War in the Arctic

I want to make clear I personally am not supporting the governments of Russia and China; I realize their faults, especially Chinese persecution of Christians (discussed here and here), although I acknowledge the genius of their private sector manufacturers. To the extent that these governments are authoritarian and oppressive, it troubles me that America’s own federal government—for one who years ago had great hopes for the Ron Paul Revolution—is becoming a mirror image of the Soviet surveillance and police state model, but with technology, well discussed on LewRockwell.com, that was undreamed by them, not just with the COVID-19 “pandemic” lockdown but also the recent violence and its questionable origins.

Nevertheless, as Professor Stephen F. Cohen has repeatedly warned us—in columns carried not only on The Nation, but on LewRockwell.com, and in his interview with Lew Rockwell, there are those who think a war with Russia is not only desirable but winnable. (Unfortunately, Professor Cohen has not offered any new perspectives that I am aware of recently.) As to the risk of war, recent demonization of China further escalates tensions. While I am not a military analyst or a psychic, and certainly lack the expertise of Professor Cohen, I do think the risk of “kinetic” conflict—a euphemism like “collateral damage”—is increasing. To put it bluntly, military confrontation with America using weapons against Russia and China, perhaps simultaneously, becomes more probable, especially as America destabilizes.

In addition, I am sure that the Neoconservatives are angered—the leaders being former followers of Marxist Leon Trotsky—by the fact President Putin is allowing, and perhaps even encouraging, construction of churches in former atheist Russia (but I acknowledge as in America, most Russians are not religious). 73 North: The Battle o... Pope, Dudley Best Price: $3.00 Buy New $16.00 (as of 04:14 UTC - Details)

On the sixth of March, 2019, Pravda posted this article that stated:

Izvestia: Moscow tightens passage over Arctic waters

“Russia is putting the Northern Sea Route under its protection. The government has hammered out rules for the passage of foreign warships through the route, Izvestia wrote referring to the documented legislation. US representatives have repeatedly stated that they are also interested in the Northern Sea Route and claimed that Russia “has no right to dictate its terms there.” However, with the adoption of new rules, the situation will change.

“Warships and vessels will now have to notify Russia of their plans within 45 days and take on board Russian maritime pilots. Passage can be denied, and according to experts, in the event of unauthorized travel along the route, Russia will be able to employ emergency measures, going as far as arresting or destroying the vessel. The rules were developed due to the ‘intensification of the naval activities of various states in the Arctic zone’, the newspaper wrote. They are aimed at maintaining control over the environment and merchant shipping…

“Military expert Vladislav Shurygin told Izvestia that laying down the law for passing through the route was necessary ‘yesterday.’ ‘NATO and the United States may well try to create another hotbed of tension along our borders. Ships will stop by, spend some time and leave. It would be necessary to monitor them,’ he said.

“Washington is mulling over escalating tensions around the Northern Sea Route, for economic reasons, among others, according to member of the Federation Council Committee on Defense and Security Franz Klintsevich. He noted that the Northern Sea Route is shorter and more profitable than other routes for cargo delivery between Asia and Europe.”

On the fourteenth of May 2020, Scott Ritter wrote an op-ed on RT titled “US muscle-flexing threatens to open Arctic front in new Cold War with Russia.” I defer to his expertise in his writing:

“Russia, which views most of the Barents Sea as part of its territorial waters, has made it clear to the US and the international community that it will protect its core national economic and security interests using all means available. Given the stakes involved, the potential for conflict is real should the US seek to expand its military posture more aggressively in the Arctic.

“One of the guiding principles of any US/NATO FONOPs conducted in the Arctic Sea will be to push back on what these nations view as excessively restrictive Russian national legislation based on UNCLOS’ Article 234 governing operations in Arctic waters. As things currently stand, Russia views the Northeast Passage (called the Northern Sea Route in Russia) as being exclusively within Russian territorial waters, and as such traditional freedom of navigation rights do not apply. Instead, Russia has implemented a series of laws which, by placing restrictions on building construction, ship navigation capabilities, and permit requirements, all but precludes freedom of navigation. It should be noted that Russian laws mirror in many respects those of Canada, which – like Russia – uses Article 234 as the basis of its restrictive domestic legislation governing the transit of ships in its territorial Arctic waters.”

And then he adds: Deadliest Sea: The Unt... Thompson, Kalee Best Price: $1.99 Buy New $9.40 (as of 04:14 UTC - Details)

“The US is in the process of developing advanced SM-3 Block IIA surface-to-air missiles which can be launched from the Mark 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) employed on Aegis-capable ships. These new interceptors are capable of intercepting intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and will be tested in this configuration in the third quarter of 2020. Given the fact that the vast majority of Russia’s strategic nuclear force—especially those elements of which are stationed in Siberia—are configured to fly over the Arctic Sea region before reaching their targets in the United States, any US naval deployment in the Arctic Sea armed with these weapons could not be seen as innocent.”

