane – Putin will leave direct lines of communication open.
I understand the sentiment, but frankly, I deeply resent the idea that large parts of my country (certainly the part where I live) might get destroyed for the bizarre exceptionalist fantasies of mentally deficient US nationalists and the politicians they keep electing despite their disastrous record. Something neither I nor anybody else in central Europe can influence.
It was different when the Red army occupied the other half of Europe and of Germany, at least then a war would have been about issues genuinely central to us. But this idiocy? It shouldn’t have anything to do with us and I hate the Atlanticist Quislings in politics and media enabling this.
Let me put here this article:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-envoy-threatens-war-against-us-over-syria-strikes-lc2k578cf
NATO wars start when the other side chooses to shoot back.
Cet animal est très méchant: Quand on l’attaque, il se défend.
Fermi’s Paradox answered: As a technology increases with time approaching infinity, the likelihood of a species eradicating itself through high scalable weaponry triggered by an act of incidental, but enormous stupidity, approaches one.
Originally it was shared by for-the-record in the other thread.
Karl Marx was horrified about Russia in his own day, so it wouldn’t be exactly much of a change.
And sorry, I understand you’re a leftist, but the fact that representatives of major Western powers now present Karl Marx (whose ideas aren’t just some benevolent humanitarianism, that’s a misrepresentation) as some positive figure bothers me. That’s not something I can identify with.
My understanding of the Marxist dialectic is that it would advocate abolition/minimization of the means of production from private, bourgeoisie control and while neither the Russian coalition nor the American one explicitly promote the interests of the proletariat through public/state control, Russia runs more state-owned enterprises and is more likely to be responsive to the proletariat by that theory; the American coalition has assumed the role of the classic imperialistic bourgeoisie capitalists.
Of course, he’ll be horrified. But he wouldn’t support the UK’s activity either.
Funnily enough there’s another country that adopts the same attitude – we are entitled to attack whenever we want and if you retaliate it’s an outrageous act of aggression that will entitle us to do whatever we want in response:
And, surprise surprise, look what they use as their ultimate victimological rationalisation for extreme, lawless aggression and violence:
https://southfront.org/saber-rattling-israeli-officials-vow-to-assassinate-assad-attack-syria/
“The Jew tells you that he was beaten, but doesn’t tell you why.”
Unfortunately gentiles don’t seem to be immune to this kind of psychopathic sentiment. Little kids are like that. “He hurt me!” “But you hurt him first.” “He hurt me! He shouldn’t have hurt me!” “But you hurt him first. He only hurt you because you hurt him.” “He hurt me!”
Lack of self awareness from Russian imperialists is becoming hilarious at this point – Putin himself was showing animations of nuclear strike on US territory just several weeks ago and now they are trying to present themselves as being very hurt that many people in the West don’t like them at all, lol 🙂 And this is just one example of many possible ones.
Calm down. If Russia do some revenge operation in East Europe; this will happen in Donbas and it will be done on the cheap way. Something like Smerching to the Stone age Ukr forces there.
Relax; the Russians are not coming (to Poland).
Very good point. I missed that distinction. And I agree with the words in your second paragraph, of course.
What a kook.
Not how I see it, Trump saying he is ok if they attempt to intercept the missiles. If it does go ahead a somewhat larger missile strike with an attempt to intercept them is an optimal outcome.
Looks like Russia will fold. Though Mattis has also backtracked a bit.
Don’t think he needs to say that.
Optimal as in “least worst”. It still:
Reinforces the dangerous and lawless “R2P”-style precedent set by these claims that allegations of chemical attacks justify unilateral military action;
Damages the vulnerable Syrian government (how much depends on how extensive the strikes are);
Emboldens all the worst types in US sphere politics and media, much as the Trump victory gave the (mostly) same folks a well-deserved slap in the face. The more restrained the Russians are the more emboldened these types will be;
Makes it easier to argue for another strike when the next provocation takes place;
Damages Russian prestige and probably the marketability of their weapon systems, depending on how things pan out.
At worst it could result in the overthrow of the Syrian government.
At worst it could result in the overthrow of the Syrian government.
I’m of the view that Russia can now choose between war and dishonor. Even if it chooses dishonor, it still won’t avoid war. Because, as you wrote, it only emboldens the most stupid elements in the US. For example I have heard a few times the Deir ez-Zor incident being used as an example of how Putin will always fold.
But in my personal situation, it’s great if there won’t be a war this time. Next week I’ll be in cities which will almost certainly be nuclear targets.
I’m of the view that Russia can now choose between war and dishonor. Even if it chooses dishonor, it still won’t avoid war.
It’s perhaps even more apt now than when Churchill uttered it in 1938.
I don’t know, personally I wouldn’t be keen on surviving a nuclear war.
Do we actually have a good idea what the Russians would target in Europe in case of a general nuclear war against NATO countries?
One truly does reap what one sows:
But if there’s no war, then the Polish vote will be remembered. And they will get some reward from the Americans, or at least keep their goodwill.
Last week 59 U.S. senators signed a letter protesting Poland’s new Holocaust restitution bill. Poland’s been a loyal U.S. ally – saying all all the right things, buying all the right hardware, sending its troops when needed – but all that is forgotten the moment Jews start crying. I don’t think the America’s rulers have very long memories.
@Anatoly Karlin
now, now.. you can’t have such trivialties as your life get in the way of your blog’s popularity 🙂
A stupid question:
Why doesn’t Syria simply declare that it will no longer accept unauthorised flights (US, UK, France, Turkey) in its airspace, and Russia simultaneously announce that it will actively support the Syrian government in this endeavour? They would certainly have international law (!) on their side.
@Lemurmaniac
yes. Tu-22M3s or Su-34s can carry various anti-ship missiles like Х-35 etc. on land there’s also the Bastion complex which even according to Wikipedia Syria has (fielding the P-800 Onyx which is Mach 2.6, a 200-300kg warhead depending on variant, and has a beyond-horizon range of up to 500km). various attack subs which may or not be around the Mediterranean can also carry P-800 Onyx or P-1000 Vulcan, which are all really heavy and dangerous missiles all quite capable of sinking big naval vessels (though not sure about a Nimitz class carrier with just 1 missile and conventional warhead).
I maintain the thing is not so much about capability – that’s well present, Russia can sink pretty much everything the US has in the Mediterranean within an hour probably – it’s more about the will to openly move to a WW3. which I don’t think Putin has.
Agree.
Some have even added Lenin to that spin.
Remember how a few hours ago Theresa May was urging caution, and cnot to rush into action in the absence of definitive proof? Well this is what the BBC is now reporting:
Theresa May is too indecisive for many senior Tory MPs. She should show more leadership, which in this case means more followership of the Donald.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/09/donald-trump-says-major-decision-coming-syria-next-24-48-hours/
Trump is not an American nationalist.
He is an Israeli nationalist.
He is putting Israeli interests above American interests.
The lesson for American nationalists is clear. Never trust a candidate who has a son-in-law named Kushner.
I’m sure it is urgent. People are starting to ask awkward questions.
Whereas, as many have pointed out, intentionally causing a massive famine affecting millions of people and causing the horrible slow deaths of many hundreds of children in Yemen – no biggie for Theresa or for Donald.
These scumbag politicians are such openly shameless hypocrites, and the media types who enable them by ignoring their shameless hypocrisy are no better.
The best move for Putin would be to doggedly continue, or even escalate, the offensive against Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria west of the Euphrates, and simply ignore any American air attacks – while of course using all available anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down any cruise missiles targeting Russian or allied military units.
Assad could relinquish Syria’s claim to Sheba Farms to Lebanon, shoring up Lebanese goodwill.
Hungary could veto all EU economic sanctions as a step towards de-escalating the drift towards war, while opening up new markets for Hungarian exports.
American nationalists need to concentrate on electing a better congress in 2018 and electing a better president in 2020.
Russia is not ‘folding’. America will come and do symbolic airstrikes for a couple days (which makes no difference). After, Russian aviation will continue doing its years of airstrikes (which makes a difference).
Although, again, in the long-term, the cleverer ones here are the Iranians who are established on the ground, and ultimately – at the end of it all – probably China, who are waiting to buy the whole region in a few decades.
I’m amused by the naive Western faith in the “lone hero” when collective action by a strong community is the only thing that has ever had any chance of challenging the political status quo.
Kind of like a certain other community I can’t think of right now that has managed to amass tremendous power that way…whom we absolutely should not learn from, but continue being radical individualists.
Ah well, I’m sure our hero will come after Trump and make it unnecessary to reform our culture in a collectivist direction with united interests and economic interdependence, and we can continue competitively stepping on each other’s faces. We just need a hero with “the right character”.
Marx is a fundamentally evil thought-system, but still very interesting to study his theory, in particular as only really systematic socialist/communist theory.
Here is the final and decisive reason why bomb Syria. You cannot argue with this.
https://twitter.com/KyleWOrton/status/984106803733630977
As a peace gesture, Russia could extradite Semion Mogilevich to America to stand trial.
As an added bonus, this would remind people that the “Russian mafia” is more Jewish than Russian.
Attacking the Americans would be physical and economic suicide. And for what?
And there’s nothing really to gain – not any oil, no compatriots’ lives to save, no Russian-speaking citizens, not worthwhile territory, no historically important territory, no economic benefits. Just killing some Jihadists and possible some gas exploration contracts.
And even the ‘chessboard’ situation in Syria does not change from some symbolic/small America strike, which will be forgotten about in a few weeks.
It’s more like a case of dumb and dumber in Syria right now – with competing incompetent projects clashing with each other.
The only people who have been really negatively affected by the entire Syria war (apart from the Arabs), is the EU – which has been flooded with Syrian immigrants. It’s the EU people who should be most angry about the entire debacle and looking at every solution to return the Syrians to Syria. For the rest of the world, it’s surprising how much governments (although not the public) care.
I don’t think it’s realistic that the war will begin with a nuclear exchange, let alone an attack on Europe.
The war would start with CENTCOM clearing out Russia from Syria in alliance with Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.
Russia would attempt to retaliate in the theater, but it wouldn’t be able to accomplish much owing to the preponderance of forces arrayed against it and the fact that aircraft in Russia would not be granted overflight rights to reach Mediterranean.
The Tu-160 could no doubt penetrate Turkish airspace without being intercepted, but they are not currently equipped for an anti-shipping role. The Russians could no doubt improvise this capability quickly (they’re probably already doing so), but numbers are limited.
If the Russians pull off successful missile shots, then I guess we’ll find out how good these missiles and the Aegis BMD are.
After losing and evacuating in Syria, Russia would have the choice of surrendering or retaliating. Surrender could potentially lead to a coup d’etat against Putin by the siloviki.
Retaliation would obviously fall in the Ukraine and the Baltics. NATO bases and depots would be hit with ballistic missile strikes.
Russia lacks the power to advance beyond these areas, and NATO would not be able to immediately eject Russia.
The front would then stalemate. I don’t think the West is fundamentally capable anymore of any form of diplomacy, let alone armastice, so that’s when the risk of a nuclear exchange would grow.
This is probably the most sensible and cautious option, and therefore most likely the one that will appeal most to Putin. Though he is capable of a daring surprise response (as in Crimea).
Good luck with that.
And I mean that in both the cynical and the genuine sense.
You’re not wrong, but in this case one man actually does hold the power.
Kevin MacDonald has described National Socialism in this fashion.
Caspian, Iran, Iraq, Syria route? Though Iraq has Americans.
Or they could just attack some American bases in the Gulf, like Qatar or Kuwait. Maybe there are some American vessels there, too. It would raise oil prices immediately, so a double win.
Netanyahu said: “Assad’s regime and Assad himself will disappear from the map and the world…” Remember the brouhaha when then Iranian president Ahmadinejad said a similar thing about the Zionist regime? (Quoting Khomeini.)
Houthis launch Scuds at Riyadh, heavy selling of Donetsk later.
People are veryunimaginitive, retaliation happens through proxies, such as Shia militia attacking the US in Iraq.
How smart one has to be to understand geopolitics, how smart has one have to be to figurehead in Washington, …about as smart as to shoot some missiles into Syrian core territory.
We live in societies that cater to believe systems that are “holy” surrealistic. Believe systems, rather then due diligence, apes in cages. How smart does one have to be to understand that economical growth, how banks use arithmetic, leads to head collision, …the wall is near, now let’s punch a hole, do not depend on the hole the elites of scrap tend to blow in the soil in Syria. For individuals with some cognitive ease it is now to play the outlier camp, say pull Julian Assange out of oblivion, desert the sitting duck cruiser ships, block parliament gates, have true and tested, outliers comment and direct something that cannot be distorted by intermediate system mongers.
