Featured movie of the week:
Hardcore Henry (2015), SF thriller (Russia-USA)
Oddly enough, living in Damascus or Tripoli seems to be much more exciting than surviving in our necropolis overregulated cities. Apart random mortar shells threat, there’s plenty of fun there.
The ability of humans to adapt is more than incredible. Could you ever imagine flirting with a date or tasting a good ol’ genuine red wine under mortar fire? Some did it.
Strategika51 blog is back. Its main focus was on geopolitics. Now it’s about life. Life on Earth and anywhere in this huge universe of ours…
Christmas fair in Berlin that occurred on December 19, resulted in government officials pledging their commitment to the speedy deportation of failed asylum seekers, since the attacker was a Tunisian migrant. Tunisians have been treated extremely cautiously in Europe recently and at this stage it’s imperative for us to understand why.
Why Tunisia, which was believed to be the most advanced democracy in the whole Arab world is now perceived as a major exporter of jihadists?
Dans un éditorial au vitriol du journal chinois Global Times, publié au cours de la semaine dernière, la Chine a rappelé qu’elle a accumulé assez de puissance autour du détroit de Formose pour traiter la menace américaine. Par traiter, il faut entendre mettre en échec. C’était la réponse indirecte de Pékin aux propos du président US élu Donald Trump sur un éventuel marchandage sur le concept d’une Chine unie.
Hasard du calendrier, l’aéronavale chinoise a commencé hier ses premiers exercices à munitions réelles. Les photographies de cet exercice, notamment celles du chasseur Shenyang J-15, se passent de tout commentaire. Le président Barack Obama peut continuer à qualifier la Russie (et la Chine) de « petits pays ne produisant pas grand chose et n’innovant point ». le déni de réalité est la marque du déclin des empires.
Les analystes occidentaux estiment que le J-15, dérivé de la technologie russe, demeure bien inférieur au F/A 18 Hornet américain. La condescendance à l’égard de Pékin est un réflexe constant. Cependant, dans la logique chinoise, laquelle n’a que très peu de chose à voire avec la logique du marché, un porte-avions peut en cacher bien d’autres. Et aux dernières nouvelles, Pékin vient d’approuver la construction de cinq groupes de combat.
United States, as well as many of its allies, have always looked towards increasing range of combat as much as possible. Just as often, it failed, especially in the air, where technologists’ dream of destroying enemy air force before it reaches visual range remains unfulfilled to this day.
Main reason for it is that BVR combat is, conceptually, operationally and technologically, massively complex affair. Exact extent of visual range depends on size of aircraft – while maximum visual detection range for MiG-21 is 8,5 kilometers, it is 15,37 kilometers for F-14. Smoke can extend that range by over 5,6 kilometers; while by other info, definition of BVR combat considers “BVR” to be anything beyond 37 kilometers. Optical devices such as IRST or TV cameras can extend range of visual identification of aircraft – PIRATE can identify enemy aircraft at 40 kilometers in ideal conditions.
BVR theory states that future air combat will be comprised of large “missile truck” aircraft flying at supersonic speeds, launching radar-guided missiles at targets that are way too far to be identified visually. This has resulted in development of aircraft that are very heavy (most weight little less or more than 15 metric tons empty – for example, Tornado ADV weights 14,5 metric tons, and F-22 weights 19,7 metric tons), carry large amounts of missiles, and are far more expensive and much less reliable than aircraft with bias towards visual-range combat. Yet BVR combat still has not taken lead role in air-to-air combat.
We can in fact draw paralels between modern air-to-air combat and modern infantry combat. While infantry has access to sniper rifles that allow ranges of around two kilometers, and old battle rifles had ranges of 500-1000 meters, most combat happens at ranges no greater than 100 meters, and never involves single shooters. In Vietnam, M-14 proved basically useless as basic infantry weapon when compared to AK-47. Reason for this is that, while large battle rifles were useful in static warfare of World War I, World War II and later wars saw mobile warfare develop with combat happening at low ranges, thus requiring lighter, faster-firing weapons. Result was development of sub-machine guns, as well as first assault rifles (such as German MP-44, renamed StG-44, which was world’s first assault rifle and provided inspiration for very successful AK-47; both were used by Vietcong).
In air-to-air combat, BVR missiles fill the niche of old battle rifles and modern sniper rifles, WVR missiles fill the niche of modern assault rifles, while gun fills niche of combat knife. While gun is most versatile weapon of the lot – it can be used for air-to-air work, close air support, firing warning shots towards aircraft violating forbidden airspace – it is not often used in air-to-air combat and is treated purely as fallback weapon in case missiles have been expended.
It is often forgotten is that g forces in tracking turn are a square of speed. Thus, in WVR combat, if missile travels at Mach 3 and fighter aircraft travels at Mach 0,6 (corner speed of many modern fighters) and can pull 9 g maneuvers, then missile needs to pull 225 g to match turn radius, or 100 g if fighter is travelling at Mach 0,9. If missile is fired outside ideal position, it has to maneuver in order to point its nose towards the target, thus lowering probability of kill; there is also a danger of targeted aircraft simply flying out of missile’s field of view. This danger is also present with active-seeker BVR missiles. In BVR, AIM-120 travels at Mach 4, and can pull 30 g within its NEZ, yet it would need 400 Gs to reliably hit a modern fighter which is maneuvering at corner speed of Mach 0,6, or 178 Gs if target is still at standard cruise speed of Mach 0,9.
Further, even though BVR missiles have maximum range of over 100 kilometers, their effective range against aircraft in attack is 1/5 of that – around 20 kilometers – and target beyond 40 kilometers can feel free to maneuver without even taking any possible missile shots into account, as only way these would hit is luck. One of reasons is that BVR missiles follow ballistic trajectories – AIM-120C-5 allegedly has motor burn time of 8 seconds, which gives range of around 10 kilometers before motor burns out. At ranges greater than 8 kilometers, attacking fighter can still choose wether to outmaneuver or outrun the BVR missile; at distances less than that is missile’s no-escape zone, where aircraft cannot outrun the missile, it has to outmaneuver it, but such distances automatically mean that combat is not longer beyond visual range. Ranges stated are also only true at high altitude against aircraft in attack; at low altitude, effective range of BVR missile is reduced to 25% of its range at high altitude, and range against aircraft in flight is 1/4 of that against aircraft in attack.
Missiles in fact can achieve either maximum range or maximum maneuvering capability – missile that pulls 40 g at sea level will only pull 13 g at 10.000 meters and 2,85 g at 20.000 meters, unless 40 g is a structural limit. AIM-9 for example can pull 40 g at SL and at 10.000 ft, and 35 g at 20.000 ft. Thus, it can be expected to pull single-digit number of g’s at 40.000 ft. Meanwhile, F-16 for example can sustain 8,5 g at 15.000 ft, and Rafale can sustain 9 g at 40.000 ft.
Proximity fuses on missiles can trigger explosion of missile if anything (like a bird) flies nearby. Warhead itself has lethal radius of 10-12 meters for late AIM-120 variants.
Missiles are not the only problem with BVR combat. There are also questions of reliable IFF, penalties for using active sensors in combat, weight, cost and complexity penalties on weapons systems caused by systems required for BVR combat, as well as training penalties caused by aforementioned penalties on weapons system.
Training penalties are probably most damaging. In 1940, Germans – outnumbered 1,5 to 1, and using inferior tanks – overran France in three weeks because they had superior personnell – both commanders and soldiers. On the Eastern Front, German Panther and Tiger I tanks achieved favorable exchange ratios against more numerous – and in many aspects superior – Soviet T-34-85, IS-I and IS-II tanks, and General Guderian favored increased production of Panzer IV equipped with long cannon over production of more capable, but more expensive, less reliable and less strategically mobile Panther (for each Panther, Germany could have produced two Panzer IVs; for Tiger I, ratio was four Panzer IVs for each Tiger). After Gulf War I, General Schwarzkopf said that the outcome of Gulf War I would have been the same if the U.S. and Iraqi armies had exchanged weapons, a statement similar to one given by IAF General Mordecai Hod after 1973 war, in which he stated that IAFs 80-1 victory against Arabs would have remained the same if both sides had exchanged the weapons. Yet BVR-oriented aircraft, low in number and hugely complex, cannot be used for training often enough. While technologists typically counter this argument by pointing to increased ability of simulators, that argument is not realistic: simulation is never perfect, as quality of the end result is never better – and is often lot worse – than quality of data used to compute it. Simulators often misinterpret reality, and support tactics that would get pilots killed in real combat. Further, simulators cannot prepare pilot for handling of shifting g forces encountered during both dogfight and BVR combat maneuvering.
Meanwhile, using active sensors is outright suicidal in combat. Aircraft using active sensors will be quickly detected and targeted by modern defense and EW suites, and unique radar footprint may allow for BVR IFF identification. This can allow passive aircraft to launch BVR infrared or anti-radiation missile, and/or to use data acquired to achieve optimal starting position and speed for following dogfight. Only countermeasure is to turn radar off and rely solely on passive sensors. IRST is especially useful here, as while air temperature at 11 000 meters is -56 degrees Celzius, airframe temperature due to air friction can reach 54,4 degrees Celzius at Mach 1,6 and 116,8 degrees Celzius at Mach 2. It is also very difficult to impossible to jam, and offers greater angular resolution than radar. Result is that flying from cloud to cloud is still a viable combat tactic; but it is not perfect either, as clouds are not always present and may not be close enough for aircraft to avoid detection in the mean time.
As for IFF issue, only reliable IFF method is visual one, especially since pilots often turn IFF transponders off to avoid being tracked. Visual IFF, unless assisted by optical sensors (be it camera or IRST), usually requires two aircraft to approach within one mile or less (sometimes as close as 400 meters), whereas minimum range of AIM-120D is 900 meters. But even when assisted by visual sensors, it may not always be reliable, as opponent may be using fighters of same type or at least of very similar visual signature.
Aircraft designed for BVR combat are significantly more complex and costlier than aircraft designed for WVR combat; I will demonstrate this on examples. F-15 was designed for BVR, and F-16 for WVR, but with similar technology; F-15C costs 126 million USD whereas F-16A costs 30 million USD, a 4:1 difference. F-15s successor, and currently most capable BVR platform in the world is F-22, whereas Gripen C is F-16s successor (in idea and aerodynamics, not in lineage), though with far more BVR capability. F-22A costs 262 million USD, compared to Gripen C’s 44 million USD, or 6:1 cost difference (all costs are unit flyaway costs in FY-2013 USD). Aside from smaller number of units bought, increased complexity means that these units fly less often: F-22s maintenance downtime is 45 MHPFH, compared to Gripen’s 10. Thus for 1 billion USD, one will have 3 F-22s flying 11 hours per week, or 22 Gripens flying 336 hours per week. Even Gripen’s cost per flight hour is 1/13 of F-22s, 4 700 USD vs 61 000 USD. Older fighters also follow this outline, with F-5E costing 940 FY1980 USD per hour compared to F-4Es cost of 2 733 FY1980 USD per hour, a 3:1 difference. Weapons are more expensive too: while AIM-120D costs 1 470 000 USD per missile, IRIS-T costs 270 000 USD, a 5:1 difference.
Weight difference is also significant. Gripen C weights 6 622 kg empty, compared to 19 700 kg empty for F-22; F-16A weights 7 076 kg compared to 12 700 kg for F-15C. It can be seen that WVR fighters are significantly smaller and lighter than contemporary BVR fighters. And with cost of 6 645 USD per kg, Gripen C is significantly cheaper per unit of weight than F-22 which costs 13 300 USD per kg, whereas F-16A costs 4 240 USD per kg, which when compared to F-15Cs 9 921 USD per kg gives similar ratio to F-22/Gripen one.
Even if previous shortcomings are disregarded, BVR combat is not always possible. If fighters are tied in defending a fixed point, or if enemy attack is not noticed on time (distance between air fields is too low, enemy manages to sneak up by using the terrain) only option is engaging in visual-range combat.
Past air-to-air combat experience also suggests that days of BVR combat being primary form of air-to-air combat are still far away, if they ever come. First BVR craze happened in 1950s, when USAF procured the “century series” fighters, and USN bought F-6D Missileer and F-4H-1 Phantom II, latter of which carried Sparrow missile; former used huge Eagle missile, similar to F-14 with its Phoenix missile. Phantom was also adapted into USAF as F-4C Phantom II. Soon, other BVR fighters – F-111, F-14, F-15 – followed. Soviets, in an arms race that was actually more about prestige than about military capability, decided to counter this development with BVR fighters of their own: Yak-28, Tu-28 and MiG-25 as counters to 3rd generation BVR fighters, with F-15 being countered by Su-27.
These fighters all followed logic of “bigger is better”. Bigger radar – focus of the logic – required bigger airframe, which in turn required bigger engines. Both weight and complexity spiralled upwards, creating fighters that were costly, flew very few sorties and had maneuvering capabilities more typical of strategic bombers than of fighter aircraft – logic being that they will not have to maneuver, as they will destroy the enemy far before it comes to the merge. Exception to this as far as US fighters are concerned are F-15 and F-22, but even that was only due to influence of Boyd’s Fighter Mafia; Su-27, being designed to counter F-15 and built with same requirement of high BVR capability and high maneuverability, also follows basic logic of large but very agile aircraft with large radar. All aircraft mentioned as being agile were developed after Vietnam War, in which failure of BVR-only logic was aptly demonstrated; yet they all relied on using superior range and technology to defeat superior numbers of “less capable” WVR fighters.
But in practice, BVR promise fell short. During the entire Cold War, 407 kills were made with missiles in eight conflicts, with reliable data for ninth conflict, Iran-Iraq war, not being avaliable. Only four saw use of radar-guided BVR missiles: Rolling Thunder and Linebacker in Vietnam, Yom Kippur War, and conflict over Bekaa Valley. In total, 144 kills were made with guns, 308 with heat-seeking missiles and 73 with radar-guided missiles. What is interesting to notice is that, while percentage of gun kills in the latest conflict, Bekaa Valley, was lower than in any other, it also held second-lowest percentage of radar-guided missile kills, and highest percentage of IR missile kills. Out of 73 radar-guided missile kills, 69 were scored within visual range, with remaining four being carefully staged outside combat. Out of these kills, two were made by Israel under intense US diplomatic pressure to establish BVR doctrine, and two were made by US in Vietnam, with one of US kills being a freindly-fire incident, a F-4 mistakenly identified as MiG-21. As there were 61 BVR shots during entire Cold War, this results in Pk of 6,6%, compared to 15% for IR missiles, and to promised BVR missile Pk of 80-90%. Even though majority of BVR missile shots in Vietnam were made from visual range, Pk was still 9,6%. While F-4 and F-105 did score numerous aerial victories in Vietnam, all except two mentioned BVR kills were made within visual range, and of these, many were achieved by gun after Top Gun course was established, securing USAF an unquestionable pilot superiority. In fact, F-4 consistently underperformed until it was given gun and pilots were taught how to dogfight, and Navy F-8, with its far lower wing loading and mass, performed far better against MiGs. And even today, missile tests are carried out against drones with limited maneuvering capability, as these are usually rebuilt old aircraft (for example, QF-4 which is a rebuilt F-4).
Further, in these 407 kills, most targets were unaware and fired at from the rear, and there were almost no head-on BVR shots due to high closing speeds of aircraft involved. This shows that good rearward visibility from cockpit is still important despite all technological advancements.
