Enough Russian Roulette with Nuclear Fire

Gaza is the end of justice. The abomination that is the U.S. and Israel just guaranteed the end of the UN and relegated it to its final death. Those two letters, UN, should always be spoken as words, not an abbreviation; the *united nations* has lost all relevance precisely because impunity rules the world led by the U.S.A.
The world should collectively shudder at the coming horror, for this is just the beginning.
I fully expect war in Ukraine now that the UN is null and void. There is nothing left to stop the coming holocaust…
It’s apparent the U.S. will stop at nothing to affirm its supremacy…
God help us poor humans…

Thanks for clearly articulating this quandary Ian; I’ve been really trying to figure out what the play is for the US since Yanukovich was ousted … pushing him and generally destabilizing a Russian proxy made sense (not that I support it, but it has been the basic M.O. of US foreign policy since Iran and Guatemala in the 50s).

What I don’t understand is **why** the full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes, recklessness? Establishing a state of brinksmanship with Russia benefits U.S. interests / goals / etc. how?

While events have seen some Cold Warriors ghoulishly arise for some sincere Russophobia and attendant Kremlinology, most have been very reticent and seem perplexed themselves. The former military types mostly seem at a loss as to why the sole state on the planet capable of shooting back, of bringing the temple walls falling down around the global commons, is being goaded and treated with zero respect. I like how you have consistently pointed out that – even beyond the rhetoric – the policy motions out of Washington have been all stick and no carrot.

I believe that (at least in this post) you haven’t incorporated the domestic dynamic (GOP pressure) nor taken note of the time pressure – Obama and his “team” are rapidly approaching the end of their effective ability to do things … however, these are not causal.

I keep coming back to their slavish belief in their own power and their complete misreading of politics from the (recent?) past. Stunning that after losing two land wars in Asia, not to mention the state of domestic affairs, that the political class wouldn’t be more cautious in the exercise of statecraft – but, as they haven’t been held accountable for those disasters they are either blind or feeling that they are playing with house money. Moreover, most of these decision-makers are the product of Ivy League graduate seminars and business schools – so they believe that Ike and JKF, Nixon and Reagan, etc. just ‘willed it’ and it became so. That a fancy brief or mind-numbing stack of powerpoint slides that doesn’t face opposition will become reality on the steppe.

A truly opaque policy that isn’t being debated in the public realm. Perhaps your readers will enlighten me.

This time history will not be written by the self-appointed self-assumed victors, it will be written by the dead. Those surviving will not be able to write history, the pains of witness will prevent that record, only the dead will be able to tell the story from their graves.

“Travels with Herodotus” previews the likely outcome, history again foretelling future for those who will read and understand. But then reading books is for the wimps, the nearsighted and the intellectuals, can’t be having that amongst the population of The Hegemon. So be it.

If any think their elite self-correct, you’re about to be disabused. If any think the mindset of their elite can be changed, you’re about to become disabused. If any think ill-conceived policy is not set in stone, you’re about to find out differently. If any think their intentional ignorance will save them, you’re certainly in for a surprise. If any think knowledge will appear entire of its own accord as Athena sprung from the head of Zeus, eternity beckons, you’ll need the time. Cassandra had it easy being the archetype.

Those who worship flags, deify rags. This is an abrogation of the responsibility of being an adult human as well as being a citizen (or subject) of any country, but attaining such status has no guarantee and is becoming a rarer event by the generation. Once those who attained the stature were found in the governing elite but the hunger of and for wealth has marked paid to that process. The knowledge of power is lost and the tools of power bent to other purpose. This path will not last, none invest in that knowledge, the future is bleak as control of complexity becomes just another unmourned body in the graveyard.

As a slight, but only slight digression there is a fascinating SITREP from Vineyard of the Saker.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4046811478707691837&postID=130768734640607376

One comment absolutely stood out to me.

Bit of background first (being tedious for a moment).
Now I’ve studied a lot of military history, especially WW2, but as a necessity that means studying German, British, US, Russia, etc military history, to help understand why certain things were done in certain ways, as much as the ‘what’ (MFI I’ll definitely get that book you recommended a while back, when I have the spare cash, boy it is expensive) .

This stood out like the proverbial dog’s balls….Original: Comment at Yurasumy LiveJournal Translated from Russian by Gleb Bazov

“The death of the Ukrainian troops in the “Southern Intestine” was caused not by errors at the level of strategic planning (from a purely military standpoint no such errors were committed).

And only Americans could so utterly miss the option of voluntary withdrawal by Strelkov’s Brigade from Slavyansk. And the reason is elementary – their lack, at the level of the subconscious, of centuries of experience of European military history. ”

And that is 100% correct if you’ve studied anything about US military history/
‘strategy’/’tactics’/etc. That sort of thing is in their military DNA and always has been. A superficially ‘clever’ plan, set by those on high out of touch with the realities. A total reliance on numbers. A total belief that the enemy will always do what you want them to do.
A total unwillingness to back out/change when it all turns to custard.
A, long held by them, complete inability to ‘leave ground’ when the tactical situation goes against them. They get themselves stuck on a point, and then get themselves speared on a point. Throwing good money after bad (see below for more comments on that) .

The commentator is being incredibly perceptive..possibly sending a message…that the real enemy is now the ‘Yankees’? That the US is now in direct military control? Good news for the Federalists though, as bad (and corrupt) as the Ukrainian military leaders are, the US ones will be far worse..
Unfortunately more bad news for the civilians there, another part of the US military DNA is to slaughter them in large numbers.

Extra comments (you can ignore them) :
I could write a book (many have by the way) about how bad the US military ‘DNA’ is. Hence zero wins since WW2 (where they were in a coalition with the British Empire and the USSR and, carefully written out of history now, their greatest victories in Europe were when either Monty was in charge or Ike listened to him). Korea, at best, was a draw. Losses ever since.

Their military DNA comes from three sources: the Indian wars (basically genocide), South America/Philippines/etc empire creation and their civil war. That’s it. Learning since then? Zero…..

And, being a materiel based military (civil war DNA) , though they proudly shout about their technology, they never use it properly. War has seriously changed now because of technology. Good, well led, well trained, fast, mobile light infantry, with anti-tank missile and anti-air ones, backed with some reasonable mobile artillery, perhaps a few tanks is now the dominant ground force.

