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:
https://www.lebanonews.net/En/2017/11/21/new-evidence-shows-saudi-arabia-israel-assassinated-rafic-hariri/
 
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:
 
QUOTE:
 
“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:
 
QUOTE:
 
“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.

uninvited
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.
 
https://ria.ru/20190509/1553358446.html
 
BEGIN TRANSLATION
 
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]
 
BEGIN TRANSLATION
 
Ostashko: Russia has a "surprise" for NATO more mind boggling than the Kalibr in Kaliningrad, Crimea and Syria
 
30 Апреля 2019
 
https://rueconomics.ru/390455-ostashko-rasskazal-o-svodyashem-s-uma-syurprize-rf-dlya-nato-v-kaliningrade-krymu-i-sirii
 
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
 
END TRANSLATION

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.
  
 
 
BEGIN TRANSLATION
 
 
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?

https://es.quora.com/Si-EUA-interviene-en-Venezuela-habr%C3%ADa-guerra-con-Rusia/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
Translation:
 
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:
 
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Saudis-Threaten-Nuclear-Option-To-Kill-Petrodollar.html]
 
[Spanish language article cited originally]:
 
https://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/310809-arabia-saudita-petroleo-dolares-eeuu-nopec
 
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
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/international-relations/moscow-riyadh-summit-petrodollar-in-the-balance
 
 
UH OH! SAUDIS SIDE WITH PUTIN AGAINST U.S. SANCTIONS
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/international-relations/uh-on-saudis-side-with-putin-against-us-sanctions
​

From Voltairenet with our gratitude.
 
Military expert. Former deputy commander of the Otopeni military airport in Romania.
 
https://www.voltairenet.org/article205550.html
 
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.
 
Valentin Vasilescu
 
Translation
 
Jean-Louis Scarsi

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?
 
BEGIN TRANSLATION


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.
 
Foreign equivalents
 
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

END TRANSLATION

 

 
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).
 
BEGIN TRANSLATION
 
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.
 
BEGIN TRANSLATION
 
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
 
END TRANSLATION
 
RUSSIA PROVES IT DID NOT VIOLATE THE INF TREATY – US IGNORES PROOF
 
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/military-affairs/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
 
START TRANSLATION
 
https://www.kp.ru/daily/26933.4/3983058/
 
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.”
 
Further:
 
- 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.
 
END TRANSLATION