Zbigniew Mazurak's Blog

A blog dedicated to defense issues

Archive for the ‘World affairs’ Category

Hans Kristensen, Jeffrey Lewis, and others proven dead wrong yet again

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on August 21, 2014


Once again, liberal pro-unilateral-disarmament bloggers such as Hans M. Kristensen at FAS and Jeffrey Lewis of “ArmsControlWonk.com” have been proven dead wrong, as usual.

For years, these liberal pro-unilateral-disarmament activists have been falsely claiming that China’s nuclear arsenal is tiny at just 240-250 warheads; that China is not conducting any large-scale nuclear buildup; that Beijing has not equipped its missiles with multiple nuclear warheads; that the JL-2 missile cannot reach the CONUS unless the submarines carrying it are positioned in the Western Hemisphere, etc.

For over 2 years, this writer and others have been debunking the lies of these liberal anti-nuclear activists, but they nonetheless kept peddling their lies even though they probably know that they’re lying.

But now even more solid evidence has arrived: an admission from the Chinese that they’re greatly building up their nuclear arsenal. A leaked internal document of the Chinese Second Artillery Corps (China’s ground-based missile force) reveals Beijing’s plan (which is already in execution) to conduct a huge buildup of its nuclear arsenal beyond the existing force levels, including deploying multiple warheads on ballistic missiles.

The Washington Times’ Bill Gertz reports in the latest Inside the Ring column (emphasis mine):

“An internal People’s Liberation Army document has revealed plans to greatly expand the PLA’s nuclear arsenal.

“We must accelerate the process of upgrading our nuclear ICBMs, continuously perfecting our nuclear armaments structure; strengthening strategic early warning mechanisms against enemy ballistic missiles; step up the production of new generation nuclear missiles to appropriately increase the number of our nuclear warheads so that the combat effectiveness of our nuclear missile arsenal will have a qualitative leap forward,” according to a translated portion of the document obtained by Inside the Ring.

The document was produced within the past year as part of a strategy lecture for the Second Artillery Corps, the PLA’s nuclear and conventional missile forces. It provides further evidence that China is building up its nuclear forces in secret, raising new concerns about its nuclear intentions.

“Only when we solidify and enhance our trustworthy and reliable nuclear deterrence and nuclear counter-strike capabilities can we effectively contain strategic threats, buttress our status as a big power, make contribution to stopping hegemonism, safeguarding world peace,” states the document, as first reported by Kyodo News on Aug. 4.”

But it isn’t just this leaked internal document or credible studies by analysts such as General Viktor Yesin who have documented China’s MIRVing of its ICBMs (i.e. deploying multiple warheads on them); it’s also simple logic.

China has been developing MIRV (multiple independently-targetable reentry vehicle) “buses” for warheads since at least the 1980s, and has already deployed three ICBM types (DF-5, DF-31/31A, DF-41) that can carry multiple warheads. In fact, the DF-41 can carry ten warheads, and so can, in all likelihood, the DF-5 heavy ICBM, while the DF-31 can carry three.

The Chinese navy’s JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile can carry at least 4 warheads; newer variants can carry up to 12.

Why on Earth would China spend a lot of treasure developing, testing, and procuring multiple-warhead-capable missiles if it didn’t intend to deploy multiple warheads on them? That would make no sense. You do so only if you do intend to deploy multiple warheads on your ICBMs and SLBMs – and that’s what China has done.

Two other myths long peddled by Kristensen and Lewis now also bite the dust: that Chinese ballistic missile submarines have never went on patrol, and that their JL-2 missiles have a range of only 7,200-7,400 kms.

These myths now also bite the dust. As the WantChinaTimes newspaper reports:

“The PLA Navy’s nuclear-powered Type 094 submarine was spotted patrolling with the missile, which has a range of around 8,000 km and can carry multiple warheads, at the beginning of this year.”

WantChinaTimes has included this caveat in its article:

“The missile’s range still falls short of China’s ideal target range however since the Type 094 submarines need a missile with a range over 12,000 km to strike North America from South China Sea.”

However, the JL-2’s newer variants, the Jia and the Yi, have a range of 12,000 to 14,000 kms and are thus capable of what WCT speaks of.

Even the basic JL-2 variant, with a range of just 8,000 kms, is capable of destroying San Francisco if the submarine carrying it is positioned just slightly east of the 140E meridian, just slightly east of Japan; and it can destroy Seattle if the launcher is positioned in Japanese territorial waters or the Tsugaru Strait.

Besides, when operating a ballistic missile submarine, it wouldn’t be advantageous to position it too far away from the target. On the contrary, the most clever way to operate it would be to position it close to enemy shores. That way, any missiles fired by the submarine would reach their targets within minutes, leaving the opponent with little or no time to respond.

If a Chinese (or Russian) ballistic missile sub were positioned near the US West Coast, its missiles could reach any target within the Continental US within 15 minutes or less, giving the US no time to respond.

Thus, Kristensen’s and Lewis’s lies have once again been debunked.

Posted in Nuclear deterrence, Threat environment, World affairs | Leave a Comment »

Un agenda franco-chinois

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on August 9, 2014


L’économie francaise reste stagnante, il y a plus de 3 millions de chomeurs en France, et dans la conqueté des marchés émergents du monde – la Chine, la Russie, l’Iran, le Bresil, le Vietnam, l’Inde – la France reste derrière l’Allemagne et souvent aussi le Royaume-Uni.

Comment redresser cela?

Il faut commencer avec le plus grand marché émergent au monde: celui de Chine, avec 1,3 milliard de consommateurs.

Selon fr.news.yahoo.com:

“Les exportations françaises en Chine se sont élevées à 14,7 milliards d’euros l’an dernier et les importations depuis la Chine à 40,5 milliards, soit un déficit commercial de 25,8 milliards, après 26,1 milliards en 2012 et 27 milliards en 2011.”

En mars dernier, le président de la République François Hollande a signé des contrats avec le président chinois Xi Jinping qui valent 18 Mds d’Euros, mais c’est toujours trop peu. Ce n’est pas assez. Il y a toujours un déficit commercial de 25,8 milliards par an (2013), comme l’illustre l’infographie suivante publiée par La Chaîne Info/TF1 en 2014 à l’occassion de la visite de Xi Jinping en France.

francechinecommerce

Il faut faire beaucoup plus afin que la France puisse conquêter le vaste marché chinois. En le faisant, la France peut construire plus qu’une forte position dans ce marché – elle peut construire un fort partenariat geopolitique avec la Chine. Specifiquement:

  • La France devrait reconnaitre publiquement les Iles Diaoyu/Senkaku, Spratly, et Paracelsus comme territoire chinois et partie integrale de la Chine, soutenir diplomatiquement (notamment en Conseil de Sécurité de l’ONU) les efforts de la Chine de s’en emparer, interdir le Dalai Lama de venir en France, soutenir la Chine contre les manifestants hongkongais, offrir des visas Schengen valables pour 10 ans aux citoyens chinois, et ordonner aux avions civils français d’obeir au contrôle aérien chinois dans la zone d’identification aérienne chinoise autour des Iles Diaoyu, si la Chine ouvre son marché, sans limitations et sans aucun tarif, à TOUS les produits français dans TOUS les secteurs de l’économie, si les compagnies aériennes chinoises achètent EXCLUSIVEMENT d’avions d’Airbus, si la Chine achète EXCLUSIVEMENT des reacteurs nucléaires d’Areva (et pas d’autres) et EXCLUSIVEMENT des avions Airbus, si elle permettra aux investisseurs étrangers d’acheter des participations dans des aéroports chinois, et si les elites chinoises achètent des voitures françaises et pas d’autres. Il faut que la Chine ouvre son marché à TOUS les produits francais, pas seulement le porc et le vin. (http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=11&id=20150309000110)
  • La France devrait vendre à la Chine la mine d’uran à Fanay pour exploitation, et de la terre cultivable actuellement non utilisée pour la cultivation du vin aux vignards et milliardaires chinois.
  • La France devrait commencer l’exploitation de ses réserves de manganium sous-maritimes (sous la mer) autour de Tahiti et de la Reunion et exporter le manganium à la Chine (mais aussi aux autres marchés émergents, comme l’Inde et la Corée du Sud).
  • L’Etat français devrait negocier la vente de ses actifs en PSA Peugeot Citroen et Renault au constructeur chinois Dongfeng pour le prix le plus haut possible, et la vente de ses nombreux châteaux et hôteaux particuliers aux millionnaires chinois.
  • La Chine devrait créer beaucoup plus des Zones Economiques Franco-Chinoises partout en France, surtout en régions les plus touchées par le chômage (la Languedoc-Roussillon, la région PACA, le Nord-Pas-de-Calais, la Picardie, la Champagne-Ardennes, les départements de Seine-Saint-Denis et du Val de Marne etc.).
  • La France devrait augmenter, de manière significative, sa production agroalimentaire, afin d’exporter plus de nourriture au marché chinois.
  • La France devrait faire signer un accord de voyage sans visa à l’Union Europeenne et la Chine.
  • La France devrait augmenter le tempo de l’exploitation des ressources de nickel à la Nouvelle Caledonie si les marchés émergents en ont besoin.
  • Quand le budget français est met en equilibre, la France devrait vendre toutes ses ressources minérales sous-maritimes à la Chine afin de se désendetter.
  • Il faut créer un agence qui fera une promotion constante des produits francais dans le monde, particulierement en Chine. Il faut notamment promouvoir les voitures, boissons alcooliques, et les autres produits de luxe francais.
  • Garantir que les touristes chinois pourront recevoir une visa francaise en 24 heures, afin d’attirer plus de touristes chinois en France et afin qu’ils achete plus en France. (http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/services/transport-logistique/20130830trib000782407/le-voyageur-chinois-nouvelle-vache-a-lait-d-aeroports-de-paris.html)
  • Coopérer avec la Chine et les autres pays du groupe BRICS dans le sens de dédollarisation du monde; cesser d’utiliser le dollar dans les transactions internationales, sauf celles conduités avec les USA eux-mêmes.
  • Acceder à l’accord d’échange libre proposé par la Chine.

