The National Military Strategy: Dishonest Platitudes

The Pentagon is and wants to remain ubiquitous in time and space. (Punto Press)

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has released the National Military Strategy. As a propaganda document, presenting weakness as strength and seeking to gain trust in that which should not be trusted, it is stellar. By naming four main enemies (Russia, Iran, China, and Violent Extremist Organization or VEO) it confirms the Chairman’s commitment to a dead security paradigm, and the Chairman’s ignorance of the deepening chasm with Western Europe – where a future military schema without the US military is under active discussion.

The document is dishonest at multiple levels, and consists largely of platitudes, most of which must be considered dishonest in relation to the public’s need to know where we actually stand on this topic.

When things are not going well, until you get the truth out on the table, no matter how ugly, you are not in a position to deal with it. Bob Seelert, Chairman of Saatchi & Saatchi Worldwide (New York)

The only people mad at you for speaking the truth are those living a lie. Keep speaking it. Gaskina Jr.

There are five major flaws in this document, appreciating that it is a political document intended to deceive the public and satisfy the White House:

1^stIt fails to point out that today’s global disorder was predicted a quarter century ago, for example, in Commandant of the Marine Corps Al Gray’s article, “Global Intelligence Challenges of the 1990’s” as published in the American Intelligence Journal (Winter 1989-1990). What we have here is the glossing over of twenty-five years of criminal irresponsibility at the highest levels of US national security.

2^ndIt fails to make clear that the political arm of the US Government (USG) – the two-party tyranny elected by 26% of the eligible voters (50% of whom do not vote) – is our own worst enemy. What is done in our name and at our expense politically, financially, and culturally makes it impossible for our military to be righteous and useful.

3^rd It actively deceives the public with respect to all issues of substance to include the realities of toxic leadership among whom lying is endemic; corrupt acquisition focused on worthless technologies while depriving our human forces of proper funding and support; and the abject failure of any form of serious multinational integration for lack of shared intelligence with integrity.

4th^thIt is complicit in the militarization of the police and the repurposing of the US military to support police operations against US citizens, to include violation of the Posse Comitatus Act that forbids the use of military forces within our territory. It avoids addressing the hard issues of the National Guard, the abuse of our veterans, 22 of whom commit suicide each and every day, and the reality that the US military has failed as a national socio-economic enterprise.

5th^th It provides no substantive vision for the future that is affordable, interoperable, or achievable. There is no commitment in this document to achieving a 30% cut in the military budget, closing our bases overseas, or creating a 450-ship Navy, an air-mobile Army, and a long-haul Air Force that could be useful against the four threat classes identified in the mid-1990’s.

Ignoring History, Avoiding Accountability

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he document is most starkly dishonest in failing to acknowledge that America’s military is no longer capable of winning wars or even being sustainably helpful to humanity in any form. Our military is a corrupt blunt instrument, a political and financial tool for destabilizing other countries, not stabilizing them. As General Wesley Clark, USA (Ret) observed on YouTube, a policy coup has occurred in Washington, and a decision was made [by the two-party tyranny responding to its 40+ billionaire masters identified by name in USA Today] to invade seven countries in five years.

The document is flat out wrong on Russia (we are the aggressors, to include dogfights over the Arctic that have cost us at least one plane and pilot), Iran (vastly smarter and more stable than Saudi Arabia), and China (they have won without fighting) while glossing over the fact that we gave the nuclear bomb to Pakistan and that Saudi Arabia probably already has the nuclear bomb as well. The Chairman neglects to mention that we are a full partner in the effort to destabilize and overturn the Syrian government, adding it to our swath of destruction from Afghanistan through Libya (the French can claim half credit for that one) down to Yemen, Somalia, Niger, and Nigeria.

The Chairman’s first responsibility is to acknowledge the incapacity of the US military to carry out global integrated operations (other than destabilizing operations of no value to the US public), and to develop a plan for simultaneously closing all US bases overseas while very rapidly designing and building out four forces after next, not the one size fits all that the military-industrial complex likes to sell. The need for four forces after next, illustrated in the two graphics provided here, has been understood by those with intelligence and integrity inclusive of the US Army’s Strategic Studies Institute – and ignored by those without intelligence and integrity – since the mid-1990’s.

The plethora of standard missions along the continuum of conflict included in this document are all suffering from a lack of intelligence with integrity, in part because a corrupt political policy environment that disdains intelligence and can lie to the public with impunity (the media and think tanks being as complicit as our flag officers), does not hold our intelligence community leaders accountable for producing decision support to strategy (we have none), policy (criminally insane stove-pipes), acquisition (legalized crime), or operations (throw money at it and pretend to be making progress).

The Moral Runt in the Political Litter

The Chairman is correct in emphasizing the importance of military support to other instruments of power and to our network of allies and partners but he fails to emphasize – as he should if he is to honor his Oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies domestic and foreign – that in the absence of responsible diplomacy and commerce rooted in truthful information, the use of the military will make matters worse, not better.

The document struggles – largely ignoring the linchpin nature of this section – with the reality that our military (even if it were fully capable) is largely irrelevant to shaping the future when our diplomatic, commercial, and informational activities are so lacking in intelligence with integrity. Our diplomats are a laughing-stock world-wide, our bankers are correctly viewed as predatory monsters at the same time that all US communications and computing companies are known to be in collaboration with the National Security Agency (NSA) and therefore not suitable as providers of equipment or contracted services; our agricultural, pharmaceutical, and other “big” industries are known to be corrupt to the bone and toxic as well – what’s to defend?

The single most intelligent sentence in this document is to be found on page 8, and I quote:

Defeating VEOs ultimately requires providing security and economic opportunities to at-risk populations.

An honest government would recognize that this requires that we stop supporting dictators, stop enabling predatory banking and legalized financial crime, and spend as much time, energy, and money waging peace as we do waging war. Indeed it is now established that for what we spent on war in 2012, we could have eradicated poverty among the 5 billion poorest. Who, in the US Government, one might ask, is being held accountable for this fact?

