Review: Memoirs of Stalin's daughter Svetlana Alliluyeva

छोरीले गरेको स्टालिन शासनको पोस्टमार्टम

(A version of this article first appeared in Kantipur, Koseli dated 2071/9/5)

सर्वहारावर्गको अधिनायकत्व स्टालिन शासनझैं एक व्यक्तिको क्रुर तानाशाहीमा स्खलित भएर जाँदैन भन्ने आधार नभएसम्म साम्यवादका लागि भनेर अब युद्धमा जानु इतिहासप्रति ‘गद्दारी’ हुनेछ । 

In the enduring tussle with Russia, Europe blinks for now

The implications of the cancellation of South Stream gas pipeline


For some, it was nothing less than 'a rare diplomatic defeat for Mr Putin' as declared in the New York Times headline story titled Putin, in Defeat, Diverts Pipeline. On a more sobering note, however, a related news analysis in NYT itself was titled 'Putin's surprise call to scrap South Stream Gas Pipeline leaves Europe reeling'. 

And the conflicting message of the two titles tells it all: despite the usual spin that is involved in presenting such stories to the audience, the mainstream media (MSM) coverage of such issues with momentous geopolitical significance is incoherent and inconsistent at best. 

So, what was it all about? Was it a defeat for Putin or his new-found enemies in the Europe? And if it were a defeat for both, whose wound will be worse and lasting longer? If indeed the recent escalation of the conflict in Ukraine had some role in the development, was that decisive at all? Now that South Stream has been canceled, what is the future trajectory of the energy transactions in the region?

These questions need a comprehensive analysis rather than an agenda-driven quasi-analysis. When I was looking for the former, I came across this brilliant piece by Alexander Mercouris in The Saker Blog, and thankfully, Saker was prompt in letting me carry this article here. The length of this article is surprisingly deceptive for it comprehensively tells the whole story behind the conception and eventual death of the South Stream gas pipeline in a short essay. 

Cancellation of South Stream: Why it wasEurope's loss and Russia's gain in the long term

By Alexander Mercouris

South Stream would take years to build and its cancellation therefore has no bearing on the current Ukrainian crisis. The Russians decided they could afford to cancel it is because they have decided Russia’s future is in selling its energy to China and Turkey and other states in Asia (more gas deals are pending with Korea and Japan and possibly also with Pakistan and India) than to Europe. Given that this is so, for Russia South Stream has lost its point. That is why in their characteristically direct way, rather than accept the Europeans’ conditions, the Russians pulled the plug on it. 

German people: Victims and not the accomplices on the US-Corporate kleptocracy

Anonymous


'Missouri tries another Idea: Call in the Guard' reads today's NYT headline about the ongoing protest in one American city after a teenager was blatantly shot dead in the middle of the street on August 9. 'Ferguson protesters, police in tense standoff' is the headline in CNN website and Washington Post keeps it this way: 'Holder to travel to Ferguson as US role expands'. 

In other words, the mainstream media is far more concerned about restoring peace and tranquility than ensuring justice for the victim's family and community and the content as well as the presentation on the issue is trimmed accordingly. 

Oceans apart in Europe, the MSM are depicting a vicious and intensifying tussle between Europe and Russia resulting from 'Putin's blatant violation of Ukraine's sovereignty'. With the real and biting sanctions from the EU and countermeasures from Russia, they appear to be really headed for a much more grave collision. 

But how does all that relate to the ordinary people in Europe, say in Germany? Can we gauge the mood of the German people--ordinary people working hard to feed and clothe themselves--from what is presented in the MSM? Can we judge a population by the deed of a leader like Angela Merkel? Where does the purportedly anti-Russian feeling in Europe fit in today's reality in the lives of ordinary people?

In this poignant and insightful mail to The Saker, this anonymous citizen of this world writes what the great reporters and editors at MSM cannot write even if they know it: that Germany is still formally under the yoke of American empire that inherited this 'asset' after the victory in WW II. The sense of frustration and suffocation that he/she explains here speaks a lot about the dominant mood in the country. 