We saw this in Lebanon in 2006, where I argued that (in various forums) we’d seen a military revolution right in front of our eyes. And airpower, at least as we know it now, has basically seen it’s day as a determinant in the battlefield.

As an aside I’d also totally recommend the book ‘The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914″ by Christopher Clark, which I’d say is the finest one on the reasons for WW1.
Some of the parallels are scary….like the role of the UK then ..and now. Amazing how history ‘Rhymes’ as Mark Twain put it.

Without going into too much detail, since there are powerful taboos against doing so, currently Jews have an extraordinary power base in the US. But will it last forever?

Somehow I don’t think the author of this comment was very reticent in breaking the “taboos”. Adopting an essentialist theory of what “Jews” do and need as well as helping confirm the suspicion that “neocon” is code for “Jewish conspirator” is not helpful, in my opinion. I don’t know why the whole Russia/Ukraine thing seems to attract this type of writing, even more so than (!!!) Palestine arguments.

Mandos right on cue with the old point ‘n sputter.

The common thread in all these foreign policy challenges is the protection and nurturing of Israel.

Everyone knows that noticing common threads is a thoughtcrime.

@ Jeff Wegerson 3 August 2014 #63795

Yes, cold weather will be having some decisive effect if it isn’t too late. You may have inverted your up and down though, evidenced by the insidious accusation *As long as Russia can…*, where all available evidence indicates The Hegemon and its sycophants in place in Brussels, NATO and Downing St. are directing the Ukrainian Junta and their motley array of mercenaries and neo-nazi thugs now wearing the uniform of the Ukrainian military, these comprising the real proxies in the Ukraine. The aforementioned proxies are the ones violating the peace and standing in the way of resolution. As long as Russia can withstand this assault upon its security is the appropriate drift of that sentence. For doG’s sake, the Ukrainian forces are leaving behind dead bodies that are Black. Are those likely Ukrainian natives? I can only trust I have not misread your statement.

It is apparent now that most do not understand, much less appreciate the gravity of the situation in Ukraine.
This may well (probably) devolve into the end game.
I fervently hope I am proved wrong, but the evidence (Gaza/Ukraine) would indicate this (Ukraine) is ground zero in the hegemon game of the west. There can only be two outcomes; capitulation by Russia (not going to happen) or capitulation by the west (the U.S.A.) and I don’t see that in view of the last 24 days in Gaza. American re-supply of Israel and the collapse of the United Nations as mediator…

I never fail to be amazed and disgusted by the degree to which the threat of destruction of a building or two, or even a city, is described as a “threat to national security” by our leadership and media. This nation is far more robust that to imagine that it would be destroyed as a nation by the loss on that scale.

I am equally amazed and disgusted by the inability of our leadership and media to recognize that NATO in Ukraine actually is a “threat to national security” for Russia.

My third amazement is the restraint shown by Vladimir Putin. After not drawing the line on NATO expansion until it reached Ukraine, he is being remarkably deliberate in his manner of drawing that line, and is not blustering and making threats in the process. He has not yet treatened to shut down our overland route to Afghanistan and, whle he has calld in some Ukraine loans and cut off some discounts on gas, he has not treatened to call all their loans or shut off the gas. He does not threaten, he acts, while Obama throws threats around like party favors at a parade.

Everyone knows that noticing common threads is a thoughtcrime.

Yesyes we all know how enthusiastic people are around here for noticing “common threads” and deploying their tough-minded, clear-eyed Survival Logix and all that. But I am here to tell you that using your advanced dot-connecting powers may not always be a virtue.

Look: if you were to say that there is a powerful Israel lobby, that goodly number of US policymakers are of Jewish background and have an emotional attachment to pro-Israel ideologies, that US Mideast policy is partly driven by pro-Israel concerns, etc etc that would all be fine and dandy, even Israel’s supporters these days acknowledge most of that.

Where I get off *that* bus, however, is when we start talking about specific inherent characteristics and needs of The Jew as a diasporified generalized person who magically plants “Jew-ligarchs” in Russia and so on and so forth and has some sort of Protocolsy grand strategy to…rule the world or something. It sounds suspiciously like viewing Jews as a historic infection, and we all know who did *that*, now don’t we? The shoe fits. It quacks like a duck.

All those wonderful “Machiavellian-tinted glasses” and Survival Logix and so on go right out the Rassentheorie window, confining the whole line of thinking to racist conspiracy-minded people. Not to mention the fact that, you know, there’s a lot more than Jews in the USA who are ideologically committed to Israel. It’s taking a page out of the Steve Sailer playbook: black neighbourhoods tend to be more violent LOOK AT THE COMMON THREAD PEOPLE!!!11!!! Would you like some propter hoc fries with your post hoc McNuggets?

(So-called) political correctness. It exists for a reason. Learn to love it and hug it and call it George.

Thank you for the discussion, Ian. I couldn’t agree more that this is a crucial situation that could indeed be a game-changer for the world, unlike Gaza, which, though tragic as all giddy-up, is taking up most of the print online.

To your funding of Ukraine I’d add the many deep-state NGOs, especially NED and USAID (CIA). The think tanks are buzzing with dictates and fear of any threat to the Empire.

But the propaganda push of Russia being responsible for downing MH17 is one of the major keys, and while the Russian military has offered plausible scenarios discrediting that theory, still, the US media scribes push the theory, and label it ‘a war crime’, causus belli for…war, I guess.

“The latest survey in Ukraine by the Pew Research Center, reveals 91% of Crimeans believe the recent referendum was free and fair and only 4% believe Ukraine is correct in not recognising the referendum results. The poll numbers underline that the official results of the Crimea referendum are a true reflection of the will of the Crimean people.”

http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/05/12/pew-poll-crimeans-happy-with-annexation-by-russia-believe-referendum-was-free-and-fair/

And yes, by all means: disband NATO. Not long ago it was considered a relic, but then, the AFRICOM desk was created, and Nick Turse writes that the US military and proxies for the hegemon have large footprints, and often bases, in every African Nation. The Big News that Erik Prince was hired by China to ‘advise them on Africa’ will create more of the tension to fund NATO, and expand the military expenditures in those nations, further destabilize them, readying them for the ‘chaos’ that NATO’s mission statement claims it’s all about.

