Below is our translation of an article from TASS. Commentary is by Vince Dhimos.
Isn’t it funny how trolls at various military and political forums keep telling us that Russia is not a superpower or that it is just a pipsqueak? Yet most ranking military brass and also some top political analysts, like Richard Haas, tell us that top Russian arms cannot be intercepted or that Russia cannot be defeated. Most tellingly of all, Rand Corp. and other arms sellers warn that the US needs to catch up in key areas. Now why would the powerful US have to keep catching up with a country that is so far behind in technology? Nothing to worry about, right, guys?
There are no direct equivalents of this newest Russian anti-aircraft missile and artillery complex (ZRAK) on the world armament market.
For the first time, the maritime SARK "Pantsir-ME" is being shown abroad - the demonstration took place at the international exhibition of weapons and military equipment IDEX 2019, which opened on February 17 in Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates).
"Pantsir-ME" (NATO calls it the Greyhound) Is the only anti-aircraft ship-based system in the world with a single-post combat module, which includes both air defence artillery and missile weapons, as well as a control system. It can be installed on most Russian ships and is ideal for equipping ships built in other countries. The Pantsir-ME is a shipborne version of the Russian anti-aircraft missile-gun complex, the land version of which is called the Pantsir-S.
Rosoboronexport is confident that the marine Pantsir has a large export future in the countries of the Arab East, Southeast Asia and Latin America. It is expected that the complex will go into service with the Russian army in the near future and in the future should replace the Kortik complex, which was developed back in the 1970s.
Possibilities of the "Hound"
The Russian SIRK is equipped with a multi-channel control system and is designed to destroy aircraft, helicopters, high-precision weapons (including anti-ship missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles), as well as surface and coastal targets.
The special feature is the possibility of simultaneously downing up to four targets, attacking from different directions within the same group. "The complex can be installed on all types of warships - from a missile craft with a displacement of about 500 tons to an aircraft carrier," TASS was told at the holding company High-precision Complexes (included in Rostec). It can also be installed on fixed platforms.
The complex includes:
a command module;
a combat module;
a storage and reloading system.
The command module is able to detect and accompany small-sized low-flying and surface targets, determine their degree of danger, and issue target designation data to combat modules.
The combat module finds air targets for tracking according to target designation data from the command module, accompanies them and, using radar and optoelectronic control channels, hits targets in automatic mode.
The armament of the naval "Pantsirya" includes two 30-mm six-barreled anti-aircraft guns AO-18KD with an ammunition load of 500 shells per machine gun and eight two-stage 57E6-E1 ready-to-launch anti-aircraft guided missiles with a solid-propellant accelerator and a stick-rod warhead. "32 missiles are stored in the storage and reloading system of the underdeck accommodation," Precision Complexes noted.
"Pantsir-ME" is capable of hitting air targets flying at speeds up to 1000 m/s. At the same time, the zone of destruction of targets of most modern combat aircraft in terms of slant range amounts to 20 km with missile armament and up to 4 km with artillery.
A special feature of the SCR is the possibility of destroying surface and coastal ground targets, if necessary.
holding "High-precision complexes"
The control system is capable of tracking four targets and firing four missiles at the same time, and if the target is not sufficiently defeated, they can be equipped with automatic artillery weapons.
The rate of anti-aircraft machine guns of the complex is up to 10 thousand shots per minute, which provides a lower average firing distance of one and a half to two and a half times compared with counterparts and a greater probability of hitting targets. It is worth noting that the Pantsir-ME complex can shoot both armour-piercing-sabot and high-explosive fragmentation projectiles.
It also differs in quite compact dimensions: the mass of a combat module with full ammunition is 8250 kg, while it is operated by three people: the commander of the command module, the commander and operator of the support of the combat module.
A representative of the Pella shipbuilding plant told TASS that the newest small rocket ship (corvette) of the project 22800 (Karakurt) Squall was equipped with the complex.
There are no direct equivalents of the newest Russian SAME on the world arms market: the leading foreign developers of naval equipment have not yet solved the problem of combining missile and artillery weapons in one compact combat module.
The most popular systems performing similar tasks are the anti-aircraft artillery complex (CIWS) Mk.15 Phalanx developed by the American company Raytheon and the naval small-caliber artillery complex Goalkeeper developed by the Netherlands division of the European consortium Thales.
Currently, the US Navy’s arsenal consists of the Block 1B version of the Phalanx CIWS, which is located on the outer deck of the ship. In the absence of missile weapons, the American complex is distinguished by a fairly large mass - 6,120 kg.
Mk.15 is designed to defeat anti-ship missiles and manned aircraft. They are actively working to modernize it in order to shoot down drones. The CIWS is armed with one six-barreled anti-aircraft gun M61A1, with a rate lower than the Russian counterpart, ie, 3–4.5 thousand rounds per minute depending on the type of target. The guidance system of the American complex includes a radar station and an optoelectronic sensor.
Dmitry Fedyushko, Roman Azanov, Nikolay Novichkov
The following is our translation of an article from rueconomics.ru with commentary by Vince Dhimos.
