Zbigniew Mazurak's Blog

A blog dedicated to defense issues

On Foreign and Defense Policy, Rand Paul Is On The Far Left

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on April 7, 2014


peacethroughstrength

Last month, ConservativeDailyNews published an article debunking Senator Paul’s lies and attacks on his fellow Republicans and proving that Paul is no Reaganite on foreign policy, despite his desperate attempts to claim that mantle. After that, CDN debunked Sen. Paul’s false claims and policy prescriptions regarding Russia, the aggressor who illegally invaded and annexed part of Ukraine last month. Since then, we have uncovered additional facts about Sen. Paul’s foreign policy views which we believe the American people should know.

Rand Paul Supports America’s Unilateral Disarmament

Virtually all Americans, except strident liberals, know how foolish it is to disarm oneself, especially on a unilateral basis. Disarming one’s country, especially unilaterally, only invites aggression, death, and destruction, while a strong deterrent preserves those calamities.

Nonetheless, some extremely leftist groups, such as Global Zero, seek to disarm the US unilaterally by advocating deep, unilateral cuts in the US nuclear arsenal, down to the low hundreds,  and foregoing any modernization of the few weapons the US would have left, while falsely claiming that Russia, China, and other nuclear powers will then be nice enough to follow suit.

This is of course utterly false: Russia, China, and North Korea are building UP and modernizing their nuclear arsenals, as countless reports from the Washington Free Beacon, the Washington Times, Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, the State Department, the US Strategic Command, and this writer have demonstrated. As even Jimmy Carter’s own defense secretary, Harold Brown, has said, “When we build, they build. When we cut, they build.”

Not only that, but Russia has violated EVERY arms limitation treaty it has ever signed, including the INF Treaty banning intermediate-range missiles.

But don’t waste your breath telling that to Sen. Rand Paul. He thinks Obama’s “reset” (read: appeasement) policy towards Russia has been a success, does not oppose cutting the US nuclear arsenal, has no objection to Russia’s rapid nuclear buildup or arms limitation treaty violations, and his foreign policy advisor is… the chairman of US Global Zero, Richard Burt, a former New York Slimes journalist.

Yes, you’ve read that correctly. The man who advises Sen. Paul on foreign policy is the chairman of the leading group advocating America’s unilateral disarmament.

Indeed, Sen. Paul has no objection to Global Zero’s treasonous unilateral disarmament proposals and has not criticized Chuck Hagel for supporting them in the past or for being a member of Global Zero.

By contrast, during Hagel’s very contentious Senate confirmation hearing, many other GOP Senators, including Jeff Sessions, Jim Inhofe, Kelly Ayotte, and Ted Cruz, staunchly criticized Hagel for these and other extremely leftist views. Paul voted to confirm Hagel, while Cruz, Ayotte, Sessions, and Inhofe all voted no.

In fact, Paul was one of only four Republicans (alongside RINOs Thad Cochran, Richard Shelby, and Nebraska’s Mike Johanns) to vote to confirm Hagel. All other Republicans, including even Maine’s Susan Collins, voted no.

But again, Paul hasn’t merely voted to confirm a card-carrying member of Global Zero as Secretary of Defense; he has hired that group’s chairman as his foreign policy advisor. If Rand Paul were elected President (God forbid), that man (Richard Burt) would become a key foreign policy figure in his administration – perhaps even Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense. And then, you can be sure as hell he and Paul would disarm America unilaterally. Jen Rubin has elaborated on that here.

Which brings us to the second fact uncovered last week: that Rand Paul doesn’t believe in “peace through strength” at all.

Rand Paul Rejects Peace Through Strength

Peace Through Strength is not a mere bumper sticker; it’s a policy proven right time and again. And it is right because it’s based on the fact that military (and economic) strength guarantees peace and security, while it is weakness that provokes aggression.

But Rand Paul adamantly disagrees (though these days he doesn’t often say that, now that he has the White House in his crosshairs). Rand Paul believes strength – specifically, American strength and firmness – is provocative and that appeasement of aggressors and bullies like Russia is the right approach.

In the following 2009 video, then-Dr. Paul slammed the notion of deploying missile defense systems in Poland and of expanding NATO eastward to bring Ukraine and Georgia under NATO’s protection. He claimed this would be provocative and invite war with Russia.

This is, of course, utter nonsense; Russia has to fear something from such moves only if it plans to make war on Poland and to further attack Ukraine and Georgia. If Russia plans to continue its policy of aggression towards Ukraine, Georgia, and Poland, and attack the latter, then yes, Russia does have to fear something from the US.

But if Russia were to coexist peacefully with those countries, it would have nothing to fear.

In fact, Russia would have nothing to fear from US missile defense systems in any case. These systems are unable to intercept Russian missiles (mainly due to their inadequate speed), ESPECIALLY if deployed in Central Europe, because then, these missiles would be easily outflown by Russian ICBMs. If Russia fired an ICBM towards the US, it would be over Western Europe by the time a missile defense battery in Poland would launch its interceptor(s).

But Sen. Paul believes that American strength, not weakness, is provocative and would invite war with Russia.

Which also explains his choice of Global Zero chairman Richard Burt to be his foreign policy advisor: if one believes that American strength is provocative and America’s weakness is a good thing, it makes sense to disarm America unilaterally and to surround yourself with people who advocate doing exactly that.

But in the real world, American weakness are provocative and dangerous, disarming America is utterly suicidal, and all arms control treaties in history have done nothing but to constrain the defenses of Western countries while doing absolutely nothing to limit the armaments of rogue nations and aggressors like Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China – who spit on such treaties and on the very notion of a  “world without nuclear weapons” (a fantasy which will never exist).

Senator Paul also opposes US sanctions against Iran and Russia (he voted against a Russia sanctions bill even AFTER substitute language, not authorizing any funding for the IMF or aid to Ukraine, was offered), and has claimed that pre-WW2 sanctions against Japan provoked that country to attack the US; he has also claimed that after WW1 the US imposed some sort of a “blockade” of Germany that “provoked some of their anger” (in reality, the US imposed no such blockade on Germany after WW1, ratified a separate treaty of peace with Berlin, invested heavily in Germany, and tried to ease the reparations burden on Germany throughout the interwar period). For more on Sen. Paul’s odious views, see here and here.

In other words, Rand Paul Blames America First.

Which Is the Better Electoral Choice?

Finally, when all else fails, defense weaklings and isolationists like Rand Paul and his ilk claim the GOP must adopt their policies because “Americans are war-weary” and a neo-isolationist (“noninterventionist”), “restrained” foreign policy and deep defense cuts.

This is utter nonsense. Although a slim majority of Americans did tell Pew several months ago (before the Russian invasion of Ukraine) that the US should, internationally, “mind its own business”, over 60% of Americans told Gallup that the US spends either “too little” or “the right amount” of money on defense, meaning that over 60% of Americans oppose any further defense cuts (Pew has found similarly strong opposition to defense cuts).

This is in stark contrast to the 1970s (when Americans were really war-weary, after Vietnam, and supported deep defense cuts) and the 1990s (when the public wanted a “peace dividend”).

Also, President Obama’s approval ratings on foreign policy (like on other issues) are at an all-time low, Republicans are now considered the more competent party on foreign policy, and a solid majority of Americans considers Russia a threat to US national security and backs strong sanctions against that country.

Last, but not least, when Gallup asked Americans last year to list their disagreements with the GOP and reasons for voting against it, only 1% named “war issues” as their objection to the GOP. The rest of that list was related to domestic issues and the GOP’s methods of handling them and advancing its goals.

There is nobody in the US who currently doesn’t vote Republican who would somehow start doing so if the GOP agreed to deep defense cuts. Agreeing to such suicidal cuts would not win the GOP a single new voter, but it would alienate tens of millions of national-security-oriented GOP voters who have been with the party for decades.

The reality is simple. Everytime the GOP nominates candidates who strongly believe in Peace Through Strength, are knowledgeable about foreign policy, and are confident discussing it, it is consistently rewarded at the polls. Conversely, when the Republican Party nominates candidates who don’t believe in Peace Through Strength, or don’t know much about foreign affairs and are uncomfortable discussing them, these candidates lose.

The next 2.5 years will show whether the GOP has learned from this history and will nominate a competent candidate for the Presidency or not.

Posted in Ideologies, Nuclear deterrence, Politicians | Leave a Comment »

Strategic Command and State Department confirm: Russia is building UP its nuclear arsenal

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on April 4, 2014


nukeexplosion

For many years, this writer has been warning against any reductions in the US nuclear arsenal, based on the fact that Russia was building up its own, China’s nuclear arsenal’s size was unknown and likely to be in the thousands of warheads, and North Korea’s nuclear capabilities were steadily increasing.

Accordingly, this writer has always consistently opposed any cuts in the US nuclear arsenal, including those mandated by the New START treaty, and has argued vocally against proposals by Obama admin officials and non-governmental arms control advocates like the “Arms Control Association” to cut the nuclear deterrent even further.

As time passed, more and more evidence emerged proving this writer’s claims – and proving nuclear disarmament advocates wrong.

But last Wednesday, the most powerful piece of evidence arrived: State Department cables from Moscow and Congressional testimony by Adm. Cecil Haney, commander of the Strategic Command, in charge of America’s entire nuclear commander.