Il faut aussi coopérer avec la Chine dans le domaine militaire et spatiale. Notamment, il faut:

  • Signer avec la Chine un accord de non-espionage (no spy agreement) et de défense mutuelle en espace cyber.
  • Garantir mutuellement l’utilisation des constellations de satellites de navigation Galileo et Beidou par les forces de missiles des deux nations.
  • Signer avec la Chine un accord qui permettrait au CEA des achats d’uran de haut et de bas enrichement, et de pluton, à la Chine, si besoin.
  • Mettre en ouvre des exercises annuelles jointes des armées aériennes française et chinoise, notamment dans le domaine du combat aérien, afin que l’AdlA puisse pratiquer des maneuvres du combat aérien avec des pilotes chinois de J-7, J-10, J-11/15/16, Su-27/30, et J-31.
  • Signer un accord qui permettra à l’AdlA française d’utiliser le vaste espace aérien chinois pour l’entrainement de ses pilotes et pour des exercises.
  • Acheter des avions discrets J-20 ou J-31 à la Chine dans l’avenir, ou même mieux, les developper ensemble avec la Chine.
  • Proposer a la Chine de fournir des engins spatiaux Ariane pour la base lunaire planifiée par la Chine si Pekin donne a la France l’accès à cette base, une fois construite.

Posted in Economic affairs, World affairs | Leave a Comment »

Hillary Caught Lying About Her Totally Failed “Reset” Policy

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on July 25, 2014


Vladimir Putin,Hillary Rodham Clinton

In a recent interview with the CNN (Clinton News Network), former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once again lied to defend her totally failed, treasonous, immoral policy of “reset” with Russia that she implemented during her tenure from 2009 to 2013.

That policy of appeasement towards Moscow was a one-way street of unilateral American concessions for which the US got absolutely nothing in return. Moscow simply pocketed those concessions and gave nothing in return. This idiotic policy only emboldened Russia and led it (quite rightly) to believe that it could do anything it wanted to and not suffer any meaningful consequences.

This is what led to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, its illegal annexation of the Crimea, its creation of a fictional “separatist” movement in eastern Ukraine, and its spetsnaz troops’ shootdown of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17.

 

So let us recount how the Obama-Clinton “reset” policy has always been an utter failure and a disaster for US national interest:

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 ONLY 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). As Russia adds more missiles able to carry more warheads (e.g. RS-24 Yars missiles to replace single-warhead Topol missiles), its deliverable nuclear arsenal will only increase significantly.

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. To this day, the Obama Administration is doing nothing.

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 even into Swedish (neutral) airspace.

So for the entire Clinton 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.

Hillary falsely claims that the reset “worked” when Dmitry Medvedev was president, thus implying that during those 4 years (2008-2012), Vladimir Putin was somehow out of power.

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.

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.

On the opposite side of the political spectrum, we have the Republican Party, which has been critical of the “reset”, and of Russia, for some time (though not strongly enough, with the noble exception of Mitt Romney).

If that party wants to defeat Hillary Clinton, it will have to dispel the myth that the “reset” and the New START treaty were a “success”, and attack Clinton at her weakest point: her foreign policy, especially towards Russia. The “reset” has been exposed for what it is – a total, abysmal failure – and that failure should be mercilessly exploited by the GOP if it wants to have any chance of winning the White House.

The political environment for doing so is more favorable than ever; a vast majority of Americans hold a negative view of Russia and hold it responsible for the shootdown of Flight 17. 55% of Americans view Vladimir Putin very unfavorably. They demand tougher action, including stronger sanctions, against Moscow. They also demand that defense cuts be stopped – 62% of Americans believe that US defense spending is either “too low” or “sufficient”, as opposed to only 35% who believe it is “too high.”

The political environment for taking tough action against Russia is now more favorable than ever. And the “reset” has been such an abysmal failure that it’s a huge liability for Hillary. Therefore, Republicans need to exploit it mercilessly if they want to beat Hillary in 2016.

As Sun Tzu and other ancient Chinese strategists, including the author of the Thirty Six Stratagems, advised, one should always attack an opponent’s weaknesses – especially those that the opponent doesn’t think will be attacked – and not his strengths.

If Republicans want to defeat Hillary Clinton, they’ll have to publicly debunk her fiction of “the reset worked well”, name her as one of those responsible for the shootdown of the Malaysian airliner, and in general, attack her biggest weakness: foreign policy.

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

UPDATE: John McCormack weighs in.

Posted in Obama administration follies, Politicians, World affairs | Leave a Comment »

Refuting the myth of Reagan the Peacenik

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on July 16, 2014


ReaganPeaceQuote

Nota bene: This is the 1000th post on my blog, a remarkable milestone!

Ronald Reagan was such a successful President that, unsurprisingly, many people want to claim his legacy as their own. Many people, usually falsely, claim he would’ve supported their policy and ideology if he were alive today. Many falsely claim he implemented this or that policy instead of that one.

The Gipper was, depending on whom you ask, a neocon, a paleocon, an isolationist, an interventionist, a conservative, a liberal, a free-marketer, a welfare stater, a free trader, a protectionist, a warmonger, a peacenik, etc. The list goes on.

But if you read and listen to Reagan’s own words – rather than anyone else’s claims – and analyze’s Reagan’s real actions, a clear and correct image of Reagan prints itself.

Despite the Left’s, and a certain isolationist Senator’s, pathetic attempts to depict Reagan as a nuke-hating, pro-disarmament, war-weary pacifist, Ronald Reagan was very much a hawk, even though he was careful about when and where to intervene militarily in the first place.

But intervention was so rarely necessary BECAUSE Ronald Reagan had built up America’s military strength so much that America’s adversaries usually retreated in the face of that military might.

Rebutting Rand Paul’s Lies…

Writing recently in the leftist Politico magazine, Sen. Rand Paul claims that:

“This [foreign policy – ZM] is where many in my own party, similar to Perry, get it so wrong regarding Ronald Reagan’s doctrine of “peace through strength.” Strength does not always mean war. Reagan ended the Cold War without going to war with Russia. He achieved a relative peace with the Soviet Union—the greatest existential threat to the United States in our history—through strong diplomacy and moral leadership.

Reagan had no easy options either. But he did the best he could with the hand he was dealt. Some of Reagan’s Republican champions today praise his rhetoric but forget his actions. Reagan was stern, but he wasn’t stupid. Reagan hated war, particularly the specter of nuclear war. Unlike his more hawkish critics—and there were many—Reagan was always thoughtful and cautious.”

Paul is attacking a straw man here, as well as conveniently omitting an important fact. The straw man attack is “Strength does not always mean war.” Nobody in the Republican Party wants war, Senator, or thinks that “strength” means war. In fact, it is the Democrats, not Republicans, who are most likely to involve America in wars and interventions around the world, usually for reasons unrelated to US national interests.

Need I remind you, Senators, that it was the Democrats who involved the US in two huge wars in Korea in Vietnam which they were not willing to win nor to end? Wars which Republican Presidents extricated the US out of?

Or that, more recently, Presidents Clinton and Obama involved the US in pointless humanitarian crusades in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Libya, and Obama wanted to do that in Syria as well?

Yes, Ronald Reagan was much more cautious than Democratic Presidents about intervening militarily abroad. But when such invasions WERE necessary, he did not shy away from them. He intervened to stop Communism’s spread in the Carribean. He sent US troops to Lebanon. (He made a huge error by withdrawing from there after the Beirut bombing of 1983; America’s retreat from there emboldened Islamic terrorists in the region.) And most importantly, he conducted powerful strikes against Qaddafi’s regime in Libya in 1986, despite the Left all around the world (including your own father) condemning him for it, and despite no US ally, excluding the UK, supporting him.

No, Ronald Reagan did not hate (nor love) war. When intervention was required, he did not shy away from it.

But most of the time, he didn’t need to launch military interventions, because despite the resistance from the Democrats and from your own father, Senator, he build the strongest military in world history (of which today’s US military is just a shadow). By the late 1980s, America’s military might was such that no adversary dared to challenge the US head-first.

In parallel, Reagan supported anti-Communist movements and insurgencies (“proxies”) all around the world, including Latin America and Afghanistan.

You, Senator, are conveniently ignoring the “strength” component of peace through strength. Peace was possible ONLY because of US strength. Without that strength, there would’ve been no peace. There would’ve been war.

Weakness invites war. Strength guarantees peace.

But that lesson is totally lost on you, Senator. You have advocated, and continue to advocate, deep, crippling cuts in America’s defenses – including and beyond sequestration (a monstrous mechanism which, if not repealed, will cut $550 bn from the defense budget over the next decade).

Yet, you advocate even deeper cuts – and the withdrawal of US troops from abroad. This in spite of the fact that foreign bases – of which the US has far fewer than your kooky father claims – are necessary for power projection over long distances and help deter adversaries and reassure allies.

You are a faux-Reaganite, Senator, despite your desperate and pathetic attempts to cast yourself as Gipper’s acolyte. Your policy is not Peace Through Strength. Your policy is Hoping For Peace by Unilateral Disarmament and Withdrawal From The World.