TarheelDem at My.fdl did a multi-part series on that subject, went to the Chicago NATO protests, and ended up in jail with the three who are still inside.

And to OldSkeptic #2 Female now: congratulations on your completed metamorphosis of which you wrote so well. Yes, being oneself and the peace that can come with it must be several steps on the road to enlightenment.

Forgot web reference

http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/08/despite-concerns-about-governance-ukrainians-want-to-remain-one-country/

What’s the line of thought that leads to Crimea being Russia’s most important naval port? It hosts the second smallest (of five) fleets. It’s important and they definitely want to up its importance, but they were hedging with talk of investments at Novorossiyisk.

There are problems with projecting the threat of nuclear war when talking about the looming NATO/Russia showdown.

One of them is: do we know that NATO decision-makers believe in a “Russian nuclear threat”?

If they don’t, is it good politics for our side to project such a threat, as if we know better?

The last head of the KGB, Krioutchkov, a participant in the August 1991 coup against Gorbachev, at his trial justified his participation in the coup on the grounds of the need to prevent the Soviet nuclear arsenal from coming under the control of the US.

I have it from a relative insider that Yeltsin indeed handed the codes to the Russian nuclear arsenal over to the US. He then tried to have this arsenal abolished, gaining ZERO support from anyone in the “West” including the anti-nuclear movements. (To their disgrace).

In the meantime Putin has stated that he has regained control of the Russian nuclear arsenal, but there are surely plausible political reasons for him to make such a claim irrespective of its truth.

If “our side” publicizes the idea that Russia is dangerous because of its nuclear arsenal rather than the idea that we DO NOT KNOW to what extent Russia controls its nuclear arsenal, then we do not prepare public opinion for the eventuality of a nuclear “false flag” operation, with nuclear weapons use attributed to Russia when the decision has in fact been taken elsewhere.

My suggestion is that we should declare pre-emptively that we will regard any alleged future Russian nuclear weapons use as “false flag”.

Dan, I’d say it has to do with Americans’ overwhelming compliance in the face of ongoing abuse. Hard to imagine that’ll be the case with Putin and his merry band of nuclear-armed oligarchs. Millions incarcerated and brutalized here at home, and the collective American reaction is ‘serves ‘em right—hope he enjoys all the rape.’ Create Orwell’s Telescreen and you don’t have to forcefully install it in every citizen’s home, he’ll go right out and buy it himself. Anymore, I’m left wondering what line our leaders would have to cross to inspire revolt? Certainly, a few assassinated Muricans isn’t going to rouse them. Maybe if they start droning puppy kennels. That’d create empathy.

W. Hall
August 4, 2014
~~~~~~~~~~~
Putin not in control of his nukes? I find that statement incredible regardless of who implied it…

W. Hall
August 4, 2014
But all in all I think that Ian Welsh’s stance on the subject makes for bad politics.
~~~~~~~~~~~
I don’t even know what that means, *makes for bad politics*.
Ian certainly doesn’t need defense from the likes of me, but, he is one of the better informed commentators on the WWW.

The situation is already at an insane posture and you think Ian doesn’t know what he’s talking about? It’s apparent you are not familiar with this here blog and its owner.
Just what is your point?

I think his point is that due to having some 25 year old missle launch codes we should assume any nuclear strikes on the part of “Russia” to be false flags. This assumes that the Russian military is wholly incompetant and wouldn’t have changed those codes first thing. For that matter, the US codes have been publically known to be 6 or 7 zeroes in row for some time now, so by W. Hall’s logic, any nuke strike by the US should be assumed to be a false flag by (insert malefactor here).

@ JustPlainDave
August 4, 2014

Yep, pretty good summary; W. Hall is, I don’t know what, but he is dedicated to a POV that has no coherence…

Regarding not risking a nuclear war, a couple of months back, Paul Craig Roberts noted that the pedigree of Obama’s Ukraine staff led right back to the Committee on the Present Danger, of which PCR himself claimed former membership. This group, claims PCR (based on his personal knowledge), completely believes that the US could win a nuclear war with Russia.

Regarding increasing the cost of financing, Russia, like the US, has its own sovereign fiat currency, and thus has zero need to borrow to finance its operations. They may not understand this however. They certainly did not back when the Chicago Boys convinced them (wrongly) that they had to default, a mistake they’ve been paying for ever since.

What belies W. Hall’s theory is Putin’s aggressive, expansionist behavior. If what W. Hall says is true, then Putin knows he can’t use his nukes and The West could false flag one of Russia’s nukes at any time and use that launching as a prelude to a retaliatory strike that could wipe out Russia. If Putin knows this, why the hell would he be so aggressive and in-your-face with The West unless he was a suicidal madman?

Plus, we all know the aliens would never allow a nuclear war. 🙂

We Need To Have Another Talk

A summary from Counterpunch of the just passed Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014 (S.2277) . To be more honest I’d call it the “Let’s Go to War With Russia” Act.

If anyone doesn’t think this is a declaration of war, then I’d wonder what you did think one was? http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/04/senate-bill-preps-for-war-with-russia/

Snippets (bottom one is a beauty):

…that seeks to prevent “further Russian aggression toward Ukraine and other sovereign states in Europe and Eurasia.”

Provides non-NATO ally status for Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova for purposes of the transfer of defense articles or services as well as to increase U.S. armed forces interactions with the armed forces of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia.

This is good one…
Amends the Natural Gas Act for expedited application and approval process for export to World Trade Organization members as well as urge the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Trade and Development Agency, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the World Bank Group, and the European Bank for Reconstruction for “promotion of US private sector participation in energy development in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova” for exploitation of natural gas and oil reserves.

A summary from Counterpunch of the just passed Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014 (S.2277) . To be more honest I’d call it the “Let’s Go to War With Russia” Act.

Going to war would be invading Russia. That’s not what this act says. It says it will get the back of, and help defend, those countries in the region that are threatened by Russian expansionism. If Russia isn’t expansionist, then there shouldn’t be a problem, but if Russia wants to invade other countries, well, The West is going to provide substantial aid and assistance to deter Russia’s aggression. I see it as a defensive posture and had this been done when Hitler annexed Austria prior to World War II there may have been no World War II.

