View Full Version : Russia Offer Over Nuclear Weapons

David Guyatt
12-20-2008, 11:08 AM
It as though the cold war never ceased eh...


Russia Offer Over Nuclear Weapons

Yesterday, 08:34 am

Russia will stop developing some strategic nuclear weapons if the US drops plans for a missile shield in Europe, a top Russian general has said. Skip related content

Plans to build the defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic have led to a deterioration in relations between Washington and Moscow.

Colonel-General Nikolai Solovtsov, commander of Russia's strategic missile forces, said: "If Americans give up plans to deploy the third positioning region and other elements of the strategic missile defence system then certainly we will adequately respond to it.

"We will simply not need a number of expensive programmes."

The US has said the shield is needed to protect against the threat of a nuclear attack by a rogue state.

But the Kremlin says it believes the programme - based in former Eastern Bloc countries that are now part of Nato - is aimed at Russia.

Col-Gen Solovtsov added: "Today we do not have ideological reasons for confrontation. And as we realise plans for the development of the strategic missile forces, we are not planning to frighten anyone.

"We are simply doing that which is called for by today's realities."

On Wednesday, Col-Gen Solovtsov told reporters that by 2020 Russia would replace its Soviet-era nuclear missile arsenal with new systems featuring "improved combat characteristics" and capable of overcoming defences like the US missile shield.

Russia has been working hard to upgrade its ageing missile forces and has tested new missiles in recent months.

In October Russian President Dmitry Medvedev attended the test-firing of a Topol truck-mounted intercontinental missile at the Plesetsk cosmodrome.

The tests came as Moscow repeatedly lashed out at US plans - spearheaded by outgoing US President George Bush - to deploy an anti-missile radar facility in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in Poland.

Mr Bush's successor, president-elect Barack Obama, has yet to give a clear signal about whether he will continue the project.

In addition to the facilities in central Europe, Russia has also objected to what it views as US intentions - denied by Washington - to put elements of missile defence in space.

Mark Stapleton
12-25-2008, 03:29 AM
It's interesting, David. This time Russia actually holds the better poker hand, because the US can't afford to keep upping the ante anymore.

The shoe is now on the other foot.

Hopefully Obama will see the futility of it and fold his cards.

If psychotic Texas billionaires and their friends want to indulge in kamikaze poker games, let them do it in Texas--leave the rest of us out of it.

Richard Welser
12-25-2008, 08:30 PM
It's interesting, David. This time Russia actually holds the better poker hand, because the US can't afford to keep upping the ante anymore.

The shoe is now on the other foot.

Hopefully Obama will see the futility of it and fold his cards.

If psychotic Texas billionaires and their friends want to indulge in kamikaze poker games, let them do it in Texas--leave the rest of us out of it.

I can't imagine Obama seeing much other than Zbigniew Brzezinski's rabid anti-Russian perspective.

Unlike the cold-war days, when the USSR was attributed by the west with a globalist agenda (rightly or wrongly), Russia appeared to simply want the U.S. to stay out of its backyard. Which the elite hegemonic globalists were clearly unwilling to do.

My nightmare ... also my daymare.... is that Obama and his controllers fully wish to continue to covertly, militaristically, engage Russia and China in skirmishes (via proxies and others) right up to a final confrontation. They appear to have failed to 'divide and conquer' Russia (which was the goal after the fall of the wall) and it would be foolish to imagine China is anything but clearly aware of the hegemony's agenda ... I imagine they are fully prepared as well. I have read that China recently completed a defense agreement with Pakistan and the SCO does not appear terribly threatened by India's fascist-driven, false flag utlizing, war mongering towards Pakistan.

What I hope is that the current events are possibly signals that
the Empire's strategists have screwed up a bit. Or maybe it is just the current strategy is too complex and too global to permit the kind of focus necessary for successful actions.

I'm just kind of rambling in my musings ... and would like to understand other folk's perspectives on the globalists' strategies and behavior.


Paul Rigby
12-25-2008, 09:39 PM
I can't imagine Obama seeing much other than Zbigniew Brzezinski's rabid anti-Russian perspective.

Unlike the cold-war days, when the USSR was attributed by the west with a globalist agenda (rightly or wrongly), Russia appeared to simply want the U.S. to stay out of its backyard. Which the elite hegemonic globalists were clearly unwilling to do.

The United States' drang nach osten is unstoppable.