Two post-Cold War wars in Iraq are offered as examples that BVR theory has finally reached maturity and that BVR combat now is prevalent form of aerial combat. Out of 41 kills in Desert Storm, 16 involved use of BVR shots, but only five kills are known to have been made at BVR. Even then, longest-ranged kill of these five certain BVR kills was made at distance of 29,6 kilometers, and one of remaining BVR shots was made at night from what would have been visual range in daytime. Desert Storm was first conflict where more kills were made by radar-guided missiles than by IR missiles – 24 vs 10. While 24 radar-guided missile kills out of 88 shots gives Pk of 27%, F-15s killed 23 targets in 67 shots with AIM-7 (Pk 0,34), while Sidewinder launches from F-15 resulted in 8 kills from 12 shots (Pk 0,67). While F-16s launched 36 Sidewinders and scored 0 kills, at least 20 launches were accidental due to poor control stick ergonomy; F-16s in question themselves were overweight F-16Cs, so-called “more capable” variant equipped with BVR capability and tons of electronics. Iraqi Freedom was likely similar in this aspect. AIM-120, meanwhile, demonstrated BVR Pk of 0,46 in Iraqi Freedom and Allied Force (6 kills out of 13 shots). It also achieved the longest ranged air-to-air combat kill ever, when a Dutch F-16 shot down a (malfunctioning and nonmaneuvering) Serb MiG-29 at 34,8 km.
Navy and USMC themselves achieved 21 Sparrows and 38 Sidewinders in the Desert Storm, achieving one kill with Sparrow (Pk=4,76%) and two with Sidewinders (Pk=5,26%). Reasons for such low Pk are unclear, though given F-16s problems it is possible that most launches from F-18 were accidental.
Claim that USAFs combat record proves maturity of BVR combat or even missiles in general is misleading, however. Targets that were fired at were in vast majority of cases unaware they were being fired at and thus did not take any evasive action; no targets had electronic countermeasures, support from stand-off jammers, nor comparable BVR weapon (be it radar-guided, IR or anti-radiation BVR missile). When targets were aware they were targeted and thus did take evasive action – such as when two Iraqi MiG-25s illuminated two F-15Cs with BVR radar in 1999 – BVR shots were ineffective (in example cited, US fighters made 6 BVR shots to no effect). There was also constant AWACS avaliability in both Gulf Wars, and in all wars US/Coalition aircraft had numerical superiority. Iraqi pilots also were badly trained, and most Iraqi jets did not have bubble canopy like F-16, but one that did not provide rearward visibility and was in many cases heavily framed, limiting pilot’s ability to acquire missile visually in addition to total lack of warning devices.
I will also note here a report by Air Power Australia group, found here. Some assumptions have to be fixed: missiles have demonstrated 0,34 – 0,46 Pk against non-maneuvering opponents with no ECM; 0,46 figure is for AIM-120 and is one I will use here. Thus 54% miss value is attributed to factors that have no connection to ECM or maneuvering. Out of remaining 46%, there is 93% for chance of miss. Thus BVR missile Pk against aware, maneuvering opponent using modern ECM suite is around 3%. Considering that most opponents shot at by BVR missiles during Cold War had no ECM, and some at least did not notice a missile, thus failing to take evasive action, this can be considered to be in line with demonstrated Pk.
Latest BVR craze has resulted in F-22 and F-35, both of which are utterly expensive and maintenance intensive, and latter of which is in its major characteristics more similar to century series than modern fighter aircraft. F-35 in itself is utterly incapable of handling itself in close combat due to large weight, high drag, high wing loading and low thrust to weight ratio. It can also carry at most 4 BVR missiles in internal bays. With this in mind, claims by manufacturer that F-35 is 4 times as effective in air-to-air combat as next best fighter in the air would require probability of kill for BVR missiles of 80-90%, and opponent’s complete inability to engage F-35 itself at BVR range. Track record of BVR missiles to date as well as development of infrared BVR missiles and long range QWIP IRST sensors mean that any such assumptions are nothing more than wishful thinking on part of sales department and high technology addicts.
Result is that eye remains most important sensor on the aircraft, and pilot who looses sight of the opponent during maneuvers is likely to be quickly shot down. Secondary are onboard passive sensors such as IRST and RWR, followed by offboard sensors – both passive and active – whereas onboard active sensors take last place. Human factors still trump technology, and higher cost does not mean more capability in a real world combat scenario – even with missiles, both BVR and WVR, pilot has to know how to achieve ideal firing solution, and more electronics means more weight, which hurts airframe performance.
Considering that BVR missiles generally cost 2-5 times as much as IR WVR missiles, yet are 44% as effective, it is easy to calculate that they are only 8,8-22% as cost-effective as IR missiles, while in most cases not offering noticeable advantage in engagement range, and at same time incurring cost and capability penalties on aircraft designed to use them.
For end, I will adress an argument that is obviously invalid but very often does come up anyway: one of exercises in which F-22 “dominates” against “legacy” fighters, with kill ratios between 10:1 and 30:1. But these exercises are bogus, as they depend on incorrect assumptions about air combat to produce results. In them, most kills are achieved at BVR as BVR missiles are assigned Pk of 90%, despite never achieving such performance; enemy anti-radar measures such as anti-radiation missiles or missile cueing with RWRs are not allowed; most F-22s opponents went without avionics upgrade for a very long time and thus likely don’t have ability to jam AESA radar; Red Force simply charges in, from known vector; and real fleet cost and fleet readiness are not represented, which means that F-22 doesn’t face force ratios it would face in real world. Due to that, exercises are only useful as a propaganda tool, having no connection to reality of air combat, and using them to argue for usefulness of stealth and BVR combat is nothing more than a circular logic.
April 27, 2013
EDIT 5. 5. 2013.:
There are more details about Serb MiG-29s:
“even if from around 1996 they started suffering from a latent lack of spares, which severely impacted the capability of the service to maintain them.”
MiG-29s were badly maintained.
“Eventually, the cancellation of the development of Novi Avion resulted in MiG-29s remaining in service with the JRViPVO until the late 1990s, and well past their resources. To make matters worse, the corrupt regime of the Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic was more concerned with own survival and to reinforce riot-police and similar services, or finance the aggression war in Bosnia but with the maintenance of MiGs. Consequently, when Serbia found itself confronted with the NATO, in 1998, the condition of the MiGs with the 127.LAE was very poor, and its pilots were flying barely 20 hours annually.”
Pilots were not experienced in flying the aircraft.
“As only few aircraft were considered operational (they were actually merely flyable)”
Aircraft merely flyable, AKA not in condition for combat.
“Maj. Ljubisa Kulacin evaded several missiles fired at him while fighting to bring his malfunctioning systems back in working order”
Kulacin evaded several missiles despite equipment malfunction.
“Kulacin’s experience was not much different to that of his three other colleagues, all of which experienced immense problems with weapons and navigational systems on their aircraft: on the 18112, flown by Maj. Arizanov, both the radio and SPO-15 malfunctioned; on 18104, flown by Maj. Ilic, the radar failed; on 18111, flown by Maj. Nikolic, both the radar and the SN-29 missile guidance systems were inoperative, and apparently the
SPO-15 also did not function properly.”
At least 4 MiG-29s had equipment malfunctions, two cases of radar malfunction and two cases of RWR malfunction.
“The fifth and last MiG-29 to get airborne on that night was 18106, flown by Maj. Predrag Milutinovic. Immediately after take-off his radar failed and even the electrical generator malfunctioned. Shortly after, he was warned by SPO-15 of being acquired, but he evaded the opponent by several evasive manoeuvres. Attempting to evade further encounters and searching for an airfield where a landing was possible, he finally ended over Ribarska Banja, when his RWR warned him of acquisition by a ground-based radar. Seconds afterward the aircraft was hit and Milutinovic forced to eject. ”
Radar failure, electric generator malfunction. Evaded several enemy missiles and was shot down by friendly SAM.
“Once there, the GCI advised them that both were detected by the NATO aircraft, but would not indicate the kind of a threat. This was a tragic mistake: Maj. Peric led his wingman into a climb, and straight into three AIM-120 missiles fired by two USAF F-15Cs that were on a patrol over Tuzla. Two missiles hit home, destroying both MiGs: after evading one AIM-120, Maj. Peric’s aircraft was hit and he ejected safely, but Capt. Radosavljevic was killed.”
Apparently no missile or radar warner.
No quotes indicate existence of countermeasures, and many of MiGs had no radar warners either. At least two MiG-29 kills happened at visual range, too, as photos exist.
“The JG73 has also retained a number of former East German MiG-29 pilots who have had to tailor their knowledge of the airplane to fit western style tactics. Most of the Fulcrum pilots have less than 300 hours in the aircraft. Only a few have over 400 hours. No one in the unit, including former East German pilots, has over 500 hours in the MiG29.”
Even Eastern German pilots had less than 500 hours in the MiG-29 by 1995.
“”The Fulcrum doesn’t have the crisp movements of an F-16,” Sparrow continued. ‘You need to be an octopus in the MiG29 to work the avionics. Those German pilots have it tough. Just to get a simple lock on and fire a missile may take a half dozen hands-off switches or so. We can do the same with a flick of the thumb while we are looking at the HUD. F-16 pilots also have a significant sight advantage. A couple of hundred feet advantage can make a difference in air-to-air combat; the actual difference is more significant than that. MiG29 pilots have a tough time checking their six o’clock. Their canopy rail is higher. They can lose sight of us even when flying BFM.””
MiG-29 has cockpit that is not user friendly and is great distraction from fighting, and does not have good out-of-cockpit view.
“”Besides visibility, I expected better turning performance,” McCoy continued. “The MiG29 is not a continuous nine-g machine like the F-16. I tried to do some things I normally do in an F-16. For example, I tried a high-AOA guns jink. I got the Fulcrum down to about 180 knots and pulled ninety degrees of bank and pulling heavy g’s I then went to idle and added a little rudder to get the jet to roll with ailerons. The pilot took control away from me in the middle of these maneuvers because the airplane was about to: snap. I use the F-16’s quick roll rate like this all the time with no problem.”
Bad turn rate, bad roll rate, design not tolerant to maneuvers.
“The aircraft was not built for close-in dog fighting, though it is aerodynamically capable of it,” Prunk continued. “The East Germans flew it as a point defense interceptor, like a MiG-21. They were not allowed to max perform the airplane, to explore its capabilities or their own capabilities. Sorties lasted about thirty minutes. The airplane was designed to scramble, jettison the tank, go supersonic, shoot its missiles, and go home.”
Not a maneuvering fighter.
EDIT 26. 7. 2014.:
When the 1973 war is compared to the Vietnam war, it clearly shows impact of training on missile Pk. While US fighters achieved radar missile Pk of 10,9% (276 shots / 30 kills) against NVAF fighters in a 1971-1973 period, in the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Israeli fighters achieved radar missile Pk of 41,7%, far closer to the 1991 Gulf War. This shows that opponent’s competence was a primary factor in missile performance. As a matter of fact, there was very little if any technological disparity between two sides in the Yom Kippur war, with Israel using F-4 Phantom jets against Arab MiG-21s and MiG-25s.
Direct link: here
Russian soldier Anton Yerygin died of heavy injuries sustained during an insurgent attack in Syria’s Homs province, a spokesman of the Khmeimim base reported on May 11.
Anton Yerygin was escorting Russia’s Hmeymim reconciliation center vehicles, when the convoy was shelled by terrorists earlier this week.
“Performing tasks to escort vehicles of the Russian center for reconciliation of opposing sides in Syria’s Homs province, Russian soldier Anton Yerygin received serious wounds in shelling opened by militants,” the spokesperson said.
The soldier was rushed to a Russian military hospital. But Russian medics were unable to save his life. Yerygin has been recommended for a state award posthumously.
Lately we have seen some good analysis on the limits and vulnerabilities of the American military in light of events in the former Ukraine and especially Russia’s demonstrated competence in Syria.
So we have the “what” of the issue, but how about the “why”?
As a U.S. Army veteran and a longtime resident of the Beltway—including four-and-a-half years living on Crystal Drive in Arlington, Virginia, which has probably the densest concentration of “defense” contractors anywhere in America—I think I understand what is fundamentally wrong with the U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC.)
First and foremost, the MIC has long been incapable of producing durable, efficient, versatile weapons.
We don’t even have to look to the F-35 on this one.
Just consider the most basic item, the M-16.
The M-16 Assault Rifle
My field experience with this piece of junk is that it runs into problems in the presence of even a small amount of sand. When enough sand gets in to the chamber and mixes with the lube oil on the bolt assembly, the grit thus formed results in up to every second round misloading.
God forbid you should brush an oiled open breach against the side of your foxhole—you are out of commission. In the absence of air or artillery support or sheer overwhelming numbers on your side, you are dead meat against anyone with a gun that functions in a sandy environment. And why? Because, as I was told in boot camp (whether it’s true or not), this thing is perfectly built to have zero fault tolerance.
Supposedly, just about every metal component in the M-16 is cast and/or machined to perfection rather than stamped. Contrast this with Russian or Chinese weapons that are said to be built like can openers to spray lead under any conditions. In other words, the M-16 is so sophisticated that it doesn’t work well.
It is now acknowledged that the M-16 with its 5.56mm rounds is insufficiently lethal beyond a couple of hundred meters, making it unsuited to long-distance firefights over open terrain (again those deserts, or perhaps shootouts between mountain ridges.)
The M-1 Abrams tank
Another great example – this can be a real dog. The engine is a gas turbine, like with an aircraft, except that it is being driven around in deserts and even sandstorms, making it extremely finicky and high-maintenance. (Would you fly your Boeing into a sandstorm?) Of course, the Abrams was designed to fight in Germany where sand is not an issue. But during the Iraq adventure, sand so tore up the turbine fans (or whatever) that over 1000 of these million-dollar “power packs” had to be removed and sent up for depot-level maintenance or refurbishment stateside.
Yes, that’s right—these things cannot even be fixed in the field. All you can do is pull them out with a crane and ship them back to the civilians at enormous expense. At the height of the Iraq adventure, around 2007, the maintenance backlog was so bad that even the national media got wind of it.
Of course, when you have the world’s reserve currency, you can afford all that and more—the entire world is paying for your wars.
But the waste and inefficiency are a fact.
The Basic Problem : Excessive Complexity
I think the problem here is that American war planners and logisticians prefer originality, complexity, and/or expense-for-the-hell-of-it over versatility and ease of use and maintenance. This is no surprise given America’s wealth and the longtime generous funding of its armed forces. After all, every military reflects its own society.
Unfortunately for Uncle Sam, what he gets is equipment that may work very well in one environment but not another.
But so much for American equipment per se. Let’s talk about Crystal Drive (a neighborhood in suburban Washington where many defense contractors have offices – edit.) —or more broadly, the MIC.
The Military Industrial Complex (MIC) is failing on a massive scale
It is clear now that the MIC cannot build anything for less than 200 percent of its original planned budget (and that’s being extremely conservative.) Nor can anything it cranks out nowadays meet performance or survivability expectations. Besides the never-ending supersonic train wreck known as the F-35, we have other boondoggle failures such as the Littoral Combat Ship, which by all accounts is less capable and more vulnerable than the 20 to 30 year-old vessels it was supposed to replace.
Or, going back a few years, we see the Army’s “Commanche” helicopter, an intended replacement for the Apache, which blew through $6.9 billion—in 1983-2004 dollars, probably over $10 billion today—before the entire program was scrapped. That’s right, over $10 billion for nothing—not one Commanche was ever delivered for permanent use to an Army operational unit!
Where did that money go, if they didn’t actually manufacture anything besides a few prototypes? Did they spend $10 billion on PowerPoint presentations?
My brain cannot even wrap around this. Can you imagine what Russia or China could do for $10 billion?
However, even that pales before the Army’s cancelled Future Combat Systems program, which burned through an estimated (no one knows exactly) $20 billion from 2003 to somewhere between 2012 and 2014 (depending on what termination milestone you go by), with almost nothing to show beyond a few prototypes, a lot of concept art, and a 29-pound toy robot made by iRobot of “Roomba” vacuum cleaner fame. In fact, I can’t think of one big new U.S. weapons system that has succeeded in the last 25 years, other than perhaps the Stryker armored car (though some have argued that point, and I just don’t know enough about it.)
As pointed out by many other observers, part of the blame lies with our political system, where MIC corporations buy politicians and then receive favors in the form of contracts, whether or not the contracts make any sense. However, I think this is not the only problem, nor even necessarily the biggest.
Fundamentally what I think we have is systemic over-complexity resulting in nothing getting done, or done well anyway.