The Chairman is delusional if not actively dissembling when he suggests that US forces are the best-led and best-equipped forces in the world. The US Army’s Strategic Studies Institute has documented endemic lying across the US Army officer corps, and the US Navy and US Air Force are if anything worse. Our equipment is 45% to 75% waste, does not operate as it should and requires extraordinarily expensive and unsustainable contractor support in the field, and is generally not adequately supported by our conventional intelligence capabilities designed for a conventional war against a conventional force – something I documented at CounterPunch in On Defense Intelligence: Seven Strikes.

Our flag officers are enablers of a national security policy that is criminally irresponsible. As Ambassador Mark Palmer documents in his book, Breaking the Real Axis of Evil: How to Oust the World’s Last Dictators by 2025, the USG is “best pals” with all but two of the 40 plus dictators on the planet, and the US taxpayer subsidizes their purchase of US military equipment, their corruption, and their repression of their own populations. As William Blum has pointed out in multiple books, but especially in Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II – Updated Edition, the primary use of the US military since World War II has not been to defend America and win wars, but rather to subvert democracy and exploit corrupt alliances that benefit the 1% financially while digging deeper holes for the 99% including the unemployed in Europe and in the USA.

Ethical note: flag officers pretend that they must be loyal to the civilian chain of command, saying they must obey or resign. There is actually a primary path that Colin Powell, among others, chose not to follow in allowing Dick Cheney to hijack the Presidency and lead the telling of 935 now-documented lies “justifying” the elective war on Iraq: honor the Constitution. Say no to illegal orders, and report to Congress with the facts so that impeachment might be considered.

We cannot fix the US military – nor devise an honest strategy of any sort – until we flush the two-party tyranny down the toilet.

Morality is a practical as well as a political value. Will and Ariel Durant make this point in their capstone work, Lessons of History, and I made this point in my second book, The New Craft of Intelligence: Personal, Public, & Political when I pointed out that illegal immigration was a direct result of an unethical predatory national security policy such as the US and Europe have pursued against the Third World for centuries. For a fraction of what we spend on war we can create a prosperous world at peace.

The Best Money-Laundering Whorehouse in the Nation

In defining the military environment, the Chairman neglects to mention that we are our own worst enemy. For lack of intelligence with integrity in support of strategy, policy, and acquisition, as well as operations, we have a mediocre Army reliant on a global network of very expensive bases (each a dream target and wide open to interdiction of their power and water feeds) and unable to operate effectively in the absence of a massive contractor-based logistics network; a mediocre Air Force whose primary aircraft are the most expensive and combat worthless in US history at the same time that the Air Force cannot move an Army division anywhere at speed; and a Navy that has more Admirals than it has ships. The Chairman does touch on the extreme vulnerability of US forces to decapitational technologies but does not go far enough. A brutally honest document would point out that all of our capabilities are now largely neutralized by a mix of electromagnetic capabilities that now allow a Chinese submarine to pop up undetected behind a US aircraft carrier, at the same time that most if not all of our strategic nuclear submarines are now detectable at a distance.

“…for what we spent on war in 2012, we could have eradicated poverty among the 5 billion poorest. Who, in the US Government, one might ask, is being held accountable for this fact?”

Andrew Cockburn (RIP), Chuck Spinney, and many others have documented over time how naked this particular military emperor is, I will not belabor those facts here other than to highlight the continuing military-industrial scam (“reset, rebuy, retrench”) of which the Chairman and his flag coterie are clearly active participants, complicit in fraud, waste, and abuse on a scale exceeded only by Goldman Sachs.

A search at Phi Beta Iota the Public Intelligence Blog for military strategy, Pentagon corruption, and force structure will yield a broad range of authentic well-documented commentaries on this matter.

Treason at Home

Neither the Chairman nor the Secretary of Defense appear to have the balls to force the three primary services to take a 30% cut as demanded by the President. No one at the highest levels of the Department of Defense (DoD) appears to have the brains to actually design and build a 450-ship Navy, an air-mobile Army, and a long-haul Air Force, easily done as one also draws down on the roughly 50% of the Pentagon budget that is fraud, waste, and abuse, starting with the closure of all of our bases overseas, and the return of our forces – and their wallets – to the homeland.

It is particularly galling to observe the hypocrisy of DoD “leaders” who pay lip service to the brave young men and women who earnestly serve their country. As General Robert Scales, USA (Ret) has documented, 4% of the force (the infantry) takes 80% of the causalities and receives 1% of the budget. This is criminally negligent and should be the first priority for a future honest Secretary of Defense who actually cares about the mission instead of being a prat-boy for the military-industrial complex.

It is particularly galling to observe DoD sponsoring JADE HELM exercises and National Guard dry runs at running internment camps on US soil for US citizens. While I am confident that the bulk of our military and police are now in “Oath Keepers” mode and will not turn against the public, I am also confident that if we have a Kent State plus, our armed citizens – including millions of well-trained severely pissed-off veterans, will turn the minority of uniformed personnel violating Posse Camitatus into swiss cheese.

What Is to Be Done?

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]hen Tom Steyer acknowledged publicly that his hundreds of millions of dollars spent attempting to advance the climate change agenda had failed to realize a return on investment, I realized that no issue, no matter how vital – be it climate change or gay rights or military integrity or even something as trivial as the legalization of marijuana – will get an honest hearing as long as we have a two-party tyranny working for the 1%. We cannot fix the US military – or anything else – in a political economy where political crime and financial crime have merged. Here is Matt Taibbi’s take from page 32 of Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con That Is Breaking America:

What has taken place over the last generation is a highly complicated merger of crime and policy, of stealing and government. Far from taking care of the rest of us, the financial leaders of America and their political servants have seemingly reached the cynical conclusion that our society is not worth saving and have taken on a new mission that involved not creating wealth for us all, but simply absconding with whatever wealth remains in our hollowed out economy. They don’t feed us, we feed them.

