Beware what you wish for: Russia is ready for war

So foreign ministers from the 28 NATO member-nations met in Brussels for a two-day summit, while mighty military power Montenegro was inducted as a new member.
Global Robocop NATO predictably discussed Afghanistan (a war NATO ignominiously lost); Iraq (a war the Pentagon ignominiously lost); Libya (a nation NATO turned into a failed state devastated by militia hell); Syria (a nation NATO, via Turkey, would love to invade, and is already a militia hell).

Afghans must now rest assured that NATO’s Resolute Support mission – plus “financial support for Afghan forces” – will finally assure the success of Operation Enduring Freedom forever.

Libyans must be reassured, in the words of NATO figurehead secretary Jens Stoltenberg, that we “should stand ready to support the new Government of National Accord in Libya.”

Read more
NATO exercises on Russian border: Are these people actually mad?

And then there’s the icing on the NATO cake, described as “measures against Russia”.

Stoltenberg duly confirmed, “We have already decided to enhance our forward presence in the eastern part of our alliance. Our military planners have put forward proposals of several battalions in different countries in the region. No decision has been taken on the numbers and locations.”

These puny “several battalions” won’t cause any Russian planner to lose sleep. The real “measure” is the deployment of the Aegis Ashore system in Romania last week – plus a further one in Poland in 2018. This has been vehemently opposed by Moscow since the early 2000s. NATO’s argument that the Aegis represents protection against the “threat” of ballistic missiles from Iran does not even qualify as kindergarten play.

Every Russian military planner knows the Aegis is not defensive. This is a serious game-changer – as in de-localizing US nuclear capability to Eastern Europe. No wonder Russian President Vladimir Putin had to make it clear Russia would respond “adequately” to any threat to its security.

Predictably all Cold War 2.0 hell broke loose, all over again.

A former NATO deputy commander went ballistic, while saner heads wondered whether Moscow, sooner rather than later, would have had enough of these shenanigans and prepare for war.

Russia proposes US-led coalition to strike Syrian terrorists with Moscow – def minister

That worthless Patriot

A case can be made that the Beltway – neocons and neoliberalcons alike - do not want a hot war with Russia. What they want, apart from racking in more cash for the Pentagon, is to raise the ante to such a high level that Moscow will back down - based on a rational cost analysis. Yet oil prices will inevitably rise later in 2016 – and under this scenario Washington is a loser. So we may see a raise of interest rates by the Fed (with all the money continuing to go to Wall Street) trying to reverse the scenario.

Comparisons of the current NATO buildup to pre-WWII buildups, or to NATO when opposed to the Warsaw Pact, are amateurish. The THAAD and Patriot missiles are worthless - according to the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) themselves; that’s why they tried to improve them with Iron Dome.

Meanwhile, those new NATO army “battalions” are inconsequential. The basic thrust behind the Pentagon’s moves under neocon Ash Carter continues to be to draw Russia ever further into Syria and Ukraine (as if Moscow actually was involved in, or wanted, a Ukrainian quagmire); trap Russia in proxy wars; and economically bleed Russia to death while crippling the bulk of oil and natural gas income to the Russian state.

Russia does not want – and does not need – war. Yet the “Russian aggression” narrative never stops. Thus it’s always enlightening to come back to this

RAND corporation study, which examined what would happen if a war actually took place. RAND reached an “unambiguous” conclusion after a series of war games in 2015-2015; Russia could overrun NATO in a mere 60 hours – if not less – if it ever amounted to a hot war on European soil.

Read more
Ex-general says NATO-Russia nuclear war ‘possible within a year’

The Rand Corporation is essentially a CIA outpost – thus a propaganda machine. Yet it’s not propaganda to state the Baltic States and Ukraine would completely fall in less than three days before the Russian Army. However, the suggestion that additional NATO air power and heavily armored combat divisions would make a material difference is bogus.

The Aegis changes the game in the sense that it qualifies as a launch area for US missile defense. Think US missiles with minimum flying time – around 30 minutes – from Moscow; that’s a certified threat to the Russian nation. The Russian military has also been “unambiguous”; if it is ascertained that NATO – via the Pentagon – is about to try something funny, there are grounds for a preventive strike by Iskander-M systems out of Transnistria – as in the destruction of the US missiles by conveniently armed precision weapons.