US intelligence agencies have the same problem
This is akin to the deep systemic crisis in Uncle Sam’s intelligence agencies, where from 9/11 to the Arab Spring to Crimea to the ISIS conquest of Mosul to Russia in Syria, the word is always “we didn’t expect…” In this case, we have numerous agencies—some of them with overlapping functions—that are drowning in paperwork and garbage data (or too much data) and are almost totally useless.
As some readers will remember, it got so bad that in April 2014 the State Department released a photo collage aiming to prove that (among other things) a bearded Chechen battalion commander going by the name Hamza, who appeared in Russian TV footage of the 2008 Olympic War, was none other than the bearded, overweight Slaviansk militiaman going by the call-sign “Babai”—in other words, Russian special forces have invaded the Donbass. (The New York Times ran with this and was then oh-so-vaguely and gently reproached by its own ombudsman.)
Shouldn’t this awful joke have been prevented by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which is supposed to promote info-sharing among agencies and centrally vet all claims and conclusions—especially those being trumpeted on the State Department’s website or at its briefings? Apparently not!
On the other hand, what the U.S. lack-of-intelligence complex is very good at—besides hiring way too many buxom, flirty young things straight out of college and with no language skills or any experience at all (DIA and NGA, you know your ex-military managers like to beautify their offices)—is providing employment for tens of thousands of its own staff as well as tens of thousands of grotesquely-overpaid contractors, including those who build and run billion-dollar eavesdropping centers that have proven incapable of picking up anything useful, perhaps because when you try to listen to everything, you end up hearing nothing.
The lesson here is that the more offices and agencies, the more managers and political appointees who will seek to justify and expand their turf and budgets by shoveling out as much money on as many contracts as possible, as quickly as possible, in many cases even paying contractors to do little more than just sit around (sometimes at home) waiting for the next contract. (I have seen this many times in Washington.)
Then you get so big that people simply trip over each other and the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.
The US MIC worked great 50 years ago because less money and people were involved
So I think this is what’s going on not only in the intelligence apparatus, but in the MIC as a whole. We have hundreds of thousands of staff and contractors as well as military officers assigned to liaise with them, all kinds of project managers and “six-sigma black belts” and other buzzwords, juggling millions of PowerPoints across the river from Washington and throughout the country, and they can’t field a helicopter after spending $10 billion on it.
Really? How did this great country ever defeat the Japanese Empire?
Go to the National Air and Space Museum in Washington; you will see the most amazing things—e.g. generators designed to operate on the surface of the Moon, drawing electricity from the heat of plutonium decay—that were developed when there was no Crystal Drive, no Tysons Corner, etc.
Then go to the museum’s extension near Dulles airport and check out the SR-71 “Blackbird”, the fastest and highest-flying airplane ever built (this was about 50 years ago.)
How did they do it?
Although there were more men in uniform back then, the MIC itself (or should I say the Military-Industrial-Intelligence-Homeland-Insecurity-Complex (MIIHIC)) – had but a fraction of today’s civilian workforce. Luckily, most of those paper-pushing “systems integrators” and PowerPoint rangers did not exist. Blueprints were drafted with pencil and paper.
Today, Uncle Sam can’t even build a heavy rocket engine, not to mention a good helmet or ejection seat for his F-35.
No hope for change going forward
So it seems that as a technical civilization we are degenerating.
Sure, there are constant advancements in microelectronics (a.k.a. integrated circuits) and the programs they allow, but in terms of heavy engineering—of which the MIIHIC and other government initiatives like the space program were at the forefront since WWII—it seems that the U.S. is tapped out.
And you know what? Throwing more money at it is just going to make it worse.
The organizations with their budgets and their perfectly reasonable-sounding arguments for ever-greater budgets will grow, their workforces will grow, the contracting sector will grow, more shiny office buildings will go up, but the result will be an ever-increasingly-negative marginal return.
John McCain and all the other broken records in and out of the Pentagon will say we still don’t have enough funds to counter a pointless Russian invasion of parasitic, inconsequential Lithuania (currently headed by a longtime communist) or any other 1990s-era speculative wargame training scenario that somehow carried over into the public consciousness and morphed into the Greatest Threat to World Peace.
Of course, as long as the U.S. has the money to send gazillion-dollar armies and armadas against illiterate natives armed with sharp sticks and coconuts, this may not visibly threaten its hegemony. Almost any problem or mistake can be papered over with money, for a long time anyway.
But eventually, even if the money spigot does not constrict, we will get to the point where the military really can’t be used as anything more than a façade or a gunboat road-show, hoping no one calls the bluff, because the stuff just doesn’t work like it’s supposed to, or else is too vulnerable (witness the evacuation of the U.S. aircraft carrier from the Persian Gulf after Uncle Sam found out that Russia has cruise missiles with a range of at least 1500km, or the ridiculous sail-around of China’s little islands which had the sense to infringe only very slightly and briefly on that country’s imaginary territorial waters), or the natives can devise their own countermeasures.
In fact, I would say we are at that point already. Not to mention, the U.S. Army and the Department of Veterans Affairs are still so tapped-out after Iraq and Afghanistan that another major ground operation is unthinkable. (At this point, Washington is more likely to launch nukes at somebody than risk another ground war.)
So you can anticipate a lot of hand-wringing and a lot more money being thrown into the breach. That’s simply what the machine does; there is no chance to reform it, nor will the Hegemony dissipate willingly (although lately it’s done a good job of dissipating unwillingly.)
But all that money may as well be flushed down the can.
The threshold has been reached and it’s all downhill from here.
Exclusive Strategika 51
According to our sources from Syria, The National Defense Force, a well-equipped paramilitary force fighting alongside the Syrian Army against Nato backed ISIL and Enosra Front will have the opportunity to use the T-90 S main battle tank in combat in Syria.
The Syrian Armour units are still using T-55’s, T-62’s and T-72 S’ MBT while new T-80’s tanks dispatched by Russia are known to be used since December 2014 by the third Syrian Army Brigade in Southern Damascus within the Capital Defence Force.
Initially, Moscow has stationed its first T-90’s at the Syrian Forward Operation Base in Latakia. But many reports NDF are starting to receive first batches of new tanks. In one occasion, one Russian cargo aircraft was hit by rockets launched by rebels and many T-90’s were damaged by the blasts.
Who will operate the T-90’s on the battlefield?
Open sources media outlets are talking about 2,000 Cuban military Advisers being sent to Syria to drive the new Syrian Battle Tanks but some sources claim more and more North Korean and Iranian military ‘advisers’ are already doing the job.
The North Koreans sent to Syria are said to be very enthusiastic to fight since one Mikoyan Mig-29 Fulcrum North Korean pilot managed recently to wreak havoc near the Turkish Airspace, harassing the Turkish Air Force F-16’s.
America’s 3000 man contingent inside Iraq, is managing combat operations for ISIS and al Nusra in combination with Israeli forces.
The report below was received from Syria and Lebanon this morning. I will bullet point what I believe are the salient points.
- ISIS chief, al Baghdadi, was removed from his position 4 months ago because the CIA is putting command of ISIS in the hands of Chechen and Russian jihadists who are both trusted and better trained.
- This move was resisted and the Chechen forces, numbering 15,000, withdrew to Mosul.
- This is being done to resist Iranian and Russian involvement both directly and through the new Baghdad intelligence coordination center which is threatening to end the war, something the CIA and Mossad cannot allow.
- US Special Forces, on the ground in both Syria and Iraq, working out of Deir Ezzur, al Mayaden and Ramadi and receiving logistic support from America’s 3000 man contingent inside Iraq, is managing combat operations for ISIS and al Nusra in combination with Israeli forces.
- The American assault on Deir Ezzur to “capture” an imaginary “oil official” of ISIS was staged to exfiltrate an American field commander who had been identified by Syria and was about to be captured by Syrian Speznatz.
- All CIA and Mossad operations with al Nusra (the real Free Syrian Army) and ISIS are directly tied at every level to operations, both military and political, in Ukraine.
Original Arabic text by Naheed Al-Hussainy from Damascus, Syria
ناهد الحسيني – دمشق
أكد السفير الدكتور هيثم بو سعيد أمين عام المنظمة الأوروبية للأمن والمعلومات انّ الاتحاد الاوروبي بات امام معضلة صعبة في القضية السورية ولا حلّ الا من خلال انتهاج نمط التهدئة في الخطاب السياسي الذي قد يوحي الى رغبة في اعادة الأمور الى طبيعتها تدريجياً مع الحكومة السورية، وهذا ما عَمِلت عليه وتعمل المنظمة الأوروبية للأمن والمعلومات منذ فترة مع الحكومات الاوروبية، نظراً لخطورة الوضع، مشيرا الى أن الغرب بدء بإرسال إشارات في عدّة اتجاهات، خصوصاً بعد دخول اسرائيل على المسرح السوري جراء قصفها لمواقع للجيش بعد بدء العمليات الجوية الروسية ضد تنظيم الإرهابي داعش. والتدخل الاسرائيلي يُعتبر بمثابة رسالة دعم للجماعات التكفيريةً وخاصة جبهة النصرة ومتفرعاتها التي تلقى دعم علني من اسرائيل وغضب الأخيرة جراء قصف الطيران الروسي لمواقع داعش.
كما أعلن السفير بو سعيد انّ محاولة قصف موكب ابو بكر البغدادي في منطقة بيجي هو ادعاء صحيح، الاّ انّ البغدادي لم يكن من ضمن الأشخاص الذين أصيبوا جراء القصف الجوي للتحالف الدولي. والغرض من هذا السيناريو هو التحضير لإشاعة مقتله بعد ان تمّ الكشف عن إزاحته منذ اكثر من أربعة أشهر بعد ان كانت هناك مجموعة من الموساد الإسرائيلية ومجموعة أمنية تقوم بحمايته على رأسهم مسؤول اللجنة الأمنية للتنظيم أبي سعد الكربولي قبل حوالي خمسة أشهر، حيث مصيره منذ ذلك الحين بات لغزاً عجزه او وفاته لاحقاً.
وأوضح السفير ابو سعيد الى انّ الخلاف الذي أدّى الى إقصاء البغدادي عن منصبه جاء بعد خلاف بينه وبين القيادة الاستخباراتية الاميركية المحلية من اجل دفع الشيشانيين الى واجهة التنظيم الإرهابي الاَّ انه بقيت السيطرة العراقية على رأس هذا التنظيم مما أوجب صدع كبير في منطقة بيجي في حينها أدى الى خروج حوالي خمسة عشرة الف (١٥،٠٠٠) من الشيشانيين الى الموصل. مشيرا الى ان المعلومات المتوفرة تشير الى ان الهدف من تسلم واجهة القيادة لهذا التنظيم المحظور دوليا هو لاستعماله ورقة ضغط
أميركية على روسيا في الاحداث الجارية في أوكرانيا
وأوضح السفير ابو سعيد الى انّ الخلاف الذي أدّى الى إقصاء البغدادي عن منصبه جاء بعد خلاف بينه وبين القيادة الاستخباراتية الاميركية المحلية من اجل دفع الشيشانيين الى واجهة التنظيم الإرهابي الاَّ انه بقيت السيطرة العراقية على رأس هذا التنظيم مما أوجب صدع كبير في منطقة بيجي في حينها أدى الى خروج حوالي خمسة عشرة الف (١٥،٠٠٠) من الشيشانيين الى الموصل. مشيرا الى ان المعلومات المتوفرة تشير الى ان الهدف من تسلم واجهة القيادة لهذا التنظيم المحظور دوليا هو لاستعماله ورقة ضغط أميركية على روسيا في الاحداث الجارية في أوكرانيا.
وهناك معلومات تفيد بانه يتم تحضير مجموعات من الأصول الاسلامية التكفيرية للقيام بأعمال أمنية وعسكرية ضد الجيش الروسي وحلفائهم بغية تحجيم الامتداد الروسي وهذه المجموعات موجودة حاليا في الموصل
US Baghdadi Scenario is scandalous
Secretary General of the European Department for Security and Information Haissam Bou Said stated that the European Union is facing a difficult dilemma visa-a-vie the Syrian issue, noting that there is no solution except through the adoption of a truce in the political discourse pattern which may suggest a desire to restore things to gradual normality with the Syrian government.
“This is what the Department has worked and is working on for a while with the European governments because of the seriousness of the situation,” Bou Said commented.
He noted that the West begins to send off signals in several directions , especially after Israel entered the Syrian theater by bombing army positions in the wake of Russian air operations against the terrorist organizations, namely ISIS, Al- Nusra and subsidiaries , which are now overtly backed by Israel.
A reliable source told VT that the Israeli element in the Syrian scene was present from the outburst of the Syrian crisis, via aiding the insurgents with logistics to topple the regime of Bashar al Assad.
The Russians are coordinating now with the Israelis to avoid any collusion incidents in Syrian spaces, and the Syrian army moved now from defensive to offensive strategies, benefitting tremendously from the Russian air cover which is protecting the movements of Syrian military.
The European position is still confused on Syria, because of the Israeli lobby leverage exercised on Top-notch European politicians and governments.
Bou Said also said that the bombing attempt of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi procession in “Baiji” is true , but al-Baghdadi was not among the people who were injured during the aerial bombardment of the international coalition . The purpose of this scenario is to prepare for the rumor of his death after the revelation that he was removed from his position four months ago. A group of Mossad, together with the security committee head of the organization Abu Saad al-Karbouli were guarding Al Baghdadi, whose fate since then has become a mystery.
Ambassador Bou Saeed explained that al-Baghdadi was excluded after the dispute which erupted between him and the local US intelligence command regarding pushing the Chechens to the forefront of the terrorist organization, but the Iraqi top control remained, leading to a crack in the organization in “Baiji.” About fifteen thousand ( 15,000 ) of Chechens left as a result and headed for Mosul .
Bou Said indicated that that the reason behind giving the Chechens the upper hand in the organization is to use them as a bargain chip against Russia in the ongoing events in Ukraine. The intelligence available to the DESI clearly indicates that groups of extremists are being prepared now to take military actions against the Russian army and their allies in order to curtail the Russian sprawl . The groups are positioned in Mosul now, waiting for a signal to move ahead.
Source: Veterans Today
The bombing on Monday evening, August 17, 2015, has killed up to 20 people, injured over 100 more, and stands as one of the worst single terrorist attacks in Thailand’s capital of Bangkok in recent memory. The attack targeted a religious shrine popular with Asian tourists – particularly from China – who now comprise the largest demographic group of visitors to Thailand.
It is clear the attack was a precision strike on Thailand’s economy, and specifically against a very precise segment of Thailand’s tourist market. Commentators have admitted that many other targets with higher concentrations of tourists exist throughout Bangkok. Terrorists specifically struck the Erawan Shrine in downtown Bangkok to target Thailand’s Asian tourists.
The Western media has already begun spinning theories as to who carried out the attack – focusing on separatists in Thailand’s southern most provinces who have been waging a low-level insurgency for years. Many note, however, that violence rarely unfolds outside of these provinces, and has never been carried out on this scale – especially in Bangkok.
Deposed dictator Thaksin Shinawatra and his supporters have also been cited as possible suspects. While southern separatists have never visited violence upon Bangkok, Shinawatra’s followers have – and often. They carried out riots that left two shopkeepers dead in 2009. In 2010, they fielded some 300 heavily armed militants on Bangkok’s streets, triggering gun battles that left nearly 100 dead and culminated in city-wide arson. They again fielded these same terrorists throughout 2013-2014 to target protests aimed at Shinawatra’s regime. This latest episode left nearly 30 dead and hundreds injured.
While no single attack by Shinawatra’s followers has rivaled Monday’s blast, the total death toll and carnage carried out by his militants in 2010, and again in 2013-2014 certainly exceeded it.
The foreign media also speculated terrorists linked to either China’s Xinjiang province or even the so-called « Islamic State » (ISIS) may have potentially been involved – perhaps because of the large number of Chinese tourists hit in the attack, and because terrorists from China’s Xinjiang province have been trafficked by NATO to Syria to fight along side ISIS.