The US military is at once a means of siphoning off the less educated desperate unemployed to ease social tension, and also the single best money-laundering whorehouse on the planet. Others have written about this – see for instance Grand Theft Pentagon: Tales of Corruption and Profiteering in the War on Terror – and I have reviewed many books on the “sorrows of empire” (Chalmers Johnson coined the phrase).

We cannot fix the US military – nor devise an honest strategy of any sort – until we flush the two-party tyranny down the toilet. The Electoral Reform Act of 2015, led by Jesse Ventura and all past small party presidential candidates including Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney, is how we do that. The problem I am having is in showing these people, ostensible ethical leaders every one of them, that they must break away from their comfortable niche as marginally-funded opposition elements who distract the activists (as Bernie Sanders is now herding activists toward a turn-over to Hillary Clinton). We have to come together and get into this fight at the national levelABOUT THE AUTHOR

profile of him has received 67,000 likes.

[printfriendly]

Remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s).

What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?

The Saker interview with “Ramzes” – a Spetsnaz GRU officer

THE SAKER | VINEYARD OF THE SAKER

The Saker: Please introduce yourself in a few words, tell us which Brigade you served in, what rank you achieved there and what your military speciality was?

Ramzes: My GRU Spetsnaz call sign was Ramzes. I was born in Russia. I began service in 1994 and finished service in 1999. I was an airborne cadet for four years and served as an officer with the rank of lieutenant for one year after that. I served in the 16th Brigade of the GRU Spetsnaz based out of Chuchkovo. I was the commander of 25 GRU Spetsnaz soldiers. As the commander of this group it was mandatory that I was proficient and educated as a sniper, explosives & ordnace specialist, radio communication as well as use of the English language. To be a Spetsnaz commander you must be trained in all aspects of warfare employed by your entire unit.

In Spetsnaz GRU there is no platoon structure per se as in regular army units, we operate as a group and although command line is respected, all members of the group are active in intelligence and planning as well as mission execution. In Spetsnaz everybody is aware of the full situation and they all have the responsibility and opportunity to think about what the mission is and to weigh in at any time and if needed to think and operate on their own if required. Every member of the group must be able to act independently without needing immediate orders, yet knowing what the full scope of the mission is. They can all address the situation and assess and contribute their opinion on operations. As a commander I listen to everybody and make the final decision. This makes Spetsnaz more effective.

The Saker: There are many elite units in the Russian military, including the SOBR and ODON units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Alpha and Vympel Spetsnaz of the FSB, the 4 divisions and 8 brigades of the VDV, the Navy’s Spetsnaz units, the “Zaslon” unit of the SVR, etc. How would you compare these forces to the 7 Spetsnaz GRU brigades? What makes the Spetsnaz GRU unique and different?

Ramzes: In the beginning Spetsnaz was only GRU. They are the original and some say true Special Forces. During the 1990’s the reputation of the Spetznas was renowned throughout Russia and deeply respected. At this time all the forces created there own Spetsnaz units to piggyback on the reputation and elite status of the original GRU Spetsnaz. The very identity of Spetsnaz became a catch word for the elite unit within all of the various military and security organisations.

Now if you say that you are Spetsnaz there is more responsibility to live up to a certain reputation as the situation in Russia is exceptionally more advanced and capable compared to the 90’s.

Originally the main operational concept of the Special Forces was to execute our missions on the territory of the enemy. Now there are domestic Spetsnaz and all sorts of various Spetsnaz delegations that were not trained for foreign incursions like the original GRU Spetsnaz.

When we were trained all GRU Spetsnaz were educated in one or more several key languages. Farsi, Mandarin, English, Arabic, French. Now they learn a greater variety of languages. For example during the Afghan War our Spetsnaz were fluent in various local dialects and after this experience this practice was expanded.

The Saker: It is often reported that there are Spetsnaz GRU units formed exclusively of officers and NCOs which are used in more complex and demanding operations. Is that so and, if yes, are these units part of the Spetsnaz Brigades or are they directly depending on the 5th (or 8th?) GRU Directorate in Moscow?

Ramzes: I can say only this. There are GRU Spetsnaz groups that consist of only officers. Every group will be working under the directorate of the GRU. Of course the most difficult and delicate missions are for groups composed of officers only officers and NCO’s.

The Saker: As far as I know, the original primary mission of the Spetsnaz GRU forces was the detection of NATO missile launchers and associated command posts, combined with deep reconnaissance and diversionary attacks. During the Eltsin years Spetnaz GRU forces were used in all sorts of manners which have very little to do with their original mission: they were used as infantry, as assault units, as anti-terrorist units, as protection units for generals, etc. Is that still the case today and how to you see the future of the Spetsnaz GRU and what kind of missions would you want them assigned to?

Ramzes: Detecting missile launch sites was only one (of many) mission designations of GRU Spetsnaz units. I think active serving Spetsnaz of GRU were never used for any security detail for Generals. They had other missions, again always on foreign soil.

Security is provided by other teams not GRU. Even during Yeltsin years GRU Spetsnaz were only assigned to foreign territory. Protection of generals, assault troops, anti-terrorist Spetsnaz of MVD (police) not GRU. Not exclusively however, there are several incidents when GRU Spetsnaz did assist when large scale assaults on domestic territory were active, like various scenarios in chechnia, but again very rare.

Of course retired GRU officers can enter into active duty with MVD or other units if they choose after they finish their service w/ the GRU.

As for what I would like to see them assigned to – that depends on the situation, but of course the main idea is to protect Russia.

The Spetz GRU emblem, with a Bat at the center.