Under Obama, as under Clinton - remember Directive 13? - we should fully anticipate a swift and considerable upsurge in CIA-orchestrated "colour revolutions," widespread civil unrest in Europe (almost certainly providing pretext for military interventions in the southern rim) and the Eurasian heartland, an attempt to revive the anti-Moscow right in Germany ("Conjuring Hitler" revisited), a massive increase in US military and paramilitary intervention in mineral-rich African states, the Balkanization of South American states deemed hostile, and the intensification of the strategy of "double encirclement" targeting the giants of the SCO, Russia and China. (The latter seems certain to be the particular focus of CIA- & Pentagon-organised "civil unrest.") To that end, India, with hefty prodding from Washington & London, will launch an all-out attack on Pakistan.

The trouble is that the American elite is conscienceless, pitiless, unaccountable, homogenous, and utterly self-centred. The portents are truly dire.

Is there a grand weakness in the US strategy? I think there is. In crashing its own economy, with the obvious intention of destroying that of both actual and theoretical challengers to its hegemony, the US elite proceeds from the blithe confidence that history will repeat itself a la post-WWII; and that US economic resourcefulness will simply - spontaneously - reassert itself. I don't believe it can or will. I think the likely conclusion is overt military rule in Washington itself.


Magda Hassan
12-26-2008, 07:32 AM
Well, Paul, that's going to put a new look on brand America for the local consumers. Same old same old for overseas markets of course. Interesting. Business would be so much easier for them that way. Life on the other hand....at least for the majority. Welcome to the third world :). Banana republics all round. Serf city here we come.

Paul Rigby
12-26-2008, 10:48 PM
Well, Paul, that's going to put a new look on brand America for the local consumers. Same old same old for overseas markets of course. Interesting. Business would be so much easier for them that way. Life on the other hand....at least for the majority. Welcome to the third world :). Banana republics all round. Serf city here we come.


Here’s the “cover” reason why I believe the US military will intervene and take overt control of the US – under the guise of “preserving the union.” Of course, the ostensible should not be confused with the real. The true reason is all together more mundane and shoddy: to preserve what now amounts to the country’s largest and most lucrative criminal racket, the defence budget. The more politically ambitious elements of the Pentagon and its suppliers will almost certainly move - I here assume they haven't yet done so, an assumption which may well prove unjustified - to lend quiet but determined encouragement to the succession movement.


Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Will the U.S. Break Up?

The larger and more complex a system, the more likely it is to break down. Something like a simple pendulum with few moving parts could last many years. But very large, complicated things like the Large Hadron Collider break down much more quickly.

America now has some 300 million people, 50 states, and more federal, state and local agencies than anyone can possibly list. It is hard to govern such a large, complex and populous system when anything goes seriously wrong.

And a lot is going wrong right now.

The U.S. military agrees that the chance of a break down in the system is real:

A new report from the U.S. Army War College [here is the report] discusses the use of American troops to quell civil unrest brought about by a worsening economic crisis.

The report from the War College’s Strategic Studies Institute warns that the U.S. military must prepare for a “violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States” that could be provoked by “unforeseen economic collapse” or “loss of functioning political and legal order.” [The report also warns of a possible "rapid dissolution of public order in all or significant parts of the US."]

International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn warned last week of riots and unrest in global markets if the ongoing financial crisis is not addressed and lower-income households are beset with credit constraints and rising unemployment, the Phoenix Business Journal reported.

Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Rep. Brad Sherman of California disclosed that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson discussed a worst-case scenario as he pushed the Wall Street bailout in September, and said that scenario might even require a declaration of martial law.***

The Defense Department has made plans to deploy 20,000 troops nationwide by 2011 to help state and local officials respond to emergencies.

In other words, the government is predicting that systems will break down. But instead of doing anything to actually fix the underlying problems which are leading to the break down (like making sure that politicians follow the Constitution and making sure that America's manufacturing base is rebuilt, so that we can make something real, and our workers can make decent wages on a sustainable basis), the government is just planning on implementing police state measures to quell protests.

(Indeed, while most Americans don't realize it, this already started happening years ago).

Will that help keep the U.S. together?

Maybe in the short-run. But I believe that - especially now that the illusions that we're in an endless boom economy and that the U.S. is a true democracy following the wishes of its people have started to pop (see this and this) - within the next decade, America will break up, like the Soviet Union.

Note 1: One precipitating factor in the break up of the U.S. may be the bankruptcy of the states. California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio and Wisconsin are all in really big trouble, and on the verge of defaulting. The rest of the states won't be that far behind as the financial crisis intensifies. If the federal government isn't helping them in their most dire crises since the founding of the country, and if the feds impose the heavy hand of martial law without any benefit to the states, they will have less incentive to remain a part of the union.