Obviously they would find a way to strike us. The issue is that the distance and hostile airspace would limit sortie generation. US and allies can deploy far more airpower and don’t need to cross hostile airspace.
Almost certainly those bases would be attacked. The question then is–how many long-range cruise missiles does Russia have?
Air base damage is also easy to repair, though if Russia gets lucky it could take out some coalition aircraft and stores.
But these aircraft would be replaced by new ones from Western Europe, CONUS, and possibly Japan.
Bottom line is the USA and its allies have overwhelming escalation dominance in Syria.
I’m not convinced oil prices will rise substantially either. I don’t see any reason the powers that be can’t manipulate the NYMEX and LME to prevent this provided there’s no actual shortage of supply.
Granted, Russia could create this shortage of supply by actually blowing up oil targets in Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Not sure Russia’s ally China would react favorably to that, but China does have a large strategic reserve. Depending on how many tanker cars and locomotives are available Russia (and the ‘stans) could plausibly replace Persian Gulf imports.
I wouldn’t call it Nationalist Socialism at this particular historical moment because that’s just poor strategy…we don’t have to be so obvious…. and ham fisted…its our weakness that we can’t be flexible with appearances and have to be so crudely obvious.
But the same idea by any other name…everyone has pointed out the similarities between Judaism and national socialism but it shows you the power of being flexible with appearances and labels that no one cares.
Trump is rapidly discovering how little power he actually has. Power is never concentrated in one man – our western mythology deceives us about the power of the individual.
If we don’t learn that lesson we will just be flailing about in the dark like fools…
The “hero” will not save us. Why doesn’t the alt-right set up a charitable organization that receives thousands of small donations and use it to offer financial support to everyone fired by SJWs, for instance? Because building that kind of social capital might actually begin forming a formidable community.
The big secret is that “group identity” must have a solid base in our lower animal self interest – simply talking about white identity will get you nowhere, yet that’s all anyone does. It’s too abstract.
Imaginative:
Russia gets China to pressure Pakistan to close its ports to ISAF cargo.
NATO army in Afghanistan completely cut off from outside supply.
USA pressures India into launching Operation Cold Start.
China responds by invading Arunachal Pradesh.
What began as a civil war in Syria turns into an all-out war on the Indian subcontinent.
As Cold Start bogs down without opening up a supply line to NATO forces in Afghanistan, the USA and its Gulf allies attack Iran in an effort to open up an air route to an increasingly desperate ISAF which has began extorting food from the civilian population.
This scenario is at least good news for you Europeans! 🙂
Remember Iran would almost certainly be in the fight on Russia’s side from day one. That widens and complicates the tasks for the US and its accomplices considerably, as well as giving a number of useful capabilities to the Russian side, such as bases and missiles. And I’ve certainly heard reports that Iran has stated an intention to target Arab oil facilities from the outset of a war.
As for China, one has to assume they know they would be next in line if Russia were defeated by the US, so they’d be pretty amenable to selling arms for oil on a grand scale, even if much of the oil deliveries are delayed indefinitely.
Not disagreeing about escalation superiority, but I do think the costs would be very considerable if it really kicked off to that extent.
Sure. Reviving Nazism is a LARPy dead-end. It’s no different than the ridiculous dweebs who LARP as Norse pagans.
That said Northern Europeans don’t do guile very well compared to some other peoples, and that’s not only the Jews.
This is true, but he has more power than the snakes around him claim. Unfortunately he doesn’t read more than 140 characters at a time.
It’s true that Congress has to appropriate funds for THE WALL and that state National Guards are controlled by the states, but there’s nothing stopping Trump from deploying the chair force’s surveillance drones to the border for instance.
Mad Duck Mattis will refuse. Fine, fire him. Fire the next dweeb who refuses too. Keeping firing military dweebs until you get your Grant. Lincoln was never afraid to fire generals who didn’t fight.
Trump has discovered that he has considerable power over trade policy, and he has his own people there and has from day one thanks to his friendship with Wilbur Ross. He needs to start getting his own people elsewhere.
Iranian support and basing would be a big asset to Russia of course, but it doesn’t solve the fundamental issue.
Russia has ~700 combat aircraft and low warstocks of modern PGMs. Unsure on the situation of Soviet-era antiship guided missiles. If those were preserved they’ll be a big asset.
The chair force alone has over 2,000 combat aircraft, and in addition to better basing than the Russians there is far more tanker support to increase sortie generation. Warstocks are large.
To that we can add the gayvy, the muh reenz, and of course allies. Britain & France combined are about equal to Russia in combat aircraft with more modern warstocks, and the GCC are about equal to Britain & France.
In practice I would expect GCC air forces to perform poorly owing to well known issues with Arabalonian animals.
Iran doesn’t have much in the way of guided missiles, and overwhelming allied airpower in Arabia means they wouldn’t do much damage without Russian support.
I don’t think the damage would be that substantial.
Closing the Straits of Hormuz would have an impact, but not only would the mines ultimately be cleared but oil can be shipped from Yanbu on the Red Sea, which is connected by pipeline to the Persian Gulf infrastructure. Don’t know the capacity of the pipeline or port.
Honestly the best hope here would be a sudden ground invasion of Saudi Arabia with Iraqi support.
If they go for dispensable targets such as airstrips, hangars, empty barracks, and so on, I’m with you.
This would be my preferred course of action too, I think, but there remains the question of how much Russia can afford to back down. The argument that this is only the beginning of a greater push to “go Iran” on Russia has merit to it, and if that is indeed what Washington has in plan, then the people in Kremlin must think long and hard about when and where and how to assert themselves.
What complicates this somewhat, I think, is that it’s hard to say if Russia will be in a stronger or weaker position visavi Washington and Brussels 3-5 years from now. With Nazi Germany, for instance, everyone I have ever read agrees that they would have had a far stronger position had they pushed back the invasion of Poland 5 years or more. In hindsight, then, they made a huge error in invading too soon (thankfully). Against this, one may argue that these things become obvious only after the fact. Perhaps the Nazis felt that they had no other choice but to get going in the early fall of 1939.
Not that I disagree with you for the most part, but isn’t the Russian total closer to 1000? I also don’t think Britain & France combined have quite as many combat aircraft as Russia, more like 60-70%. (And then there’s of course Russia’s IADS, not that it really matters in this scenario.) Do they have more modern warstocks? Maybe more modern but probably MUCH smaller? Who knows? (Again: not saying that it really matters here.)
But if shit really hits the fan, the small Russian force in Syria is actually a good thing in a way, because it means the number of potential casualties is also limited. So it shouldn’t be impossible for Russia to “equalize the score,” or atleast close to that.
Just hit American bases in the region with cruise missiles (the Martyanov.. Doctrine), maybe some ships as well if at all possible and get the fuck out. Lastly, additional missile strikes in Eastern Europe: ABM sites and NATO bases in the Baltics, Poland? But no ground invasion, obviously, not an inch.
It’s simply impractical for Russia to fight in Syria. If Russia sinks a US ship, the US destroys the Russian air base. What’s Russia’s next move then?
A couple bigger ships could be worth more than the whole Russian base. If they could kill the big prize, the carrier (questionable; I also don’t know if it’d be wise), then they’d already inflict more casualties on the US then the losing their whole fleet in the region and the Syrian base. Then the US could only escalate by attacking Russian territory.
The British were masters of guile…they were not known as “perfidious Albion” for nothing. Northern Europe became temporarily so powerful through science that it could dispense with guile. That age has passed. There can be no power – or even self-defense – without guile in a world of relative equals. Guile is also the special weapon of the weak.
But I am not talking so much about political guile, which northern Europeans will learn again. I am talking about not taking appearances and labels so seriously – our stupid and gloomy northern European “seriousness”. We need to learn to play with appearances, because at bottom it is all illusion. Once we aren’t so serious we may even learn to create beauty again. Our “realism” and belief in “truth” has made us ugly and stupid and inflexible.
But I’m just talking crazy again…
Trump may have more power than he knows, but he himself is viscerally influenced by whatever group he is surrounded by and identifies with in a thousand subliminal ways. It’s a sticky web none of us can escape and makes our romantic claims for individualism hollow. We all belong to a group whether we admit it or not – admitting it can become a source of power.
If you want to lose weight, become friends with a group of skinny people…
I would argue they’d have to at least equalize the score. Otherwise, again, the neocons will be emboldened. Also Russia cannot afford losses as easily as Americans, because it has smaller forces to begin with.
If you like the idea of everyone dying in nuclear apocalypse. And over a meaningless shithole, which affects neither of the countries involved.
No, to attack an aircraft carrier would not be wise. And nothing like this will happen, as we may have an incompetent government, but we don’t have psychos in our government.
Not at all. This is all very interesting. Would you agree that Slavs are, on the whole, free of this straitjacket?
We don’t disagree on the fundamentals – Russia can’t defend a position in the ME.
All I’m saying is it won’t be a cakewalk for the US if Russia chooses to make an issue of it. Losses and costs will likely be significant.
Iran has very substantial missile forces, even allowing for exaggeration by the usual suspects, and oil facilities aren’t exactly mobile or hardened targets. The east-west pipeline is unlikely to stay active either once fighting starts.
Regardless, there will be no oil coming out of the Gulf for some considerable time after the start of hostilities – probably the US will have to physically occupy the eastern bank. The price will go through the roof on the first day, and likely stay there for quite some time.
If you want to start nuclear apocalypse. Actually there is no reason for direct conflict at all, and both sides will be working hard to avoid directly hitting any of each other’s assets in Syria.
No doubt about it. And, obviously, there’s a very real possibility of events escalating out of control.
Iran’s missiles have limited accuracy. Without a nuclear payload damage will therefore be limited.
I wouldn’t bet on Iran being able to hit the East-West pipeline to begin with, let alone keep it out of action. Pipelines are also like railroads–not too hard to repair. Ofc pumping stations take longer to repair and maybe Iran could hit it with special forces–provided they have such forces already in Saudi Arabia (hard to infiltrate desert).
I hope you’re right so my shares in Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and Shell skyrocket. 🙂
The pipeline starts in shiite rich eastern provinces and runs past Riyadh. I don’t think it’s beyond Iran’s abilities to have a few likely lads ready and equipped to blow up key sections if war breaks out.
Count on it. It’s an ill wind….
And they project this onto others as well.
All Westerners know about how the Crusaders were rolled back is one or two names; usually Sultan Salahuddin (ra).
Rarely does anybody reflect that he was a spiritual disciple of the son of the famous Sufi teacher and reformer Shaykh Abdul-Qadir Jilani (ra) and that the armies that were raised up were from a population that had been spiritually transformed through the work of the many, many students of that man. The tears, the night vigil prayers, etc. – they had to be ready to make those sacrifices.
Everyone wants to look at the top of the pyramid and not reflect on how much more effort was put into building up the base until it gets to its ultimate height.
Peace.
It’s strange. You say that Syria (and by extension, the Russian forces there) is not worth a nuclear apocalypse, and you accuse anyone proposing to hit US vessels over their attack on Syrian forces of being a psycho. But you think that a US vessel would be well worth a nuclear apocalypse, and you don’t think that the Americans who would actually launch nuclear missiles over the loss of a few ships were psychos.
If Syria is not worth a nuclear apocalypse, then no one should start a war against a nuclear power over it. But apparently the USA is willing to do exactly that. So are they psychos or not? If not, then why are people proposing shooting back at them a psychos?
If you intentionally destroy a US aircraft carrier, what would be the consequences?
I don’t think there is precedent, since WW2, when the Japanese did it.
If NY and Moscow go up in an irradiated cloud, we will have our answer – they were both psychos.
And again, it will be even more evidence, that High-IQ is dysgenic. Just sayin’…
Peace.
The same could be said of attacking an ally of a nuclear superpower after said nuclear superpower declared that it would hit back. I fail to see how it is different from attacking a NATO member.
The Americans are doing something truly unprecedented here.
Why is it psycho to propose that the response should also be unprecedented?
And you need to explain why the Americans would blow up the world over the sinking of a vessel. They remained chummy with Israel after it intentionally sunk a US vessel.
Yes, I would agree that Slavs are much freer than we are of this straight jacket. The general arc goes from West to East – starting in America, the quintessence of Western “realism” – and hence ugliness and stupidity.
But I don’t think anything is set in stone – nations alter character all the time.
Right, it’s a western myth. Great men are figure heads for vast processes involving countless people and forces beyond us. They do make a unique contribution, but it is nothing on its own.