It is no coincidence you are completely isolated in the GOP on foreign policy. That’s what advocating isolationism leads to.

If you’re advocating such foolish policies in the vain hope that doing so will win you votes and perhaps the White House, stop dreaming. Despite what the leftist media and pseudo-pollsters tell you, there is no popular demand for isolationist and anti-defense policies today, in stark contrast to the 1930s and the 1970s, and nobody in the GOP except Congressmen Amash, Duncan (TN), Massie, and Labrador shares your views.

You should run for the Democratic nomination instead. In that party, a man with your views would be warmly welcomed.

… And Peter Beinart’s

Your Politico piece contains a link to an utterly ridiculous garbage screed from 4 years ago by Peter Beinart, wherein the author falsely claims that Ronald Reagan abandoned his hawkish policies in late 1983 and thereafter pursued a conciliatory, dovish policy towards the Soviet Union until the end of his administration. Beinart explicitly calls Reagan’s post-1984 policies “dovish.”

But this is completely false – like the rest of Beinart’s claims. As Professor Robert G. Kaufman nicely sums up:

When circumstances changed during Reagan’s second term, he adjusted his policies—but not the premises underlying them. He responded positively to the changes in the Soviet regime during Gorbachev’s tenure. Ultimately, Gorbachev and the Soviet Union agreed to end the Cold War not on their terms, but on Ronald Reagan’s.

American pressure on the Soviet Union did not abate at any point during the Reagan presidency, despite his view that engaging Gorbachev could facilitate the implosion of the regime. Reagan refused to abandon SDI or the Zero Option calling for the elimination of all intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Europe; Gorbachev capitulated. American defense spending continued to rise, peaking at $302 billion in 1988 (6.6 percent of GDP). The Reagan Administration continued to aid freedom fighters, draining Soviet resources in Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America.

Nor did Reagan relent in his assault on the moral legitimacy of the Soviet Regime. In June 1987, over the objection of his so-called more realistic advisers, he called on Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, excoriating it as the symbol of Soviet totalitarianism

Reagan’s understanding of himself also demolishes the revisionist interpretation of his motives and policies. Summing up his foreign policy legacy to students at the University of Virginia on December 16, 1988, he welcomed the improvement in Soviet–American relations but urged Americans to “keep our heads down” and “keep our skepticism” because “fundamental differences remain.” He attributed that improvement to his policy of firmness, not conciliation:

Plain talk, strong defenses, vibrant allies, and readiness to use American power when American power was needed helped prompt the reappraisal that the Soviet leaders have taken in their previous policies. Even more, Western resolve demonstrated that the hard line advocated by some within the Soviet Union would be fruitless, just as our economic success has set a shining example.

Reagan contrasted his policies with the more conciliatory policies of his predecessors during the 1970s:

We need to recall that in the years of détente we tended to forget the greatest weapon that democracies have in their struggle is public candor: the truth. We must never do this again. It is not an act of belligerence to speak of the fundamental differences between totalitarianism and democracy; it is a moral imperative…. Throughout history, we see evidence that adversaries negotiate seriously with democratic nations when they know democracies harbor no illusions about their adversaries.

Those are Reagan’s own words – not mine, and not Professor Kaufman’s.

It was in 1987, not 1981, that Ronald Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate and loudly challenged Gorbachev to “open this gate” and “tear down this wall.” And at the very end of his Presidency, in December 1988, he STILL urged Americans “keep our heads down” and “keep our skepticism” because “fundamental differences remain.”

Nor did Ronald Reagan abate in his defense buildup and pursuit of military pressure on the Soviet Union. In his 1986 speech on defense issues, he warned that:

tonight the security program that you and I launched to restore America’s strength is in jeopardy, threatened by those who would quit before the job is done. Any slackening now would invite the very dangers America must avoid and could fatally compromise our negotiating position. Our adversaries, the Soviets — we know from painful experience — respect only nations that negotiate from a position of strength. American power is the indispensable element of a peaceful world; it is America’s last, best hope of negotiating real reductions in nuclear arms. Just as we are sitting down at the bargaining table with the Soviet Union, let’s not throw America’s trump card away.

 

Our Armed Forces may be smaller in size than in the 1950’s, but they’re some of the finest young people this country has ever produced. And as long as I’m President, they’ll get the quality equipment they need to carry out their mission.

 

We set out to narrow the growing gaps in our strategic deterrent, and we’re beginning to do that. Our modernization program — the MX, the Trident submarine, the B-1 and stealth bombers — represents the first significant improvement in America’s strategic deterrent in 20 years. Those who speak so often about the so-called arms race ignore a central fact: In the decade before 1981, the Soviets were the only ones racing.”

Beinart also falsely claims that in 1983, Reagan suddenly had a change of heart about defense issues, military might, and nuclear weapons in particular, and began pursuing dovish defense policies and overruling the supposed “hawks” in his administration.

These are also blatant lies – just like everything else Beinart (a far-left propagandist) writes.

Reagan’s defense buildup NEVER abated at ANY point during Reagan’s presidency.

Throughout his presidency, the American defense buildup continued, peaking, as Professor Kaufman, noted, at $302 bn and 6.6% of GDP in 1988. In the late 1980s, at Reagan’s insistence, dozens of new weapon types (including new strategic delivery systems) joined the US military’s inventory: MX Peacekeeper ICBMs, the B-1 bomber, the F-15E strike jet, W84, W87 and W88 nuclear warheads, and the AH-64 Apache helicopter to name just a few.

Not to mention the many weapon systems the Reagan Administration (or its predecessors) developed and began deploying earlier: the Ohio class of ballistic missile submarines, Los Angeles class attack submarines, PATRIOT missile defense systems, F-15 and F-16 fighters, Black Hawk helicopters, Ticonderoga class cruisers, Nimitz class carriers (two were ordered in June 1988, in the last year of the Reagan Admin), Trident ballistic missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles (nuclear- and conventionally-armed variants alike) M1 Abrams tanks, M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, F-117 Nighthawk stealth attack jets, and so forth. These weapon systems, unlike those in the paragraph above, had already begun entering service in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but it was only in the late 1980s when they joined the military’s inventory in really large numbers… thanks to the investment of the Reagan Admin and at the insistence of President Reagan.

Moreover, Reagan also developed other cutting-edge weapon systems that entered service in the 1990s: the B-2 stealth bomber, the F/A-18 Super Hornet naval jet, the Arleigh Burke class of destroyers, the Trident-II ballistic missile, and so on.

Image the US military today without these cutting edge weapon systems.

Imagine the US Air Force without B-1 and B-2 bombers, F-117 Nighthawk stealth attack jets, and F-15E Strike Eagles, and without significant numbers of F-16 fighters.

Imagine the US Navy without Ohio class ballistic missile subs and Trident missiles – which the Left wanted to cancel – and the two carriers the Reagan Admin ordered in 1988 – the USS John C. Stennis and the USS Harry S. Truman.

Imagine the US Army and Marine Corps with just a puny number of M1 Abrams tanks, still stuck with obsolete M60 Patton tanks as the Left wished.

And of course, the Reagan Admin never cancelled or even curtailed the Strategic Defense Initiative. Nor did the Bush Administration. It was the Clinton administration that killed it.

Reagan Did Not Join the Nuclear Freeze Movement – He Defeated It

Nor did Reagan had a change of heart about defense spending and nuclear weapons, as Beinart falsely claims. Nor did he cave in to supposed public pressure to cut defense spending and implement a nuclear freeze, contrary to Beinart’s blatant lies. On the contrary, Reagan resisted these stupid, suicidal policies with every fiber of his body for the entirety of his presidency – and America is safer now because of that.

In 1983, when the nuclear freeze movement, led by Congressman (now Senator) Ed Markey, was at its peak, and when the House passed a resolution demanding the freeze, Reagan completely rejected it and went to his Evangelical Friends in Texas to ask them to support his continued hawkish policies towards the Kremlin… and called the Soviet Union “the Evil Empire.”

In his 1984 reelection campaign, Reagan unequivocally rejected all “nuclear freeze” proposals and was rewarded with a 49-state landslide reelection victory, one of the greatest in US history, over Democratic candidate Walter Mondale, who advocated a nuclear freeze.

Throughout the 1980s, the Reagan Administration continued to develop, test, and produce more and more nuclear weapons and delivery systems of increasing sophistication. In 1986, it deployed the MX Peacekeeper missile and the B-1 strategic bomber.

As for defense spending, in 1985, Ronald Reagan relunctantly agreed to slow down its growth – but in real terms it continued to grow, peaking in 1988 (not 1985, as many falsely claim) at $302 bn in then-year dollars and 6.6% of the economy – levels not seen since then, and not seen at any point during the 1970s or early 1980s.

That’s because Reagan was very cautious about and weary of the Soviet Union – even Gorbachev’s Soviet Union. He wanted the US to maintain a strong, ever-modernizing military at all times.

In 1993, after the Cold War was over, when the Clinton administration cancelled the SDI, Reagan condemned that, exhorting the administration to “open its eyes” if it thought there were no more threats to America’s security.

All in all, all of the Left’s claims about Reagan are blatant lies.

No, Ronald Reagan was never a peacenik, nor did he ever relent in his enormous military, economic, and diplomatic pressure on the Soviet Union at any point during his presidency. THAT is what ended the Cold War. On Reagan’s terms, not Gorbachev’s.

Posted in Defense spending, Ideologies, Media lies, Nuclear deterrence, World affairs | Leave a Comment »

Le defile militaire du 14 juillet aujourd’hui et les coupes de l’armee francaise

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on July 14, 2014


Aujourd’hui etait une journee triste.