Meanwhile, Moscow has pulled a stunning success – of course, it’s far from over – in Syria. So what’s left for the Pentagon – via NATO – is essentially to play the scare tactics card. They know Russia is prepared for war – certainly much better prepared than NATO. They know neither Putin nor the Russian military will back down because of kindergarten scaremongering. As for a too conciliatory tone by the Kremlin towards Washington, things may be about to change soon.

Say hello to my S-500

The Russian military are about to test the first prototypes of the S-500 Prometey air and missile defense system, also known as 55R6M Triumfator M – capable of destroying ICBMs, hypersonic cruise missiles and planes at over Mach 5 speeds; and capable of detecting and simultaneously attacking up to ten ballistic missile warheads at a range of 1300 km. This means the S-500 can smash ballistic missiles before their warheads re-enter the atmosphere.

So in the case of RAND-style NATO (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)footing, the S-500 would totally eliminate all NATO air power over the Baltic States – while the advanced Kornet missile would destroy all NATO armored vehicles. And that’s not even considering conventional weapon hell.

If push comes to nuclear shove, the S-400 and especially the S-500 anti-missile missiles would block all incoming US ICBMs, cruise missiles and stealth aircraft. Offensive drones would be blocked by drone defenses. The S-500 practically consigns to the dustbin stealth warplanes such as the F-22, F-35 and the B-2.

The bottom line is that Russia – in terms of hypersonic missile development – is about four generations ahead of the US, if we measure it by the development of the S-300, S-400 and S-500 systems. As a working hypothesis, we could describe the next system – already in the drawing boards – as the S-600. It would take the US military at least ten years to develop and roll out a new weapons system, which in military terms represents a generation. Every Pentagon planner worth his pension plan should know that.

Russian – and Chinese – missiles are already able to knock out the satellite guidance systems for US nuclear tipped ICBMs and cruise missiles. They could also knock out the early alert warnings that the satellite constellations would give. A Russian hypersonic ICBM flight time, launched for instance from a Russian nuclear sub all the way to the US East Coast, counts for less than 20 minutes. So an early warning system is absolutely critical. Don’t count on the worthless THAAD and Patriot to do their job. Once again, Russian hypersonic technology has already rendered the entire missile defense system in both the US and Europe totally obsolete.

So why is Moscow so worried by the Pentagon placing the Aegis system so close to Russia’s borders? A credible answer is that Moscow is always concerned that the US industrial military-complex might develop some really effective anti-missile missiles even though they are now about four generations behind.

At the same time, Pentagon planners have reasons to be very worried by what they know, or hint. At the same time the Russian military – in a very Asian way – never reveal their full hand. The key fact of the matter needs to be stressed over and over again; the S-500 is impenetrable - and allows Russia for the first time in history to launch a first strike nuclear attack, if it ever chooses to do so, and be immune to retaliation.

The rest is idle babbling. Still, expect the official Pentagon/NATO narrative to remain the same. After all, the industrial-military complex is a cash-devouring hydra, and a powerful enemy is a must (the phony Daesh “caliphate” does not count).

The Threat Narrative rules that Russia has to meekly accept being surrounded by NATO. Russia is not allowed any response; in any case, any response will be branded as “Russian aggression”. If Russia defends itself, this will be “exposed” as an unacceptable provocation. And may even furnish the pretext for a pre-emptive attack by NATO against Russia.

Now let those Pentagon/NATO planners duly go back to play in their lavish kindergarten.

 

so the genie in the bottle is a NWO witch like devil in disguise after all..

 

You didn't give us a link.

 

bring it on!!!!

we could wipe away Russia very quickly

 

Bring on Nuclear war and total destruction of the US ? Are you listening to yourself ?

Its that kind of thinking that leads to the destruction. When smart people were running this country .. that kind of thinking was called "MAD" Mutually assured destruction.

 

our missiles are much closer to Russia then theirs our to us.

sure, Europe might be wiped out, but at least North America will survive.