According to US State Department diplomats in Moscow, who monitor Russia daily, Moscow is “vastly increasing” its nuclear arsenal and aims to reach “nuclear superiority over, not nuclear parity with, the US”, as Bill Gertz reports in his newest column in the Washington Free Beacon.

This is consistent with previous media and think-tank reports that Russia was building up its nuclear arsenal, was building additional strategic Tu-160 bombers, and had ordered 400 new ICBMs. The State Department and Bill Gertz have now simply confirmed this.

Thus, we have irrefutable evidence that a) Russia is dramatically increasing its nuclear arsenal, and b) its buildup is aimed at achieving nuclear superiority over, not parity with, the US. Which also proves that  New START is a treasonous treaty highly dangerous to US and allied security, because it requires nuclear arsenal cuts only of the US, while allowing Russia to dramatically increase its own arsenal.

Russia currently has:

  • About 414-434 ICBMs capable of delivering at least 1,684 (and probably more) nuclear warheads to the CONUS, with its fleet of 68-75 SS-18 Satan ICBMs alone being able to deliver 10 warheads each (750 in total);
  • 13 ballistic missile submarines, each armed with 16 ballistic missiles (20 in the case of the sole Typhoon class boat), each missile being itself capable of delivering 4-8 warheads (12 in the future, when Bulava and Liner missiles replace the currently-used Skiff) to the CONUS even if launched from Russian ports (Moscow has had such long-ranged missiles since the late 1980s), meaning over 1,400 warheads in total deliverable by Russia’s strategic submarine fleet;
  • 251 strategic bombers (Tu-95, Tu-160, Tu-22M), each capable of delivering between 7 (Tu-95) and 12 (Tu-22M) nuclear warheads to the CONUS. Russian bombers have, in recent years, repeatedly flown close to, and sometimes into, US airspace.
  • 2,800 strategic nuclear warheads in total, of which 1,500 are now deployed – and more will be deployed in the future – on the forementioned ICBMs, submarines, and bombers.
  • Over 20 attack and cruise missile submarines, each carrying nuclear-armed cruise missiles (one such submarine of the Akula class popped up last year near the US submarine base at King’s Bay, GA).
  • The world’s largest tactical nuclear arsenal, with around 4,000 warheads deliverable by a very wide range of systems, from short-range ballistic missiles to artillery pieces to tactical aircraft (Su-24, Su-25, the Flanker family, Su-34), to surface ships using nuclear depth charges.
  • Illegal (banned by the INF Treaty) intermediate-range nuclear-armed missiles (Yars-M, R-500, Iskander-M) that can target any place in Europe and China. (Nonetheless, despite these facts, the Obama administration and NATO are too afraid to recognize and name Russia as an INF Treaty violator.)

Russia is now dramatically increasing that arsenal, as the State Department and the Strategic Command’s leader have now confirmed. In addition to deploying more warheads and building more bombers from stockpiled components, it is:

  • Deploying new submarine-launched ballistic missiles (the Bulava and the Liner) that can carry 10-12 warheads each. Russia plans to procure around 140-150 missiles of each type; when these are fully deployed on Russia’s 13 ballistic missile subs, that fleet will be able to carry 2,000-2,200 nuclear warheads all by itself.
  • Deploying additional Yars-M, R-500, and Iskander-M IRBMs – in violation of the INF Treaty.

Russia is also steadily modernizing its existing nuclear arsenal and fleet of delivery systems. It is:

  • Developing and deploying a new class of ballistic missile submarines capable of carrying missiles such as the Bulava and the Liner. Two of them have already been commissioned and at least eight in total will be built.
  • Developing a next-generation intercontinental bomber, slated to first fly in 2020 – before the USAF’s planned Long Range Strike Bomber will.
  • Developing a new submarine-launched cruise missile, the Kaliber;
  • Procuring and deploying a new air-launched cruise missile, the Kh-101/102;
  • Developing and deploying three new ICBM types – the light Yars (RS-24, SS-29) to replace the single-warhead Topol and Topol-M missiles, the midweight Avangard/Rubezh (slated to replace SS-19 Stiletto missiles), and the Sarmat (AKA Son of Satan), intended to replace the SS-18 Satan heavy ICBMs.
  • Developing a rail-based ICBM type on top of the forementioned ICBM classes.
  • Developing a hypersonic missile that could carry nuclear warheads to any point on Earth in an hour and easily penetrate US missile defenses.

Note that the RS-24 (SS-29) Yars ICBMs will be able to carry 10 warheads each, whereas the missiles they’re replacing – the Topol (SS-25 Sickle) and Topol-M (SS-27 Sickle-B) – can carry only one warhead. Therefore, as these missiles enter service, the warhead carriage capacity of the Russian ICBM fleet will greatly increase beyond the (already huge) number of 1,684 warheads immediately deliverable to the CONUS.

By 2018, 80%, and by 2021, 100% of Russia’s ICBMs will be missiles of the new generation – the he Avangard/Rubezh, and the Sarmat heavy ICBM, as well as the forementioned rail-based ICBM.

By contrast, the US, under the Obama administration, has unilaterally retired and scrapped its nuclear-armed Tomahawk submarine-launched cruise missiles and their warheads, plans to kill the procurement of conventional Tomahawks, has no program to replace its ICBMs or air-launched cruise missiles, has delayed the induction of its next-generation bomber until the mid-2020s (and plans to procure only 80-100 of these crucial aircraft), has no plans to develop or deploy mobile ICBMs or medium- or short-range ballistic missiles, and has delayed its ballistic missile submarine replacement program. And even when these boats enter service, there will be only 12 of them, each carrying 16 missiles as opposed to the current Ohio class carrying 24 missiles each.

This is as simple as “Russia and China have nuclear-armed submarine- and ground-launched cruise missiles and IRBMs, the US does not.”

Which means that, even without further cuts, the US will be at a nuclear disadvantage vis-a-vis Russia (and China).

Russia would’ve been a huge nuclear threat necessitating the maintenance of the US nuclear arsenal at no less than its current size even WITHOUT this nuclear buildup. With it, it is becoming an even greater nuclear threat, thus necessitating that the US nuclear arsenal be increased, too.

This isn’t just Zbigniew Mazurak speaking; this is the State Department (through its diplomats in Moscow) and the Strategic Command’s leader, Adm. Haney (who is in charge of all US nuclear weapons), speaking. As Bill Gertz of the Washington Free Beacon reports:

“The blunt comments [by Adm. Haney - ZM] came in response to reports that Russian strategic nuclear forces recently held a large-scale nuclear exercise coinciding with saber-rattling conventional military deployments close to Russia’s eastern border with Ukraine.

Haney said the Russians conduct periodic nuclear war games and in 2013 produced a YouTube video that highlighted “every aspect of their capability.” (…)

State Department cables sent to Washington earlier this year included dire warnings that Russia is vastly increasing its nuclear arsenal under policies similar to those Moscow followed during the Soviet era. The cables, according to officials familiar with them, also stated that the Russian strategic nuclear forces buildup appears aimed at achieving nuclear superiority over the United States and not nuclear parity.

The nuclear modernization has been “continuous” and includes adding fixed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and mobile ICBMs, along with a new class of strategic missile submarines, Haney said in testimony.

“Russia has articulated their value in having strategic capability, and as such, each area they have invested in both in terms of nuclear strategic capability as well as space capability and cyberspace capability in terms of things,” Haney said.

“And as a result, we have seen them demonstrate their capability through a variety of exercises and operations. They maintain their readiness of that capability on a continuous fashion. And it’s a capability I don’t see them backing away from.”

By contrast, Haney testified to the committee that U.S. nuclear forces are in urgent need of modernization to update aging nuclear weapons, delivery systems, and support and production infrastructure, most of which were made decades ago. Under budget sequestration, which could be re-imposed in 2016, U.S. nuclear force modernization will be undermined.”

These facts utterly refute any claims – including those of Barack Obama, Congressional Democrats, and other nuclear disarmament advocates like the Arms Control Association and the Ploughshares Fund – that the US has too many warheads and can afford to cut its nuclear arsenal safely, or that this arsenal is a “Cold War relic” cutting which is “overdue and in the national interest.”

These despicable traitors wanted – and still want – America to cut its nuclear arsenal further and unilaterally, without Russian reciprocation. And for that, they should be severely punished with the maximum penalty foreseen by law for treason.

They have been blatantly lying. All of their claims, without any exception, are blatant lies. No, the US nuclear is not “too large”, “ripe for cuts”, nor a “Cold War relic.” No, its mission is not obsolete by any means – on the contrary, its mission (nuclear deterrence) is more important now than ever. No, cutting the US nuclear arsenal is not “overdue” nor “in the national interest” – it would be completely AGAINST the US national interest and utterly suicidal. It would invoke a Russian nuclear first strike on the US.

No, America cannot afford to cut its nuclear arsenal ANY FURTHER. It should increase, not cut, her nuclear arsenal.