Pourquoi? C’est la Fete Nationale, n’est-ce pas?

Oui. Mais quand je regardais le defile militaire sur les Champs-Elysees, j’etais triste et j’avais mal au coeur.

C’etait un defile triste. Cette armee qui a defile aujourd’hui etait une armee de loin plus petite, plus faible, et plus endommage par des coupes successifs, que l’armee francaise il y a 7 ou encore 20 ans.

C’etait une armee tres affabliee et tres profondement coupee par des gouvernements successifs qui se fichent de la securite de la France, et pour lequels le budget de l’armee francaise n’est qu’une ressource d’argent a exploiter pour payer pour le maintien du modele insupportable d’un Etat socialiste.

Or, des gouvernements successifs ont menti que ces coupes (“reductions” et “reforms” en doublespeak politique) ne menacent pas l’armee francaise, ne l’affabliront pas, et ne menaceront pas la securite de la France.

Ce sont des mensonges. En fait, TOUTES ces coupes ont tres affabli l’armee francaise – et c’est intolerable. C’est, en fait, un trahison, et devrait etre puni.

Meme pire, le gouvernement, et notamment le ministere des finances (Bercy), prepare toujours des NOUVEAUX attaques contre l’armee francaise et son budget – ce qui montre que le pire ennemi de la France et de son armee n’est pas externel, c’est le ministere des finances.

Il faut arreter toutes les coupes du budget de l’armee francaise, proteger la contre toutes nouvelles reductions, et l’agrandir et renforter.

D’abord, pour degager plus de l’argent, il faut:

  1. Reduire fortement le nombre des fonctionnaires civils du ministere de la defense, de 66,000 a 22,000, ce qui devrait permettre le ministere d’economiser au moins 1 Md d’Euros par an.
  2. Vendre tous les A319 et la moitie des Falcon de l’Armee de l’Air (AdlA).
  3. Fermer soit la base aerienne de Creil (Oise), soit la base aerienne de Villecoublay (preferablement celle a Villecoublay), et faire demenager tous ses unites a l’autre de ces bases.
  4. Fermer la base aerienne de Cazaux, qui est situee pres de Bordeaux, et faire demenager tous ses unites a Mont de Marsan, Pau, Perpignan, Nimes, Avignon, ou Rodez. Ouvrir un centre internationale d’entrainement des pilotes a Rodez ou dans la Cote Mediterrainee.
  5. Reduire le budget de la Gendarmerie Nationale par au moins 700 millions d’Euros par an (en commencant par cesser de proteger l’appartement de Julie Gayet et en reduisant la Garde Republicaine par 75%; il faut supprimer la cavalerie de la Garde Republicaine et le 2eme Regiment de la Garde) afin de permettre l’AdlA d’acheter 10 Rafale supplementaires par an.
  6. Reduire le nombre des generaux et admiraux dans l’armee et les grades des commandants differents. Par exemple, les chefs des quatres services militaires devraient avoir seulement 4 etoiles, pas 5. Le rang du general d’armee, general d’armee aerienne, ou amiral devrait etre reserve seulement au CEMA.
  7. Supprimer la DAS, les bureaux des officiers generaux, le CFSM, le CAJ, etc.
  8. Demenager les priorites et les moyens de la GN de la lutte contre les automobilistes a la defense nationale. Aussi cesser de proteger les batiments gouvernementaux – c’est le devoir de la police nationale et de la GSHP.
  9. Utiliser les soldats de l’armee francaise seulement pour combat et pour la protection du territoire francais, et non pour les patrouilles des gares ferrovraires ou les stations metro et RER – ce qui est le devoir et la competence des services de securite de celles-la et de la police nationale.
  10. Immediatement terminer toutes les Operations Externelles, sauf l’Operation Serval (la guerre au Mali).
  11. Vendre tous les 254 chevaux de l’armee francaise, chacun pour 1 million d’euros.

Afin de renforter l’armee francaise, il faut:

  1. Commander au moins 10 Rafale supplementaires, finances par une coupe du budget de la Gendarmerie Nationale.
  2. Augmenter le nombre des avions de l’AdlA dedies a la dissuasion nucleaire de 40 a 70.
  3. Augmenter le nombre des missiles ASMP-A.
  4. Augmenter la portee des missiles M51 et MBDA Meteor.
  5. Augmenter le nombre des chars Leclerc de 200 a 400.
  6. Augmenter le commande pour les systemes de defense anti-aerienne Aster 30 de 8 a au moins 12.
  7. Installer de nouveaux radars a Strasbourg et Metz.
  8. Faire ouvrir, a Rodez, Clermont-Ferrand, Perpignan, Chateauroux, ou Vatry un centre europeen et NATO d’entrainement des pilotes de l’UE et de l’OTAN, bien que l’Italie soit en concurrence pour en etre le pays-hote.
  9. Faire demenager les centres d’entrainement des pilotes de l’AdlA de la Rochelle a Rodez, Perpignan, et Clermont-Ferrand.
  10. Convertir l’A330 presidentiel, les 3 A310 de l’escadron de Villecoublay, l’A330 presidentiel, et l’A330 originel de la compagnie Airbus, en avions de ravitaillement (A330 MRTT et A310 MRTT). Cela augmenterait le nombre des avions de ravitaillement projetes par l’AdlA de 12 a 17 et en consequence permettrait la France d’etre totalement independante, dans la matiere de ravitaillement de ses avions, des Etats-Unis.
  11. Acheter des avions C-17 ou A400M afin de ne pas etre dependent sur aucune armee aerienne etrangere pour la logistique.

 

Posted in Defense spending, World affairs | Leave a Comment »

Rebuttal of leftists’ attacks on AirSea Battle

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on June 25, 2014


The AirSea Battle (ASB) concept – designed to allow the US military to defeat the anti-access/area-denial threats posed by the advanced weapons of China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and other countries – has been under a vicious attack by the anti-defense Left ever since its inception – as has been every crucial and successful battle concept, strategy, and defense program in modern US history. As usual, anti-defense Leftists claim that ASB is too provocative, will trigger a nuclear war, will be “ineffective”, etc. In short, the standard claims of the anti-defense Left about every crucial defense program in modern history.

So it is also with AirSea Battle.

In a recent article in the so-called “National Interest” magazine, two anti-defense leftists, Thomas X. Hammes and Richard Hooker (sic!), have attacked ASB on totally spurious grounds. This article will refute their lies.

1. Firstly, Hammes and Hooker falsely claim that ASB is both “provocative” and “ineffective” and “could escalate the conflict uncontrollably.”

That is completely false. We’ll deal with the question of ASB’s effectiveness in a few minutes. As for ASB supposedly being “provocative” and a potential escalator of the conflict, let’s not forget that ASB would be activated against China ONLY if Beijing were to commit aggression against the US or its treaty allies – or against US troops in Asia (and one is essentially homonymous with the other, because thousands of US troops are stationed in Japan and South Korea, with others rotating through the Philippines and USN warships destined for Singapore).

If China does attack the US, or its troops deployed in Asia and its treaty allies, it is hard to claim that the conflict could be significantly escalated any further – for China would’ve already have killed thousands of US troops – deaths the US public would demand be quickly avenged, just like it demanded a speedy payback for Pearl Harbor.

And honestly, from a purely moral standpoint, if China does attack the US, its troops serving abroad, or America’s treaty allies – none of whom pose a threat to Beijing – it deserves whatever it gets.

I’ll repeat: China has nothing to fear from AirSea Battle (or from the US or its allies at all) if it does not start shooting wars in Asia. If, however, it does commit aggression against anyone, it SHOULD fear strikes on its soil – and a credible threat of such strikes is the ONLY thing that can deter Asia, as I’ll explain later.

 

2. Secondly, Hammes and Hooker falsely claim that:

“When you bomb China it becomes a passion over politics issue, making it harder to get China to negotiate a peaceful settlement. Bombing makes it so much harder to return to the status quo before the conflict. You are not going to have a decisive win with China without going nuclear, so you need to engage them and walk them back from the edge.”

All of that is balderdash, too. Firstly, the US CAN defeat China decisively without going nuclear if it applies AirSea Battle (as I’ll explain below). Secondly, it would be utterly unacceptable, and very dangerous, to try to restore the “status quo.”

By the way, what exactly is the current status quo? Unclear and unresolved sovereignty over numerous islands in the Pacific, large chunks of that ocean, and large deposits of natural resources therein; East Asian countries squabbling amongst each other; and China arming itself to the teeth and fielding a military rivaling the US in conventional (if not nuclear) weapons – as well as fielding some weapon types the US doesn’t even have.

That is ABSOLUTELY not the status quo the US should seek to restore. Restoring it would only lead to more wars, death, and destruction.

What the US needs is to defeat China so thoroughly that the Chinese will have no doubts that they will have been defeated, just like the Germans and the Japanese had no such doubts in 1945. When Allied troops entered their capitals in 1945, they had no doubt whatsoever they had been thoroughly trounced. It is time the Chinese learned what does that feel like. Only then will a durable peace be built.

For a durable peace is impossible without a complete victory. If you achieve it, you will usher in a Pax Britannica/Americana. If you fight only half-heartedly and achieve mixed results – if you don’t fight for a complete victory – you will eventually invite more war.