The Saker: The 16th Spetsnaz Brigade saw combat in Afghanistan, Tadjikistan, Chechnia, the North Caucasus and Abkhazia and soliders from this Brigade also served in Kosovo. I also have very strong suspicions that the Brigade was sent into Moscow in 1993 in the days right after the end of the combats around the White House and the Ostankino Tower. Did these conflicts trigger changes inside the organization or training of the Brigade? Which of those wars were the most difficult ones for the Brigade?

Ramzes: Perhaps this question is not the right one to ask or it is phrased in a way that can not clearly be answered. For example regarding the wars, it depends on the specific mission, there could be one mission in Afghanistan that was a complete success and one in Chechnia that was a terrible failure but we can not assess based on region or war, but based on each individual mission. Considering this we can say that Afghanistan provided the most rich experience simply due to the duration and variety of the missions. While Chechnia had some intense and complex missions GRU Spetsnaz were not deployed in this conflict as much as the general public assumes, as again this was on domestic territory.

None of these conflicts resulted in any diametric changes within the GRU Spetsnaz, yet the training and tactics are constantly evolving. If you are an officer or soldier for Spetsnaz your mission is to serve the people of Russia exclusively and at all times. I can personally say that the 16th were very clever soldiers who understood their situation and that the commanders could never nor would ever order their units to take any aggressive action against citizens of the RF, nor act as crowd control against the people of Russia, especially as per the situation inside Moscow during 1993, no GRU Spetsnaz were involved in these incidents.

Of course the Spetsnaz GRU always modernizes and updates tactics and strategy from experience. When I was a cadet we learned things that the cadets today probably do not learn due to the rapidly evolving nature of missions, experiences, technology, tactics and geopolitics.

During WW2 we had one specific tactic and now we have various tactics and the differences are understandably very significant. For example better equipment, improved battlefield awareness, logistics… Of course the basic ideas and principles are the same but also much improved.

Today of course their is much more money to fund and supply our soldiers than in the 90’s and our technology is now highly advanced and is far greater today then when I served.

I am envious of what equipment they have to work with today. GRU Spetsnaz are in all likelihood far stronger and more capable today than they were when I was in service, however at the core we have the same ideals and work habits.

The Saker: How surprised were you when the Polite Men in green conducted an absolutely brilliant operation in Crimea which they managed to secure without a single person being shot even though the peninsula was full of elite Ukrainian units including many sent from the western Ukraine? Does this operation show that the modern Spetsnaz GRU forces are as good as the old Soviet ones or, possibly, that they have become even better than the used to be?

Ramzes: Was I surprised, well yes, but I understand that such success is possible, even 20 years ago it was possible. Taking the enemy whole without the loss of life is one of the greatest ways to achieve victory in any mission. This is a very significant example of mission success. This is a case when the art of martial tactics shines more brilliantly than the forces of war.

Of course GRU Spetsnaz is now better than 20 years ago. With better equipment, radio, satellite, weapons, GPS etc… It all provides huge advantages. The reduction in weight alone is a massive operational advantage as well as the reduced size of technology used and what it can achieve. We had a compass and map, today they have smart phones and gadgets that provide truly amazing intelligence and tactical capabilities to out groups.

The Saker: The Ukronazi junta is constantly claiming that Spetsnaz GRU units are operating in the Donbass. Purely in theory, would you say that that this is possible or do you completely exclude such a possiblity. Please explain the reasons for your reply. What do you make of this video:

Ramzes: As for there being Spetznas in Donbass – you can have it both ways. It is extremely unlikely, but however, well anything is possible.

Just as it is possible that GRU Spetsnaz can be in the USA, Canada, Germany, Israel, Saudi Arabia at this moment. They might even be in China, Venezuela or Iran etc…

But GRU will not be operating inside Russia.

American readers need not to worry, no GRU Spetsnaz will be popping up in front of the White House or on Wall Street anytime soon, wearing telnyashkas and sporting prison tattoos with big beards etc… These Hollywood stereotypes do not reflect a true active GRU Spetsnaz soldier, so don’t believe the scripts. You will never know we are there.

Reconnaissance is one of our main missions. Our tactics are to never engage in direct battle, we will only engage once we are shot upon. If we are discovered, several people might stay behind to fight while the rest of the group will disappear.

Maybe there are retired ex-military Spetsnaz personnel who are acting independently trying to help the people of Donbass, if the Ukranians catch retired personnel and discover the previous identities than they may make such claims, but it is NO active GRU unit would be involved in such manners. That is not our function. Also if someone is tortured they will say anything. Intelligence obtained under duress and bodily harm is never accurate. It is only used for public consumption. So if a personal is captured they can be forced to say anything, it means very little.

If I left to Donbass by the command of my heart to help the people and was captured, they would claim they caught a Spetsnaz officer, but I would be acting on my own. As a Spetsnaz officer we would never wear any distinguishing badges or marks, nor reveal our identities.

If you think about it – no GRU Spetsnaz unit of 12-25 men would stay and engage in a fire fight against 200 Azov or Right Sector soldiers. That would be stupid. Spetsnaz do not engage in stupidity. This whole video wreaks of disinformation and I do not think it holds much validity. It is for public consumption like Hollywood movies it does not reflect real warfare tactics.

The Saker: There are constant rumors about US and Polish special forces operating on the Urkonazi side. Again, in theory, do you think that this is possible? What would the foreign special forces offer which the Ukrainian special forces would not be capable of?

Ramzes: I think it is very possible. I think they are helping behind the line of contact, providing expert advisors who tell the private armies and the Ukrainian soldiers what to do, how to do it, when to do it and so on… They will be coaching and encouraging these people how to fight. Providing intelligence, equipment and strategy but most likely not engaged in the fighting. You may have individuals among the Right Sector or Azov Battalions across the line of contacts, but most likely no American or Polish units or groups operating as they would typically.

It is now very much like it was in Georgia during the 90’s and now again today. Americans and other nationals provide most of the training, provide the equipment and intelligence but do not engage in battle themselves.