Specifically, the US must:

  • Not enter into any more arms reduction agreements ever again, especially not with countries which routinely violate such treaties, like Russia.
  • Not reduce its nuclear arsenal by even one warhead and not retire any warheads except those whose service lives cannot be extended.
  • Begin quickly increasing its arsenal and the production of cheap, simple plutonium-based warheads. Ample plutonium for their production can be easily obtained from spent fuel from American nuclear reactors.
  • Resume nuclear testing.
  • Accelerate the development of the Long-Range Strike Bomber and procure 200, not 80-100, of these aircraft; and require that they be certified as nuclear-capable from the moment they enter service.
  • Quickly begin developing and procuring new, longer-ranged, stealthy replacements for the USAF’s cruise missiles as well as the Navy’s Tomahawk. The new cruise missiles should be of the same type, launchable from a wide range of platforms, and capable of delivering nuclear and conventional warheads. Their range should be at least 2,000 kms.
  • Accelerate the development of hypersonic weapons. The B-52, the B-1, and the B-2 should all be made capable of launching hypersonic missiles. The HTV and Blackswift programs should also be resumed.
  • Accelerate the Ohio class replacement program.
  • Develop and deploy a new ICBM for the USAF, which should come in rail- and silo-based variants.
  • Build more tactical nuclear warheads to reassure US allies around the world.

Once again, it must be repeated: THE US MUST NOT CUT ITS NUCLEAR ARSENAL ANY FURTHER, WHETHER UNI-, BI-, OR MULTILATERALLY. PERIOD.

Posted in Nuclear deterrence, Obama administration follies | Leave a Comment »

Rebuttal of Jack Matlock’s Blame America First lies and those about Reagan

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on March 25, 2014


ReaganPeaceQuote

The Washington Compost (not exactly a bastion of conservatism) has just published an utterly ridiculous screed by former State Dept. official and historical revisionist Jack Matlock Jr. Therein, Matlock blames the current crisis in the Crimea, and Russia’s entire hostility towards the United States, solely on America, falsely claiming that Moscow is hostile solely because “the United States has insisted  on treating Russia as the loser” since the Cold War’s end. Matlock falsely claims that since 1991, Russia has time and again tried to be a cooperative partner, only to receive “swift kicks to the groin” from the US.

(Only a congenital liar would make such claims.)

And like other liberals, Matlock also claims the US did not really win the Cold War or cause the USSR’s collapse. Furthermore, he claims in his book that Ronald Reagan’s sole (and secondary) contribution to ending the Cold War was supposedly abandoning the hawkish policies of his first term.

I will refute these other lies later. But first, I will utterly refute Matlock’s lies about the source of Russian hostility and about Moscow supposedly trying to be a cooperative partner.

Matlock: Blame America First

Matlock blames Moscow’s hostility solely on the US, claiming that the US invited it by bombing Serbia without UN Security Council Approval in 1999, invading Iraq without UNSC approval in 2003, withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001, expanding NATO to include Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, the Baltic Republics, Romania, and Bulgaria; with supposed “plans” for US bases in the Baltics and the Balkans; by somehow “supporting” the democratic revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia; and by passing the Magnitsky Act, designed to punish Russian officials who violate human rights.

Matlock is essentially saying, “Russia under Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin tried to be a good partner and to follow a pro-Western orientation, but we alienated it with our aggressive actions.”

That is absolutely false, just like the rest of Matlock’s anti-American screed, and it comes straight from Moscow’s and its liberal American sycophants’ propaganda playbook. Matlock is merely repeating the same old anti-American lies for the umpteenth time.

Russia Has No Legitimate Grievances Towards The West

So let’s look at the issues he claims invited Russian hostility:

  • Serbia: in 1999, that country’s then-dictator, Slobodan Milosevic, was murdering thousands and thousands of innocent, defenseless civilians in Kosovo (where over 80% of the population is Kosovan, not Serbian) for nothing but the fact that they were Kosovan – just like the Germans murdered 6 million Jews for the mere fact they were Jews. We were witnessing a repeat of the Holocaust in Europe (albeit on a much smaller scale). The US was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT to act to stop this, and it was supported in this by ALL of NATO and the entire civilized world (to which Russia does not belong). Milosevic was a war criminal wanted by a UN tribunal in the Hague, was eventually handed over to it after losing power, and was tried for war crimes. The fact that Russia supported such a bloody war criminal only shows what an immoral country it is. As for “UN Security Council approval”, apparently Mr Matlock believes that the US should not act anywhere in the world unless it receives permission from that august council… where his beloved Russia, of course, is a veto-wielding member.
  • Iraq: say what you want about the wisdom of invading Iraq, but any claim that that invasion somehow threatened Russia’s interests in the Middle East is utterly preposterous. What Russian interests did it threaten? None. It actually undermined US interests as it replaced a Sunni dictator with a Shia, pro-Iranian government.
  • The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty: I guess Mr Matlock would’ve preferred for the US to forever remain vulnerable to even the smallest ballistic missile attack and for the US never to develop adequate defenses against such an attack… because that’s exactly what the ABM treaty prohibited. A treaty, by the way, signed with the USSR – a country that no longer existed by 2001. Considering how fast (despite all arms reduction treaties signed to date) ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons are proliferating (thus making a total mockery and failure of those treaties), the decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty was absolutely right. And it had no real impact on Washington-Moscow relations, as confirmed by then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Robert G. Joseph. Might I add that Russia – while strongly opposing America’s efforts to build ballistic missile defense systems – is quietly building such systems of its own?
  • NATO expansion: to say that this threatened Russia’s security is also a blatant lie. None of NATO’s new members (except Poland and the Baltics) even have a border with Russia; and all of them had and still have very good reasons to fear Russian subjugation and aggression. They spent half a century under the Soviet yoke; in the 1990s, Russia still tried to meddle in their affairs; and now Moscow is threatening them again. It was morally and strategically right to bring them under NATO’s defense umbrella. Moscow has something to fear from their accession to NATO ONLY if it intends to attack them. Moreover, the post-1991 NATO entrants (especially Poland and the Czech Republic) have proven to be among the staunchest allies America has anywhere in the world, participating heavily in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (Poland sent thousands of troops to both countries). What’s more, Poland is one of the few NATO countries that spend the agreed benchmark of at least 2% of GDP on defense and has more mechanized Army brigades than the UK, France, and Germany combined. Romania and Bulgaria have access to the Black Sea and have recently held exercises with the USN. Such allies are worth having.
  • The early 2000s’ revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia saw utterly corrupt and criminal pro-Russian dictators (and in Ukraine, President Kuchma’s hand-picked successor Viktor Yanukovych) ousted by their people. Contrary to Matlock’s lies, the US did not extend anything but rhetorical support for those revolutions.
  • The Magnitsky Act: contrary to Matlock’s lies, the US did not single out Russia with this Act as the worst human rights abuser in the world. But Moscow is one of the world’s most egregious human rights violators, and this act, named by a whistleblower murdered in prison by Putin’s prison guards, instituted targeted sanctions against Russian officials who violate human rights.

So all of Matlock’s excuses for Russia’s hostility have been utterly refuted, one by one. They’ve collapsed like a deck of cards.

And so will, in a minute, Matlock’s myth that Russia has tried to be a cooperative partner whom the US has needlessly antagonized. In fact, since Vladimir Putin’s ascension to power, Russia has been increasingly arrogant and hostile towards the US and the West as its power has grown since the nadir of the 1990s. It has started a new Cold War against the West and is the biggest threat to US, European, and world security.

Russia Is Behaving Aggressively In Cold-War Style

In recent years, Russia has:

  1. Repeatedly flown nuclear-armed strategic borders into US, allied (Japanese), and even neutral (Swedish) airspace and said the Russian Air Force was “practicing attacking the enemy.” What on Earth have SWEDEN and JAPAN done to Russia? For that matter, what has America done to Russia? Nothing.
  2. Repeatedly (on 15 separate occassions) threatened to aim or even use its nuclear weapons against the US and its allies.
  3. Invaded two sovereign countries that dared to try to break out of Moscow’s sphere of influence and align themselves with the West (Georgia and Ukraine) and continues to occupy both countries.
  4. Repeatedly violated several arms reduction treaties, including the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty and the INF Treaty, the latter being violated by Russia by repeatedly testing and deploying nuclear-armed missiles banned by that treaty.
  5. Deployed nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in the Kaliningrad District, next to Poland, threatening that loyal ally of the US, while the US has no nuclear weapons anywhere in Eastern Europe.
  6. Backed America’s enemies around the world – North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba – to the hilt, with diplomatic protection at the UN Security Council, weapons (including the advanced S-300VM air defense system), nuclear fuel (Iran), and nuclear reactors (Iran), thus also threatening the existence of Israel.
  7. Stationed a spy ship, the Viktor Leonov, in Cuba (it’s still there).
  8. Conducted, and continues to conduct, a wave of hateful anti-American propaganda in domestic and foreign (e.g. RussiaToday) media.
  9. Sent an Akula-class nuclear-armed submarine close to the US submarine base in King’s Bay, GA.
  10. Domestically, assassinated high-profile dissidents (Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko) and jailed hundreds of others.
  11. Just recently, began negotiations with Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela on opening bases for Russian ships and nuclear-armed bombers there.

