Our thanks to CNN for the above-linked video
Vince Dhimos answered a question in the Spanish language sector of Quora. Translations of the question and Vince’s answer are shown below.
First let me say that the statements of the Trump administration have already painted the US into a corner, making it tough to wriggle out of a military confrontation. On the other hand, Trump made statements about Venezuela that almost made a military confrontation there inevitable. Yet the whole invasion idea just sort of dissipated. Remember when Trump interviewed the interim first lady of Venezuela at the White House and she asked what he would do about the Russian presence in her country and he said “Russia has to get out.” But Russia did not get out (although the msm kindly made up the story that the Russian military was leaving), and the story just died.
Just now Trump said he was calling off a planned attack on Iran. Unfortunately, that does not mean there will not be an attack.
You will recall our report on the op-ed of a high-ranking Israeli general who pleaded for US military involvement in Iran. The fact that Trump backed off of the planned attack could mark a turning point in US wars or in US-Israel relations.
WILL ISRAEL PREVENTIVELY ATTACK IRAN OR WILL THE US REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH IRAN AT THE LAST MINUTE?
This question indirectly makes a statement by implication, which is not accurate. The implication is that there are only two choices:
1) Israel attacks Iran, or
2) The US reaches an agreement with Iran.
If Israel decides not to attack Iran, regardless of whether or not the United States and Iran reach a new agreement, then that would be
3) a third choice, ie, multilateral negotiations including Iran and Israel.
Let’s consider these three choices:
1) Israel attacks Iran. If this happens, Iran would have the option to strike back. Iran once said it had 120,000 missiles hidden in tunnels in different mountains in Iran.
Of course, Israel has its famous air defence system known as the Iron Dome. However, it is known that all air defence systems can be overwhelmed by large numbers of missiles flying simultaneously into their effective area of defence. Indeed, the Iron Dome was once overwhelmed by machine gun fire. Thus, like all air defence systems, the Israeli system is not invulnerable to attack.
Further, if Israel decides to attack Iran with bombs dropped from aircraft, Iran has the option to use its Russian-made S-300 systems, which can shoot down planes over long distances and are very accurate.
Further, the Iranian high military command recently stated that it has highly accurate guided missiles that can destroy a US aircraft carrier. Therefore, the United States will no doubt warn Israel against attacking Iran because it does not want to lose any of its aircraft carriers. If that happened, it would be more difficult for Donald Trump to be re-elected in 2020.
2) The United States reaches an agreement with Iran. Unfortunately, this is probably impossible because the United States already had an agreement with Iran, signed by several interested countries, and Donald Trump illegally and unilaterally abandoned this agreement without cause – because Iran had not violated the agreement. In so doing, Trump communicated to the whole world that the US is not a reliable partner and that no agreement concluded with the US is worthwhile because any president can invalidate it it at any time even without just cause. Iran has already stated this and has said that there is no point in negotiating with the US again.
3) Israel refrains from attacking Iran. Since options 1) and 2) above entail serious risks to Israel, this option is the only one that seems safe for the time being. But in this scenario, Israel has the option to negotiate with Iran in conjunction with other nations. Perhaps the best option would be to enlist the aid of the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Europe to negotiate between Israel and Iran. Iran has in the past offered to negotiate with Saudi Arabia but the latter refused to talk. But under the current circumstances, perhaps if the US and Russia initiated the negotiations, the Saudis would be willing to try. After all, Iran is a Muslim country, like Saudi Arabia, and its pilgrims try to make the hajj to Mecca once in their lifetime. It is also a friend of Russia. The US is deeply involved in this issue too.
The main problem in the Middle East is not the Muslim countries, and it is not Russia. Russia has friendly relations with both Israel and Iran. 20% of Israelis were born in Russia and Putin is concerned for their well-being. And Putin also meets with OPEC even though Russia is not an official member. Therefore, Russia is a very good candidate to lead negotiations between Israel and Iran.
As for Europe, it has very friendly relations with Israel but also wants to trade with Iran. Therefore, Europe is also also a good candidate to participate in these negotiations.
The United States is the only major world power that always sides with Israel against the interests of the countries that do not recognize the existence of Israel. This is a major disadvantage for America as an arbitrator because many Middle Eastern countries cannot trust it and realize that it is not impartial. The only way the impasse can be broken is through the intermediary of Europe and Russia. Given the threat of war, it is in the best interest of America to finally make some concessions to Iran. However, since it has already turned out to be an unreliable negotiator, unfortunately, the US may have to rely on the other countries to do the majority of the negotiating. It is also unclear whether Iran would go to a bargaining table with the US at this point. At any rate, it has refused to renegotiate the already-signed Iran deal. Indeed, in a civil court, it would win the case against the reneging US.
We can see from this example that by trying to achieve its goals by force alone and without diplomacy, the US has lost some of its power.
However, if other countries are still willing to cooperate with the United States, perhaps it can salvage some of its former power and become an integral part of the world community again and contribute to the restoration of world peace that is threatened by the abandonment of the Iran deal.
We’ve been reporting on the progress in the apparent lead-up to a potentially disastrous war with Iran. Various outlets are in agreement that such a war would be insane. In the following you will find our translation of the article entitled “A War with Iran Would be Insanity” from the popular German newspaper Die Welt, with commentary and notes [in brackets] by Vince Dhimos.
BTW, here’s a really solid reason not to believe that Iran is responsible for the different attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf region:
While it is being stated by the US government that these attacks are done in defiance of the US-imposed sanctions and embargoes, and while some seem to think they are being deliberately open about their schemes, we need to recall that Iran has been denying any involvement. Now if Iran wants to openly defy the US, it is not going to hide its tracks or deny its involvement. Yet it does, quite vehemently, and I’d say, convincingly.
Besides, Javad Zarif said exactly what I was thinking when I heard that a Japanese tanker was attacked while Shinzo Abe was in talks with Ayatollah Khamenei, namely, “suspicious does not begin to describe what likely transpired this morning.” Yes, and I also read just this morning that the fact that one ship was Japanese (attacked to drag Japan into the war) would have required deep research because the vessel was not flagged Japanese).
And Pompeo insists that Iran perpetrated the attack to raise oil prices. But excuse me, Iran is under sanctions and can hardly sell its oil at any price, so that is pretty much nonsense.
Of course, you probably have read at this site the confession of Major General Yaakov Amidror, who bluntly said:
“Israel’s opposition to Iranian entrenchment in Syria and Lebanon is twofold: To prevent Iran from building a beachhead against Israel through its proxies on Israel’s borders, and to impede development of Iran’s nuclear and long-range missile capabilities. Israel is absolutely determined and prepared to act forcefully against Iran, which could lead to a full-scale war. Israel must win this struggle against Iran, one way or another.”
Now that in itself was a bombshell. Israel wants to go to war against Iran one way or another. So that means it would not shrink from a false-flag attack if that were the only way to win. But as blunt as that was, it was not the most shocking part of Amidror’s rant. He went for full disclosure, providing Pompeo, Bolton and Trump with a solid motive to attack Iran but also for normal people to suspect a false flag:
“Israel must enlist a reluctant US to take an active part in operations alongside it, and not only as a supportive observer from the sidelines.”
BTW, Israel has a history of "enlisting a reluctant US" to support its wars based on false flags, and I daresay the attacks on Saudi oil vessels have all the earmarks of such a false flag.
Some people complain of Russian influence on US elections. But they are ignoring the elephant in the room. America will never be free until AIPAC is banned completely or until it becomes illegal for them to influence US elections. They are the main reason for the threat of war against Iran and the pull-out from the Iran deal. They were also a very important reason why the US fought the disastrous and costly war on Iraq, which spawned ISIS.
A war with Iran would be insanity
By Hannes Stein
Washington is convinced that the attack in the Gulf of Oman was under instruction from Teheran. The US Central Command has made it clear that in the case of an attack "will fight back", says WELT reporter Steffen Schwarzkopf.
If the United States resorts to a war with Iran, this could lead to an even greater disaster than in 2003 in Iraq. Foreign Minister Mike Pompeo knows that too - but the situation may nevertheless escalate.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has quite clearly named a culprit: "It is the United States' assessment that the Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for the attacks that have taken place in the Gulf of Oman today," he said in a press conference. [yesterday]
"This assessment is based on intelligence reports, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to perform this operation, and the fact that no other group operating in that region has the resources or knowledge to act with such a high degree of sophistication.” But what does that mean? Will the United States now go to war against the "Islamic Republic of Iran"?