Have you noticed that all US threats of military force against Russia and states it defends are bluff? Of course, one of these days, a US threat could become reality, God forbid, but ever since the second Tomahawk attack in Syria, the US has been fastidiously careful to avoid targeting Russian assets and personnel. That is clearly because the Russian MoD told the US, before its missile strike, that it would not interfere with the strike as long as it did not hit Russian targets. But if it should do so, then Russia reserved the right not only to shoot down the cruise missiles themselves but also to strike the platforms whence they came – which would have meant the US or allied naval ships. In a very real sense, this marked the end of an era and the beginning of another. The US now realizes that it cannot go around indiscriminately attacking sovereign states where Russian assets might be present (Venezuela comes to mind). Thus when Kay Bailey Hutchinson, US envoy to the UN, said the US might just have to go and “take out” the Russian missiles considered to violate the INF, it wasn’t long before she walked back that remark. No surprises there. And when Admiral Richardson called on Washington to strike first in Russia, he was either stone cold drunk or he was bluffing.
Bluffing is the new US military strategy, to which the US seems to be confined at this point, particularly now that Putin showed off Russia’s new hypersonic missiles at the Federal Assembly last March and then tested these successfully in December. Our recent translation of the article on Russia’s ability to wipe out the entire US with nuclear-missile volley from a single Borey-class submarine should have been sufficient warning to the Trump administration, but then again, since when have Trump and his Neocon crew been fazed by reality? Think US debt (as analysed here and here), fracking (as analysed here), sanctions (as analysed here and here), Ukraine (as analysed here), Relations with Saudi and Israel (as analysed here) and US LNG sales to Europe (as analysed here). None of this is to focus on Trump. All administrations have dealt with these issues similarly. US administrations are all controlled as explained here, so that no one ever need worry that the will of the people might be done).
The Russian Defence Ministry will give a crushing response to the "first blow" of the United States
February 9, 2019 Washington, United States
US Navy Admiral John Richardson called on Washington "to strike first" in Russia, which "is capturing key waterways." But Konstantin Blokhin, an expert at the Centre for Security Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, calls such a scenario highly unlikely, as it will surely turn lead to a response from the Russian Defence Ministry, which will have devastating consequences and cause unacceptable damage to the United States.
During a speech at the Atlantic Council, the head of US Navy naval operations, Admiral John Richardson, called on Washington to be the "first to strike" in Russia. According to him, which leads the publication of Business Insider, Russia "seizes key water lines" and has already significantly increased its naval presence in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Richardson also urges the United States not only to think about how to fight back, but also to "apply pressure in a few regions." In addition, the American admiral called for greater rigidity towards China.
With his words about a “first strike,” Richardson is trying to focus attention on himself. Now such a scenario is extremely unlikely. The United States can take such a step only if there is an absolute guarantee of victory. In the event of a conflict with Russia, of course, no one will give them such a guarantee. Americans are traditionally ready to fight only against very weak countries, whose GDP is not comparable with them, as in the case of Iraq or Afghanistan. But even in this case, as the experience of Vietnam and Afghanistan has shown, no one can guarantee victory for them.
Blokhin further commented to FBA Ekonomika Segodnya: “Moreover, all US military-policy thought is based on the idea that America has become great precisely because of its reluctance to engage in global conflicts. The conflict with Russia will automatically be total and global, so the American society, which is very sensitive to losses, is hardly ready to implement such a scenario. Syria’s experience, on the contrary, showed the ability of the two countries’ military to effectively engage in cooperation.”
Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, called the contacts through the Russian and American military in Syria the “only positive example” of effective cooperation that allows Russia and the United States to “prevent serious air incidents.” However, in all other respects, the head of the Ministry of Defence believes that more active dialogue is needed. At the same time, Shoigu is confident that Moscow and Washington can jointly resolve strategic issues of nuclear deterrence and resolve major long-standing conflicts.
“The Defence Ministry really established very good contacts with the American side during the conflict in Syria, which made it possible to effectively prevent any collisions in the air. The Syrian experience clearly shows that the Americans are not ready to take another risk, simply participating with Russia in one conflict, not to mention the mythical “first strike.” They understand that even if several bombs fall on American territory in a response by Moscow, they will have devastating consequences and unacceptable damage for the United States itself.
Even in the 1990s, the United States did not dare to take such a step, because such is possible only under the condition of absolute technological domination over Russia. But now the situation with the equipment of the Russian army has changed dramatically, and in the fieldof hypersonic weapons, for example, the United States is already playing catch-up. In this context, Richardson's words are cheap self-praise that fits into the general line of the Anglo-Saxon establishment to contain Russia,” says Konstantin Blokhin.
Recall that Russia today has a fairly wide range of hypersonic weapons, which includes the Kinzhal system, the Zircon anti-ship missile, the Kh-32 air-based missile, and the Avangard hypersonic ballistic planning unit. But our country is not stopping there. As Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu noted, already in 2019–2020, in response to the US withdrawal from the INF range, a ground-based version of the Kalibr complex with increased range and hypersonic land-based missiles will be created in Russia. The mirror response measures of the Ministry of Defence follow the direct instructions of the president.
Author: Andrey Petrov
Below is our translation of an article from Riafan that was intended to sober up Washington, with commentary by Vince Dhimos.
One volley of “Boreay” will erase any country from the face of the earth: how will the Russian Federation defend itself from the United States when the INF collapses
The NATO military attaché’s ignoring of the briefing by the Russian Ministry of Defence, at which the 9M729 missile [see report] was exhibited, more than proves that Washington has no desire to discuss the problems of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). This was stated by the press secretary of the President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Peskov.
“Undoubtedly, this is more than indicative, since it shows there is still no mood to discuss the issues of the INF. Some other modalities, such as the exchange of ultimatums, unfounded accusations and an unwillingness to hear a partner, do not quite suit us,” Peskov responded to the absence of representatives of the North Atlantic Alliance at an event in the Russian military department.