Yet the US is somehow to blame for Russia’s actions? For Moscow’s hostility? Who is threatening whom with nuclear weapons, Mr Matlock? Who is flying nuclear-armed bombers close and sometimes into US, Japanese, and Swedish airspace? Who is stationing spy ships close to the other party’s shores? Who is now reopening naval and bomber bases on the other party’s doorstep?

Are you a paid pro-Kremlin propagandist, Mr Matlock? Or are you just on drugs?

Matlock also falsely claims that the current West-Russia spat we’re witnessing now is not a new Cold War but the result of “misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and posturing to domestic political audiences” – as if Russia’s ultra-aggressive behavior against the US, its allies, and even neutral countries like Sweden was the product of mere “misunderstading.”

He’s completely wrong. Russia’s behavior is the result of resurgent, renewed Russian imperialism, of the Kremlin’s imperial ambitions, and of the hatred of the West which Vladimir Putin and his fellow KGB thugs imbued when trained by the KGB.

We didn’t see that behavior in Putin’s first years because at that time Russia was still too weak to try such actions. But as Russia began to rebound militarily and economically under Putin, it also began to be increasingly aggressive towards the West and towards Moscow’s former Warsaw Pact vassals.

Matlock also falsely claims that Russia has cooperated with the US on Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, and North Korea.

This is also false. Moscow has backed, and continues to back, Syria, Iran, and North Korea to the hilt, affording them diplomatic protection at the UNSC, weapons (except North Korea, at least so far), and, in Iran’s case, nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel – which Iran will use to produce nuclear weapons.

Moscow has absolutely opposed any but the weakest sanctions against Iran, and continues to back the genocidal, anti-American dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Matlock also falsely claims the New START treaty was a significant achievement, but the converse is true: New START was an utter failure and a treasonous treaty. It requires unilateral disarmament on America’s part: only the US required by the treaty to cut its nuclear arsenal, while Russia is allowed to increase its own. Even worse, the treaty doesn’t count Russia’s 171 Tu-22M strategic bombers as such, contains a pathetically weak Potemkin-like verification regime, and imposes restrictions on US missile defenses.

As Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) has rightly said, the US should immediately withdraw from that treaty.

Yes, Virginia, Reagan Really Did Win The Cold War

Finally, I will refute Matlock’s also utterly false claim that the US didn’t win the Cold War or cause the collapse of the USSR.

The fact is the US did both, no matter how hard Matlock and other revisionists try to deny it.

The Soviet Union lost the Cold War, and collapsed in 1991, because of the fatal blows Ronald Reagan dealt to it. In his eight years, President Reagan:

  • Dramatically increased US defense spending, to levels not seen in real terms before or since, and US defense programs to a pace the Soviet Union could not keep up with.
  • Began the development of a missile defense system the USSR could never match.
  • Convinced Saudi Arabia to increase oil output dramatically, thus cutting oil prices from $30/bbl to $12/bbl in 5 months, and thus dealing a fatal blow to Moscow’s oil-revenue -dependent economy.
  • Instituted a bevy of sanctions on the USSR, including an embargo on drilling, pumping, and construction equipment, and successfully pressured West Germany to reduce the planned Yamal Pipeline from 2 lines to one, and to delay that project by many years (as a result, it wasn’t completed until 1999).
  • Supported anti-Soviet proxies around the world, most notably in Afghanistan, where they defeated the Soviet Army in a war that cost Moscow hundreds of billions of dollars (if only the US had learned from Moscow’s mistakes and had not gotten mired in that country!).
  • Deployed Pershing and GLCM missiles in Europe to counter the USSR’s deployment of SS-20s.
  • Successfully used the tons of secret Warsaw Pact documents stolen by Col. Ryszard Kuklinski as leverage in negotiations with the Soviets.

These are the fatal blows that brought the Soviets back to the bargaining table, forced them to make major concessions, and eventually caused the Soviet Union’s collapse, as the USSR was unable to continue the Afghan War, the arms race, or counter US missile defense development with its sclerotic, stagnant economy, especially not after the Reagan-induced late 1980s oil glut. And not with the Yamal Pipeline delayed.

As Professor Robert G. Kaufman has rightly written, “the Cold War ended on Reagan’s terms, not Gorbachev’s.”

Matlock is wrong on all counts. All of his claims are utterly false. Not one of them is correct – not even one. Russia has NO legitimate grievances towards the West, it has never been a truly cooperative partner in the last 25 years, and its hostility is due to the revival of imperialist ideology and ambitions in Russian political circles (greatly enabled by KGB thug Vladimir Putin’s ascent to power). Russia is now waging a new Cold War on the West. How the West, led by the US, will respond to this challenge, remains to be seen.

Posted in Nuclear deterrence, Obama administration follies, Politicians, Threat environment, World affairs | Leave a Comment »

G. Murphy Donovan and the American Thinker Badmouth America, Glorify Putin, Commit Treason

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on March 24, 2014


zxs4kg

Russian President Vladimir Putin and the (now-deceased) North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il. Photo by the Kremlin Press Service.

The pseudoconservative “American Thinker” e-zin has recently (on March 18th) published an utterly ridiculous anti-American, pro-Russian propaganda screed by well-known Russophile G. Murphy Donovan.

In his screed, Donovan falsely claims that Russia is not an enemy but an ally against Islamism (with which, in fact, Moscow is allied against the US); that American and European politicians are trying to resuscitate the Cold War to poke Russia; that the crisis in the Crimea is “manufactured”; and that the West, led by the US, bears sole responsibility for the breakdown in Western-Russian relations. In passing, Donovan makes a number of other utterly false claims about Russia designed to paint that country as a cultural brother and a friend of the US.

Below are Donovan’s nine most ridiculous lies and my rebuttals of them:

1)

“Harder still to believe that American politicians, Right and Left, are trying to resuscitate the Cold War — or something hotter.”

No, the West is not trying to resuscitate the Cold War; Russia has revived it, and it did so long before it illegally invaded the Crimea.

Already as of 2007, it was threatening to aim its nuclear-armed ballistic missiles at all of Europe. In 2008, it deployed Iskander ballistic missiles to the Kaliningradskaya Oblast. It has launched a series of cyber attacks and an arms race against the US, flush with oil and gas revenues sufficient for this. It has developed and deployed SEVERAL types of intermediate range ballistic missiles in flagrant violation of the INF treaty. It has repeatedly flown nuclear-armed bombers into US, Japanese, and even Swedish airspace. (By God, what has Sweden done to Russia?)

When asked what their bombers were doing flying so close to Alaska, the Russian Air Force said, “We were practicing attacking the enemy” – and that “enemy”, in their perception, is the US.

Russia is the one who has revived the Cold War, and it bears SOLE responsibility for that fact.

2)

“Russia, the EU, and America also share a common enemy, that insidious fifth column: domestic and global Islamism.”

No, the West and Russia do not share a common enemy in Islam; Russia is an ALLY of that enemy and thus an enemy of the US. It remains the chief weapons supplier, financial sponsor, diplomatic protector, and nuclear fuel and technology provider for Iran and (minus the nuclear parts) Syria. It has withheld from the US information that could’ve been used to prevent the Boston Bombings. It continues to arm and aid anti-American regimes (Islamic and non-Islamic alike) all around the world, from Syria, to Iran, to North Korea, to Venezuela, to Cuba. It also continues to demand that Israel give up its nuclear deterrent and withdraw to indefensible pre-1967 armistice lines.

If you are a friend of Russia, you are an enemy of Israel. You cannot support the appeasement of Russia and still claim to be a friend of Israel.

Had it not been for Russia, global Islamism would lose its only major sponsor, protector, and ally against the US. Syria and Iran would thus lose their only major patron besides China and would be forced to stop threatening Israel, stop building WMDs and stop sponsoring terrorist organizations.

3)

“And the American Right is not blameless; excusing terror, regime change folly, the recent litany of imperial failures. In the 2012 US election campaign, there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between candidates, Right and Left, on US foreign or military policy.”

Utter garbage! In the 2012 election, there was a WORLD of a difference between GOP and Democrat candidates, ESPECIALLY on foreign and defense policy. In a nutshell, Obama and the Democrats continued to advocate America’s unilateral disarmament and the appeasement of Russia, China, and Iran, with Obama famously mocking Romney that “the 1980s are asking to have their foreign policy back” (to which I’d reply, “the 1930s and Neville Chamberlain are asking for their foreign policy back”).

OTOH, Mitt Romney advocated rebuilding the US military, reviewing the New START unilateral disarmament treaty, and a tough approach to Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, as well as Islamic terrorist organizations around the world. Also, Romney would NOT have tried to impose dangerous “peace accors” on Israel.

4)

“Yes, Russophobia! The pragmatic gains of the Reagan era have been set aside for an irrational fear of all things Russian.”

Utter garbage as well. The American people and the GOP are not plagued by Russophobia or any other irrational fear of Russia; they are merely critical of Russia’s BEHAVIOR – which is highly detrimental to AMERICA’S own national security interests, as well as the security of key US allies (incl. Israel) and the whole world. OTOH, Putin still lives in the Cold War era and he, like his KGB cronies, is still mired in his irrational hatred of the United States, which drives all his FP actions.

5)

“When demagogues like Hillary Clinton compare Russian behavior to Nazi Germany, she mocks Allied history and the sacrifice of 5 million Russians in WWII.”