Everything is possible, but probably not yet. Let's start with the Iraq war of 2003. In that war, the United States did not have a UN mandate, but they had allies: Britain, Poland, Denmark, South Korea. The assumption that Saddam Hussein was working on new weapons of mass destruction, at least, was not insane. [The author does not mention it – because Europeans know it – that no country in Europe wants war with Iran. They are kindly disposed toward the country and are hoping for lucrative trading arrangements with it. Therefore, unlike in the Iraq war, the US will have fewer allies and may lose some that it had before. And the false flag attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf will not change their minds. General Amidror already kindly informed us they were coming.]
At first, that war seemed to be going well from an American point of view: Iraq had a population of just over 23 million, Saddam's regime was hated by everyone - Kurds, Shiites, and many Sunnis - and the Iraqi army was a ridiculous opponent that laid down its arms after a few weeks.
Iran is (as a glance at the map shows) about three times the size of Iraq. It has more than 81 million inhabitants. Its army is professional, highly motivated and has gained much combat experience in Yemen and Syria in recent years. In addition, terrorist organizations like Hezbollah [Hezbollah was once called a terrorist organization only by the US but under pressure from the US, Europe is now using the term] would assist the Iranian regime and not only carry out attacks in the Middle East. America has exactly two allies in this war: Israel and the Arab Gulf States. Domestically, a war with Iran would immediately lead to furious mass protests in all American cities; Congress - which according to the US Constitution has the sole right to declare war - would oppose the President.
Besides, it would be impossible to win a war on Iranian territory only with air strikes. So ground forces would have to invade. After the famous "surge" - the troop increase under General David Petraeus - 107,000 soldiers were stationed in Iraq. They managed with great difficulty to quell the civil war-like chaos in Iraq. But Iran, as I said, has four times as many inhabitants. And although the fundamentalist mullah regime is hated by the Iranian people, there is little to suggest that the Iranians would respond cheerfully to an American bombardment of their cities and their soldiers.
In other words, a war with Iran would be insanity. It would probably end up an even greater disaster than the ill-prepared Iraq war. It would probably mean the end of the Western alliance.
This morning we learn that 2 ships were attacked, apparently with torpedoes, in the Gulf of Oman and the US military immediately stated that this was “highly likely” the work of the Iranians. Remember back when Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia were found poisoned on a part bench in Salisbury, England, that the immediate verdict of all Western intel services was that it was “highly likely” that Russia had poisoned these victims even though there was no evidence of Russian involvement. And recall that on the strength of this “highly likely” verdict, both the US and the EU slapped sanctions on Russia. So the moral of this story is, if you want to avoid punishment in the West, make sure your evil deed is absolutely provable and not just “highly likely” because otherwise you will pay the price.
By extension, then, Iran can expect to be targeted for a major war.
I had reported on May 18 that a high-ranking Israeli official had urged in March 2019 that the US needs to be enlisted to take part in a military operation against Iran alongside Israel. Major General Yaakov Amidror had written:
"Israel must enlist a reluctant US to take an active part in operations alongside it, and not only as a supportive observer from the sidelines.”
Now note the word “reluctant” because it is pregnant with meaning. After all, the sly Major General knows that the US people will not go quietly into another war on shaky pretexts. They are still stinging from the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the WMDs that no one could ever find. I am convinced that even back in March, Amidror knew that there were officials, like John Bolton, in the Trump administration who were anything but reluctant to go to war against Iran and were prepared to do whatever it took. He sneaked in the word “reluctant” to let everyone concerned know that the US absolutely does not want war but that it might just become absolutely necessary. This was cover for the news consumer who might read his article and think John Bolton was a war monger or something silly like that.
And that is precisely what Amidror has in mind:
“Israel is absolutely determined and prepared to act forcefully against Iran, which could lead to a full-scale war. Israel must win this struggle against Iran, one way or another.”
Oh, ok, American readers, a full-scale war led by the US but not to worry, they will engage only reluctantly and not because of an Israeli false flag attack on oil tankers in the Oman Gulf or anything like that. They’ll start the conflict based on a verdict of “highly likely” Iran did it and it is not at all likely it was a false flag to give Bolton and Israel cover for a war they wanted “one way or the other.” No, no. Perish the thought.
I was not the only one who had suspicions.
My partner at the German-language site Contra-Magazin wrote (my translation):
“Given that the neo-conservative hawks in Washington and Israel have long been waiting to finally launch a war against Iran, one may well ask themselves questions:
Why should Iran attack these two oil tankers and risk a military operation against them? Why not expect a "False Flag Attack" from CIA, Mossad & Co behind it? Who benefits most from such an attack? Will the Americans (as in Syria) bombard Iran with missiles without first waiting for an independent investigation? We have to wonder ...”
Award-winning journalist Stephen Lendman wrote:
“The Trump regime no doubt will blame Iran for what it surely had nothing to do with — likely increasing its “maximum pressure” on the country in the wake of the Gulf of Oman incident [sure enough, shortly after Lendman posted this, the regime did indeed blame Iran--Vince].
“It ups the stakes for possible war in a part of the world already devastated by US aggression.
“Is Iran next on its target list for greater greater war than? Do Trump regime hardliners intend making the region boil more than already?
“Given their rage to transform Iran into a US vassal state, anything is possible, even war on a nation able to hit back hard against US and Israeli targets if attacked.”
Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif said “suspicious doesn’t even begin to describe what likely transpired this morning.”
I can think of a whole list of reasons why Iran did not perpetrate the attack:
1—Japanese president Shinzo Abe was in Teheran at the time of the attacks, discussing with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei the possibility of talks mediated by Abe between Iran and other Gulf countries to ease tensions.
2—Iran is trying to keep a low profile with a view to getting out from under the sanctions. It very much wants to continue trading with the West. This would not be a good time to be causing trouble and provoking the West by torpedoing oil tankers.
3—A UK commentator reminded that the Iranian government is sometimes at loggerheads with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard and that the Guard could have perpetrated the attack unbeknownst to the government. However, that is highly unlikely because if the Guard were so reckless as to attack an oil tanker, it would almost certainly long ago have fired long-range missiles in its possession at Tel-Aviv in response to the frequent Israeli attacks on Iranian forces in Syria.
4—In another analysis I posted on the subject of false accusations against Iran, I quoted several sources showing that Israel is an old hand at the false-flag game and why the earlier attacks on oil tankers had all the earmarks of such attacks.
Now it is true that Iran has subs and torpedoes, including super-cavitating torpedoes capable of travelling several times the speed of ordinary torpedoes. The only thing Iran lacks in this current scenario is a motive.
But then Israel has even bigger subs with torpedoes that can take out an oil tanker. And Israel has a motive, generously disclosed to the world by Major General Yaakov Amidror as described above. In fact, Israel has been salivating over the possibility of making Iran look like an oil tanker killer, and John Bolton and pals has been salivating right along with them.
One of those pals is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who now says he is holding Iran accountable. Hurry and start that war, Mike, before they start investigating and find out Iran had nothing to do with the attacks! Better hurry and kill those babies before they grow up and pose a threat to Israel.
In the following is our translation of an article from RIA FAN about the Great Russian Scare in America and the scare mongers in Congress who have spent billions to root out Russian “troll factories” that supposedly have stolen US “democracy,” which I have shown here does not even exist. The article below shows that the Pentagon has a division devoted to fighting Russian trolls, which as far as we know, do not carry guns. So how did opinion influencers come to be considered tantamount to a military threat worthy of a Pentagon division?
What many Americans fail to keep in mind is that any Russian propaganda or other efforts to influence elections in the US pale before the efforts of AIPAC, a foreign agent that not only influences US elections but in fact literally controls them, pushing them very hard, for example, into military conflicts not in the US interest, in two very important ways:
1—AIPAC, the foreign lobby that promotes the interests of Israel, donates millions to the campaigns of pro-Israel candidates, including presidential candidates. Thus if a candidate had ever constructively criticized an Israeli policy – such as the policy of allowing Israeli settlers to build in Palestine or the commonly implemented policy of shooting unarmed protesters in Gaza – AIPAC will not donate to that candidate but will donate to the opponent.
2—AIPAC issues press releases severely criticizing candidates who are less than wholeheartedly enthusiastic about the unjust policies of Israel toward the Palestinians – policies that the UN has condemned repeatedly. Thus if a candidate had constructively criticized an Israeli policy – such as the policy of allowing Israeli settlers to build in Palestine or the commonly implemented policy of shooting unarmed protesters in Gaza – AIPAC will issue press releases implying or stating that such a candidate is anti-Semitic.
Here is a must-view video that summarizes the untoward influence of AIPAC on American political life.
As a result, AIPAC not only influences opinion but actually forges US foreign policy and some internal policies relating to press freedom. For example, this lobby has already induced some states – and is attempting to induce the federal government – to adopt a blatantly unconstitutional law outlawing any boycott of products made in Israel or even in illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine! I have written about this outrage here.