It has been previously reported how the US and its allies have supported both Shinawatra’s regime over the past decade Also reported were US-Saudi ties with Thailand’s southern separatists and US-Turkish ties with China’s Uyghur separatists.
With US foreign policy serving as the singular common denominator between all possible suspects, one may be led to ask, « why Thailand? » What ax has the US to grind against Thailand?
Thailand’s Deadly Sins
While Thailand is perceived by many to be a stanch US ally, this originates in Cold War history, not modern reality. During the Vietnam War, Thailand found itself in the middle of a deadly regional conflict and opted to make concessions with the US rather than array itself against it. Thailand had previously used a similar strategy during World War II to mitigate war with Japan at the temporary cost of its sovereignty.
However, recently Thailand has drifted from Washington – and not just in terms of US-Thai relations alone, but within the greater context of US ambitions in Asia and in particular, in regards to its long-laid plans to encircle, contain, and « integrate » China in its American-made « international order. »
(1.) Thailand’s ruling establishment has steadily resisted, eroded, and finally has ousted the US-backed client regime of Thaksin Shinawatra over a decade of political chaos.
In the late 1990’s Shinawatra was an adviser to notorious US private equity firm, the Carlyle Group and described himself as a personal friend of the Bush political dynasty. He pledged upon taking political office that he would continue to serve as « matchmaker » between US interests and Thailand’s resources. In 2001 he privatized Thailand’s resources and infrastructure including the nation’s oil conglomerate PTT – which was sold off to foreign interests including Western oil companies, Chevron, Exxon, and Shell.
In 2003, Shinawatra would commit Thai troops to the US invasion of Iraq, despite widespread protests from both the Thai military and the public. Shinawatra would also allow the CIA to use Thailand for its abhorrent rendition program.
In 2004, Shinawatra attempted to ramrod through a US-Thailand Free-Trade Agreement (FTA) without parliamentary approval, backed by the US-ASEAN Business Council who just before the 2011 elections that saw Shinawatra’s sister Yingluck Shinawatra brought into power, hosted the leaders of his « red shirt » « United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship » (UDD) in Washington DC.
Since the first coup in 2006 aimed at his regime, Shinawatra has been represented by US corporate-financier elites via their lobbying firms including, Kenneth Adelman of the Edelman PR firm (Freedom House, International Crisis Group,PNAC), James Baker of Baker Botts (CFR, Carlyle Group), Robert Blackwill (CFR) of Barbour Griffith & Rogers (BGR), Kobre & Kim, Bell Pottinger (and here) and currently Robert Amsterdam of Amsterdam & Partners (Chatham House).
And from 2006 until now, both Western political and media circles have continuously provided favorable spin for Shinawatra and his political proxies. This includes the use of the above mentioned Freedom House and its umbrella organization, the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to fund and back nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and academics in Thailand to provide rhetorical and operation support for Shinawatra and serve as a constant source of sociopolitical subversion aimed at Thailand’s ruling establishment.
Recently, with the appointment of Glyn Davies as US Ambassador to Thailand, a War College graduate specializing in nonmilitary use of force to upturn the sociopolitical order of a targeted nation, it is clear that America is still committed to installing Shinawara into power.
(2.) Thailand’s ruling establishment, in the wake of ousting Shinawatra from power, has pursued its own foreign policy, and in particular is seen as aligning closer to China.
Since the 2006 coup which sent Shinawatra fleeing, and the 2014 coup which finally began the process of fully uprooting his entire political network, Thailand has moved steadily away from the « American Pacific Century » and toward the rise of China.
In terms of military cooperation, Thailand has invited China to participate for the first time in its long running annual Cobra Gold military exercise. Once solely a joint US-Thai exercise, it has evolved over the years to reflect Thailand’s shifting foreign policy – with China’s inclusion indicating Bangkok’s recognition of Beijing’s growing regional clout.
And while Thailand is often accused of having an all-American made military arsenal, most of its US-made weapons are antiquated, including aging M60 tanks. Before the NATO-backed coup in Ukraine, Thailand had attempted to procure T-84 main battle tanks from Kiev. It also possesses nearly 400 Type-85 armored personal carries from China and over 200 Ukrainian BTR-3 armored personal carriers to complement its aging US-made M113 carriers.
Perhaps most significant of all is Thailand’s plans to procure a small fleet of Chinese Type 039A diesel-electric attack submarines. Defense News in its article, « Thai Chinese Sub Buy Challenges US Pivot, » would claim:
Thailand’s move to purchase Chinese submarines has exacerbated tensions with the US and poses a challenge to Washington’s « pivot » to the Pacific.
The military junta, which declared a coup in May 2014 and created the National Council for Peace and Order, could turn to China for political and military support and cooperation, analysts said. The junta-led Cabinet approved the purchase of three Type 039A (Yuan) attack submarines in early July.
It is clear that Thailand has been in the process of gradually escaping out from under American hegemony for years, with the recent ousting of Thaksin Shinawatra and his regime, along with strengthening ties with China creating an almost palpable desperation for American hegemony in Asia.
(3.) Thailand’s ruling establishment refuses to take part in America’s South China Sea strategy of tension.
Part of America’s « pivot toward Asia » was creating conflict in the South China Sea between Beijing and the nations of Southeast Asia. By creating a security crisis Southeast Asia would be unable to solve alone, the US anticipated it would accentuate military and political dependence on the West. Nations including Japan and the Philippines have elected to walk into this conflict fully, expending themselves politically, militarily, and economically to confront and contain China while maintaining America’s current regional hegemony.
Other nations including Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia have asserted themselves amid the conflict, but often with a much more balanced stance between Beijing and Washington. Thailand too has attempted to avoid the conflict. The Nation in their article, « Thailand walks a tightrope on South China Sea, » would report:
The high-power visit from all branches of Thai military top brasses to China recently – first in 15 years – was a show-case sending a strong message to the US and the region, Cambodia in particular, that the Thai-China defense and security ties are rock solid and must not be the [subject] of speculations.
In essence, Thailand serves as a speed bump within ASEAN preventing the supranational bloc from adopting a more belligerent stance toward China regarding South China Sea tensions. This has forced America’s proxies to act more unilaterally toward China than with the collective US-backed ASEAN front envisioned throughout decades of US policy papers.
Thailand: A Hole in America’s Great ASEAN Wall
Since the Vietnam War, it was clear that American foreign policy in Asia hinged on containing the rise of China and « integrating » it into an « international order » US policymakers admit is an order created by the West, for the West. It was amid the leaked « Pentagon Papers » that this was unequivocally laid out – setting the stage for decades of foreign policy to come.
The papers contained three important quotes regarding this, the first stating:
…the February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain China.
It also claims:
China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30′s, and like the USSR in 1947—looms as a major power threatening to undercut our importance and effectiveness in the world and, more remotely but more menacingly, to organize all of Asia against us.
Finally, it outlines the immense regional theater the US was engaged in against China at the time by stating:
…there are three fronts to a long-run effort to contain China (realizing that the USSR “contains” China on the north and northwest): (a) the Japan-Korea front; (b) the India-Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.
The conspiracy to encircle and contain China originating in the 1967 Pentagon Papers would be reaffirmed throughout the decades within various successive US policy papers.
In 1997, key US policymaker Robert Kagan – co-author of multiple war plans featuring extraterritorial US aggression – would pen a piece in the Weekly Standard titled, « What China Knows That We Don’t: The Case for a New Strategy of Containment. » In it, Kagan reveals the US is still pursuing a China-containment strategy and claims (emphasis added):
The present world order serves the needs of the United States and its allies, which constructed it. And it is poorly suited to the needs of a Chinese dictatorship trying to maintain power at home and increase its clout abroad. Chinese leaders chafe at the constraints on them and worry that they must change the rules of the international system before the international system changes them.
He continues on by explaining how the Chinese correctly perceive America as using Southeast Asia as a united front against Beijing (emphasis added):
But the Chinese understand U.S. interests perfectly well, perhaps better than we do. While they welcome the U.S. presence as a check on Japan, the nation they fear most, they can see clearly that America’s military and diplomatic efforts in the region severely limit their own ability to become the region’s hegemon. According to Thomas J. Christensen, who spent several months interviewing Chinese military and civilian government analysts, Chinese leaders worry that they will « play Gulliver to Southeast Asia’s Lilliputians, with the United States supplying the rope and stakes. »
Indeed, the United States blocks Chinese ambitions merely by supporting what we like to call « international norms » of behavior. Christensen points out that Chinese strategic thinkers consider « complaints about China’s violations of international norms » to be part of « an integrated Western strategy, led by Washington, to prevent China from becoming a great power.
Kagan’s column represented more than merely his own observations. The policy of containing China by projecting American power and influence across China’s peripheries – including Pakistan, India, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Japan, and Korea would be a reoccurring theme in the 2006 « String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China’s Rising Power across the Asian Littoral, » report put out by the Strategic Studies Institute.
It featured a map indicating China’s « String of Pearls, » a geostrategic corridor the United States would need to disrupt in order to control China’s development.
Beyond Thailand, political subversion funded by the US State Department and low-intensity terrorism can be found throughout this corridor, with NED-funded political fronts and their terrorist wings attempting to disrupt China’s Gwadar Port in Baluchistan, Pakistan, to NED-funded supporters of Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi attempting to overthrow the Sino-aligned government there, to Malaysia and NED-backed street mob Bersih and its leader Anwar Ibrahim, to the South China Sea where US Pacific Command is directly agitating relations across the region.
The most recent affirmation of US designs versus China come in the form of a paper co-authored by the above mentioned Robert Blackwill – a Bush-era administrator and lobbyists of Thaksin Shinawatra. In his CFR paper titled, « Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China, » it states:
Because the American effort to ‘integrate’ China into the liberal international order has now generated new threats to U.S. primacy in Asia—and could result in a consequential challenge to American power globally—Washington needs a new grand strategy toward China that centers on balancing the rise of Chinese power rather than continuing to assist its ascendancy.
It is no coincidence that US policymakers charged with devising containment strategies for China are also serving as « lobbyists » for US client regimes in Southeast Asia meant to assist in the implementation of this « grand strategy. »
Thailand’s Bombing Amid a Larger Struggle
Thus, the bombing in Bangkok, whether it was carried out by the US-backed regime of Shinawatra itself, US-Saudi linked terrorists from the south, or terrorists the US imported from Chechnya, the Middle East or China’s Xinjiang where the US is currently trying to foment yet another violent insurrection, was an act of coercion to steer Thailand away from its own foreign policy, and back toward serving American foreign policy.
In terms of military cooperation, economic trade, and political ties, Thailand is not the only nation attempting to escape out from under American hegemony. Malaysia and Myanmar have been fighting very visible battles against US-backed proxies. Should one or more of these states fully escape, it will create a cascading effect that will topple all of America’s « Great ASEAN Wall. »
For BRICS – a geopolitical alliance promoting the emergence of a multipolar world – they must recognize ASEAN’s struggle out from under Western hegemony and assist them if even only through the media – exposing to the world the ties between the US and various regional political factions and ties between the US, its allies, and regional terrorist organizations used when staged protests are impossible.
For ASEAN states themselves, they must resist the urge to capitulate in the face of terrorism and support neighboring nations in their bid to preserve national sovereignty.
It is clear who has an « ax to grind » against Thailand. The only question that remains is how big that ax is, and how many times it will fall upon Thailand before those wielding it can be disarmed.
Late last year, Germany’s broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW) investigated what turned out to be hundreds of trucks a day carrying billions of dollars in supplies, flowing across the Turkish border into Syria and directly into the hands of the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS).
The border crossing near the Turkish city of Oncupinar, approximately 100km west of the Syrian city of Kobani, is apparently only one of many such crossings where ISIS fighters, weapons, and materiel move directly under the watch and apparent assistance of NATO.
TIME in their recent article titled, « ISIS Fighters Kill 200 Civilians in Syrian Town, » reported that:
The attacks also came after the group [ISIS] suffered a series of setbacks over the past two weeks, including the loss last week of the Syrian border town of Tal Abyad — one of the group’s main points for bringing in foreign fighters and supplies.
Tal Abyad, a Turkish-Syrian border crossing east of Kobani, is now a second, confirmed point of entry into Syria used by ISIS to supply its ongoing campaign within the country.
Reports of confirmed, extensive logistical networks passing through NATO and US-ally territory, into Syria, contradict the current prevailing narrative that ISIS is an « indigenous » terrorist organization, funded and self-sustaining within the territory it currently holds in both Syria and Iraq. The Western media has attempted to claim with little evidence that ISIS’ immense, global operations are somehow underwritten by « ransom payments » and « black market oil » it has seized in eastern Syria.
Clearly, not only are these reports as untenable as they are untrue, the Western media itself has reported precisely how ISIS has been sustaining its impressive fighting capacity – with billions of dollars of state-sponsored aid flowing through NATO territory, directly to their front lines.
Were the supplies flowing over the Syrian-Iraqi border, it may be possible to argue plausible deniability – with the governments of either nation unable to control either side of the border. However, Turkey, a NATO member since 1952 and host of the United States Air Force’s Incirlik Air Base, has full control of its borders meaning that ISIS-bound convoys not only pass over its borders with the apparent approval of Turkish border guards, but are assembled somewhere within Turkey itself before arriving at the edge of Syrian territory.
No effort has been made to stem the flow of supplies to ISIS from NATO territory, with the Turkish government officially denying the trucks DW videotaped and reported on even exist. This indicates clear NATO complicity in the arming and supplying of ISIS and other Al Qaeda affiliates who are in fact invading Syria from NATO-territory, as well as from US-ally Jordan.
For the West, which feigns indignation in the wake of recent ISIS attacks on France, Tunisia, and Kuwait, while posing as the primary force engaged in war with ISIS directly, it would be a simple matter to close the Turkish-Syrian border with NATO troops to ensure ISIS was shut off completely from the supplies it depends on to maintain its fighting capacity. That the borders are intentionally left open for this extensive daily torrent of supplies, weapons, and fighters to pass over unopposed, is proof positive that ISIS is and has been from the beginning a proxy force intentionally created to stoke fear and support at home for unending war abroad.
Without the threat of ISIS and the chaos it is creating across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, the ability for the West to wage war on its enemies and justify extraterritorial meddling would be severely limited. In fact, the very ISIS forces clearly being armed and supplied by NATO directly, are being used as a pretext by US policymakers to execute recently laid plans to incrementally invade and occupy Syria with US military forces.
The Brookings Institute from which these plans originated, recently used an ISIS assault on Kobani to call for « US boots on the ground » in Syria, an assault which would have been logistically impossible were it not for the daily torrent of supplies the US and its NATO-ally Turkey have themselves intentionally enabled for years to cross into Syria.
To defeat ISIS, its supply lines must be cut – a simple matter to perform that requires only Turkish and other NATO troops to move in and disrupt overt ISIS logistical networks running within their own territory. Instead, the US State Department and US-operated NGOs have even gone as far as condemning what little attempts have been made to control Turkey’s border with Syria. The US State Department’s Voice of America in their article, « Turkish Border Crackdown Imperils Syrian Refugees, » used the pretext of « human rights » to condemn Turkey for what meager control measures it has attempted to put in place.
The fact that the US, with a military base in Turkey itself, has elected not to call for or attempt to implement stricter border security to stem the flow of ISIS supplies, and instead has gone as far as bombing Syrian territory in feigned efforts to « fight ISIS, » proves that the terrorist organization is both a proxy and a pretext. No serious military campaign would be launched against an enemy without identifying and cutting off its supply lines, especially when those supply lines run through that military’s own territory.
The general public across the West, if they truly desire an end to ISIS and its atrocities, will demand what least the West can do – shutting the borders of Turkey and Jordan and ending the flow of supplies to ISIS. This will never happen, thanks to both elementary but effective « divide and conquer » rhetoric miring the Western public in endless circular debate, and the fact that the average Westerner’s understanding of modern warfare and military logistics is derived from Hollywood and television, not maps, history, and basic knowledge.
