Russia, Europe, war?

[ToyotaSupra]

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.

[GSXdan]

can we get a summary of that? too long to read....lol

[Propain]

All I got was Americans not knowing where Europe is.

[Blakhart]

Read "Through the Eyes of the Enemy" by Stanislav Lunev, Col, GRU.

[ToyotaSupra]

lol I didnt read it all either just thought it was interesting

[Colonel Sanders]

If I understand this right, it claims that Russia along with Japan and China plan to eventually attack the U.S., but in a very elaborate way.

OK, why? Why would Russia go through such great trouble to not only hide that they want to attack the U.S., but why would they want to attack the U.S. in the first place? If Russia has hidden their efforts because they doubt they could win a war against the U.S., then what did they smoke to make them think they could defeat the U.S. in the first place? You need to remeber, back in WW2 the U.S. alone defeated not 1, but 1 1/2f(OK, maybe Japan counted as a whole ) countries with amazingly poor tanks(not the same today) and amazingly good air power(true today).

L J

[Doobie]

True the U.S. would probably win but when its 3 against one..... you really have to wonder about that.... Yes the US has the greatest military but to fight three nations at once....

[ToyotaSupra]

you have to think about the USA's allies and our NUKES!

[Doobie]

Originally posted by ToyotaSupra you have to think about the USA's allies and our NUKES!

Yes I forgot that the US is the only one in the world that is allowed to have NUKES..

[RayH]

The only one attacking any countries right now is the USA!

Don't worry about China attacking the US. Worry about China surrendering and sending refugees!

[Sauron]

America doesn't have the greatest military. We have 550k men in the Armed Services, totaled. And none of them are free. If there was a sudden war, we'd have to pull out of all the 127 little countries around the world that we are in.

Russia has no troops. They have officers. No privates. Therefore it looks like they have a small military. However if war comes up, millions will pop up, and Russia will have a huge army. I don't really think Russia will actually fight the US tho. We have so many Communist influences in this country already, it probably wouldn't matter. It would just be a change of management.

I would like to make a little remark about WW2. In the beginning, the Japanese had the best fighters, and the best pilots. Towards the end of the war, was the only time that America actually came out with a good plane, and its engine was built by Rolls Royce. During the war in Europe, American generals were always having to tell their troops that they had the better weapons. They didn't, everyone who was high up in the US knew that. The Americans won completely because they had greater numbers. That was the only reason. Our tanks couldn't shoot as far or as straight as the Germans. America had lousy firearms. America had nothing over Germany except greater strength of arms.

[RayH]

Never mind about theorizing about war with countries that might be able to shoot back. Let's concentrate on Iraq!

[glc]

Let's be careful where we take this discussion - it's getting very political and as you know, we don't allow that here.

[Colonel Sanders]

Originally posted by Sauron I would like to make a little remark about WW2. In the beginning, the Japanese had the best fighters, and the best pilots. Towards the end of the war, was the only time that America actually came out with a good plane, and its engine was built by Rolls Royce. During the war in Europe, American generals were always having to tell their troops that they had the better weapons. They didn't, everyone who was high up in the US knew that. The Americans won completely because they had greater numbers. That was the only reason. Our tanks couldn't shoot as far or as straight as the Germans. America had lousy firearms. America had nothing over Germany except greater strength of arms.

If I'm not mistaken, the P-51 Mustangs were being built as early as 1941.

If there was to be a war against Russia, I imagine the U.S. could raise plenty of troops. But it doesn't make any sense for Russia to attack the U.S., especially not with an elaborate plan to use OBL to attack the U.S..

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/e...globalgdp.html

L J

[Sauron]

I don't think America would be able to raise the troops in time. Personally, if America was really going to be invaded, all that would be neeeded would be a landing forces in NYC, Canada and South America. But personally, it has been proved time and time again thats it not easy fighting a war overseas.

[andyms18a]

Originally posted by Colonel Sanders You need to remeber, back in WW2 the U.S. alone defeated not 1, but 1 1/2f(OK, maybe Japan counted as a whole L J

you had help from the rest of the allies

[RayH]

I'm not clear as to all the psychobabble. New friendships between Russia and China is a stand down of tensions between the two countries which have gone back for decades. For the uniformed, hostitlities beween the former USSR and China were almost greater than between either and the US! In 1970, they actually had shooting border disputes.