Yet we are supposed to believe that this kind of coercive and heavy-handed foreign influence on the part of AIPAC is just fine and dandy while a Russian company disseminating news slanted in favour of Russia – but with no coercion – is a grave violation of Americans’ rights and democracy! Are Americans that gullible? It would seem that a significant percentage of them are.
Sadly, many Evangelical Trump voters believe that any criticism of the secular apartheid homicidal state of Israel is a sin because of a verse in Genesis that says those who curse Israel will be cursed. But firstly, honest criticism is not cursing someone (in fact, constructive criticism is a blessing—which Genesis promises will be rewarded with a blessing), and secondly, there is no evidence at all that today’s Israel is the reincarnation of ancient Israel prophesied in Ezekiel, which Evangelicals take as the basis of their “Christian” Zionism. Indeed it does not meet the criteria spelled out in Ezekiel 37, which prophesies that the resurrected Israel will be “obedient to God’s decrees,” whereas a WIN/Gallup poll shows that a full 65% of Israelis profess no religion at all! Be sure to read what I wrote about “Christian” Zionism if you have not done so already. It is the only critique I have seen that is based on the Bible. America is facing the most massive intellectual deficit of its national life and it is way past time to start reducing that deficit. The only way to do that is to stop lying to ourselves and stop letting other people do our thinking for us.
Further, the accusations against Russian “propaganda” are, in the case of media aimed at the West, such as RT Sputnik, completely unfounded because most of the news they disseminate comes from Western sources. Nor is there any mention in such accusations of what reports from these agencies are false. I have been reading these publications for years and cannot think of a single such false or suspicious report. But their viewpoint is Eastern rather than stereotypically US-centred Western and therein lies the problem for the Establishment, which would ban all non-Western thought in a heartbeat if it could.
Influencing vs coercing
But the main problem here is the hypocrisy. The Establishment accusation is that these Russian news sources are aimed at influencing the minds of Americans regarding politics, and specifically, at tilting their thinking toward a more Russia-friendly mind set.
However, influencing, by use of cogent arguments and reasoning, is a far cry from coercing. And the hypocrisy lies in the fact that the American government goes much farther than merely influencing the attitudes and mind sets of the citizens of foreign countries. When a foreign leader, be it Maduro or Ghadaffi or whoever, refuses to be cowed into accepting the “American way,” notably, the US banking and monetary system, the US is very quick to invade, bomb, and massacre thousands of innocent civilians from the air, as they did in Iraq and Serbia, or support regime change as they did in Ukraine and Syria, or resort to killer sanctions that starve populations and deny needed medical care and medicines, to get a US-friendly regime in the country in question – Venezuela for instance. In this same vein, when internet publishers like Julian Assange or Bradley/Chelsea Manning dare to publish the true facts about the US Establishment that expose its crimes and misdeeds, they are in danger of being tried on phony charges and locked away. Coercion is the American way.
So are we supposed to believe that disseminating published materials in the US that merely influence opinion – but without coercion – in ways that conflict with the viewpoints accepted by the US Establishment is a danger to American liberties more grave than coercing people and governments to accept the US way of life?
As absurd as that proposition seems, it is precisely the premise on which the US Cyber Command operations to defend against “Russian trolls” is based.
Who will get the billions that Trump earmarks for fighting "Russian trolls"
12 March 2019
US President Donald Trump presented the draft budget for fiscal year 2020, which in the United States begins October 1, 2019. The document bears the pretentious title “Budget for a Better America” and, compared to 2019, provides for an increase of almost 5% of the total amount of all expenses.
There are many interesting articles, including those aimed at "deterring" Russia and China, primarily militarily. Among the significant amounts with which Trump plans to "contain" Russia, there is a very interesting expense item, including that of the Federal News Agency [ie, RIA FAN, the source of this article], which is in itself a great honour.
The US president is asking for $ 9.6 billion in US Cyber Command operations (the US Cyber Command of the Pentagon), according to BBC News. Yes, the money is intended for the Pentagon’s cyber command, which recently trumpeted that it would conduct, during the mid-term American elections in 2018, an operation against the Russian Internet Research Agency which the United States refers to only as a “troll factory.”
However, as previously reported by the Federal News Agency [FAN], even in the United States, this operation was recognized as a failure, which led to the resignation of the deputy head of the US cyber command. Recall, after losing the war with “foreign hackers” and having suffered a defeat in a campaign concerning a fictitious “Russian interference in the elections,” US Deputy Cyber Command Lieutenant General Vincent Stewart left his post.
According to Politico, this resignation was the result of the failure of a number of operations that the United States has been conducting in cyberspace. According to a FAN source, Stewart, in particular, suffered due to the total failure of a cyber attack on the Federal News Agency and the USA Really edition last November.
Pentagon baby talk
Politico reports that the reason for Stewart’s departure was the criticism of the activities of his department after the failed attack on FAN and USA Really. The US Cyber Command, with great fanfare, reported blocking FAN and USA Really on November 6, 2018. However, in the publications themselves, which were quietly working that day, they did not notice any “blocking” - the resources worked normally and fully.
The failure of the attack was recognized even by American experts: for example, the publication ZDNet, part of CBS Corporation, called the operation a “failure” and “a waste of American taxpayers' money.” In addition, both FAN and USA Really were well aware of the impending attack, so the possible damage was reduced to zero from the outset.
As FAN previously reported, the entire “attack” was carried out on an absolutely unprofessional level. In addition, Stuart’s bosses were unpleasantly struck by another example of his "know-how": last October, the Pentagon’s digital division, like a bewildered schoolgirl, began to overwhelm FAN employees with strange SMS messages and meaningless threats.
In the opinion of FAN Director General Evgeny Zubarev, for this childish prattle of the Pentagon, on which billions of US taxpayer dollars were spent, ideally, all the leaders and so-called specialists of this division of the US military should have been dismissed.
“The attack of the Pentagon’s cyber division on FAN and USA Really was to end with the resignations of its leadership,” Zubarev said. - Sending ridiculous SMS messages and letters to the personal mail accounts of journalists - this, according to their plan, was supposed to have intimidated us! It made us laugh, yes, but it didn’t scare anyone. ”
The very same attack represented the distribution of viruses, for which the IT security services of FAN and USA Really were ready and with which they successfully coped, Zubarev stressed.
“But the very fact of the Pentagon’s billion-dollar expenditures on such criminal actions is surprising,” Zubarev stressed.
The “disconnect,” according to the Pentagon, allegedly took place on November 6, when the US held congressional elections.
“Of course, we did not interfere in the course of elections in the United States. But not because we were attacked by the Pentagon, but because we don’t have and never had such a mission,” said Yevgeny Zubarev.
To see how the so-called “attack” was organized minute by minute and what a resounding failure it was, read the article by the Federal News Agency: “6,200 mediocrities on officers’ payroll: the failed cyber attack on the Russian Federation cost the US millions of dollars.”
Despite the comic situation, Trump is asking Congress for well-defined goals, Professor of Moscow State University, Doctor of Political Sciences Andrei Manoilo said in a comment to the Federal News Agency.
“Yes, this is an absolutely meaningless waste of American taxpayers’ money, but once Trump asks to allocate these 9.6 billion, then he definitely has recipients for this money,” the expert said.” Trump is making this request for specific people.”
He is deliberately scaring the congress with the “Russian threat” in order to make sure he gets what he needs, the political analyst believes.
“Talking about ‘Russian trolls,’ who allegedly “travel in herds and poison everyone’s life” is only an excuse, and the upper limit of this amount is limited only by the tolerance of Congress, says Manoilo. “Trump perfectly understands how much can be squeezed out of Congress for this particular issue. And he will squeeze out this money.”
The operator will be the Pentagon, and this suits Trump. He willingly uses the Pentagon’s budget, considering it the most reliable. And then the money will go to the agency to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation, which is fighting with Russia and ISIS (organization banned in the Russian Federation. - FAN), and for which [former US Secretary of State Rex] Tillerson allocated 300 million shortly before his resignation. This money went to the effort to oppose so-called "Russian propaganda."
The expert doubts that the allocated funds will be effectively used.
“Apparently, those 300 million have been spent - now we need more. So there, these additional 9.6 billion will be gladly split and divided, and at the same time they will allocate about one and a half million to fight the trolls. So hold on, stock up with motherwort and valerian. You will not need anything stronger to survive their childish “cyber attacks,” Andrei Manoilo summarized with a laugh.
This is a financial scam, and this intra-American financial scam, like all actions conducted under the pretext of the mythical "Russian threat," is used to squeeze American taxpayers’ money out of Congress, the expert believes. In fact, this money goes to failed operations performed at an infantile level and to Pentagon PR, the FAN source pointed out.
by Vince Dhimos
I answered a question on Quora. (https://www.quora.com/Is-Syria-still-a-threat-to-Israel/answer/Vince-Dhimos?)
