Voices from Russia

Sunday, 3 July 2016

Submarine “Stary Oskol” Deploys to Black Sea Base

00 russia submaine black sea 030716

______________________________

The Stary Oskol is the newest diesel submarine to join the Black Sea Fleet. It successfully completed its delivery voyage from its shipyard in St Petersburg to the Black Sea, arriving at its new permanent base in Novorossiysk. On its arrival, the ship’s company took part in a ceremony that included Admiral A V Vitko, the commander of the Black Sea Fleet. The Stary Oskol is the third unit of Project 636.3, built at the Admiralty Shipyard in St Petersburg specifically for the Black Sea Fleet. This class consists of third-generation diesel submarines, considered amongst the stealthiest of all submarines in worldwide service, being much quieter in operation than earlier Russian subs. This class is very combat-effective, with the latest missile and torpedo technology aboard, guided by the latest radar, electronic, and hydro-acoustic sensors.

2 July 2016

RF Minoborony

Facebook

Editor:

The US Navy, like all armed forces, tailors its forces to enable it to carry out its main missions (which means compromises on this-or-that). The main mission of the USN is to protect the seaborne LOCs of the Anglosphere, to keep it tied together as a single entity. Its secondary mission is to project and support American ground forces abroad, along with the USAF. This does NOT mean that American naval supremacy translates into “naval monopoly”. The USN bases its forces on carrier task groups and nuclear attack submarines (boomers are more national strategic assets, not naval forces per se). These systems are best utilised in blue-water deep-ocean scenarios, with much room for manoeuvre. They aren’t suited for narrow seas such as the Baltic, Mediterranean, and Black Seas. That is, no American carrier task force will operate in the Baltic or Black Seas due to the extreme danger posed by landbased anti-ship missiles and conventional subs like the Project 636s. Carrier task forces can only operate in the Med as they can count on landbased NATO assets to give them the additional air cover that they need in such confined seas.

That is, this deployment helps to cement Russian control of the northern Black Sea waters… a control that the USN would concede in wartime, much as the RN conceded control of the Baltic to the Kriegsmarine in both World Wars. To control it would simply cost too much in ships and men… a cost that the USN doesn’t consider well-worth paying. Don’t listen to American chest thumping… it can only do so much with the actual naval assets it possesses. The 636s are quieter than any American attack boat… in the narrow seas in which it operates, that makes the 636 the King of the Battlefield. Keep it focused…

BMD

Monday, 27 June 2016

27 June 2016. “Western Values” on Parade

00 western values nazis in russia 270616

______________________________

Do reflect on the fact that Germany pays pensions to these murderers (if still alive) and refused them to NVA vets (most NVA officers were of working-class background, whereas the Federal Republic prefered officers from the bourgeois and artisto classes). NATO swallowed the Nazi narrative wholeheartedly and enthusiastically (except for lacking the Antisemitism, NATO’s ethos was that of the Third Reich). Tells you a lot about “Western values”, doesn’t it? Oh, one last thing… the “Ukrainian” nationalists willingly acted as the Germans’ hangsmen. I thought that you’d like to know that…

BMD

Saturday, 2 January 2016

Why World War III is on the Horizon

00 atomic fireball. 16.07.13

______________________________

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 gave birth to a dangerous American ideology… neoconservatism. The USSR had served as a constraint on American unilateral action. With the removal of this constraint on Washington, neocons declared their agenda of US world hegemony. Now, America was the “sole superpower,” the “unipower,” that could act without restraint anywhere in the world. Washington Post neocon journalist Charles Krauthammer summed up the “new reality” as follows:

We have overwhelming global power. We’re history’s designated custodians of the international system. When the USSR fell, something new was born, something utterly new… a unipolar world dominated by a single superpower unchecked by any rival and with decisive reach in every corner of the globe. This is a staggering new development in history, not seen since the fall of Rome. Even Rome was no model for what America is today.

The staggering unipolar power that history gave to Washington has to be protected at all costs. In 1992, a top Pentagon official, Undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz, penned the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which became the basis for Washington’s foreign policy. The Wolfowitz Doctrine stated:

The first objective of American foreign and military policy is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former USSR or elsewhere, that poses a threat [to American unilateral action] on the order of that posed formerly by the USSR. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defence strategy and requires that we endeavour to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, suffice to generate global power (a “hostile power” is a country sufficiently strong to have a foreign policy independent from Washington’s).

The unilateral assertion of American power began in earnest during the Clinton régime with the interventions in Yugoslavia, Serbia, and Kosovo, and the no-fly zone imposed on Iraq. In 1997, the neocons penned their “Project for a New American Century”. In 1998, three years prior to 9/11, neocons sent a letter to President Clinton calling for régime change in Iraq and “the removal of Saddam Hussein from power”. Neocons set out their programme for removing seven governments in five years. Informed people regard the events of 11 September 2001 as “the new Pearl Harbor” that the neocons said was necessary to begin their wars of conquest in the Middle East. Paul O’Neil, President George W Bush’s first Treasury Secretary, stated publicly that the agenda of President Bush’s first meeting with his cabinet included invading Iraq. They planned this invasion prior to 9/11. Since 9/11, Washington destroyed eight countries in whole or part and it now confronts Russia both in Syria and the Ukraine.