Note 2: What would the break up of America mean for the dollar and for gold? It would likely be very bad for the former and very good for the latter. But remember, the U.S. might not break up for some time.


Magda Hassan
12-26-2008, 11:15 PM
Yes, Some Russian academics have speculated this too. Well, if it is good enough for Yugoslavia and the USSR it good enough for the USA.

Paul Rigby
12-27-2008, 05:28 PM

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Will the U.S. Break Up?


En Route to Military Rule

by William Norman Grigg

• Part I
• Part II

Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.

~ Federalist Paper No. 8, in which Alexander Hamilton displayed an atypical ardor to defend liberty against state power.

"We no longer have a civilian-led government."

This ominous conclusion comes to us from Thomas A. Schweich, who held the title of deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement affairs in the Bush Regime, by way of a December 21 Washington Post op-ed column. Lamenting "the silent military coup d’etat that has been steadily gaining ground below the radar screen of most Americans and the media," Schweich describes the infusion of the military "into a striking number of aspects of civilian government" as "the most unnerving legacy of the Bush administration."

Schweich is not an advocate of limited-government who managed to burrow deeply into the Bu’ushist Welfare/Warfare State; he is an advocate of "soft power" imperialism, the supposedly benign variety that focuses more on hectoring foreigners about their shortcomings, rather than unceremoniously bombing them into blood pudding. Oh, sure – even "soft power" imperialism involves the threat and occasional practice of bombing, but usually only amid cries of anguished reluctance following the performance of the proper multilateralist sacraments. (For useful examples, consult the Clinton-era bombing campaigns in the former Yugoslavia.)

Schweich seems particularly miffed that the military shouldered aside the State Department’s efforts to train civilian "law enforcement" personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the Pentagon’s habit of Bogarting all of the boodle set aside for "reconstruction" projects.

But even though his protests have the sectarian flavor of bureaucratic in-fighting, Scweich validates his shocking announcement of the demise of civilian government with some very solid examples. For instance, the military’s domination of law enforcement training in Iraq and Afghanistan have created police forces that "have been unnecessarily militarized – producing police officers who look more like militia members than ordinary beat cops. These forces now risk becoming paramilitary groups, well armed with US equipment, that could run roughshod" over civilian governments.

While this and other "military takeovers of civilian functions" took place "a long distance from home," Schweich elaborates, the same all-devouring militarism is at work here as well.

Witness the huge and expanding role played by the military in narcotics enforcement, including the hugely expensive "Merida Initiative" through which the Bush Regime has collaborated with Mexico’s narcotics syndicates (which are, to use a common term on this side of the border, public-private partnerships) to propagate unprecedented violence and misery in that country.

The most important example Schweich lists is the Pentagon’s plan "to deploy 20,000 U.S. soldiers inside our borders by 2011, ostensibly to help state and local officials respond to terrorist attacks or other catastrophes. But that mission could easily spill over from emergency counterterrorism work into border-patrol efforts, intelligence gathering and law enforcement efforts – which would run smack into the Posse Comitatus Act…. So the generals are not only dominating our government activities abroad, at our borders and in Washington, but they also seem to intend to spread out across the heartland of America."

While Schweich’s concern and candor do him credit, his warnings are tantamount to urging that we secure the barn door long after the prize stallion has fled, been butchered, and graced a Frenchman’s dinner table.
The military "spill-over" into domestic law enforcement that he warns against began as a trickle in 1981 with passage of the Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Act. That trickle is now a cascade as voluminous and consistent of any found in Niagara Falls. Once again, this is chiefly – but not entirely – due to the so-called War on Drugs.

For some time, military involvement in domestic intelligence gathering has included personal surveillance of political activists; more recently, this has expanded to the use of spy satellites to monitor political protests on behalf of militarized law enforcement bodies. While Schweich is properly alarmed by the way the Pentagon has created Iraqi and Afghan police forces that are little more than miniature armies of occupation, he apparently hasn’t noticed that the same process is well underway here in the United States as well.
In some ways, Schweich’s jeremiad is a good update and companion piece to Brig. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap’s prescient essay "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012," published in the Winter 1992–93 issue of the U.S. Army War College journal Parameters.

Written in the form of a smuggled prison letter composed by "Prisoner 222305759," condemned to death for "treason" by the American military junta of Gen. E.T. Brutus, Dunlap’s essay described many trends that he feared would culminate in "a military that controls [the American] government and one that, ironically, can’t fight."