Recall that at a briefing for foreign military attaches on January 23, the Russian Defence Ministry presented the 9M729 missile of the Iskander-M series, which the US considers to be a violation of the INF Treaty, and spoke about its characteristics.
The military attaches and representatives of the military-diplomatic corps of the CSTO, BRICS, the European Union and NATO, as well as some other European and Asian countries were invited to the briefing. The Defence Ministry told reporters that military attaches from the United States, Britain, France and Germany, as well as representatives of the European Union and the NATO mission in Russia did not attend the briefing.
As political analyst Andrei Kolyadin explained to the Federal News Agency’s correspondent, Washington over the past years has simply been looking for a reason to withdraw from the INF Treaty, as this limited the further development of the US military machine. The expert drew attention to the fact that the States and its NATO allies have long displayed aggressive intentions and revitalization of the armed forces.
“The decision to withdraw from the agreement was made quite a long time ago, and at least for this, all preparatory actions (and the launching of combat satellites into space, and the approach of NATO to the borders of Russia) have long been underway. This shows that the Americans are trying to strengthen their military position in relation to Russia,” said Kolyadin.
Kolyadin warned Washington against breaking agreements on the containment of armaments, as this would create a serious military threat to the whole world. At the same time, the political scientist stressed that Russia will have enough resources to confront the United States.
“This, unfortunately, is the reality of the present time. A modern submarine of the Borey class can emerge from under the ice cap and lie motionless at the bottom for 600 days and cannot be tracked , can wipe out any country in the world with a single volley.
And there are such subs not only in Russia, but also in the United States and a number of European powers. Any large-scale military campaign involving modern weapons is completely meaningless. It will still lead to the self-destruction of mankind,” said the political scientist.
According to Kolyadin, the US attempts to get out of all such agreements causes the chances of war to multiply.
“When there are no restrictions, when one country believes that it can defeat another in a lightning war, this leads to the fact that in a very short battle all of earth suffers. Any such approach causes a threat to the existence of our civilization.
The ideas of Americans about withdrawing from the INF Treaty and the hope that they will secure their country in this way will lead to the opposite result. Russia will be able to defend itself against any weapon, but this will lead to very serious consequences for the United States,” he concluded.
In recent years, Moscow and Washington have regularly accused each other of violating the INF. Russia has repeatedly stated that it strictly complies with its obligations under the contract. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov noted that Moscow has very serious questions to the United States about the implementation of the contract.
The author: Konstantin Smirnov
RUSSIA PROVES IT DID NOT VIOLATE THE INF TREATY – US IGNORES PROOF
Warning: Westerners are advised not to view the above video showing proof that the 9M729 does not violate the INF treaty. Those who view it and read the article below may come away with the conviction that the US government lies to them about Russia. We do not endorse this viewpoint, nor do we have any way to refute it.
The US has declared, without evidence, that Russia has violated the INF treaty banning short and medium range missiles.
Below is our translation of a report in Komsomolskaya Pravda on a public inspection of the offending missile in the Patriot military park in Moscow, attended by Western journalists and government officials but not the US government, which knows everything without research or study and didn’t need no stinkin’ public exhibit to condemn the russkies. Commentary is by Vince Dhimos.
Thus the US was invited but brusquely refused. After all, what if the Russians could prove their missile doesn’t violate the treaty? They couldn’t risk that!
According to USAToday:
“Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov noted Wednesday that the U.S. hasn’t put forward any data to prove its claim that Russia has tested the missile at a range exceeding the treaty’s limit. He said the U.S. ignored Moscow’s offer to inspect the missile made during talks in Geneva earlier this month - a refusal he alleged reflected the lack of U.S. interest in meaningful negotiations.”
In the US today, an accusation is the equivalent of proof, just as in Mao’s Cultural Revolution millions of unfortunates were accused, tried (usually without proof), sentenced and punished in a single session. It was the lowest any justice system had ever fallen and represented a low point in the history of man’s inhumanity to man. The US and its allies seem to be vying with Mao for that dubious title. Recall that when the ex-spy Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned, UK PM Theresa May promptly accused Russia of ordering their murder based on the fact that the detected poison belonged to a chemical family first developed in Russia. Shortly thereafter May stated that the defence research lab at Porton Down had fingered Russia as the culprit, but the agency later denied they had made that claim. It didn’t matter. The Russian government was tried and convicted based not on facts but on being Russian, which is now a crime in the Western world. As a result, Russian diplomats were expelled from the UK. Shamefully, despite the fact that May had misrepresented the case, US lawmakers immediately wrote and passed legislation that slapped sanctions on Russia for something that no one could prove it had done.
Now tell me again what the difference is between institutionalized Russophobia in the US and institutionalized anti-Semitism in the Third Reich
Defence Ministry showed the "problematic missile" 9M729
At a special briefing, the military and diplomats clearly demonstrated that Russia does not violate the Treaty on Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF). Unlike the USA
Military attachés and journalists were invited to a huge pavilion, where two missiles and one launcher awaited them.
It was an unprecedented briefing. Journalists from around the world gathered in the "Patriot” park in the Moscow region. The military attaches of diplomatic missions who wanted to hear explanations about the missile, due to which the US wants to withdraw from the INF Treaty, arrived there. Hear and see with your own eyes.
The permanent agreement by which Moscow and Washington pledged to eliminate their medium-range and short-range ground-based missiles, their launchers, and related structures and equipment, was signed in 1987. The corresponding weapons and infrastructure were destroyed in 1991, and until recently no complaints have arisen.