Utter rubbish yet again! (And it proves that Donovan is well to the left of Hillary Clinton on foreign and defense policy.)

The Soviet Union STARTED World War II together with Nazi Germany in 1939 by signing the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, invading Poland and conquering half of that country. Not only that, but it deported thousands and thousands of Poles in the conquered lands to Siberia and Kazakhstan (where most of them died in the gulag) and executed, for no reason whatsoever, FORTY THOUSAND Polish officers in Katyn – and then LIED about it for the next HALF-CENTURY. The Soviet Union then continued its imperialist binge by invading Finland and taking away one tenth of that country’s territory.

And you know, folks, why the USSR was so surprised by the German invasion of June 1941?

Because the Soviet Army was, at that time, in OFFENSIVE positions, awaiting Stalin’s order to invade Germany and German-occupied Poland. Hitler simply preempted Stalin by a few weeks. Had he not done so, Stalin would’ve invaded first.

6)

“Russian blood chits, we might add, that made the Allied victory over Nazis possible in 1945.”

No, they did not. It was US involvement, war production, and financing of the war (the US alone bore 50% of its cost on the Allied side) that made the Allied victory over Germany (and Japan) possible. And in retrospect, it was a foolish mistake to aid the USSR in defeating Nazi Germany; the US should’ve let Berlin and Moscow duke it out among themselves, just like it’s allowing Assad and Al-Qaeda to duke it out among themselves in Syria today. It’s too bad that someone had to win. It’s a pity the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany could not BOTH lose.

It was more foolish still for FDR and Churchill to insist that the Wehrmacht surrender unconditionally on all fronts. This left the Germans with no choice but to fight bitterly to the very end. Had the Germans been given honorable surrender terms on the West front, they would’ve turned all their resources against the Soviets – and the Soviet occupation and subjugation of half of Europe might’ve been avoided.

7)

“Never mind that the difference between Putin’s Russia and Gorbachev’s Soviet Union is like the difference between caviar and carp.”

Again, a blatant lie. If anything, Gorbachev’s Soviet Union, at least in its latter years, was actually better than Putin’s Russia today. Gorbachev significantly loosened repression in the USSR; Putin has reinstated it. Gorbachev closed the gulag camps; Putin has reopened them. Gorbachev agreed to Germany’s unification, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and to allowing Eastern European countries to choose their own paths of development. Putin has, for the last several years, been constantly meddling in European affairs and threatening European countries – esp. those that broke off the Russian yoke in 1991 – with nuclear weapons and warning them not to ally themselves with the EU or the US and has deployed nuclear-armed ballistic missiles on Poland’s doorstep.

Gorbachev signed the INF treaty banning intermediate range missiles and dutifully dismantled them before the USSR collapsed; Putin has resumed their development, production, and deployment, in flagrant violation of the INF treaty.

8)

“Yet, Americans have much in common with Russia: history, religion, art, literature, sports, dance, dogs, music, science, space travel, adult beverages, recreational sex, and almost all things cultural”

Again a blatant lie. The US and Russia could not be any more different. For starters, the US is based on a culture of the rule of law (hence the huge backlash against Obama’s refusal to enforce federal law); Russia, on the rule of men. The US is based on individual and economic liberty; Russia, on a culture of utter and unlimited submission of all to the current ruler (Tsar/General Secretary/”President”). In the US, church attendance is disproportionately high among Western nations (and conservative churches’ membership has SURGED in recent years); in Russia, it hovers around 10%.

The HUGE cultural differences between the US and Russia are best illustrated by this fact: had Donovan been a Russian, writing in Russia, and criticizing RUSSIA’S foreign policy, he would’ve been either assassinated by Putin’s KGB thugs or, at best, imprisoned in a gulag camp.

9) The reason why Ukrainian ex-President (and Putin puppet) Viktor Yanukovych has been ousted from office is because he was an utterly corrupt kleptocrat who was preparing to slaughter en masse his own citizens protesting his policies, as documents found in his former residence have revealed. He was preparing to quell the protests by force, just like Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro is doing today. The US and the EU did not, in fact, lift a finger to support the Ukrainian resistance at that time, and are barely doing anything to help Ukraine today. So for Donovan to claim that the US and the EU orchestrated that coup is a blatant lie – just like everything else he writes.

Shame on you, Mr Donovan, for lying so blatantly, for badmouthing your own country, and for being an apologist for the most dangerous dictator in world history since Stalin. You are a traitor to the United States of America, and you deserve to be executed. And I would gladly volunteer to be your executioner.

Shame on you also, AT Editors, for allowing this utterly ridiculous, immoral, factually false, and America-badmouthing screed. Like Mr Donovan, you have committed treason against the United States, and like him, you deserve the death penalty.

Posted in Ideologies, Media lies, Politicians, Threat environment | Leave a Comment »

A simple table comparison of the Rafale, the Gripen, and the Typhoon

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on March 22, 2014


The Wings of Europe Facebook page has just published a very useful and very simple table comparison of the capabilities of three fighters: the Rafale, the Gripen, and the Eurofighter Typhoon. The table shows nicely why the Rafale is decisively superior to these two other jets, based on Indian Air Force trials of those aircraft. One key fact omitted from the table is that the Typhoon is far more expensive than the Rafale while delivering much less capability than the French fighter.

Image

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Rebuttal of Ben Freeman’s lies about the defense budget

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on March 21, 2014


ReaganPeaceQuote

The crappy, leftist DefenseOne website has recently (on March 14th) published a ridiculous article by anti-defense hack and former George Soros paid anti-defense propagandist Ben Freeman, now a “Policy Analyst on National Security Issues” at the “Third Way” think tank.

In his ridiculous screed, Freeman attacks what he claims are “Three Myths About the Defense Budget”, but in fact, it is his attacks on these supposed “myths” that are lies.

Firstly, Freeman denies that the defense budget proposed by Obama is small. Obama’s requested base defense budget is $495.6 bn, less than the amount enacted last year, and he’s also requesting $79.4 bn for the war in Afghanistan, a total of $570 bn.

This, alleges Freeman, is more than the military ever received under Ronald Reagan, so, Freeman quips, Obama cannot be accused of being weak on defense unless Reagan can also be.

But Freeman is lying. His claim is utterly false for two reasons. Firstly, the military actually received much more under Ronald Reagan, and secondly, yes, Obama IS very weak on defense, as evidenced by his structural and programmatic disarmament of the US military ever since taking office in 2009 (see below).

The biggest defense budget under Ronald Reagan, the one for FY1988, was $292.9 bn in FY1987 dollars (i.e. the dollars of the year in which it was enacted). Adjusted for inflation (using the DOL’s Inflation Calculator), that amounts to $605.30 bn – over $30 bn more than what Obama has requested.

And the cuts won’t stop there; in successive years, the defense budget will be cut further. OCO supplementals will eventually end after the Afghan war ends, and base defense spending will be cut significantly further due to the sequester – which, may I remind you, Obama first proposed and insisted on (and threatened to veto any attempts to undo it).

Of course, the gap between Reagan’s and Obama’s financial commitment to the military is even greater when you consider metrics far more accurate than raw dollar numbers.

During the Reagan years, the US spent 6% of its economy, and roughly 25-27% of the entire federal budget, on the military. Today, with war and DOE spending included, that is down to less than 4% of GDP – the LOWEST level since FY1948 – and less than 18% of the entire federal budget.

Freeman is also lying blatantly when he claims that the US spends 3 times more on the military than China and 5 times as much as Russia. His claim is based on OFFICIAL Chinese and Russian military spending figures. But, as anyone with even the smallest knowledge of these countries knows, Beijing and Moscow routinely and vastly understate their military budgets.

Independent analysts estimate China’s actual annual military budget to be $240 bn, double the $119 bn figure Beijing admits to and just two times less than the US defense budget. Russia’s military budget is also far larger than the official $90 bn figure; for example, many Russian ministries buy military-destined goods out of their own budgets and then give them as “free goods” to the Defense Ministry.

Just like the Soviet Union routinely understated its military spending, so do China and Russia today. Which isn’t surprising, given that China is communist, Russia is governed by an unreconstructed KGB thug, and both are on expansionist, imperialist binges.

But it gets even worse: in China and Russia, one dollar can buy several times more than the US. Which means that even if one determines Russia’s or China’s actual military budgets, that would then have to be multiplied by at least 3 to arrive at the real extent of their military buildups.

Which brings me to another lie by Freeman – that the US military is vastly superior to any competitor.

I wish it were true, but it isn’t. And Freeman, by propagating that comfortable lie, is trying to lull the American people into a false sense of security.

In fact, as I have recently demonstrated in an in-depth study of the Chinese military, the PLA, it is vastly superior to the US military by almost all metrics - and so is the Russian military.

Man for man, ship for ship, plane for plane, the Chinese and Russian militaries are far better than the US military – which will learn that rude lesson sooner rather than later.

Chinese troops are better trained, fed, quartered, and led – by true warrior leaders, not by politically correct careerists eager to please their civilian masters in Washington. They, and their Russian counterparts, are also far better equipped – with superior air defense systems (which render their airspace closed to all but the most stealthy aircraft), nuclear missile delivery systems, ultra-quiet, submarines, surface warships, fighters, cruise missiles, anti-ship weapons, and so on.