Is Syria still a threat to Israel?
In order to understand the situation between Syria and Israel, it is good to look at sources from the West, from the Muslim Middle East and from Israel, but it is also good to look at Russian sources. Each region has its bias, so reading only Western news will not do. Much of my analysis below is based on reading Russian and Middle East sources. One is from an Israeli newspaper.
First of all, the querier asks whether Syria is still a threat to Israel, which begs the question: when was it ever a threat before?
Previously, Syria had occupied Lebanon as a peace keeping force, starting in 1976. Later, this occupation was legitimized under a bilateral “Treaty of Brotherhood, Cooperation and Coordination” signed between Syria and Lebanon. So where does Israel come in?
Ok, in 2005, Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri was assassinated in a messy terror attack that killed 21 others in Beirut. Absurdly, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad was immediately fingered as the plotter behind the attack. I say absurdly because Assad clearly had no motive to kill Rafic, who had been a friend of Bashar’s father Hafez. No Muslim leader would sully the memory of his own father. Further, if you do a web search for assassinations attributed to Assad, you find exactly nothing. Assassination was not part of Assad’s MO. After all, he was a medical doctor by education.
On the other hand, if you do a web search for Mossad assassinations, you will come up with this very impressive list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations, which enumerates assassinations by decade, starting in the 1950s. And if you browse through the list, you see that a lot of them were messy ones in which a lot of bystanders got killed and hurt.
But what would have been Israel’s motive?
That is disarmingly easy. In 2006, the year after Syrian troops were expelled from Lebanon based on the UN “investigation,” Israel bombed Lebanon into the Stone Age following an attack by Hezbollah. The entire West, thanks to an investigation meddled-with by war criminal John Bolton, was enjoined by Israel to blame it all on Hezbollah, but truly independent analysts showed why this was very unlikely.
Due to the assassination and the absurd conclusion of a UN investigation that, while inconclusive, claimed Assad was the likely plotter behind the killing. An article in The Guardian showed the likelihood that Israel was in fact the culprit:
Another article shows that Hezbollah accused the US and Israel of plotting the attack: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/07/201172183540290278.html
And a Voltairenet interview with an independent investigative journalist Jürgen Cain Külbel corroborates the above accusation.
https://www.voltairenet.org/article143460.html. I recommend taking the time to read the entire interview with Külbel, who wrote a book based on his investigation. Here is a quote from the interview:
“It is also unforgivable to forget the liaison between the impudent John Bolton, U.S. ambassador at the United Nations [appointed by GW Bush], and Serge Brammertz [the UN investigator named under pressure from the US]! Bolton, who once wanted the clone of Mr. Mehlis as his successor, and got it in Brammertz, has been up to now extremely pleased with the performance of the Belgian. The alarm bells should ring here because Bolton, one of the most important war criminals living, is someone who played a major role in faking the evidence for the Iraq war.”
But getting back to the 2006 savage Israeli attack on Lebanon and how it came about after Assad’s troops were conveniently removed as a result of the assassination:
“American and European officials blamed Hezbollah for the escalating violence. They cited Hezbollah’s capture of Israeli soldiers (who some reports said were inside Lebanon) but conveniently forgot that Israel had been holding Lebanese prisoners for years. They condemned Hezbollah for firing rockets at Israeli cities, but made no mention of Israel’s bombing of Gaza that had long preceded those attacks. As of July 28, 600 Lebanese civilians and 19 Israeli civilians had been killed. On July 27 alone, Israeli forces killed 23 Palestinians in Gaza.” https://www.wrmea.org/006-september-october/the-real-reason-for-israels-wars-on-gaza-and-lebanon.html
In other words, by 2005, Israel was primed and ready to do genocidal bombing in Lebanon. The first step was accomplished in 2005 when Assad was blamed for the killing of Rafic Hariri and consequently, Syria was expelled from Lebanon. This was vital to Israel because Syrian troops were excellent and could have caused great damage to Israel.
I assume that the reader and the Quora questioner are somewhat familiar with Western sources on the Iran-US stalemate. I therefore recommend this long analysis (https://www.tv7israelnews.com/the-logic-of-israels-actions-to-contain-iran-in-syria-and/) from an Israeli source, TV 7 News, written by an Israeli military analyst.
This article will give us an understanding of how Israel is pushing to contain Iran, how far Israel expects to take its provocation and the forces it believes it will face. Why Iran? Because the perceived threat from Syria from an Israeli standpoint is the presence of Iranian forces in Syria.
This article makes it clear that Israel is willing to go to war with Iran and that Trump’s belligerence toward Iran has nothing to do with US interests. He is, and has been, at least since his campaign, a proxy for Israel:
“Israel’s opposition to Iranian entrenchment in Syria and Lebanon is twofold: To prevent Iran from building a beachhead against Israel through its proxies on Israel’s borders, and to impede development of Iran’s nuclear and long-range missile capabilities. Israel is absolutely determined and prepared to act forcefully against Iran, which could lead to a full-scale war. Israel must win this struggle against Iran, one way or another.”
QUOTE (this is why it is important to read Israeli sources. The following statement by the same analyst as above is incredibly brash and cheeky for an Israeli source because it actually admits Israel is pushing the US to wage another war in the Middle East—something Americans already strongly suspect. And you may recall that Netanyahu had pushed hard for the US to invade Iraq – and got his wish. Remember this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_PDpwL8kuY)
“On the diplomatic front, the challenge to Israel is twofold. First it must secure the freedom of action it needs to operate in Syria despite the presence of Russian forces, be they independent or part of the Syrian Army’s advisory network. Simultaneously, and without undermining the first element, Israel must enlist a reluctant US to take an active part in operations alongside it, and not only as a supportive observer from the sidelines.” [BTW, Israel has a history of "enlisting a reluctant US" to support its wars based on false flags, and I daresay the attacks on Saudi oil vessels have all the earmarks of such a false flag.]
Finally, for the weak of heart, there is hope. Though this Israeli analyst admits Israel is eyeing still another major war in the Middle East and openly expresses Israel’s hopes to drag the US into it, he does not attempt an analysis of what Russia might do in the event the US attacks Syria in tandem with Israel, and what the US would expect from such an attack. But that is precisely what is wrong with his sophomoric analysis.
While it may not be clear what Russia would do, it is rather clear what the US would expect it to do in such a doomsday scenario, and if the analyst knew that, he would have shelved his article and played golf instead.
Here’s how we can know what the US would expect.
In 2018, when Trump announced his upcoming plan to fire missiles into government-controlled parts of Syria in retaliation for a “chemical weapons” attack by Assad that turned out never to have happened, the Russian Defence Ministry said “ok, go ahead and have your little fireworks show, but just in case you should hit any Russia installations or personnel, we reserve the right to destroy the platforms whence the missiles came.” Tellingly, Trump did not have one of his usual brassy Twitter come-backs for this. After all, this was in March, the month after Putin’s show and tell presentation to the General Assembly of the new hypersonic missiles and other wonder weapons that put the fear of the Lord into the US war Establishment. Trump knew what the Russians could do and he knew if a US naval asset went down to the floor of the Mediterranean, he probably would lose the election in 2020.
This is also certainly why Trump did not make good his bluff to invade Venezuela, with all those Russian assets sitting around down there.
So now, can you realistically expect Trump to join Israel in a war in Syria to destroy Iranian assets, with at least 120,000 long range missiles sitting in an underground tunnel in Iran just waiting for their next flight to Tel Aviv—along with an unspecified number of such missiles in the hands of Hezbollah in Lebanon? No, you can’t.
But will Israel enter a war on Iran without help from the US?
It depends on what “must” means in that last quote above.
Here is another look at that quote:
Simultaneously, and without undermining the first element, Israel must enlist a reluctant US to take an active part in operations alongside it, and not only as a supportive observer from the sidelines.”
See why it is good to read what the other side has to say?
Now we have a pretty good idea whether to expect a war or just a lot of shooting from the mouth.
Another look at WW II, but without the bias
The West, notably the US, is following in Hitler’s footsteps.
Below is our translation from Komsomolskaya Pravda with commentary by Vince Dhimos.
Victory Day was celebrated in Moscow on May 8.
The motto of the Third Reich was Deutschland über alles. America’s answer to that is the notion of the Exceptional Nation, or the Indispensable Nation. It is no accident that today’s Ukraine, with a regime made in USA, is full of Neo-Nazis and Nazi admirers.