But at some point, the United States suddenly became preoccupied with the Russian 9M729 cruise missile, which allegedly has a range of over 500 kilometres, thus violating the INF Treaty.
“At the same time, no objective supporting data has been provided to us,” stated the Chief of the Missile Forces and Artillery of the Russian Armed Forces Mikhail Matveyevsky at a joint briefing with the Foreign Ministry. “As for the US statements about missile launches at the Kapustin Yar range in the Astrakhan region, a wide range of various products are being tested there, including some with flights over a distance exceeding 500 km. From 2008 to 2014, more than 100 start-ups for various purposes were held at the site. All launches of ground-to-ground missiles were conducted at a distance not exceeding the limits of the INF. The only exceptions are strategic launches specified by the United States in the framework of the 1982 Agreement.
For clarity, the Russian side decided to demonstrate the inconsistency of the American claims "in kind." Military attaches and journalists were invited to a huge pavilion, where two missiles and one launcher were already waiting for them. 9M728 (there are no complaints about it) and its modified version the Iskander-M 9M729 (“controversial”) were lined with white stripes in blocks to show that the part responsible for the flight range was not increased during the upgrade.
“The improvement of the 9M728 cruise missile was aimed at increasing the power of the warhead and accuracy characteristics,” explained Mikhail Matveyevsky. Both missiles are combined in most major units.
What happened after the revision:
- the power of the warhead increased.
- A new on-board control complex has appeared, providing higher accuracy.
- Due to the new equipment, the missile of the same diameter has become longer.
- Start-up container "grew" by 53 centimeters.
- a specialized version of the self-propelled launcher was developed.
“Now, not two, but four missiles are installed on it.”
- The launcher and the main engines with the fuel system of the 9M729 missile remained unchanged - the fuel volume is the same as that of the predecessor.
In other words, there are simply no design features in the “offending missile” that could increase the flight range. Moreover, the range has decreased.
The maximum range of the 9M729 missile decreased by 10 km compared to 9M728 and is 480 km. These characteristics were confirmed during the Zapad-2017 exercises,” the head of the missile forces and artillery summed up.
“We are forced to proceed from the assumption that the American side intends to abandon the Treaty regardless of Russia's opinion and actions,” concluded Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov. The real reason for the USA’s exit from the INF Treaty is in Washington’s striving to ensure complete freedom of hand in choosing the means of counteracting those countries that have an arsenal of medium-range and shorter-range missiles and which are geopolitical opponents and adversaries of the United States.
According to the diplomat, the Americans are already testing systems that are prohibited by the INF Treaty, under the guise of anti-missile tests. These are the so-called target missiles, similar in characteristics to medium-range and short-range ground-based ballistic missiles, which are prohibited by the Treaty. And by alleging violations of the treaty, Washington simply wants to legalize these missile systems.
Below is our translation from nation-news.ru of an article concerning a TV appearance of Yevgeny Satanovsky in which he commented on a conversation with Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu and chief of Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Valery Gerasimov regarding last year’s Tomahawk attack on Syria in which the US military assiduously avoided hitting Russian personnel and materiel. I had also noticed then that apparently, the US military was quaking in its boots at the Russian presence there. It was obvious that both Russia and the US were playing a silly little game, where Russia was allowing the US to show off its “manliness” in Syria just to please the war-loving US grassroots, which had always believed that the US was a godly nation that held the moral high ground and ought to be in charge of disciplining the world – even though there was nothing moral about its wars that accomplished little more than killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians (and particularly a certain group of innocent civilians as analysed here). Russia and Syria took the stance that it didn’t matter how US presidents bloviated and made absurd claims – like Trump’s claim that “we (the US) have defeated ISIS” and will leave Syria now. The silly statements US politicians made were of no importance to the other side as long as the US eventually left the country and allowed them to defeat the rest of al-Qaeda and ISIS.
Now this phoniness on the part of the entire Western elite leads me to speculate – and I hope you will indulge me in what may just be idle speculation at this point – that perhaps the Western elites actually want Russia, and its partner China, to win out militarily and economically in the end but are afraid the people will find out or suspect. Let’s consider the utter falseness of the US pretending that fracking could make the US the world’s biggest energy exporter. Given the extravagant costs of drilling for oil or gas in nearly-depleted energy fields, and the even more-extravagant costs of converting this hard-won gas into LNG, then storing it in hugely expensive terminals, shipping it overseas in hugely expensive specially designed tankers, then off-loading it into similarly designed hugely expensive terminals in the client countries, is it possible that Trump and the US Congress and Senate could all honestly believe that Europe would be stupid enough to buy this hugely expensive LNG instead of continuing to buy the much cheaper Russian gas delivered simply by pipeline? Surely they didn’t expect this to happen, did they?
And surely the US military didn’t expect the presence of US bases at al-Tanf and Deir Ezzor not to be challenged by the Russian forces that are now increasingly acknowledged as superior (as reported here), did it?
And surely the US Treasury and FRB would not expect that the US could keep right on printing dollar bills and borrowing money from foreign and domestic investors forever without even hinting that the money would ever be paid back, did they?
And surely the US officials didn’t expect US citizens not to eventually notice that their “ally” Israel was wantonly murdering and maiming unarmed protesters in Palestine under the false pretext that every single one of them is a terrorist?
Or that Saudi Arabia was nothing but an intolerant, violent dictatorship that was an albatross and did not merit being our friend?