A few examples will illustrate the point.

The premier air superiority fighter of China and Russia, the Flanker, is newer, better armed, more maneuverable, better equipped with sensors and missiles, and much cheaper than the old, outdated F-15 Eagle (to say nothing of the small, uncompetitive F-16 Crappy Falcon, itself inferior even to its Chinese clone, the J-10 Sinocanard, which is far more maneuverable than most Westerners think). Their missiles are longer-ranged than any air-to-air missile in US inventory and have diverse seekers, unlike the AIM-120 AMRAAM.

Russia’s and China’s fifth generation fighters, scheduled to enter service later this decade, are all-aspect-stealthy, can carry large weapon loads over long ranges, are highly maneuverable and capable of sustained supersonic speeds, have excellent sensor aperture, and can evolve into other roles than air superiority and theater strike. The ONLY Western (not just American, but WESTERN) fighter capable of competing with them (let alone defeating them) is the F-22 Raptor, or to be more precise, evolved and enhanced variants of this aircraft. Older USAF aircraft are so old and crappy that they’re literally falling out of the sky.

None of this can be said of the sole fifth-generation “fighter” the US is developing for its Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps: the grossly overweight, sluggish, unmaneuverable, underpowered, underranged, underarmed, non-stealthy (contrary to what Lockheed Martin claims), and hacked (by Chinese hackers) F-35 Junk Strike Fighter, AKA the Jet That Ate The Pentagon Budget. It can’t turn, climb, nor run away from a fight. In any combat situation, US and allied F-35s would be massacred like pigeons in a pest eradication program. Indeed, Freeman’s former employer, POGO, and Freeman himself have sharply criticized the F-35.

The F-35 is already woefully obsolete, even though it hasn’t entered service and won’t for many years (if ever). It has already been hopelessly obsoleted by the Flanker family of fighters, the J-10 Sinocanard, the MiG-35, the PAKFA, the J-20, the J-31, and modern Russian and Chinese air defense system (S-300, S-400, HQ-9, HQ-16, SA-11/17, Tor-M1, Pantsir-S1).

China has modern frigates, designed primarily for anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare, and Russia has the Admiral Gorshkov class. What does the USN has? A dwindling fleet of aging, obsolete Perry-class frigates and the Little Crappy Ship (LCS) that is easy to sink and has meager weaponry.

The USN does have a good class of air defense destroyers – the Arleigh Burke class – but even here China outperforms the US with its Type 052C and D destroyers, AKA Chinese “Aegis class” DDGs. You can read more about the newest Chinese frigate and destroyer classes here, in the aptly-titled article, “China’s Navy Takes A Great Leap Forward.”

Russia has 6,800 nuclear warheads, including 4,000 tactical ones. The US has 5,113 warheads, of which only about 400 are tactical. Nothing has been done to address Russia’s huge advantage in that area.

China and Russia have far better combat rifles – various variants of the famous AK-47 Kalashnikov (you can bury it in sand or mud and it will still fire). The standard rifles of the US military are the M16 and its shorter M4 variant – both of which are famous for their propensity to jam. These rifles have literally gotten thousands of US troops killed.

China alone has 100,000 naval mines, and Russia has further thousands. The USN is completely unprepared for this, with only 13 minesweepers, all operated by the Naval Reserve because the USN is completely uninterested in counter-mine warfare. The UK Royal Navy alone has more minesweepers than that (15) – all operated by the REGULAR Royal Navy.

China and Russia also have many kinds of weapons the US military simply doesn’t have at all: for example, anti-satellite weapons, supersonic anti-ship missiles, and short- and medium range ballistic missiles.

China has a wide range of supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles: the Russian-imported SS-N-22 Sunburn and SS-NX-30 Sizzler (3M54 Klub) and the indigenous Yingji family of missiles. A single Sunburn would suffice to sink an American aircraft carrier. It also has DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles, each of which, again, is enough to sink a USN carrier. The US has no weapons of this kind.

As for short- and medium range ballistic missiles, Russia has the Iskander-M and K, the R-500 GLCM, and the Yars-M IRBM, all fielded in flagrant violation of the INF Treaty. These missiles can reach any point on th Eurasian continent. China has DF-11, DF-15, and DF-16 short-range ballistic missiles, and the DF-21, DF-25, and DF-26 medium-range ballistic missiles, along with the CJ-10 and DH-10 cruise missiles, which can strike any target in the Western Pacific, with nuclear and conventional warheads alike – out to Guam and well beyond.

The US military USED to be the strongest martial force in the world. But alas, it no longer is. It is now DECISIVELY inferior to the Chinese and Russian militaries – by a large margin.

Shame on DefenseOne for publishing Freeman’s screed, and on Freeman for lying to the American people so blatantly.

Below: A graphic illustrating how large the Chinese navy will be just a year from now, in 2015. Credit: the National Defense Magazine based on Office of Naval Intelligence and CRS data.

China-Chart-APRIL14

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Comment ameliorer la securite routiere en France

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on March 19, 2014


Recettemment, le President de la Republique, Francois Hollande, a recu des idees des Francais pour ameliorer la securite routiere. L’association 40 million des automobilistes a aussi soumis des idees des gens ordinaires a l’Assemblee Nationale. C’est-a-dire, le grand debat sur la securite routiere continue.

Alors, que peut faire une difference reelle? Que peut vraiment reduire le nombre annuel des morts et blesses sur les routes francaises?

Selon le Conseil Nationale de la Securite Routiere (CNSR), plus de 1 000 de ceux 3 600 personnes qui meurent chaque annee sur les routes francaises meurent du a l’alcool, c’est-a-dire, ses accidents sont dus a l’ivresse du conducteur. L’alcool est donc responsable pour environ un tiers de tous les morts sur les routes francaises chaquee annee. Il faut aussi ajouter les morts causees par les conducteurs stupefies (sous l’influence des drogues) a cette statistique.

Donc que fait-il faire?

1) Il faut continuer et voire augmenter la campagne de videos de choc sur l’ivresse et l’usage de telephones quand on conduit une vehicule. Il faut produire et diffuser plus de tels videos (et affiches) pour parler a l’imagination des Francais.

2) Il faut une politique zero tolerance vers tous les conducteurs sous l’influence de l’alcool ou les drogues. C’est-a-dire, il faut:

a)  abaisser la limitation du content de l’alcool dans le sang de 0,5% a 0,2%;

b) retirer les permis de tous les conducteurs ivres, et interdire tous les conducteurs ivres de rouler pour 1 an minimum (sauf conduire au travail et de retour a la maison) apres l’infraction; tous les conducteurs ivres qui provoquent un accident devraient etre interdits de conduire pour 10 ans (sauf les voyages travail/maison). Les recidivistes qui conduisent ivres ou stupefies pour la deuxieme fois devraient etre interdits a conduire pour 5 ans minimum (sauf les voyages travail/maison), et ceux qui provoquent un accident ou une personne meurt ou est blesse devraient etre interdits a conduire a vie. En plus, les voitures de tous les automobilistes qui ont conduit sous l’influence de l’alcool devraient etre equipees avec des alcomats qui permettraient de conduire seulement si le conducteur n’est pas ivre (moins que 0,2% d’alcool dans le sang).

c) augmenter, de maniere significative, le nombre des patrouilles equipes avec des alcomats et les emplacer premierement proche des bars, clubs, pubs, discotheques, et restaurants – les endroits ou l’alcool est vendu (et bu) dans les plus grandes quantites. Il faut particulierement controler les conducteurs la nuit du 1er janvier et le vendredi, samedi et dimanche.

d) refuser d’ouvrir une “sale de shoot” a Paris;

e) elever l’age quand on peut legalement boire l’alcool de 18 a 21 ans, comme aux Etats-Unis.

3) Il faut punir les pietons de croisement de la route sous le feu rouge ou dans un endroit ou le croisement est interdit. Maintenant, rarement sont ils punis de cela, mais ils provoquent des accidents aussi souvent que les automobilistes.

4) Il faut decourager l’usage des routes secondaires et encourager l’usage des autoroutes et des routes express – par exemple, en geleant ou meme reduisant les peages.

5) Il faut aussi lutter strictement contre ceux qui refusent de ceder le passage quand ils sont obliges par la loi de le faire – c’est la cause de 13% des accidents. Il faut augmenter les peines pour telles infractions.

6) Il faut generalement decourager l’usage de l’automobile en faveur des transports en commun.

7) Il faut exiger que tous les voitures qui ont 4 ou plus d’ans soient controlees chaque annee, et les voitures de 2 ans tous les 2 ans. Il faut aussi exiger que tous les voitures soient equipees avec un ABS et deux airbags (une pour le conducteur, et l’autre pour le passager a l’avant du vehicule).

8) Sur les routes secondaires, il faut designer de loin plus de zones ou le depassement serait interdit.

9) Il faut une politique zero vers ces conducteurs qui utilisent ses telephones mobiles en roulant, mais aussi designer plus des places de stationnement (parking) pour eux pour qu’ils puissent stationner et conduire ses entretiens par telephone mobile.