The main two competing world views are the Asian one espousing equality for all peoples, best articulated by Russian commentators and politicians, and the extreme right view of the US insisting the US is everyone's boss. Trump is not an anomaly, he is this view taken to its logical end. The Russians have a good perspective on this, having suffered more than any other people under the fascist boot, with casualties of 27 million. The Brown Shirts came to the Russians uninvited, but by contrast, the West grew its own Brown Shirts. They thrive in our soil and go out into the world uninvited, sowing chaos and death as before. Unlike the German Brown Shirts, they pretend they are bringing humanitarian aid, freedom and democracy.
The West did not believe in the Soviet victory over Hitler, and now it’s ready to rerun the war
Publicist, historian and demographer Vladimir Timakov - on the myths that have arisen around the Great Patriotic War
ELENA KRYVYAKINA @ elenakrivyakina
Was Stalin preparing to attack Germany first? Is it true that the ratio of Nazi losses to Red Army losses was 1 to 10, and the Soviet soldiers did not spare German women? There are a lot of such myths about the Great Patriotic War. To find out how true they are - we asked the author of the book “The War that Changed the World” by historian, journalist and demographer Vladimir Timakov.
THEY WERE CONVINCED THAT THE SOVIET UNION WOULD COLLAPSE
- Vladimir Viktorovich, we increasingly hear that the decisive role in the victory in World War II does not belong to the USSR, but to the allies, and if Hitler had not started the war, it would have been started by Stalin. Why are we hearing an increasing number of such myths?
- The main goal of these myths is to deprive our people of one of the main pillars in history. That war proved that we are no worse than Western European nations and that Russian civilization is just as viable. The entire strategy of the West for the last five centuries has been based on the fact that they are a high society, and all the rest are inferior and must give way to them and submit. Hitlerism is simply an extreme form of Western snobbery, according to which there is only one path of development for all peoples, and those who deviate from it must be cured by force. Before the Second World War, our country was viewed as the backwater of the planet. When Hitler attacked us, no one doubted that in a few months nothing would be left of the USSR. The highest civilization clashed with the lowest - it was not only the Nazis who thought that way. Western democracies were convinced of this. And the fact that we did not collapse, but were able to win, was a great surprise to the whole world.
- Why would we have to collapse? After all, geographically and numerically, we surpassed Germany.
- Africa is also geographically superior to Europe, and India to England, nevertheless, before this, there were no examples in history of non-European societies successfully resisting European ones. And by the way, numerically, we are not so far superior to Germany. If we take the Reich of 1941 with all the annexed territories and satellite countries, then the difference in human resources we had was very small, and Germany’s technical, economic, and organizational advantage seemed huge.
HITLER WAS A RISK-TAKER, NOT SO STALIN
- Stalin, too, was actively preparing the country for war. Why could he not start it first?
- There are two main accusations against the Soviet prewar leadership. They are completely opposite, but often they somehow coexist schizophrenically in one head. First myth: the USSR, as it turned out, was not prepared for war, and therefore in the first few years our troops suffered a crushing defeat. Second myth: we were going to attack first. And that huge preparation for war — the country really worked under great stress, turning into a military camp — is interpreted as planning aggression. But Stalin was not a risk taker by nature; he was a very careful person and acted only when success was guaranteed. But Hitler’s whole policy was risky from the very beginning – thus, by getting involved in a war with Poland, the Nazis risked facing Britain and France, which were considered the strongest countries of Europe.
The offensive against the Soviet Union was for Hitler a campaign for resources to continue the war with the Anglo-Saxon countries. These had resources - colonies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
- But it wasn’t by chance that the USSR called more men to the army before the war, was it?
- No, but at the same time we did not mobilize. By the beginning of the war, we had 5 million people under arms. This is just over 12% of our potential recruiting resources, which were about 40 million people. And the Germans had from 7.5 to 8.5 million people under arms, with resources of 24 million, that is, a third of the male population. This immediately shows which country was about to fight in the summer of 1941, and which was not.
“Why didn't we mobilize ahead of time?”
- World War I broke out when Russia began mobilization, which turned out to be sufficient reason for Germany, Austria and Hungary to accuse us of aggressive aspirations and to declare war on us. Therefore, Stalin did not want to give Hitler the same kind of trump card.
But on the one hand, the lack of mobilization is proof that we were not prepared to attack first. On the other hand, our army had tripled in the two pre-war years compared to peacetime.
That we could not withstand the first blow was predictable. Countries that attacked first, whether Poland in the 1939, France in 1940, the British troops in Malaya or the US in the Philippines in 1941, all suffered terrible defeats from the very beginning. They were not prepared to conduct modern mobile wars. Therefore, having entered the war with the best army in the world, we too suffered very heavy losses. Our army was mostly conscription, and these were young guys, 18-21 years old, while the backbone of the German army were 30-year old experienced military men.
At the same time, no one was better prepared for long-term military actions than Stalin. In terms of their ability to shift the economy onto a war-time footing (all factories could produce products both for peace-time and war-time) no one could compare with us.
- The USSR is often called a quasi-ally of Hitler because of the non-aggression pact signed with Germany in 1939.
“On the other hand, they forget that at that time the USSR was already waging a war in the east against Japan.” At Khalkhin Gol, Japan lost more soldiers than Germany in Poland. We waited for a large-scale war to begin in the east. And when we signed a non-aggression pact with Germany, we were insuring ourselves against war on two fronts and putting off the deadline for the future inevitable clash with Germany.
“WE TREATED GERMAN POW’S BETTER THAN THEY DID OURS”
- Did we really cover the roads with corpses so that Hitler would not pass?
- According to official figures, the USSR lost 27 million people in the war. But that also included civilian casualties, not only those who were shot or died in concentration camps and in captivity, but also losses from excess mortality in the rear - from hunger and disease. The numbers of dead at the front are too difficult to estimate accurately. Losses at the front can be estimated at up to 10 million people – of those who wore overcoats – and this is quite comparable with the enemy’s losses. If we compare the conscript resources of the Wehrmacht against ours, then we lost no more than 170 soldiers per 100 enemy. If, as some say, we gave up 10 of our soldiers for 1 Fritz, by the end of the war the balance sheets would not tally. Such catastrophic losses as 10 to 1 could only be in the very first months of the war. By the middle - they were assumed to be equal, and by the end - they were already shaping up in our favour.
At the same time, most of the Soviet losses were our dead prisoners. The mortality of German soldiers in our captivity was much less. Although we could not provide the German soldiers even theoretically with the kind of content that Germany could give our prisoners. But Germany did not make any effort to give at least a minimum of calories to our soldiers. It was believed that we were an inferior race, so even if all the prisoners died, that was ok.
- Do you disagree with the view that Red Army men were just cannon fodder?
“IF SOLDIERS HAD BEEN SPARED, LOSSES WOULD HAVE TRIPLED”
- I had a debate with an Israeli colleague who said that the Soviet commanders did not take care of the soldiers, but the British commanders did so very humanely when they evacuated their army from Dunkirk. I answered that it was necessary to defend Dunkirk, as we defended Odessa and Sevastopol, and that if the British had not spared their soldiers, and had stayed in Dunkirk in 1940 and stopped Hitler, maybe there would have been no Holocaust. My Israeli colleague was shocked by this argument. But it is one thing when soldiers are killed, whose duty is to fight, and another thing when there is mass destruction of children, the elderly and women.
On average, every day of the war for 1 soldier who died in battle, there were 3 deaths of unarmed people in the rear and in captivity. It would have been possible, of course, to take care of the soldiers, and then the military losses would have been less. But a delay in the war meant increased mortality of the civilian population. So sorry for the soldiers in this case - humanism was conditional. We won partly because we were not afraid to take casualties. But there was more at stake than the death of soldiers. The death of an entire people was at stake.
- The Soviet soldier is often represented as a cruel rapist who did not spare German women. Is this so?
- This opinion is repeated by many Western media. They even provide a number - 2 million German women raped by Soviet soldiers. But all this propaganda is based only on a book published in the mid-90s by two German feminists, Helke Sander and Barbara Johr. They took data from the registration logs of two Berlin clinics from September 1945 to August 1946 and looked at how many newborns had Russian fathers. For these journals, they made calculations, and came to the figure of 2 million.
I conducted a parallel study based on the same data. And I got numbers that differ by a factor of 200! The fact is, Sander and Johr retained the racial thinking typical of Hitler's Reich. They basically denied the fact that German and Russian soldiers could enter into a relationship by mutual consent: for love, for commercial reasons, from longing for the opposite sex. In addition, these "researchers" suggested that Russian soldiers raped German women of all ages, indiscriminately.
- The same was said about the German soldiers, that they raped both young and old women.