 

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/344002-beware-russia-war-us/

 

funny how they think they can scare us.

no one is afraid of Russia.

if they start (*)(*)(*)(*), we will end it

 

Pepe Escobar, who wrote the article in the OP, is generally fairly accurate in his assessments. If he is in this case, that the Russians are that far ahead with missile technology, then what is happening is that Russia is merely using a rope-a-dope strategy with NATO.

What NATO's expansion does is to allow Russia to express outrage, declare a threat and deploy more superior weaponry in response.

As the old saying goes, never interrupt your enemy while he's making a mistake.

 

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/344002-beware-russia-war-us/

 

This is whacked on so many levels. Europe will be wiped out - and you are ok with this?

and no .. NA will not survive.

For example. Just one nuclear sub has 16 missiles (each with 10 MIRV's). Each MIRV is about 5-7 times Hiroshima.

Strike 160 US cities with populations over 500,000 off the map and tell me what is left ? That is "one" sub.

The first thing that happens in a Nuclear war with Russia is they take out the ABM's with nuclear cruise missiles. Shortly after "the lights go off" as our communication and military satellites get blown up.

Then comes the ballistic missile launch. These are not the firecracker's (5-7 x Hiroshima). These are the 1-20 megaton bombs = 65 to 1300 x the size of Hiroshima.

Are you listening ? One thousand three hundred (1300) times the size of the Hiroshima bomb. One 20 Megaton bomb.

These are so big that we and the Russians got rid of most the larger nukes like this. There is just no point. Far more damage can be caused by 10 (1-2 MT MIRV). One missile 10 blasts that are 65 - 130 times (Hiroshima)

The Castle Bravo test contaminated 7000 Sq Miles. The continental US is roughly 3 Million Sq Miles.

Quick math - 430 Bombs contaminates the entire continental US. It would be a red "no go zone" on the map.

The reality is that this would be overkill by at least 4 as the contamination vectors (water travels) and the infrastructure and food supply is wiped out such that even if you do find a non contaminated track of land most have no way to survive. The ensuing chaos - millions of people trying to survive on scarce resources - will kill most of these people.

So in reality.. `100 (1-20 MT) bombs and life as you know it ends. In a nuclear war with Russia they are not going to just send 100 bombs. They are can send 1000 if they want and still have thousands left.

Russia of course is destroyed shortly thereafter.

There is no "winning" a nuclear war with Russia. What's the point of robbery when nothing is worth taking ?

 

$40-BILLION MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM PROVES UNRELIABLE

It was a test of the backbone of the nation's missile defense system. If North Korea or Iran ever launched nuclear weapons against the United States, the interceptors at Vandenberg and remote Ft. Greely, Alaska, would be called on to destroy the incoming warheads.


Scientists conducting the test at Vandenberg on Sunday, Jan. 31, 2010, had left little to chance. They knew exactly when the target missile would be launched from an atoll in the Marshall Islands 4,900 miles away. They knew its precise dimensions, expected trajectory and speed.

Based on this and other data, they had estimated the route the interceptor's heat-seeking "kill vehicle" would have to follow to destroy the target.


Within minutes, the interceptor's three boosters had burned out and fallen away, and the kill vehicle was hurtling through space at 4 miles per second. It was supposed to crash into the mock enemy warhead and obliterate it.

Missile defense system anything but fail-safe
The Ground-based Midcourse Defense system was supposed to protect Americans against a chilling new threat from "rogue states" such as North Korea and Iran. But a decade after it was declared operational, and after $40 billion in spending, the system has proved an expensive disappointment.
It missed.

At a cost of about $200 million, the mission had failed.

Eleven months later, when the U.S. Missile Defense Agency staged a repeat of the test, it failed, too.

The next attempted intercept, launched from Vandenberg on July 5, 2013, also ended in failure.

The Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, or GMD, was supposed to protect Americans against a chilling new threat from "rogue states" such as North Korea and Iran. But a decade after it was declared operational, and after $40 billion in spending, the missile shield cannot be relied on, even in carefully scripted tests that are much less challenging than an actual attack would be, a Los Angeles Times investigation has found.


--------------------

Meanwhile in Russia...

The TOPOL-M missile was designed to penetrate an American anti-ballistic missile shield by leveraging high-speed, a relatively small infrared signature during its boost phase, advanced decoys (as many as ten carried on a single missile), maneuvering mid-course capability, and maneuvering independently targeted reentry vehicles, of which it can carry up to six, although they are said to carry just one operationally.