The myth of individualism and self-reliance has become a pernicious and self destructive ball and chain that is literally blinding us to the need to rebuild social capital and communal bonds.
Thanks for the Saladin example Tala, it’s very apposite.
Agreed – that is absolutely vital. And you cannot have that with people like this:
http://www.unz.com/video/ramzpaul_the-character-question/
Personally, I cannot see this taking place without some sort of very, very serious spiritual revival since those things are merely an outward expression of the same.
Otherwise, it might be successful for a while, but it won’t have staying power like Communism or something.
Peace.
Nothing military is immune to attack in a warzone.
My guess is that in a full-scale conflict in the Syrian theater the Russian forces will be able to knock out a dozen to three dozen US/Allied fighters and 1-3 destroyers/frigates.
I don’t think Russia will manage to sink or even disable an aircraft carrier. This is a 100,000 ton metallic honeycomb with hundreds of watertight compartments, protected by a screen of smaller ships, submarines, and fighters. Of course it would be trivial to do so by launching a couple of ICBMs that disperse nuclear warheads in a grid pattern around its general location, but the US will treat this as a full-fledged nuclear attack.
The best way for Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz would be to start laying down mines using civilian fishing vessels, but it is unlikely that it will be able to successfully do this to any substantial degree on such short notice (the US would be watching too closely). The simple, short-range AS missiles that Iran has are not up to the task; modern oil tankers are double-hulled and far from trivial to sink. Russia could supply Iran with Bastions, or launch cruise missiles from TU-22M3 bombers itself from within Iranian airspace to shut down sea traffic (dependent on Chinese acquiescence, because Russia simply cannot alienate China). Like Thorfinnsson, I am very skeptical about Iran’s capacity to hurt Saudi Arabia’s land-based oil export infrastructure.
The Russian military presence in Syria will be eradicated within a week (mostly within the first two days), and Russia itself will come under total sanctions from the US and the EU.
At this point Putin will have to make some hard choices.
(1) Do nothing in the face of defeat. Militarily the least risky option, but will face rising domestic discontent as living standards collapse. How long will the “buffer” of 80% approval ratings hold up? People don’t like losers, as the Argentine junta discovered.
(2) Invade East Ukraine. Ukrainian military is much stronger than in 2014, and NATO will now be sure to provide air support. This would not likely be a grind, not the walkover it would have been back then.
(3) Invade the Baltics. Successful occupation is virtually certain within 72 hours to 5 days, and the result may demoralize and crack the NATO alliance. Or it could lead to the formal start of WW3.
There’s a small possibility that China will use the opportunity to seize Taiwan, though it’s not really militarily ready for that yet. Still, the US being so preoccupied elsewhere might be too juicy of an opportunity to miss out on.
What’s strange is that many Indo Patriots were predictiong war in 2018 back in 2014. Didn’t believe it until now..
Indo Pak war to retake Kashmir that is।।
Actually they were known as perfidious Albion for nothing, British foreign policy was far more consistent and trustworthy than that of most of the other great powers, Revolutionary France and Wilhelmine Germany in particular
https://twitter.com/russia_mideast/status/984178721438552065?s=20
If it happened it would constitute a spiritual revival.
We are individualist now because logic does not allow us to believe in anything we cannot see – and we can only see individual units. Remember Thatcher with her “there is no such thing as society”. That is the ultimate result of the Wests obsession with “truth” – only what can be seen beyond any doubt is real.
If the West begins to believe in “society” again, the great age of logic would be over. We would be believing in things that cannot be seen that nevertheless seem to be crucial to our ability to flourish.
Much like “dark matter” – you can’t see it, but the calculations don’t add up unless we accept it exists. Maybe there is no such thing as society, but the calculations don’t add up of we don’t accept it exists.
Good points!
Peace.
What would this actually look like? A lot of NATO alliance members call on the war to stop and just be frozen?
Why to invade? Just carpet bomb the whole infrastructure and reduce the regime to ashes. Easier and with more future deterrence value.
Most plausible possibility is Germans refusing to die for Reval.
Merkel replaced (requires constructive vote of no confidence per the Basic Law of the Federal Republic) with a new Chancellor who announces that Germany will be neutral in the conflict and will deny basing and transit to its allies.
Without Germany NATO can’t fight a war against Russia effectively.
The idea of NATO attempting to ship war materiel through the Baltic or the Black Sea is laughable.
In short: Because this guy “Dmitry” is a Russian Chabad Jewish (or part-Jewish, or whatever) liberast type with pro-U.S. and pro-Israel leanings – probably a new addition to the hasbara stable, judging from his recent appearance on this website; but even if not, it doesn’t make any difference. He propagandizes against the secular nationalist Syrian government in a “clever underhanded” (or so he thinks, LOL) manner simply because “the Syrians are Israel’s adversary”. Notice all his supposedly “sly” propaganda talking points, delivered in an “affable” manner, all stating/implying the same thing over and over: Syria is a dump not worth defending for Russia or anybody; Russia should just roll over and let the U.S. ‘n’ friends have fun bombing Syria for a little bit; nothing will come of it and Russia won’t lose anything; the bombing will just last a couple of days and be inconsequential anyway, etc., etc.
In fact, what the rogue U.S. regime and its criminal allies are planning is a huge, nation-wrecking strike on Syria which will destroy that country’s sovereign secular nationalist government, kill untold numbers of people, and deliver the ruined remnants of the country in near Stone Age conditions into the hands of Saudi-aligned Islamic extremists in a “wink-wink” relationship with Israel (who will then turn it into a training ground and base for jihadi terrorist armies to be used for further operations against “adversaries” of the Anglo-Zionist empire).
American generals met with VP Pence today. Is Trump out of the loop?
19 min ago
6 hours ago
Russia’s conventional weapon weakness is actually a strength as long as the US believes that Russia will go nuclear when defeated in Syria.
Yes, pretty much that.
An invasion of the Baltic states could also have the opposite effect though, it would be a clear case of territorial aggression after all that would seem to confirm the worst fears about Russia (I understand many Russians will regard this as irrelevant since they believe Russia will be demonized anyway, which may unfortunately be true).
and
Yup.
It would not be wise. It would not cow or intimidate the American people, it would whip them into a rage like Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor did.
Remember, the real war is not US vs. Russian Federation. There are no real geopolitical points of dispute between America’s real interests and Russia’s real interests.
The real war is between the nationalists, social conservatives, populists and libertarians of all nations on the one hand, and a cabal of totalitarian cultural Marxist globalist elitists on the other hand (with Sunni extremists hovering like jackals in the background, waiting to feast on the corpses of the European nations after the hoped-for globalist victory).
2010 – present, the nationalists have been increasingly winning elections across the European Christian world, and the globalists are scared.
They need a major war as an excuse to violently crack down on nationalists, before the latter have enjoyed too much electoral success.
The #1 task of all nationalists at this time should be to avoid the outbreak of a major war.
Putin’s smart move would be to ignore American air attacks, resist the temptation to sink the vulnerable US navy ships and the ungarrisoned Baltic states which will be dangled temptingly in front of him, and patiently continue to destroy the Al-Qaeda and ISIS strongholds in Syria west of the Euphrates, like an ox plowing a field while ignoring the stinging flies. And for God’s sake, make sure his Middle Eastern allies aren’t really using poison gas!
Orban’s smart move would be to veto all EU economic sanctions. Many people who don’t feel free to speak their minds would secretly welcome the opportunities for profit that would be thus opened up and the jobs that would be created. More importantly, economic sanctions are always the first step towards war. First come sanctions, then proxy war, then air war, then boots on the ground. By vetoing the sanctions, he would be literally setting back the drift towards war. And he shouldn’t delude himself that his regime will be allowed to continue in the crisis of a major war. Having loyally supported the sanctions will not save him.
Would Hungary’s special relationship with Poland survive a Hungarian veto of EU sanctions against Russia? Perhaps Putin needs act boldly to end the anachronistic Russo-Polish tensions. An offer to let Poland mediate the Russia-Ukraine dispute?
Putin has plenty of domestic political capital to spare. Any move that would draw attention to the real nature of this conflict would be wise. Tear down monuments to Bolsheviks, especially non-Russian Bolsheviks, especially Jewish Bolsheviks. (Anything named for 1/4 Jewish Lenin could be renamed for patriotic Russian statesmen assassinated by Jews such as Alexander II and Stolypin, or patriotic writers who criticized Jews such as Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn, or Prince Sviatoslav Khazar-bane) Crack down on organized crime, especially non-Russian organized crime, especially Jewish organized crime.
Act boldly to end anachronistic Russo-Ukrainian tensions. Praise Prince Daniel of Galicia’s doomed heroism against the Mongols. Strike a medal with Alexander Nevsky on one side and Prince Daniel on the other to commemorate the difficult decisions taken by different branches of the Rus in a tragic time. Vigorously denounce the Soviet (not Russian) crimes against the Ukrainian people. Stress the non-Russian nature of Georgian Stalin and the Jewish Bolsheviks. Point out how Kaganovich was involved in both the destruction of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow and the Holodomor, and likewise Femen (financed by Jed Sunden) vandalized the Kiev memorial to the victims of Communism as an act of solidarity with Pussy Riot’s desecration of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior.
Trump also needs to be wary of a major war. In the crisis environment of a major war, with his supporters muzzled or imprisoned, he would be easily removed from office via impeachment or 25th amendment and tried for treason, and all his personal assets seized and his family left impoverished and disgraced. As much as he relishes betraying his supporters, he should be aware that doing so does nothing to diminish the hatred which the globalists will always feel against him for even pretending to be a nationalist.
Yup.
They got elected though. By us. Even now nobody cares.
So…..
Putin is a sane human being. He doesn’t want World War 3. Unfortunately when you’re dealing with rabid lunatics like the Americans being a sane human being is a major disadvantage. At the very least you have to make the rabid lunatics think that you’re as crazy as they are.
Agree, so far, with all your posts.
Scrolling down…..
Yup.
Possible.
Yup.
The problem with this is the “mechanism”. Watching own forces being reduced into dust without doing anything, anywhere. I don’t think that’s likely.
What is likely is: “you get my base, I get yours”.
From then on, well……it goes up and up.
That was the way I remembered from the Cold War (paper, trainer, simulator, field, exercises).
The “mechanism”.
True, if the “mechanism” isn’t “on” anymore, well, I do agree with below:
Not necessarily. The crux of the question, actually. I don’t know, not there.
If the regime in Kremlin feels they could go down they shall escalate. No doubt about that.
If…..
Not a bad idea. Probably the best, actually.
And you need to explain why the Americans would blow up the world over the sinking of a vessel. They remained chummy with Israel after it intentionally sunk a US vessel.
Context, RT, context, think about it sometimes.
The main problem that I see here is that “our” jihadis keep going rogue on us.
In genealogically very partial way, but if you wish to label commentator as such feel free to.
Free-market liberal – pederast no.
I’ve lived in Israel for several months, often visit in Israel, study the Hebrew language and feel pro-Israel point of view overall. But I will not live in Israel.
In America – I admire the economic system and country, but the particularly not culture.
No I just write my opinion, rarely crossing onto the other blogs here, where I am always attacked by the Americans (including the site owner who called me as ‘anti-Russia Jewish activist’ (it comes as news to me) when I questioned some fake news about Israel posted here).
Not really. I supported the operation in Syria when it was bombing Jihadists.
If it will at any time involve bombing Americans – no. This idiotic. And it would be the highest incompetence.
But as you will shortly see, at no point will any Americans be bombed. And neither – except in some extreme blunder – will we.
As for Arabs – I don’t have any racist views. I would prefer the majority will remain in Arabia.
Just a fuckup with nothing to gain. Whereas every operation since after 2000, has been more or less the opposite (no fuckup), and plenty to gain (well in Georgia and Syria (so far), nothing to gain, but neither much of a fuckup).
Demonization and so on, is irrelevant and subjective. The important thing is the balance sheet at the end. Invasion of the Baltics, would be a large war, with best case scenario (of total victory and no nuclear bombs), bringing some hostile populations under occupation, alongside some service sector economies that currently mainly operate within context of the EU free trade zone. In other words, it will never happen (unless some day someone like Trump is elected president of the Russian Federation).
(including the site owner who called me as ‘anti-Russia Jewish activist’ (it comes as news to me)
He was likely too “busy” with his work to call you a nitwit.
A free-market liberal? Why?