As far as Maidan, nobody knows whether it was Polish snipers or Right Sector snipers there on the roofs. This is very difficult to assess and most likely has many complexities that provide cover for the actual shooters who pulled the trigger. What is clear is that is was a provocation and that there was a significant amount of preparation and situational awareness involved. So is the Ukrainian president the one ordering a provocation to unseat himself? This is how shallow the logic and propaganda is, not very difficult to debunk.

Imagine that if the Ukrainian president was reluctant to use his Berkut Riot police to quell the situation on the ground at the line of contact then it makes zero sense that he had the will or stomach to give orders to unleash snipers on an open crowd. Plus the shells and exit wounds clearly show the same weapons were used to hit and kill both the Ukrainian Berkut Riot police and the rioters themselves.

Perhaps it was a mistake for the Ukrainian President to not order the Berkut to properly control the situation, they had the means to do so. The USA understood that at this moment there was weakness in the command structure (it is entirely possible that they manufactured this weakness as well, political and private leverage is also a weapon and tactic used as well) at this critical moment and exploited that event to maximize chaos on the ground and degeneration of social order. Once the Fog of War is as thick as the smoke from the burning tires it becomes difficult to explain and events begin to unfold too fast to keep the public attuned to what matters. By the time the smoke clears it is too late, chaos has sewn its seeds.

This was an extremely difficult position to be put into. Maybe the Ukrainian president is just a regular human not a military man. I myself may not know what order I would give in I was in his shoes if I had to order my Berkut soldiers to kill civilians my own civilians even if they are wild Maidan protestors encouraged by inserted terrorists, they are still people.

Americans might see him as being a weak leader with not the stomach to shed blood to maintain power, but as a Russian I understand that these people have families and loved ones too. Ask yourself if you could order your Berkut soldiers to kill and subdue a massive mob like that. It is not an easy question to resolve. In hindsight we can say that giving this order would have saved thousands of lives and likely helped their economy greatly, but in the moment things are not clear and nobody can predict the future. This is an area where civilian leadership may lead to more bloodshed than military leadership.

The Saker: What is your take on the murder of Alexei Mozgovoi. Do you believe that it is possible for a Ukrainian or NATO diversionary unit to have acted so deep behind the front lines and, if yes, could they have succeeded without an accomplice inside the LRN giving them the information about the schedule and route taken by Mozgovoi?

Ramzes: I think that it is possible. In no way is this good for DNR and LNR headquarters. Mozgovoi was a clever and very strong commander. Many people did not like him within the LNR and DNR but they all knew they needed him as he prooved his battle expertise. His value was well understood and this along with his passionate views made him unpopular to some, but nobody within the LNR or DNR would dare execute this murder, it would be treason.

Mozgovoi was more of a problem for the Ukrainian and American interests as his battlefield awareness and command was responsible for many successes.

Many Ukrainian Spetsnaz were trained by Russian GRU back in the day, they were trained well and are familiar with our methods. Many people from the Ukraine can penetrate deep into DNR and LNR structures without being detected. It is an extremely complicated scenario due to our long common history. Now we have external agents acting on these people and anything is possible.

I know people personally who are actual brothers who are currently fighting on opposite sides of this war. They understand that this war is not needed by the people. They have no choice in the matter though, as they must act to save their families.

If you are a Ukrainian man and wish to stay at home and avoid this war you will likely be killed by Right Sector or Azov Battalion agents. Also if they choose to escape to Russia their homes and possessions will be taken. But however, if you go to fight against DNR & LNR then OK go ahead and fight. Many people in the Ukrainian Army see the only way to save their family and possessions is to join the Ukrainian Army because there is no choice. For this reason you see many people who fight when clearly their heart is not into it, they do not want to kill their brothers and cousins but are being forced to do so by fascist thugs who are running across the country acting with crazy brutality and with full impunity. You see this wherever certain geopolitical actors are involved. Rule by terror and chaos.

Many people from LNR & DNR speak directly with the Ukrainian military who understand that this is a political situation and actively coordinate fire positions so as to not kill one another. For example brothers who previously served in Afghanistan together will do what they can to avoid killing one another now that they find themselves on opposite sides of the battle. But this only applies to the Ukrainian Army and the DNR & LNR. The Pravy Sektor and Azov Battalions as well as private mercenaries are the main units causing all the damage, chaos, terror and violence while the others are trying to avoid the politics and ride out the violence.

As for Mozgovoi’s death. Of course there could be deep intelligence penetration inside the LNR, there could also be high tech reconnaissance from USA intercepting communications w/out a physical spy inside actively betraying Mozgovoi’s route.

The Saker: Recently there have been speculations in the Russian media about MH17 being shot down by a BUK missile after all. In that hypothesis the Ukrainians managed to drive a BUK missile launcher into the the territory of the DNR undetected and then fired at the MH17. Do you believe that it is possible for a Ukrainian crew to drive a MH17 missile launcher undetected into the DNR-controlled territory and fire it in order to blame the Novorussians for the shot?

Ramzes: I have a special attitude regarding this. I was in the sky on July 17th at the exact time MH17 was shot down. I saw a military plane in the sky. There is only one military plane that can be in the sky at this time. Only a Ukrainian military jet could be in the airspace at that time. I was not the only person who saw this military plane. Many of us saw it. I saw it with my own eyes.

The media then reported that Ukrainians denied having a plane in the air at that time. So ask yourself why are they lying?

I checked an American-run flight path tracking website and I saw my commercial flight, I saw MH17, I saw that at that exact time (20 minutes after MH17) my commercial plane’s flight path was logged on this website. The next day discussing this with fellow officers and friends we looked at the website again and in less than 24 hours my commercial flight was not on this web site . Why would they delete the flight record of a commercial flight? This is a daily scheduled flight from Greece to Russia. This flight appears on the July 16 and on July 18, and it was there on July 17 as per its regular schedule yet it was removed from the record on July 17th.