- In any nation there are people with deviant behaviour, but we cannot judge a whole people based on them. But Sander and Johr decided that this was the norm for the Russians - and they made this the basis of the calculation. Then they considered that Germans raped by Russians absolutely must have had an abortion, although at that time abortions were very rare. According to the same clinics, only 34% of those who became pregnant through violence, particular by Americans and the Germans themselves, have an abortion. But these two "researchers" considered that the Russians were such vile animals, that all Germans would definitely have had abortions following such contact. Such racist assumptions inflated the number of raped women to an unprecedented degree.
- How much could it really be?
- Without racial "amendments" about 10 thousand rapes are calculated. This is the same level of violence that exists in modern Germany. That is, there were no more rapists among our soldiers who had gone through a terrible war, who had lost their loved ones, who had all the motives for revenge, than among modern burghers. And according to Berlin hospitals, there are no racial prejudices in German women: in 1947, when Berlin was already divided into four equal zones, the number of children born to Americans, Russians, British and French was about the same.
AFTER ACCESSION TO THE USSR MORTALITY IN THE BALTIC DECREASED BY A FACTOR OF 1.5
- In the liberal environment, a parallel is often drawn between Stalin and Hitler, referring to the fact that the USSR also pursued an aggressive policy, occupying the Baltic states and part of Poland.
- First, the USSR occupied only those territories that previously belonged to the Russian Empire, and the legitimacy of whose secession was controversial.
Secondly, during this “occupation” no blood was shed. The local population did not offer any resistance, but when the Germans entered, say, Yugoslavia, Greece and Poland - the resistance was fierce.
Thirdly, in contrast to Hitler's Germany, the USSR did not conduct any genocide of peoples in the annexed territories. They joined as equals. Yes, there were political repressions in the USSR, but not ethnic ones.
On the other hand, in the first 15 years after the war, compared with the pre-war level, mortality decreased by one and a half times in the Baltics, and even more in Moldova. If Estonia was the first country in Europe with a negative population growth before the war, then in the USSR it showed a positive spontaneous increase higher than in Sweden or Denmark. And in the territories occupied by Germany, there was real genocide. The Polish population decreased by 20% and the Belarusian by 25%.
The Soviet empire was very different from Hitler’s Reich and many other empires of the West in that all nations were equal. But democratic France, England and Holland did not allow any democracy in their colonies, and the discrimination there was fantastic. The standard of living of the Dutchman and the Indonesian differed by a factor of 50! These were, in fact, democratic Reichs, in keeping with Hitler’s — with superior and inferior nations.
"The US earned good money off the war"
- There is a point of view that the USA won the most in the Second World War, although it was the USSR that won it.
- All the nations that depended on the West before 1945 won. China won, which after the opium wars spent a half-century in deep depression. India won, ceasing to be a poor colony. Despite the enormous sacrifices, the Jewish people won, creating their own state - Israel. The Koreans won, freeing themselves from Japan and creating nuclear power on one hand and super-technology on the other. And many Western countries lost, despite the fact that they were in the winners’ camp. If you look at the long-term dynamics of GDP, the main “state-downshifter” was not Russia at all, but England. Before the war, it was above all the rest, and now it is getting closer to the average level.
Of the Western countries the USA got the best part of the bargain. With a minimum of human casualties, they made very good money off this war. The war-torn Western civilization rallied around it, and it became their leader. And it still receive dividends from it.
- And what benefit does the West derive from belittling our victory, from reassessing the results of the Second World War?
- This is another attempt to prove that Western civilization is still much better and higher. The same policy that gave Hitler the rationale for attacking our country.
I don’t think they’ll be as lucky this time around.
Posted in the following is our translation of an article from rueconomics.ru with commentary and notes in [brackets] by Vince Dhimos
The author of our translated article references the Kalibr missiles that first leapt out of Russian ships in the Caspian Sea and travelled 1500 kilometres to pinpoint terrorist targets in northern Syria. This incredibly long distance surprised and incensed those peace-loving people in the Pentagon who care deeply for their sweet “moderate” terrorists who never slit throats – except when they’re mad. Author Grigorev compares this surprise for the Americans to the surprise that awaits NATO when Russia first switches on its electronic warfare (EW) system in one of three locations to disrupt the controls of NATO ships and planes in Europe. The US Special Forces operating in Syria got a taste of this disruption when their AC-130 gunships were jammed and rendered useless, which Gen. Raymond Thomas whined about in April 2018. The US is in Syria without an invitation, while Russia is there at the request of the Syrian people, whose economy is being wrecked by US sanctions and whose infrastructure was wrecked by US-backed and Saudi-backed jihadis, and the US is whining like a baby!
The author also takes a much deserved whack at US ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman, who was hired to be a diplomat but clearly knows nothing about the subject. Defense News reports on the incursion of 2 US aircraft carriers (sometimes referred to as “floating coffins”) into the Mediterranean to scare Putin:
“Each of the carriers operating in the Mediterranean at this time represent 100,000 tons of international diplomacy,” Huntsman said aboard the Lincoln, according to a Navy news release. “Diplomatic communication and dialogue, coupled with the strong defences these ships provide, demonstrate to Russia that if it truly seeks better relations with the United States, it must cease its destabilizing activities around the world.”
Now, honestly, Jonny, you accuse Russia of destabilizing? Was it the Russians who financed and armed jihadists in Syria? Think really hard now. Did you forget that journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva dug up proof that the CIA was sending arms to Syrian terrorists, as reported here? Think that might fall under the category of “destabilizing”? The only thing Putin destabilized was US plans to destabilize Syria. And did you really think you could scare Putin with this silly statement? I mean, did you think he would, upon learning of these floating coffins in the Med, just suddenly drop to his knees and beg the US for forgiveness for fighting terror in Syria – something the US promised to do but didn’t? Jon, pay close attention now: One hypersonic Russian missile each could knock out these carriers within minutes (the Zirkon flies 1000 km every 5 sec). Does the US really want to endanger the lives of its sailors and pilots to get revenge on Putin for something he didn’t do?
A Russian analyst stated (my translation): “A massive launch of Zirkon missiles could destroy not only individual enemy ships but whole carrier strike groups.”
In view of this, Russia was quick to respond:
“I would like to believe that American megaphone diplomacy will not turn into megaton diplomacy,” said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, the ministry’s point man on arms control issues,” because in that case there would be no winners, and American diplomats will regret how they failed to find opportunities for normal, constructive dialogue with partners around the world. We regret the U.S. ambassador in Russia made such a statement.” [my highlighting]
Ostashko: Russia has a "surprise" for NATO more mind boggling than the Kalibr in Kaliningrad, Crimea and Syria
30 Апреля 2019
The latest Russian EW equipment will be for NATO a more mind boggling surprise than the "Kalibr" from the Caspian Sea. This was stated by political scientist and journalist Ruslan Ostashko.
According to the expert, while US Ambassador to Russia John Huntsman intimidated Russia with “hundreds of tons of diplomacy” in the form of American aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean, the Russians “silently went to work” deploying the electronic warfare system (EW) Murmansk-BN in Kaliningrad. This system, which has no analogues in the world, is capable of jamming control and radio communication complexes and systems of airplanes, ships, drones and military headquarters within a radius of 8 thousand km.
Considering that the distance between the two extreme points of Europe in the north and the south is 5 thousand km, Russia, operating in Kaliningrad is capable of numbing NATO throughout the Old World, plus a significant part of the adjacent waters. Ostashko is convinced that in the near future such EW systems will appear in Crimea and even in Syrian Tartus, which Moscow leased for the Navy for 49 years. This will expand Russia's capabilities for NATO's radio suppression to a critical level for the alliance.
"So what's up with 100 thousand tons of diplomacy, Mr. Huntsman? What will they cost if the launched missiles fly the wrong way, and the planes suddenly go haywire? I recall that in 2017 only 23 of the 59 American missiles fired at Syria flew. I wonder what tricks the Murmansk-BN system is capable of. Let these opportunities be a surprise for the wretched "partners", as was the case with the range of Kalibr missiles after they were launched from the Caspian Sea on terrorists in Syria, "Ostashko said on the air of YouTube channel PolitRossia.
It should be noted that the system "Murmansk-BN" in Kaliningrad, according to the General Staff of the Russian Navy, will serve the Baltic Fleet of the Russian Federation. The complex was successfully tested under conditions as close as possible to combat, back in 2018. The principle of operation of Murmansk-BN is based on continuous automatic collection of data on signal sources within the range: at the same time, the system determines the interference power sufficient to suppress each target.
Author: Grigory Egorov
Putin warned that an invasion of Venezuela by the US would have "catastrophic consequences."
Though Putin didn’t enter into details on what such consequences would be, a quick look at the situation on the ground suggests that the consequences would be borne by the US military, particularly by its aircraft and pilots.