It’s interesting to think what would have been had there been no World War II. I know some notable authors have tried to imagine it. Well, the world is at that crossroads again. In sixty years perhaps the question will be, I wonder if there would have been a World War III had America not passed the Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014 (S.2277). There will be no question in sixty years if there is a World War III.

I’m counting on the aliens to intervene and stymie the electronics of the nuclear warheads when and if that time comes. I’m sure they don’t want to see their experiment self-destruct. There’s still much studying to be done. 🙂

Paper or Plastic? Ebola or Nuclear War? All these tough choices. Someone decide for me. They will.

The early warners (same as those who early warned about Iraq, etc) are, well starting to early warn.

Pepe Escobar: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-02-010814.html

Heavy Hitter Stephen F. Cohen: http://www.thenation.com/article/180825/why-washington-risking-war-russia#

Him on the US media (but applies to nearly all western media) ‘going all the way with LBJ’: http://www.thenation.com/article/180466/silence-american-hawks-about-kievs-atrocities

An earlier piece (May) but very relevant: http://www.thenation.com/article/179579/cold-war-against-russia-without-debate

This Cold War—its epicenter on Russia’s borders; undertaken amid inflammatory American, Russian and Ukrainian media misinformation; and unfolding without the stabilizing practices that prevented disasters during the preceding Cold War—may be even more perilous. It will almost certainly result in a new nuclear arms race, a prospect made worse by Obama’s provocative public assertion that “our conventional forces are significantly superior to the Russians’,” and possibly an actual war with Russia triggered by Ukraine’s looming civil war. (NATO and Russian forces are already mobilizing on the country’s western and eastern borders, while the US-backed Kiev government is warning of a “third world war.”)

And yet, all this has come with the virtually unanimous, bipartisan support, or indifference, of the US political establishment, from left to right, Democrats and Republicans, progressives (whose domestic programs will be gravely endangered) and conservatives. It has also been supported by mainstream media that shape and reflect policy-making opinion, from the Times and The Washington Post to The Wall Street Journal, from The New Republic to The Weekly Standard, from MSNBC to Fox News, from NPR to commercial radio news. (There are notable exceptions, including this magazine, but none close enough to the mainstream to be “authoritative” inside the Beltway.)

You can add: Guardian, Independent, BBC, all of the Murdoch media empire and so on. Seems most of the European media too.

@OldSkeptic

You have put into words perfectly what I was grasping towards in a comment of mine on MFI’s post. All of the military types have been pining for a war with Russia for decades and decades and finally they get their chance.

Given all the above postings, a return to the question of pre-emptive assertions that putative future Russian resort to nuclear weapons will be a false flag…… seems inadequate as a rallying point.

But for the record, Just Plain Dave, the reference to New Left Review is not unsourced. Yeltsin’s proposal of 95% unilateral Russian nuclear disarmament was made in the Russian Duma in August 1991, as reported by Robin Blackburn in NLR 189, Sept-Oct 1991. The reports on Krioutchkov’s claims that the August 1991 coup was necessitated by the threat of the US gaining control of the Soviet nuclear arsenal were made in press coverage of the time. Don’t ask me for references now. The information about Yeltsin handing over the codes to the US was communicated to me by an Italian journalist with good contacts in yesterday’s USSR and today’s Russia.

Gromyko’s comments are of relevance as a testimony to a reality.

In 1991 I did everything in my power to canvass support for Yeltsin’s proposals in the anti-nuclear movements whose slogan in the 1980s had been “A nuclear-free Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals”. The fact that the political mainstream that had expended so much moral indignation on Soviet nuclear weapons in the preceding decades should not have lifted a finger to support a Russian leader who wanted to abolish them….. speaks volumes for our present situation. My tolerance for nuclear weapons danger-mongering is low given my eighties experience of the use that was made of this particular reflex.

In the present situation probably the only initiative half worth supporting is EuroBRICS, and that primarily because it is where Putin seems to be investing whatever hope he has in anything.

Russia is cornered and will, must, at some point strike back. I am astounded at the restraint shown so far.

Cornered how? It’s making money hand over fist — so much so, it doesn’t know what to do with it all so it’s taking that excess profit and investing it in making weapons and building its military so it can expand into surrounding areas and regions and usurp said regions’ wealth and resources instead of reinvesting the immense profits from artificially high oil prices constructively back into its own “creative” economy and infrastructure.

Many decry that America is letting its infrastructure go to pot, and I agree, it is, but so too is Russia and in Russia’s case it’s more egregious because Russia is not a creditor nation. It has money in the bank — a significant amount in the bank — and considering the artificially high price of oil isn’t going away anytime soon if ever, it’s got huge wealth reserves in the ground. Therefore, it has no excuse not to transform its infrastructure into a state of the art paradigm for all the world to emulate. Instead, it tries to contend with America for military supremacy which is superfluous. America is the enforcement division of the WWON (World Wide Oligarch Network). Perhaps Putin has a problem with that and wants to shake up the arrangement, but if that’s the case, it’s being done at the expense of the Russian people and all the Small People the world over. Two imperialists are not better than one. Three are not better than two and one and so forth and so on.

For anyone who claims to be anti-imperialist, you must be anti-tyranny first because imperialism is borne of tyranny. You don’t fight imperialism with tyranny because ultimately all you’ll get in return is more imperialism.

Actually Wayne, the proposal that you attribute to Yeltsin *is* unsourced. I read the article – all you have is some guy making an unsupported statement as to what was said. If you had tracked it back, you would have learned a couple of things:

1. The Russian Duma as a deliberative body didn’t actually exist at the time – any statement would have been made to the Congress of Peoples’ Deputies. This body included representatives from all the soviet republics, not just Russia. Congress was at that time somewhat agitated (for reasons that should be obvious) and dissolved itself two days later.