 

3. As for “negotiating a peaceful settlement with China” and “walking them back from the edge” – don’t make me laugh. The Chinese are not interested in any negotiated, peaceful settlement over the territorial disputes in Asia nor over America’s role in that region. They seek nothing short of total control of the Western Pacific (with its rich natural resources) and America’s total expulsion from Asia – exactly as the Japanese did in the 1930s and 1940s. It’s absolutely crucial to understand the potential America is dealing with here.[1] China isn’t interested in limited gains; like Japan in WW2, it seeks total control of the Western Pacific (and payback to Japan for WW2) and America’s total expulsion from the region (just like Japan did). China is not interested in dividing the Western Pacific nor in compromises.

So China is seeking total, imperialistic objectives, and is prepared to use any means to achieve them. By Hammes’ and Hooker’s admission, China is even likely to attack US satellites and cybernetworks (not just US bases and troops in Asia) with space and cyber weapons.

When one side seeks total objectives and uses total war means to achieve them, while the other side seeks only limited objectives and utilizes only limited means to accomplish them, the latter side will inevitably lose. For nothing can stop a nation (or another entity) which is totally determined (and prepared to do anything) to get what its wants. It’s that simple.

To defeat a China that seeks imperialistic hegemony and control over all of the Western Pacific and is prepared to do anything to achieve it, the US must likewise be prepared to do anything to deny China those aims – or be prepared to lose.

 

4. Hammes and Hooker also falsely claim that

“Air-Sea Battle is ineffective against China’s dense and capable air defense network” and “also cast doubts on whether the US military could locate and destroy China’s mobile missile-launch systems. China has an abundance of man-made caves and hidden facilities.”

Those are such blatant lies that it’s mindboggling anyone has even attempted them. Have they even READ the AirSea Battle concept? Obviously not. Had they read it, they wouldn’t have written such garbage.

One of the key tenets – if not THE central tenet – of AirSea Battle is developing very stealthy, very capable, long-ranged strike weapons (most notably, a new very stealthy long-range bomber) that will allow the US Air Force to evade even the most advanced air and missile defense systems in the world – including those fielded or planned for purchase by China.

What’s more, both the Pentagon and the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, where the ASB concept was born, have long advocated the development of such systems – especially that all-important stealthy bomber. The Air Force’s nuclear deterrence guru, Maj. Gen. Garrett Harencak, has just spoken yet again on the need for that stealthy bomber.

As for dealing with its man-made caves, hidden facilities, and tunnels – they can easily be destroyed by USAF bombs such as the Daisy Cutter (now retired, but it could be produced again), the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, and the new, smaller, lighter bomb with the same effect, but less size and cost, of the MOP. All of these can be carried by the B-52, the B-2, and the next generation bomber.

Those bombs easily destroyed Taleban caves in Afghanistan; in fact, Daisy Cutter bombs cause small earthquakes when detonated. They’d destroy Chinese caves, bunkers, and tunnels just as easily.

 

5. Hammes and Hooker also falsely claim that ASB

“is provocative in that China’s Second Artillery Corps controls its land-based ballistic missiles and nuclear arsenal. Attacking these facilities, while China has not or cannot attack comparable US facilities, could escalate the conflict uncontrollably.”

Like their other claims, these are blatant lies – and they’re illogical. If the US can bomb Chinese missile fields and nuclear weapon storages, but China cannot attack comparable US facilities, there is no risk of “escalating the conflict uncontrollably”, because the US would then be able to deal China a blow that Beijing couldn’t respond to in kind.

 

6. All of which brings us to the central reason why ASB is NOT provocative, does NOT invite the risk of nuclear war, and is the ONLY battle concept whose implementation can deter China from wrongdoing – and defeat it should it commit aggression anyway.

China has nothing to fear from the US, its allies, or the ASB concept if it behaves peacefully. If, however, it commits aggression against anyone, it has every reason to fear ASB. Chinese leaders probably understand that – and if they don’t, it’s high time they did.

The ONLY way the US can deter China – or any other potential aggressor, for that matter – from attacking others is to promise (and have the means) to unleash lethal, massive strikes against that potential aggressor’s territory and his military and economic assets in case of aggression on his part. Nothing else will deter those who prey upon their neighbors.

This is, indeed, the promise and the principle on which ALL deterrence strategies are based: that the aggressor will pay a huge price for his actions, disproportionate to the gains he might achieve by perpetrating aggression. Only that can deter China.

 

7. The so-called “Offshore Control” strategy, which Hammes and Hooker promote as their “alternative” strategy to ASB, is a recipe for America’s total defeat in a future war with China. Under their “strategy”, the US would have to completely swear off any strikes on China and only fight a purely defensive war in the Western Pacific’s islands.

US troops would thus be fighting with both of their hands tied behind their backs. It would be both practically suicidal and morally repugnant to ask them to fight that way – yet it is PRECISELY what Hammes and Hooker advocate.

Contrary to their blatant lies, the US stands no chance whatsoever of “denying China access to the seas inside the First Island Chain[2]“, let alone “dominating the Second Island Chain”, if Chinese mainland – and all the military bases and weapons plants on it – are left untouched. China will, in such a scenario, be able to continually launch hails of ballistic and cruise missiles at US bases and warships within the First and Second Island Chain – and China can produce literally hundreds of such missiles every year. China can also affordably build large numbers of ultra-quiet submarines, naval mines, and fighters to control the sea and the airspace inside the First and Second Island Chain – and the US would have to expend a large amount of its own fighters and ASW and demining assets to counter these.

A defensive war against China would be an exhausting, bloody, uber-costly war of attrition for the US, whereby dwindling numbers of US and allied defensive systems would have to counter an ever-growing Chinese arsenal of cheaper, offensive weapons. This is what Hammes’ and Hooker’s pseudo-strategy would lead to. It is both militarily suicidal and morally repugnant.

By contrast, AirSea Battle aims to destroy China’s military bases and weapon plants – and thus its offensive war-waging capability – ASAP, so that China cannot exhaust US defenses with too many missiles and aircraft.

8. Moreover, it is Hammes’ and Hooker’s pseudo-strategy, not ASB, that has zero deterrence value. Does anyone really think Beijing will be deterred by a US promise of leaving the Chinese mainland alone and telling China, “we’ll only be on defense against you in the Pacific islands; don’t worry, your mainland is safe” ?

Of course not. Such a statement would only embolden Beijing.

Meanwhile, a firm promise of devastating strikes on the Chinese mainland is the ONLY way Beijing can be deterred from committing aggression in the first place – thus defeating China without a fight, which, according to ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu, is “the acme of generalship.”

Historical Experience

Last, but not least, history teaches that those who wage war with total means win, while those who try to play solely on defense lose.

Virtually no war in history (except the 480 BC Greek war against the Persians) has been war by playing solely on defense. Victory has almost always required going on offense.

This is not surprising: when you play solely on defense: you cede the initiative and the control of the war’s tempo to the enemy. While not 100% impossible, victory is EXTREMELY hard to achieve when the enemy has the initiative and controls the war’s tempo. What’s more, when you play on defense, the enemy chooses where and when he’ll fight you (because he’ll decide where and when to attack you).

The only chance you have of winning purely defensive wars is if 1) your military is MUCH stronger than the enemy’s, and 2) your positions are fortified from all sides. Even then, victory is not guaranteed.

And that won’t work in the Pacific, anyway, because 1) China’s military is already almost as strong as the US military, and 2) there is zero chance of turning the Pacific Islands into impregnable fortresses – China will always have more than enough offensive weapons to overwhelm their defenses. Especially given that defensive systems cost several times more than offensive ones.

Confederate_Rebel_Flag_svg

As stated, the Civil War and WW2 were won by carrying out massive, successful offenses against the enemy. As retired Army officer and historian Bevin Alexander observes, the key reason why the Confederacy lost the Civil War was its failure to successfully attack the North.

President Jefferson Davis wanted to play solely on defense. He believed that if the South won a series of battles on its home front, European powers would recognize the Confederacy and intervene against the Union. That never happened, despite King Cotton’s power; and after President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, it was out of question.

General Robert Lee attempted two offensives against the Union, in 1862 and 1863, but they both failed, because Lee sought a decisive battle against the much stronger Union Army, a battle the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia didn’t have the strength for.

By contrast, General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson sought to destroy the Union’s industrial centers, railroad hubs, farmlands, and population centers, so that the Union would learn – to borrow words from Jackson – “what it would cost them to keep the South in the Union at a bayonet’s point.”

While the US should not attack Chinese population centers, it must destroy China’s warfighting capability and industrial centers, so that China learns what it will cost them to grab the Western Pacific, and subjugate its nations, at a bayonet’s point.

Hammes and Hooker still object, however, on the grounds that no president has ever authorized the bombing of China, not even during the Korean Wars, so obtaining such authorization is unlikely, they say. But that is pure speculation – and a truly commonsense President knowledgeable about military affairs WOULD authorize the bombing of China IF that country perpetrates aggression against the US or its allies. Not to do so would mean accepting such Chinese aggression.

By the way, the US lost the Korean and Vietnam wars PRECISELY because it sought to play solely on defense and renounced any strikes on the enemy’s warfighting capability and base of operations. That is why the US lost – despite American troops’ unrivalled heroism and skill and despite the able leadership of Generals MacArthur and Ridgway.

In Vietnam, President Johnson completely prohibited the US military from destroying any strategically important targets, relegating it to bombing only secondary ones – thus wasting a lot of American aviators’ lives, aircraft, and munitions. He personally selected the targets to be bombed at White House luncheons – and these were the ONLY targets allowed to be attacked.

Johnson and the Left falsely claimed – like Hammes and Hooker do now – that striking important targets (like airfields and munition storage facilities) would provoke the USSR and China to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This blatant lie was exposed as such in 1972, when President Nixon bombed every important target in North Vietnam except the Red River dykes.