10) Et enfin, il faut supprimer les limitations de la vitesse et les radars sur les autoroutes et deployer les moyens de la police et la GN sur les routes secondaires et en agglomeration – les endroits ou se passent plus de 60% de tous les accidents sur tout le reseau routier francais.

Posted in Road safety, Transport | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Why the Nuclear Triad MUST be preserved and the New START treaty scrapped

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on March 18, 2014


106753

The US nuclear deterrent, and in particular, the nuclear triad, are under constant attack from the pro-unilateral-disarmament Left, whose goal, of course, is to unilaterally disarm the US and expose it to attack.

The latest round of this attack was conducted recently in the Diplomat e-zin by James R. Holmes, the Diplomat‘s resident wannabe defense expert, calling himself “the Naval Diplomat” (in reality, a defense issues ignoramus). Mr Holmes questions the nuclear triad’s rationale for being because, he says, the US nuclear arsenal will continue to shrink under treaties such as New START. He also falsely claims that China’s nuclear arsenal is small and so there is no need for a US nuclear triad.

Meanwhile, Obama’s top arms control negotiator, Rose Goettemoeller, a longtime advocate of disarming America unilaterally and completely (“We are not modernizing. That is one of the key principles of our policy.”) and Vice President Joe Biden are lobbying for a unilateral cut of the US nuclear deterrent to just 300 warheads – far less than even what China has. Obama is sympathetic to those views.

But they – and others who seek to dismantle the nuclear triad – are dead wrong. Here’s why.

Firstly, Russia still has a huge nuclear arsenal, and contrary to Holmes’ lies, that arsenal is GROWING, not shrinking, even under New START, signed in Prague in 2010 by Barack Obama. That treasonous treaty allows Russia to GROW its deployed strategic nuclear arsenal – and Moscow has done so and continues to do so.

Moscow has 2,800 strategic nuclear warheads (according to the Federation of American Scientists), of which 1,500 are deployed and 50 further will be soon, and around 4,000 tactical nuclear warheads (many of which can be delivered against the US).

To deliver them, Russia has over 410 ICBMs, 13 ballistic missile submarines, 251 strategic bombers (Tu-95, Tu-22M, Tu-160), and around 20 attack submarines capable of carrying nuclear cruise missiles anywhere in the world. To deliver its tactical warheads, Russia has those attack submarines plus short-range ballistic missiles, attack aircraft, surface warships, artillery pieces, and IRBMs such as the Yars-M, the Iskander-M, and the R-500.

Russia’s ICBM fleet alone can deliver at least 1,684 warheads to the Continental US; Russia’s ballistic missile submarine fleet, at least 1,400 (which will grow to 2,000 when new Russian missiles enter service); Russia’s bomber fleet, over 1,700. Russia’s tactical delivery systems can deliver additional thousands of nuclear weapons.

Moscow is rapidly modernizing its nuclear arsenal, introducing at least three new classes of ICBMs (the Yars, the Rubezh, and the Sarmat), a pseudo-ICBM with a 6,000 km range, a new class of ballistic missile subs (the Borei class), new short- and intermediate-range missiles (Yars-M, Iskander-M, R-500), a new submarine- and air-launched cruise missile (the Kh-101/102 Koliber) a new theater nuclear strike jet (Su-34), and is developing a next-generation intercontinental bomber (PAK DA, i.e. the Prospective Aircraft Complex of Long Range Aviation).

On top of that, Russia has up to 4,000 “tactical” nuclear warheads, many of which can be delivered to the US by cruise missiles carried by the 20 submarines of the Akula and Oscar-II classes (12 Akulas, 8 Oscars). In fact, a few years ago, one Akula class submarine, probably armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, sneaked close to the US East Coast!

To scrap the nuclear triad in the face of this huge, and growing, nuclear thread would be worse than foolish; it would be utterly suicidal.

As for China, it has at least 1,600, and up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, according to former Russian missile force chief Gen. Viktor Yesin and Georgetown Professor Philip Karber (who was the DOD’s chief nuclear strategist under President Reagan).

To deliver them, Beijing wields 75-87 ICBMs (and is adding more every year), 120-160 strategic bombers, 6 ballistic missile subs, over 120 MRBMs, over 1,200 SRBMs, and 280 tactical strike aircraft. On top of that, it has hundreds, if not thousands, of nuclear-capable cruise missiles (ground-, air-, and sea-launched), such as the CJ-10, the CJ-20, and the DH-10. Note that China, like Russia, is adding more nuclear weapons and delivery systems (and more modern ones) every year.

Moscow and Beijing not only have large nuclear arsenals, they’re quite willing to use them. In fact, in the last 7 years, Russia has threatened to aim or use nuclear weapons against the US or its allies on 15 separate occassions, and in the last 2 years has flown nuclear-armed bombers into or close to US and allied airspace. In May 2012, when its bombers overtly practiced a nuclear strike on Alaska, the Russian Air Force said to the press it was “practicing attacking the enemy.”

Not only that, but in its military doctrine Russia openly claims a right to use nuclear weapons first – even if the opponent does not have any nuclear weapons! And it says it will never give up its nuclear arsenal because it considers it “sacred.”

Moreover, the US now has to deter not only Russia and China, but North Korea and Iran as well. North Korea already has ICBMs capable of reaching the US and miniaturized warheads fittable onto such missiles, and Iran is projected by the US intelligence community to have such missiles by 2015.

On top of that, the US has to provide a credible nuclear deterrent not only to itself, but to over 30 allies around the world: all NATO members, Israel, Gulf countries, and Pacific allies such as the Philippines, Japan, and South Korea. These allies are watching the state of the US nuclear arsenal closely and will develop their own if the US cuts its umbrella further. Thus making the problem of proliferation – which the CNS and Ploughshares falsely pretend to be concerned about – that much worse.

Already, 66% of South Koreans want their country to obtain its own nuclear arsenal, and Saudi Arabia, fearing Iran, has ordered nuclear weapons in Pakistan and DF-21 ballistic missiles in China – both of which are quite happy to oblige, because Saudi Arabia pays in hard cash.

The truth is that the need for a large nuclear deterrent, and the nuclear triad, has never been greater. America needs them now more than ever. In this 21st century threat environment marked by three (soon to be four) hostile nuclear powers, two of them with large nuclear arsenals, it would be utterly suicidal and foolish to cut the US nuclear arsenal further, let alone deeply so.

And it is absolutely NOT true that the US nuclear arsenal will inevitably continue to shrink. It will be cut further only if Congress allows Obama and his successor (who will likely be Hillary Clinton) to continue disarming the US unilaterally. Congress has many means at its disposal to stop the White House from disarming the US and thus stop any further cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent, as it should.

Disarmament is a choice (and a foolish and suicidal one at that). There is nothing inevitable about it. Republicans can stop it – and House Republicans work every day of every year on Capitol Hill to indeed stop it.

Last but not least, if a nuclear triad is such a redundant and obsolete arrangement, why do the Russians, the Chinese, and the Israelis continue to maintain, modernize, and even expand their nuclear triads, with new aircraft, missiles, and submarines?

Quick! Someone better tell the Russians, the Chinese, and the Israelis that they’re wasting their money on an obsolete arrangement!

The truth is that a nuclear triad is BY FAR the most survivable, most effective, most powerful, most deterring, and most cost-effective arrangement in nuclear deterrence. Nothing else will ever provide the same degree of security at the same or lower cost. Nothing else will ever suffice to replace it – not a dyad, not a monad, not missile defense, not conventional weapons.

James R. Holmes is dead wrong, as usual. The nuclear triad and a large nuclear arsenal are STILL needed, and will be needed for many, many decades to come.

And as for the New START treaty – in light of the fact that it requires nuclear arsenal cuts only of the US, its onerous restrictions on US missile defense development, its pathetically weak verification regime, the fact that Russia is an aggressor who has illegally invaded and occupies two sovereign countries, and the fact that Russia has violated EVERY arms reduction treaty it has ever signed - the US should IMMEDIATELY withdraw from that pathetic treaty, as well as all other arms reduction treaties. IMMEDIATELY. Not tomorrow, but today.

Additionally, the US should:

  1. Impose harsh sanctions on Russia if it continues to violate the INF treaty (as it likely will);
  2. Withdraw from the CFE Treaty and encourage US allies to do the same;
  3. Refuse to ever ratify the CTBT;
  4. Assist Ukraine in developing its own nuclear weapons, or at least take Ukraine under the protection of the US nuclear umbrella.

Posted in Nuclear deterrence, Obama administration follies, Threat environment | Leave a Comment »

Que faire pour ameliorer la qualite de l’air a Paris et desengorger cette ville

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on March 17, 2014


Comme tous le Parisiens le deja savent, a partir du lundi le 17 mars la circulation a Paris et dans la petite couronne sera restrictee (limitee): les voitures avec les numeros d’immatriculation impairs pourront rouler seulement les jours impairs, et celles avec les numeros pairs pourron rouler seulement les jours pairs. Une limitation qui est inapplicable, inenforcable, et simplement stupide, comme l’a deja justement dit l’association 40 millions d’automobilistes.

Pourquoi? Parce que la qualite de l’air dans la region parisienne est si mauvaise que le gouvernement Ayrault doit desesperement essayer ces astuces.

