ToyotaSupra
09-10-2003, 11:55 PM
I was reading through the PlanetSide forums at www.planetside.com and came across this. jbomb175 posted this.
It sounds pretty interesting, I replied to his topic; prepare the nukes! lol
Notes on Grand Strategy
By J.R. Nyquist 12.18.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently a German reader and researcher wrote to ask me about Russia's threat to Europe. At the risk of boring American readers who may not know where Europe is, I will offer some observations that may be useful for understanding the overall significance of the Russia-China alliance.
Europe is the main prize that Russia hopes to win in the event of a future world war. That being said, Russian strategy fluxuates as conditions change. One also has to keep in mind that there are two different schools of strategic thought at work in the Kremlin since the late 1950s. These I will describe in general outline.
From a careful review of Russian defector testimony and Soviet military literature, it appears that a dialectical approach was developed by Soviet planners after the advent of the Brezhnev Committee (which met from 1956-57). This is the committee which brought KGB Gen. Dmitri Mironov together with Marshal V. Sokolovskiy in an effort to integrate nuclear war concepts with advanced disinformation and subversion concepts.
In the history of strategic theory we find two dialectically opposed ideas of war. First, we have the Chinese theorist Sun Tzu, who said excellence in war consists in "winning without fighting," and we have Carl von Clausewitz who emphasized that winning without fighting is a dangerous concept because it leaves one unready for the bloody confrontation. When Soviet strategic theory was revised in 1956-57, Mironov represented the Sun Tzu theory and Sokolovskiy represented the Clausewitz theory. Looking at defector testimony and Soviet strategic literature the two theories were joined in a dialectical forward march -- a competitive interaction with one side of the dialectic advancing the agenda of the other.
How does this dialectic work?
In a conversation I had with former GRU Col. Stanislav Lunev in 1998, I was given an ultra-simplified version of the 1980s Soviet war plan against NATO. According to Lunev the First Strategic Echelon of the Warsaw Pact would drive over NATO's nuclear land mines and be destroyed. Then the Second Strategic Echelon would advance to exchange tactical nuclear blows with NATO forces. Then the Third Strategic Echelon would overrun Europe. This is a simplistic version of something incredibly complex, but readers will get the overall picture of blood, fire and horror that it presents.
How does this bloody Clausewitzian plan dialectically advance the cause of winning without fighting?
The very existence of this plan and the psychological pressure it exerted on Europe resulted in a Russian peace offensive under Gorbachev that effectively disarmed and denuclearized Europe in a remarkable way, so that Russian strategists are near to their goal of bypassing Europe entirely in any future war with America. In fact, the European press is reporting that France's military forces -- Western Europe's main continental nuclear power -- are in total disarray after a decade of budget cuts and mismanagement. A confidential French Ministry of Defense report states that France's armed forces are incapable of defending the country. A third of the country's tanks are unusable and half the helicopters are grounded. It is all due, of course, to Russia's strategy of pulling back from its previously threatening position in Central Europe.
France is not the only European country with a backward and useless military machine. Russia's efforts to pacify Europe have worked like a charm. Only a few largely political obstacles remain for Moscow in Europe, and although these are proving to be quite painful to remove, future tricks are sure to take Europe out of America's benevolent orbit. When that happens Russia will be free to unite with China and North Korea against America in the Pacific.
It is only obvious, as things stand today, that any future war pitting Russia against America will involve a Russian-Chinese cross-Pacific attack on American interests. The advantage for Russia would be in keeping Europe out of such a war, safe and neutral for later use.
It has to be understood that Russia's sophisticated combination strategy aims at America's defeat, not at Europe's destruction. Why fight 19 countries for world dominion when you only have to fight one country -- the USA?
There is great danger, however, in Moscow's extreme reliance on deception and disinformation. Even now people (like journalist Gordon Thomas) are beginning to trace the lines between Beijing and bin Laden. They can also trace the lines that connect Beijing and Moscow. Given the fact that people will eventually see through Russia's schemes, Europe cannot be a reliable partner for Russia. Even if Europe one day moves away from America toward Russia the mistake will soon be realized and regretted.
In a certain sense every deceiver puts himself in the Devil's chair, and this is what Russia has done. However successful you are in tricking the whole world, one day you must act contrary to everyone's expections. When that happens Europe will realize that communism's collapse was a brilliant organizational contrivance, involving great failures but also significant successes upon which Moscow built a new and better strategic position for itself. Already this realization begins to make its appearance in Washington D.C. It even appears in the work of columnists like William Safire who suddenly dub themselves "Angletonians" (i.e., people who see through Russia's schemes).
There is also another difficulty which Russia must eventually face. Carl von Clausewitz was far deeper in his analysis than Sun Tzu. In my opinion the Russian objective is too ambitious, their maneuvers too elaborate and one day their moves will appear absolutely transparent. That's when the next great war in Europe will break out.
I think we should look ahead to a period of crisis in the next several years. The enemies of America seem to be fishing for weaknesses. Well, they have so far come up empty-handed, though time will tell.