I have written about the books of Russian military historian and analyst Andrei Martyanov and his comments on Scott Ritter’s op-ed are instructive. I am reminded of Mongolian Military Tactics, which made their conquests so devastating and possible, partly due to their technology including the Mongol bow. I will not deny that he is pro-Russian, in the sense that he sees America’s ruling elites or oligarchy as incompetent at every level, and even stated most are unfit to run a public washroom on his blog. However, consider his response to Scott Ritter, which I doubt either Pompeo or Kushner or Bill Kristol or any billionaire understands:

“[The] SM-3 might be (declared) a ‘good’ missile, allegedly, for the intercept of classic ballistic missiles—it is absolutely useless against modern anti-shipping weapons. Especially carried by MiG-31Ks or TU-22M3M. Ritter is correct:

If the US decides to beef up its naval presence in the Arctic region, expanding the current Barents Sea Patrol to incorporate more aggressive FONOPs along Russia’s Northern Sea Route, one can anticipate that Russia will respond in kind, creating the potential for a repeat of the Yorktown/Caron incident in the frigid waters of the Arctic north. In this day and age of renewed Cold War-like tensions between the US/NATO and Russia, the last thing either side needs is a new point of potential force-on-force friction.

“Force friction is a euphemism for two opposing forces getting in direct contact with each-other. The only difference here is that unlike [the] famous incident in the Black Sea in 1980s, any force entering the area will be tracked even before they think about anything and [Russia] will have [a] firing solution ready through a variety strike means from which [American naval vessels and command centers will have] no defense. This is not to mention that the launch sites of Avangards, as one example, [and] not to mention [the fact that the] mobile Yars complexes are entirely out of the range of even new SLCM-N. But here is this trick, unless the United States wants to play in nuclear exchange (and there are a number of lunatics who want that), one fact remains unchanged—Russia already has a whole set of conventional (non-nuclear) instruments to counter US nuclear threat by simply sinking any US (NATO) asset in the Arctic region. And here is the main point [I want to make]: the game is not about nuclear exchange, [for] long ago it became a game of [a battle using] conventional weapons and when it comes down to [a] conventional stand-off, high supersonic or hypersonic strike weapons and reconnaissance and tracking systems, the United States long ago lost this arms race and the gap [with Russia] continues to grow. In this case, moving expensive and allegedly effective assets under the sights of Russia’s forces in Arctic is nothing more than traditional chest thumping. There is a reason, the United States wants Kinzhal [hypersonic and nuclear capable missiles] to be included into START negotiations. Maybe because those weapons are merely CGI, right?”

Again, all these facts makes any military conflict between America and Russia in the Arctic extremely dangerous because perhaps the leaders of the American military think they could overwhelm Russia with a massive strike of their obsolete weapons because their numbers are superior; I would hope they reconsider (unless their actions are only “chest thumping”) but the threat of nuclear conflict in the Arctic remains, as discussed in this SouthFront video, whose channel was banned by YouTube (it is eight minutes long but worth watching, although the creators don’t have Martyanov’s expertise, they might be accurately stating the mindset of the American military).

From the video transcript:

“The remoteness of these islands, the small size of the military forces, and the practically non-existent potential for collateral damage due to absence of large civilian populations also mean that the use of low-yield nuclear weapons, against both land facilities and naval forces at sea, is far easier to contemplate than in any conflict in Europe or Asia [emphasis added]. The remoteness of this theater of operations also means nuclear strikes would have a lower risk of strategic escalation, as long as all the nuclear adversaries refrained from targeting enemy mainland.” The Permanent Revoluti... Trotsky, Leon Best Price: $14.01 Buy New $18.00 (as of 04:14 UTC - Details)

Of course, the political class can’t give up accusing “Russia, Russia, Russia” for dysfunctional America with Susan Rice blaming Russia for fomenting violence. Scott Ritter discussed the topic ably on RT, stating “The United States today functions in a never-never land of fiction and fantasy when it comes to allegations of Russian meddling in its internal affairs. Logically speaking, most Americans should be insulted by the notion that their democratic institutions are so weak that a half-baked social media campaign could sway a national election (never minding the reality that former presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg spent more than $500 million on advertising, run by the most sophisticated media support team in the history of American politics, and couldn’t get the electoral needle to move an inch).”