Yes, the msm did a marvellous job of deceiving the grassroots into thinking the US was the good guy, the moral city on a hill, while Russia was the bad guy – even though it was the CIA that spawned the Taliban and supported al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and the US military that birthed ISIS in Iraq, while Russia was the one honestly fighting terrorists. But can this deception go on ‘til the end of time?
Surely some day they would have to wake up and realize that this silly game could not last forever.
How much play acting are we in fact dealing with?
Or are they really just hopelessly stupid or insane?
Or, finally, could we be living in the times spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2:
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie…
Russia could have crushed the US army in Syria in 20 minutes: Satanovsky spoke about a conversation with Shoigu
January 26, 2019
Even without hypersonic weapons, the Russian army could have responded to the actions of the United States in Syria. In the spring of 2018, Coalition shells did not fall in those areas of Syria where the Russian military was, said Yevgeny Satanovsky.
Russia was able to confront the United States militarily even before the appearance of hypersonic weapons in the Russian Federation. This was stated by one of the leading experts in the field of politics and economics Yevgeny Satanovsky.
On the TV channel TVC, he spoke about a conversation with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and the chief of Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Valery Gerasimov about a possible military confrontation with the United States.
Last year, the American side announced that it intended to launch a missile attack on the territory of Syria. In March 2018, Satanovsky said, Moscow issued a warning to Washington about the consequences if American shells hit the positions of the Russian military in the Arab Republic.
The Russian army did not have hypersonic weapons, the expert recalled. According to Shoigu and Gerasimov, Russian troops were nevertheless prepared to defeat the United States in 20 minutes, Satanovsky said.
The political analyst added that when the forces of the international coalition struck that same spring of 2018, shells fell in those Syrian areas where there were no Russian military personnel. Satanovsky believes, not without irony, that you can look at it "serenely and cheerfully."
Author: Vera Pavlova
The above video, from Vesti News, depicts the Russian Avangard first mentioned by Putin last March in his speech to the Federal Assembly. Back then it was poopoohed by the US msm and officialdom in Washington. Now it has been tested and they are no longer laughing. But instead of coming clean and suggesting a rapprochement with Moscow, the old die-hards are pretending they can stop it from outer space and are poised to spend trillions in tax monies to launch a brand-new boondoggle, bringing the US closer to the brink. Hold on to your hats, folks!
Our translation from rueconomics.ru of an analysis by Israeli-Russian expert Yakov Kedmi follows below with commentary by Vince Dhimos.
Let’s look how the msm and US military treated the Avangard when Putin first announced it, For example, the venerable magazine Time mocked Putin’s report:
“But could any of those weapons work in the real world? And even if they did work, should American citizens be concerned by Putin’s new claims? The answer from the U.S. government appears to be: No.”
Unfortunately, in December 2018, Russia tested the Avangard successfully, and then, as everyone should have known back in March when Putin first revealed the weapon, the US military changed its tune:
“We don’t have any defence that could deny the employment of such a weapon against us,” said US Air Force General John E. Hyten, the Commander of US Strategic Command…”
Kedmi’s analysis, indicating that the US’ new Star Wars version is just a bluff, makes perfect sense from a scientific standpoint. The new US Star Wars plan is a scam intended to send more trillions to the arms industry in exchange for their supporting the corrupt candidates who waste taxpayer cash on their boondoggles under the pretext that the Russian bogyman is planning to blow us all up. As one Russian analyst puts it, even from outer space, no one, even with the most sophisticated system, would be able to successfully target and kill a vehicle moving at 27 times the speed of sound. By the time the computer of the kill vehicle were able to calculate the coordinates of the Avangard, for example, it would be running away at a speed several times greater than the starting speed of the kill missile and on top of that, the Avangard zigzags in an unpredictable trajectory, so even in the unlikely scenario that the kill vehicle were able to somehow miraculously catch up, the Avangard would no longer be in the same calculated trajectory and the defending missile would fly uselessly into the void. Checkmate.
Of course, from the Russian standpoint, the more dollars the US wastes on useless space-deployed armaments, the closer the US Treasury comes to total bankruptcy – making the US less of a threat to the world. Incidentally, one analyst, James Howard Kunstler, predicts that 2019 will see the final collapse of the US economy. Now since Kunstler does not provide a detailed explanation for his prediction, you might call it mere speculation. However, he does mention fracking in this context, saying that this extraction process will lead the way to the collapse. Which makes me take him somewhat seriously. I had explained previously why, from a scientific standpoint, fracking – on which the government is pinning all its hopes for the economy – could never be profitable under any circumstances and was a boondoggle from the get-go. In that analysis, I stated:
1--extraction of gas or oil by fracking is an expensive process and will make the product less competitive than a product obtained without the use of it, that is, the product obtained from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya or Russia (and yes, maybe even from Venezuela) that is obtained without the cost-adding process of fracking.
2—Oil or gas wells extracted by fracking [are old depleted wells and--NSS] therefore have a shorter useful life and require more-frequent drilling and/or reprocessing.
An article by Nick Cunningham posted at oilprice.com discusses this issue in some detail:
“… shale wells typically see production deplete by 70 to 90 percent in the first three years, while fields see output drop off by about 20 to 40 percent per year without new drilling.
“That means that the industry has to constantly plough more money back into production, just to keep output flat.
“At the same time, not every shale well is the same. The core areas, or “sweet spots,” typically make up just 20 percent of a given shale play. When shale drillers move beyond the core, they tend to post less impressive production figures.”