The key point here, I think, is for American strategists to Watch the Far East and for Europeans to stick by the Americans.
**********************
The above was obviously worked on by J.R. Nyquist for a long time prior to publication in december of 2001. The basic tenets remain and some of his foresight has proven extremely correct.
We have seen that as America moved against one of the Axis of evil, and one of Russia and China's "useful idiot" nations in Iraq that threee nations in Europe have bought the Russian deception lock, stock and barrel: France, germant and Belgium. If any of the threee will realize the gravity of their mistake it will be the Belgians. Overall, with the lone exception of the UK, it will not be the independent countries of Europe which will see through the Russian deception, but the existing political, monetary and emerging military power of the European Union which will see the reality of the TransAsian Axis of Russia-China and their puppets states of North Korea, Iran, Syria and Libya. Where Pakistan and India fit into all of this, only time will tell. I think India will side with the West, Pakistan with the Islamists. As will the Arab states of North Africa, particularly Libya and ultimately Egypt.
Jordan will remain in the US/EU camp, and now we have effective strategic control of Iraq. The question of Turkey remains. It will be Kurdish action that decide where Turkey goes. It is my gut belief she will go Islamist.
This thread is about the massive "paradigm shift" in geopolitcal power that I have been talking about since before this war began.
We are in the truest sense the generation which is witnessing the transformation of the world into regional and global military alliances prior to the final World War. A war which most assuredly will go nuclear at some point.
Perhaps now we can understand the massive shift in the American Governments policy from one of containment of regional threats to one of pre-emptive action of a self-defensive nature.
This shift in American policy is the root and core of the anti-war/peacenik/appeaser useful idiots and the "advanced disinformation and subversion concepts" which I posted about in the "Who Are These Anti-War Activists? Who Organizes Them?" thread on the War protestors forum. This shift in US policy has driven the controlling force of the anti-war folks in Moscow to energize their fifth column here in the US and around the world. It is and was no coincidence, and it was most assuredly not a grass roots spur of the moment thing. It was planned, and calculated, and when American begin to pay the ultimate sacrifice in combat, doomed to failure. Which is why ANSWER and the other Communist/World Socialist Movement/Act Now and Stop The War organizations in the anti-war parades resorted to violence this past weekend. They lost the mind of the public they'd hoped to bend, and in total fustration resorted to the violence they so vehemently opposed and as a result exposed themselves for the communist vermin they really are. Don't believe me? Just do a simple google search on "anti-war protests turn violent" and see how many hits are generated globally.
It sounds pretty interesting, I replied to his topic; prepare the nukes! lol
Notes on Grand Strategy
By J.R. Nyquist 12.18.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently a German reader and researcher wrote to ask me about Russia's threat to Europe. At the risk of boring American readers who may not know where Europe is, I will offer some observations that may be useful for understanding the overall significance of the Russia-China alliance.
Europe is the main prize that Russia hopes to win in the event of a future world war. That being said, Russian strategy fluxuates as conditions change. One also has to keep in mind that there are two different schools of strategic thought at work in the Kremlin since the late 1950s. These I will describe in general outline.
From a careful review of Russian defector testimony and Soviet military literature, it appears that a dialectical approach was developed by Soviet planners after the advent of the Brezhnev Committee (which met from 1956-57). This is the committee which brought KGB Gen. Dmitri Mironov together with Marshal V. Sokolovskiy in an effort to integrate nuclear war concepts with advanced disinformation and subversion concepts.
In the history of strategic theory we find two dialectically opposed ideas of war. First, we have the Chinese theorist Sun Tzu, who said excellence in war consists in "winning without fighting," and we have Carl von Clausewitz who emphasized that winning without fighting is a dangerous concept because it leaves one unready for the bloody confrontation. When Soviet strategic theory was revised in 1956-57, Mironov represented the Sun Tzu theory and Sokolovskiy represented the Clausewitz theory. Looking at defector testimony and Soviet strategic literature the two theories were joined in a dialectical forward march -- a competitive interaction with one side of the dialectic advancing the agenda of the other.
How does this dialectic work?
In a conversation I had with former GRU Col. Stanislav Lunev in 1998, I was given an ultra-simplified version of the 1980s Soviet war plan against NATO. According to Lunev the First Strategic Echelon of the Warsaw Pact would drive over NATO's nuclear land mines and be destroyed. Then the Second Strategic Echelon would advance to exchange tactical nuclear blows with NATO forces. Then the Third Strategic Echelon would overrun Europe. This is a simplistic version of something incredibly complex, but readers will get the overall picture of blood, fire and horror that it presents.
How does this bloody Clausewitzian plan dialectically advance the cause of winning without fighting?