I don’t know, a Russian invasion of the Baltics would make some sense imo in the scenario AK outlined above. The objectives would be primarily political, to put NATO under pressure, expose frictions in the alliance and hope it will cause NATO to break apart. NATO won’t be able to defend the Baltic states at the start of a conflict, arguments might then arise how to respond to a Russian occupation of the Baltic states (which few people in Western Europe care that much about).
Obviously it would be a rather desperate move on Russia’s part, and likely to have disastrous consequences for everyone involved.
Judging from the internet, Americans seem to hate independent thought and discussion, and will often resort to insults.
On other American sites, I got labelled as ‘Russian troll’ when I write my opinion. On this one, ‘anti-Russia Jewish activist’ for the same opinion (ironically from Americans on the Sailer blog).
Facebook deleted the account I used to comment under some Western sites.
Free-market liberal – because this is the system that works, that respects individual decision making, and that I prefer my income is not spent by incompetent governments.
Commenter Kalen (Apr 11, 2018 9:52:11 AM) at Moon of Alabama
You got him.
And even if everything goes perfectly (total victory and no nuclear weapons), there are thousands of dead soldiers and their angry families, long-term fatal economic doom, and – bring in hostile populations with economies re-structured for decades to operate inside a EU free-trade zone. By the way opposite of Kremlin style since the end of 2000, which has always been small and clever (reaching artistry in Crimea), operations which you can justify to people like me.
Thanks.
Lots of snakes in the grass.
OT FYI:
https://trud.bg/350-diplomatic-flights-carry-weapons-for-terrorists/
“Healthy young child has rational skepticism of Western foreign policy consensus, goes to The Vineyard of the Saker, starts seeing Anglo-Zionists in the comments section of every other site they go to- AUTISM. Many such cases!”
I should have typed “Lauren.”
Interesting interpretation. Germans and Russians were pretty good at surveillance, and I don’t imagine blacks are. Or at least, I can’t think of examples. Even of black criminals who came up with a good plan, after staking a place out. But there is always the possibility that they could outsource to someone who is good at it, like the Chinese. It wouldn’t necessarily need to be labor intensive, just AI.
It is sort of a point of morbid curiosity with me how quickly Europe would spiral into civil war without the thousands of people working in surveillance, trying to tamp down on things. It is hard to say because the media are partisans, but otherwise, I’d say pretty quickly.
Invasion of the Baltics is a total fantasy at this stage. Even in the last few years from 2016, there has been increasing additions to troop levels in the countries themselves. Would it be enough to deter a fullscale Russian attack? No. But the point is that it raises the threshold of entry for Russia.
In other words, Russia would need to do large military maneuvers without a formal reason to do so(like Zapad 2017). Does anyone think NATO would sit still in such an occurrence as these movements happened? Russia wouldn’t be able to stealthily sneak up on the Baltics anymore.
The US is NATO and NATO is the US, in the final analysis. You’d see very large increases in US troops in the Baltics, many of whom who would be flown directly from EU bases and some probably even from the Middle East(where the power projection capabilities of Russia is much lower, and so the US can afford to send some of their soldiers to Europe from there and then re-inforce the Middle East from the mainland). These movements would happen almost at the same time as the Russian re-organised their military to attack the Baltics. Russia wouldn’t be able to move very large amounts of people without seeing a huge increase in troop levels in the Baltics await them. The US has tens of thousands of troops in the EU which can moved within just a few days, and I re-iterate, these movements would not be after an attack, it would be before an attack as the notion can Russia can organise a large army on the doorstep of the Baltics at this stage without making a noise is a delusional fantasy. There would not be much of an element of surprise.
The economic/political costs of a Baltic invasion is hard to estimate, but we’re talking about devastating economic warfare, no holds barred (repulsion from SWIFT would be some of the milder things). Forget about rule of law. The climate is now so toxic so that even blatantly illegal actions would be rubber-stamped and no judge would put him or herself in harms way to question it.
And all this as retaliation for Assad? Don’t make me laugh. Eastern Ukraine is more plausible, given no NATO membership but I’d argue that Ukraine has de facto NATO protection when it comes to its core provinces(closer to Kiev and major cities).
If Russia moved on Eastern Ukraine, and avoided this key provinces, there would still be a massive military aid programme, tons of free tanks/APCs and the like provided. You can bet there would suddenly be thousands and thousands of “Western advisors” and tons of Navy Seals/SAS operators sabotaging Russia’s supply lines. Ukraine itself is no longer as much of a pushover as it was in early 2014. It would be no cakewalk. And the economic fallout would also be very severe for Russia with no easy way to retaliate. Maybe through the gas market, but I don’t know much about the gas market, so I’ll leave others to speculate on what can and can’t happen in the gas market.
Save for
Agree.
Local people, loyal to Kiev, doing that with, maybe, some “mercs” in advisory role (ex those operators). Maybe.
Not important.
What would be important is shifting the minds of ordinary Russians from the fallout in Syria onto that, here, conventional war.
But, again, at this stage, it’s all academic.
The problem we are having at the moment is “tit for tat” spiraling out of control, should fireworks start in Syria.
Communications are better than in 80’s.
Personnel manning nuclear systems are less experienced. Leaders on one side are….whoah.
A bad combination.
I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised, if it does come to this. In any case, we’ll learn a lot – and isn’t that worth something?
Putin is the moderate. The US and its allies have finally convinced him that moderation will no longer serve Russia. See Helmer :
WHEN VLADIMIR PUTIN COUGHS, THE GRIPPE IS INFECTIOUS – KREMLIN SUCCESSION SHOWDOWN STARTS
http://johnhelmer.org/?p=17606
GOOD FRIDAY, RESURRECTION SUNDAY – RUSSIA’S NEW WAR CABINET TO BE HEADED BY SERGEI SOBYANIN
http://johnhelmer.net/good-friday-resurrection-sunday-russias-new-war-cabinet-to-be-headed-by-sergei-sobyanin/
Yes. The Americans are psychos about Russia. Which was my point.
In an objective sense the context was of course way worse in USS Liberty case, because it was an unprovoked deliberate attack, while the Russians would merely be responding to an unprovoked American attack.
But I merely tried to make my point about psychos.
Interesting (short) interview with Russian ambassador to EU on what happened (or not) in Douma:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=141&v=WDSs7-Q_aMk
Also interesting, and in noted contrast to April 2017:
As you know, I think you and Karlin underestimate likely losses (for a start because such a conflict will be an unholy mess unprecedented in modern times, and a lot of unexpected stuff is going to happen for both sides) and the ability to keep the oil flowing in the face of determined Iranian/Russian attempts to halt it, but broadly agree that the outcome in theatre is inevitable. As I’ve said above, Russia cannot sustain a position in the ME against determined US sphere attack.
As far as the consequences are concerned, I tend to agree that occupying eastern Ukraine would probably be the best (least worst) Russian conventional response, in order to be able to paint the matter as an honourable draw rather than a defeat. It would not be an inconsiderable task overall (holding it would be more of an issue than taking it), but certainly achievable and probably long term sustainable so long as China remains at least neutral.
In the Cold War analogy (both of us being I think somewhat older than the average), one feasible response from the Russians in order to even out the perceived losses, in response to the destruction of their ME expeditionary force, would be a nuclear strike on a carrier battle group. Nuclear strikes at sea were always in practice (not officially) regarded as a step down from land targeting. That would then put the decision in the lap of US sphere commanders to decide whether to respond and trigger a counter-response, or accept the situation as a draw.
In theatre, the US has escalation superiority as long as the conflict is conventional. Once the escalation becomes nuclear and global, however, the Russians regain some parity, because both sides still retain the ability to destroy the other with nuclear weapons, so in the face of disaster at some point it becomes reasonable again for the Russians to escalate. That should be a concern for the US regime.
Interestingly, in the light of your plausible suggestion yesterday that the US action might include a Gaddafi-style murder attempt on Assad via “decapitation strike”, I also saw reports yesterday that “senior government figures” were being moved to “safe houses” in Damascus.
It does look increasingly as though we are going to see another (but rather more murderous) Shayrat-style criminal attack by the US, while Russia will essentially, perforce, let it happen while at most shooting down the odd missile. That’s fine and probably for the best given the overall situation, so long as the US sphere side doesn’t miscalculate or make errors in targeting, and none of the inevitable flashpoints created in the process results in somebody getting too trigger happy. The Washington Russian Roulette players will claim “success”, because the bullet didn’t fire this time.
Out of all the discussion I’ve seen on this, the best suggestion for a realistic response I’ve seen is probably that (assuming nothing too disastrous comes out of this murderous US attack) Russia and Iran should explicitly and publicly step up their support for Syria after the attack. In reality, that’s probably the best way to really make the neocons and militarist behind the attack grind their teeth in frustration.
Longer term, it should make the Russian and Chinese leaderships focus a bit more sharply on how to deter and contain the now routine (Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, Syria) US use of military aggression as a tool of policy.
Oh how I loathe the constant use and abuse of the term regime this conflict has inaugurated.
while at most shooting down the odd missile.
Personally I think that Russia needs to do much better than merely shoot down the “odd” missile, especially (weasel words aside) having been widely seen as declaring that they would forcefully respond.
Presumably their military bases (where the major Syrian assets have now apparently relocated) are fully covered by their S-400, and if these systems are as good as some around here say there should be very few missiles getting through. Russia cannot permit a significant attack on Damascus that would substantially weaken the government, and give further encouragement to the “rebels”.
If the attack is seen by the West to have been a “success”, this will have enormous negative implications for both Syria and Iran. In May the US will almost certainly tear up the agreement with Iran, following which Iran will announce that it is resuming centrifuging (or whatever), leading to renewed calls for military action by the (now confirmed omnipotent) Empire.
The world (or a significant part of it) has truly gone mad.
Mercouris’ take on this mess. Encouraging, as usual:
http://theduran.com/trump-draws-back-on-criticism-of-russia/
4-d chess at its apotheosis:
These systems are not “as good as some around here say”.
By all accounts they are very effective systems, but any air defence system can be swamped, and the S400 is no exception. Plus while Russian air defences are probably very good, so too are US sphere air and missile forces. And there are a lot more of the latter in the ME.
You are correct, but the strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must.
In an ideal world, aggressors like the US and its various poodles would face appropriate responses for their murderous acts of aggression. We do not live in an ideal world.
Yes. but any response will realistically have to be non-military and/or indirect, unless the Russians can come up with something very unexpected or are prepared to go to the (nuclear) wall for Syria.
This will most likely happen anyway, regardless of the outcome of this incident. The issue is what the consequences will be, which depends on how the Iranians react and how the Europeans react, including to the Iranian reaction.
There has been a problem with excess US power and the US sphere reaching for maximalist objectives since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It’s not going to be ended easily, but it will come to an end.
The man really is a bumbling idiot, on the world stage, whatever his business and entertainment record is.
He’s just let himself be led by the nose by the worst neocon and militarist elements in his government and the ME, taken the world to the edge of catastrophe, and he expects to be patted on the back for murderous US interference in the ME.
“Fuck you America, and the horse you rode in on”, should be the response on Twitter.
And we’re of course supposed to feel relieved and come away with the vague idea that after all responsible grownups are in charge because they didn’t do any of the really stupid things they could have done.
But hang on, they are about to commit a murderous act of outright and openly illegal military aggression that can have only negative consequences, and potentially quite serious ones, which fortunately will probably not lead to the world war it could otherwise easily have resulted in because the victims are responsible enough not to respond appropriately despite the outrageous injustice.
“It could have been worse”.
The rational response for Americans should be: “my God, how quickly can we purge these loonies and criminals and foreign lobbyists from our government, our military, our politics and our media?”
Former British ambassador to Syria thinks that Assad is not behind the alleged chemical attack:
https://youtu.be/55D7WrEn6MA
an unprovoked American attack.
How can we let a poison gas attack go without a response and still lay claim to being the world’s policeman?
With the caveat that I have been following the MSM coverage on this issue even less than usual, I am under the impression that Macron is a one of the most enthusiastic proponents of military action. I do know that France is quick to intervene in former colonial possessions. Also, wasn’t France key to the Libyan intervention? Is it also not true that French leaders do not get too far afield from what Germany’s leaders want? Does Merkel need more Syrian refugees that would likely result from intensified warfare in Syria?
As previously discussed, the Europeans are on average not much better on this issue than the US leadership.
Using poison gas against jihadists is not a provocation against the US, and of course the fact that there even was any gas attack is now disputed.
Perhaps the problem lies in America claiming to be “the world’s policeman”, and the resultant “responsibilities” that comes with it, in the first place.
Well you elected yourselves to that position. Feel free to unelect yourself. Though as has been pointed out elsewhere, it doesn’t seem to trouble you as “world policeman” that your Saudi protectorate is busily inflicting slow, agonising deaths from starvation on millions of people in Yemen, with your direct support and assistance.
