Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,149 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 3 days, 13 hours ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This is clear evidence of the contradictions of the so-called Marxist intellectuals, he does know pretty well the works of Rosa Luxembourg, and he has published all her works,( He studied German, and He studied Latin American studies, he read Marx on German ) but his organization ( MH international ) is supporting the so-called self-determination of the nations, and Rosa Luxembourg wrote about the National Question and against the concept of nations. Rejecting Leninism partly is not enough, the whole body of ideas must be rejected
worth noting that BBC and VoA etc are not blocked/censored on Russian social media vk.com no adverts either!
From a historical standpoint the US and its Allies have been threatening Russia for more than 104 years starting during World War I with the deployment of US and Allied Forces against Soviet Russia on January 12, 1918 (in support of Russia’s Imperial Army).
The 1918 US-UK Allied invasion of Russia is a landmark in Russian History, often mistakenly portrayed as being part of a Civil War.
It lasted for more than two years involving the deployment of more than 200,000 troops of which 11,000 were from the US, 59,000 from the UK. Japan which was an Ally of Britain and America during World War I dispatched 70,000 troops.
The Threat of Nuclear War
The US threat of nuclear war against Russia was formulated more than 76 years ago in September 1945, when the US and the Soviet Union were allies. It consisted in a “World War III Blueprint” of nuclear war against the USSR, targeting 66 cities with more than 200 atomic bombs. This diabolical project under the Manhattan Project was instrumental in triggering the Cold War and the nuclear arms race. (See analysis below).
Chronology
1918-1920: The first US and allied forces led war against Soviet Russia with more than 10 countries sending troops to fight alongside the White Imperial Russian army. This happened exactly two months after the October Revolution, on January 12, 1918, and it lasted until the early 2020s.
The Manhattan Project initiated in 1939, with the participation of the UK and Canada. Development of Atomic Bomb.
Operation Barbarossa, June 1941. Nazi Invasion of the Soviet Union. Standard Oil of New Jersey was selling oil to Nazi Germany.
February 1945: The Yalta Conference. The meeting of Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin.
“Operation Unthinkable”: A Secret attack plan against the Soviet Union formulated by Winston Churchill in the immediate wake of the Yalta conference. It was scrapped in June 1945.
April 12, 1945: The Potsdam Conference. President Harry Truman and Prime Minister Winston Churchill approve the atomic bombing of Japan.
September 15, 1945: A World War III Scenario formulated by the US War Department: A plan to bomb 66 cities of the Soviet Union with 204 atomic bombs, when the US and USSR were allies. The Secret plan (declassified) formulated during WWII, released less than two weeks after the official end of WWII on September 2, 1945.
1949: The Soviet Union announces the testing of its nuclear bomb.
Post Cold War Doctrine: “Preemptive Nuclear War”
The Doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) of the Cold War Era no longer prevails. It was replaced at the outset of the George W. Bush Administration with the Doctrine of Preemptive Nuclear War, namely the use of nuclear weapons as a means of “self-defense” against both nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states.
In early 2002, the text of George W. Bush’s Nuclear Posture Review had already been leaked, several months prior to the release of the September 2002 National Security Strategy (NSS) which defined, “Preemption” as:
“the anticipatory use of force in the face of an imminent attack”.
Namely as an act of war on the grounds of self-defense.
The MAD doctrine was scrapped. The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review not only redefined the use of nuclear weapons, so-called tactical nuclear weapons or bunker buster bombs (mini-nukes) could henceforth be used in the conventional war theater without the authorization of the Commander in Chief, namely the President of the United States..
Seven countries were identified in the 2001 NPR (adopted in 2002) as potential targets for a preemptive nuclear attack.
Discussing “requirements for nuclear strike capabilities,” the report lists Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Syria as “among the countries that could be involved in immediate, potential, or unexpected contingencies.” …
Three of these countries (Iraq, Libya and Syria) have since then been the object of US-led wars. The 2002 NPR also confirmed continued nuclear war preparations against China and Russia.