More pithily and contemptuously, Martyanov wrote on his blog:

“OK, let’s clear [up] some things; Rice, whose role in unleashing Russiagate is yet to be determined by appropriate Law Enforcement agencies, wouldn’t be able to have a clue, despite her position as National Security Advisor, because Rice is a typical product of [the] US ‘elite-manufacturing’ machine which in the last 30 years produced an outstanding array of swindlers, morons, creeps and ignoramuses. She is a typical American bureaucrat who grew out of US ‘diplomacy’ school which is [the] laughing stock of the world and is a euphemism for incompetence and being pathological liars. Yes, this is how far this whole thing fell. So, considering her background, when she states that she is not ‘reading intelligence today’ two things should be understood here, all that means is that she is not capable anymore to manipulate and fake ‘intelligence’ as she did before, plus, she wouldn’t know the difference any way because she has zero serious background in real intelligence or any other issues concerning US actual security. Enough to recall her lying which led to her withdrawing her candidacy for the position of the Secretary of the State.”

And what about war with China? Martyanov has an interesting take on that two. In “Yet Another Victory…Not” he discusses the decline in American industrial production, using charts of steel and aluminum production. But then he goes to the crux of the matter if Washington attempts war on China:

“The question, thus, is not about if the United States will be able to ‘update’ itself for a real war with China—I doubt this will happen, but that’s just me, I could be wrong—but the scale of losses, including [those that will be] extremely sensitive politically [that] the United States will be willing to take [is questionable]. It is one thing to start getting coffins arriving daily in large numbers ([is there] anyone [who] really thinks the US is capable [of fighting] China in China proper in a large protracted combined arms war?), totally another—starting losing ships, capital ones, as a result of such a kinetic option. Especially when the US will run out of stand-off weapons. Mind you, China is the size of US lower 48 and, unlike some ‘mighty’ Arab militaries, actually has a fairly good Air Defense system which will be able to do a decent job in protecting those energy streams from Russia, while unleashing North Korea at South with a single purpose of making US forces there miserable. And then there is Russia… Russia, Russia, Russia. You can bet you ass on Russia not allowing China to collapse and Russia does have [the] tools to do so. After all, Russians are royally pissed off at the United States and may (and most likely will) decide at some point that Noblesse Oblige doesn’t apply anymore and, apart from making sure China has all necessary energy to sustain the fight against the US, she may exhibit a ‘strategic flexibility’ and provide China not only with a world class intelligence and reliable targeting, but actually, recall Korea and Vietnam. In the end, China is an enormous and lucrative market not only for Russian energy but advanced technology too. Markets must be protected and Russian-Chinese trade is order of magnitude larger than Russian-American one.

“But speaking broadly,  the American political class’s insanity, which resulted from [the] US [losing its] status as [the] premier global industrial powerhouse and self-proclaimed ‘finest fighting force in history’ is a first sign of the dawning—if not of the realization then of the sense of—a final departure [from] which there are no peaceful and sensible solutions left to stop it, only desperate ‘kinetic’ options which will result in the US [military’s] defeat and [the] collapse of the dollar-based international financial system. Or rather, the dramatic acceleration thereof. In this case, no amount of strategizing and conceptualizing will help, because in the end it is the ability to produce tangibles, from steel and food with medicine, not credit ratings (fraudulent as they are) or virtual worthless money, which win those kinetic options and that ship for the United States sailed long ago. Remarkably, the sailing of this ship was hailed as yet another American ‘victory’, which it was not.” My Life: An Attempt at... Trotsky, Leon Best Price: $13.40 Buy New $15.83 (as of 04:14 UTC - Details)

The problem that might make Martyanov incorrect in underestimating Washington is the trillions it is throwing on (and perhaps through theft of Russian hypersonic technology that was discussed on Pravda) America’s own equivalents to Russia’s hypersonic defenses. This article from official Russian state news site Tass, “Putin approves fundamentals of nuclear containment state policy” is troubling:

“The fundamentals are a document of strategic defense planning and reflect the official views on the essence of nuclear containment. The document stresses that the state policy in the sphere of nuclear containment is of defensive nature and aims to maintain the potential of the nuclear forces at the level sufficient for ensuring nuclear deterrence. It also guarantees the protection of the state’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and also the deterrence of the potential enemy from aggression against the Russian Federation and its allies.

“‘The Russian Federation views nuclear weapons solely as a means of deterrence whose employment is a last resort and forced measure, and is taking all necessary efforts for reducing the nuclear threat and preventing the escalation of inter-state relations that can provoke military, including nuclear, conflicts,’ the document reads.”

Southfront posted an article here, “Russia Releases New Rules For Using Nuclear Weapons In War” elaborating:

“The two new provisions include cases in which the government receives ‘reliable information’ that a ballistic missile attack is imminent or if enemies damage the nation’s critical and military facilities to the degree that the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons is disrupted.