But this does point to a major aspect of this issue that is mostly overlooked, namely that there is herein a tacit assumption in the US sphere of an “R2P”-style right of “humanitarian” unilateral intervention. Such a right does not exist, morally or legally, and the example of Syria illustrates precisely why it should never be allowed to exist. It’s an invitation to the manipulation of atrocities, faked or otherwise, as pretexts for murderous US-style military aggression and French-style military posturing, while undoubtedly real atrocities proceed apace and unchallenged in places where the powers have no interest in intervening (or indeed are themselves behind them or their perpetrators).
On the arguably related Skripal case, what do you make of Craig Murray’s suggestion that the letter is faked?
Yulia Skripal Is Plainly Under Duress
He’s right about the nature of the English used. My Russian isn’t good enough to pick up such matters, but if it’s a translation it’s surely a very free form one by a senior (because probably middle aged or older) bureaucrat.
It is hard to argue with your comment, but “reality”.
what do you make of Craig Murray’s suggestion that the letter is faked?
I think it’s like Litvinenko’s death-bed statement, which it turns out was put together by others who got him to sign it. That being said, it may well reflect her views — after all, as far as she knows the Russians attempted to assassinate her and her father, and it was only due to the brilliance of UK doctors and scientists that she is still alive.
The statement from the Russian Embassy concerning the letter, while perhaps not the most felicitously worded, raises some important issues, notably with regards to the “friends and family” that she says she has had access to:
Well you elected yourselves to that position. Feel free to unelect yourself
To be fair we inherited the position.
it doesn’t seem to trouble you as “world policeman” that your Saudi protectorate is busily inflicting slow
Which part of rules for thee, not for me, do you not understand? Are you familiar with the term “double standard”?
a tacit assumption in the US sphere of an “R2P”-style right of “humanitarian” unilateral intervention. Such a right does not exist, morally or legally, and the example of Syria illustrates precisely why it should never be allowed to exist.
You need to leave this fantasy UN world government view behind and take a strong drink of “might makes right”.
The OPCW report on the Skripal case, out a few hours ago, is a classic in obfruscation, intentional or otherwise. It will be interesting to see the comments of the Russians.
That does look like a bit of a “gotcha” from the Russians
Again the British government come across as clumsy and as improvising desperately.
Touche. Well, as a British citizen I’d like to contest the will.
Admirable in its superficial honesty, if not in any other aspect.
Though the strange non sequitur of “UN world government” needs to be challenged. What I’m talking about is not “world government”, but treaties between sovereign states being observed. It’s your side that is seeking to enact de facto world government. That’s where the destruction of state sovereignty by way of “humanitarian” intervention doctrines leads.
Admirable in its superficial honesty
What other kind is there?
BTW, I get your drift, it doesn’t bother me very much. I understand that some people need to believe certain things about other people in order to make sense of their own beliefs.
“UN world government” needs to be challenged.
I used this as a catch-all for what seems to be your belief in the way international relations are (should be) conducted rather than as a literal construct.
Is it never allowable, though? What’s your position on the War of Greek Independence? On the American Revolution?
By the way, how can one distinguish patients who survive chlorine gas attacks? According to Medical Diseases of the War byArthur Frederick Hurst:
Does anyone recall noticing these features on the Douma survivors? Or perhaps chlorine gas works differently today?
There are clearly issues with sovereignty in civil war situations, which are almost inevitably complex. Plus from the legal rather than moral pov, the rules were different before the states of the world voluntarily changed them by signing up to the UN treaty.
That’s a separate issue from “humanitarian” intervention per se, albeit they are often conflated for propaganda reasons. As a matter of principle the latter ought to be excluded, for the reasons given.
Pacta sunt servanda
I agree that the Baltics are not the first choice.
However, it would be no military problem for Russia.
There is only one highway into the Baltic states–easily closed even without air superiority using Iskander missiles.
Sea transport is impossible as the Baltic Sea is easily closed.
Air lifted troops by definition do not have heavy equipment. No artillery, no tanks, no shells. They get massacred by arty & armor.
This is why it was stupid to admit the Baltic states into NATO. They are impossible to defend against Russian attack.
Charles de Gaulle called this “annihilation without representation.”
But you are wrong. Unlike Caribbean Crisis which prompted de Gaulle’s remark, European politicians in general and German ones in particular are very much a part of this mad rush to war.
Pacta sunt servanda
“Promises and Pye-Crusts – are made to be broken”
Jonathan Swift
Britain was called “perfidious Albion” not so much for their guile but for straightforward betrayals. Thinks of USA promising Russia not to expand NATO and then going, “Ha ha ha, you trusted us.” This kind of thing has been a staple of the Anglo-Saxon foreign politics for a long time.
WHAT?????? This is my comment! How the heck did it get labeled as coming from Ron??
Have to admit, its pretty funny from a third party perspective. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me x300 times, great Brittania.
We are all Ron Unz now.
LOL! That’s….disturbing.
Maybe something in the fix for the comment lists is causing problems. Probably get dealt with reasonably soon. Meantime – probably best if you don’t post anything too controversial!
The thing about the Baltics that everyone forgets is Kaliningrad. I am sure you heard of Suwalki Gap? In the West everyone says that it is essential that NATO fortifies the Gap against Russia. But from the Russian point of view massing of NATO forces in the strip of land that separates Russia from Russia is seen as preparation for blockading Kaliningrad. As per usual, Russia’s concerns are not addressed or even mentioned by anyone in the West. In fact, in 2014 some people called for cutting off Kalinigrad as a stiffer form of sanctions. Whereas in reality, according to international law, blockading an exclave is equivalent to a war of aggression.
So this is a scenario I see. Poland and Lithuania prevent land communications between Kaliningrad and the Russian mainland, while NATO navies don’t let Russian ships in or out. This is a de facto (but undeclared) blockade. Russia protests but her protests are either ignored completely or are reported in the usual way (“Putin threatens blah blah, blah.”) At this point Russia feels that it has to punch a corridor through Suwalki Gap. This, of course, will be the dreaded “invasion of Baltics.”
In general any other US President would’ve gone along with it. Maybe not Obama.
And every serious candidate in 2016 besides Trump and perhaps Bernie Sanders would’ve gone along with it.
While obviously America deserves no gratitude for its murderous foreign policy, I am thankful that Trump–frustrating as he is–is in the White House.
No World War 3.
Thank you Donald.
We started by voting for Trump. He won in a landslide among actual Americans. It seems he isn’t up to the job of purging them.
We don’t know how to get rid of them. They’re very powerful and very evil.
We’re open to suggestions from well-meaning foreigners.
Don’t forget these same evil criminals seem to control your country as well.
Interesting article by Max Blumenthal on the Syrian American Medical Society, whose expert and unbiased testimony is being used to support the upcoming attack on Syria.
As the old saying goes, “From your mouth to God’s ears….”
Probably not Obama – he declined the opportunity in 2013.
Bush II – obviously.
Clinton – not that likely, unless you interpret it as a response to the Stormy whatshername business and Clinton had a bimbo eruption to divert attention from. Even then, it’s a big stretch beyond safely lobbing cruise missiles at the desert or bombing safely demonised and isolated white Christian Serbs.
Bush I – not a chance. He knew better than to mess about with nuclear armed superpowers. Panama was more his style – safely isolated and demonised Iraq a bit of a stretch.
Maybe so, but that was a pretty appalling set of options the Yanks gave themselves. But remember this idea that there should be a military response to any concocted allegation of a use of chemical weapons was basically created by Trump, entirely gratuitously, in April last year. Obama toyed with it, but in the end walked away. If Trump hadn’t acted like a girl last year there would have been no significant expectation of a strike this time. Agitation for it from the usual suspects, sure, but that could easily have been ignored.
Of the various other plausible candidates, all were in the bag for Israel, but few of them apart from Hilary would probably have displayed that specific, girly “humanitarian” intervention, “think of the children” fake sentimentality.
“Thank you Donald for gratuitously creating and flirting with the risk of catastrophe and then merely doing something stupid and damaging instead”?
Not my idea of the kind of behaviour to congratulate, but each to his own. And come to think of it, no president who tolerates that Haley creature strutting around representing the US on the international stage, or the Bolton creature in the inner circles of policymaking manipulating personnel and intelligence to suit the worst forces around the US regime, deserves any support in any case.
If Russia is really under serious attack, it should absolutely take back eastern Ukraine and think about Transdnistria too.
Also, if Russia doesn’t want to strike the USA in retaliation for Russian personnel possibly being killed in Syria, it could instead DECIMATE Saudi Arabia and Qatar if they take part in the strikes. I mean raze Riyadh and every other major urban settlement in Saudi and Qatar to the ground.
Also, wipe out any British or French planes or troops that take part (I read that Great Britainistani troops on Cyprus may aid in the attack somehow,and that France-istan is talking “forcefully”, LOL).
That’s true, but the way I see it your country is the one with all the power. If we were to overthrow our leadership your country would likely help the establishment types “restore order” here, as in South and Central America in the past.
The US is the superpower, and that’s where the problems come from (because that’s where the power is), and that’s probably the only place they can be solved.
Cop out? Well, yes.
Obama and Trump, despite very different ideologies and temperaments, are turning out to be surprisingly similar in a lot of ways.
The way I am reading the US government is that W succeeded in dramatically changing it, but the Deep State retreated from full W after observing its disastrous results.
We’ve been living under Second Bush Administration policy since then, with some minor changes (Obama encouraging negroes to get out of control, Trump on trade).
Neither Obama (boring lightweight loser) nor Trump (outsider, impatient, impulsive, narcissist) apear to be able to control the government in the way W did.
Clinton is the dipshit who started the whole thing. Remember the destruction of Serbia?
Agreed.
Trump needs to stop listening to his stupid kike cunt daughter.
All of the Republican primary candidates besides Trump and Paul promised, for instance, to tear up the Iran Deal on day one.
And Hillary pushed for the invasion of Syria in 2013. Fortunately Obama had learned from Libya and took the counsel of Diamond Joe Biden instead.
The bar is set so low for the American government at this time that I am genuinely grateful to escape being annihilated in a sea of atomic fire.
If you have ideas on how we can reform this monster, I’m all ears.
And yes, Trump’s personnel selection outside of trade is appalling. Though I kind of like Fox Bolton. His views are generally appalling, but I like his look and attitude.
You gotta start somewhere, and your own country is a logical choice.
No doubt America would oppose an independent and moral Britain, but Britain has nuclear weapons and a lot of financial firepower.
You guys can stand on your own two feet.
If Russia can do it so can you.
Of course I don’t want Britain as a geopolitical opponent, but at present time America is the vehicle through which Satan enters the world.
But the American government, and Trump, specifically, were the ones who entirely gratuitously created that risk of being annihilated in a sea of atomic fire in the first place!
I genuinely cannot understand how you can go back to supporting a leader like Trump after an event like that, that was wholly his own fault and creation. He removed any lingering doubts.
If you really are the kind of person who is grateful to someone who threatens to shoot you but then only punches you in the face, you probably ought to think about your responses.
Well, not re-electing a President who tweets the equivalent of “bend over and take it, bitch” to a nuclear armed rival power, would be a good start.
Find better primary alternatives.
I used to think so, but nowadays I doubt it. We were compromised as far as the US is concerned long before the final choice of subordination in 1945, and the habit of subservience seems too deeply ingrained now, the cultural pollution irreversible (and our corrupted, dual loyalty elites are more compromised than ever before). We would need to replace our political, cultural and business establishment wholesale. That doesn’t happen without a revolution, which brings its own problems. The cure would likely be as bad as the disease.
Airstrip One seems prophetic.
The situation was created by the Dweeb State, which has relentlessly propagandized and worked for the destruction of Syria and the murder of the Assman ever since the civil war started.
There is also a deep historical problem in the completely irrational reaction most people have to chemical weapons, which allows the Dweeb State to manipulate politicians and voters at will.
Obama and Trump to their credit have resisted this, though neither understand what is truly going on.
American Presidents have been doing this since Bill Clinton–just not on Twitter.
Obama, just like Trump, also wanted better relations with Russia. Remember the reset?
Both completely rolled by the Dweeb State, but they also both resisted the wildest efforts by the Dweeb State to destroy the world.
Yes, we need someone better.
But who?
Take a guy like Senator Tom Cotton. He’s become a hero on immigration. But he’s absolutely awful on foreign policy.
