Yes, Russia is *still* ready for war – even nuclear war

Via Vineyard of the Saker

On March 1st of last year I wrote an article entitled “Obama just made things much, much worse in the Ukraine – now Russia is ready for war” in which I wrote the following: “I hope and pray that Obama, and his advisers, stop and think carefully about their next step, because make no mistake about that RUSSIA IS READY FOR WAR.”  Using bolded red caps was my hope to get everybody’s attention, including the various US analysts reading my blog and thinking that maybe I knew a little something about Russia.  This was the first time in my (now ex-) career as a military analyst that I delivered such a warning, and it is a sweet irony for me that it was made publicly and not behind all sorts of secrecy walls.

I STILL very much believe that Russia is ready for war.  And by “ready” I mean two things:

a) Russia is morally and psychologically willing to use military force to defend herself against the Empire

b) Russia does have the military means to defend herself against the Empire.

I fully agree with a recent article on Russia Insider entitled “NATO Would Probably Lose A War Against Russia“.  I don’t know who the “Shellback” who wrote this article is, but I can immediately recognize a fellow “cold warrior” who, like me, must have spent many hours studying the works of V.G. Reznichenko and David Glantz and who knows what he is talking about.  You can take what “Shellback” wrote to the bank.

Recently, the Times of London posted an article about threats allegedly made by senior Russian intelligence officers to their western colleagues.  Since the Times’ website is behind a pay-wall, I will direct you to this reprint from The Australian.  Let me immediately say, that all the details given about the alleged meeting sound totally true to me and that I have no reason whatsoever to doubt that this time around, The Times actually printed a true story.  I am aware of the fact that Putin’s spokesman, Peskov, has immediately denied the story, but in this (very rare) case, I still believe the western corporate media.  Why?  Because everything in the story is absolutely credible.  In particular these excerpts:

Among the “key messages delivered by Russian participants” was a warning that any military move by the West on Crimea would trigger a Russian response, possibly involving nuclear force. “The United States should also understand it would also be at risk.”

The Russian delegation said that any NATO build-up in the Baltics would prompt an increase in Russia’s “nuclear posture”, according to notes drawn up by a US participant. The warning is baldly recounted: “Russia will use its nuclear weapons against NATO.”

When discussing possible Russian action in the Baltics, it reported: “Russian members mentioned a spectrum of responses from nuclear to non-military.”

The most trenchant Russian remarks on eastern Europe were delivered by the former military intelligence chief Valentin Korabelnikov, who remains a senior adviser to the defence ministry. Since the GRU masterminded the annexation of Crimea, he is likely to have been involved in the planning. He said that the biggest threat to Russia was US activity along its borders, according to notes taken by Kevin Ryan, a retired US brigadier-general who served as defence attaché in Moscow.

Most people in the West, especially those who have not yet ditched their Idiot-Tube, are getting influenced by propaganda, whether they realized it or not.  Just living in a highly propagandized society makes you absorb a lot of that propaganda, as if by osmosis.  One such propaganda myth is about the condition and readiness of the Russian military.  Of course, it is a very cozy “feel good” feeling to “know” that your military is just “the best”, as if by definition, but the reality is very different and ignoring it is very dangerous.  Here are the raw facts:

1. In the Ukraine Russia has a *huge* terrain advantage over the US/NATO, simply because the Ukraine is right across Russia’s border.  NATO simply does not have the power projection capability or numbers to intervene in the Ukraine.

2. The Russian Ground Forces are much tougher, better trained and better commanded that their NATO counterparts.

3. The Russian Air Force is more capable that NATO’s, both in terms of personnel and in terms of equipment.

4.  Russian Air Defense Forces are the best on the planet.

5. Russian nuclear forces are much more modern and capable than the US ones.

6. Russian special forces are, by far, the most capable on the planet and, unlike their US counterparts, their combat record (Operation Storm-333, “Polite Green Men” in Crimea) proves it.  In any Ukrainian war, they will play a key role.

[Sidebar: Western propaganda always makes loud claims about this or that kind of training, this or that kind of weapons, this or that kind of quotes and statements about super-dooper, super-secret, “best in the world”, special forces, but I simply look at the combat record.  You can train all you want, and spend 100 days in the desert eating lizards, but unless you have some real war time combat success to show, I don’t take your claims seriously.  Recently,  a commentator wrote that the best infantry in the world was the Australian one, because they had learned their skills from the Bushman.  Great.  One look at the territory currently controlled by the Bushmen and the size of Russia will tell you everything you need to know about that claim :-]

Now, make no mistake: Russia does not want war.  If Russia wanted war, Putin would have sent the Russian military into the Donbass last year.  In fact, Russia does not even want another “cold” war in Europe.  But Russia is prepared to defend herself, if the AngloZionist Empire insists on making her submit to its hegemony.