2. Yeltsin did make a statement to the Congress of Deputies, but he didn’t say what you assert he did. In reference to nuclear weapons, he said only this:

“Third. The preservation of the union armed forces with indisputable control by the center of the U.S.S.R. nuclear arsenal. We need military reform. Russia, on its part, guarantees the preservation of the integrity of the nuclear potential, the army. It will not fall (into the hands of) hawks or extremists. Special structures are being created for it today. At the same time we stand for a considerable reduction of military expenditures, their level must be determined by two criteria: sufficiency for defense and the strengthening of social protection for the servicemen.” [I’m not going to link directly to the statement because it will cause the comment software here to embargo my commentary – the source is a contemporary AP translation of his complete remarks modest GoogleFu will give you the source.]

3. In interview with CNN Yeltsin said this:

“SHIPMAN: Mr. President, you said today in your speech to that it was very important for the armed forces, especially nuclear weapons, to remain under central control. It’s our that about 90 percent of the Soviet nuclear weapons are on Russian territory. First, do you have plans to bring the remaining 10 percent to territory, and second, do you have any plans to dismantle the nuclear arsenal at all?

YELTSIN: First of all, as regards the transfer of all weapons to the Russian territory, the Ukraine has proclaimed a non-nuclear republic. Therefore, the strategic nuclear in the Ukraine are being pulled out from the Ukraine to Kazakhstan is another nuclear republic and Kazakhstan is a statement to proclaim itself as a non-nuclear republic the strategic weapons from Kazakhstan will be transferred to Now let me explain our position. First, to set up a special – it is being set up – have set up a committee to nuclear weapons so that it is not used either by hawks or or ultra-right wing forces or terrorists, because this is dangerous at the present time.
Apart from the central government, we want Russia to control weapons and to be responsible for nuclear weapons on the of Russia, and we want to be answerable to the whole community so that we keep a finger on the button as well. As regards the second part of your question, we are in favor total elimination of nuclear weapons in Russia, proclaimed that the first congress of Russian deputies. But then there are factors involved, i.e., reasonable security. We need to parity with other nations and we need to promote the idea of non-proliferation and extend it to other countries.

I think personally that it is not a major victory when 50 of nuclear weapons are earmarked for elimination in a when 5 percent is enough to destroy the whole world. We to continue our work to eliminate all nuclear weapons, and Russia will work to bring that about.

Also it is necessary to stop underground nuclear tests. The range in Semipalatinsk will be closed but then again there’s issue of Novaya Zemlya. This is part of Russia. This territory in the north of Russia and this is very sensitive environmentally it will not – if we damage the environment, it will not be in 1,000 years.

We need to prevent further testing of nuclear weapons and call on President Bush and all the other nuclear powers to stop tests of nuclear weapons, and this will be one of the elements will help to destroy nuclear weapons on earth. This is our position of principle.”

[The comment software allows me one link, so this is it: http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1991/Text-of-Boris-Yeltsin-Interview-on-CNN-With-AM-Soviet-Politics-Bjt/id-13c54d69ac0d57ac4ad2a0c26d455f2b%5D

Bottom line, Blackburn got it wrong. It happens – this is why we run sources to ground *before* building huge, flawed analytical constructs that have no independent support in the historical record on top of them.

@ Oldskeptic

Drive-by comment as I’m more than somewhat pushed for time at present. This would not be the first time that American forces or Israeli ones come to that have been ‘on the ground’ in the near abroad during a crisis. If you recall there were American and Israeli ‘advisers’ present in Georgia both when Saakashvili decided that his Western friends would back him up if he launched a war and during hostilities. I’ve always thought that the Russians showed admirable restraint during that operation — which didn’t stop them wiping the pavement with the American and Israeli trained, equipped, and advised Georgian forces.

Apropos your comment ‘obey or quit’ comment above if you read between the lines of the following press release from SHAPE:

ACO – Allied Command Operations | DSACEUR and Senior U.S. Officials Discuss Ukraine Crisis:

Washington D.C. – General Sir Adrian Bradshaw, Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe (DSACEUR) met with numerous senior military and defence officials in the United States in order to discuss the ongoing crisis in Ukraine and the appropriate NATO responses. The visit included stops at NATO’s Allied Command Transformation Headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia on Tuesday, 29 July, as well engagements with the Atlantic Council officials in Washington D.C. for the remainder of the week.

Discussions were frank and there was widespread agreement that the security paradigm in Europe has changed due to Russia’s recent actions and tactics in Ukraine. The crisis is receiving renewed prominence due to the recent downing of a Malaysian Airlines passenger jet and accusations that Russia may have provided surface-to-air missiles to pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine.

“NATO has responded to the Ukraine crisis with a series of immediate assurance measures in the short term, but more work remains,” said General Bradshaw. He indicated that as the NATO Summit approaches in September, political leaders will consider ways to enhance the capabilities and responsiveness of NATO forces to meet the new situation in Eastern Europe whilst remaining responsive to other threats.

“We already have the equipment and the manpower to deal with this new situation. The key is to train them and prepare them to be more responsive. Improving our responsiveness for collective defence in Europe can also have benefits in the field of stabilization and capacity building. Our Immediate Assurance Measures, in response to the Ukraine crisis have met with a very positive response from Alliance members worried about their own security. They have also contributed to NATO solidarity. We must now build on the measures to improve the responsiveness of our defence forces,” said General Bradshaw.

Both the DSACEUR and U.S. officials stressed that European Allies have a key role to play in ensuring defence spending targets are met and that sufficient defence capabilities are retained to maintain the credibility and effectiveness of the Alliance.

Story by SHAPE Public Affairs Office

You can see that there’s still quite a lot of resistance with NATO not least on the grounds that they lack capacity. There were frank (bad-tempered) discussions:

“more work remains,” said General Bradshaw. He indicated that as the NATO Summit approaches in September, political leaders will consider ways to enhance the capabilities and responsiveness of NATO forces to meet the new situation” … … … “We already have the equipment and the manpower to deal with this new situation. The key is to train them” … … … We must now build on the measures to improve the responsiveness of our defence forces,”

The final paragraph is so entertaining that I cannot resist quoting it in full — “Both the DSACEUR and U.S. officials stressed that European Allies have a key role to play in ensuring defence spending targets are met and that sufficient defence capabilities are retained to maintain the credibility and effectiveness of the Alliance.”.