The missile's high speed shortens the time anyone can react to it, and every second matters when it comes to ballistic missile defense. The rocket motors were designed for a short, very powerful boost stage so that American space-based infrared detection satellites (SBIRS, DSP) have less time to detect and track it. Its decoys make it hard for radar to adequately track the correct target, and its countermeasures are said to have been upgraded to fool infrared tracking systems, which are use for mid-course interception. The missile and reentry vehicles' ability to dynamically maneuver outside of their ballistic track makes producing an effective kill solution, or even predicting the TOPOL-M's target, problematic. All these features come together to make a missile that is probably outside of America's missile defense capabilities today, and the sheer number of them that exists makes the idea of defending against anything but a limited barrage totally invalid.

Now to remind you. This is RS-24. Russia has already moved 3 generations agead.

They have now have the RS-26, RS-28, RS36

----------------------

US currently can barely ward off attacks from rogue nations who would use primitive missiles. What can it do against highly maneuverable missile that can change its flight path and trajectory while pumping out decoys. In addition, their warheads are highly maneuverable as well.


US would not be safe

 

Russia is ready for war?

good. hopefully they are ready to lose war too.

 

Spoken like a true neo con, ready and willing to have Europe sacrificed so you can buy it all up. And what about Israel, will it survive? I wouldn't bet on it.

 

Russia claims it is always ready for war...but in reality they will be greatly surprised and will once gain find themselves on the losing end.
Putin and his fellow thugs are all mouth....which they would be better off if they kept them shut.

 

Russia won't dare start a war with us, unless they are suicidal

 

There might be some serious mental problems with Vlad the Invader....I'm surprised that he hasn't yet been taken out by someone in his own government. He'll end up getting millions of Russians killed if he isn't stopped.

 

Neocons in Washington will get millions of Americans killed if they aren't stoped.

 

Neo-Fascists in Moscow will get tens of millions of Russians killed, if they aren't stopped

 

Do you Russians ever stop beating your chests? This is the 5th one of these "Russia preparing for war" threads in a week. Notice how it's always you Russian pansies going on about how "Russia ready for war" or "Russia getting its nukes ready" and never "US preparing for war with Russia" and yet you guys call us the aggressors and tell us we need to stop or there will be war? It's clear who the aggressors are. You guys sound like a bunch of chihuahuas barking at yourself in the mirror.

 

Russian has better nukes[rs36] and a better shield[s500]. Us can barely ward off an attack by north korea.

It must be fun living in a fantasy though

- - - Updated - - -

It is NATO that is moving closer to Russian boarders. Not the other way around.

 

NATO has thousands of nuclear weapons. All pointed at Russia.

you have no way of stopping them.

 

If sovereign nations desire to join a DEFENSIVE alliance that is their *******n givin human right. Russia can (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and moan tell it bleeds out its mouth about it but that will not change. NATO expands through peace and diplomacy. Russia expands through invasion and covert tricks. It's not wonder the former Soviet block want to join NATO.

Here's a tip. Maybe if Russia stopped (*)(*)(*)(*)ing with its neighbors they wouldn't want to join NATO, this NATO wouldn't be expanding. Russia has no one to blame but themselves.

 

Its not our fault that most of Europe HATES Russia and wants to join NATO.

thats what happens when Stalin invades them all during and after WW2 and treats them like (*)(*)(*)(*) for 40 years.

so now Putin has to deal with the faulout.

and now of course, Putin has invaded Ukraine, so of course MORE countries in Europe want to be under the protective umbrella of NATO.

Russia has only themselves to blame

 

Right. Let's reverse this situation and see if you say the same thing.

And you are stuck about ukraine. A democratic vote. Like Russia regularly annexes countries.

But if the people want to break off from some neo natzi government then let them. Democracy right?

Talk about double standards. Democracy is only OK if it benefits us. We get your twisted and retarded logic. The logic of neocons and war mongers alike

You call this alliance defensive in contrast to its recent history. Everything they have done so far has been offensive.

But I guess the best defense is the best offense right?

Stupid neocons.