Some military alliances probably figure more into their common problem of Central Asian muslims. The object of Bin Ladden is to recreate the Ottoman Empire or a Central Asian Empire. Most of those regions are either in Russia, China, or border on them.

While the US is new at fighting against the Islamic fundamentalist, both Russia and China have been involved for years!

[Colonel Sanders]

Originally posted by andyms18a you had help from the rest of the allies

Fighting Japan was a one country affair, after loosing most of the navy, yet still doing pretty good against Japan. In Europe, France was already conquered, the U.K. was bound to fall shortly after, there was not very much assistance from the allies.

L J

[andyms18a]

Originally posted by Colonel Sanders Fighting Japan was a one country affair, after loosing most of the navy, yet still doing pretty good against Japan. In Europe, France was already conquered, the U.K. was bound to fall shortly after, there was not very much assistance from the allies. L J

have a look at this http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A1057600

[Colonel Sanders]

OK, your right that British had territories in the Pacific. Yes, I did forget that the British helped some in the Pacific. Were British forces imporntant? Would Japan have defeated the U.S. if British forces didn't help?

Yes, the British helped some during WW2, however I think that if the British didn't help, Japan would still have ben defeated.

L J

[andyms18a]

yes japan lost the war but it did not lose to the military might of the US or the UK and the rest of the allies it lost to the combined scientific might of the allies witch produced the
A bomb if the Germans or japs built the A bomb first the rising sun flag might have bean flown over the remains of Washington and the swas sticker over the UK and Moscow all so the greatest fear of the allies was having to land ground troops on to main land japan. and as for your question wood japan bin defeated with out the allies help well the British intelligence found the the Norwegian factory witch was making heavy water for the Germans and the British bombed it if we hadn't then the axes powers wood have made the first A bomb

[RayH]

Actually, if the war iin the Pacific had lasted another year, the outcome may have been different. The Japanese had some superior aircraft they couldn't fully launch into production.

But had the war lasted another year, we might have had the atomic bomb, but maybe no way to deliver it!

[Sauron]

LOL, if the war in Europe had been around another year, the allies would have lost completely. Even if the Germans had no army left. By December 1945, atomic bombs with a far more powerful explosive would have been ready, ground to air defenses (missles) new types of submarines and tanks...the allies would have lost completely.

But to be honest, I don't believe any of the Axis had any idea of actually attacking Americans on their soil. Many believe that both Japan and Germany were on world conquests. They weren't. Japan wanted China, wanted to destroy the communist enflow that was engulfing China, Germany was going as fast as was possible to destroy the part of Europe that wasn't with them, that was the main plan. I don't think there ever would have been war in Europe if it wasn't for the Versailles treaty, and that England declared war on Germany first, not the other way around. Certainly Germany wanted more land, they had lost a lot of it, mostly which now belonged to Poland and Russia. How would you like having troops on your borders? When you think of Germany, and how you can't understand what happened, try to reverse the situation. Think about if you had been in their place, what would you have done different?

[Blakhart]

Shot Hitler.

[RayH]

Axis had no idea of attacking America on its own soil. How come my uncle was killed in the Aluetian Islands during a Japanese attack?

Was the Rape of Nanking out to get Communists?

[Colonel Sanders]

If the Axis had no intention of attacking American soil, then why did Japan bomb pearl harbor? It seems to me it would have ben far smarter for both sides if Japan did not attack pearl.

L J

[sdkfz]

OK, Japan was forced to attack the US to save face, it was understood that the war would be lost to the production capability of the US, but for a year or two the Japanese would be able to go where they wanted and kick out the pacifist government's forces (the US and Britain). This is what happened and then the US tooled up for a war economy, the depression ended and the flood of machinery overwhelmed the Japanese. Interesting note - we have all hear about the evil Nazis and their unrestricted submarine warfare, sinking everything.... well we took this idea and did it one better, by the end of the war the US subs were sinking fishing boats - you know the 45 footers - nothing real fancy, just a little bigger than you want to go out and catch walleye. Why? Because that was the only thing left to shoot at. Anything larger was at dock hoping for some fuel.

Japan has no oil
Japan has no steel ore
Japan has no coal
Japan has no rubber

They could not win. But since we forced them to either back out of China and lose face or attack, the military controlled government chose to attack. The Aleutians were just part of the attack, anyone live in the Santa Barbara CA area? The Japanese actually shelled a oil depot near there.