Or take someone like Tulsi Gabbard. She’s great on foreign policy. But she’s a woman, mystery meat, Hindu, loves criminals, worships the education cargo cult, and worst of all a vegetarian.
Trump is the only person with the right mix of foreign and domestic policy instincts who is also nationally known and a formidable operator. Unfortunately his own shortcomings prevent him from achieving what is necessary.
Pat Buchanan would’ve been great, but now he’s too old.
The idea that France is influenced in its foreign policy by “what Germany’s leaders want” is pretty grotesque, sorry.
Merkel is stupid and irresponsible, but she’s not the driving force behind any of this. Macron is doing this for reasons of his own (French prestige and cultivating the illusion that France is a really important world power, probably also dubious ties to various Gulf autocracies, same as in Britain).
Infiltrate the aristocracy and the armed forces and carry out a royalist coup.
And not on behalf of the House of Windsor.
“We had no claims against the USSR, and the only reason we participated was fear of losing the good graces of Hitler. ”
What a load of shit.
“There literally was no Hungarian national interest in fighting the USSR.”
Except that a big bloody wave was about to come down on our heads from the East, a thousand times more savage than Bela Kuhn’s.
Trianon was as wrenching, humiliating, and unjust as Versailles.
How does one “infiltrate the aristocracy” over a period of less than several generations?
Not really, the British empire never had any ambitions to dominate the entire globe as US elites obviously want today, its leaders had many delusions, but they accepted the existence of other major powers with legitimate interests.
The British empire also wasn’t nearly as ideological as the US. If US elites were merely motivated by cynical hard power calculations and considerations of US national interests (like Richard Nixon was), the problem wouldn’t be so bad. But they’re in the grip of deeply delusional, quasi-religious beliefs about America’s special role in history and mission for all mankind…beliefs which make compromise with other powers much harder. In this sense the US today has more in common with the Soviet Union than with the British empire or any traditional European great powers.
The idea that France is influenced in its foreign policy by “what Germany’s leaders want” is pretty grotesque, sorry.
Thanks, I will keep this in mind with an eye toward evidence that an adjustment in my assumption is needed.
Isn’t Britain’s nuclear deterrent dependent on the US? I’m not very knowledgable about such issues, but aren’t the missiles Britain uses American-made?
Persuasion and/or money.
Based on the hate speech prosecution of a hereditary peer last year, the existence of Jacob Rees Mogg, and the makeup of the former Conservative Monday Club it seems quite a few British aristocrats have reactionary instincts.
Unlike working class nationalists they are also capable of organization and have useful connections.
Populism by itself appears to be a dead end for the simple reason that “the people” are, by definition, losers.
1776 and 1789 were errors that led to 1917 and 1968. 1933 was a failed response to this because it largely accepted 1789.
I am increasingly convinced that Legitimism and the Counter-Enlightenment were largely correct.
We’re not going to survive if we don’t have a program which also appeals to the upper class, and while appealing to ethnic and racial interests is essential we’ve got to appeal to class interests as well.
There’s a great quote from the Prussian aristocrat Hans Hugo von Kleist of the famous von Kleist family:
Indeed, one can understand current real Western governments as opposed to imaginary democratic theories as operating under the traditional Aryan three-class model:
-Corporations are analogous to feudal barons
-The press and the schools are equivalent to the priests
-The military-industrial complex are equivalent to the warriors
These three classes cooperate and control society, not elections nor elected officials.
There’s no way whatsoever we can influence the priests, as their religion is the antithesis of what we seek. And the priest class is currently the dominant class.
But we can influence corporations and the warriors. And history shows that these classes are capable of taking power from the priests.
The Serbian government working hand in glove with the deep state organisation known as the Black Hand were responsible for 1914 and they did make Serbia into a greater Serbia.
The difference now is that the American deep state are investigating Trump, a man who has throughout his career balked at paying his bills and threatened creditors with him being bankrupt. He now is in a position to”go nuclear” literally. Or perhaps this blow-up with Russia coming just as Trump is preparing to be interrogated by Mueller over his campaign’s supposed collusion with Russia is just a coincidence. Again and again unions contractors and business partners of Trump have found him going far beyond all accepted limits, and found themselves confronted with the prospect of losing everything if they didn’t moderate their demands. If he goes to the very brink of war, stays there for weeks, and forces the Russians to choose WW3 or backing down, who can suspect that the Russians were ever trying to get him elected?
Bush II as well, though it is forgotten now. Remember how Bush saw soul in Putin’s eyes? Neocons never forgave him for saying that.
The early part of Bush’s first term was the high point of the American-Russian cooperation in the post-Soviet era. I had high hopes back then.
The problem with Europeans crying about American domination is that those same Europeans are the first to freak out when the US threatens to return to “isolationism”. Just look at how negative Europeans, whether it be the people (if polls are to be believed), business leaders, politicians, and journalists reacted to Trump’s election. Oh my God, America is abandoning us! He prefers Putin over Merkel! He endorsed Brexit! The horror!
I remember similar freak-outs over Bosnia in the 90s from Euroweenies crying to America “why don’t you do something?’, “you’re allowing genocide”.* When Buchanan won the NH primary in 1996 and promised to take the US out of NATO the British and French media were in total disbelief. Then there were the lectures in the last decade about how Americans (and Russians, I guess) were behind the times. They weren’t sophisticated enough to understand that hard power was outdated, soft power – led from Brussels! – is the future. Nice excuse, though, to not bother increasing your defence spending and continue to rely on the US.
Countries the size of Germany, France, and Britain don’t deserve any sympathy as they are big enough to stand up on their own. And I say that as a holder of a British passport (though I’ll feel better about that when I trade in the gay red one for a proper blue one in a few years). They’ll take the benefits of American hegemony then whinge about everything else but under no circumstances whatever will they ever lift a finger, or even cast a vote for a nationalist party, to change anything. Sorry, but defeatist whingers don’t deserve respect from America. The Russians and the Muslim world shouldn’t give them it either.
They were. The trouble was that the Enlightenment itself was driven largely by elements of the aristocracy, in coordination with the Jews (who did succeed in infiltrating it, though it was a slow process).
The Enlightenment was driven by elements of the aristocracy for the obvious reason that they ruled Europe at the time. And the Enlightenment wasn’t entirely negative either, just the universalist dross from the British and French Enlightenments about absolute rubbish like the “Rights of Man”.
Metternich quite rightly ordered anyone in the Austrian Empire found talking about the “Rights of Man” arrested.
W liked Putin on a personal level, but his entire foreign and military policy was tailor made to antagonize Russia.
Withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, pursuing ballistic missile defense, expanding NATO, and invading Iraq without a UNSC mandate are all anathema to Russian perceived interests (invading Iraq was actually quite good for Russia).
Agree overall, up to that “nuclear and carrier” thing.
I really think we could focus on a bigger picture here, or, core of the matter.
I think we are beyond “whose dick is bigger” here. Doesn’t matter.
I’ll try to explain.
You are probably correct re age. In my case it’s not just age but experience (or so I say).
This isn’t the only “Internet presence” I am on. There are a couple of more plus certain contacts.
What I see is that “my types” are worried.
My types being ex-military who started their careers when Cold War was the game. People who studied that war in schools and courses and trained for that (or at least scenarios in such war). Plus, being in a war. Knowing the feeling of …….”it’s coming”.
The rest aren’t worried.
Interesting, maybe?
So, either my types are wrong (and that’s good) or ……
Easy to be wrong, admit. Still…….
We are in the area where decision making is the problem.
The West simply keeps pushing. Not only that but left all pretense out. It could’ve manufactured any pretext for the push, but simply choose this. Doesn’t matter. Facts, logic, common sense, processess and procedures do not matter anymore. What we see at play is pure will to impose own rules and break the opponent. No matter what.
It wasn’t like that in Cold War.
At the other side we have the regime in Kremlin.
If they choose to remain…what….men…..they must stomp on this. BUT, should they do it, it’s likely this will escalate into M.A.D.
We are in place where “bad” guy is rewarded by his behaviour.
The “good” guy shall lose. If not now, soon enough.
Let’s say the best case scenario. A fireworks demonstration like last time. Doesn’t matter. What West will see is that the regime in Kremlin blinked again. That’s all what matters for them. All.
So, they’ll push again. And again.
And, what, each time Putin will be a smart statesmen and simply a smart man and retreat. And retreat?
I don’t know but don’t think so.
I don’t see exit out of this save ONE nuclear weapon detonated somewhere and then, maybe, waking up the idiots on top and sheeple on bottom to start thinking.
Can’t see it other way and for the last 3 days I’ve been thinking, hard, about all this.
Back to Syria.
Fireworks and not stop like last time but keep bombing, Yugoslavia type. What then?
I really think we are entering an…interesting..phase of human history here.
I’ll rewatch ‘On the Beach” today.
You Brits could watch “Threads”. Americans “The Day After”.
Enjoy.
How did the Austrian Empire fare over the next century or so?
Nothing’s entirely negative. The world consists of good and bad quite fully intermingled.
Mass demonstrations re “anti-war” during Vietnam, in USA.
Mass demonstrations, re “Pershing crisis” in Europe.
For starter.
Won’t happen of course.
Well, there will be enough time to do that after the first nuke explodes somewhere.
Probably, say, 36 hours from that to the strategic launch. And 30 minutes plus after that.
The Europeans who resent US domination for nationalist reasons aren’t exactly identical with those who want the US to intervene in foreign conflicts for “humanitarian” reasons.
It’s obviously true that Western European societies are pretty rotten, and not all of this can be blamed on US influence (though some of it certainly can, much of “antiracism” is obviously a cultural import from the US, and the US does try to cultivate a pro-American Quisling class with appropriately cosmopolitan views in Europe).
But frankly, I don’t see how your criticism is relevant to people in this thread here. It may be appropriate for the average stupid Euronormie who feels superior to redneck Americans because of their love for guns, their alleged “racism” and their addiction to fast food…and then wants the US to bomb Assad based on some ridiculous nonsense about “human rights” and helping the “democratic” opposition which is merely dominated by Jihadis because nobody else is coming to protect them from Assad’s barrel bombs… But criticism of the US here is of a rather different nature, I’d say.
This makes about as much sense as saying “the problem with Americans who vote for Obama is that then they go and vote for Trump”. Doubtless there is some crossover in both cases, but my response to Americans claiming to believe in going “isolationist” is “promise?” and “don’t let the door catch you on the way out”.
Not that there has ever in my lifetime been any remotest possibility of the US regime going anything approaching “isolationist”. Just minding their own business for a change would at least be a start, but they can’t even manage that.
Tell you what, next time you meet a Brit or a Euro crying about the idea that America might go “isolationist”, tell him from you and from me that he’s a contemptible traitor to his own country.
🙂
I think it fared quite well given its highly disadvantageous position, though it got truly lucky in 1848 when Russia foolishly bailed out the House of Hapsburg from catastrophe.
In general we of the right are overly complacent about the threat posed by the left, for the simple reason that we’re not religious fanatics like they are. Leftists have effectively the same religious zeal that Islamists possess.
Metternich relaxed his censorship and secret police. For instance he allowed the Hungarian Casino Movement to develop unmolested, and he even shared his secret police dossiers with at least two prominent Hungarian nationalists because he liked them personally.
There are also “what ifs” here. E.g. What if Austria had defeated Prussia in 1866?
Note that the empire did not disintegrate upon the outbreak of WWI and even did not disintegrate after a series of disastrous military defeats and famines. A majority of the population remained Kaisertreue.
I don’t propose resurrecting the Austro-Hungarian Empire (there are actually people who do–see here: https://thewarforchristendom.wordpress.com), but we need to think beyond nationalism.
See for instance my innovative, bold thinking about fake and gay countries like the Ukraine and Canada that must be destroyed.
I have trouble thinking of anything positive about contemporary “progressivism”. I mean, I guess universal healthcare might not be bad.
???
LOOOOOOOOL!!!
Peace.
Good idea.
Dick Spencer did this last year actually.
We’ll get attacked by antifas, but the optics of getting attacked by antifas for opposing war are a lot better than getting attacked by antifas for LARPing as the Sturmabteilung.
Also worth noting we lack foreign support. Russian and Chinese soft power efforts actually denounce us owing to the old, “And you are lynching negroes!” Sovok trope.
Both the Vietnam and Pershing protest movements were funded by the USSR. In fact I half-seriously think the latter was Soviet-controlled.
Mystery meat = product of miscegenation. I believe Euros call this “le 56%”.
Ever since I first learned they existed, I have always had an instinctive hatred of vegetarians and, to quote Anthony Bourdain, “Their Hezbollah-like splinter faction, vegans.”