This won’t be the first time that the British High Command have reined in their American counterparts as they prepared to go all-out against Russian forces, remember Jackson? The sense I’m getting is that the European militaries France, Germany, Italy, are pushing back. Libya showed that the European militaries aren’t capable of going it alone. But equally neither are the Americans as you yourself outline above.

Agreed re: Poles and Balts, but especially the Poles. I also think that the way in which the Czechs backed off and the quite remarkable speed with which they did so indicates that they believe that once this dies down that there will be a reckoning.

It’s all about timing the Americans need things to start rolling now if they’re to see any return on their $5 billion and rising investment.

Finally as an aside as As-Safir report http://www.assafir.com/Article/63/364232 all of this is also feeding that other major crisis. Don’t have time to go through the whole thing for you but the important points are that the Ukrainians have been exporting plane loads of arms on a ‘cash and carry’ basis to buyers in Southern Turkey for use in Syria and Irak. The Serbs have also got in on the act. As those cuddly moderate and ineffective salafist fighters so beloved of Riyadh, Doha, and Washington D.C. collapse in the face of the uncuddly and effective kind they too are flocking to make a financial killing as opposed to the other sort and selling as much as they can. By the time they’re finished Anbar will have more guns, bullets, and grenade launchers, than sand.

mfi

Quick postscript. I meant to mention that the Russians have let it be known that they’re pondering denying their airspace to Western Airlines see:

What are they going to do if a passenger jet wanders into their airspace if and when they implement this? Shoot it down? Where have we seen that before? Flight 17 was just the beginning. Good thing I’ve cut back on flying.

EU energy restrictions on Russia are mostly sanctions theatre: Kemp | Reuters:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If this weren’t so serious it would be hilarious theater of the absurd; but wait, that’s exactly what it is…

Just Plain Dave your response to what I have been saying is the first time that anybody with something approaching professionalism and expertise has engaged with it. In fact it is the first time that there has been any feedback to it at all other than the expression of undocumented opinion, mostly dismissive and “common sense” based. I think I can see from the transcript you linked us to how Blackburn might have “got it wrong” in the way you argue.

But there are other points I make: for example, Krioutchkov’s testimony in his trial that the coup was necessary to prevent the Soviet nuclear arsenal from coming under the control of the United States and the Italian journalist’s information that Yeltsin handed over to the United States the codes to Russian nuclear arsenal.

At the time that these events were taking place I was trying to persuade the Greek ecologists, who at that time had a parliamentarian, to issue a statement calling for unilateral Soviet nuclear disarmament. I could not see the logic of denuclearising Ukraine, Kazakhstan and and Belarus and not denuclearising Russia.

I was persuaded that Soviet nukes were indeed useless and had been shown to be useless since the time of Cuban missile crisis. Also that the end game for the USSR could not have been played the way it was, with the Pershing II first strike counterforce missiles, if the Soviets had not had a nuclear arsenal.

I still support unilateral European nuclear disarmament, which could of course be extended to a bilateral European/Russian process along Brazil/Argentina lines.

@ Celsius 233 August 5, 2014 It’s worse than absurd. It’s folly.

mfi

Wayne, I have a hard time believing Kryuchkov’s testimony. The reporting that I’m seeing in the archives says the testimony at the trial from his 2i/c was that the coup was planned a long time in advance and I see nothing in the historical record to indicate that Gorbachev would ever have handed control over to the Americans. Yeltsin, I don’t know – he’s a bit more of a wild card, but he wasn’t in the nuclear chain of command until late December. At the time of the coup he had no codes to hand over and couldn’t have been that threat.

What this sounds like to me, more than anything, is a card that Kryuchkov might have played to justify his actions after cutting Gorbachev’s comms during the coup. The way the Sov system used to work was that they had three nuclear command and control consoles (akin to the American “football”). Gorbachev’s console was the only one that could raise the alert status without specific criteria having been met – *unless* it had been out of contact for a defined period of time. During the coup, that period of time elapsed and the coup platters then used their consoles to manipulate the alert levels of Sov forces, warning western governments to stay out of their internal affairs.

I don’t think the Sovs thought their nukes were useless post ’62. What they learned was that they needed to be much, much more careful in how they used them, but getting Jupiter out of Turkey was a tangible benefit.

Just Plain Dave I wonder if the only way that the United States might gain control of the Soviet nuclear arsenal would be by a Russian politician consenting to them doing so.

The conclusion I drew from my years in the anti-nuclear movement is that just about everything emanating from the United States on the subject of the Soviet and later Russian nuclear arsenal… from the “atomic spies” (Klaus Fuchs and company) onwards has been and is disinformation. Fuchs and all the other little Fuchses may have thought they were doing something patriotic and necessary, but they were deluded (as they eventually realised themselves): the Soviets gained absolutely nothing from having nuclear weapons. They were just an instrument to enable them to dig their own grave.

All the decades of Western nuclear “brinkmanship” were decades of bullshit.

Khrushchev has a comparatively good image overall in “the West” but it seems that he was a key victim of nuclear delusions and the Maoists may have had a better understanding of this than American Sovietologists.

I don’t know if you are familiar with Fernando Gonzalez’ interpretation of the Cuban missile crisis. Gonzalez is not a writer whose politics I admire but I would like to see a plausible refutation of his thesis, namely that Khrushchev’s big headache with Cuba was the problem of geopolitical overextension of Russia. He wanted to get Castro out of the way and thought that he get the USA to help him achieve this objective by provoking them with missile installation in Cuba. This would provoke an American invasion and the overthrow of Castro.

Believing as he did in nuclear deterrence Khrushchev did not imagine that Kennedy would threaten a nuclear strike against Soviet cities rather than an invasion of Cuba. Kennedy disabused him of this idea and in the process also undermined the doctrine of “nuclear deterrence” in a way inconvenient for mainstream US ideology. In compensation, and perhaps also in genuine embarrassment at what he had been forced to do, Kennedy followed up the confrontation over Cuba with initiation, in collaboration with Khrushchev, of more radical anti-nuclear measures than the world has seen since.

I would like to see total disappearance of nuclear danger-mongering. The Soviet or Russian nuclear scarecrow is not an instrument that can be used for any good purpose by anybody. If it is evoked by “progressives” this merely feeds warmongers. The message that the US emperor has no clothes, that everything it does and says is based on fraud and deception is the message I like to see being projected. Not the message that the US is run by dangerous and reckless madmen or that there is anything to be afraid of.