Hitler on the other hand was stupid, he chose to honor a treaty of convenience and declare war on the US, and the treaty did not require him to. Only if the US attacked Japan was he required to declare war on the US, but to be buddy buddy he declared war. Now a country the size of Michigan enters into a two front war. Mistakes on the attack on Russia meant the Russian were able to pull their factories back beyond the Urals. The Germans with only short range tactical bombers never got close enough to hit them after relocation. Splintered attacks meant they tried for it all and got nothing. A single main attack to Moscow would have cut the hub of the distribution system out and really screwed up the relocation of factories. (All rail travel of consequence went through Moscow) the only 'metalled' (paved is what we call it now) road was from Moscow to Warsaw and then to Berlin. There were no other roads. I of course can not say thay this would have guaranteed a German victory, but I think the situation would have stabilized with a German empire ending on the Volga and probably still fighting till today.

As to attacking the US mainland, yes there were plans, but Hitler's bent for creating factions to compete against one another meant the four engine bomber (think B17 flying fortress) and the V3 missile (a two stage V2 that could reach New York), never got the resources they needed. Anyone watch Apollo 13 the movie with Tom Hanks? Remember the German ground crewman as they were buckling in for the launch? Tom made fun of his accent... Werner Von Braun and a bunch of his top men were snatched from under the Russian's noses and were instrumental in getting us to the moon. Of course we do not like to admit the fact, but is true.

Stalin was in the middle of a paranoid dictatorship, he killed off at least 50 million of his own people (the admitted number) before Hitler attacked. The country left the Feudal age in 1917 (yes 1917 before that the country was the same as England in the 1500's) yes they had some technology bought from outside but the main strength in the army was having more men than the enemy had bullets. This use of 'mass' continued throughout the war. Russia would clear a minefield by marching men across it several times. Human wave attacks had the first waves sent in without guns, the sole purpose was to have the enemy use up ammo. (Watch the movie ‘Enemy at the gates’ - it is quite accurate in this regard - the computer game "Call to Duty" also starts the Russian out this way). Another way Hitler blew it was in taking the people of the Caucasus who greeted them as liberators and turning them into enemies. The fight for the freedom of the region after WWII was not finished until 1952 (the Communist defeat of the White Russians in 1920 under General Denikin forced the incorporation of the region into the USSR, the Germans only inspired them to try again and the fall of the Communist government has inspired them once again, Chechnya sound familiar?)

Now, interestingly the Russians who we feared because of the overwhelming use of mass, (huge armies) fears China for the exact same reason!

The World Wars in Europe are over and the euro is the proof. France tried it (Napoleon), Germany tried it (Kaiser and Hitler), in fact they all tried to reunite the splintered Celtic (pronounced Kell Tick not Sell Tick like the Boston team - which considering the Irish are Celtic also is surprising they do not insist on the correct pronunciation- bit I digress) tribes. Gaul’s, Saxons etc, they all were trying to get back together again and now they are. It is over.

England will come around; they were conquered by France by William the Bastard (oops they changed that after the war to the Conqueror) in 1066. They are now Pict/Italian (Roman)/ French. It is just our channel that makes us think we are special, but in the end we will have to join the union to survive.

[Xayd]

Multiply america's ground forces by about 5 or 10 and you have an accurate number, should our soil ever be invaded.

Why? Every 10th american owns firearms, trying to secure the continental US would be a logistical nightmare. No sooner than you took control of an area a militia force would organize and take it right back. 15 million people bought hunting licenses in the year 2000 in the united states. Say half of those own a weapon and are proficient in its use now, that's 7 million people on top of our armed forces.

Pearl Harbor imo turned out to be a failure because our carrier fleet wasn't destroyed. The usefulness of large armored combat ships was nearing its end before the attack on Pearl Harbor even, a ship isn't of much use when a single torpedo bomber can destroy it, especially when it costs as much as those battleships did.

Yes I agree the germans had superior technology for most of the war and superior ground forces as well. The Luftwaffe before the Mustang and the B17 was far and away superior to any other air force in Europe. They were limited only by the fact that they did not have the population to conquer Russia in a timely fasion, and England did not fall as they had assumed it would.

Will it all happen again? Never say never but who knows.

[Blakhart]

70 million gun owners, 250 plus million guns. That is the largest army that has ever existed, I think.

[Sanke]

Let's just hope that world war 3 doesn't happen, because it will be the last war fought, by man at least.