It was only as an adult that I figured out why. Vegetarianism is a rejection of nature, revolt against hierarchy (animals are lesser species which exist to serve us), animistic worship of animals, and giving in to womanly emotions. And worst of all, it is objectively wrong.
We we take power the first order of business will be to prohibit serving any vegetarian or vegan meals in public places. Furthermore, the pharmaceutical and supplement industries will be forced to produce gelatin capsules using beef gelatin once more.
The only way to get a vegetarian meal, other than cooking it yourself, will be to present an Indian passport.
reiner tor probably knows more about those issues, but sure about that? My impression is that at least some nationalities (Czechs notably) were rather unenthusiastic about staying in Austria-Hungary.
What’s that supposed to mean? A Eurasian empire or a United states of Europe under right-wing domination? That sounds pretty nightmarish to me as well.
I also really don’t see how a Catholic 19th century reactionary like Metternich has any relevance for our current predicaments. Anti-national throne and altar reaction is a total turnoff even to most people of generally right-wing views.
Tulsi Gabbard looks much better than this 56% meme creature…not exactly the best argument against ethnic mixing.
And compared to a lot of other US politicians, at least she doesn’t seem to be completely insane regarding foreign policy issues.
The Czechs were clamoring for the introduction of compulsory Russian language teaching and some of them defected to the Russian Empire (e.g. the Czech Legion) during the war, so no they were not enthusiastic.
Just remember that majority means only 51% and doesn’t mean a majority of every ethnic group either.
Germans, Magyars (once they got their Dual Monarchy), and Croats were all for the empire in general to my knowledge. Surprisingly so were most Jews outside of Galicia.
The most anti-Hapsburg ethnic groups were the Czechs and Serbs, but even here it wasn’t all of them. Many Czech nobles supported the empire, and so did many Serbs outside of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The dream ever since 476 has been to put the Roman Empire back together again. A united imperial federation stretching from San Francisco to Vladivostok, from Narvik to Sydney.
The three branches of the church once more united.
Metternich has relevance in several areas:
I don’t suggest that we wholesale adopt reactionary Legitimism nor that we promote such concepts publicly. It’s just something we should be thinking and talking about.
There’s a lot more to our project than simply stopping immigration.
The left as a very idea must be destroyed and extinguished forever.
Tulsi Gabbard is a handsome woman and very sound on foreign policy.
One cannot conclude from that that we should tolerate miscegenation or female leadership.
Definitely not my dream, I hate the very idea of a European empire, it’s an un-European concept imo because there has never been such a thing, we’re not China. I’m all for intense cooperation between European states (especially on matters of defense and security), but a United states of Europe? No thanks.
As for some pan-white empire including the US and Oceania, that’s total megalomania…and given the current trajectory of the English-speaking world (poz central), no thanks again.
If you’re into “conservative reactionary internationalism”, you could also cultivate ties to Saudi-Arabia and other Gulf monarchies. Or just convert to Islam and become part of the Ummah, I’ve heard they’re into conservative internationalism as well.
Identities beyond ethnic-national ones…ok, good idea, I certainly feel attachment to European civilzation beyond just a narrow German identity. But an excessive religious element of such an identity today would be rather harmful imo, since the Catholic church sees its future in the Global south and acts accordingly (and Protestants are just Islamophile losers).
There is no “our project” since right-wingers are fragmented in various subcultures that disagree vehemently about many issues to the point of hating each other. And personally I doubt there should be something like “our project”, apart from the immediate issues of stopping mass immigration and a saner foreign policy, since trying to impose unity for some grand vision will only lead to purity spiralling and endless schisms.
That’s pretty utopian imo.
I’m afraid leftists will always be around in some form.
Ah OK – my kids are mystery meat – they’ll have fun with that one!
No problems here!
Dang bro, that’s heavy! Eradication of soy-boy culture!
“Put the vegetables down and back away citizen…mystery meat rations will be provided as per Protocol 22:30”
http://www.anythingleft-handed.co.uk/images/trooper.jpg
Peace.
Isn’t it odd that, at a time when we elected a president whom most people would agree at least acts crazy, just when we need a sane and moderating alternative, the opposition seems as crazy if not crazier?
So the problem isn’t specific people. It’s the times that seem crazy all over. I hope it’s mostly just superficial hysteria.
I just don’t understand why we care that much about one particular massacre in an area where massacres happen all the time, some of them caused by us or our allies. I mean… I have theories… But none make much sense.
Tulsi Gabbard – she’s quite attractive for an mid age woman.
http://veggiepeople.ru/sites/veggiepeople.ru/files/photos/a331e973-1b76-42b9-a353-168e538fcdd4.jpg
She was recently attacking Aliyev – it’s seems typical of American moral and religious personality, and particularly of women, to become partisans of one or other issue, without the possibility of neutrality.
https://news.am/rus/news/419584.html
The original Slick Willy’s (Kaiser Wilhelm II) reaction to the German conquest of France and the low countries was to remark that the H-man had formed a US of Europe.
There has indeed been a European Empire.
The Roman Empire.
There has also been a European spiritual empire–the Roman Catholic Church.
Catholic means universal.
Charlemagne’s empire also controlled most of what was Europe in those days, and out of Charlemagne was born France and Germany.
Europeans also united as brothers to redeem the Holy Land from the cursed Mohammedans.
And yes, a united white empire is megalomania. I am 100% in favor of megalomania at all times. Megalomania gets results.
Realistically speaking I would settle for scaling up European states to their largest logical national limits. Anschluss as an example.
As a practical matter it is worth thinking along these lines to avoid falling into the trap of irrational opposition to European integration. Consider Marine Le Pen’s foolish FREXIT proposal. The European Union and the Euro are popular with Frenchmen (the latter irrationally so).
Steve Sailer has remarked that nationalism and globalism are concepts, but continentalism within Europe is not. European “nationalists” other than the morons in Poland (and Jobbik iirc) all cooperate with eachother and support eachother’s success.
Weren’t you excited by BREXIT and Trump’s victory? We have common identities which stretch beyond our nations.
Meanwhile I can wish China, Japan, and Korea well, but I don’t share any kind of identity with them.
The very existence of Europe is because of the Islamic conquest. Prior to it people in Italy had far more in common with people in what is now Tunisia than they did with, say, Finland.
To convert to Islam is to betray your identity and heritage.
That said I admire the Gulf monarchies for resisting the poz. I was very disappointed when MbS announced he will allow woman drivers and cinemas.
There will be “our project” or there will be no us. It’s that simple.
In the short term of course priority number one is stopping immigration, that’s a no-brainer.
Naturally. That doesn’t mean they should ever be tolerated.
New American State Department woman is very attractive, in the strict school teacher way. She is 48 years old.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CugW6irnpw
Brits tried to destroy Hinduism & still trying.
Mosmaiorum.org/persecution_list.html Carrying on glorious christcuck tradition
Endless zrada. I wonder how /r/The_Donald is going to spin this.
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/984489743005175808
Get rid of anglos, ban cow slaughter & you have our support।।
More likely though you will d#ck around & the Rodnover Rus will recreate Slavia & rid the world of R1Blacks।।
https://devayasna.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/hindu-political-thought-liberal-conservative-and-reactionary
https://youtu.be/BS4D95ejpl0
https://twitter.com/jbro_1776/status/984447839056158720?s=20
Macron is excelling himself, Putin should publicly slap him down.
…Aryan Cows…
I was a little surprised by the popularity of pork, to be honest.
The Roman empire was centred on the Mediterranean, large parts of Europe were never part of it.
As for the Catholic church, I’m deeply suspicious of people who claim European civilization is or should be synonymous with Catholicism or Christianity. Despite the undoubted role of the Catholic Church in European history, both for good and ill, that unity hasn’t existed for a long time (if it ever did) and exclusive focus on Catholicism ignores other important strands of European identity.
Charlemagne’s empire was a pretty ephemeral affair in the end and already in the process of breaking up only a few decades after Charlemagne’s death. It was also based on Frankish imperialism, not just against the pagan Saxons and Islamic Moors, but also against fellow Christian Europeans like the Lombards, so it can’t be a model for today.
As for the crusades, you do have a certain point, but we shouldn’t forget the negative consequences of that enterprise (which wasn’t exactly rational in some of its manifestations) for Byzantium.
Brexit is a deeply ambivalent affair. I can understand why people voted for it and am somewhat supportive of it since I reject the EU in its current form.
But my father (who’s English and very right-wing regarding non-white immigrants and Muslims) freaked out about it and complained for months how he’d now have to take up German citizenship to protect his property and his legal status in Germany since he was going to lose his status as a EU citizen.
And let’s not kid ourselves…plenty of people in Britain may have voted for Brexit out of principled opposition to a EU superstate or as a way to get back at liberal elites and the mass immigration forced upon Britain…but at least in the official discourse there were strong elements of resentment against continental Europe in general, and against Germany in particular.
Trump’s particular brand of American nationalism is of course even more controversial (not surprising, he’s not above bashing European countries as free-riding parasites and announcing trade wars against them…his affection seems to be reserved for that special country in the Eastern Mediterranean).
So there are some signs of a pan-Western right, and I welcome that, but the trend is far from clear; and it probably couldn’t be otherwise, since there are real cultural differences and conflicts of interest even between the major Western countries.
Source? If indeed she did that, then why did she bother to approve of Nordstream II in the first place? Kind of doesn’t make sense.
Why? Pork is good.
Right, the Roman Empire was Mediterranean. But Europe emerged out of the ashes of the Roman Empire and the catastrophe of the Islamic Conquest.
It’s easy to imagine an alternative history in which the Roman Empire kept expanding north as well.
Say if they’d never given women rights and also invented the mouldboard plough.
I am of Swedish descent and as such have no particular love for Romish Papism, and the current Soros globohomo faggot antipope Bergoglio should be strung up. None the less the Catholic Church built Europe (then known as “Christendom”).
Saving ourselves will probably result in more wars between ourselves. It’s not realistic to think otherwise.
Why would he need German citizenship to protect his property in Germany? I understand needing an immigrant visa or citizenship in order to live there of course in the event of Hard BREXIT.
Britain has seen itself as being outside of Europe for probably 1200 years or so. Hence referring to Europe as “the Continent”.
-Winston Churchill
…nevermind that even in the heyday of Victorian imperialism Britain’s largest trading partner was Germany.
Hence deciding to join the “Common Market” was deeply controversial, and there has long been a hysterical and irrational hatred of the European Union in the British right. The EU has become associated in the minds of many British people as somehow responsible for multiculturalism and deindustrialization, which of course the British government is to blame for. You could really only blame the EU as a whole for multiculturalism after 2015.
The self-hating British left of course also fervently identifies with the EU for the simple reason that they hate themselves.
Back during the naughties when the Blairites wanted to enter the Eurozone, I remember op-eds appearing in the conservative British papers about how joining the Eurozone would be the closing of the book on British history.
The whole issue is really ridiculous–the EU is really just a trade bloc with delusions of grandeur.
None the less it was very emotionally satisfying to see the Brits vote for BREXIT as they did so out of patriotism.
Our trade position is a very serious problem, and German’s gigantic current account surplus has reached absurd extremes.
That said I understand why this kind of talk doesn’t sell in Germany, nor should it.
Logically of course Germany should increase domestic demand.
These kinds of pocketbook issues are what dominate politics in normal times.
Germans love their pork and sausages.
They also have something similar to bacon called “speck”.
Germany is the only country in which the McRib is available year round at all McDonald’s locations.
Someone is taking down Zuckerberg from standing.
I suppose I had always just assumed that beef would a bit more popular in Europe in a terrible example of self-projection.
Recently I’ve begun to to acquire a taste for lamb. Mostly I like Singh’s cows, though, usually in grilled forms.
Tulsi Gabbard – she’s quite attractive for an mid age woman.
Dmitri, you must still be a teenager if you classify her as middle-aged, she turned 37 just this week (the standard definition for middle-aged is 45 to 65).
Germans have never been Aryan or used that as a self designation before the 19thc & stopped shortly after।।
Even the most Pro AIT scenario says the Yamnaya stopped in Bactria first & were always brown eye black hair.
So not only were there never any Blonde Blue eye ‘Aryans’ the people who called themselves that in North India were admixed with populations in Bactria/Turan from the get go।।
The Steppe Admixture between High & Low caste only varies about 5-10% or so.
Tldr https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2018/04/01/a-brief-note-on-some-new-developments-regarding-the-genomics-of-indians/
We know the battered wife syndrome abrahamics get is a problem, hating Jews while worshipping them, but keep us ‘Indians’ out of it।।
White boys should save their race instead of Larping as Vedic Aryans.
