December 16, 2015 "Information
Clearing House" - "Sputnik"
-
Nobody needs
to read Zbigniew “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski’s
1997 opus to know US foreign policy revolves around
one single overarching theme: prevent – by all means
necessary – the emergence of a power, or powers,
capable of constraining Washington’s unilateral
swagger, not only in Eurasia but across the world.
The Pentagon
carries the same
message embedded in newspeak: the Full Spectrum
Dominance doctrine.
Syria is
leading all these assumptions to collapse like a
house of cards. So no wonder in a Beltway under no
visible chain of command – the Obama administration
barely qualifies as lame duck – angst is the norm.
The Pentagon
is now engaged in a Vietnam-style escalation
of boots on the ground across “Syraq”. 50 commandos
are already in northern Syria “advising” the YPG
Syrian Kurds as well as a few “moderate” Sunnis.
Translation: telling them what Washington wants them
to do. The official White House spin is that these
commandos “support local forces” (Obama’s words)
in cutting off supply lines leading to the fake
“Caliphate” capital, Raqqa.
Another 200
Special Forces sent to Iraq will soon follow,
allegedly to “engage in direct combat” against the
leadership of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, which is now
ensconced in Mosul.
These
developments, billed as “efforts” to “partially
re-engage in Iraq and Syria” are leading US Think
Tankland to pen hilarious reports in search of “the
perfect balance between wide-scale invasion and
complete disengagement” – when everyone knows
Washington will never disengage from the Middle
East’s strategic oil wealth.
All these
American boots on the ground in theory should be
coordinating, soon, with a new, spectacularly
surrealist 34-country “Islamic” coalition (Iran was
not invited), set up to fight ISIS/ISIL/Daesh by no
less than the ideological matrix of all strands of Salafi-jihadism:
Wahhabi Saudi Arabia.
Syria is
now Coalition Central. There are at least four; the
“4+1” (Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq plus Hezbollah),
which is actually fighting Daesh; the US-led
coalition, a sort of mini NATO-GCC combo, but with
the GCC doing nothing; the Russia-France direct
military collaboration; and the new Saudi-led
“Islamic” charade. They are pitted against an
astonishing number of Salafi-jhadi coalitions and
alliances of convenience that last from a few months
to a few hours.
And then
there’s Turkey, which under Sultan Erdogan plays a
vicious double game.
Sarajevo All Over Again?
“Tense”
does not even begin to describe the current
Russia-Turkey geopolitical tension, which shows no
sign of abating. The Empire of Chaos lavishly
profits from it as a privileged spectator; as long
as the tension lasts, prospects of Eurasia
integration are hampered.
Russian
intel has certainly played all possible scenarios
involving a NATO Turkish army on the Turkish-Syrian
border as well as the possibility of Ankara closing
the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles for the Russian
“Syria Express”. Erdogan may not be foolish enough
to offer Russia yet another casus belli. But Moscow
is taking no chances.
Russia has
placed ships and submarines capable of launching
nuclear missiles in case Turkey under the cover
of NATO decides to strike out against the Russian
position. President Putin has been clear; Russia
will use nuclear weapons if necessary if
conventional forces are threatened.
If Ankara
opts for a suicide mission of knocking out yet
another Su-24, or Su-34, Russia will simply clear
the airspace all across the border via the S-400s.
If Ankara under the cover of NATO responds
by launching the Turkish Army on Russian positions,
Russia will use nuclear missiles, drawing NATO
into war not only in Syria but potentially also
in Europe. And this would include using nuclear
missiles to keep Russian strategic use of the
Bosphorus open.
That’s how
we can draw a parallel of Syria today as the
equivalent of Sarajevo 1914.
Since
mid-2014 the Pentagon has run all manner of war
games – as many as 16 times, under different
scenarios – pitting NATO against Russia. All
scenarios were favorable to NATO. All simulations
yielded the same victor: Russia.
And that’s
why Erdogan’s erratic behavior actually terrifies
quite a few real players from Washington
to Brussels.
Let
Me Take You on a Missile Cruise
The
Pentagon is very much aware of the tremendous heavy
metal Russia may unleash if provoked to the limit
by someone like Erdogan. Let's roll out an abridged
list.
Russia can
use the mighty SS-18 – which NATO codenames “Satan”;
each “Satan” carries 10 warheads, with a yield
of 750 to 1000 kilotons each, enough to destroy an
area the size of New York state.
The Topol M
ICBM is the world's fastest missile at 21 Mach
(16,000 miles an hour); against it, there’s no
defense. Launched from Moscow, it hits New York City
in 18 minutes, and L.A. in 22.8 minutes.
Russian
submarines – as well as Chinese submarines – are
able to launch offshore the US, striking coastal
targets within a minute. Chinese submarines have
surfaced next to US aircraft carriers undetected,
and Russian submarines can do the same.
The S-500
anti-missile system is capable of sealing Russia
off from ICBMs and cruise missiles. (Moscow will
only admit on the record that the S-500s will be
rolled out in 2016; but the fact the S-400s will
soon be delivered to China implies the S-500s may be
already operational.)
The S-500
makes the Patriot missile look like a V-2 from WWII.
Here, a
former adviser to the US Chief of Naval Operations
essentially goes on the record saying the whole US
missile defense apparatus is worthless.
Russia has
a supersonic bomber fleet of Tupolev Tu-160s; they
can take off from airbases deep in the heart
of Russia, fly over the North Pole, launch
nuclear-tipped cruise missiles from safe distances
over the Atlantic, and return home to watch the
whole thing on TV.
Russia can
cripple virtually every forward NATO base
with tactical – or battlefield – small-yield nuclear
weapons. It’s not by accident that Russia over the
past few months tested NATO response times
in multiple occasions.
The
Iskander missile travels at seven times the speed
of sound with a range of 400 km. It’s deadly
to airfields, logistics points and other stationary
infrastructure along a broad war theatre,
for instance in southern Turkey.
NATO would
need to knock out all these Iskanders. But then they
would need to face the S-400s – or, worse, S-500s —
which Russia can layer in defense zones in nearly
every conceivable theater of war. Positioning the
S-400s in Kaliningrad, for instance, would cripple
all NATO air operations deep inside Europe.
And
presiding over military decisions, Russia privileges
the use of Reflexive Control (RC). This is a tactic
that aims to convey selected information to the
enemy that forces him into making self-defeating
decisions; a sort of virus influencing and
controlling his decision-making process. Russia uses
RC tactically, strategically and geopolitically. A
young Vladimir Putin learned all there is to know
about RC at the 401st KGB School and further on in
his career as a KGB/FSB officer.
All right,
Erdogan and NATO; do you still wanna go to war?
Pepe
Escobar is an analyst for RT and TomDispatch, and a
frequent contributor to websites and radio shows
ranging from the US to East Asia. Born in Brazil,
he's been a foreign correspondent since 1985, and
has lived in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles,
Washington, Bangkok and Hong Kong.
Banned German satire "Die Anstalt". Media double
standards on Russia and Ukraine
The scandal
episode of the German political satire program 'Die
Anstalt' about the media leaders' ties to lobby
organisations and their use of enemy images in the
Ukrainian conflict
It is unacceptable to slander, smear or engage in personal attacks on authors of articles posted on ICH.
Those engaging in that behavior will be banned from the comment section.
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)