"There is a complete disconnect between the world created for themselves by the leading German politicians and the real world where the Germans have to struggle day after day"

Many people see that when the wall came down and the two Germanies were reunited, the Soviets/Russians were fair. Just think about how much time has passed, when have the United States and the British made an attempt at the same fairness? I'm afraid the US would rather see Germany in ruins yet again, rather than leaving and giving the Germans freedom. I understand the resentment that many have for Germans, but am also shocked by how much hatred there is. Is it not the same principle in most places, that Governments do not act in accord with and represent the will of the people? And to what degree can we count on the will of the people when they are not given accurate information and facts, but are fed half truths at best and outright manipulation most of the time? 

Ironically I see a lot of Americans accusing us of cowardice for not taking a more aggressive stance against Russia. The same with the Polish. Merkel's behavior in this crisis makes no sense to me at all. At times she is bullying Russia, like the perfect US poodle, but then there are reports of her reaching out to Putin. Either she is completely soul less without a personal sense of direction, or she is more devious than she appears. No idea what her true aims are. They certainly don't seem to be what they should be. Part of her vow when sworn into office is to avert harm from the German people. She is steadily doing the opposite. She and her cronies along with her.

Seeing the hatred and outright ill will some have towards Germans really brought me down. It makes me wonder how we are ever going to manage to have some kind of stability in Europe and the world...

Here are some of the dynamics in Germany, as I see them. Most likely many will disagree and want to debate them, I don't claim they are how it is, just how I see it. I don't claim to know and understand it all. But it's something I would like people to think about, before they write off the German people as a whole.

Where do I start? Something that should be obvious is that Germany is not a free and sovereign country. From the start, when the Federal Republic was conceived, the Allies had a great influence on shaping the new Germany. Especially the Americans. It is somewhat subtle if you are used to how things are, but once you start observing it becomes clear that the American political circles have great influence on ours. Anyone interested can take a look at how many of our Politicians in the various established parties are members in transatlantic clubs. So guess where their allegiance lies? They are not even ashamed of it, it's normal to them. 

For decades we've had what you can call US whores. Not long ago I complained about that on a page of young transatlanticists and was quickly accused of being anti-American, they weren't interested in any of my arguments. Being anti-American is hardly possible since I am an American citizen. There is a divide between the common people, many of whom don't have anything against Americans but are not too keen on having them involved in German affairs, and many of our leaders who try to make us all believe that we need the United States as partner, come what may. 

The Saker: How Europe shot at its own feet and will bleed for long, long

Putin approaching his personal Waterloo: this has been the fascinating notion making rounds of the mainstream media across the world amid multiplying troubles for him particularly following the tragic crash of the Malaysian plane in eastern Ukraine.

Indeed the latest of the increasingly crippling sanctions against Russia imposed by the US and the European Union seemed to make Putin pay for his follies in Ukraine with his own flesh.

If only a hand could clap. Putin was yet to throw his cards. After taking his time, he has thrown them in the form of sweeping embargo targeting the 'aggressors'. There is no noise made in the mainstream media about his moves but that does not make them any less effective or catastrophic for the parties concerned. Moreover, cover up is one of the most important way of communication in the modern media: the more one-sided and biased the presentation, the more effective the message.

In this prompt analysis, The Saker highlights the damage that can be done particularly to the economies of European countries.

You wanna be Uncle Sam's bitch? Pay the price!

