The following is our translation of an article from rueconomics.ru with commentary by Vince Dhimos.
Have you noticed that all US threats of military force against Russia and states it defends are bluff? Of course, one of these days, a US threat could become reality, God forbid, but ever since the second Tomahawk attack in Syria, the US has been fastidiously careful to avoid targeting Russian assets and personnel. That is clearly because the Russian MoD told the US, before its missile strike, that it would not interfere with the strike as long as it did not hit Russian targets. But if it should do so, then Russia reserved the right not only to shoot down the cruise missiles themselves but also to strike the platforms whence they came – which would have meant the US or allied naval ships. In a very real sense, this marked the end of an era and the beginning of another. The US now realizes that it cannot go around indiscriminately attacking sovereign states where Russian assets might be present (Venezuela comes to mind). Thus when Kay Bailey Hutchinson, US envoy to the UN, said the US might just have to go and “take out” the Russian missiles considered to violate the INF, it wasn’t long before she walked back that remark. No surprises there. And when Admiral Richardson called on Washington to strike first in Russia, he was either stone cold drunk or he was bluffing.
Bluffing is the new US military strategy, to which the US seems to be confined at this point, particularly now that Putin showed off Russia’s new hypersonic missiles at the Federal Assembly last March and then tested these successfully in December. Our recent translation of the article on Russia’s ability to wipe out the entire US with nuclear-missile volley from a single Borey-class submarine should have been sufficient warning to the Trump administration, but then again, since when have Trump and his Neocon crew been fazed by reality? Think US debt (as analysed here and here), fracking (as analysed here), sanctions (as analysed here and here), Ukraine (as analysed here), Relations with Saudi and Israel (as analysed here) and US LNG sales to Europe (as analysed here). None of this is to focus on Trump. All administrations have dealt with these issues similarly. US administrations are all controlled as explained here, so that no one ever need worry that the will of the people might be done).
The Russian Defence Ministry will give a crushing response to the "first blow" of the United States
February 9, 2019 Washington, United States
US Navy Admiral John Richardson called on Washington "to strike first" in Russia, which "is capturing key waterways." But Konstantin Blokhin, an expert at the Centre for Security Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, calls such a scenario highly unlikely, as it will surely turn lead to a response from the Russian Defence Ministry, which will have devastating consequences and cause unacceptable damage to the United States.
During a speech at the Atlantic Council, the head of US Navy naval operations, Admiral John Richardson, called on Washington to be the "first to strike" in Russia. According to him, which leads the publication of Business Insider, Russia "seizes key water lines" and has already significantly increased its naval presence in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Richardson also urges the United States not only to think about how to fight back, but also to "apply pressure in a few regions." In addition, the American admiral called for greater rigidity towards China.
With his words about a “first strike,” Richardson is trying to focus attention on himself. Now such a scenario is extremely unlikely. The United States can take such a step only if there is an absolute guarantee of victory. In the event of a conflict with Russia, of course, no one will give them such a guarantee. Americans are traditionally ready to fight only against very weak countries, whose GDP is not comparable with them, as in the case of Iraq or Afghanistan. But even in this case, as the experience of Vietnam and Afghanistan has shown, no one can guarantee victory for them.
Blokhin further commented to FBA Ekonomika Segodnya: “Moreover, all US military-policy thought is based on the idea that America has become great precisely because of its reluctance to engage in global conflicts. The conflict with Russia will automatically be total and global, so the American society, which is very sensitive to losses, is hardly ready to implement such a scenario. Syria’s experience, on the contrary, showed the ability of the two countries’ military to effectively engage in cooperation.”
Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, called the contacts through the Russian and American military in Syria the “only positive example” of effective cooperation that allows Russia and the United States to “prevent serious air incidents.” However, in all other respects, the head of the Ministry of Defence believes that more active dialogue is needed. At the same time, Shoigu is confident that Moscow and Washington can jointly resolve strategic issues of nuclear deterrence and resolve major long-standing conflicts.
“The Defence Ministry really established very good contacts with the American side during the conflict in Syria, which made it possible to effectively prevent any collisions in the air. The Syrian experience clearly shows that the Americans are not ready to take another risk, simply participating with Russia in one conflict, not to mention the mythical “first strike.” They understand that even if several bombs fall on American territory in a response by Moscow, they will have devastating consequences and unacceptable damage for the United States itself.
Even in the 1990s, the United States did not dare to take such a step, because such is possible only under the condition of absolute technological domination over Russia. But now the situation with the equipment of the Russian army has changed dramatically, and in the fieldof hypersonic weapons, for example, the United States is already playing catch-up. In this context, Richardson's words are cheap self-praise that fits into the general line of the Anglo-Saxon establishment to contain Russia,” says Konstantin Blokhin.
Recall that Russia today has a fairly wide range of hypersonic weapons, which includes the Kinzhal system, the Zircon anti-ship missile, the Kh-32 air-based missile, and the Avangard hypersonic ballistic planning unit. But our country is not stopping there. As Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu noted, already in 2019–2020, in response to the US withdrawal from the INF range, a ground-based version of the Kalibr complex with increased range and hypersonic land-based missiles will be created in Russia. The mirror response measures of the Ministry of Defence follow the direct instructions of the president.
Author: Andrey Petrov