Direct link to the article: Land Destroyer
Techniquement, les couleurs bichromatiques (blanc-bleu) utilisés par Facebook sont exactement celles du drapeau israélien.
Officially, Facebook is a popular social networking site Facebook, launched in February 2004. Actually, it is one of the most widespread spying tool ever created. It is not neutral. Any real attempt to criticize International Zionism could lead to a heavy censorship. In some well documented cases, Facebook « moderators » lost their temper and threatened users with very arrogant and ethnocentric messages before preventing them to get logged into their account.
Officiellement, Facebook est un réseau social populaire, crée en février 2004. En réalité, c’est l’un des plus vastes outils d’espionnage jamais crées. Il n’est pas neutre: toute tentative sérieuse visant à critiquer le sionisme international est susceptible d’entraîner la censure. Dans des cas bien documentés, les « modérateurs » de Facebook ont totalement perdu leur sang-froid et se sont mis à menacer des utilisateurs avec des messages très arrogants et ethnocentistes avant de leur interdire l’accès à leurs comptes.
The Israeli newspaper ‘Haaretz’ (the Land) noted that “Facebook was founded by Mark Zuckerberg, a Jewish former Harvard University student.” This story is a new myth.
Le journal Israélien « Haaretz » (la Terre) asouligné que « Facebook a été fondé par Mark Zuckerberg, un ancien étudiant juif de Harvard ». Cette histoire est un mythe.
According to an Iranian Special Investigation team, Facebook was created by Units 8001, 8002 and 8003 of the Electronic Israeli Intel branch of the Mossad. Marc Zuckerberg was the Public Relations smoke screen of this operation.
Selon une équipe d’investigation iranienne, Facebook a été crée par les unités 8001, 8002 et 8003 de la branche du renseignement électronique du Mossad israélien. Marc Zuckerberg étant l’écran de fumée en matière de relations publiques de cette opération.
Marc Zuckerberg and his Facebook co-founders Dustin Moskowitz and Eduardo Saverin, were all members of the Jewish college fraternity group Alpha Epsilon Pi at Harvard. Officially this closed fraternity was founded ‘to provide opportunities for Jewish men seeking the best possible college and fraternity experience’ but, in fact, has a very long and rich experience dealing with Zionist organizations and supporting Israel in North America.
Marc Zuckerberg et les deux cofondateurs de Facebook, Dustin Msokowitz et Eduardo Saverin, étaient tous membres de Alpha Epsilon Pi, une fraternité de Harvard. Officiellement, ce club fermé a été fondée pour « offrir des opportunités aux hommes juifs cherchant les meilleurs facultés et l’expérience d’une fraternité ». Cependant, ce club possède une très longue et riche expérience avec les organisations zionistes et le soutien à Israël en Amérique du Nord.
Par dessus tout, Alpha Epsilon Pi est également le partenaire officiel de Bnai Brith, un ordre maçonnique juif, lequel est derrière la très hystérique et virulente Ligue de l’anti-difamation juive (ADL)
The concept of Facebook was stolen from other non-Jewish persons who had been threatened to be killed or properly terminated. The little gang officially behind Facebook got their funding from a well known German-born Zionist named Peter Thiel, one of the founders of PayPal.
L’idée de Facebook a été volée à d’autres personnes non-juives, qui ont été menacés d’assassinat ou de liquidation physique. Le petit gang officiellement derrière Facebook ont reçu leur premier financement d’un Sioniste notoire né en Allemagne, Peter Thiel, qui est aussi l’un des fondateurs de PayPal.
The Jewish-Russian billionaire and Internet investor Yuri Milner, a public enemy in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, has since 2009 invested in Facebook, along with investments in Twitter. Yuri Milner is known to have some close deals with the Russian Jewish and Arch-Zionist Oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the public enemy number One in Russian Federation and the responsible of the chaos that struck this country when Boris Eltsine was President.
Youri Milner, un juif russe milliardaire, considéré comme ennemi public dans la Russie de Vladimir Poutine, a investi depuis l’année 2009 dans Facebook (et également Twitter). Milner est connu pour avoir des rapports étroit avec l’oligarque russe Archi-sioniste et multimilliardaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky, l’ennemi public numéo 1 en Fédération de Russie et l’un des responsables du chaos qui s’était abattu sur ce pays du temps de la présidence de Boris Eltsine.
All the Russian Oligarchs are either staunch Zionists supporting Israel or Israelis working abroad as a sleeping sabotaging cells for the strategic interests of Israel. Their primary mission: ruin and destroy other Nation-Sates economies and creating failed States.
Tous les oligarques russes sont soit de fervents supporters du sionisme ou carrément des israéliens travaillant à l’étranger comme des éléments de cellules dormantes oeuvrant pour les intérêts stratégiques d’Israël. Leur mission première: ruiner et détruire les économies des autres Etats-Nations et la création d’Etats en faillite.
In 2014 Facebook bought the influential internet messaging service WhatsApp, a messaging platform for smartphone users, one of its founders and present CEO being the Ukrainian Zionist Jew Jan Koum, who is actively funding and backing the Kiev Regime against Novorossia Republics and pushing for a global war with Russia. Koum is a personal friend with the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu and the former Gerogian president Mikhail Saakachvili.
En 2014, Facebook a procédé à l’acquisition de Whatsapp, un influent service de messagerie Internet pour les utilisateurs de Smartphones. L’un des fondateurs de Whatsapp est le juif ukrainien Jan Koum, qui finance et soutient activement le régime de Kiev contre les républiques populaires de Novorossia et pousse à la guerre globale contre la Russie.
Thoug Israel Armed Forces have created Viber and tried all their best to hide its connection with Israel, declaring the three military officers who created Viber left the Army and sold their product to another company based in Cyprus (not very far from Tel-Aviv), they still need other applications to extend their spying net over vast zones.
Bien que les forces armées israéliennes ont crée Viber et essayé de cacher les liens qui lient cette application pour téléphones mobiles avec Israël, en déclarant que les trois officiers israéliens qui ont conçu Viber ont quitté l’armée et vendu leur produit à une compagnie basée à Chypre (pas très loin de Tel-Aviv au demeurant), Israël a encore besoin d’autres applications pour étendre son réseau d’espionnage électronique sur de vastes zones.
Since 6 months, Facebook is behaving very weirdly with its users. It turns out Facebook is more and more « nervous » and even hysterical when it comes to some issues like using nicknames and criticizing international Zionism.
Depuis 6 mois, Facebook agit très bizarrement avec ses utilisateurs. Il s’avère que Facebook devient de plus en plus « nerveux » et même hystérique quand il s’agit de certains sujets comme l’utilisation de pseudonymes au lieu de vrais patronymes et à l’égard de critique envers le sionisme international.
This erratic behavior can be dubbed « antisocial ». Ironically, the social network has turned into an antisocial nightmare for every individual who got involved with it. But this is not a real issue. the real issue is how come a social media comes to ask you to submit your identification credentials or else it closes your account. This is a typical Zionist hysterical threat and spying behavior.
Ce comportement erratique peut être considéré comme antisocial. Bien ironique quand il s’agit d’un réseau social qui s’est transformé en un véritable cauchemar pour toute personne qui s’est retrouvée dedans. Mais le problème n’est pas là. Le véritable problème est comment un réseau social en vient à exiger de vous de lui soumettre des preuves physiques de votre identification sous peine de suspendre ou de supprimer votre compte. Ceci est un comportement sioniste typique caractérisé par la menace et l’espionnage hystérique.
Do you want to be a friend with the extremist Zionists of Israel? Then sign up to Facebook. This rotten network is regarding humans as sheep generating data and money (each like generates money to fund the so-called Israeli Defence Forces and even ISIS! )
Voulez-vous devenir amis avec les extrémistes sionistes d’Israël? Vous n’avez qu’à rejoindre Facebook. Ce réseau pourri considère les gens comme des moutons générant de l’information et de l’argent (chaque « j’aime » génère de l’argent qui sert à financer les soit-disant forces d’auto-défense d’Israël et même l’organisation de l’Etat Islamique)
Are you still on Facebook?
Êtes-vous encore sur Facebook?
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this, If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth.” – Dr. Carl Sagan
Before the bodies of the unfortunate victims in Charleston were cold, the usual “exploiteers” were rushing to use the tragedy to their own advantage, with the political manipulators wanting to rekindle past social divisions in another chapter of divide and conquer as we head into the 2016 election season.
I was beginning to wonder if the Olympics had created a new gold medal competition… Who Can Exploit a Mass Killing the Best and the Quickest. America would certainly vote for such an award expansion, as it would be sure to win.
You all know about the tragic slaughter of the nine praying church members in Charleston by the quite clearly deranged and immature 21-year-old man. The father that bought him the murder weapon is lying low, and for good reason. “Dear Dad, if you have another son, give him a skydiving gift certificate so only one will die.”
We got an early warning that there was a smell to this case when Obama was already milking the tragedy before the bodies were cold. He used these killings to make another run at pushing his gun control pet peeve, which has been rejected at all previous attempts. I can hear the “two bit” staff member whispering in his ear, “Mr. President, you can still go out a winner on this issue if you move fast.”
And mind you, this is the president that is training and arming terrorists in Syria, and backed a Neo-Nazi led coup in Ukraine. “Sorry Mr. President, you are not a legitimate leader of an anti-gun violence crusade in my book. The almost a quarter million dead in Syria would agree with me.”
Once the president waived the green flag, the race was on. We saw the usual Facebook photos with all the stage-managed props for a white supremacist background story, like the ever present Confederate flag. If Mr. Roof had Facebook photos with an American flag, somehow I don’t think he would have been smeared as an American supremacist. The term is used VERY selectively.
Then things took a stranger turn with one particular photo, with the Rhodesia patch on Dylann’s leather jacket that was too new and too bright. The swampy background was in crisp focus, whereas Dylann was in soft focus. We smelled a Photoshopped image, which was quickly confirmed.
The pixel density varies when different parts of photos are used and altered, and even more obvious when an item is “blown up” for proper scaling. Dylann’s photo was cut out from another picture and dropped in, and then the apartheid Rhodesia patch added. The bells and whistles began going off.
Gordon Duff debunked what we concluded was a faked Manifesto in his June 27 NEO article, Church shooter more than an Enigma. The “why I did it” letter is also a traditional psyops ruse, but one used rarely so as not to wear it out. This one was amateurish in its overkill, showing that no major state intelligence operatives were involved. The sloppiness here would embarrass them.
But those of us from the South who fought two decades of culture wars against contrived attacks on Southern heritage were quick to spot a new anti-Confederate Jihad coming, but this one came on at light speed. In the old days, Dylann would have needed some KKK relatives, or maybe to have been a past Klan boy scout, or something to have linked him to an established group and profile.
This ninth grade high school dropout has come up quite bare on his social skills — a loner son freeloading off a father who probably felt bad for not having raised a son with some grounding in reality. If I had not had a job at 21 years of age, my mother would have beaten me to a pulp.
There are countless young kids like this in America today who are fantasy world misfits in a modern time warp, with their anger growing every day. If Dylann had been Black or Hispanic, he could have joined a gang, and then whatever horrible things he did would only be local news. The political spinmeisters have never found the gangs to be exploitable material.
When several Dylann photos with Confederate flags were published, which might have been Photoshopped, too, the jackals were let loose. Collective guilt was brought back in fashion, and Confederate heritage was going to be nailed to a cross and burned, after dangling from a rope for the required entertainment.
The first moves were retailers who had been selling Southern heritage products for decades, and where all past boycotts attempts never took root, not only began taking inventory off the shelves, but doing so with a lot of media coverage which we have not seen in the past. The reason became evident quickly, when other retailers began to follow suit with the herd mentality. No one wanted to be caught with Confederate goods on the shelves and get singled out for the Jihadi’s attention.
We expected there to be calls for removing the historical Confederate flag from the South Carolina Capitol grounds, but that requires the legislature to change the law. In Georgia, Confederate historical markers are protected from exploitative harassment, as are all other historical symbols. I was part of a Georgia Heritage Council team to help lobby for this, along with a descendant of President Jefferson Davis, whose name was really Jeff Davis.
The legislators who worked with us to get it passed were tired of having their time wasted by civil rights hustlers stirring up hatreds to get more public attention for themselves. The new law cooled down the monument heritage attacks, and civil rights politicians had to go back to work serving their constituents’ real needs versus these showboating Confederacy bashing ones.
I never talked to a single media reporter during those battles who was aware that Confederate soldiers were officially American veterans by act of Congress — something done to bury the hatchet and end the second class status for the disproportionate numbers of Southerners who have always served in America’s military.
These include many famous ones like General George Patton, and Medal of Honor recipients Audie Murphy of WWII and Sgt. Alvin York of WWI fame. York’s grandfather was dragged to death behind a horse by Yankee sympathizers during our Civil War. Alvin got over it. To this day, when an unmarked Confederate soldier’s grave is found, he is entitled to a taxpayer-funded standard white CSA marker from the Veterans administration.
Next to join the anti-Confederate lynch mob were some of the state license tag people, who announced they would stop issuing the Confederate specialty tag, one like many other groups have where the extra fees charged are refunded once a year to support their work. The Georgia Sons of Confederate Veterans have used these funds for years to maintain and build new monuments with no controversy whatsoever.
As mass media continued to push the Confederate flag issue, we knew the usual vandalism would begin, and after the reports of those, there would be copycat defacing of monuments and cemeteries. They began all across the South. The next step will be random killings, when some gang kids want to play the big man by whacking a few white southerners for the good of the cause. But the real story on that twist the US media will not touch with a ten foot pole.
That has to do with black on black and black on white violent crime which has long been an epidemic in America — one censored out of our news. Black Americans know by whom they are most likely to be killed, and that certainly is not a white man, but a young brutal black man who has been taught to take what he wants as a way of proving he is a man.
Black on white crimes figures, compiled annually from national statistics, are so shocking that they have been ignored and censored out of mass media, as it casts a shadow on their favorite victim class. I first became aware of the shocking statistics from the 1999 report.
Of 1.7 million interracial crimes involving blacks and whites, 90% were committed by blacks against whites, which comes out to a ratio of blacks being 250 times more likely to commit an interracial crime on a white victim than vice versa. The rape stats were even worse. The black on white rape rate was 100 times higher than white on black. So now you know why these statistics are buried.
I have shared these official statistics in the past with bleeding heart liberal reporters and a lot of black folks. Virtually all were totally unaware of them and had absolutely no interest in cranking up a public campaign to stop black on white crime… no marches, no legislative resolutions nor condemnation from the church pulpits. Their interest in civil rights went down to zero when the victim was not the right color.
Even the Hispanic figures were manipulated. When a Hispanic is a victim of hate crime, he is listed as Hispanic. But when he is a perpetrator, he is listed as White. I will let you think about that for a moment. Are you wondering why? The answer is that trick bumps up the white hate crime statistics (which are not high) by 20%. You just can’t make this stuff up.
Those behind defiling these church victims for their partisan political advantage are Dylann Roofs themselves, a different version of mass murderers. Whereas ISIL Jihadis dress its victims up in orange jumpsuits and force them to kneel before cutting their heads off, these anti-Confederate Jihadis want to execute an entire people and heritage for the terrorism shock value, just like ISIL does. But Confederate heritage kneels to no one and never will. And while many have tried, we have kept our heads and will continue to do so.
The difference in class between us and the heritage haters can be represented by what Georgia media was told when calling the Georgia SCV to get comments on the Charleston shootings. They were told that the Georgia Division would have nothing to say until the victims were buried out of respect for the families. Yes, we are different than some other Americans, and we intend to stay that way.
For full disclosure, I will share with you that from just my Culpepper branch of Southern ancestors, eighteen fought for the South, and were virtually all the men between 16 and 45. They died at Vicksburg, Lookout Mountain, Resaca, and in Point Lookout Prison.
I have not had time to count the Hodges, Yarbroughs and Etheridges who fought. Many innocent victims continue to die unjustly around the world today, where once again we find the Yankee ”commercial interests “ hand involved. So as Robert Frost once wrote, “I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep.” At Veterans Today, we honor our dead, but those who have been targeted to die, get to cut in line.