If a BUK was also involved it makes sense, as military redundancy is always a practice employed when striking a target. It makes sense to have it hit by military jets, then by a BUK then by a bomb inside the aircraft and so on… This all points to a high level of preparation for this attack. However I do not think this was executed by high level professional operatives, it was most likely done by someone who could order ground units and planes to attack (read Oligarch) but not someone slick enough to have a bomb on board or make this look like an accident (read CIA or Special Ops). It could be CIA if they wanted to make it look like an Oligarch to trigger anger and a response. Again anything is possible but we know 100% it was not local fighters from the DNR or LNR. Especially not with Russia in any way supporting such craziness.

The event was made [for a while] to be the most important news, which implies it was a diversionary tactic for public consumption while on the ground troops were amassing and preparing for and initiating battles. Again, it was a cover for engagement. Clearly the LNR and DNR are suing for peace as is Moscow.

So this tragedy was a clear and important pivot to make the world to pay attention and while the world paid attention to MH17 other orders were being executed on the ground to create the pretext for a full war.

Thank you for providing the blog service for your readers world wide. Dear Saker readers please do help by making a donation as we understand in Russia that the information warfare in Western countries is relentless, this campaign is being conducted against us and that we deeply appreciate the time, energy and effort it takes to stand tall and speak truthfully. Together we can act as an effective Spetsnaz group. To know the whole situation and to individually do what needs to be done.

Mozgovoi was a man driven by his consciousness he was a man of principals and actions. Let his soul observe us all continuing to support what he dies for – the truth and lasting peace.

Thank you and God Bless.

[printfriendly]

Remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s).

What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?

Memorial Day Cogitations

[Photo: Dean Terry / flickr.]

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]his is Memorial Day, and it is a sombre day for remembering those who have fallen in (foreign) wars, and secondarily those who “served” but who have not died. For much of my life I have wondered how to address this holiday and the ideology upon which it rests. When I was younger, the big war was Vietnam and there was a peace movement. There was a draft then rather than the contemporary “volunteer” force (I’ll explain below), and hence more motivation to take a stand on war and militarism.

Rightly or wrongly there developed an “Us” – “Them” mentality as even with the draft, there was a choice. Many became draft dodgers and some left the country. Some registered as conscientious objectors. Some who were conscripted walked away regardless the cost to their lives and families. But then, as now, there were a lot of “kids” being sent off to kill in the name of country. Then as now, “Support the troops” meant de facto support for the decisions which put them “in harm’s way.” However, it was a less ideologically nuanced time. Put simply, those who fought were tarred with the same brush as those who made the decisions for military action. The troops were not well received when they came home, and the taste of that has lain sour on the amerikan palate ever since. So when the first Gulf War started there was the beginning of an effort to sort out the troops from the war mongers. There was the beginning of an effort to carve out an ideologically nuanced stance of supporting the troops while vigorously opposing militarism. In this rather militaristic nation, such a stance continues to be the preserve of the few, but not as few as one might be led to believe. While flag waving and nationalism still seems to rule, those who expect more of our nation do not stand invisible.

“Volunteers” vs Conscripted Troops

There are at times semi-heated arguments about those who are choosing to join the military and voluntarily participate in the nation’s military adventures. This argument was much more noticeable with Bush Jr.’s also voluntary war in Iraq. Those who argued and marched against US military engagement in Iraq had some infighting about the culpability of those who were serving, and whether to even attempt to skate the thin ice of “support the troops means not putting them in harm’s way.” Meanwhile, on the nationalistic side of the argument there was a fissure about just how weepy to get over those who were being sent to fight. After all, they had volunteered.

Underneath all of that ideological formulary lies the ugly truth that is as old as the nation. Namely, those without resources are largely those who fight the wars. Early in our history, those who could afford to do so paid others to fight in their place. When that option disappeared and the draft was implemented, those who had the resources could get deferments for their sons (as happened with Cheney), or could get “champagne” posting for their sons (as with George W. Bush). At the time of the decision to invade Afghanistan, many of those swept up and sent off to fight were in the National Guard. They were “weekend warriors” who were largely deployed in cases of search and rescue and emergency situations. For many, this was a part time job that offered access to educational and occupational benefits. Little did they know that they were essentially the first line of defense, and they moved from “weekend warriors” to front line troops with the wave of a pen.

Many others of this new “volunteer” force had chosen the military because it was simply the only path out of poverty. Whether rural or urban, the disadvantaged’s last pathway was to sign up and serve. Across economically failing rural amerika, there are towns where the majority of the young, including both men and women (and husbands and wives) were members of the National Guard. When deployments hit (followed by multiple redeployments), the burden fell disproportionately on the poor. I would argue, and others have also, that lack of other choices does not make a volunteer. It makes a coerced decision. Before “Obamacare,” there were even those who joined up so that they and their families would have health care. Now that is pretty fundamental.

All this trip down the “volunteer” path is to highlight the complexities – that to this day – are driving how we approach (conceptually and personally) those who serve in the military. And brings me back to my quasi-dilemma with Memorial Day.

Memorial Day and Those Who Serve

[dropcap]I [/dropcap]think that one of the most difficult things to do is to acknowledge one’s role in something arguably questionable such as invading another nation and killing its people. Those who make the choice to fight, and their families behind them, have a vested psychological and social need to see themselves in the best light. This is particularly true for families who have lost someone to the war. The basic need to see the person and the action as noble is beyond understandable. Likewise, for those who served but survived, they too have a deep need to see themselves in the best possible light. The more at odds their war time experiences are with whom they see themselves as, the deeper the need to see the importance of what they did. The root problem is labeled as “cognitive dissonance.” Simply put, cognitive dissonance is when an individual (or a group) holds either conflicting sets of beliefs, or more importantly when one’s behavior conflicts with one’s beliefs. This creates “dissonance” and the individual (or the group) will attempt to contextualize the behavior to fit the belief (or sometimes change either belief or behavior) in order to bring the two back in harmony with each other. This investment is often used by politicians to justify further military engagement. For example, we can’t let “their” loss be in vain. Or, as is happening now as Iraq falls to the Islamic State, there is a growing voice for the US to reengage militarily in Iraq. For many of those who fought, and whose comrades may have died or received dire injuries, there is outright pain in watching Iraq fall to “terrorists.”