The very existence of this plan and the psychological pressure it exerted on Europe resulted in a Russian peace offensive under Gorbachev that effectively disarmed and denuclearized Europe in a remarkable way, so that Russian strategists are near to their goal of bypassing Europe entirely in any future war with America. In fact, the European press is reporting that France's military forces -- Western Europe's main continental nuclear power -- are in total disarray after a decade of budget cuts and mismanagement. A confidential French Ministry of Defense report states that France's armed forces are incapable of defending the country. A third of the country's tanks are unusable and half the helicopters are grounded. It is all due, of course, to Russia's strategy of pulling back from its previously threatening position in Central Europe.
France is not the only European country with a backward and useless military machine. Russia's efforts to pacify Europe have worked like a charm. Only a few largely political obstacles remain for Moscow in Europe, and although these are proving to be quite painful to remove, future tricks are sure to take Europe out of America's benevolent orbit. When that happens Russia will be free to unite with China and North Korea against America in the Pacific.
It is only obvious, as things stand today, that any future war pitting Russia against America will involve a Russian-Chinese cross-Pacific attack on American interests. The advantage for Russia would be in keeping Europe out of such a war, safe and neutral for later use.
It has to be understood that Russia's sophisticated combination strategy aims at America's defeat, not at Europe's destruction. Why fight 19 countries for world dominion when you only have to fight one country -- the USA?
There is great danger, however, in Moscow's extreme reliance on deception and disinformation. Even now people (like journalist Gordon Thomas) are beginning to trace the lines between Beijing and bin Laden. They can also trace the lines that connect Beijing and Moscow. Given the fact that people will eventually see through Russia's schemes, Europe cannot be a reliable partner for Russia. Even if Europe one day moves away from America toward Russia the mistake will soon be realized and regretted.
In a certain sense every deceiver puts himself in the Devil's chair, and this is what Russia has done. However successful you are in tricking the whole world, one day you must act contrary to everyone's expections. When that happens Europe will realize that communism's collapse was a brilliant organizational contrivance, involving great failures but also significant successes upon which Moscow built a new and better strategic position for itself. Already this realization begins to make its appearance in Washington D.C. It even appears in the work of columnists like William Safire who suddenly dub themselves "Angletonians" (i.e., people who see through Russia's schemes).
There is also another difficulty which Russia must eventually face. Carl von Clausewitz was far deeper in his analysis than Sun Tzu. In my opinion the Russian objective is too ambitious, their maneuvers too elaborate and one day their moves will appear absolutely transparent. That's when the next great war in Europe will break out.
I think we should look ahead to a period of crisis in the next several years. The enemies of America seem to be fishing for weaknesses. Well, they have so far come up empty-handed, though time will tell.
The key point here, I think, is for American strategists to Watch the Far East and for Europeans to stick by the Americans.
**********************
The above was obviously worked on by J.R. Nyquist for a long time prior to publication in december of 2001. The basic tenets remain and some of his foresight has proven extremely correct.
We have seen that as America moved against one of the Axis of evil, and one of Russia and China's "useful idiot" nations in Iraq that threee nations in Europe have bought the Russian deception lock, stock and barrel: France, germant and Belgium. If any of the threee will realize the gravity of their mistake it will be the Belgians. Overall, with the lone exception of the UK, it will not be the independent countries of Europe which will see through the Russian deception, but the existing political, monetary and emerging military power of the European Union which will see the reality of the TransAsian Axis of Russia-China and their puppets states of North Korea, Iran, Syria and Libya. Where Pakistan and India fit into all of this, only time will tell. I think India will side with the West, Pakistan with the Islamists. As will the Arab states of North Africa, particularly Libya and ultimately Egypt.
Jordan will remain in the US/EU camp, and now we have effective strategic control of Iraq. The question of Turkey remains. It will be Kurdish action that decide where Turkey goes. It is my gut belief she will go Islamist.
This thread is about the massive "paradigm shift" in geopolitcal power that I have been talking about since before this war began.
We are in the truest sense the generation which is witnessing the transformation of the world into regional and global military alliances prior to the final World War. A war which most assuredly will go nuclear at some point.
Perhaps now we can understand the massive shift in the American Governments policy from one of containment of regional threats to one of pre-emptive action of a self-defensive nature.
This shift in American policy is the root and core of the anti-war/peacenik/appeaser useful idiots and the "advanced disinformation and subversion concepts" which I posted about in the "Who Are These Anti-War Activists? Who Organizes Them?" thread on the War protestors forum. This shift in US policy has driven the controlling force of the anti-war folks in Moscow to energize their fifth column here in the US and around the world. It is and was no coincidence, and it was most assuredly not a grass roots spur of the moment thing. It was planned, and calculated, and when American begin to pay the ultimate sacrifice in combat, doomed to failure. Which is why ANSWER and the other Communist/World Socialist Movement/Act Now and Stop The War organizations in the anti-war parades resorted to violence this past weekend. They lost the mind of the public they'd hoped to bend, and in total fustration resorted to the violence they so vehemently opposed and as a result exposed themselves for the communist vermin they really are. Don't believe me? Just do a simple google search on "anti-war protests turn violent" and see how many hits are generated globally.