The Saker 

Dear friends,

I just took a short break from my life in "meatspace" to comment upon the great news of the day:  Russia is introducing a full 12 months embargo on the import of beef, pork, fruits and vegetables, poultry, fish, cheese, milk and dairy products from the European Union, the United States, Australia, Canada and the Kingdom of Norway.  Russia is also introducing an airspace ban against European and US airlines that fly over our airspace to Eastern Asia, namely, the Asia-Pacific Region and is considering changing the so-called Russian airspace entry and exit points for European scheduled and charter flights. Furthermore, Russia is ready to revise the rules of using the trans-Siberian routes, and will also discontinue talks with the US air authorities on the use of the trans-Siberian routes.  Finally, starting this winter, we may revoke the additional rights issued by the Russian air authorities beyond the previous agreements.  This is such an interesting and major development that it requires a much more subtle analysis than just the crude calculation of how much this might cost the EU or US.  I will attempt no such calculation, but instead I would point out the following elements:

First, this is a typically Russian response.  There is a basic rule which every Russian kid learns in school, in street fights, in the military or elsewhere: never promise and never threaten - just act.  Unlike western politicians who spent months threatening sanctions, the all the Russians did was to say, rather vaguely, that they reserve the right to reply.  And then, BANG!, this wide and far-reaching embargo which, unlike the western sanctions, will have a major impact on the West, but even much more so on Russia (more about that in an instant).  This "no words & only action" tactic is designed to maximize deterrence of hostile acts: since the Russians do not clearly spell out what they could do in retaliation, God only knows what they could do next! :-)  On top of that, to maximize insecurity, the Russians only said that these were the measures agreed upon, but not when they would be introduced, partially or fully, and against whom.  They also strongly implied that other measure were under consideration in the pipeline.

Second, the sanctions are wonderfully targeted.  The Europeans have acted like spineless and brainless prostitutes in this entire business, they were opposed to sanctions from day 1, but they did not have the courage to tell that to Uncle Sam, so each time they ended up caving in.  Russia's message to the EU is simple: you wanna be Uncle Sam's bitch?  Pay the price!  This embargo will especially hurt southern Europe (Spain, France, Italy, Greece) whose agricultural production will greatly suffer from it   These countries also happen to be the weakest in the EU.  By hitting them, Russia is maximizing the inevitable friction inside the EU over sanctions against Russia.

Third, not only will EU carriers suffer from much higher costs and flight times on the very important Europe to Asia route, but the Asian carriers will not, giving the latter a double competitive advantage.  How is that for a way to reward one side while hurting the other?  The EU got one Russian airline in trouble over its flights to Crimea (Dobrolet) and for that the entire EU airlines community could end being at a huge disadvantage vis-à-vis its Asian counterparts.

Thinking the unthinkable again: Why Is Washington Risking War With Russia? -The Nation editors

As Israel ruthlessly executes its murderous mission in Gaza, America is busy penalizing Russia, a rather curious coincidence. As a 'reputed' Ukrainian journalist calls for extermination of 1.5 millions of people in Donbass, the mainstream media is busy depicting Kiev as the naive and innocent victim of the evil designs of a monster named Putin.

After an insightful article by The Saker with similar theme, here  I share another article from The Nation, a publication rather away from the mainstream media. Here the authors say the things that are obvious to a skeptical eye yet are completely blacked out by the mainstream media. The central theme of the article is that far from being a megalomaniac and even a belligerent bully, Putin has been forced to react the way he has been doing.

Why Is Washington Risking War With Russia?

Kiev’s siege of the Donbass, supported by the Obama administration, is escalating an already perilous crisis. 

Katrina vanden Heuvel and Stephen F. Cohen

Indeed, Kiev cannot wage this war on its own citizens—a UN spokesperson says nearly 5,000 civilians have been killed or wounded, which may constitute war crimes—without the Obama administration’s political, economic and military support. Having also created hundreds of thousands of fleeing refugees, Ukraine is bankrupt, its industrial infrastructure damaged, and it is in political disarray, using ultranationalist militias and conscripting men up to 60 years of age.

All of this is unfolding in the context of Washington’s misleading narrative, amplified by the mainstream media, that the Ukrainian crisis has been caused entirely by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “aggression.” In reality, his role has been mostly reactive.