In Korea, General MacArthur wanted to strike Chinese industry to strip China of its ability to wage offensive war, and to ferry Chinese Nationalists from Taiwan to recapture the mainland, but President Truman rejected that. Consequently, China was lost to the Communists permanently and the Korean War became a bloody stalemate. By 1952, the American people were so sick and tired of it, they elected a President who pledged to end it.

And he did – by threatening to escalate against China and the rest of the Communist bloc with nuclear weapons if the Communists persisted in fighting. This, coupled with Stalin’s death, allowed an armistice to be signed.

But it was only an armistice. It restored the dangerous status quo – of the kind Hammes and Hooker want to keep – which, in time, allowed China and North Korea to become grave threats to US national security. Such are the results that purely defensive strategies produce.

As retired Air Force Colonel Thomas Snodgrass writes, purely defensive “limited war” strategies, such as the one proposed by Hammes and Hooker, have three fatal flaws that guarantee a US defeat:

“First, this kabuki dance of attacking non-vital targets conveys a message of indecision and weakness, and most certainly neither a message of strength nor that the situation will get worse for the enemy if the war continues. There is simply no incentive for the enemy to forego his efforts to obtain his strategic objective.

Second, and related to this first fallacy, is the fact that “kabuki bombing” does nothing to diminish the enemy’s capability to carry on the war, so there is no material progress toward ending the conflict. In other words, the enemy grows suspicious that the implied threat of a ratcheting up of the destructive force of the war will never occur in fact.

Third, indefinite escalation implies open-ended war and an ability to sustain casualties over a long period of time, presumably on the side utilizing this doctrine. This third fallacy is transparent in its failure when viewed from the underlying assumptions of the doctrine itself.

Thus, the ‘limited war’ doctrine is based upon three fundamental assumptions.

Assumption one is that there is some limit to the casualties and destruction the enemy is prepared to suffer. Assumption two is that the enemy has an implicit understanding that the adversary utilizing the ‘limited war’ doctrine is fully prepared to continue ratcheting up the war while sustaining casualties until the enemy has had enough. And assumption three is that the side pursuing the doctrine does in fact have the stomach (i.e., motivation) for an indefinitely prolonged war with mounting casualties.

Consequently, when any of these three assumptions is wrong, the ‘limited war’ doctrine will actually become a doctrine the enemy uses to defeat the advocate of the doctrine. Specifically, we understand this quite intuitively: when the U.S. engages in limited war against an enemy that does not value its soldiers’ lives with the same high regard as does the U.S., the outcome of the war suddenly becomes dependent on the American public’s will to sustain seemingly unending casualties. With this change in warfare focus, the decisive battlefield shifts from enemy targets to the U.S. homefront where the enemy’s principal weapon is the American news media.”

Thus, if Hammes’ “Offshore Control” strategy is ever adopted (God forbid), the US will inevitably lose the war, because mainland China will be completely off limits to American strikes. Thus, China will be left free to wage wars of aggression and attrite American and allied defenses – and to shift the key battlefield to the US itself, where its principal weapon will be the leftist US news media.

Hammes’ “Offshore Control” strategy is, in sum, a recipe for a total US defeat.

He and Hooker are showing that not only do they know nothing about China, they also don’t understand US politics and the American society (with its ever-smaller, and already very limited, tolerance for war casualties).

Any “strategies” offered by such people should be rejected completely. For, as Sun Tzu, who will have the last word here, said:

“If you know the enemy and you know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.

If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will suffer a defeat.

If you know neither yourself nor the enemy, you will succumb in every battle.”

Posted in Air combat, Media lies, Military issues, Naval affairs, World affairs | Leave a Comment »

How Britain Achieved – And Lost – Economic Preeminence – And the Lessons For the US

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on May 2, 2014


In the mid-19th century, and in the first few decades afterwards, Britain was an unmatched military, economic, colonial, and thus geopolitical colossus, by far the most powerful country in the world. There was no country that was even close to matching the military or economic power of Britain, which had the largest empire in the world, spanning all continents.

So vast was the empire that it was one on which the sun never set – because no matter where the sun was shining at that moment, it was shining on British colonies, dominions, and possessions. So powerful was Britain that she was able to exert influence all around the world and act as the arbiter of world affairs. Thus, the world experienced an era of Pax Britannica.

Why? Because Britain was by far the world’s most powerful country, both economically and militarily.

In the middle of the 19th century, around 1850, Britain was by far the world’s largest producer of coal, pig iron, steel, and warships, consumed the most cotton and coal, and her industrial machines were the most modern and most powerful in the world. This enabled Britain to have a Navy that was far larger than the combined navies of the US, France, Japan, and Russia. Whether the measure was total fleet tonnage or the number of any class of warships, the UK Royal Navy had far more of them than any other Navy in the world.

Britain Loses Her Economic, Military, and Geopolitical Preeminence

Fast forward half a century to 1900, and then to 1913, the eve of World War I, and we see a completely different picture. Britain had, by then, lost its first place in the world, both economically and militarily. The US, Japan, and Germany began building navies rivalling the Royal Navy. The US and Germany also overtook Britain economically by all key metrics. As a result, Britain had to assemble a coalition of countries, the Entente, and enlist the US as an Associated Power to win World War 1 – and contracted a huge debt to win that war, because Germany proved to be a very tough enemy to beat.

Even before then, before WW1, Britain had lost its economic preeminence. Consider:

  • In terms of coal production, Britain dominated the pack in 1870, producing 125 mn tons of coal vs 41 for the US and 42 for the German states (mostly Prussia). By 1900, it was producing 185 mn tons, but the US wasn’t far behind at 143 tons and Germany was at 89 tons. By 1913, the UK was producing only 292 tons, while America’s annual coal output was 517 tons and Germany’s was 277.
  • The UK producted 6.7 mn tons of pig iron in 1870, while the US produced only 1.9 mn tons. But in 1900, the US produced 9.4 tons vs 8.0 mn for Britain. In 1913, the US produced 31.5 mn tons, and Germany 19.3 mn tons, versus only 10.4 mn tons for Britain.
  • The US overtook Britain in terms of steel production even earlier, in 1886, and Germany did so in 1893.
  • In 1871, the efficiency and output of British steel mills was two times that of US steel mills, but by 1891 it was only 50% of America’s steel output.
  • In 1890, the power of steam machines in the US industry was 45% higher than those in the British industry.
  • In 1870, Britain’s share of the global industrial production was 32%; by 1913, it was only 14%. America’s share during the same timeframe rose from 23% to 35.8%, and Germany also overtook Britain, from 13.2% in 1870 to 15.7% in 1913. The US and Germany were simply producing – and earning – more. Period.

Thus, the country that was essentially the world’s biggest coal mine, steel mill, and factory in 1850 was, by 1913, only in third place – not even in the second place – by the key economic metrics of the time! In terms of industrial production, it was lagging behind Germany and far behind the US.

The military consequences of Britain’s economic decline followed, though not immediately or quickly. But inevitably, eventually, they did follow – and they weren’t pretty.

In 1883, Britain had 38 pre-dreadnought battleships, while the US and Japan had zero, Russia had but three, Italy had only 7, Germany 11, and France 19. This means Britain had more battleships – the key weapons of the day – than the next three countries combined!

In 1897, the gap was narrower, though Britain still led the pack: it had 62 battleships in service or construction, but France had 36, Russia had 18, Germany had 12, Italy also 12, the US had 11, and Japan had seven. The next three countries (France, Russia, and Germany or Italy) had more of these warships than the UK.

Matters grew even worse for Britain when she launched HMS Dreadnought, the most powerful battleship in the world at the time, in 1905. The British thought these warships would guarantee them naval supremacy. But they were wrong. Just three years later, the Germans had only three dreadnoughts fewer (9) than the British (12). And other nations were building such warships as well.

Moreover, at Tsushima in 1905, the Japanese Navy showed that a heavily outnumbered fleet can still trash a larger one. Despite being outnumbered two-to-one and not having any significant mineral resources, the Japanese still trounced the Russians in what was one of the biggest military victories in human history, a naval version of the Battle of the Cannae. The Japanese barely lost 3 torpedo boats and 117 men, while the Russians lost their ENTIRE fleet in the Far East – 21 warships – and over 5,100 KIA.

This showed that a smaller, heavily outnumbered fleet, could, in an individual battle, beat a twice larger navy if better led, manned, and equipped.

So Britain’s unquestionable naval supremacy was a thing of the past – ESPECIALLY since the Germans had only slightly fewer dreadnoughts than the British.

As a result, Britain needed to appease the US in the Western Hemisphere, court Japan to make it Britain’s ally in the Far East, and enlist former rivals France and Russia – with whom the UK nearly went to war just years before – as allies to counter growing German power.

By 1914, one hundred years ago, the three countries went to war together – and still couldn’t beat Germany, by now Europe’s preeminent economic and military power. Russia was driven out of the war, and the US had to be enlisted to help win the war. Britain itself was too weak to defeat Germany, even in an alliance with France and (until 1917) Russia.

In the course of World War I, Britain contracted such a huge war debt that it had difficulties paying it down later, and from the world’s banker became America’s debtor.

How Did It Come To Pass?

How did it happen? How did Britain lose its economic and military preeminence?

To some degree, this was because of the obsolete structure, growing technological obsolence, and the conservative mindsets of the leaders of, British industry. And partly it was due to the reunification of Germany, which produced a formidable rival for Britain.

But these obstacles could have easily been overcome. None of these were fatal illnesses.

The REAL cause of Britain’s economic and military decline was its embrace of the poisonous, suicidal, pernicious ideology of “free trade” and the consequent policies.

