Skip to main content

Putin's "cancer cure"?


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.


    Comments

    Popular posts from this blog

    re censorship at antiwar.com

    Really, Thomas? Who is the drama queen here? You're embarrassing yourself with this name calling. My comment disappeared. What am I to think, you're on a coffee break? So I posted the link to my backup, my all-but-invisible, low-traffic,... make that no-traffic,... blog. The "rules" you cite give the Jews a free pass on their complicity in the Zionist project. It's ok to criticize Zionism or Israel, but not the Jews that make their crimes possible. That appears to be the rule, and it amounts to Antiwar.com caving to Jewish/Zionist intimidation. It may be discretion -- as in "discretion is the better part of valor" -- but absent the lethality of bullets-and-bombs-combat, it's cowardly. It was cowardly then, as it is cowardly now. That said, it ***IS*** Justin's website and he gets to decide on when "discretion" -- strategic restraint -- is called for. I've had this issue since before you were moderator. Someone Jewis...

    Sunshine on the Suck-ups

    In response to an article -- "a splendid little war could end Trump's presidency" --  by Jim Jatras https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/a-splendid-little-war-could-end-trumps-presidency-/ Jatras is a perfect example of the comprehensive cluelessnesss of the political class. Here, on display is the reason US foreign policy has been a flat out disaster for the last thirty years. Generations in the echo chamber of foreign policy "expertise", where the rule is bobble-headed yes-man servility and craven obsequiousness to the interests of the 1%, has lead US foreign policy to a place where an enforced and self-reinforcing notion of "expertise" is in fact zombified incompetence. Trump is in the big chair. That Jatras cannot see him except through the lens of "a shallow, superficial, unqualified Twitter-addicted unstable personality who never should have been allowed into the Oval Office..." clearly indicates that a war for the definition of ...

    Right to exist, right to self-defense.....not!

    The following is a post I made to The Algemeiner, an online Jewish publication, in response to "Golda Meir was no J-Streeter", http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/09/08/golda-meir-was-no-j-streeter/#comment-4474211. Like many Jewish publications The Algemeiner has a limited tolerance for the truth when the truth is critical of Israel and its supporters, and so, not surprisingly, the comment was deleted by "moderation". I reprint it here for your consideration. ************************** Make no mistake, I’m an American and a Jew. For those of you thoroughly infected with the Judiasm-destroying poison of Zionism, here is the antidote to your Kool-aid dreams. Drink deeply and wake up to reality. We often hear the phrase “Israel’s right to exist” and along with it, “Israel’s right to self-defense.” Hear them endlessly, by propagandists who repeat them endlessly. But endless repetition does not make a thing true. The phantom “legiti...