By contrast, cpr org says the average lifespan of a fresh, non-depleted oil and gas well is 12 yr. Thus to expect that fracking can compete with extraction from a virgin well is just plain stupid.
“While [fracked] shale gas wells have a long life, they drop down to about 10% of their initial production after about 5 years or so.”
Jacqueline George, Author of Fracking 101 A Beginner's Guide to Hydraulic Fracturing
answered a Quora question as follows:
“I’m not going to stick my neck out too far on this one because we don’t yet have the evidence for modern horizontal wells. I can say that the production flush for a new shale well is very short lived and by two years the wells are typically limping along.” [Since the industry is in its infancy, the estimates vary between about 2 and 3 years for fracked wells. NSS]
This real-world science-based info on fracking is why the purely economic picture looks so dismal so far, with most US oil operations running in the red or showing near-negligible profits, as reported, for example, here.
Further, oilprice.com says:
“Diamondback Energy and Continental Resources had breakeven prices at about $52 and $37 per barrel in the third quarter, respectively, according to the Al Rajhi report. Parsley Energy, on the other hand, saw its ‘cash required per barrel’ price rise to nearly $100 per barrel in the third quarter.”
The obvious problem, then, is that if the cost of extraction by fracking exceeds these breakeven prices, as it often does, the oil company eventually goes belly up. Ironically, some experts believe the US is trying to drive prices low in order to hurt Russia and other “enemies,” although if this is so, then it is obviously shooting itself in the foot. Which would be no surprise to me.
I think the most relevant question here is why the oil execs sank so much money into fracking ventures before doing the feasibility and profitability studies that would have shown that fracking was not a paying proposition for their shareholders. And I think part of the answer to that is that politicians and msm hyped fracking and the notion that America had the largest oil and gas deposits anywhere in the world and that it would be patriotic to invest in their extraction, particularly as if would show those Russians that the US is no. 1. This would induce some foolhardy investors to sink their cash into marginal investments in the blind belief that the government would somehow bail them out – and they never gave a thought to the possibility that the Treasury would be simply unable to continue bailing them out indefinitely. This is the same mentality that led to endless borrowing on the theory that such could go on forever without any untoward consequences.
Add to this, in the case of gas wells for gas export, the huge costs of cryogenic treatment and liquefaction of gas, pumping it into extravagantly expensive intermediate storage tanks on-shore in the home country, subsequently loading it onto special extravagantly priced ships with storage domes, then unloading it at the destination country into equally extravagantly priced intermediate storage tanks of like design and pumping it further to a pipeline network for further distribution. These hard facts about LNG, BTW, are why Europe bristled when the US tried to strong-arm it into relinquishing cheap pipeline-delivered gas from Russia and buying US LNG – purportedly to achieve “energy security.” Europe’s negative reaction to this sleazy strong-arm approach was a turning point in US-Europe relations and helped drive Europe into Russia’s arms.
Trump’s short-term solution to the slump in the oil business was to push for a tax “reform” that went into effect in 2017. This bill gave oil companies negative income taxes, or in other words, corporate welfare, paid for out of taxpayer funds. When Mussolini did this sort of thing – ie, mixing business and government, they called it fascism. Some called it corporatism. Others call it crony capitalism. And, whatever you call it, it is what America and its allies have. This is not textbook capitalism any more.
So the man who thundered at China and slapped tariffs on its exports for subsidizing its exports is doing exactly that, subsidizing US exports.
My analysis was first posted at Quora, where it so far has garnered close to 400 upvotes.
In the translation below, Yakov Kedmi mentions the Sarmat and Avangard ICBMs. For those who need a recap, these are two new hypersonic ICBM’s that are targeted to keep points on the globe where US vulnerabilities lie. They are both hypersonic and cannot be intercepted. They are the principal reasons CFR president Richard Haass admitted that “we cannot defeat Russia,” as I reported here. But, as Kedmi points out, official America cannot admit this to the sheeple so they’re pretending these super weapons can somehow be stopped from outer space.
They’re stumped and talking about space: Kedmi declares that the USA had to hide the power of the Sarmat and Avangard from the Americans.
January 27, 2019
The United States not openly declare to its people that Russia surpasses them militarily, and is therefore they are making announcements of “space missile defence.” This was stated by Israeli analyst Jacob Kedmi.
According to the expert, the bulk of US talk about weapons is pure propaganda, while the real situation is much worse. So, a promising missile defence system, which the United States intended to launch in 2020, was planned as capable of destroying Russian missiles on take-off. However, the new RF systems introduced in 2018 completely nullified the capabilities of the American missile defence system.
"But what to do - before it (the US missile defence system) enters (into operation) - and now it has been moved up to 2022 - the Sarmat rocket made the whole system absolutely useless. Because the launch speed of this rocket is several times faster than would make it possible to detect its launch! Therefore, the entire system, on which the Americans spent tens of billions of dollars, was nullified by this rocket. And the Avangard warheads on this rocket made the entire American defence system on which US policy was based up to that time absolutely ineffective," Kedmi said.
Precisely because all the US-built missile defence is no longer working, Washington decided to return to the strategy of a preventive strike, including the use of space platforms. In the States, they realized that in the event hostilities should break out, America would be powerless, and decided to change the concept, which was announced officially.
"But they cannot say - and no one can - to the American people that Russia has achieved strategic military superiority. Because then the people will demand an answer: what have you been doing all these years? What did you spend all that money on? So they are stumped. They will talk about aerospace forces that were created in Russia several years before that, "said Yakov Kedmi on the program "Vecher s Vladimirom Solovevym / Вечер с Владимиром Соловьевым” [Evening with Vladimir Solovyov].
