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. 

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.

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.)

The Saker: Thinking the unthinkable- Is US finally waging war on Russia?

Is Obama willing to fight Putin down to the very last Ukrainian?

Unthinkable things happening: it is uncommon, even rare but it is still possible. As a political and military analyst, The Saker had been arguing for long that a full scale confrontation between Russia and US/West at whatever pretext was a non-option. Not quite suddenly, but he appears to have changed his mind of late. 

So, does the world face a potentially annihilating confrontation between two determined powers? What have the latest developments to do with the change in attitudes, if any, of the two powers about the potential confrontation? If indeed these developments including the MH17 crash in Ukraine have such momentous effects on the geopolitics, which aspects of these are we missing? 

 You won't get any insightful article in these issues on any mainstream media outlet: the sanitization and distortion on behalf of the corporate houses and the 'establishment' (the US and Western European rulers) simply does not tolerate that. Here, Saker analyzes the available facts and tries to elaborate why he has changed his mind on the subject. 

 [For those new to his articles: here Novorussia means the Parts of Eastern Ukraine where people prefer autonomy or even annexation to Russia over Kiev's rule and have waged a rebellion centered around Donetsk city; Banderstan pejoratively means parts of Ukraine ruled by Kiev 'Junta';]

 
 Thinking the unthinkable

 The Saker


Introduction

I have been putting off writing about this topic for a very long while.  In fact, I wrote several articles trying to explain the self-evident truism that the US/NATO/EU does not have a military option in the Ukrainian war.  

First, in an article entitled Remembering the Important Lessons of the Cold War I tried to explain that the reason the Cold War did not turn into a hot, shooting, war is that both sides understood that they simply could never win and that any escalation in strikes and counter-strikes could very rapidly lead to a intercontinental nuclear war, something which neither side was willing to risk.   

In a piece entitled Making Sense of Obama's Billion Dollar Hammer I tried to show that all the money the US will by pouring into "European security" is just a grandiose bribe for some European elites and that it had no real effect on the ground.  

A few days later I posted an article entitled Why the US-Russian Nuclear Balance is as Solid as Ever in which I tried to dispel the myth prevalent in the West about the putative state of disrepair of the Russian military in general, and of the Russian nuclear forces in particular.  

Lastly, in a piece entitled Short Reminder about US and Russian Nuclear Weapons I tried to show that in reality it was the US nuclear forces who were in a state of disrepair.  

And over and over again, in many comments, I tried to lay out the reasons for which I simply did not believe that the US/NATO/EU would dare to attack Russia.  In summary, I will say this: the US is not nearly as powerful as the US propaganda claims.  Without going into long debates about what "victory" and "defeat" mean, I will just say that in my personal opinion the last time the US military fought well was in Korea, and even there it had to accept a draw.  After that, it was all downhill.  

This is not the fault of the US solider, by the way, but by the fact that big money and politics got so heavily involved in the US military that they corrupted everything.  This is most evident in the USAF which still has superb pilots, but who are given a terrible choice: either fly on good but old aircraft or fly on new but terrible ones (I believe that given the choice, most would chose the former).  As for the European NATO allies, they are such a joke that they hardly deserve mention.  They even look bad on a parade.

As for a military option in the Ukraine, it appears unthinkable to me not only because, frankly, I don't see a single military in the West capable of taking on the Russian military in full-scale battle, but also because geography powerfully argues against such a crazy idea (the very same geography which would make it impossible for Russia to try to invade western or even central Europe).

And yet, something in all this very logical reasoning felt wrong to me.  A few days ago it finally hit me.  What bothered me was

The American Duck

Among the many beautiful and witty expressions and neologisms Americans use, I always loved this one: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.  This so-called "Duck test" is funny, but it is also a powerful logical method which ended up chewing at me day after day after day.  Here I was, all sure and certain that the US/NATO/EU would never consider such a ludicrous notion as the one of an military attack on Russia or on Russian forces.  But kept hearing the voice of the American Duck telling me: look at what they are doing, what does that look like to you?  Suspend your conclusions and just tell me what are you observing?  Tell me, if they had decided to escalate to the point of a military confrontation with Russia, would they be doing things differently?  And a few days ago, I threw in the towel (at the duck, of course) and had to accept that while I did not know what they were thinking or what their intentions really were, it sure looked to me like the western plutocrats had decided to escalate the crisis has high as possible.

In truth, I have to admit that when I studied the theory of deterrence in the 1980 my teachers always insisted that this theory of deterrence was predicated on what they called a "rational player".  To put it simply - how do you deter a lunatic?  Or a desperate man with nothing to lose?  Or a person hell-bent on mutual destruction?  The truth is, you cannot.  Deterrence assumes a rational actor making a logical decision about unacceptable costs.  As far as I know, nobody has ever developed a theory of deterrence applicable to a madman.  When I initially wrote my pieces explaining why I believed that a US/NATO/EU attack was impossible a lot readers posted comments saying that while maybe the top US military command was still mainly composed of rational men, the US imperial elites had clearly gone crazy a long time ago and that they were so stuck in their arrogance, their imperial hubris, there delusion of invincibility and their knee-jerk and systematic use of violence that they could no more be considered as rational.  At the time I replied that, yeah, sure, maybe, but what is the point of analyzing something crazy.  How do you try to make sense of the suicidally insane?

And yet, this is what I propose to do today.  I will try as best I can to try to place myself in the mind of these lunatics and see what they could try doing, and what the consequences of that would be.  I will go through several possible plans that these crazies might have starting from the most limited one and then going up the insanity slope.

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.  

Saudi reposte to US: Calculated move or Bandar's insanity?

News analysis

By The Saker

What is Saudi Arabia up to after all? What do its latest gestures really mean? These questions, while being widely discussed, invite diverse answers. The fury shown by the kingdom towards the US over the past few weeks tell only one part of the story: the real game of the kingdom is being played in battlefields from Syria to Iraq and Yemen to Pakistan. 

So, can Saudi Arabia really wreak a havoc if it so wants now? Or is all it has created so far a havoc enough with no scope for more of it in near future? How realistic is the apparent gameplan hatched by the kingdom now? Insight on these issues is infrequent to come by. When it came, however, I was prompt to catch it to publish here. In this article originally written for Asia Times Online and also published in author's blog as Has Saudi spy chief Prince Bandar gone completely insane? The Saker illuminates the exact motives and implications of latest bout of the kingdom's fury.