Read more in The Nation 

Rwanda-type genocide in Ukraine? Ukrainian journalist calls for extermination of 1.5 million people

" ...the most important thing that must be done - no matter how cruel it may sound - is that there is a certain category of people that must be exterminated."

Journalists are supposed to keep their sanity in most insane of the circumstances.

 When they start doing the job of an unconscionable puppet of  despot or a thug, all hell breaks loose, so to say.

Prime example of this is Egypt where an entire generation of sycophants including the ‘journalists’ and ‘intellectuals’ have been gratifying themselves with the grotesque deeds of the new Mubarak in the form of omnipotent Sisi.

But as things evolve, the situation in Ukraine seems to take increasingly dangerous turns.

Is it, after all, a giant bully neighbor called Russia interfering and intimidating a tiny and innocent Ukraine as depicted in the mainstream media across the world?

Reality says otherwise, as represented in these statements of Bogdan Boutkevich, a ‘reputed’ Ukrainian journalist.

Here is the translated version of his statements:

Bogdan Boutkevitch: Ok, you ask me "How can this be happening?" Well, it happens because Donbass, in general, is not simply a region in a very depressed condition, it has got a whole number of problems, the biggest of which is that it is severely overpopulated with people nobody has any use for. Trust me I know perfectly well what I am saying.

If we take, for example, just the Donetsk oblast, there are approximately 4 million inhabitants, at least 1.5 million of which are superfluous. That's what I mean: we don't need to [try to] "understand" Donbass, we need to understand Ukrainian national interests.

Donbass must be exploited as a resource, which it is. I don't claim to have a quick solution recipe, but the most important thing that must be done - no matter how cruel it may sound - is that there is a certain category of people that must be exterminated.

Translated from Ukrainian by Valentina Lisitsa; Source: Vineyard of the Saker

Unless it is an absolutely chaotic situation as in the Rwanda of 1994, only a lunatic or a suicide bomber would make such blatant remarks. But these people, who reside in posh dwellings and have one eye at home and another at the US dreamland are far more dangerous than actual suicide bombers. Most a suicide bomber can do is detonate himself/herself to kill a group of people at a location. The war at behest of these people often annihilates entire communities and population. That is what happened in Rwanda. And Ukraine seems ready to peek that abyss soon enough if people like Boutkevich prevail, an unfortunate but likeliest of the potential scenarios.

(Note: Preamble to these statements in The Saker’s blog (Video footage is also available in the blog):

 Hromadske TV (Which broadcast this interview) is now officially the Ukrainian version of Rwandan RTLM. Just like RTLM called for the extermination of the Tutsi, calling them Inyenzi, or cockroaches, so now Hromadske TV is legitimizing the genocide of the population of Novorossiya. From Inyenzi to Colorados, we have come full circle. Hromadske TV, this mouthpiece of Ukrainian genocide, is financed directly by US and Dutch embassies. The blood of the population of Novorossiya is on all our hands - we have allowed this to happen. Please circulate this as widely as you can and stand witness to this Holocaust.)

Pepe Escobar: Whose was the missile that brought down the Malaysian plane?

As in his every other opinion piece, Escobar keeps forward some incisive comments about what might have caused the disaster involving the Malaysian plane and tries to shed light on the disinformation campaign around the tragedy.

Just like in the article by The Saker that I shared yesterday in this blog, Escobar also avoids jumping prematurely into conclusion and tries to examine the facts on ground. This one will be of special importance for those who are being constantly bombarded by the mainstream media's version of how the tragedy happened. 

After all, the world has seen more grotesque attempts at misinforming people as was the case with Saddam's WMD. I, in particular, won't be surprised if it turns out that the cornered regime in Kiev turns out to be the credible culprit behind the crash despite all the premature conclusions being circulated in mainstream media. 

(Since I have no permission to carry the whole article unlike in case of The Saker's articles, I share the link to Asia Times Online at the bottom where the article was originally published.)

It was Putin's missile!