Earlier, military expert Igor Korotchenko had said the S-500 missile systems, capable of destroying threats in outer space, were a weapon against planned US military satellites. In addition, he called for the development of railway carriers of strategic missiles, so that the States could never find and destroy them.
Video from RT showing drills in Latvia.
The following is our translation of an article from rueconomics.ru. This is another example of how the US/NATO are strong-arming vulnerable European – particularly Baltic – states to expose their populations to the grave danger of hosting NATO bases on their soil – making them sitting duck targets for Russian retaliatory missile attacks with hypersonic missiles that cannot be intercepted by any known means. This report shows that military leaders are well aware of the threat to which the US exposes them. If and when enough influential leaders – like the Latvian expert interviewed here –become aware of Washington’s callous and cynical use of vulnerable states as missile shields, there will no doubt be a major push-back in these states.
The main obstacle, as pointed out by Mr. Rublovsky, is that so far, politics, not military considerations, drives military decisions in the Baltics. And that is exactly what drives presidents and lawmakers to approve extravagant spending on “defence.”
Since NATO leaders are fully aware that Russia cannot be defeated militarily, the report is also additional evidence that all aggressive moves by the alliance are pure theatre. Very costly theatre for Western taxpayers.
Baltic States: Russia can destroy NATO bases in a minute
January 18, 2019
The former head of the strategic planning department of the General Staff of the Latvian Armed Forces, Raymond Rublovsky, stated that in the event of a conflict with the Russian Federation, NATO’s hypothetical [future] bases in the country would be destroyed in the first few minutes.
In an interview with the Kaliningrad portal Rubaltic, Rublovsky said that there is currently one NATO battalion group in Latvia.
At the same time, in his opinion, it does not represent any danger to Russia, taking into account the agreement of forces in the region.
“This is more a political gesture than a military one,” the military said, adding that the NATO battalion did not have any heavy offensive or missile weapons.
She also expressed the opinion that the creation of permanent bases of the alliance on Latvian territory will not in any way affect the security of the country. [Actually, it will negatively affect security by making Latvia a target—Vince]
In addition, Rublovsky stressed that with regard to the hypothetical presence of military bases, in the event of a real military conflict with the Russian Federation, these databases will be destroyed in the first few minutes.
He added that the decision to deploy NATO bases is in the purview of Washington and the American allies, and not the Latvian leadership.
The military expert explained that Latvia in the event of a conflict of the Russian Federation and NATO would in any case become hostage to the situation, while the country's army would not even “have time to fight.”
According to Rublovsky, the question is, “will our country become one big crater or will it blow away, which, I repeat, is not for us to decide.”
The regular statements of Latvian politicians about the “threats from Russia” are primarily due to the need for their political survival, while they diligently continue to stir up general tension.
Author: Irina Sintsova
The following is our translation of a report on the demoralized US-backed Ukrainian troops tasked with “taking back” the Donbass, which is obviously irrevocably lost to the pro-Russians.
When Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus, where he planned to take part in a mass persecution of Christians, Jesus, in spirit, asks Saul (later called Paul) why he is persecuting him, and says to him: It is hard for you to kick against the pricks. (Acts 9:5).
To kick against the pricks is a Greek proverb derived from the practice of using a goad with a sharp point to manipulate oxen. Sometimes the ox would rebel and kick back at the goad, thereby exacerbating the pain. (BTW, this use of a Greek proverb would indicate that the lingua franca in the Jewish world was possibly Greek and not Aramaic).
At any rate, this self –infliction of pain is exactly what Ukraine is doing. Anyone, even a US-backed Ukrainian leader knows full well that the Ukraine armed forces cannot defeat the Russians. Even the top US foreign policy expert CFR president Richard Haass knows that the US cannot defeat Russia, as we discussed here. In fact, every European NATO member, especially the top rank, must know that NATO is a sitting duck for Russian hypersonic missiles that cannot be intercepted by any known means. This, of course, explains why the Ukrainian army tasked with taking back the self-proclaimed republics of Lugansk and Donetsk in Donbass have rock-bottom morale, realizing that in the event of a real military challenge, they are doomed. There are also indications that the military leaders of other NATO countries realize the hopelessness of their situation.
Not only that, the US-controlled Ukrainian military and NATO expect that the Ukrainian army can be forced or cajoled into fighting their fellow Ukrainians on the basis of their language preference. Not much of an incentive to put oneself in harm’s way, particularly now that the Maidan coup has transformed Ukraine into the poorest country in Europe, as we reported here. Further, every Ukrainian with measurable brain activity knows that President Poroshenko is deliberately stirring up conflict between the US/NATO and his country in a desperate bid to hang on to the presidency in the upcoming election. But the half-hearted (pretend) US response to his ginned up accusation of “Russian aggression” is clear cut evidence that Washington isn’t buying the theatre performance either.
Clearly, the US and allies are in their final throes militarily. The US is no longer interested in fighting in Syria or Ukraine, knowing that Russia has them overpowered and outmaneuovered diplomatically, and are reduced to pretending. In response to the capture of Ukrainian naval ships by Russia in the Kerch Strait, the US sent in a 30 year old ship that was totally inadequate for battle into the Black Sea, supposedly to intimidate the Russians, but actually just to placate Pososhenko. The UK did likewise, sending a hydrographic survey ship, the HMS Echo, instead of a battle ship. These sophomoric bluffs are hard evidence that the entire West knows the jig is up. How long before it finally admits defeat and starts to negotiate with Russia for peace and cooperation – rather than continuing to kick against the pricks like a dumb ox?