As for Crimea, it is simply not negotiable.  Any attempt to break Crimea away from Russia will be considered as an attack on Russia.  You might as well try to seize the Kremlin.

Lastly, notice that I said “Russia is ready”.  Not “Putin is ready”.  Not only is Putin supported by something in the range of 85%+ of Russians, even though those who oppose him (LDPR, Communist Party, Just Russia) fully and totally support Putin’s refusal to surrender to the Empire.  The size of the pro-western part of the Russian population must be roughly in the 3%-5% max, not even enough to get one single deputy into the Duma.

Let me explain something about Russian history here.

Russia began as a rather small principality, much smaller and weaker than Poland.  And then Russia got invaded by a multi-ethnic mix of nomads from the East.  Russia did not have any natural borders.  Not only that, but most of Russia is, in military terms, much more similar to an ocean than to dry land: huge forests, infinite steppes, extreme climates, etc.  Finally, unlike western Europe, where a surrendering force was usually spared, in the vast expanses of Russia, surrender was simply not an option.  Surrender meant death.  The Russian gene pool was directly affected by this selective pressure.  As was Russian culture.

[Sidebar: my daughter always laughs that Russian songs are all about only three topics: love, the Motherland and war.  She is right.  War and everything it represents in an integral part of the Russian culture as is sacrificing your life for the Motherland.]

For those still dubious, I would recommend machine translating this page.  It is an analysis of all the wars and battles Russia fought between 1700 and 1940.  The results are clear:

For 250 years of its existence of the Russian military fought 392 regular army battles against the Swedes, the French, the Germans, the Turks, the Poles, the Tatars, the Finns, various ethnic groups from the Caucasus, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Austrians, the Hungarians, the British, the Italians, and Central Asian nations. Of those Russia won – 279.

Russia only lost 3 out of 34 wars:

1. Crimea
2. Russian-Japanese
3. Polish-Soviet 1920.

And in most these battles Russia has inferior numbers of troops and inferior weapons.

So much for the usual western myths about “winning by numbers” or “General Winter” (these myths are the output of bruised western egos, not military analysis).

This history creates a paradox: Russians absolutely hate war and even fear it, but in war they are determined and fearless.  Furthermore, the “ocean like” terrain results in the Russians being unbeatable at two things: maneuver warfare and intelligence/reconnaissance.  As for “retreat” on an ocean-like terrain, it has very different meaning than in traditional land warfare.

I believe that this is what the Russian intelligence officers were trying to convey to their counterpart at the meeting reported by The Times: we don’t want war, but if you force us to, we will defeat you.

You might ask about nuclear war – would the Russians really risk death rather than surrender?  After all, the USA *does* really have the means to wipe most Russian cities off the world map!  Again, the answer is simple: Russia has almost always fought an existential threat.  Sure, the US has nukes, but Hitler’s project for Russia was hardly any better (to turn the Russian subhumans into slaves for the Master’s Race).  Unlike westerner, who have hardly ever faced a real existential threat (Hitler does not count – he was very much “our son of a bitch”), Russians have, numerous times.  That is the big advantage of imperialism, especially for a power protected by the seas: wars happen away from home.  In a nuclear war, both Russia and the USA would lose 20-50 million people.  Now take a guess, which country is more capable of loosing anywhere between 1/5 to 1/2 of its population and then survive the nuclear winter and radioactive fallout?

In conclusion, I want to say the following to those who will dismiss all of the above as nonsense and still believe that the western military forces could prevail against Russia: you are welcome to dismiss all of the above, but please realize that the vast majority of Russians really do believe it!  And as a direct result of that – they will not submit, they will not “blink”, they will not surrender and they will fight you with everything they have.

This topic makes me sick to my stomach.  I hate it.  I am also frustrated to tears that having survived the Cold War, I am now facing by far the most dangerous international situation since the Cuban Missile Crisis (and then, at least, everybody was terrified; today the propaganda zombified public is utterly unaware of what is happening).  The only reason I feel that I have to repeat all these things is in the hope that somebody somewhere will take my warnings seriously and warn his/her bosses.

If you are that person – please do the right thing now.

The Saker