Of course there is much to be afraid of if one is unfortunate enough to live in certain places but I assume that we who are talking here are not (yet?) people who live in such places. Perhaps that is not the case.

Cold N.,

Since you mention it. Honorable intentions are a rare thing among countries who have their own foreign policy. If there were an absolute scale for that, both the US and Russia would both be deeply negative, “less than honorable” as you put it.

But we can still make comparisons. When the Obama gave his blessing of legitimacy to the post-Maidan government — which raised the fringe parties, Svoboda and Pravy Sektor, into powerful positions — that settled the question of honorable intentions in my mind, as far as this conflict is concerned.

Wayne, I don’t think that interpretation of Cuba fits the facts well. If Khrushchev’s intent was to provoke an overthrow of Castro, there’s no way he would have allowed tactical nuclear weapons (i.e., in addition to the warheads for the MRBMs) to be deployed there.

JustPlainDave: You wrote “Wayne, I don’t think that interpretation of Cuba fits the facts well. If Khrushchev’s intent was to provoke an overthrow of Castro, there’s no way he would have allowed tactical nuclear weapons (i.e., in addition to the warheads for the MRBMs) to be deployed there.”

Gonzalez claims that the Russian missiles in Cuba were dummies, not real missiles. I am merely quoting him. His book includes comprehensive documentation. He is a nasty fellow politically but not sloppy. I have never seen any discussion of his book by “respectable” people.

Wayne, this doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. If the aim was to end up with Castro deposed, why then did the Sovs specifically extract a commitment from the United States to not invade Cuba without extreme provocation as a condition of conflict termination? Similarly, if they wanted Castro deposed why would they – as recent work in the Sov archives indicates – dispatch a top diplomat *after* conflict resolution to negotiate the handover of the tactical warheads (around 100 mounted on cruise missiles and short range rockets – which the Americans didn’t even know existed), to Cuban control? In the course of negotiations they apparently realized that Castro was way too volatile to be trusted with nuclear weapons, but their original intent was to transfer these things such that they were under unilateral Cuban control.

The only way the dummy missile hypothesis makes sense to me as anything other than techno-thriller fiction is if Gonzales is extrapolating from accounts of the inert training missiles (there were a handful on the island) to the fleet generally, prior to us in the west knowing that tactical weapons had been deployed (I think this was something that came out of work in the early 90s). Other than that, this interpretation is just at odds with the facts.

JPD & WH

God’s be good; what the hell is the point of your back and forth? Kudos for the civility, but really, what’s the point; I fear it’s long lost…

Here are Servando Gonzalez’ comments on Dave’s posts:

Dave wrote: Wayne, I don’t think that interpretation of Cuba fits the facts well. If Khrushchev’s intent was to provoke an overthrow of Castro, there’s no way he would have allowed tactical nuclear weapons (i.e., in addition to the warheads for the MRBMs) to be deployed there.

Servando: [[The presence of MRBMs and their nuclear warheads on Cuban soil has never been proved. The U-2 photos that were shown to JFK as the ultimate proof are now in full resolution on the web. Take a look. There are no missiles in the photos. What you can see is long covered by tarps — which the CIA said were strategic missiles. You can also see come concrete bunkers — which the CIA said contained the nuclear warheads. You can also see some crates on the decks of Soviet ships leaving the island — which the CIA said contained the Soviet missiles. So, if you are a fool that believes what the CIA says, that’s enough proof. The most important refutation to the theory that there were nuclear warheads in Cuba in 1962 is that none of the books and articles writien about the subject (except my book) mention the existence of radiation from the warheads. SG]]

Dave: “Wayne, I don’t think that interpretation of Cuba fits the facts well. If Khrushchev’s intent was to provoke an overthrow of Castro, there’s no way he would have allowed tactical nuclear weapons (i.e., in addition to the warheads for the MRBMs) to be deployed there.”

Wayne: Gonzalez claims that the Russian missiles in Cuba were dummies, not real missiles. I am merely quoting him. His book includes comprehensive documentation. I have never seen any discussion of his book by “mainstream” people.

Dave: Wayne, this doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. If the aim was to end up with Castro deposed, why then did the Sovs specifically extract a commitment from the United States to not invade Cuba without extreme provocation as a condition of conflict termination?

Servando: [[This is another myth. The so-called Kennedy-Khrushchev Pact does not exist. See below, quoted from my book. SG.]]

One of the undying myths about the U.S. inability to tame Castro
was for many years the existence of the Kennedy-Khrushchev Pact —or “agreement,”
or “understanding,” as some people liked to call it. But, contrary to the
popular belief, the famous Kennedy-Khrushchev Pact never existed.

The problem with the existence of such a document, or even with such an
“agreement” or “understanding,” is that in any compromise both parties agree to
do something. According to the prevalent myth, Khrushchev agreed to remove the
nuclear missiles from Cuba in exchange for the American promise not to invade
Cuba. But, as we have shown above, the available evidence shows that no Soviet
nuclear missiles were ever on the island, and no one is going to believe that President
Kennedy was so naïve as to exchange something for nothing.

In 1970, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, concerned over the submarine
base the Soviets were building in Cienfuegos, a port on the Southern coast of
Cuba, hunted through the State Department’s files looking for the written agreement
he was sure President Kennedy had signed with Khrushchev. He discovered,
to his utter amazement, that there was none. Furthermore, if the agreement ever
existed, it has the dubious honor of being one of the few international agreements
to have been applied long before it was signed, because the U.S. government’s
harassment of the anti-Castro Cuban-Americans began a year and a half before the
Cuban missile crisis, just after the Bay of Pigs invasion.

The Kennedy-Khrushchev Pact was nothing but a U.S. government’s concoction
to justify the unjustifiable. If, despite rhetoric on the contrary, American presidents
from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush have proved unwilling to get rid of
Fidel Castro, it is not because a non-existent pact forbids them to do so, but because
of some hidden motives unknown to us.