By Pepe Escobar 

And here's the spin war verdict: the current Malaysia Airlines tragedy - the second in four months - is "terrorism" perpetrated by "pro-Russian separatists", armed by Russia, and Vladimir Putin is the main culprit. End of story. Anyone who believes otherwise, shut up. 

Why? Because the CIA said so. Because Hillary "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton said so. Because batshit crazy Samantha "R2P" Power said so - thundering at the UN, everything duly printed by the neo-con infested Washington Post. [1] 

Because Anglo-American corporate media - from CNN to Fox (who tried to buy Time Warner, which owns CNN) - said so. Because the President of the United States (POTUS) said so. And mostly because Kiev had vociferously said so in the first place. 

Read more

Who brought down the Malaysian plane?

The rumor mill sets in and mainstream media already knows whom to blame

For Russia and the rebels in Eastern Ukraine, this could not have come at any worse time: the tragic crash of the Malaysian Airlines plane purportedly caused by a missile strike appears to have hit the crux of the ongoing geopolitical tussle.

As was the case with the Sarin gas attack in Syria, the fingers are being already pointed to the culprits of choice: the pro-Russian rebels and even Kremlin itself.

While it is too early to place blame on any side and to give a clean chit to others, a major media war has already started with most of the western media already passing the conditional verdict with 'According to American officials...'.

The Saker: Ukrainian imbroglio- Can Russia be attacked?

IN this short piece, The Saker examines whether the latest theory that the Ukrainian turmoil will lead to a western-backed attack on Russia has any merit. 

Could the Ukraine, backed by NATO, attack Russia?

The Saker


On at least three occasions I tried to dispel the notion that the US/NATO could attack Russia or Russian forces in the Ukraine (see here, here and here).  I tried to show that geography, over-reach and politics made a conventional attack impossible and I tried to show that a nuclear attack, whether tactical or strategic, could not succeed.  There is a new theory which is apparently going around now which goes something like this: the Ukraine will re-arm and re-organize with the technical and financial help of the AngloZionist Empire, and then it will attack Crimea, possibly with the support of NATO airpower.  Sounds scary, but the good news is that it is just as implausible as the other theories.  Today, I want to explain why.

First and foremost, from a military point of view there can be no such thing as an "attack in Crimea" separate form a full-scale attack on Russia itself.  Crimea is not a distant island in the middle of nowhere (like the Malvinas) and it will soon be fully integrated into the Russian defense system.  Second, being a peninsula, Crimea is extremely hard to attack as the British and the Germans have found out.  So no matter how you try to package it, from a purely military point of view, to have any chance of success an attack on Crimea would have to include a full scale attack on Russia. 

And let me immediately put to rest the argument about NATO airpower: not only did it miserably fail in Bosnia, it did not even have what it takes to attack Syria, nevermind Iran.  The USAF is flying either very good old aircraft or very bad modern aircraft whose attrition rate trying to deal with both the Russian Air Force and the Russian Air Defense Network, especially around Crimea, would be huge.  Bombing an almost defenseless Serbia for 78 days (for pathetic results!) is one thing, trying to bomb Crimea and Russia proper is harder by several orders of magnitude.  As for US/NATO ground forces, they would have a hard time even getting anywhere near Crimea.  Which leaves the US Navy.

Unlike the US Army and Air Force, the USN is in much better shape and far more powerful than the Russian Navy.  But to meaningfully participate in an attack on Crimea it would have to act from the eastern Mediterranean as entering the Black Sea would be not only suicidal, but even impossible for US Aircraft Carriers (not to mention completely contrary to US Naval doctrine).  In reality, the USN could inflict far more devastating attacks on Russia in the Pacific, the Kola Peninsula or even the Baltic Sea than in southern Russia.