Russia can’t allow a jihadist Caliphate in Syria and Iraq as it’d be a base for exporting destabilisation into Muslim parts of the Russian Federation. Henry Kissinger himself stated this fact; it’s clear enough to any person with a brain. However, the power-crazed fanatical neocons in control of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama régimes are so absorbed in their own hubris and arrogance that they’re prepared to push Russia to the point of having their Turkish puppet shoot down a Russian airplane and to overthrow a democratically elected Ukrainian government that was on good terms with Russia, substituting in its place an American puppet régime. With this background, we can understand that the dangerous situation facing the world is the product of the arrogant neocon policy of US world hegemony. The failures of judgement and the dangers in the Syrian and Ukrainian conflicts are themselves the consequences of the neocon ideology.

To perpetuate American hegemony, the neocons threw away the guarantees that Washington gave Gorbachyov that NATO wouldn’t move one inch to the East. The neocons pulled the USA out of the ABM Treaty, which specified that neither the USA nor Russia would develop and deploy anti-ballistic missiles. The neocons rewrote American war doctrine and elevated nuclear weapons from their role as a retaliatory force to a pre-emptive first strike force. The neocons began putting ABM bases on Russia’s borders, claiming that the bases were for the purpose of protecting Europe from non-existent Iranian nuclear ICBMs. Neocons and their puppets in the US government and media demonised Russia and Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin. For example, Hillary Clinton, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president, declared Putin to be “the new Hitler”. A former CIA official called for Putin’s assassination. Presidential candidates in both parties are competing in terms of who can be the most aggressive toward Russia and the most insulting toward Russia’s president.

The effect was to destroy the trust between nuclear powers. The Russian government learned that Washington does not respect Washington’s own laws, much less international law, and that it can’t trust Washington to keep any agreement. This lack of trust, together with the aggression toward Russia spewing from Washington and the presstitute media and echoing in idiotic European capitals, established the ground for nuclear war. As NATO (essentially, the USA) has no prospect of defeating Russia in conventional war, much less defeating a Russo-Chinese alliance, any war would go nuclear. To avoid war, Putin is non-provocative and low-key in his responses to Western provocations. However, neocons misinterpret Putin’s responsible behaviour as a sign of weakness and fear. The neocons tell President Obama to keep the pressure on Russia, and Russia will give in. However, Putin made it clear that Russia won’t give in. Putin sent this message on many occasions. For example, on 28 September 2015, at the UN’s 70th anniversary, Putin said that Russia could no longer tolerate the state of affairs in the world. Two days later, Putin took command of the war against ISIS in Syria.

European governments, especially Germany and the UK, are complicit in the move toward nuclear war. These two American vassal states enable Washington’s reckless aggression toward Russia by repeating Washington’s propaganda and supporting Washington’s sanctions and interventions against other countries. As long as Europe remains nothing but Washington’s stooge, the prospect of Armageddon will continue to rise. At this time, we can only avoid nuclear war in two ways. One way is for Russia and China to surrender and accept Washington’s hegemony. The other way is for an independent leader in Germany, the UK, or France to rise to office and withdraw from NATO. That’d begin a stampede to leave NATO, which is Washington’s prime tool for causing conflict with Russia and, thereby, is the most dangerous force on earth to every European country and to the entire world. If NATO continues to exist, NATO, together with the neocon ideology of American hegemony, would make nuclear war inevitable.

28 December 2015

Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts: Institute for Political Economy

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/12/28/why-wwiii-is-on-the-horizon-paul-craig-roberts/

Editor:

Now, one can see why the Western media vilifies Jeremy Corbyn… he bids fair to pull the UK out of NATO. If he did so, the American policy would fall of its own weight. Without the UK, the USA would lose its best base near Europe (as the UK is on a series of islands, it’s immune to Russian land-power and uniquely suited to defence by American seapower… the only place in Europe so situated). You can also see why that self-same media excoriates and pooh-poohs Bernie Sanders… he’s Corbyn’s American analogue. If Corbyn were to become PM and Sanders POTUS… the neocon fancy would fall into the dust, dead. You can see why the media is frantic about both… it does its best to tell us how fringy and unelectable they are. I do detect an agenda in both cases… no doubt, you agree.

If you wish to avoid Thermonuclear Ragnarök, vote for Corbyn and Sanders. If we don’t survive, nothing else matters. If the house is on fire, termites in the storage shed don’t matter… do think on that.

BMD

Friday, 13 November 2015

13 November 2015. As Seen by Vitaly Podvitsky… Bear in Mind

00 Vitaly Podvitsky. Bear in Mind. 2015

______________________________

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,477 other followers