Jim W. Dean, managing editor for Veterans Today, producer/host of Heritage TV Atlanta
First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2015/07/04/charleston-shootings-trigger-confederate-lynching-jihad
As a new report details the devastation wrought upon Syria by four years of rebellion, a Virginia state senator who once thanked the Syrian government for defending Christians is worried about the fate of Damascus, the Middle East and Europe.
“If Damascus falls, the dreaded black and white flag of ISIS will fly” over Syria, Virginia state Senator Richard Black told RT. “Within a period of months after the fall of Damascus, Jordan will fall and Lebanon will fall,” he said, adding that the self-proclaimed Islamic State would then target Europe next.
Black is no stranger to the Syrian crisis. Last year, he wrote a letter thanking the government in Damascus for a “gallant and effective campaign” to liberate Christian villages on the border with Lebanon. Most Americans are not aware that Christianity started in present-day Syria, he pointed out. (Source: RT)
Le moins que l’on puisse dire est que le sénateur Richard Black semble bien optimiste quand il affirme que dans un délai de quelques mois après une éventuelle chute de Damas, la Jordanie et le Liban seront les suivants à tomber. En réalité, quels que soient les cas de figure, le Liban tombera dès la chute de Damas et la Jordanie sera menacée de disparition définitive de la géopolitique du Moyen-Orient.
Ce qui est vraiment intéressant est que ces déclarations semblent coïncider avec des dizaines d’anciennes prophéties ne disant pas autre chose en substance.
D’un point de vue prospectiviste, il est pour le moins terrifiant que de tenter de prévoir ce qui ce passera en cas de défaite de l’armée syrienne et de chute de Damas. Au minimum une grande guerre généralisée sur l’ensemble de l’espace régional pouvant très rapidement déborder sur un conflit planétaire.
Vague équivalent du A-10 Warthog de l’US Air Force, le bon vieux Sukhoi Su-25 (Code Otan: Frogfoot) a fini par connaître une véritable consécration dans la guerre en cours au Moyen-Orient du littoral méditerranéen de la Syrie aux confins frontaliers entre l’Irak et l’Iran.
Avion de soutien tactique au sol, le Su-25 a fait ses preuves au combat. Son usage intensif est la cause de la disparition de certains groupuscules armés de la rébellion, notamment en Syrie et l’une des secrets derrière l’avancée des forces combinées iraniennes aux côtés des milices Chiites et des forces sunnites tribales dans la province de Salaheddine en Irak face à Daech.
Cet avion d’attaque au sol a connu un tel succès au Levant que d’autres armées dotés d’armement russe dans le monde sont en train de réhabiliter des escadrilles de bombardement tactique dotées de cet appareil.
En 2014, Damas avait choisi des Su-25 fournis par l’Iran pour aller provoquer les défenses britanniques sur l’île de Chypre et non pas des Mikoyan-Gurevitch Mig-29.
Des experts estiment que l’usage de F-16 égyptiens en Cyrénaïque contre Daech n’a pas atteint les objectifs escomptés tout en soulignant l’efficacité d’un usage éventuel de Su-25 au dessus de la Libye où les belligérants sont en train de se doter d’avions de combat.
Basé sur un prototype du chasseur russe Sukhoi Su-33, la Chine poursuit le développement d’un chasseur polyvalant pour l’aéronavale. Le Shenyang J-15 Feicha (Requin volant) est developpé en commun par Shenyang Aircraft corporation et l’institut 601 de l’Armée de libération chinoise spécialisé dans l’aéronavale.
Tout a commencé en 2001 lorsque la Chine populaire avait acquis auprès de l’Ukraine un prototype inachevé du Sukhoi Su-33, le T-10 k3, dont la plate-forme deviendra la structure de base du projet J-15 mais avec une avionique de combat empruntée au programme du J11B et des radars, une motorisation et un armement chinois.
D’une portée de 3500 kilomètres, l’appareil chinois dispose de capacités très proches de celles du F/A 18 C et D Hornet amércain. Mais avec plus d’armement, puisque le Shenyang J-15 est doté de douzes points d’emport externe et peut être armé avec huit missiles chinois Air-Air PL-12 (BVR) ou russes Vympel R77 et quatre missiles Pi Li 4 (SARH) ou R-73 ou encore emporter des dominos lance-roquettes, des bombes ou encore des missiles anti-navire (Air-surface) ou anti-radar.
A partir d’aujourd’hui, on introduira un rituel dans l’arène, en évoquant compendieusement une affiche de film dont le choix sera une allusion directe ou élliptique à l’actualité stratégique brûlante du moment.
Notre choix se porte cette semaine sur le film « The Dirty Dozen » ou « Les Douze Salopards » (1967), film de Robert Aldrich, avec Lee Marvin, Charles Bronson, Jim Brown, Telly Savalas, Ernest Borgnine, John Cassavetes et Robert Webber.
On vous laisse deviner le lien du synopsis de ce film avec l’actualité (et plus précisément avec la fiasco d’une opération similaire en France) de ce début d’année 2015…
Top U.N. officials have recently said that “All senior U.S. officials and CIA agents who authorized or carried out torture like waterboarding as part of former President George W. Bush’s national security policy must be prosecuted.”
Wouldn’t it be nice to see people like Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, among others, in the court room?
Wouldn’t it be entertaining to hear their defense as to why they water-boarded “suspected terrorists”—a practice that was unknown to the American psyche prior to the Neo-Bolsheviks taking over the U.S. foreign policy? Didn’t we execute Japanese war criminals for water-boarding American POWs?
Even John McCain, the “founding father of ISIS,” as Gordon Duff rightly put it last month, declared explicitly,
“The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding.”
The Zionist puppet moved on to say, “I know from personal experience that torture doesn’t work.”
If we executed the Japanese who water-boarded American POWs, what is the fate of those who practiced the same thing during the Bush administration? And what if those Neo-Bolsheviks—both members of the Dreadful Few and some Goyim—turn out be guilty of committing what Seumas Milne of the Guardian has called “torture orgy”?
That would be really fun to watch because prior to the invasion in Iraq, Bush was postulating that Saddam was torturing his own people. As Andrew Napolitano has pointed out, while Bush was trying to shape public opinion with lies like this, he was setting up his own torture chambers, buying his time to electrify so-called terrorist.
We know that there are some damning things about the recent torture report and the Dreadful Few and their puppets do not want the average American to know. And we know that even prior to the report, the CIA destroyed at least 92 videotapes documenting water-boarding.
If water-boarding was not torture, as Cheney keeps mouthing, why would the CIA go to great length to destroy evidence? And how about torturing people who had absolutely and positively nothing to do with terrorist organizations? You remember Khaled el Marsi?
The C.I.A. kept him for months after realizing that he was the wrong man, and then dumped him by the side of the road. When he got home, he found that his wife had moved away. Apart from the ethical issues, the incident created diplomatic difficulties with Germany.”
Here are at least sixteen of the terrible things that most Americans do not know about torture:
- Torture did not lead the CIA to the courier who ultimately helped capture Osama bin Laden.
- CIA personnel objected to torture techniques, but were “instructed” by the CIA headquarters to continue.
- Colin Powell was not briefed on CIA interrogation methods because he would “blow his stack”.
- The CIA used rectal feeding on detainees.
- CIA leadership refused to punish an officer who killed a detainee during torture session.
- The CIA tortured innocent people.
- The CIA held an “intellectually challenged man” to use as leverage against his family.
- The CIA intentionally mislead the media to “shape public opinion.”
- CIA officers threatened to kill and rape detainees’ mothers.
- The CIA dismissed information that wasn’t obtained through torture, even though it proved to be true.
- CIA torture techniques included mock burials and use of insects.
- Some interrogators had previously admitted to sexual assault.
- One interrogator played Russian roulette.
- The CIA tortured its own informants by accident.
- The CIA tortured detainees in a dungeon.
- The CIA spent hundreds of millions of [taxpayer] dollars on the torture program.
So, let us ask some basic questions. What did we get from torturing at least 100 people “in U.S. detention?” Nothing. In fact, the Senate Intelligence Committee admitted that the torture program was unnecessary.
Yet even President Obama, despite his Zionist leanings and despite the fact that he is withholdings “hundreds, perhaps even thousands of photographs showing the U.S. government’s brutal treatment of detainees,” admitted that “some of the actions that were taken were contrary to our values.”
And where did the CIA learn their techniques? Well, take it from the Jerusalem Post:
“On November 26, 2001, soon after the September 11 attacks on the US, the CIA general counsel wrote that ‘the Israeli example’ could serve as ‘a possible basis for arguing… regarding terrorist detainees that ‘torture was necessary to prevent imminent, significant, physical harm to persons, where there is no other available means to prevent the harm.’”
If you think that the CIA officials were kidding, keep in mind that this is not new at all. As the noted British journalist Robert Fisk meticulously pointed out a few years ago, “Abu Ghraib torture trail leads to Israel.” Fisk wrote then:
“The actual interrogators accused of encouraging U.S. troops to abuse Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib jail were working for at least one company with extensive military and commercial contacts with Israel.
“The head of an American company whose personnel are implicated in the Iraqi tortures, it now turns out, attended an ‘anti-terror’ training camp in Israel and, earlier this year, was presented with an award by Shaul Mofaz, the right-wing Israeli defense minister.
“According to J.P. London’s company, CACI International, the visit of London — sponsored by an Israeli lobby group and including U.S. congressmen and other defense contractors — was “to promote opportunities for strategic partnerships and joint ventures between U.S. and Israeli defense and homeland security agencies.
“The Pentagon and the occupation powers in Iraq insist that only U.S. citizens have been allowed to question prisoners in Abu Ghraib but this takes no account of Americans who may also hold double citizenship.
“The once secret torture report by U.S. Gen. Antonio Taguba refers to “third country nationals” involved in the mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq.
“Taguba mentions Steven Staphanovic and John Israel as involved in the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Staphanovic, who worked for CACI — known to the U.S. military as ‘Khaki’ — was said by Taguba to have ‘allowed and/or instructed MPs (military police), who were not trained in interrogation techniques, to facilitate interrogations by ‘setting conditions’ … he clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse.’
“One of Staphanovic’s co-workers, Joe Ryan — who was not named in the Taguba report — now says he underwent an ‘Israeli interrogation course’ before going to Iraq.
“We know the Pentagon asked Israel for its ‘rules of engagement’ in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Israeli officers have briefed their U.S. opposite numbers and, according to The Associated Press, ‘in January and February of 2003, Israeli and American troops trained together in southern Israel’s Negev desert …
“Israel has also hosted senior law enforcement officials from the United States for a seminar on counter-terrorism.’”
Fisk concluded the article by saying that
“it is clear the torture trail at Abu Ghraib has to run much further than a group of brutal U.S. military cops, all of whom claim ‘intelligence officers’ told them to ‘soften up’ their prisoners for questioning. Were they Israeli? Or South African? Or British? Are we going to let the story go?”
Now here is the thing—and you may want to hold on to something: the Zionist regime is now telling us that torture never worked, despite the fact that Zionist films such as Zero Dark Thirty literally sanitized torture in 2012.
Think about that for a moment. If torture never worked, why did we spend billions of dollars at Guantanamo, at Abu Ghraib, and other slaughter houses? Why did a U.S. officer end up “fucking a kid” and committing literal sodomy at Abu Ghraib?
And here is the vital contradiction: you remember how the Zionist empire initiated the NSA and how they wanted to know everything about you and your family—including your grandmother’s underwear? And you remember how the neoconservative Looney Tunes defended the NSA program, despite the fact that it was against the U.S. Constitution?
Now the Zionist kingdom is furious because they do not want the public to know about the torture reports. The report explicitly declared that waterboarding
“was physically harmful, inducing convulsions and vomiting. During one session, Abu Zubaydah—’a Saudi Arabian who is still being held at Guantánamo Bay—”became ‘completely unresponsive with bubbles rising through his open, full mouth.’ Internal CIA records describe the waterboarding of Khalid Shaykh Mohammad as evolving into a ‘series of near drownings.’
“In addition to waterboarding, the report says, the C.I.A. used a variety of aggressive techniques on its prisoners, including isolating them, depriving them of sleep, stripping them of their clothes and keeping them naked, subjecting them to loud music, and pinning their arms above their heads.
“The report also says that the C.I.A. “placed detainees in ice water ‘baths.’ The CIA led several detainees to believe they would never be allowed to leave CIA custody alive, suggesting to one detainee that he would only leave in a coffin-shaped box.
“One interrogator told another detainee that he would never go to court, because, ‘we can never let the world know what I have done to you.’ CIA officers also threatened at least three detainees with harm to their families.
“According to the report, one prisoner, Ridha al-Najjar, identified as a former bodyguard for Osama bin Laden, was ‘left hanging—which involved handcuffing one or both wrists to an overhead bar which would not allow him to lower his arms—for 22 hours each day for two consecutive days, in order to ‘break’ his resistance.’”
Fire-breathing dragon Dick Cheney continues to declare that there was no such thing as torture at all. None whatsoever! In fact, Cheney said, “I’m perfectly comfortable that they [torturers] should be praised, they should be decorated.” The torture report, Cheney continued, is “full of crap.”
According to this Zionist dragon, he “would do it again [torturing people] in a minute”!
In a similar vein, Thomas Sowell continues to insult reason and facts when he keeps using just stupid arguments to marshal the idea that one has to succumb to the Jewish way of torturing people in order to get so-called information. Listen to Sowell here:
“If you knew that there was a hidden nuclear time bomb planted somewhere in New York City — set to go off today — and you had a captured terrorist who knew where and when, would you not do anything whatever to make him tell you where and when?
“Would you pause to look up the definition of ‘torture’? Would you even care what the definition of ‘torture’ was, when the alternative was seeing millions of innocent people murdered?”
Why does Sowell have to stop there? Does he mean to tell us that George Washington did not have enough legitimate reasons to torture his enemies? Didn’t he uphold the moral law on that issue? And if Sowell is implicitly trying to make a case for torture here, why did we have to hang some Japanese after World War II for waterboarding Americans? Can Sowell be serious here?
As we have already seen, the C.I.A. gained no serious information from torturing “terrorists.” Sowell indeed has the intellectual and political sophistication to analyze this, but since he has been bamboozled by the neoconservative agenda for much of his entire academic career, he simply has no other choice but to support his neocon brethren. After all, he writes for “Jewish World Review.”
While Cheney is mouthing nonsense, the man who crafted the legal rational for the torture program, John Yoo, admitted that the C.I.A. went too far. He said,
“If these things happened as they’re described in the report … they were not supposed to be done. And the people who did those are at risk legally because they were acting outside their orders.”
Let it be known that Yoo is moving to this new position because it seems that his own craftiness is getting him into trouble, not because he did not know what he was doing. A man of his statue cannot be that stupid.
The simple fact is that torture, as Sam Husseini rightly says, provided some political leverage and stupid justification for the war in Iraq:
“The truth is that torture did work, but not the way its defenders claim. It worked to produce justifications for policies the establishment wanted, like the Iraq war.”
Paul Craig Roberts declares almost the same thing:
“One purpose of the torture program was to produce self-incriminated ‘terrorists’ to justify and feed the hoax ‘war on terror.’ The ‘war on terror’ was public cover for secret agendas that the American people would have rejected. This is disturbing enough.
“Even more disturbing, the torture program shows that no one in the US and European governments who knew of the program and participated in torture has an ounce of humanity, integrity, compassion, and morality. They are evil people, and the ones who inflicted the torture enjoyed the pain and suffering that they inflicted on others.”
Both Husseini and Roberts are quite right, for we know that the
“The CIA tortured al-Qaeda suspects because it wanted evidence that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11 in order to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
“The agency was under intense pressure from the White House and senior figures in the Bush administration to extract confessions confirming co-operation between the Iraqi leader and al-Qaeda, although no significant evidence was ever found.”
Noted journalist Patrick Cockburn points out that torture “probably killed more Americans than 9/11.” How?