Also, on topic:
As the African population bomb & especially the Muslim African population bomb is the largest threat.
America + Anglo sphere which is in love with both is a threat to the human species.
Many African tribes have large amounts of archaic mixture & recent evidence showing Anatomically Modern Humans ain’t from Africa means
Eurasian are human, Rest NOPE.
First Google result for “merkel nord stream ukraine”: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-ukraine/merkel-says-nord-stream-2-not-possible-without-clarity-for-ukraine-idUSKBN1HH1KW
He was somewhat afraid Merkel might take revenge for Brexit on British people living in Germany.
And anyway, he’s lived in Germany for 40 years, it would be just humiliating if he was reduced to the same status as recent arrivals from outside of Europe, so he’s now taken up dual citizenship.
I find that rather exaggerated…there have always been very significant links between Britain and the continent, both political and cultural (e.g. English kings and their territories in France during the Middle Ages, links and alliances to fellow Protestants during the early modern era). Doesn’t mean Britain should be part of the EU or neglect its ties to the former white dominions…but some of the anti-European sentiment in Britain seems rather pathological to me.
Indeed, Britain’s relative decline since 1945 is largely due to the mistakes of the British political class (especially the totally evil Labour party) and only weakly connected to the EU.
I agree, and I’m not in favour of Germany’s current economic model…I doubt it’s even in Germany’s own long-term interest.
A medium rare rib eye steak is also great. Or a beef burger. Whatever. Meat is good.
As a Scout in the ’60’s I took part in a UK, post Cuba, Civil Defence exercise aimed at recovery from a nuclear attack.
Taleb makes a similar argument.
As a Scout in the ’60′s I took part in a UK, post Cuba, Civil Defence exercise aimed at recovery from a nuclear attack.
My best summer job during university was as a Fallout Shelter Survey Technician.
This was a very good comment.
The railmcapacity isn’t there.
What doesn’t make sense about Merkel speaking from both sides of her mouth? It’s what she always does. Nordstream 2 is a dead letter, I have a running bet that it won’t be built and I’m set to win it.
Russia’s strategic interest in Syria is to have a naval base capable of operating a Mediterranean fleet while Turkey blockades the Bosporus. This will justify the otherwise rather pointless occupation of Crimea. Incidentally, the next step is a base in Morrocco.
The calculations currently going on probably demonstrate that this is not a great strategy as the bases will be very vulnerable without significant additional support nearby.
Russia’s conventional forces are still part Soviet. Modernization is by no means complete. Escalation short of nuclear war risks humiliation. The Siivoki have been pushing for all this if only, initially, as a distraction from the Donbass failure. Can they survive a second failure?
You might be interested to know that the BBC Science programme broadcast an item tonight claiming that the earliest iron smelting took place in India. I am prepared to believe that people moved back and fire from NW India to Iran/Armenia more than once.
In a month all will be forgotten and the permits will be issued.
The Europeans who resent US domination for nationalist reasons aren’t exactly identical with those who want the US to intervene in foreign conflicts for “humanitarian” reasons.
There’s lots of overlap. Besides, someone here – maybe AKarlin – put up polls a year or so ago showing that in many European countries over 80%, sometimes 90%, preferred pro-NATO Hillary over nationalist Donald Trump.
It’s obviously true that Western European societies are pretty rotten, and not all of this can be blamed on US influence (though some of it certainly can, much of “antiracism” is obviously a cultural import from the US
Really? The USSR was using anti-racism against the USA, UK, France, Australia, and South Africa pretty early on in the Cold War.
When the Algerian war began in 1954 the pieds noirs and French authorities alike were quick to point out to foreign press that they weren’t “racist” (yes, they used that word) like Americans and South Africans because there was no segregation between them and Muslim Arabs/Berbers? Did America force this anti-racism on Europeans, even those in Algerie Francaise, between the 1945 liberation and the 1954 Algerian war? Hardly. Even before WW2 continental Europeans often embraced black Americans (Josephine Baker) not so much because of their alleged talent but because it made them feel morally superior.
Anti-racism existed long before the current US establishment weaponised it. You must be very young if you think otherwise.
But criticism of the US here is of a rather different nature, I’d say.
On the surface only.
Randal: Not that there has ever in my lifetime been any remotest possibility of the US regime going anything approaching “isolationist”.
No matter how Trump has governed he was elected as a nationalist, sceptical of Nato and foreign intervention and openly friendly towards Putin.
How did the British people respond to all that? The answer is that they overwhelmingly hated him. They saw him either as a dangerous nationalist or as Putin’s puppet – after all if you are sceptical of the utility of a military alliance with the mighty British you must be a Russian agent, right? – and they cheered for him to fail.
Trump also supported Brexit and was willing to provide Britain with leverage in its negotiations with the EU, openly stating they could have a free trade agreement with the US, unlike Obama who said the UK would be at the “back of the queue”.
How did Brits react to such generosity? Like most Europeans they wanted their precious Magic Negro back. They hate, hate, hate American “isolationists” and love, love love, American internationalists like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. Like I said, such Europeans deserve contempt. Americans should ignore their worthless opinions.
Tell you what, next time you meet a Brit or a Euro crying about the idea that America might go “isolationist”, tell him from you and from me that he’s a contemptible traitor to his own country.
Thanks, but I’d rather not fall out with my European in-laws and British/Irish blood relatives.
Well yes, and the Americans reacted by making a show of being antiracist and colour-blind, to win the hearts and minds of the 3rd world (they also wanted to see the European colonial empires dismantled and only propped them up as a temporary measure, to prevent communists coming to power; the contest between the Soviets and the Americans was a contest between two competing universalisms, both opposed to the old European order). In any case, that was a long time ago, and whatever the genesis of “antiracism” may be, today the US is undoubtedly the primary source of an increasingly deranged and explicitly anti-white “antiracism”. “Critical whiteness studies”, “white privilege” and the like aren’t concepts developed in continental Europe, they are obvious US imports.
As for French Algeria, unless I’m mistaken the Muslims mostly didn’t even have the same civil rights as the European settlers. It’s of course true that the French pretended to some degree to be colour-blind, since they had similarly deranged views as the Americans do today about their universal civilizing mission for mankind. But there was lots of hypocrisy involved, and in any case France doesn’t equal Europe. Do you seriously want to tell me that central, southern and eastern Europe which were completely dominated by authoritarian right-wing or fascist regimes by the late 1930s would have independently developed something like today’s “antiracism”?
I don’t entirely get the point of your repeated criticisms about European anti-Americanism tbh. If it’s that many Europeans are pathetic and unwilling to take responsibility for their own destinies I’d actually agree. But I don’t think I’ve ever denied that, and I don’t think it invalidates criticism of the US.
As far as I know history’s first anti-racists were American Quakers, which grew out of their abolitionism. The ideology spread to New England after the American Revolution and continued to grow in influence there until the failure of Reconstruction.
Afterwards it went into decline before being suddenly revived in 1933 as a reaction to Nazism. Congress wouldn’t pass another “Civil Rights” bill after Reconstruction until 1957.
The anti-racism, or rather non-racism, you describe prior to WW2 was to my knowledge peculiar to France among Europe’s colonial powers. The H-man contemptuously described France as intent on negrization, and George Orwell in one of his essays describes French culture is being unique in its absence of “color prejudice”.
Anti-racism’s institutional power seems to have emerged out of Boasian anthropology students taking over anthropology departments in prewar America, and this was then brought to Europe by the British Jew Ashley Montagu. Montagu went on to write UNESCO’s statement of race, which then established the evil doctrine of anti-racism as official UN policy.
It’s therefore quite fair to say that anti-racism has an American-Jewish origin.
That said, some level of anti-racism in response to Nazi Germany was of course inevitable.
It’s really hard to imagine the French fighting off accusations of “racism” in crushing a colonial insurgency prior to WW2…nor anyone giving a shit to begin with.
America made the problem much worse then America’s foreign policy elite decided that winning the Cold War meant “Civil Rights” were required in America. This decision was undertaken fairly quickly after the war–Truman unwisely desegregated the armed forces in 1948. In the same year California began dismantling the California Jim Crowe laws directed against orientals.
The Americans are psychos about anybody who could conceivably be a rival. The U.S. does not permit rivals to exist. Look at the last hundred years of history. It’s been the U.S. destroying every potential rival that appears.
It’s the Manifest Destiny stuff and all that other American craziness. It’s God’s plan that the United States should rule the world.
Back in the 17th century Europe was full of religious crazies. Violent fanatics who were, quite correctly, regarded by responsible European governments as a menace to civilisation. Most of those crazies ended up in America. American Christianity is bizarre. Destroying the world by nuclear war would be a good thing because then Jesus will come come back.
https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/984554425900584960
Interesting…that sounds like Trump is actually the extremist and taking the side of Bolton.
I don’t entirely get the point of your repeated criticisms about European anti-Americanism tbh. If it’s that many Europeans are pathetic and unwilling to take responsibility for their own destinies I’d actually agree. But I don’t think I’ve ever denied that, and I don’t think it invalidates criticism of the US.
I find most, not all, anti-Americanism from the European Right to be very bitter and womanish. They usually act like Europeans have no agency at all. I suspect they are defeatists who are not up for the fight so they feel relieved just to dump it all on the US. (Incidentally, this kind of defeatism is a common characteristic of conservatives in general, probably because they are so used to losing). Anyway, there have been many cases of individual European states resisting American pressure – from Vietnam in the 60s to refusing missiles in West Germany in the 80s to France, Belgium, and Germany during the Iraq War. It is local elites who are mostly to blame for Europe’s situation as they are the ones who like the current set-up. (I’m not saying you are denying any European culpability in all this).
So would the entire British establishment.
The British seem to like their role as America’s most pathetically loyal lapdog. Maybe they get off on being humiliated. Don’t they teach the ruling class all about the joys of being a submissive at Eton?
Churchill went to Eton, and Churchill was the one who turned Britain into America’s bitch.
Are there any better alternatives in modern American politics? You’re talking about a seriously insane nation. In the U.S. being a crazed megalomaniacal half-wit is considered to be a major political asset.
He was the one who hired him, right? It is really hard to figure out Trump and his state of mind but I no longer believe that he is guided by intentions imputed to him by people who voted for him among whom there are many who still entertain a delusion that he is playing some 6D chess against the Swamp.
Yesterday there was a meeting of Chiefs of Staff with VP Pence without Trump. I was hoping then that Trump would be quarantined and the generals would try to undo the damaged done by Trump.
The so called founding fathers did not seem like the religious crazies you describe, however they had a vision of conquest and of at least a continental empire. They were taking it for granted that Spain will be pushed out and Spanish former possessions will be part of America. Where did they get this boldness from? Was it a part of masonic creed to which they subscribed to conquer the world and organize it according to the masonic vision? It is possible that America was not seen as just a country for people who inhabited it but as a vehicle for the global change and American citizens drafted from all over the world as the soldiers in service of this masonic project.
God save King Francis II, rightful king of England!
Nobody really cares anymore. We got along fine developing grand infrastructure & architecture as well as guilds before pretty much anyone.
All the social engineering they try on India similar to European Anti Racism has to stop & rebellion is brewing because of it।।
https://vajrin.wordpress.com/2014/06/01/for-the-ashes-of-their-fathers-and-the-temples-of-their-gods-the-hindus-of-armenia/
http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-caste-as-social-capital-1387350
Yeah, there are anti dowry provisions in old Indian Penal Codes & everyone’s aware of the grand Sati myth।।
It’s just they started social engineering their own working class too & without the buffer of racial hatred, it worked.. Spectacularly।।
What I find frightening is that maybe that’s what the generals tried to do. But probably they found that Pence is no better.
I can’t disagree with that.
So far the attempt to revive nationalism has not been very successful. In fact on the whole it’s been an abject failure. And ethnic nationalism obviously can never work in artificial nations such as the United States or Australia. It makes sense to look for alternative strategies.
I like it as an idea, but to make it work you’d need an actual Catholic Church. Not the post-Vatican II Church, which needs to be burnt to the ground.
Women hit middle age much earlier. A 37-year-old woman is definitely middle-aged.
Thanks for the link.
Yeah, she’s known for that. What caught my attention is the fact that–if the following press release is to be believed–the permits had already been issued about two weeks before Merkel said that:
https://www.nord-stream2.com/media-info/news-events/nord-stream-2-receives-full-set-of-permits-in-germany-90/
So who knows. Maybe she’ll change her mind yet again.