Until the mid-19th century, Britain – like every country that ever rose to economic preeminence – protected and nurtured its industry with protectionist laws and customs duties.

But beginning in the 1840s, the Parliament began repealing them. In 1846, it repealed tariffs on imported grain (the Corn Laws); in 1850, it got rid of the Navigation Act; and in 1860, it scrapped protective tariffs completely. That’s it – there were no more customs or tariffs on imports to Britain. Anyone was free to export to Britain free of any tariffs.

British industry was thus left without ANY protection against foreign competitors – because no other country had done such a thing. All other countries continued, to various degrees, to protect and nurture their own industry with tariffs as well as non-tariff barriers.

This was especially true of… the US and Germany, the two countries that overtook Britain and took away her crown. The US had high protective tariffs since the 1860s, and Germany since the times of the Customs Union, established in 1834.

Thus, Britain effectively committed unilateral disarmament in the trade arena, which is just as suicidal as disarmament in the military arena.

The problem was simple: US and German companies were protected by these countries’ tariffs and non-tariff barriers to imports, while British companies were left without ANY protection against foreign competitors.

Thus, the US and Germany began flooding the world – including Britain herself – with their products – and achieved greater shares of the world’s industrial production and trade than Britain.

This is not surprising to anyone knowledgeable about economics. For protectionism is the policy of RISING economic powers, while free trade is the policy of DECLINING ones.

Protectionism is the road to wealth, prosperity, and national power, while free trade is the road to deindustrialization, unemployment, and economic stagnation.

Contrary to what free trade ideologues may tell you, NO nation in history has ever risen to economic preeminence by indulging in free trade.

EVERY country that ever became an economic powerhouse did so by protecting, nurturing, and supporting its industry against foreign competition – England under the Acts of Navigation, Britain until 1860, France under Colbert and Napoleon, Germany under the Customs Union and Bismarck, the US from the 1860s to 1960s, postwar Japan, China today .

America Is Losing Her Preeminence – And Fast

In today’s world, America is losing her economic and military preeminence even faster than Britain did in the late 19th century – and America’s edge over the world was never as great as Britain, except the late 1940s and early 1950s.

Just recently, the World Bank predicted that China would overtake the US in GDP by the end of this year. In 2012, the IMF predicted China would leapfrog the US by 2016. The Economist predicts it will happen by 2019.

China is already the world’s top exporter, having surpassed Germany a few years ago, which itself surpassed the US in the early 2000s. China is also the world’s top maker of many goods of all sorts, and also has trade surpluses with many other countries in the world. For example, its trade surplus with France runs at over 30 bn euros per year!

In 2013, the US trade deficit with China – thanks to free traders’ suicidal policies – was the largest annual trade deficit EVER recorded between any two nations, at $315 bn.

The US is also running trade deficits with almost every other country in the world: with crisis-stricken Italy, at $20 bn per year; with Ireland, at $25 bn per year; with Germany, $60 bn per year; with Canada, $32 bn per annum; with Mexico, $61 bn; with Japan, $88 bn per year; with South Korea, $16.6 bn per year.

This is because the US has almost completely disarmed itself unilaterally in terms of trade. Foreign countries exporting goods to the US pay little in the way of tariffs, while US companies trying to export to foreign countries face steep tariffs – and heavily-subsidized competitors – abroad.

Also, many foreign countries, including China and Japan, manipulate their currencies by devaluing them, thus making their exports cheaper abroad (e.g. in the US). Yet, Japan plans to devalue its currency still further, making its exports still cheaper.

Yet, American free trade ideologues oppose taking ANY action against such blatant cheating and such uneven playing field, and demand that the last vestiges of protection for the US industry be scrapped: Buy American Laws, the Export-Import Bank, and the few tariffs that remain.

When, in 2012, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney pledged to designate China as a currency manipulator, free trade ideologues from the left and the right accused him of wanting to start a trade war… not realizing China has ALREADY been waging a trade war on the US for decades.

The Military Consequences

And just like Britain’s loss of economic preeminence was followed by her loss of military superiority, so is the US losing its last vestiges of military superiority over China (and Russia) as a consequence of committing economic suicide.

The US no longer has a monopoly on any military technology. Its military has always been smaller than China’s – the latter is the world’s most populous country after all – but China’s military is now also much more modern than a decade or two ago.

The PLAN, the Chinese Navy, is already larger than the USN and has more submarines. Their surface combatants are as good as American ones, and their diesel-electric submarines are far quieter than anything the USN has. Their anti-ship missiles are much faster and longer-ranged than America’s sole anti-ship missile, the Harpoon. China also has 100,000 naval mines, against which the USN is nearly helpless as it has only 13 minesweepers – none of them in the regular Navy.

The PLA Air Force has hundreds of modern Generation 4+ fighters, including Flankers and J-10s, plus 389 old but highly agile and fast J-7 fighters. And what does the USAF have? 180 top-notch Raptors and around 300 F-15C/Ds, I’ll give you that much; but its F-16s would not stand a chance against Chinese fighters other than the old J-7. And the F-35, the most expensive, heaviest, and most sluggish “fighter” in the world, will be such a heavy pig it will be inferior to EVERY fighter on the planet.

The PLAAF is now developing TWO stealthy fighters – the J-20 and the J-31 – which, when inducted into service, will make every other fighter in the world, except the F-22 and the Russian PAKFA, obsolete, useless, impotent, and irrelevant.

The PLA’s Second Artillery Corps now has 66-75 ICBMs capable of reaching the US, plus 140 medium- and over 1,600 short-range ballistic missiles and hundreds of ground-launched cruise missiles – weapons which the US does not have and is prohibited from developing.

PLA_ballistic_missiles_range-590x362

The PLA also has a lopsided edge over the US in cyber and space warfare. Its hackers routinely penetrate US government networks with impunity, and it has an arsenal of anti-satellite weapons capable of shooting down all US satellites anytime.

Similarly, China’s anti-ship missiles are so fast, so long-ranged, so numerous, and so cheap that China could easily saturate USN warships with them – and USN defenses are incapable of intercepting supersonic, sea-skimming cruise missiles.

China also has many, many more nuclear weapons than the US DOD and American arms control afficionados are prepared to acknowledge: at least 1,600 (according to Russian General Viktor Yesin), and up to 3,000 (according to Dr Philip Karber, the top nuclear strategist in the Reagan Administration).

And, of course, China’s military has not been infected with political correctness and the open celebration of homosexuality and feminism – unlike the US military.

Let’s face the facts: America’s economic and military dominance is already largely a thing of the past. The US retains an advantage only in a few categories and on a few metrics – and China is now working hard on closing those few gaps as well.

China is now doing to the US what the US itself and Germany did to Britain in the late 19th and early 20th century: overtaking it economically and militarily.

The difference is that, unlike Britain, the US has no friendly power to whom hand over the torch.

So either the US will break free of its “free trade”, “noninterventionism”, “let’s mind our own business”, and “let’s cut the military” fantasies, or it will completely lose its preeminent status to China, with all the consequences stemming from that.

Posted in Economic affairs, Ideologies, Politicians, Threat environment, World affairs | 2 Comments »

Rebutal of Senator Paul’s straw man claims

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on April 28, 2014


ReaganPeaceQuote

The National Review has recently published an article by Sen. Rand Paul wherein the junior Kentucky Senator falsely claims that there is no room allowed for disagreement on foreign policy in the GOP; that we defense conservatives have a “either you’re with us or against us” mentality; that he’s displaying some foreign policy nuance and strategic ambiguity that we fail to appreciate; and then spends the rest of his op-ed railing against the Iraq war, quoting William Buckley’s opposition to it, as if it were the only thing he disagrees with defense conservatives on.

Needless to say, he’s dead wrong on all counts.

As I refute his claims, I shall speak directly to him in this article.

Senator, you claim that:

“You are either for us or against us. No middle ground is acceptable. The Wilsonian ideologues must have democracy worldwide now and damn all obstacles to that utopia.”

That is completely false. No conservative that I know of is saying that, or advocating that the US try to democratize the world (and BTW, THIS hawkish conservative is a sworn opponent of democracy.) Stop making straw man claims, Senator.

Perhaps you are confusing conservatives with the liberals in the Obama admin who, everyday, sip coffee in the WH, point their fingers at a world map, and say which country should be invaded next:)

As for the Iraq war, it was indeed an error, and I opposed it from the start. But your foreign policy differences with us conservatives hardly end with the Iraq war – they barely begin with it, contrary to your false claim that:

“Foreign policy, the interventionist critics claim, has no place for nuance or realism.”

No, Senator. What you are displaying is neither nuance nor realism. What you are displaying is a LIBERAL policy of appeasement of America’s enemies and support for unilaterally disarming the US, and when you are justly criticized for those policies, you backtrack somewhat, thus making yourself sound totally incoherent.

There is a BIG difference between nuance and incoherence.

You are displaying neither nuance or realism. You are displaying a staunch disagreement and break with the entire GOP and the entire conservative movement on the whole gamut of foreign and defense policy issues.

You support deep, crippling defense cuts, up to and even beyond sequestration. You claim defense spending hasn’t been cut nearly enough. You have railed on liberal TV networks against Republicans who disagree. You support closing virtually all US bases abroad (which are crucial for power projection and for reassuring America’s allies) and dramatically cutting equipment spending. You advocate containment of Iran.

You accuse Dick Cheney, most people on the Congressional defense committees, and anyone who advocates striking Iran, of being war-profiteering warmongers. You have claimed that sanctions provoked Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. You were one of the very few Senators to vote AGAINST sanctions on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, and one of only four GOP Senators (along RINO Dick Shelby, RINO Thad Cochran, and Nebraska’s Mike Johanns) to vote to confirm Chuck Hagel.