Lost morale: Poroshenko lost his motorized infantry brigade in the Donbass
January 14, 2019
The Ukrainian command has decided to withdraw the entire 59th brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine from the military zone. Previously, one of the units of this military unit had refused to enter combat positions.
As the correspondent of RIA Novy Den reports, the official representative of the People's Militia of the LNR [Lugansk People’s Republic], Lieutenant Colonel Andrei Marochko, reported this at a special briefing.
"The Ukrainian command plans to withdraw a number of units from the zone of the military operation, including the entire 59th separate motorized infantry brigade, one of whose companies had previously refused to withdraw to the positions along the line of military contact," PolitNavigator quotes Andrei Marochko.
According to Marochko, the withdrawal of the brigade from the zone of special operations is scheduled for January 20.
Recall that, previously, the company of the Ukrainian military personnel demanded urgent rotation and refused to conduct military operations against the army of the Lugansk People's Republic.
“According to our sources in the ranks of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, the entire second company of the third battalion of the 59th motor-infantry brigade refused to go to the positions assigned to them. The commander of the company with the call sign "Ruslan" sent a report to the higher command, in which he declared the unwillingness of the personnel of the company to take part in hostilities, arguing that the servicemen were waiting for the rotation and want to return home alive,” Lieutenant Colonel of Police of the LPR Marochko reported.
Officials in Ukraine could not clearly comment on this bold insubordination of the fighters on the front line.
Simferopol, Valentin Karamazov
The above video, from the Russian MoD, shows the launch of the Avangard hypersonic missile during its first test.
The following is our translation of a Russian expert's opinion on the US wake-up call to Russian hypersonic weapons, with commentary by Vince Dhimos. The reaction of US media and politicians to Putin’s speech before the Federal Assembly was to poo-poo the statements about hypersonic weapons, mocking them as mere cartoons (Putin had in fact illustrated his report on the new arms using cartoons at the time).
But the latest test of the Russian nuclear-capable hypersonic Avangard in December of 2018 changed minds in Washington.
It is to his credit that CFR president Richard Haass realized the danger of Russian arms even before the test was reported, and wrote, in his paper titled How a World Order Ends, that the “US cannot defeat Russia.” This marked a major turning point for US policy and was the subject of our report The Deep State capitulates to Russia.
"And then they realized that Russia has hypersonic weapons": Satanovsky spoke about the Russian Federation’s cold shower for the United States in Ukraine and Syria
January 15, 2019
The emergence of hypersonic weapons from Russia was a cold shower for the United States, which realized the risks of provoking a conflict with the Russian Federation in Syria and in Ukraine. This was stated by political scientist Yevgeny Satanovsky.
According to the expert, America has recently found out for itself that Russia’s new weapons, like its cooperation with China, are, if not the deadliest, then the biggest threat to the States. Not so long ago in Washington they could not have imagined what danger the United States faces in provoking the Russian Federation in different parts of the globe, but recent events in the military sphere opened the Americans’ eyes.
“They, it turns out, didn’t assume that by slapping us with sanctions and giving us “lost years” over the situation with the Crimea, the Crimean Bridge, the Minsk Agreements and Ukraine as a whole, these guys were taking risks, serious risks. However, the Syria outcome had also been unexpected," said Satanovsky.
The main issue, the political analyst noted, is the newest weapons of Russia, which President Vladimir Putin described in March in a message to the Federal Assembly. After that, the United States and other Western countries began to argue that Russia allegedly had nothing but “cartoons,” trying to provoke Moscow to show concrete examples. “When you say that we have no cartoons, but technologies, and here are the proofs, you are at the same time blabbing state secrets. This is a primitive and very good move,” the expert explained the US calculation.
The last straw for the United States was the test at the end of 2018 of the Avangard hypersonic missile system, which was launched in Kamchatka. This proved to the whole world, including the Americans, that Russia already has a hypersonic weapon in its arsenal, against which the United States is defenceless.
"The testing was demonstrated. And it turned out that Russia has hypersonic missiles. And the Chinese are developing them. And America doesn’t have any. And it served as a cold shower of the kind that Americans have not received for a long time," said Satanovsky on the air on Vesti."
Earlier, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu called the rearmament of the Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN) one of the priorities of the military department for 2019. The priority of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation is the formation of missile regiments equipped with the Avangard complexes, as well as the equipping of the strategic weapons systems of Russia in the air and at sea with advanced weapons.
Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Defense Committee Yuri Shvytkin commented in an interview with the Sputnik news agency the Pentagon’s plans to send the US Navy to the Black Sea.
CNN, an American television channel, has previously reported that the Pentagon is ready to send its warships to the Black Sea as a response to Russia's actions in the Kerch Strait.
A military expert told Sputnik reporters that the statement by the US military once again proves the staging of the Kerch incident and the deliberate participation in the US provocation.
According to the parliamentarian, the actions of Washington are aggressively provocative in nature and indicate a deal with Kiev. However, such operations will not pass with impunity for interested parties. Whoever tries to encroach on the territorial waters of the Russian Federation, a potential adversary will receive a tough and dignified response in accordance with the norms of international law.
Shvytkin stressed that the entrance to the water area, controlled by Russia, may well end up with the ascent of a submarine off the coast of the United States of America. This scenario is quite realizable in the event of an immediate threat to the Russian Federation. Moscow will give an immediate and serious response, the deputy summed up.