“The document states that containing and deterring aggression against Russia is ‘among the highest national priorities.’ Ultimately, Moscow’s nuclear weapons policy is described as being ‘defensive in nature’ and designed to safeguard the country’s sovereignty against potential adversaries.

“The United States has remained ambiguous about the tenets of its own thresholds for using nuclear weapons. The latest Nuclear Posture Review, published in 2018, stated the country considers using nuclear weapons ‘only in extreme cases when it is forced to defend the U.S. or its allies or partners.’ Unlike Russia, however, for many years the US has refused to rule out the first use of nuclear weapons in a conflict, and has even threatened to use them against countries which do not have nuclear weapons and have no way of striking US territory.”

Martyanov recently posted about the police kneeling before black Americans and he said the images are eerily reminiscent of what occurred in Ukraine:

“This is so reminiscent of one relatively recent event, that it is almost creepy. Remember, 2014, Kiev, Maidan, ‘Revolution.’ Here [are] Ukraine’s riot police, being ‘politely’ asked to kneel and ask for forgiveness. I, believe this particular event (among many similar ones) took place in Lvov. (or Lviv)

“So, for Miami Police I have a message—[if] you do not carry out your duties, choosing instead virtue signaling, like ‘solidarity’ with domestic terrorists and thugs—you will get on [your] knees in the end, and not by your own volition.”

He also adds:

“Of course, the jokes about Maria Zaharova and Ryabkov flying to US and beginning to distribute cookies and muffins for American “democracy movement”, like Vikki Nuland did in 2014 in Kiev, are very popular currently in Russia:”

But what I find most interesting is Martyanov making the analogy between events in the United States and the (induced?) collapse of the Soviet Union, and a former Naval Officer is inclined to use salty language:

“This whole mayhem long ago stopped being about the killing of George Floyd, it is about [the] de-stabilization of [an] already barely standing [functioning?] country, undermining what’s left (not much) of its political system, governance and state institutions. Recall [if you] browse this blog, on many occasions I stressed—I have, as many of my peers from Soviet Union and from Soviet Armed Forces, some of them long dead—an experience in the collapse of the country. We were at the front lines, or rather running seams, then in late 1980s—early 1990s…I can tell you more—[the] US political class is even stupider than Gorbachev and his cabal. US Main Stream Media is a [nothing but] human compost, which thinks that when [the] shit will truly hits the fan they will be spared.” Fascism: What It Is an... Leon Trotsky Best Price: $12.00 Buy New $5.00 (as of 04:14 UTC - Details)

He further elaborates on America’s military deficiencies here. The problem as I see it is as per a recent post the corrupt elites or oligarchy don’t view nuclear war and mass death as a “bug” but a “feature” of their system of operations. As Bill Sardi recently wrote, a “respected” think tank predicted a U.S. population reduced from over 325 million to 100 million. No virus of any kind could accomplish this, not even vaccines.

I have no answers; just a word of caution. As America disintegrates, ever more irrational decisions by the oligarchy and elites are likely; as Ray McGovern noted in LewRockwell.com recently:

“Russian hopes dashed: Whatever hopes Russian President Vladimir Putin may have had for a more workable relationship with the Trump administration have been ‘trumpled,’ so to speak.  This came through loudly and clearly in acerbic remarks by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov in an interview Friday with The National Interest.

“Ryabkov lamented the sad state of Russia-U.S. relations, while pointing, not very subtly, to China as Russia’s ace in the hole. He was simply acknowledging that what the Soviets used to call ‘the correlation of forces’ has changed markedly, and strongly implied that the U.S. should draw the appropriate conclusions.”

I cannot change anyone’s mind who is either a mindless flag waving ignoramus or a member of the oligarchy; I can only like Professor Stephen F. Cohen make the point that due to American arrogance, hubris and incompetence (words stronger than he would use) the risk of war is growing as America disintegrates, most likely by design as discussed on LewRockwell.com; perhaps not in a year or two but I suspect and lament that “kinetic” conflict between America and Russia (and China) is inevitable due to the mindset of the lunatics running the asylum. Russia and China, however, are prepared.

Still, how much better would ordinary Americans be if instead as Ron Paul has stressed repeatedly we just engaged in peaceful and respectful relations between nations, relations founded in liberty and trade—not only of goods, but of ideas; Matt Ehret recently wrote on Strategic Culture an article that discussed the Polar Silk road Corridor that would have resulted in enormous beneficial trade not only for Russia and China, but virtue of the route to the benefit of America. Of course, the proposal was rejected: “Sadly, unipolar technocrats and neocons controlling NATO foreign policy had not the eyes to see what benefits such projects offered those who joined in its construction, and instead continued onto their zero-sum game plan for full spectrum dominance.”

 This lack of peaceful economic trade between the three nations, and the continual belligerence of Washington towards Russia and China is the great tragedy of this century.