Which leave a hypothetical "future Ukrainian military" (the current one is unable to take Slaviansk or Kramatorsk, and could not even hold on to Krasnyi Liman).  We can hypothesize all we want about how motivated this future Ukrainian military would be, but I personally cannot imagine what would motivate a future Ukrainian soldier to go and fight Russia, even for Crimea.  But even if we assume a tremendous motivation, the fact is that the most the Ukraine can hope for in the next 1-10 years is to put a lot of men under arms and use outdated military hardware augmented with modern electronics, communication gear, targeting systems, command and control networks, etc.   But even this relatively modernized Ukrainian military would face the very same problem which defeated the Swedes, the Crusaders, Napoleon and Hitler: no, not the "General Winter" canard, but Russia's strategic depth.  Let me give just one example.

The Saker: What if the World War III is in our doorsteps

Like most of his articles, this one from The Saker is rather provocative. But it definitely goes beyond that: here he views the Russia vs West tug of war from a different and pragmatic angle by delving into what exactly could unfold in case of an overt confrontation between the two nuclear superpowers. His inferences are worthy of note for anyone interested in the geopolitics of Cold War II. Are there any realistic chances that the conflict will snowball into WW III? You may well like to read The Saker first. As usual, this piece first appeared in the author's personal blog, The Vineyard of the Saker. 

 

Remembering the important lessons of the Cold War

The Saker 

 What makes me believe that we are in a crisis potentially much more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis is that at that time both the US and the USSR fully understood how serious the situation was and that the world had to be brought back from the brink of nuclear war.  Today, when I listen to idiots like Obama, Kerry, Psaki. and Co. I am struck by how truly stupid and self-deluded these people are.  Here they are playing not only with our existence, but even with theirs, and they still are acting as if Putin was some Somali war lord who needed to be frightened into submission.  But if that tactic did not work with Somali warlords, why would they think that it will work with Putin?

 

If anything the past 24 hours have proved, once again, that the US and NATO are opposed to any form of negotiations, confidence-building measures or any other type of negotiations with the Donbass and with Russia.  Even though Putin tried really hard to sound accommodating and available for a negotiated solution, the US/NATO policy is clearly to provoke and confront Russia and its allies in every imaginable way.  The same goes, of course, for the junta freaks whose forces have acted with special brutality during repressive operations in the city of Mariupol.  As for the AngloZionist Empire, it is organizing all sorts of military maneuvers in Poland, the Baltic states and elsewhere.  Logically, many of you are coming to the conclusion that a war is becoming a very real possibility and I therefore want to repeat a few things yet again.

First, there is no military option for the AngloZionists in the Ukraine, at least not against Russia.  This is primarily due to three fact things: geography, US overreach and politics.  Geography, it is much easier for Russia to move a ground forces to the Ukraine than it is for the US/NATO, especially for heavy (mechanized, motor-rifle, armored, tank) units.  Second, simply too many US forces are committed elsewhere for the US to have a major war in against Russia in eastern Europe.  Third, for the time being the western public is being deceived by the corporate media's reports about the "Russian paper tiger", but as soon as the real fighting starts both Europeans and Americans will suddenly wonder if it is worth dying for the Ukraine.  Because if a shooting war between the USA and Russia really begins, we will all be at risk (see below).

Remember how the very same media promised that the poorly equipped, poorly trained, poorly commanded and poorly motivated Russian military could not crack the "tough nut" represented by the NATO-trained Georgian military?