“‘The reason why foreign fighters joined al-Qa’ida in Iraq was overwhelmingly because of abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and not Islamic ideology,’ says Major Matthew Alexander, who personally conducted 300 interrogations of prisoners in Iraq.
“It was the team led by Major Alexander [a named assumed for security reasons] that obtained the information that led to the US military being able to locate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al-Qa’ida in Iraq.
“Zarqawi was then killed by bombs dropped by two US aircraft on the farm where he was hiding outside Baghdad on 7 June 2006. Major Alexander said that he learnt where Zarqawi was during a six-hour interrogation of a prisoner with whom he established relations of trust.
“In his compelling book How to Break a Terrorist, Major Alexander explains that prisoners subjected to abuse usually clam up, say nothing, or provide misleading information.
“In an interview he was particularly dismissive of the ‘ticking bomb’ argument often used in the justification of torture. This supposes that there is a bomb timed to explode on a bus or in the street which will kill many civilians.
“The authorities hold a prisoner who knows where the bomb is. Should they not torture him to find out in time where the bomb is before it explodes?
“He points out that the FBI uses normal methods of interrogation to build up trust even when they are investigating a kidnapping and time is of the essence. He would do the same, he says, ‘even if my mother was on a bus’ with a hypothetical ticking bomb on board. It is quite untrue to imagine that torture is the fastest way of obtaining information, he says.
“A career officer, Major Alexander spent 14 years in the US air force, beginning by flying helicopters for special operations. He saw combat in Bosnia and Kosovo, was an air force counter-intelligence agent and criminal interrogator, and was stationed in Saudi Arabia, with an anti-terrorist role, during the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Some years later, the US army was short of interrogators. He wanted to help shape developments in Iraq and volunteered.
“Arriving in Iraq in early 2006 he found that the team he was working with were mostly dedicated, but young, men between 18 and 24. ‘Many of them had never been out of the States before,’ he recalls. ‘When they sat down to interrogate somebody it was often the first time they had met a Muslim.’
“In addition to these inexperienced officers, Major Alexander says there was ‘an old guard’ of interrogators using the methods employed at Guantanamo. He could not say exactly what they had been doing for legal reasons, though in the rest of the interview he left little doubt that prisoners were being tortured and abused. The ‘old guard’s’ methods, he says, were based on instilling ‘fear and control’ in a prisoner.
“He refused to take part in torture and abuse, and forbade the team he commanded to use such methods. Instead, he says, he used normal US police interrogation techniques which are ‘based on relationship building and a degree of deception.’ He adds that the deception was often of a simple kind such as saying untruthfully that another prisoner has already told all.
“Before he started interrogating insurgent prisoners in Iraq, he had been told that they were highly ideological and committed to establishing an Islamic caliphate in Iraq, Major Alexander says.
“In the course of the hundreds of interrogations carried out by himself, as well as more than 1,000 that he supervised, he found that the motives of both foreign fighters joining al-Qa’ida in Iraq and Iraqi-born members were very different from the official stereotype.”
I must take my hat off and salute Major Alexander for his decent work. You see, in the American psyche, torture is still a wicked thing. But since the Dreadful Few exert an enormously powerful influence in the media, some Americans, with the help of Goyim such as Cheney, began to believe that torture is the way to go.
What, then, should be done? Simple: prosecute the torturers. Show them we mean business. If Peter Beinart is right, that “torture is who we [Americans] are,” then there is a way we can turn things around: uphold the rule of law by prosecuting the Zionist torturers. Bush should not be going around and doing interviews at this present moment; he should be in the court room with his tailor-made uniform.
We lied about torture, we lied about Iraq, we lied about Guantanamo, we lied about Syria, we lied about Afghanistan, we lied about Libya, we lied virtually about anything serious.
America has progressively become a nation of lies precisely because we have been following the Dreadful Few for quite awhile. Christ had some damning things to say about those liars and the lies they continue to produce:
“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it” (John 8:44).
 See for example David Hackett Fischer, Washington’s Crossing (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).
 See for example Jonathan Stein, “Yes, We Did Execute Japanese Soldiers for Waterboarding American POWs,” Mother Jones, April 27, 2009; Nick Turse, “The Hidden History of Waterboarding,” Mother Jones, February 23, 2013; Paul Begala, “Yes, National Review, We Did Execute Japanese for Waterboarding,” Huffington Post, May 25, 2009.
 Quoted in Jonathan Stein, “Yes, We Did Execute Japanese Soldiers for Waterboarding American POWs,” Mother Jones, April 27, 2009.
 Seumas Milne, “Sending troops to protect dictators threatens all of us,” Guardian, December 10, 2014.
 Amy Davidson, “The Torture’s Report: Inhumane Scenes from the C.I.A.’s Prisons,” New Yorker, December 9, 2014.
 Seumas Milne, “Sending Troops to Protect Dictators Threaten All of Us,” Guardian, December 10, 2014.
 Taylor Wofford, “What CIA Torturers Did to Their Captives,” Newsweek, December 9, 2014.
 Noah Schachtman, “The Detainee Abuse Photos Obama Didn’t Want You To See,” Daily Beast, December 14, 2014.
 Quoted in Kathy Gilsinan, “America Trades Torture for Drones,” Atlantic, December 9, 2014.
 Yonah Jeremy Bob, “US Senate Report: CIA Used Israeli Courts as Precedent to Justify Torture,” Jerusalem Post, December 10, 2014.
 Robert Fisk, “Abu Ghraib Torture Trail Leads to Israel,” The Independent, May 26, 2004.
 See Peter Van Buren, “How Zero Dark Thirty Sanitizes Torture,” Mother Jones, January 2, 2013; Kevin Drum, “Lying About Torture, Hollywood Style,” Mother Jones, December 10, 2012.
 John Cassidy, “America’s Shame: What’s in the Senate Torture Report?,” New Yorker, December 9, 2014.
 Thomas Sowell, “Tortured Reasoning,” Jewish World Review, December 16, 2014.
 Patrick Cockburn, “CIA ‘torture report’: Agency conduct was driven by pressure to link Iraq to al-Qaeda following 9/11,” The Independent, December 14, 2014.
 Patrick Cocburn, “Torture? It Probably Killed More Americans Than 9/11,” Counter Punch, April 7, 2009.
 Peter Beinart, “Torture is Who We Are,” Atlantic, December 11, 2014.
 Kevin Drum, “Senate Report: We Tortured Prisoners, It Didn’t Work, and We Lied About It,” Mother Jones, December 9, 2014.
A specter is haunting Washington, an unnerving vision of a Sino-Russian alliance wedded to an expansive symbiosis of trade and commerce across much of the Eurasian land mass – at the expense of the United States.
And no wonder Washington is anxious. That alliance is already a done deal in a variety of ways: through the BRICS group of emerging powers (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa); at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Asian counterweight to NATO; inside the G20; and via the 120-member-nation Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Trade and commerce are just part of the future bargain. Synergies in the development of new military technologies beckon as well. After Russia’s Star Wars-style, ultra-sophisticated S-500 air defense anti-missile system comes online in 2018, Beijing is sure to want a version of it. Meanwhile, Russia is about to sell dozens of state-of-the-art Sukhoi Su-35 jet fighters to the Chinese as Beijing and Moscow move to seal an aviation-industrial partnership.
This week should provide the first real fireworks in the celebration of a new Eurasian century-in-the-making with Russian President Vladimir Putin visiting Xi in Shanghai this Tuesday and Wednesday. You remember “Pipelineistan,” all those crucial oil and gas pipelines crisscrossing Eurasia that make up the true circulatory system for the life of the region. Now, it looks like the ultimate Pipelineistan deal, worth $1 trillion and 10 years in the making, will be inked as well. In it, the giant, state-controlled Russian energy giant Gazprom will agree to supply the giant state-controlled China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) with 3.75 billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas a day for no less than 30 years, starting in 2018. That’s the equivalent of a quarter of Russia’s massive gas exports to all of Europe. China’s current daily gas demand is around 16 billion cubic feet a day, and imports account for 31.6% of total consumption.
Gazprom may still collect the bulk of its profits from Europe, but Asia could turn out to be its Everest. The company will use this mega-deal to boost investment in Eastern Siberia and the whole region will be reconfigured as a privileged gas hub for Japan and South Korea as well. If you want to know why no key country in Asia has been willing to “isolate” Russia in the midst of the Ukrainian crisis – and in defiance of the Obama administration – look no further than Pipelineistan.
Exit the Petrodollar, Enter the Gas-o-Yuan
And then, talking about anxiety in Washington, there’s the fate of the petrodollar to consider, or rather the “thermonuclear” possibility that Moscow and Beijing will agree on payment for the Gazprom-CNPC deal not in petrodollars but in Chinese yuan. One can hardly imagine a more tectonic shift, with Pipelineistan intersecting with a growing Sino-Russian political-economic-energy partnership. Along with it goes the future possibility of a push, led again by China and Russia, toward a new international reserve currency — actually a basket of currencies — that would supersede the dollar (at least in the optimistic dreams of BRICS members).
Right after the potentially game-changing Sino-Russian summit comes a BRICS summit in Brazil in July. That’s when a $100 billion BRICS development bank, announced in 2012, will officially be born as a potential alternative to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank as a source of project financing for the developing world.
More BRICS cooperation meant to bypass the dollar is reflected in the “Gas-o-yuan,” as in natural gas bought and paid for in Chinese currency. Gazprom is even considering marketing bonds in yuan as part of the financial planning for its expansion. Yuan-backed bonds are already trading in Hong Kong, Singapore, London, and most recently Frankfurt.
Nothing could be more sensible for the new Pipelineistan deal than to have it settled in yuan. Beijing would pay Gazprom in that currency (convertible into rubles); Gazprom would accumulate the yuan; and Russia would then buy myriad made-in-China goods and services in yuan convertible into rubles.
It’s common knowledge that banks in Hong Kong, from Standard Chartered to HSBC – as well as others closely linked to China via trade deals – have been diversifying into the yuan, which implies that it could become one of the de facto global reserve currencies even before it’s fully convertible. (Beijing is unofficially working for a fully convertible yuan by 2018.)
The Russia-China gas deal is inextricably tied up with the energy relationship between the European Union (EU) and Russia. After all, the bulk of Russia’s gross domestic product comes from oil and gas sales, as does much of its leverage in the Ukraine crisis. In turn, Germany depends on Russia for a hefty 30% of its natural gas supplies. Yet Washington’s geopolitical imperatives – spiced up with Polish hysteria – have meant pushing Brussels to find ways to “punish” Moscow in the future energy sphere (while not imperiling present day energy relationships).
There’s a consistent rumble in Brussels these days about the possible cancellation of the projected 16 billion euro South Stream pipeline, whose construction is to start in June. On completion, it would pump yet more Russian natural gas to Europe – in this case, underneath the Black Sea (bypassing Ukraine) to Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovenia, Serbia, Croatia, Greece, Italy, and Austria.
Bulgaria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have already made it clear that they are firmly opposed to any cancellation. And cancellation is probably not in the cards. After all, the only obvious alternative is Caspian Sea gas from Azerbaijan, and that isn’t likely to happen unless the EU can suddenly muster the will and funds for a crash schedule to construct the fabled Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline, conceived during the Clinton years expressly to bypass Russia and Iran.
In any case, Azerbaijan doesn’t have enough capacity to supply the levels of natural gas needed, and other actors like Kazakhstan, plagued with infrastructure problems, or unreliable Turkmenistan, which prefers to sell its gas to China, are already largely out of the picture. And don’t forget that South Stream, coupled with subsidiary energy projects, will create a lot of jobs and investment in many of the most economically devastated EU nations.
Nonetheless, such EU threats, however unrealistic, only serve to accelerate Russia’s increasing symbiosis with Asian markets. For Beijing especially, it’s a win-win situation. After all, between energy supplied across seas policed and controlled by the US Navy and steady, stable land routes out of Siberia, it’s no contest.
Pick Your Own Silk Road
Of course, the US dollar remains the top global reserve currency, involving 33% of global foreign exchange holdings at the end of 2013, according to the IMF. It was, however, at 55% in 2000. Nobody knows the percentage in yuan (and Beijing isn’t talking), but the IMF notes that reserves in “other currencies” in emerging markets have been up 400% since 2003.
The Fed is arguably monetizing 70% of the US government debt in an attempt to keep interest rates from heading skywards. Pentagon adviser Jim Rickards, as well as every Hong Kong-based banker, tends to believe that the Fed is bust (though they won’t say it on the record). No one can even imagine the extent of the possible future deluge the US dollar might experience amid a $1.4 quadrillion Mount Ararat of financial derivatives. Don’t think that this is the death knell of Western capitalism, however, just the faltering of that reigning economic faith, neoliberalism, still the official ideology of the United States, the overwhelming majority of the European Union, and parts of Asia and South America.
As far as what might be called the “authoritarian neoliberalism” of the Middle Kingdom, what’s not to like at the moment? China has proven that there is a result-oriented alternative to the Western“democratic” capitalist model for nations aiming to be successful. It’s building not one, but myriad new Silk Roads, massive webs of high-speed railways, highways, pipelines, ports, and fiber optic networks across huge parts of Eurasia. These include a Southeast Asian road, a Central Asian road, an Indian Ocean “maritime highway” and even a high-speed rail line through Iran and Turkey reaching all the way to Germany.
In April, when President Xi Jinping visited the city of Duisburg on the Rhine River, with the largest inland harbor in the world and right in the heartland of Germany’s Ruhr steel industry, he made an audacious proposal: a new “economic Silk Road” should be built between China and Europe, on the basis of the Chongqing-Xinjiang-Europe railway, which already runs from China to Kazakhstan, then through Russia, Belarus, Poland, and finally Germany. That’s 15 days by train, 20 less than for cargo ships sailing from China’s eastern seaboard. Now that would represent the ultimate geopolitical earthquake in terms of integrating economic growth across Eurasia.
Keep in mind that, if no bubbles burst, China is about to become – and remain – the number one global economic power, a position it enjoyed for 18 of the past 20 centuries. But don’t tell London hagiographers; they still believe that US hegemony will last, well, forever.
Take Me to Cold War 2.0
Despite recent serious financial struggles, the BRICS countries have been consciously working to become a counterforce to the original and – having tossed Russia out in March – once again Group of 7, or G7. They are eager to create a new global architecture to replace the one first imposed in the wake of World War II, and they see themselves as a potential challenge to the exceptionalist and unipolar world that Washington imagines for our future (with itself as the global robocop and NATO as its robo-police force). Historian and imperialist cheerleader Ian Morris, in his book War! What is it Good For?, defines the US as the ultimate “globocop” and “the last best hope of Earth.” If that globocop“wearies of its role,” he writes, “there is no plan B.”
Well, there is a plan BRICS – or so the BRICS nations would like to think, at least. And when the BRICS do act in this spirit on the global stage, they quickly conjure up a curious mix of fear, hysteria, and pugnaciousness in the Washington establishment. Take Christopher Hill as an example. The former assistant secretary of state for East Asia and US ambassador to Iraq is now an advisor with the Albright Stonebridge Group, a consulting firm deeply connected to the White House and the State Department. When Russia was down and out, Hill used to dream of a hegemonic American “new world order.” Now that the ungrateful Russians have spurned what “the West has been offering” – that is, “special status with NATO, a privileged relationship with the European Union, and partnership in international diplomatic endeavors” – they are, in his view, busy trying to revive the Soviet empire. Translation: if you’re not our vassals, you’re against us. Welcome to Cold War 2.0.
The Pentagon has its own version of this directed not so much at Russia as at China, which, its think tank on future warfare claims, is already at war with Washington in a number of ways. So if it’s not apocalypse now, it’s Armageddon tomorrow. And it goes without saying that whatever’s going wrong, as the Obama administration very publicly “pivots” to Asia and the American media fills with talk about a revival of Cold War-era “containment policy” in the Pacific, it’s all China’s fault.