Militarywatchmagazine published an article entitled “How Capable is Venezuela of Defending its Airspace.” After reviewing the technical features of the various US Air Force aircraft, the article concludes that the F-22 would be the only candidate for defeating the Russian S-300, Buk-2M and Pantsir-1 air defence systems on the ground, but that even that would not be a safe bet and that a US invasion of Venezuela is therefore out of the question.
The Pentagon knows that China and Russia have each, independently of each other, been working to develop quantum radar that can make their “stealth” fighters like the F-35 and F-22 show up on a screen. What they don’t know is whether this new radar has been used in Syria, but they do know that Israel succeeded in taking out Pantsir systems supposedly equipped with the Russians’ best radar system. However, as pointed out by Russian military experts, the Russian equipment installed in Syria may not have been used properly by the less well-trained operators, who appear to have been negligent at critical times. However, there are now 100 Russian specialists in Venezuela who may – for all we know – not only be training their Venezuelan counterparts in the proper use of the air defence systems but may in fact intend to be at the controls at all times in the event of a US attack. Some of them may even be sitting in the cockpits of Venezuela’s Soviet aircraft in the event of an attack.
I had written last November about a novel quantum radar system shown by China at the Zhuhai air show, which can show up any aircraft, stealth or non, in an actual image complete with outlines, on the radar screen from a distance of up to 100 km. The article presented in translation following my commentary carried the disclosure:
“Work on quantum emitters is being carried out in Russia - on the basis of the Institute of Long-Range Radar.”
Our translation below of an article from politros.com (with this commentary and notes in [brackets] by Vince Dhimos) points out that Russia has a new kind of photon-based radar that can see “stealth” aircraft like the F-22 or the F-35 and if used in Venezuela, would render these lovely overpriced American birds useless. Recall that the F-35 cost over a trillion dollars to develop. Our translated article does not mention the word quantum, but quantum radar is based on entangled photons fired into space, as mentioned in the translated article below. I had written in my commentary to that November article:
“The mysterious field of quantum optics is based on the impossible: a particle (called an entangled photon) left in a radar system will undergo changes mirroring the same changes in a particle (another entangled photon) far away – as far as 100 km. It’s a phenomenon that Einstein called “spooky action.” Einstein predicted this based on his thought research but said it was unlikely to occur in the real world.”
Although the Pentagon knows Russia could already be using this wonder radar, and despite the warnings of military experts, both security adviser John Bolton and secretary of state Mike Pompeo – neither of whom have military credentials – are pushing hard to persuade Donald Trump and the Pentagon to devise a plan for a military invasion of Venezuela, against the counsel of the experienced military planners in the Pentagon who have had a lifetime of professional education and experience. Remember that Trump has a virtually uninterrupted history of blundering into areas that he knows nothing about, such as the tariffs on Chinese exports that he promised would reduce the trade deficit but wound up giving the US the highest trade deficit in history and almost ruined America’s soybean and pig farmers in the bargain, while his embargo of primary aluminium from the Russian company Rusal almost ruined the US secondary aluminium industry, which had warned the president that this would happen. He hadn’t grasped the concept that it takes primary aluminium to produce secondary products.
It is worth mentioning that while Bolton is not a religious man and might be a classical example of a warmongering madman, Mike Pompeo is, like Mike Pence, a convinced “Christian” Zionist, ie, an adherent of a massively popular cult, accounting for an estimated 70% of US Evangelicals, that puts a peculiar far-fetched interpretation of the Bible ahead of all other considerations in terms of foreign and military policy. (I described this cult and its total contradiction of Christ’s teachings and perversion of the Bible, here). Whereas most of these cultists (the majority of US Evangelicals), if faced with a life-threatening medical emergency, would choose the services of a professional, eg, a surgeon for performing a potentially life-saving operation on themselves or a family member, primarily on the basis of the professional’s background and reputation and regardless of his religious views, yet they insist that a foreign policy expert (who, to succeed, requires at least as much finesse and deep knowledge as a surgeon), needs only meet one and only one criterion for making all foreign policy and military decisions, namely, a special interpretation of the Bible that attributes a key role to Israel – but not to Christians teachings, mind you! To be effective, every president and his cabinet really ought to be experts in foreign policy but, thanks to this peculiar American way of thinking, none are. At a time when the survival of the nation and, in this nuclear age, the very life of planet earth, is at stake, professional military and diplomatic knowledge and skills are considered irrelevant by millions of Evangelical Americans, and also, in this Trump era, by many of their leaders, whom they voted for and enthusiastically promoted as candidates. For them, foreign policy, the profession intended to maintain peaceful relations with foreign countries of all faiths, political systems and cultures, is the purview of a priest or pastor, not a skilled professional. This viewpoint is reflected, for example, in Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, disregarding the fact that a major part of that city (known as al-Quds in Arabic) is the second holiest site in Islam, is of great importance to all Muslims, and will therefore impact US relations with all 1.8 billion Muslims in the world. Considering that Putin shows great respect for his Muslim population and to the Muslim population of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Iran and even the Muslims of the terror-exporting nations like Saudi and the Gulf statelets, and is, with this more friendly and, frankly, more Christ-like policy, making great strides in the Muslim world, if the US had an ounce of diplomacy, cultural sensitivity or common sense, it would take this enormous population group into account before hastily giving the entire city to Israel, which is perceived by most Muslims as having unfairly seized Arab Muslim lands during that tumultuous early period of Israel’s founding prior to 1948, ie, the early years of the Nakba (portrayed in this video) – an Arabic word for “catastrophe,” the Palestinians’ answer to the Holocaust. Except that, unlike the Holocaust, the Nakba is still in progress, with the IDF implementing a policy to shoot and kill or maim unarmed protesters in Gaza and now, thanks to Trump’s encouragement, discussing plans to annex Palestine, kicking millions of Arabs out onto the street, just as they did in the process of founding Israel – with unswerving support of the US, backed by the millions of “Christian” Israel-worshipping zealots. Israel relies almost solely on US complicity with its horrendous policies, which violate the commandments of their own sacred scriptures to say nothing of the New Testament, and in turn, the US government draws its support for Israel mostly from the “Christian” Zionists, who in a very real way, are the architects of US foreign and military policy. For both “Christian” Zionists and the Israeli government, Muslims are less than human and undeserving of life.
These US cultists believe that as long as US foreign and military policy is pro-Israel and the politicians and officials in charge of it are true believers, then God will see to it that the US is protected against all harm. They point to Old Testament accounts of heroes like Joshua whose army fought the battle of Jericho, bringing down the defensive walls of the city simply by blowing trumpets as commanded by God. Unlike the US, these biblical leaders never were harmed in battle and never lost a war as long as they obeyed God’s commands (the fact that the US, whose Evangelical citizens hold to these beliefs, always loses its wars never seems to bother these cultists, who never ask themselves whether their own departure from Christ’s teachings might be to blame for their unbroken chain of failures). Obviously, in the case of Old Testament heroes there was no need for strategic planning, and, in the minds of “Christian” Zionists, the God of Abraham could likewise cause the US to win a war without any planning at all if the policies followed duly genuflected to Israel (though the Iraq war was promoted by Netanyahu, and yet it was a tragedy for the indigenous Iraqi Christians). This is the same kind of blind religious zeal that inspired the leaders of the Peasants War in Europe and their followers, and you may recall that every one of these leaders, such as Thomas Müntzer, after sowing death, destruction and chaos throughout the countryside in the unswerving conviction that they were doing God’s will, generally wound up being burned at the stake. Trump himself seems to adhere to this cult’s beliefs. America is now back in the 16th Century.
Chinese media: how Russia can turn American aircraft into "trash"
The Chinese publication Mil.news.sina devoted one of its articles to Russia’s latest developments in the field of armaments. “PolitRossia” presents excerpts from this article especially for its readers.
The authors of Mil.news.sina pointed out that in recent years Russia has paid great attention to the development of its armed forces. Within the framework of the military developmental program, the troops are provided with new equipment, and new-generation weapon systems are being developed. Over the past 20 years, serious funds have been invested in the development of naval, air force, and missile weapons.
“The Russians’ idea is very simple. Nuclear weapons will protect the country from the aggression of large states. Fighters, warships, and other tactical weapons will guarantee Russia's victory in a smaller local conflict,” write the Chinese journalists.
One of the most promising Russian projects, according to the authors at Mil.news.sina, is the development of a microwave photon radar, which will be equipped with the next generation of combat aircraft. In particular, the Su-57 fighter. According to experts, this device can bring the potential of Russian aviation to a new level.
According to the developers, the efficiency of this photon radar will be at least 60-70%. For comparison, the efficiency of a conventional radar station (radar) is about 30-40%. In addition, the range of the new device will significantly expand.
“Since we will irradiate the enemy in an unprecedented broad frequency spectrum, we will detsermine its position in space with the utmost precision,” said Vladimir Mikheev, a representative of the company Radio Electronic Technologies.