Second, we have to remember that it is never possible to oppose to forces on paper and say that "A" is stronger than "B".  Afghanistan and Iraq are perfect examples of the kind of misguided conclusions a self-deluding political leadership can reach when it begins to believe its own lies.  So without committing the political "crime of crimes" and suggesting that the invincible US military is anything but invincible, let me suggest the following: if the Russian conventional forces were to be defeated you can be absolutely sure that Russia would have to engage its tactical nuclear capabilities at which point the situation would escalate into a well-known Cold War conundrum.  The theory of deterrence suggests that you should reply at the same level, but not above, then your adversary's first move.  So, a Russian tactical nuclear strike in, say, Poland or even the Ukraine would have to be met by a similar US strike.  But where?  Where is the Russian equivalent of Poland for the USA?  Belarus?  But that is much more like a Russian strike on Canada - really close to home.  Kazakhstan?  Ridiculous - too far.  Obviously not Armenia.  So where would the US retaliate?  Against Russian forces in the Donbass, but that is right across the border.  Maybe in Russia itself?  But that would mean striking at the Russian territory proper.  What will Russia do in this case - strike at Poland?  Germany?  The 'equivalent' response would be to strike at the US mainland, of course, but that would be inviting a full-scale US retaliation, which would inevitably be followed by a Russian one. And since neither side can disarm the other in a counter-force disarming strike, we are talking about a nuclear world war a la Dr Strangelove, with nuclear winter and all.

Some might find this kind of reasoning ridiculous, but anybody who has participated in the Cold War will tell you that the best minds in the USA and USSR were busy full time grappling with these issues.  Can you guess what they concluded?  That a nuclear won cannot be won.  But that, in turn, means that no war opposing the USA to Russia can be won because any war of this kind will inevitably turn nuclear before the weaker sides surrenders.  Let me put it to you in a somewhat silly but truthful way: the survival of the USA depends on Russia not losing a war.  Yes, that's right.  And the converse is also true: Russia's survival is contingent on the USA not being defeated either.

This is why Foreign Minister Lavrov has been repeating over and over again that no one side can achieve security at the expense of the other and that security has to be collective and even mutual.  But was anybody listening to him across the Atlantic?

Of course, for the time being and for the foreseeable future, this will only be true for a war directly opposing Russian and US military forces.  Proxy wars are okay, as are covert operations and wars against third parties.  But for the time being, only Russia and the USA have the kind of full-spectrum nuclear capabilities to be able to completely destroy the other side "no matter what".  Let me explain.

It has often been said that the Russian and US nuclear forces have to be on high alert and that to avoid being destroyed in a counter-force (counter military) first strike they would have to launch on warning i.e., to launch while the other side's missiles are incoming and before they hit their targets.  The fact is that both countries practice what is called "launched under attack" which is launching while some enemy missiles have already hit.  But the truth is that both the USA and Russia could afford what is called "riding out the attack" completely and still have enough strategic nuclear weapons to destroy all the key population centers of the other side.  This is due to their highly redundant strategic nuclear forces.  The fact is that even if, say, the USA managed to destroy every single Russian bomber and every single Russia nuclear silo, and every single Russian strategic nuclear missile carrying submarine, even those in port (who can launch right from there if needed), Russia would still have enough road-mobile ICBMs to wipe off the USA a a country.  The exact same can be said of a Russian first strike on the USA which, even if unrealistically successful would still expose Russia to a massive retaliation by USN strategic nuclear missile carrying submarines.  And in the real world no first strike is 100% successful.  Even 95% successful is not enough if the remaining 5% can still be shot back at you.

The Saker: Soviet parallels to Ukraine's descent

You may find the interpretation of facts in today's geopolitics by The Saker rather implausible--and outright abominable depending upon where you stand on the political spectrum--but there is no denying he has unparalleled gift of analyzing things reaching the bottom of them. I personally find him rather plausible in interpretation too though. In this rather pointed piece, he adds to the process of his theorization as to how developments in Ukraine are likely to evolve in a direction much different from the one depicted in the mainstream media in the world, of course outside Russia. This piece has been pasted here from the author's blog, thanks to his blanket offer in which he allows any part or whole of his articles to be transmitted for free in this way.

How the Ukrainian crisis will eventually bring down the AngloZionist Empire

 The Saker 

 

Theories abound as to what exactly caused the collapse of the Soviet Union, but they can be trumped by one reason alone: an unbearable cognitive dissonance or, to put it more simply, an all-prevailing sense of total hypocrisy. As the US desperately seeks some kind of victory in the Ukraine, its AngloZionists should be all too aware of the price to pay for prizing vanity above truth.