I keep mulling over the likely course of the US/Russia confrontation we will see if HRC is elected. She will try to face down Putin, to no avail. Putin is a cool-headed and very capable strategic thinker and will have gamed-out the various scenarios. He will do what he has to do to prevent the situation getting out of hand. With that as a premise, I ask myself "How will he do that? What plan of action by Putin will prevent (or more crucially, halt) an out-of-control escalation?"
First and foremost of course is to put the entire Russian nation in a state of readiness. Civil defense for the civilian population, and defensive deployment and a highest state of readiness among both the conventional military and the strategic nuclear forces. That's just the bedrock of strategic deterrence: eliminate the element of surprise and with it any hope of first-strike effectiveness.
But let's say HRC gets militant and arrogant, and persuades herself -- all those marvelous weapons and enthusiastic generals -- that Putin will inevitably have to back down, and having thus persuaded herself, decides she can get away with attacking Russian forces in Syria. How will Putin be ready for that? What can he do?
I don't much like indulging in this sort of speculation, because there are so many known unknowns that I can't avoid feeling that I'm talking out my ass, and also because it appeals to my inner GI Joe.
That said, I stumbled upon a strategy that seemed to have a very compelling logic, so allow me to share it with you.
There are a number of relatively safe and semi-conventional -- destructive and disabling but "non-lethal" -- preventive attacks short of all out war: attacks that do not involve human casualties -- electronic warfare, cyber warfare, destruction of the US satellite fleet, and a limited EMP attack to degrade/disable certain assets while simultaneously send a message.
Not very interesting.
But if Putin's Russia and HRC's Pentagon death machine are nose-to-nose, sphincters rigid, ready (various insane generals more or less enthusiastic) to destroy the world, what could stop that in its tracks?
The Russians are very discreet when it comes to issuing "threats". They seem to favor a very light -- dare I say "diplomatic" -- touch, issuing an almost neutral assertion, but one that carries with it a cautionary element. Two have been issued recently: a little-noticed announcement that Russia plans a test of an airborne ***anti-satellite*** laser, and a comment from Maria Zakharova, Russia's Foreign Affairs spokesperson, that a US attack on Syrian/ Russian forces would have "tectonic consequences" in the Mideast.
Focusing on the latter comment: what might these "tectonic consequences" entail? If the US and Russia are nose-to-nose, US psychopaths -- HRC/Neocons/Pentagon -- unwilling to back down, locked on a course to blow up the world, notwithstanding the threat of mutual annihilation, what could stop that seemingly unstoppable march to war?
Call me crazy, but if at that point Putin de-fangs or annihilates Israel with a brace of nuclear weapons, any confrontation between the US and Russia would come to a screeching halt.
While the US would most assuredly retaliate for a nuclear attack on the US, the end of the world notwithstanding, they would not commit suicide in response to an attack on Israel. And since all the problems in the Mideast, as well as the rising antagonism toward Russia, originate with Israel through the Neocon/AIPAC domination of US foreign policy -- Oded Yinon plan and the Wolfowitz Doctrine -- the destruction of Israel would -- in a stroke -- moot virtually the entire US foreign policy.
The destruction of Israel would not only eliminate the cancer at the heart of the "Clash of Civilizations", but knock everyone back on their heels with an apocalypse-lite demonstration of what a full-on apocalypse would look like. Plus, the non-Jewish world would secretly be delighted to see the Zionists gone.
Nasty? Absolutely. But nowhere near as nasty as a full-on nuclear exchange.
Okay, your turn.
No comments:
Post a Comment