As government corruption and ineptitude grew, "The one institution of government in which people retained faith was the military," explained Dunlap’s literary stand-in. The military was thus burdened with countless tasks unrelated to warfare – from law enforcement, to supplementing the work of doctors and teachers, from environmental preservation efforts to bolstering the financially stricken airline industry. (Dunlap, incidentally, extensively documents how the military was either active, or planning to become involved, in all of those missions by the early 1990s.)

Likewise, the military’s missions abroad were increasingly Operations Other Than War (OOTW), a term that came into vogue subsequent to publication of Dunlap’s essay. At the same time, a cultural dissonance grew between the military and the public it was supposedly serving.

The structural defects in this new model military were displayed to painful effect in what the author describes (by way of prediction, remember) as "the wretched performance of our forces in the Second Gulf War," particularly following Iran’s intervention in 2010: "Preoccupation with humanitarian duties, narcotics interdiction, and all the rest of the peripheral missions left the military unfit to engage an authentic military opponent."

While the military was no longer well-suited to fight and win wars (including, of course, patently unjust wars of aggression), its subtle and thoroughgoing integration into every element of domestic life made it perfectly suited to carry out a coup: "Eventually, people became acclimated to seeing uniformed military personnel patrolling their neighborhood. Now troops are an adjunct to almost all police forces in the country. In many of the areas where much of our burgeoning population of elderly Americans live – [military dictator] Brutus calls them 'National Security Zones’ – the military is often the only law enforcement agency. Consequently, the military was ideally positioned in thousands of communities to support the coup."

Very little of consequence separates the speculative world described by Dunlap from the one in which we presently live. One institutional impediment is the Posse Comitatus Act (or whatever remains of it), which was intended to prevent direct involvement of the military in domestic law enforcement.
But this measure, which was always a tissue-paper barricade at best, is all but extinct as we near the end of the Bush era. And the ranks of military scholars are planted thickly with people devising arguments to destroy whatever may remain of the Posse Comitatus proscriptions.

In a paper published by the US Army War College in early 2006, Lt. Col. Mark C. Weston of the U.S. Air Force Reserve points out that the Posse Comitatus Act has been perforated with "exceptions" practically since it was passed in 1878. (Just weeks after signing the act – passage of which was part of a deal that ensured his presidency – Rutherford B. Hayes deployed the Army to carry out police functions in New Mexico.)

One of the biggest exceptions deals with what could be called the use of "civilian" police as military proxies, since the Pentagon is permitted "to provide equipment, transportation, training, supplies, and services to law enforcement officials as long as it does not directly and actively participate in law enforcement tasks," writes Weston. Which is to say that it’s permissible to militarize the police, as long as troops aren’t actually the ones pulling triggers and conducting arrests. This is, once again, exactly the same procedure being used to create the Afghan and Iraqi "militias" described by Thomas Schweich.

There are six formal exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act listed in Title 32, Sec. 215.4 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Weston writes. To that list, he rather audaciously adds "One final exception worthy of discussion [namely] the concept of martial law." Referring to the Supreme Court’s 1866 Ex Parte Milligan decision, Weston insists that martial law can properly be said to exist only in "the absence of order, courts, and constitution…. Martial law is the use of force by the military to maintain order by acting as the police, the court, and the legislature…. If the courts are open then [use of the term] martial law is not appropriate."

Most domestic deployments of the military don't cross the threshold of martial law, Weston maintains, and he eagerly recommends making it easier for the military to carry out such missions by repealing the Posse Comitatus Act (or PCA). From Weston’s perspective, the PCA, which was never a good idea, has long since fallen into desuetude. He insists that the Act should either be repealed outright or modified in such a fashion as to make it entirely inconsequential.

Posse Comitatus, Weston writes, is "a significant obstacle to unified action on homeland security … an impediment to agility and adaptability of the military to national defense … [a hindrance to] national values and national purpose." Yet he prefers to "modify" the Act rather than abolish it, apparently to maintain – for now – the useful fiction that military and police powers remain separate, with civilian officials firmly in control of the former.
In an October 2000 essay entitled "The Myth of Posse Comitatus," Major Craig T. Trebilcock, a JAG officer in the U.S. Army Reserve offers an assessment quite similar to that of Lt. Col. Weston: The PCA is useless but not harmless, and best ignored if it can’t be dispensed with.

The only value of the PCA, according to Trebilcock, is the fact that "it remains a deterrent to prevent the unauthorized deployment of troops at the local level in response to what is purely a civilian law enforcement matter." For example, it can result in administrative punishment or even criminal prosecution of "a lower-level commander who uses military forces to pursue a common felon or to conduct sobriety checkpoints off of a federal military post."