“The Bush review also indicates that the United States should be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, citing “the combination of China’s still developing strategic objectives and its ongoing modernization of its nuclear and non-nuclear forces.”
“Finally, although the review repeats Bush administration assertions that Russia is no longer an enemy, it says the United States must be prepared for nuclear contingencies with Russia and notes that, if “U.S. relations with Russia significantly worsen in the future, the U.S. may need to revise its nuclear force levels and posture.” Ultimately, the review concludes that nuclear conflict with Russia is “plausible” but “not expected.” (Arms Control) emphasis added.
Nuclear War Against Both China and Russia Is Contemplated
Russia is tagged as “Plausible” but “Not Expected”. That was back in 2002.
Today at the height of the Ukraine crisis, a Preemptive Nuclear attack against Russia is on the drawing of the Pentagon. That does not however mean that it will be implemented.
A nuclear war cannot be Won?
We recall Reagan’s historic statement: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used.”
Nonetheless, there are voices within the US establishment that are convinced that “a nuclear war is winnable”.
Flashback to World War II: “Operation Barbarossa”
There is ample evidence that both the US and its British ally were intent upon Nazi Germany winning the war on the Eastern Front with a view to destroying the Soviet Union:
“Stalin and his entourage’s growing suspicions, that the Anglo-American powers hoped the Nazi-Soviet War would last for years, were based on well-founded concerns. This desire had already been expressed in part by Harry S. Truman, future US president, hours after the Wehrmacht had invaded the Soviet Union.
Truman, then a US Senator, said he wanted to see the Soviets and Germans “kill as many as possible” between themselves, an attitude which the New York Times later called “a firm policy”. The Times had previously published Truman’s remarks on 24 June 1941, and as a result his views would most likely not have escaped the Soviets’ attention. (Shane Quinn, Global Research, March 2022)
Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa initiated in June 1941 would have failed from the very outset had it not been for the support of Standard Oil of New Jersey (owned by the Rockefellers) which routinely delivered ample supplies of oil to the Third Reich. While Germany was able to transform coal into fuel, this synthetic production was insufficient. Moreover, Romania’s Ploesti oil resources (under Nazi control until 1944) were minimal. Nazi Germany largely depended on oil shipments from US Standard Oil.
Trading with the Enemy legislation (1917) officially implemented following America’s entry into World War II did not prevent Standard Oil of New Jersey from selling oil to Nazi Germany. This despite the Senate 1942 investigation of US Standard Oil.
While direct US oil shipments were curtailed, Standard Oil would sell US oil through third countries. US oil was shipped to occupied France through Switzerland, and from France it was shipped to Germany:
“… for the duration of the Second World War, Standard Oil, under deals Teagle had overseen, continued to supply Nazi Germany with oil. The shipments went through Spain, Vichy France’s colonies in the West Indies, and Switzerland.”
Without those oil shipments instrumented by Standard Oil and the Rockefellers, Nazi Germany would not have been able to implement its military agenda. Without fuel, the Third Reich’s eastern front under Operation Barbarossa would most probably not have taken place, saving millions of lives. The Western front including the military occupation of France, Belgium and The Netherlands would no doubt also have been affected.
The USSR actually won the war against Nazi Germany, with 27 million deaths, which in part resulted from the blatant violation of Trading with the Enemy by Standard Oil.
“Operation Unthinkable”: A World War III Scenario Formulated During World War II
A World War III scenario against the Soviet Union had already been envisaged in early 1945, under what was called Operation Unthinkable, to be launched prior to the official end of World War II on September 2, 1945.
General MacArthur proposed a nuclear strike against the Soviet Union
some right wing in Florida wanted a nuclear strike against cuba.
Someone in cuba said: The wing is also supporting us because it will blow the radioactive cloud to the coast of Miami
“Brexit shows Britons love freedom in same way as Ukrainians, Johnson says”
But Ukraine wants to join the EU, doesn’t it?
“I suppose anything is possible—at least if your field of vision is that of a agency computer screen in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C.—but the last group that I can imagine turning on Putin are the oligarchs whose fortunes, and his, are tied together through a series of interlocking directorates that make it impossible to delineate where Putin’s wealth ends and theirs begin.