You have even claimed that a nuclear-armed Iran would not be a threat to the US or even to Israel. You also consistently oppose all of the Bush admin’s war on terrorism policies that have proven very successful in eliminating terrorists: drones, effective interrogation techniques, GITMO, and so forth.

In one of your recent op-eds for WaPo, just as Russia was beginning to invade Ukraine, you claimed Obama’s appeasement (reset) policy towards Moscow was working very well and “we ought to be proud of that”, and you blamed any troubles in the relationship solely on your fellow Republicans, whom you falsely accused of being “so stuck in the Cold War that they want to tweak Russia.” You whitewashed Russia and absolved it of any blame and urged Americans to be “respectful” towards Moscow.

No, Senator, you are not displaying any “nuance” or “strategic ambiguity” on foreign policy, you are displaying utter ignorance, recklessness, and incoherence at best, and your father’s repugnant Blame America First, Second, and Third beliefs at worst.

You have falsely claimed that your refusal to say clearly whether you would or would not rule out the containment of Iran amounts to “strategic ambiguity” and have wrongly invoked Ronald Reagan as someone who would’ve endorsed such lack of clarity.

Strategic ambiguity means being ambigous about the strategy you’ll employ to achieve your goals – but not about what the goals themselves are. Ronald Reagan was never unclear about those and articulated them clearly, in public and in private. His goal was nothing short of sending Communism and the Soviet Union “to the ash heap of history.”

Your lack of clarity on one of the most important foreign policy issues of our time – whether or not to try to contain Iran – has nothing to do with “nuance” or strategic ambiguity” and would send absolutely the wrong signal to friend and foe alike. America’s allies in the Persian Gulf would be in the dark on whether or not the US, under your leadership (should you be elected President), would stop Iran’s nuclear program. America’s foes would be emboldened by such lack of clarity and would continually test your – and America’s – patience with ever-graver provocations.

Fortunately, as AmSpec’s Jed Babbin says, you stand NO chance of ever getting elected President. A man of your extremely-leftist views stands zero chance of ever being elected President. No matter when you run, you will be justly clobbered, if not in the primaries then in the general election. Because even if you do somehow win the Republican nomination, you will definitely lose in the general election, as nominating you will disenfranchise tens of millions of pro-defense voters.

You might want to take that into account when you decide whether to run for President in 2015-2016 – which will be the biggest decision of your life.

Posted in Ideologies, Politicians, World affairs | 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 »

Rand Paul Blames America First, Advocates Appeasement

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on March 12, 2014


If you needed any more evidence that Rand Paul is totally indistinguishable from his father on foreign and defense policy and is a member of the Blame America First crowd, here’s that evidence.

On February 25th, when interviewed by the Washington Post’s Robert Costa, Sen. Paul falsely accused “some Republicans” of harboring a Cold War mindset and exhorted the US to maintain a “respectful” relationship with Russia even in the face of Russia’s invasion and occupation of the Crimea.

Speaking to the liberal WaPo, Rand said:

“Some on our side are so stuck in the Cold War era that they want to tweak Russia all the time and I don’t think that’s a good idea.”

Excuse me? REPUBLICANS are stuck in the Cold War era?

On the contrary, it is Russia’s government, especially its President Vladimir Putin (an unreconstructed KGB thug) and his inner circle (composed mostly of his fellow KGB thugs and other members of the Saint Petersburg clique) who harbor a Cold War mindset – and deep-seated hatred of America and the Western civilization.

(Which is not surprising, because just like a wolf will always remain a wolf preying on sheep, KGB thugs will always remain KGB thugs and will always prey on weak victims.)

It is Vladimir Putin’s Russia which has, in recent years:

  1. Repeatedly flown nuclear-armed strategic borders into US, allied (Japanese), and even neutral (Swedish) airspace and said the Russian AF 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 at least 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.
  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).
  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.

Yet, Rand Paul claims that REPUBLICANS are the ones “stuck in the Cold War era”?!

How dare you even make such a false and outrageous claim, Senator?!

America is supposed to have a cordial, “respectful” relationship with such a hostile country, led by a KGB thug, and appease it (“avoid antagonizing it” in Randspeak) ?

No, Senator. You are dead wrong. Most Republicans are very critical of Russia (and of President Obama’s soft policy towards it), but NOT because of Cold War past.

Republicans are critical of Putinist Russia and Obama’s reset – and demand a tougher policy – because of Russia’s CURRENT and RECENT behavior, which has been very aggressive, anti-American, and dangerous to America’s own national security.

It is because of Russia’s CURRENT and RECENT behavior that Republicans demand that tough steps be taken towards Russia.

But Rand says no. He claims the US should “avoid antagonizing Russia” and have “a respectful relationship” with Moscow even despite Russia’s recent aggression, because Russia is still a geopolitical and military power which wields hundreds of ICBMs.

You are dead wrong again, Senator.

The only right response to intimidation and aggression, especially from dictatorships like Putin’s Russia, is strength and toughness, not “respect” and appeasement as you advocate.

ReaganPeaceQuote

In fact, the ONLY thing dictators and bullies like Putin, China’s Xi Jinping, and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un respect and fear is STRENGTH combined with TOUGHNESS – a bold moral stand against them combined with a demonstrated willingness to use that STRENGTH if need be.

Dictators and aggressors like Putin understand only the language of force. The only thing that can deter them is superior military and economic force, combined with a proven willingness to use it to stop these dictators and aggressors. All human history, from the ancient times to the 21st century, demonstrates this.

Potential aggressors prey on weak victims, not strong ones. Weakness is provocative; it entices aggressors to commit actions they would otherwise refrain from.

And it is ESPECIALLY important to build up and show strength in the face of POWERFUL aggressors like Russia and China. They, having dramatically built up their economic and military strength, are so self-confident, so sure of their power, so emboldened and arrogant, that ONLY superior military and economic power, combined with a proven willingness to use both, can deter them from making more mischief.

Rand’s argument is essentially: “Russia is a geopolitical and military superpower, so let’s be weak in the face of such power and play nice with it.” That is a recipe for aggression, death, and destruction.

But Rand Paul, despite his pious assurances that he supports a Reaganite “Peace Through Strength” foreign policy, clearly doesn’t understand that, and never will. He claims Obama’s “reset” (read: appeasement) policy has been good for America – even though it is that failed “reset” policy that got us into this mess in the first place!

“We ought to be, I think, proud of where we’ve gotten with that relationship, and even when we have problems with Russia, realize that we’re in a much better place than wer were once upon a time.”

At a time when most Americans have realized that Obama’s “reset” policy has been an utter and disastrous failure, Paul thinks it has worked great and thinks the US should be “proud” of it!

Dictators and aggressors like Putin will not cease attacking weaker victims, and threatening the United States, if the US continues its utterly failed “reset” (read: appeasement) policy towards Russia, China, and Iran. This is the very policy that got us into the current mess in the first place. Yet, Rand wants to double down on it.

Rand also says the US should “avoid antagonizing Russia over Ukraine” because Ukraine has, for a long time, been in Russia’s sphere of influence. “The Ukraine has a long history of either being a part of the Soviet Union or within that sphere.”

It’s true that Ukraine has long been in Russia’s orbit – but NOT by its own free will! NO country on Earth has ever freewillingly been in Russia’s sphere of influence! All countries which have ever been in Moscow’s orbit fell into it as a result of Russian aggression, whether an overt invasion and occupation (as in Ukraine’s case) or through Russian-sponsored coups (e.g. Cuba and Nicaragua) and guerilla wars (e.g. Vietnam).

The only reason why Ukraine has been under Moscow’s yoke for a long time is because of Russian occupation – that is, Russian domination imposed by force.

Now Ukraine is trying to break free of Moscow’s yoke – and THAT is why Russia has invaded it.

But Rand doesn’t stop there. Not only does he advocate more appeasement of Russia, he falsely accuses America of telling Ukraine what to do. He told the WaPo on Feb. 25th:

“I don’t think it behooves us to tell the Ukraine what to do.”

You are lying yet again, Senator. No American politician is telling Ukraine what to do. The US, along with the European Union, is simply supporting (although inadequately and half-heartedly) Ukraine in its desire to free itself from the Russian yoke and integrate with the West – a choice the Ukrainian people have freewillingly made (and stood for even when their former dictator sent snipers and riot police against them).

The US has never dictated to the Ukraine what to do. OTOH, Russia has, and continues to. Russia has always adamantly opposed Ukraine’s possible integration with the West and last December even bribed the oligarchs in the Ukrainian parliament to steer Kiev away from the West. Now that the Ukranian people have ousted their former dictator Viktor Yanukovych and his oligarch chums, Putin has invaded the Ukraine – to ensure, by brute force if necessary, that Ukraine does not join the EU and does not integrate with the West.

Rand Paul is lying once again, in the “best” traditions of the RussiaToday/Alex Jones/Blame America First/Ron Paul crowd: he accuses AMERICA of telling another country what to do, when it is actually America’s adversary who is dictating to that country its future path.

Shame on you, Senator Paul, for lying so blatantly to the American people, for badmouthing America and your fellow Republicans while speaking to a liberal media outlet, for whitewashing and appeasing Russia, and for advocating treasonous policies!

Shame on you, Washington Post, for giving this traitor another venue to vent his anti-American garbage!

Shame on you, 31% of CPAC attendees, for voting for this traitor!

Posted in Ideologies, Military issues, Politicians, Threat environment, World affairs | 1 Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 564 other followers