Et pourquoi doit-il le faire? Parce que pendant les 13 annees dernieres, la qualite de l’air a Paris a systematiquement degrengole a point ou Paris a un air pire et plus pollue que les grandes metropoles chinoises. Cette desastre ecologique est le bilan de, et la facture pour, les 13 annees du Parti Socialiste, avec Bertrand Delanoe et sa 1ere adjointe Anne Hidalgo, au pouvoir. C’est aussi ce auquel les Parisiens peuvent s’attendre si Mme Hidalgo gagne l’election municipale prochaine.

Je le repete: cette disastre ecologique que les Parisiens vivent maintenant, c’est le bilan de et la facture pour les 13 annees du M. Delanoe et de Mme Hidalgo au pouvoir.

Selon Airparif, le nombre des jours par an ou la qualite de l’air a Paris est mauvaise s’est dedouble de 53 jours par an en 2001 a 117 jours par an en 2013.

Elire Mme Hidalgo, ce serait continuer la meme politique desastreuse qui a conduit a la crise presente.

Alors, que faut-il faire?

D’abord, il faut elire Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet comme maire de Paris. NKM a bcp de bonnes idees pour ameliorer la qualite de l’air a Paris, notamment eradiquer systematiquement le diesel de la flotte municipale de Paris et celle de la RATP, interdire Paris aux poids-lourds et cars polluants, creer une ceinture verte (cyclable) autour de Paris, creer des Zones d’Action Prioritaires pour la qualite de l’air (ZAPA), et promuvoir les vehicules electriques et hybrides dans la ville (plus des stations de rechargement), etc.

NKM veut aussi doubler le nombre des places de stationnement, ce que Anne Hidalgo critique fortement. Mais Mme Hidalgo, en tant qu’adversaire fanatique et ideologique de la voiture, ne comprend pas que 30% de la circulation a Paris est due aux conducteurs qui simplement cherchent (en vain) des places de stationnement a Paris.

NKM veut donc les donner ces places afin qu’ils laissent ses voitures la-bas et prennent les transports en commun. C’est une idee excellente.

NKM veut aussi ameliorer les transports en commun de Paris, notamment en automatisant la ligne 13 (la plus saturee) du metro, prolongeant la ligne 3 du Tramway a la Porte Maillot, et faisant les deplacements gratuits aux jeunes entre 18 et 22 ans.

Enfin, NKM veut couvrir tout le peripherique, ou se concentre 25% de la circulation a tout Paris, et elever la vitesse maximale sur ce boulevard a 80 km/h, ou les voitures roulent en 5eme, avec des tours du moteur faibles (env. 1000 ou moins tours/minute). Ce qui aussi n’epuise pas trop les moteurs.

Mais pour ameliorer la qualite de l’air a Paris, il faut aller meme plus loin que le propose NKM. Il faut:

1) Designer tous les rues, avenues, et boulevards sortants de Paris, les boulevards des Marechaux, le Bd Saint-Michel, l’Avenue de Wagram, et au moins une voie dans chaque sens sur le peripherique et les autoroutes sortantes de Paris, comme voies reservees aux vehicules portants au moins 2 personnes (sauf les vehicules electriques).

2) Elever la limitation de la vitesse aux avenues Foch et de la Grande Armee, sur les Boulevards des Marechaux, et sur les quais de la Seine, a 80 km/h.

3) Faire plus a ameliorer les transports en commun a Paris, notamment en:

a) installant des escaliers mecaniques a plus de stations;

b) assurant que, en 2020, tous les trains du metro, et tous les stations du metro et du RER a Paris, soient climatise(e)s;

c) ameliorant la securite aux stations et trains du metro;

d) assurant que la ligne J du Transilien, tres saturee, sera desserviee plus souvent et seulement par des Voitures de Banlieue a 2 Niveaux (VB 2N);

e) ameliorant les autres connexions ferrovriaires de Paris avec les banlieues et les villes d’Ile de France plus distantes (comme p.e. Evry-sur-Seine), afin que partout en Ile-de-France il y ait une alternative a la voiture;

f) accelerant la construction de Paris Grand Express.

4) Instituant une congestion charge (exactement comme a Londres), c’est-a-dire un peage pour l’entree en voiture dans le centre-ville. Cela devrait financer SEULEMENT les transports, et d’abord les transports en commun (mais aussi la couverture du peripherique), a Paris. Pas les fonctionnaires, pas l’ASP, pas le “fonctionnement de la ville”, seulement les transports. Cela pourrait meme permettre une baisse des prix des billets de transports en commun!

5) Geler, si non reduire, les prix des billets des transports en commun jusqu’au 2020.

Posted in Ideologies, Transport | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Reset Has Always Been A Total Failure

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on March 15, 2014


Vladimir Putin,Hillary Rodham Clinton

As CDN reported earlier, the Democrats are already rushing to defend Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s utterly failed foreign policy record, including the shameful, disastrous “reset” (read: appeasement) policy towards Russia. Some former Clinton State Department officials, such as P. J. Crowley, defend it on the spurious grounds that “the reset worked when Dmitry Medvedev was President” (i.e. from 2008 to 2012).

But they are dead wrong. The Obama-Clinton “reset” policy NEVER worked, even when Dmitry Medvedev (who was just a puppet of Vladimir Putin’s) was President.

That’s because Putin, throughout the whole time, was the man really in power, while Medvedev was never anything more than a figurehead. In that respect, Russia was, in those years, similar to the China of the 1980s: Deng Xiaoping was really in power, content with “only” the post of Chairman of the CMC, while other politicians held the posts of President, Premier, and CPC General Secretary. But – as with Putin – Deng was really “the power behind the throne.”

Only a fool could have ever thought that Putin had relinquished power for four entire years to Medvedev, and that Medvedev was ever anything more than a figurehead.

So let us recount how the Obama-Clinton “reset” policy has always been an utter failure THROUGHOUT the entire Medvedev years:

1) The New START treaty: Celebrated by the Obama administration and the entire Left as the crowning achievement of the “reset”, it is actually its most disastrous and shameful failure. This treasonous treaty requires the US to cut its deployed nuclear arsenal by an entire third, from the 2,200 warheads allowed by the 2002 Moscow Treaty to just 1,550 warheads, while Russia is allowed to (and has taken many steps to) increase its own arsenal. Today, Russia has 2,800 strategic nuclear warheads, of which 1,500 are deployed and another 50 will be deployed. Russia also wields a huge arsenal of delivery systems: 434 ICBMs, 13 ballistic missile submarines, and 251 strategic bombers (171 of which are not even counted under New START treaty rules).

2) Iran: Russia has agreed only to minimal, symbolic sanctions against Tehran, and has fiercely opposed, and repeatedly vetoed, anything more than the weakest sanctions against Iran. It has also completed the construction of Iran’s first nuclear reactor, is now building the second, and has continued supplying tons of nuclear fuel to Iran. It has also pledged to deliver state-of-the-art S-300 air defense systems to Iran (and Syria). Contrary to the popular myth, Russia has NOT cancelled the delivery of those systems.

3) Syria: When a popular uprising broke out against Syrian dictator (and Hezbollah supporter) Bashar al-Assad, an ally of Iran, he immediately began to attempt to quell this uprising by brute force. And Russia has continually supported him with weapons and diplomatic protection from the start. Even during the supposedly halcyon Medvedev years, it vetoed draft UNSC resolutions aimed at punishing Assad.

4) America’s European allies: Throughout the entire Medvedev years, Russia continued to threaten America’s European allies with nuclear weapons and missiles, especially those who have agreed to host elements of America’s missile defense system – in response to which Russia continued, and continues, to threaten nuclear mayhem and withdrawal from the (useless) New START treaty.

5) The INF Treaty: It was during the supposedly halcyon Medvedev years that Russia began developing and fielding intermediate range missiles (such as the R-500, the Iskander-M, and intermediate range “air defense” missiles) that violate the INF treaty. The Clinton State Department did NOTHING to counter this obvious violation.

6) Missile Defense: Despite cancelling President Bush’s plan to build missile defense installations (intended to protect the US, not Europe) in Poland and the Czech Republic, Obama and Hillary got NOTHING in return from the Kremlin. NOTHING. No concession whatsoever.

7) Bombers Flying Into US Airspace: As early as April and May 2012, when Medvedev was still in office, the Russians began flying nuclear-armed bombers close to and sometimes into US airspace – and said they were “practicing attacking the enemy.” They have also repeatedly flown nuclear-armed bombers into Japanese and Swedish airspace.

So for the entire Medvedev period, and beyond, the Obama-Clinton “reset” (read: appeasement) policy has been an utter, disastrous failure. America has not benefitted AT ALL from this idiotic policy. It has not produced ANY benefits to the US whatsoever.

Therefore, the reset’s defenders are dead wrong: the reset was ALWAYS a failure, even during the Medvedev years. Which is not surprising given that, as stated earlier, Vladimir Putin was always in power before, during, and after the Medvedev years, and still is.

For another superb article on the utter failure of the Obama-Clinton reset policy, see Charles Krauthammer’s excellent column.

Posted in Ideologies, Media lies, Nuclear deterrence, Obama administration follies | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 401 other followers