As of December 12 – when active-duty U.S. Marines conducted a joint highway sobriety checkpoint with California Highway Patrol officers – that example can be crossed off Trebilcock’s list.

In his book An Empire Wilderness, Robert D. Kaplan describes a strategic planning session held at Ft. Leavenworth’s Battle Command Training Program shortly after the April 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing (a tragedy directly facilitated by several of the Regime’s three-letter agencies). One of the participants, a Marine Major named Craig Tucker, predicted that the threat of terrorism and domestic turmoil suggested that the military would have to "go domestic."

While that prediction has been fulfilled, the process has yet to be fully consummated. On the continuum described by none other than Gen. George S. Patton – who considered domestic military deployment as the "most distasteful" form of service – we are presently somewhere between routine involvement of military personnel "in connection with Domestic Disturbances" and "Martial Law." That continuum ends with "Military Government," which differs from Martial Law in that it represents the complete abolition of civilian authority, as opposed to the enforcement of a civilian ruling elite’s will through direct military force.

In administering either Martial Law or Military Government, Patton – predictably enough – prescribed the pitiless application of lethal force. He digested his doctrine of domestic military missions into what he called "The Law and the Prophets of Riot Duty," a canon that includes the following directives:

• "Take no orders from civil officials – federal, state, or municipal."
• "You may and should cooperate with police or state troops who may be present; but you and not they are the judge of the amount and character of this cooperation."
• "Should some orator start haranguing the crowd and inciting them to violence, grab him even if it brings on a local, small fight. Small fights are better than big ones. Words cunningly chosen change crowds into mobs."
• "Warn newspapers, theaters, and churches that if they encourage the mob, they are guilty of aiding them and that their leaders will be held personally accountable. Freedom of the press cannot be construed as 'license to encourage’ the armed enemies of the United States of America. An armed mob resisting federal troops is an armed enemy. To aid an enemy is TREASON. This may not be the 'law,’ but it is fact. When blood starts running, the law stops."
• "If you have captured a dangerous agitator and some 'misguided’ federal judge issues a writ of Habeas Corpus for him, try to see the judge to find out what he is liable to do…. There’s always the danger that the man might attempt to escape. If he does, see that he at least falls out of ranks before you shoot him. To be soft hearted might mean death to your men. After all, WAR IS WAR."
• "As in all military operations, information is vital. By the use of detectives, soldiers in civilian clothes, and friendly citizens, get all possible information about the condition within the city."
• "The use of gas is paramount…. While tear gas is effective, it should be backed up with vomiting gas."
• "Although white phosphorous is incendiary, it is useful in forming a screen for the attack of barricades and defended houses."
• "If you must fire, DO A GOOD JOB. A few casualties become martyrs; a large number becomes an object lesson."

These admonitions, remember, were issued with respect to the use of military force against American citizens by a man revered as a patriotic hero by millions (including some lately given to second thoughts) – and who, ironically enough, was almost certainly assassinated by the same State he served with such ruthlessness.

Patton's model for a domestic counter-insurgency "war" during the last depression would probably resemble the approach used by the military in dealing with serious internal upheaval in the depression that has just begun.
Significantly, Patton’s tactics track very closely with those employed to enforce US occupation of Iraq – including the use of hideous white phosphorous munitions. That occupation is supposedly slated to end in 2011 – the same year, incidentally, when the military’s 20,000-man Homeland Security force is supposed to be fully deployed.

If the conclusion voiced by Thomas Schweich and other very credible analysts is correct – if, indeed, we are living under a de facto military junta, the nature of which will become clear as the economic collapse strips away all politically comfortable pretenses – we may soon learn, in the most painful way possible, that our military missions abroad have been carefully training the occupation force that will extinguish whatever remains of our liberty.

December 27, 2008

William Norman Grigg [send him mail] writes the Pro Libertate blog

David Guyatt
12-28-2008, 05:25 PM
I liked that bit about “unforeseen economic collapse” in your post No.6 Paul.

Unforeseen by anyone outside of insider politics and higher level banking and finance. The “elite” in other words. Was the economic collapse an accident - or rather a strategy - a wholesale plundering of the US by those who saw the writing on the wall and planned to move to greener pastures in the new economic growth area located in the Southern hemisphere that is set to boom over the course of the next century?

But I agree that it is quite possible that we shall see martial law put in place in the US in the next year or so.

It is also wise, I think anyway, to consider that the Soviet Union was the best enemy money could buy, and that it was, in fact, an awful lot of money from the US and Britain which ensured the success of the Bolshevik Revolution - as described by the late Prof. Antony Sutton in his book “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution”.

Red Russia was a beast but it was our beast.