Dave: Similarly, if they wanted Castro deposed why would they – as recent work in the Sov archives indicates – dispatch a top diplomat *after* conflict resolution to negotiate the handover of the tactical warheads (around 100 mounted on cruise missiles and short range rockets – which the Americans didn’t even know existed), to Cuban control? In the course of negotiations they apparently realized that Castro was way too volatile to be trusted with nuclear weapons, but their original intent was to transfer these things such that they were under unilateral Cuban control.

Servando: [[I never heard about this before, but it is totally implausible that in 1962, when the Soviets has less that 100 MRBMs (the Missle Gap was BS) they gave a 100 of them to Castro. Moreover, the Soviets NEVER (before, during or after the CMC) allowed their nuclear warheads to be deployed beyond their borders. SG]]

Dave: The only way the dummy missile hypothesis makes sense to me as anything other than techno-thriller fiction is if Gonzales is extrapolating from accounts of the inert training missiles (there were a handful on the island) to the fleet generally, prior to us in the west knowing that tactical weapons had been deployed (I think this was something that came out of work in the early 90s). Other than that, this interpretation is just at odds with the facts.

Wayne: Gonzalez is an opponent of Castro and as I said I would like to see a plausible refutation of his thesis in “The Nuclear Deception”. It does (did?) seem to have a prima facie plausibility in that it provides an apparent explanation for some of the bizarre aspects of Khrushchev’s behaviour during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Because Gonzalez writes for a specific audience, between whom and the mainstream academic establishment there is little or no intellectual contact, it is not so surprising that one has not seen dialogue around his hypotheses.

Servando: [The mostly CFR-controlled mainstream academic establishment has ignored my book because they cannot refute my hypothesis. My recent book Psychological Warfare and the New World Order gives further proof of Castro’s collaboration with the CFR globalist conspirators. SG.]]

Wayne: This is perhaps not completely unrelated to another phenomenon I have pointed out: how writers with original and iconoclastic ideas on the subject of nuclear weapons, ideas which subvert the idea of their utility, tend to be shunted off to complacent and non-activist conservative audiences, while anti-nuclear activist audiences are fed with the ideas of writers whose stance on nuclear weapons is one of superstitious horror.

Servando: [[I agree with you. SG]]

[[Nevertheless, the main argument against the prevalent myth, namely, that Khrusuchev gave Castro the missiles to protect Cuba from U.S. aggression is this: According to Krushchev’s Memoirs, the idea of deploying nuclear missiles in Cuba came to his mid when he was visiting Bulgaria in April, 1962. But this makes absolutely no sense, because it was in early April 1962, when Castro retired his ambassador from Moscow and expelled the Soviet Ambassador, Sergei Kudryavtsev, from Havana. Why? Because Kydryavtsev, who was also a senior Soviet intelligence officer, had been plotting to unseat Castro though a coup d’etat and put in power a Moscow-friendly leader of the traditional Cuban Communist Party.

So, in order to buy the prevalent hypothesis, you need to believe that Nikita Khrushchev was a fool or a masochist. and he was none of this. Intersting, most of the books about the CMC do not mention Kyryavtsev. As a matter of fact, Kuryavtsev is my bullshit level gauge on articles and books about the CMC. If he is not mentioned on the Index, the book has a 95% of possiblities of being BS. SG]]

.

Wayne, I’m afraid I don’t find Mr. Gonzales’ views on this convincing. Other than a radiation dog not barking (not surprising given the lack of access and that state of the art in airborne detectors back in the day), his argumentation seems to reference only his interpretation of imagery products. I don’t see any reference to other sources – such as the archival materials that have become available since the fall of the Sovs. That’s a real weakness.

I’m also very concerned that he says he’s never seen references to the Russian deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to the island and that he doesn’t appear to understand the distinction between cruise missiles and MRBMs (they are completely different things). I don’t know much about the crisis – I’ve read a couple of books and articles and seen much mention of it in other works – and I know that the revelations that there had been tactical weapons deployed was a big hairy deal for western scholarship. It was probably the biggest “re-write” in the history of scholarship on the topic. If *I* know that with my quite limited knowledge of the issue and someone else does not, that doesn’t fill me with confidence I should accept their assertions that mainstream “CFR” scholarship is so wrong.

Here is some input from an arch-disinformationist, Noam Chomsky: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/06/hiroshima-day-nuclear-weapons-cold-war-usa-bomb

Gonzalez could not dialogue with Chomsky. Should we blame him for that?

Wayne, I don’t find the assertions that this deal never existed at all convincing. This looks to me like Mr. Gonzales is taking one secondarily sourced datapoint and assigning it an evidentiary importance that is way out of whack with that it deserves.

I’m not an archivist, but I did a little poking about to see what I could find in the way of primary source material on this issue – and keep in mind, this is just the stuff that’s been digitized and placed on the web. With just a little looking I was able to find the declassified translated text of the letters between the principals (JFK and Khrushchev), transcripts from the EXECOMM meetings that managed the American response to the crisis and Soviet diplomatic communiqués summarizing the negotiations between RFK and Dobrynin. All of this material confirms the generally accepted contours of the agreement between the Soviets and the US. For an agreement that allegedly doesn’t exist, it has a huge documentary footprint.

As to Khrushchev’s motives, I don’t find the data on offer convincing. Those exact same memoirs assert that Kudryavtsev was recalled (not PNGed) because he was irritating the Cubans – his replacement Alekseyev is specifically identified by Khrushchev as an intelligence officer who had been active since Kudryavtsev was credentialed. History records Alekseyev as having served as ambassador until 1968. Notably he is frequently said to have had close relations with Castro during the missile crisis. Alekseyev was eyeball deep in all the same stuff that Kudryavtsev was, so I have a hard time accepting this interpretation of things.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/08/hillary-clinton-goldwater-girl-reveals-atlantic-interview.html

“So the old Hillary Clinton who was drawn to Barry Goldwater has finally shown her colors. Although Goldwater would likely have lost to Johnson, the public then was mindful of what was at stake, and the famed Daisy ad is attributed with increasing Johnson’s margin of victory.

Now that the fear of nuclear war has faded, the stakes apparently aren’t perceived to be as high.”

Why has “the fear of nuclear war … faded”?

Why does Ian Welsh apparently think that it has not faded, or should not have faded?