Most of the oligarchs understand that if Putin falls, they will fall with him.”
Some of those oligarchs are Putin piggy bank
PS: That is a very good article. If the writer is correct it might be another Afghanistan for Russia
DJP, is anything perfect?
It is surprising that my prefered choice to flee is one that resulted in a very different reaction from the hosts of the refugees than if I had been a Syrian. No razor-wired detention camp to greet me.
The historical analogy with Denmark and its surrender is relevant. You yourself raised the issue of pointless sacrifice and suicidal defence.
Remember Grozny in Chechnya should have been the watchword of Yelenskyy when he views his cities surrounded and shelled.
Shocking as it might sound but the Russians have been so far relatively restrained so what will the outcome be if Putin orders full scale bombardment.
We talk of the power of the people but rarely define it, much less exercise it.
I recall the Kapp Putsch was foiled not by armed resistance but as they would say at the time, folded arms, a general strike.
Just how do you occupy a country that refuses to cooperate?
It is easy for an enemy soldier to attack one another, but demoralising if he has to face women and old folk as opponents.
It requires a great degree of indoctrination, years of it, to dehumanise those opposing and even then it requires extraordinary extreme brutality to strip a soldier of humanity. Could the death camps have been built during WW2 without first the murder of Russian POWs in the millions?
We see it already happening in Kherson and other areas where Russians have taken over. Protests and demonstrations. If Putin’s propaganda convinced his troops they would be welcome and only Banerites will resist, how confused the ordinary soldier will be. Rumour has it many Russians are already sabotaging their equipment and if not mutiny, dumb insolence is being practiced.
During Tiananmen Sq. the local barrack regiments were disaffected and deemed unreliable, its commanders eventually replaced, and non-Han, non-Chinese speaking troops from the provinces were deployed instead. Ukrainian has the advantage, they can communicate with the enemy.
Well over 20 million Russians have Ukrainian family connections
Unless we do debate and discuss non-violence and civil disobedience, DJP, how can it be put on on the table as an option. An yes it is a pity that the only source is the pious wishes of pacifists.
Many Russian Jewish have families in Ukraine and they are asking Israel and other Jewish communities to help them
It is really upsetting what is happening to those who cannot leave Mariupol, because it is so unnecessary for it to continue. But their fate cannot be blamed entirely on the besieging Russian forces. The civil administration there and the defending forces must share responsibility. When it became clear a week or so ago that the military position was hopeless they could have declared Mariupol “an open city”. See the examples here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_city
Instead what we are seeing is the Charge of the Azov Brigade with the remaining civilian population in front of them. It’s not magnificent but it is war.
It is why I drew attention to the case of Grozny
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1999%E2%80%932000)
No condemnation of Ukraine using civilians as human shields but actually glorifying the impending slaughter, as you infer.
While we welcome the reception Ukrainian refugees are given, this forum has also highlighted how different that response has been for other refugees. This article relates the difference in attitude.
The USA government is not the only one who is building a wall to stop emigration and refugee. Some so-called communist groups are supporting the measure. It is xenophobic and racist
The government is willing to help 17,000 Russian and Ukrainian tourists that can not leave the country
This is getting ridiculous, they are blocking everything that is from Russia including musicians, opera singers, ballet dancers, literature writers, a cultural blockage
Western rush to ban everything Russian, from cats to Dostoevsky, smacks of totalitarianism
“Moscow’s humanitarian promises cannot be trusted, according to Pyotr Andryushenko, an adviser to the mayor of Mariupol, and the city is not going to stop defending itself, he said.
“We will fight until the last of our soldiers,” Andryushenko told the BBC.”I don’t know how influential this adviser is but let’s hope that this is just rhetoric and that the mayor has some other, level-headed advisers and that their views prevail. Surely there must be some in authority there who realise what “fighting to the last soldier” will mean in terms of more destruction, more deaths, more bodies lying unburied in the streets.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.