The need to support one’s actions goes far beyond cognitive dissonance. It goes to one’s social persona and operation daily within society. If it is known that one is a veteran, there is an ongoing and all too frequent push to explain or justify oneself to others. Some take the “pride” stance with stickers and vanity plates and flags scattered around announcing that they (or their child) serves/d in the military. Others just try to let the whole issue slide. And then there are those I truly want to honor on this Memorial Day. These are the military personnel who take a cold, hard look at their service and the actual roles the US is playing and take a stand for peace. This has to be one of the hardest choices for both those who served and their families – particularly families of the fallen. This stance takes tremendous internal strength and courage in my opinion. It requires the individual to embrace their role in a process that was far from honorable. It requires people take responsibility for their actions, and then standing up to fight against the very system of which they were a part.

So I want to offer my deepest respect and gratitude to those who have served, and their remaining family members, who stand tall against militarism and for peace. You, more than any others have experienced the atrocities of war and rather than justifying them you stand for a better world and a different path. I want to thank and remember the conscientious objectors who took an unpopular stand against war. I want to thank all of the people who have marched, and written, and called, and agitated for peace – again and again.

Peace is not simply the surcease of war. It demands constant vigilance against militarism and for justice. Thank you all past and present Warriors for Peace.

[box] Senior Editor Rowan Wolf obtained her doctorate in Sociology from the University of Oregon and has been teaching sociology since 1992. Her specialized areas of interest are systems of inequality (particularly race, class, and sex); globalization; organizations; and culture and socialization. She lives with her partner (Kelly), and their three dogs (Cody, Fox, and Crow). Rowan serves as Editor in Chief of Cyrano’s Journal Today, a fraternal site of The Greanville Post, part of the Greanville Publishing group. Rowan’s email is rowan@greanvillepost.com [/box]

[printfriendly]

Remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s).

What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?

America’s Achilles’ Heel and Russia’s indomitable spirit

Dmitry Orlov | ClubOrlov

ast Saturday, a massive Victory Parade was held in Moscow commemorating the 70-year anniversary of the surrender of Nazi Germany to the Red Army and the erection of the Soviet flag atop the Reichstag in Berlin. There were a few unusual aspects to this parade, which I would like to point out, because they conflict with the western official propaganda narrative.

First, it wasn’t just Russian troops that marched in the parade: the troops of 10 other nations took part in it, including the Chinese honor guard and a contingent of Grenadiers from India. Dignitaries from these nations were present in the stands, and the Chinese President Xi Jinping and his wife were seated next to President Vladimir Putin, who, in his speech at the start of the parade, warned against attempts to create a unipolar world—sharp words aimed squarely at the United States and its western allies. Second, a look at the military hardware that rolled through Red Square or flew over it would indicate that, short of an outright nuclear mutual self-annihilation, there isn’t much that the US military could throw at Russia that Russia couldn’t neutralize.

It would appear that American attempts to isolate Russia have resulted in the exact opposite: if 10 nations, among them the world’s largest economy, comprising some 3 billion people, are willing to set aside their differences and stand shoulder to shoulder with the Russians to counter American attempts at global dominance, then clearly the American plan isn’t going to work at all. Western media focused on the fact that western leaders declined to attend the celebration, either in a fit of pique or because so ordered by the Obama administration, but this only highlights their combined irrelevance, be it in defeating Hitler, or in commemorating his defeat 70 years later. Nevertheless, in his speech Putin specifically thanked the French, the British and the Americans for their contribution to the war effort. I am sorry that he left out the Belgians, who had been so helpful at Dunkirk.

[dropcap]If you try to dismiss[/dropcap] any of this as Russian state propaganda, then here is something else you should be aware of. Western press either panned it or billed it as an attempt by Putin to whip up anti-western sentiment.

* * *

Instead of collapsing quietly, the US has decided to pick a fight with Russia. It appears to have already lost the fight, but a question remains: How many more countries will the US manage to destroy before the reality of its inevitable defeat and disintegration finally catches up with it?

As Putin said last summer when speaking at the Seliger youth forum, “There is no question that the Americans will continue to try to create mischief around the world, “touching” vulnerable, exploitable countries, for as long as they can. But there is another question that deserves to be asked: Do the Americans “touch” themselves? Because if they do, then the next candidate for extreme makeover into a bombed-out wasteland might be the United States itself. Let’s consider this option.

As the events in Ferguson, and more recently in Baltimore, have indicated, the tensions between African-Americans and the police have escalated to a point where explosions become likely. The American “war on drugs” has been essentially a war on young black (and Latino) men; about a third of young blacks are behind bars. They also run a high risk of being shot by the police. To be fair, the police also run a high risk of getting shot by young black males, causing them to be jumpy and to overreact. Given the gradually collapsing economy—close to 100 million working-age Americans are unemployed (“outside the labor force,” if you wish to split hairs)—it would seem that for an ever-increasing chunk of the population cooperating with the authorities is no longer a useful strategy: you get locked up or killed anyway, but you get none of the temporary benefits that come from ignoring the law.

There is an interesting asymmetry in the American media’s ability to block out information about civil unrest and insurgency: if it is happening overseas, then news of it can be carefully calibrated or suppressed outright. (Did American television tell you about the recent resumption of shelling of civilian districts by the Ukrainian military? Of course not!) This is possible because Americans are notoriously narcissistic and largely indifferent to the rest of the world, of which most of them know little, and what they think they know is often wrong. But if the unrest is within the US itself, then the various media outlets find themselves competing against each other in who can sensationalize it better, in order to get more viewership, and more advertising revenue. The mainstream media in the US is tightly controlled by a handful of large conglomerates, making it one big monopoly on information, but at the level of selling advertising market principles still prevail.