Due to the wide dynamic range of the receiver, the new radar will be virtually immune to enemy interference. Thus, the American electronic "jammers," along with the aircraft itself, will turn into useless "trash." Another advantage is the size of this device. Its weight and size are almost two times less than such complexes, which provides serious design advantages. The radar can be made in the form of a thin plate attached directly to the surface of the aircraft.
Thus, modern stealth aircraft will be completely ineffective against this radar. The first tests of the prototype of the device demonstrated that it could give rise to a new era in the military aircraft industry. Most likely, Russia’s rating of this device is quite justified.
“If the Russians succeed in unlocking the potential of the radar, the fifth-generation fighter Su-57 will be unequaled in the air,” the Chinese experts concluded.
Earlier, “PolitRussia” quoted the words of the Romanian expert Valentina Vasilescu, who appreciated the combat potential of the Su-57 fighter.
Author: Stanislav Blokhin
Vince Dhimos answered a question in Spanish at Quora:
Will there be war with Russia in Venezuela?
If the United States invaded Venezuela, there would be war, but it is very unlikely that the US would so anything that drastic.
There are several reasons why the United States will probably refrain from military action.
For one thing, Trump knows that if he starts a war and America loses a lot of soldiers and military equipment, such as planes and naval vessels, his chances of re-election next year would be compromised.
Secondly, Trump learned to respect the Russians last April when he announced plans to fire missiles into Syria as punishment for a "chemical attack" in Douma, that probably did not occur.
After this announcement, the Russian Ministry of Defence stated that it would not interfere to prevent the missile attack but that if the US missiles hit any Russian targets, such as personnel or equipment, the Russians reserved the right to destroy the platforms from which the missiles were launched (meaning US naval vessels). Just one month prior to this, in April, Putin had presented a report to the Russian general assembly regarding several new Russian missiles such as the Kinzhal, which flies at hypersonic speed and is capable of destroying targets in the US at a distance of several thousand kilometres within less than an hour and cannot be intercepted by any known means. This made the Pentagon very nervous because indeed the US has no means of intercepting such missiles. Therefore, during this April attack with US Tomahawk missiles, the US military was extremely careful not to hit any Russian targets. The US fear of reprisals was so great that Trump refrained from making such attacks on Syria after that time and attempted to pull out of Syria altogether (this attempt was thwarted by other US officials, however).
It is easy to see that he would also fear making such an attack on Venezuela, where at least 100 Russian troops are currently stationed.
Finally, Reuters has reported recently that Saudi Arabia may stop selling its oil in dollars. It has also recently warned the US to stop imposing sanctions on Russia, its partner in OPEC.
[Link to English language report not cited in my Spanish language response:
[Spanish language article cited originally]:
It would therefore be imprudent for the US to attempt an attack on Venezuela because Saudi Arabia is siding with Russia.
END OF TRANSLATED QUORA ANSWER
My previous articles on this subject:
MOSCOW-RIYADH SUMIT – PETRODOLLAR IN THE BALANCE
UH OH! SAUDIS SIDE WITH PUTIN AGAINST U.S. SANCTIONS
From Voltairenet with our gratitude.
Military expert. Former deputy commander of the Otopeni military airport in Romania.
Military intervention cannot overthrow the Venezuelan government
by Valentin Vasilescu
While several Latin American states and US Special Forces seem to be preparing to attack Venezuela, Valentin Vasilescu examines the balance of power and topography. According to him, no form of invasion can defeat this vast country defended by a jungle much larger than in Vietnam. Any intervention can only aim to destabilize the country, not overthrow its government.
VOLTAIRE NETWORK | BUCHAREST (ROMANIA) | 8 MARCH 2019
JPEG - 57.4 kb
Scenario of the South American War
The foreign invasion of Venezuela is only possible by Brazil, Colombia and Guyana, three neighboring states of Venezuela. Theoretically, there are at least three axes of invasion.
Colombia has Kfir, A-37 and A-29 Tucano aircrafts that have no chance against the Buk-M2, S-125, S-300 and Venezuelan F-16 and Su-30 aircrafts. The same is true for Brazilian planes in the face of medium and long range air defense and against Venezuelan aviation.
Because of their low ceiling, the Tucano A-29 turboprop aircrafts are constantly evolving within the reach of the 5,000 Venezuelan portable anti-aircraft missiles SA-24 (Igla-S).
The F-5, A-4, AMX-1A, Kfir and A-37 do not have precision guided weapons and attack at altitudes of 2,000 to 3,000 meters, making them vulnerable to the same SA-24 missiles. portable (Igla- S).
A land invasion from Guyana is unlikely. This small country has neither the abilities nor the physical capacity: there is no road through the river and the delta of the Orinoco, nor the possibility of moving tanks through the jungle. Brazil is the least likely to succeed.
Because before coming into contact with the main Venezuelan forces, the Brazilian army must also travel 500 km in the jungle.
Further, the Orinoco River is a very difficult obstacle for the Brazilians, who do not have mobile bridges or other engineering equipment.
Regarding the air defence of land forces, Brazil and Colombia have only portable missiles for a ceiling of 5,000 m, while the Venezuelans have Su-30-launched KAB-500 and KAB-1500 laser-guided bombs and Kh-29 missiles with an altitude of 10,000 m
The most likely axis for the offensive is Colombia. However, the relief does not favour a Colombian offensive, because it would be stopped at Lake Maracaibo, which would have to be bypassed to the east following a corridor from 15 to 20 km long, easily defended by the Venezuelan army.
The best option would be to open a bypass with the Colombian air base equivalent to a brigade, and to parachute to the South-East at the Andean Cordillera. But this option is also impossible because Colombia has 5 C-130s and 8 C-295s, with which only 2 or 3 infantry companies can be parachuted.
Colombia also has a much lower combat force than Venezuela because it relies on infantry with light armour; further, it has no tanks and its artillery is scattered and towed by trucks. In comparison, Venezuela has 2S19 Msta self-propelled artillery tanks, BM-30 Smerch tanks, BM-21 Grad, LAR and T-72.
A Brazilian maritime expedition of the 1st Marine Infantry Brigade aboard helicopter carriers and landing ships may complicate the situation of the defenders of Venezuela. Venezuela can attack the group of landing ships on 100 to 200 km of coast with Kh-31A1 and Kh-59ME anti-ship missiles launched by Su-30s.
The scenario of an US invasion
Only a US military invasion can overthrow Nicolas Maduro, as was the case in Iraq and Libya. But in the meantime, Russia has changed its foreign policy and has demonstrated in Syria that it is able to defend its allies. Due to the high economic interest in Venezuela, Russia and China, even if they will not send troops, will provide them with high-level and wide-ranging types of weapons to prevent a US invasion.
The United States is the largest naval power in the world and has two naval infantry corps. This is why the main offensive axis could be opened by a US landing. The sinking of 1 to 2 aircraft carriers and several US amphibious landing ships would mean the impossibility of obtaining air supremacy and reduced chances of creating a naval infantry beachhead on the Venezuelan coast.
This goal is easily achieved with the 1,000 mile long Zircon hypersonic missile and the 1,400 km Kalibr 3M-54 cruise missile. If Venezuela had these missiles, it could hit the US group of expeditionary ships south of the Bahamas, 500 km from Miami. However, I do not think Russia would deliver Zircon and Kalibr missiles to the Venezuelans. It could, however, offer Bastion systems and Kh-59MK2 air-to-air missiles, with a range of 550 km, usable on Su-30 aircraft.
A Bastion-equipped Russian missile-borne missile battery uses four P-800 Oniks mobile missile launchers. The missile has a mass of 3 tons, a wingspan of 1.7 m and a powerful warhead of 250 kg. Propulsion is provided by a ramjet cruise engine (supersonic ramjet), similar to that of the Zircon missile. The P-800 missile has a range of 350 to 600 km, and a speed Mach 2.5 (700 m/s). On the trajectory, at the cruising ceiling of 14,000 m, the missile is guided by satellite. Near the target, the P-800 locks on to to the target, descends to a height of up to 10 m and performs change of direction maneuvers.
In this situation, Venezuela would be able to cope with the US Expeditionary Force group located south of the islands of Haiti and Puerto Rico. The likely accuracy gap of the Oniks P-800 missile is 1.5 m, which means that the target is 100% hit in the case of an aircraft carrier, a helicopter carrier, a cruiser or destroyer, all longer than 100 m.
The only possibility is a coordinated bombing of NATO (USA, France, Netherlands, United Kingdom) and Latin American States (Brazil, Colombia, Guyana) on targeted targets. In this case, it would not be an invasion, but would cause the destruction of some Venezuelan structures.