Embedded in the mad dash toward Cold War 2.0 are some ludicrous facts-on-the-ground: the US government, with $17.5 trillion in national debt and counting, is contemplating a financial showdown with Russia, the largest global energy producer and a major nuclear power, just as it’s also promoting an economically unsustainable military encirclement of its largest creditor, China.
Russia runs a sizeable trade surplus. Humongous Chinese banks will have no trouble helping Russian banks out if Western funds dry up. In terms of inter-BRICS cooperation, few projects beat a $30 billion oil pipeline in the planning stages that will stretch from Russia to India via Northwest China. Chinese companies are already eagerly discussing the possibility of taking part in the creation of a transport corridor from Russia into Crimea, as well as an airport, shipyard, and liquid natural gas terminal there. And there’s another “thermonuclear” gambit in the making: the birth of a natural gas equivalent to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries that would include Russia, Iran, and reportedlydisgruntled US ally Qatar.
The (unstated) BRICS long-term plan involves the creation of an alternative economic system featuring a basket of gold-backed currencies that would bypass the present America-centric global financial system. (No wonder Russia and China are amassing as much gold as they can.) The euro – a sound currency backed by large liquid bond markets and huge gold reserves – would be welcomed in as well.
It’s no secret in Hong Kong that the Bank of China has been using a parallel SWIFT network to conduct every kind of trade with Tehran, which is under a heavy US sanctions regime. With Washington wielding Visa and Mastercard as weapons in a growing Cold War-style economic campaign against Russia, Moscow is about to implement an alternative payment and credit card system not controlled by Western finance. An even easier route would be to adopt the Chinese Union Pay system, whose operations have already overtaken American Express in global volume.
I’m Just Pivoting With Myself
No amount of Obama administration “pivoting” to Asia to contain China (and threaten it with US Navy control of the energy sea lanes to that country) is likely to push Beijing far from its Deng Xiaoping-inspired, self-described “peaceful development” strategy meant to turn it into a global powerhouse of trade. Nor are the forward deployment of US or NATO troops in Eastern Europe or other such Cold-War-ish acts likely to deter Moscow from a careful balancing act: ensuring that Russia’s sphere of influence in Ukraine remains strong without compromising trade and commercial, as well as political, ties with the European Union – above all, with strategic partner Germany. This is Moscow’s Holy Grail; afree-trade zone from Lisbon to Vladivostok, which (not by accident) is mirrored in China’s dream of a new Silk Road to Germany.
Increasingly wary of Washington, Berlin for its part abhors the notion of Europe being caught in the grips of a Cold War 2.0. German leaders have more important fish to fry, including trying to stabilize a wobbly EU while warding off an economic collapse in southern and central Europe and the advance of ever more extreme right-wing parties.
On the other side of the Atlantic, President Obama and his top officials show every sign of becoming entangled in their own pivoting – to Iran, to China, to Russia’s eastern borderlands, and (under the radar) to Africa. The irony of all these military-first maneuvers is that they are actually helping Moscow, Tehran, and Beijing build up their own strategic depth in Eurasia and elsewhere, as reflected in Syria, or crucially in ever more energy deals. They are also helping cement the growing strategic partnership between China and Iran. The unrelenting Ministry of Truth narrative out of Washington about all these developments now carefully ignores the fact that, without Moscow, the “West” would never have sat down to discuss a final nuclear deal with Iran or gotten a chemical disarmament agreement out of Damascus.
When the disputes between China and its neighbors in the South China Sea and between that country and Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyou islands meet the Ukraine crisis, the inevitable conclusion will be that both Russia and China consider their borderlands and sea lanes private property and aren’t going to take challenges quietly – be it via NATO expansion, US military encirclement, or missile shields. Neither Beijing nor Moscow is bent on the usual form of imperialist expansion, despite the version of events now being fed to Western publics. Their “red lines” remain essentially defensive in nature, no matter the bluster sometimes involved in securing them.
Whatever Washington may want or fear or try to prevent, the facts on the ground suggest that, in the years ahead, Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran will only grow closer, slowly but surely creating a new geopolitical axis in Eurasia. Meanwhile, a discombobulated America seems to be aiding and abetting the deconstruction of its own unipolar world order, while offering the BRICS a genuine window of opportunity to try to change the rules of the game.
Russia and China in Pivot Mode
In Washington’s think-tank land, the conviction that the Obama administration should be focused on replaying the Cold War via a new version of containment policy to “limit the development of Russia as a hegemonic power” has taken hold. The recipe: weaponize the neighbors from the Baltic states to Azerbaijan to “contain” Russia. Cold War 2.0 is on because, from the point of view of Washington’s elites, the first one never really left town.
Yet as much as the US may fight the emergence of a multipolar, multi-powered world, economic facts on the ground regularly point to such developments. The question remains: Will the decline of the hegemon be slow and reasonably dignified, or will the whole world be dragged down with it in what has been called “the Samson option”?
While we watch the spectacle unfold, with no end game in sight, keep in mind that a new force is growing in Eurasia, with the Sino-Russian strategic alliance threatening to dominate its heartland along with great stretches of its inner rim. Now, that’s a nightmare of Mackinderesque proportions from Washington’s point of view. Think, for instance, of how Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser who became a mentor on global politics to President Obama, would see it.
In his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski argued that “the struggle for global primacy [would] continue to be played” on the Eurasian “chessboard,” of which “Ukraine was a geopolitical pivot.” “If Moscow regains control over Ukraine,” he wrote at the time, Russia would “automatically regain the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.”
That remains most of the rationale behind the American imperial containment policy – from Russia’s European “near abroad” to the South China Sea. Still, with no endgame in sight, keep your eye on Russia pivoting to Asia, China pivoting across the world, and the BRICS hard at work trying to bring about the new Eurasian Century.
Russia’s celebrations of the 69th anniversary of the defeat of fascism in World War II come just days after Ukrainian neo-fascists enacted an appalling Odessa massacre. For those who know their history, the graphic symbolism speaks for itself.
And then a geopolitical chess gambit added outright puzzlement to the trademark hypocrisy displayed by the self-proclaimed representatives of « Western civilization ».
The gambit comes from – who else – Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is now actively mixing chess moves with Sun Tzu’s Art of War and Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching. No wonder all those American PR shills, helpless State Department spokespersons and NATOstan generals are clueless.
Unlike the Obama administration’s juvenile delinquent school of diplomacy – which wants to « isolate » Putin and Russia – a truce and possible deal in the ongoing Ukrainian tragedy has been negotiated between adults on speaking terms, Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, then discussed and finally announced in a press conference by the president of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Didier Burghalter.
The deal will hold as long as the regime changers in Kiev – which should be described as the NATO neo-liberal, neo-fascist junta – abandon their ongoing « anti-terrorist operation » and are ready to negotiate with the federalists in Eastern and Southern Ukraine. 
Putin’s gambit has been to sacrifice not one but two pieces; he’d rather have the referendums this Sunday in Eastern Ukraine be postponed. At the same time, changing the Kremlin’s position, he said the presidential elections on May 25 might be a step in the right direction.
Moscow knows the referendums will be erroneously interpreted by the misinformed NATOstan combo as an argument for Eastern Ukraine to join Russia, as in Crimea. They could be used as pretext for more sanctions. And most of all Moscow is keen to prevent any possible false flags. 
Yet Moscow has not abandoned its firm position from the start; before a presidential election there should be constitutional changes towards federalization and more power for largely autonomous provinces. It’s not happening anytime soon – if at all.
With the Kiev NATO junta making an absolute mess of « governing »; the International Monetary Fund already running thedisaster capitalism show, Russia cutting off trade and energy subsidies, and the federalist movement growing by the minute after the Odessa massacre, Ukraine is so absolutely toxic that Moscow has all the time in the world on its side. Putin’s strategy is indeed Tao Te Ching meets Art of War: watch the river flow while giving enough rope for your enemy to hang himself.
You’re with us or against us
Putin asking the people in the Donbass region to postpone the referendum – which will take place anyway  – unleashed a fierce debate, in eastern Ukraine and across Russia, over a possible Russian betrayal of Russian speakers in Ukraine.
After all, the NATO neo-liberal, neo-fascist junta has unleashed an « anti-terrorist operation » against average Ukrainians where even the terminology comes straight from the « you’re with us or against us » Cheney regime.
And once again the Disinformer-in-Chief is – who else – US Secretary of State John Kerry, who is « very concerned about efforts of pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk, in Lugansk to organize, frankly, a contrived, bogus independence referendum on May 11 ». It’s « the Crimea playbook all over again and no civilized nation is going to recognize the results of such a bogus effort ».
It’s hopeless to expect Kerry to know what he’s talking about, but still: the people in Donbass are not separatists. These are average Ukrainians – factory workers, miners, store clerks, farmers – who are pro-democracy, anti-NATO junta and – oh, the capital crime – Russian speakers.
And by the way, you don’t need to be Thomas Piketty to identify this as classic class struggle; workers and peasants against oligarchs – the oligarchs currently aligned with the NATO junta, some deployed as regional governors, and all planning to remain in charge after the May 25 elections.
The people in Donbass want federalism, and strong autonomy in their provinces. They don’t want to split from Ukraine. Against the US-prescribed, Kiev-enforced « anti-terrorism » onslaught, they have their popular defense committees, local associations and yes, militias, to defend themselves. And most of all « bogus » referendums to make it absolutely clear they won’t submit to a centralized, oligarch-infested junta.
So the referendums will go ahead – and will be duly ignored by the NATOstan combo. The May 25 presidential election will go ahead – right in the middle of an « anti-terrorist operation » against almost half of the population – and will be recognized as « legitimate » by the NATOstan combo.
Way beyond this cosmically shameful behavior of the « civilized » West, what next?
Nothing will make the ironclad hatred the NATO neo-liberal neo-fascist junta with its Western Ukraine neo-nazi Banderastan supporters feel against the eastern Donbass go away. But then, in a few months, all Ukrainians will feel in their skins what the IMF has in store for them, irrespective of location. And wait if the new president – be it chocolate billionaire Petro Porashenko or holy corrupt « Saint Yulia » Timoschenko – doesn’t pay Gazprom’s US$2.7 billion energy bill.
Once again, Putin does not need to « invade » anything. He knows this is not the way to « rescue » eastern and southern Ukraine. He knows the people in the Donbass will make life miserable for the NATO junta and its May 25 offspring. He knows when Kiev needs real cash – not the current IMF self-serving Mob-style loans – nobody in his right mind in the political midget EU will be forthcoming. Nobody will want to rescue a failed state. And Kiev will have to beg, once again, for Moscow’s help, the lender of first and last resort.
Lao Tzu Putin is far from going to checkmate. He may – and will – wait. The exceptionalist empire will keep doing what it does best – foment chaos – even as sensible Europeans, Merkel included, try somewhat for appeasement. Well, at least Washington’s prayers have been answered. It took a while, but they finally found the new bogeyman: Osama Bin Putin.
1. Putin-Burkhalter talks: an elusive chance for Ukraine, Oriental Review, May 8, 2014.
2. Ukrainian forces prepare provocation against Russia in Donetsk, Voice of America, May 6, 2014.
3. 2 southeast Ukrainian regions to hold referendum May 11 as planned, RT, May 8, 2014.
China’s new nuclear bomber can launch strategic missile attacks against US military facilities and those of its allies in the Western Pacific, according to Chinese state media.
H-6K strategic bombers have already been deployed with the 8th and 10th air divisions of the People’s Liberation Army’s Air Force, Watch China Times reports.
The strategic bomber can attack the Japanese mainland with CJ-10 cruise missiles without even leaving Chinese airspace.
With a range of between 1,500 and 2,000 kilometers, the CJ-10 meets the requirements of the PLA Air Force to target US military bases and those of its allies in the Western Pacific, according to the report.
The report notes that “the long-range cruise missile has become a crucial part of China’s nuclear arsenal.”
An H-6K would be able to take off from the air base of the PLA’s 10th air division in Anqing, Anhui province and “strike at all US military bases in South Korea.”
In November, Chinese media released a map showing the locations of major US cities and how they would be impacted by a nuclear attack launched from China’s strategic submarine force.
In addition, major cities in India, Russian, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines are within the range of the Chinese nuclear bomber.
The United States is gravely concerned about China’s new long-range nuclear bomber.
The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission warned in its annual report in November that China is « rapidly expanding and diversifying » its ability to strike US bases, ships and aircraft throughout the Pacific, even places like Guam that were previously out of reach.
La plus grande bataille en cours actuellement en Syrie est celle d’Alep. Les unités de l’armée syrienne ont réussi à reprendre la base du 80e régiment assurant la défense de l’aérodrome militaire d’Alep mais s’opposent à une vive résistance des groupes extrémistes de Daesh et de l’organisation terroriste Jobhet Ennosra. Après 24 jours de combats acharnés, l’armée syrienne en est réduite à lancer son infanterie dans des attaques frontales en terrain découvert soutenue par un déluge d’obus et de roquettes. Ces combats ne sont pas sans quelque similitude avec ceux, beaucoup plus vastes, du front germano-russe en 1944-45.
La capture de l’aérodrome militaire d’Alep par les troupes régulières a contraint les groupes terroristes à se replier au Sud d’Alep et à se retrancher dans les immenses usines d’armements que l’armée gouvernementale évite de bombarder en utilisant l’aviation. Cependant des troupes aéroportées arrivent en renfort du Sud et du littoral. Plus de 2000 hommes ont déjà été parachutés au dessus des industries d’armements depuis ce matin.
Plus au Nord, des combats d’une extrême violence sont signalés entre les comités de défense du peuple kurde et les rebelles.
La défaite totale de l’Armée syrienne libre (ASL) au Sud de Damas où elle a perdu ses principaux fiefs achève le cycle des opérations militaires s’inscrivant dans le cadre du plan « Bouclier ». La bataille d’Alep risque de perdurer. Des milliers de mercenaires pénètrent en Syrie à partir de la Turquie pour tenter d’éviter la répétition du scénario de Damas où l’armée régulière a littéralement écrasé tous les groupes rebelles. Non sans d’immenses dommages collatéraux.
Indubitablement; un peu comme aux temps mythiques de l’épopée de Gilgamesh, la guerre s’éternise en Syrie. D’autant plus que l’ensemble des protagonistes locaux et régonaux essaient par tous les moyens de marquer des points et à obtenir des gains substantiels sur le terrain pour aborder d’éventuelles négociations sinon en position de force du moins avec un avantage comparatif assez suffisant pour faire fléchir l’adversaire. En somme, pour les Etats-Unis, l’Arabie Saoudite, Israël et la Turquie, il n’y a pas de solution politique à la crise syrienne pour le moment mais celle-ci passera bien par la voie des armes. d’où la course contre la montre engagée par Damas. Car on ne pourra différer indéfiniment Genève II: un jour ou l’autre il faudra bien finir par s’asseoir autour d’une table et négocier une issue à ce conflit.
Selon des informations partiellement confirmées par un responsable américain via CNN et rapportées par la chaîne libanaise d’information en continu Al-Mayadeen, des chasseurs-bombardiers israéliens ont bombardé des sites de missiles anti navires syriens à Lattaquié, sur le littoral méditerranéen.
Des missiles SS-N de type Yakhont ont été ciblés par des raids de l’aviation israélienne dans ce qui s’apparente à la sixième intervention flagrante d’Israël dans le conflit en cours en Syrie.
L’aviation israélienne a également bombardé des positions de l’armée syrienne pour couvrir le retrait de commandos israéliens infiltrés au sein des rebelles à partir du littoral pour localiser et identifier les sites de lancement de missiles syriens.
L’armée israélienne offre des facilités directes à des factions rebelles en Syrie. C’est le cas notamment au Golan occupé par Israël où les unités israéliennes ont établi des hôpitaux de campagne, des QG de commandement et un feu de soutien au profit des rebelles pseudo-islamistes en guerre contre le régime syrien.
Le Président syrien Bashar Al-Assad a insisté à plusieurs reprises que le conflit ravageant son pays depuis presque trois ans est une guerre régionale à portée universelle dans laquelle Israël et ses alliés jouent un rôle primordial.