Thus there is the potential for a positive feedback loop: more civil unrest generates more sensationalized news coverage, which in turn amplifies the civil unrest, which further sensationalizes the news coverage. And there is a second positive feedback loop as well: the more civil unrest there is, the more the police overreact in trying to control the situation, thereby generating more rage, amplifying the civil unrest. These two positive feedback loops can continue to run out of control for a while, but the end result, in all such recent incidents, is the same: the introduction of National Guard troops and the imposition of curfew and martial law.

The swift introduction of the military might seem a bit odd, considering that most police departments, even small-town ones, have been heavily militarized in recent years, and even the security people at some school districts now have military vehicles and machine guns. But the progression is a natural one. On the one hand, when people who habitually resort to brute force find that it isn’t working, they naturally assume that this is because they aren’t using enough of it. On the other hand, if the criminal justice system is already a travesty and a shambles, then why not just cut through the red tape and impose martial law?

There is an awful lot of weapons of all sorts in the US already, and more will come in all the time as the US is forced to close overseas military bases due to lack of funds. And they will probably get used, for the same reason and in the same fashion that red bricks came to be used in Boston. You see, plenty of red bricks kept coming into Boston aboard British ships, where they were used as ballast for the return trip. This created the impetus to do something with them. But putting up brick buildings is a difficult, demanding process, especially if laborers are always drunk. And so the solution was to use the bricks to pave sidewalks—something one can do on one’s hands and knees. Similarly with the military hardware sloshing back into the US from abroad. It will be used, because it’s there; and it will be used in the stupidest way possible: shooting at one’s own people.

To be effective, an insurgency needs lots of weapons. Here, again, there is a procedure for acquiring military technology that has become almost routine. What weapons are being used by ISIS? Why, of course, American ones, which the Americans provided to the regime in Baghdad, and which ISIS took as trophies when the Iraqi army refused to fight and ran away. And what weapons are being used by the Houthi rebels in Yemen? Why, of course, the American ones, which the Americans provided to the now overthrown pro-American regime there. And what are some of the weapons being used by the enemies of the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad? Why, of course, American ones, sold to them by the Ukrainian government, which got them from the Americans.

They say that “You can’t fight city hall.” But what if you have a tank battalion that can control four intersections all around city hall, turrets pointed in all directions, firing at anything that moves? And what if you have enough infantry to go around and ring the doorbells of all the key city hall bureaucrats? Wouldn’t that change one’s odds of victory in fighting city hall?

The US might get to “touch” a few more countries before this scenario unfolds, but it seems likely that (excepting the possibility of all-out war) eventually America will “touch” itself, and then all those countries whose troops marched through Red Square last Saturday won’t have America to kick around any more.

What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?

‘We’re not interested in a fair fight’ – US army commander urges NATO to confront Russia

A DISPATCH FROM RT.COM

US forces in southern Afghanistan Operations Director General Frederick ‘Ben’ Hodges.(AFP Photo / Ed Jones)

[dropcap]U[/dropcap]S army commander in Europe says Russia is a “real threat” urging NATO to stay united. The alliance is not interested in a “fair fight with anyone” and wants to have “overmatch in all systems,” Lieutenant-General Frederick “Ben” Hodges believes.

“There is a Russian threat,” Hodges told the Telegraph, maintaining that Russia is involved in ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine. A key objective for NATO is not to let Russia outreach it in terms of capabilities, the general said.

“We’re not interested in a fair fight with anyone,” General Hodges stated. “We want to have overmatch in all systems. I don’t think that we’ve fallen behind but Russia has closed the gap in certain capabilities. We don’t want them to close that gap,” he revealed.

“The best insurance we have against a showdown is that NATO stands together,” he said, pointing to recent moves by traditionally neutral Sweden and Finland to cooperate more closely on defense with NATO.

[pullquote]The US military doesn’t like an even playing field. They prefer overwhelming power or nothing. Sometimes they are irritated that the enemy should even have the audacity to shoot back. This attitude was seen frequently among pilots flying over Vietnam. Gen. Hodges is at least honest about it. [/pullquote]

Moscow has expressed “special concern” over Finnish and Swedish moves towards the alliance viewing it as a threat aimed against Russia.

“Contrary to past years, Northern European military cooperation is now positioning itself against Russia. This can undermine positive constructive cooperation,” Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Laugh if you like, but Gen Hodges‘ beliefs mirror perfectly the utmost untruths peddled by the official US propaganda playbook, including the idea that it is the Russians, and not the Americans, who specialize in the Big Lie.

Hodges also said US expects its allies to contribute financially to the security umbrella provided by the NATO alliance, as its member states have been failing to allocate 2 percent of every member nation’s GDP to NATO budget.

“I think the question for each country to ask is: are they security consumers or security providers?” the general demanded. “Do they bring capabilities the alliance needs?”

However, the general does not believe that the world is on the brink of another Cold War, saying that “the only thing that is similar now is that Russia and NATO have different views about what the security environment in Europe should be.”

“I don’t think it’s the same as the Cold War,” he said, recalling “gigantic forces” and “large numbers of nuclear weapons” implemented in Europe a quarter of a century ago. “That [Cold War] was a different situation.”

“We did very specific things then that are no longer relevant. We don’t need 300,000 soldiers in Europe. Nobody can afford that anymore,” General Hodges acknowledged.

However, there was a sharp increase in the intensity of the training of NATO troops near the borders of Russia last year, Russian General Staff reported.

“In 2014, the intensity of NATO’s operational and combat training activities has grown by 80 percent,”said Lieutenant General Andrey Kartapolov, head of the Main Operation Directorate of General Staff.

[printfriendly]

What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?