How Long Would the US Navy Survive in a Shooting War? In a War With Russia NATO Doesn’t Stand a Chance

US Navy is a huge force but largely based around aircraft

carrier groups that modern weaponry may have made obsolete

By Marc Hopf

This was an original RI article first published in April of 2015. We are running it again because of the renewed discussion of a very real possible military confrontation between Russia and America, especially their respective navies. The announcement of Russia’s new ‘miracle weapons’, only makes the thesis of the author more compelling.

America sees itself as a ruler of the world’s oceans. After all, the country — which spends 10 times more on its military forces than the following nine countries — has by far the biggest naval force. And as since the Vietnam War they have dealt only with militarily inferior opponents, they are extremely self-confident in their belief that they can defeat everything and everyone. It is not surprising that some young Americans even wear T-shirts with the logo: “United States Navy: The Sea is Ours.”

Perhaps we need to meet this pride and arrogance with some understanding in view of the numerical superiority of the U.S. Navy. In total, it currently has 10 operational aircraft carriers (two in reserve), while Russia and China have only one each.

Aircraft carriers are the great pride of the U.S. Navy and are also perfect to underline visually the claim of the ruler of the seas. They are therefore well liked by U.S. presidents as stages for delivering speeches when the time comes to tell the people that this unique nation has once again won a heroic victory.

What thrilling moments these were (at least for Americans) when George W. Bush landed in a fighter jet on the USS Abraham Lincoln (no, not as a pilot) and then, with the words “mission accomplished” and “a job well done,” proclaimed the end of the Iraq war to the people. As we know, the destruction of Iraq was carried out by the Americans under the label of Operation Iraqi Freedom. We may still ask ourselves what it had to do with freedom, but that’s a different story.

In addition to their suitability as impressive orator stages, the aircraft carriers also fulfill, of course, a military purpose. They can be considered as small floating airports, which ship up to 100 fighter jets to the scene of the action. Since they are equipped with the best weapons, radar, and defense systems, until now they have experienced almost no threat, especially since in the past the U.S. Navy parked them preferably off the coasts of defenseless desert states.

But what would it look like if the power of the U.S. Navy met its peer? The title of this article already implies the answer: not so good, and it could be that the patriotic U.S. Navy fans would hide their T-shirts quickly in the closet.

Back in the 70s, Admiral Rickover, the “father of nuclear navy,” had to answer the question before the U.S. Senate: “How long would our aircraft carriers survive in a battle against the Russian Navy?” His response caused disillusionment: “Two or three days before they sink, maybe a week if they stay in the harbor.”

The reason for the greatly reduced lifetime of the aircraft carrier in a battle against the Russians is a deadly danger below the water: modern submarines — especially Russian ones — are so powerful and difficult to locate that they can send large battleships and aircraft carriers to the bottom of the sea in the blink of an eye. The weakness of the U.S. Navy, therefore, is their vulnerability when they compete with an enemy that — using the language of the Americans — dominates the seas below the water surface. Of course, the U.S. military analysts are aware of this weakness, so one wonders why the U.S. Navy still adheres to the doctrine “the bigger the better” and continues to rely on an armada of aircraft carriers and large battleships.

Colonel Douglas McGregor, a decorated combat veteran, author of four books, a PhD and military analyst, gives the answer: “Strategically, it makes no sense, but the construction of large ships, of course, creates a lot of jobs.”

So the threat of Russian submarines, torpedoes and anti-ship missiles is well known by the Americans — a fact which Roger Thompson’s book, Lessons Not Learned: The U.S. Navy’s Status Quo Culture, also points out. A brief excerpt:

As Howard Bloom and Dianne Star Petryk-Bloom advised in 2003, both the Russians and Chinese now have the deadly SS-N-22 Sunburn missile at their disposal. This massive long-range missile, equipped with nuclear or conventional warheads, is extremely difficult to detect or destroy. According to Jane’s Information Group, it is more than capable of destroying any U.S. aircraft carrier. More to the point, Timperlake (a Naval Academy graduate) and Triplett warned that the Sunburn missile is designed to do one thing: kill American aircraft carriers and Aegis-class cruisers.

The SS-N-22 missile skims the surface of the water at two-and-a-half times the speed of sound until just before impact, when it lifts up and then heads straight down into the target’s deck. Its two-hundred-kiloton nuclear warhead has almost twenty times the explosive power of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima. The U.S. Navy has no defence against this missile system. As retired Admiral Eric McVadon put it: “It’s enough to make the U.S. 7th (Pacific) Fleet sink twice.”

In addition to this concept-related, almost inevitable weakness of large warships, there is another reason for the vulnerability of the U.S. Navy and the U.S. armed forces in general: their arrogance and the associated underestimation of their opponents. Anyone who underestimates his enemy grows imprudent and holds bad cards in the event of a surprise attack. This happened in 2000, when the American aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk was caught by the Russians on the wrong foot.

Here are some excerpts from Jon Dougherty’s article, “Russian Navy takes Flyover by Surprise” (World Net Daily):

A pair of Russian warplanes that made at least three high-speed passes over a U.S. aircraft carrier stationed in the Sea of Japan in October constituted a much more serious threat than the Pentagon has admitted and were easily in a position to destroy the ship if the planes had had hostile intentions, say Navy personnel.

According to reports, a Russian air force Su-24 “Fencer” accompanied by a Su-27 “Flanker” made unopposed passes over the USS Kitty Hawk on Oct. 9, as the carrier was being refueled.

Russian fighters and reconnaissance planes made a second attempt to get close to the carrier on Nov. 9 — a repeat performance for which the Pentagon, as well as eyewitnesses aboard ship, said the carrier was prepared. But it was the first incident in October that caused alarm.

Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said during a regularly scheduled press briefing Nov. 30 that the Russian fighters were detected on radar well in advance of their high-speed passes. Naval officers aboard ship who spoke of the incident on the condition of anonymity agreed.

However, at the time the carrier’s combat information center alerted the ship’s commander, Capt. Allen G. Myers, that the Russian fighters were inbound, none of the carrier’s fighters were airborne. The ship carries 85 aircraft, according to Navy figures, and has a crew of over 5,500.

Witnesses said Myers immediately ordered the launch of alert fighters, but the ship’s scheduled fighter squadron was on “Alert-30” status — a minimum launch time of 30 minutes where pilots are “in the ready room” but are not sitting in cockpits waiting to be launched.

Bacon told reporters only that there “may have been a slight delay” in getting the interceptors in the air, explaining that because the Kitty Hawk was taking on fuel, it was not sailing fast enough to launch its aircraft.

One naval officer onboard the ship said, “40 minutes after the CO [commanding officer] called away the alerts,” the Russian planes “made a 500-knot, 200-foot pass directly over the tower” of the carrier.

Before the Kitty Hawk could get a single plane airborne, the Russian fighters made two more passes. Worse, witnesses said, the first plane off the deck was an EA-6B Prowler — a plane used primarily for electronic jamming of an enemy’s radar and air defenses, not a fighter capable of intercepting another warplane.

The EA-6B “ended up in a one-versus-one with a Flanker just in front of the ship,” one witness said. “The Flanker was all over his a…. He was screaming for help when finally an F/A-18 Hornet from our sister squadron got off the deck and made the intercept. It was too late.”

Naval personnel noted that “the entire crew watched overhead as the Russians made a mockery of our feeble attempt of intercepting them.”

The Clinton administration downplayed the incident …. The BBC, however, said that it was evident by the photographs taken by the Russian jets that there was “panic aboard” when the planes made their over-flights.

Our American readers will now perhaps argue that this humiliating incident happened 15 years ago and such a thing is no longer possible nowadays. But most readers of Russia Insider remember the events of April 2014 when the ultra-modern destroyer USS Donald Cook was paralyzed by a single SU-24.

For those readers who unfortunately missed the story, here it is:

At the beginning of April last year the Americans sent the USS Donald Cook into the Black Sea, with the permission of Turkey, to protest against the Russian annexation of Crimea and to demonstrate their military strength. The destroyer was equipped with the most advanced Aegis Combat System, a naval weapons systems which ensures the detection, tracking and destruction of multiple targets at the same time. In addition, the USS Donald Cook is equipped with four large radars, whose power is comparable to that of several stations. For protection, it carries more than 50 anti-aircraft missiles of various types.

According to the “Montreux Convention,” non-Black Sea state warships are permitted to stay in the Black Sea for no longer than 21 days. The Americans, of course, ignored this rule, and Russia responded by sending an SU-24. The Sukhoi was unarmed but equipped with the latest electronic warfare device, called Khibiny.

When the SU-24 approached the destroyer, all radar and control systems, information transfers, etc., of the USS Donald Cook were suddenly paralyzed by Khibiny. In other words, the seemingly superior Aegis system was completely off — like when you turn off your TV with the remote control.

Subsequently, the Sukhoi simulated 12 missile attacks at low altitude on the virtually blind and deaf USS Donald Cook, and we can imagine that the two SU-24 aircraft pilots had a lot of fun. Unfortunately, at this time there was neither John McCain nor NATO Commander Phillip Breedlove on board the ship — they would certainly have received some long-lasting impressions from this demonstration.

After this incident, the USS Donald Cook chose to immediately and at full speed move towards a port in Romania, where 27 shocked crew members asked for dismissal from the service.

This story shows us that Americans still overestimate the capabilities of their armed forces and do not realize (or do not want to admit) that Russia’s military technology is in many areas superior and has an advantage that cannot be offset quickly.

So, as long as a single Russian fighter jet can turn off a complete U.S. warship with the latest warning and fire control systems by just pushing a button, the answer to the question “How long would the U.S. Navy survive?” today is the same as in the old Cold War days.

In a War With Russia NATO Doesn’t Stand a Chance

As long as we’re talking about a war close to Russia’s borders – conversely defense-minded Russia military is no threat to the US or western Europe

This article originally appeared at The Unz Review in July of 2015, and we are running it again because of a sickening lurch towards war between Russia and NATO over the past 2 weeks. The Saker is unparalleled on this subject.

Russlands Luftlandetruppen – Moskaus schnelle Eingreiftruppe
Russlands Luftlandetruppen – Moskaus schnelle Eingreiftruppe

Since this article was written, the Russian armed forces have only become stronger, with new weapons systems, higher morale, and crucial battle experience in Syria.

In a recent column for the Unz Review I wrote that “under any conceivable scenario Russia does have the means to basically completely destroy the USA as a country in about 30min (the USA, of course, can do the same to Russia). Any US war planner would have to consider the escalatory potential of any military action against Russia.”

This still begs the question of whether Russia could challenge the USA militarily if we assume, for demonstration’s sake, that neither side would be prepared to use nuclear weapons, including tactical ones. If, by some mysterious magic, all nuclear weapons were to disappear, what would the balance of power between Russian and the US look like?

Why Bean Counting Makes Absolutely No SenseThe typical reply to this kind of question resorts to what US force planners call “bean counting”. Typically, journalists use the yearly IISS Military Balance or a source like Global Firepower and tallies of the number of men, main battle tanks, armored personnel carriers, infantry combat vehicles, combat aircraft, artillery pieces, bombers, missiles, surface ships, submarines, etc. presented by each side in a chart.

The reality is that such bean counting means absolutely and strictly nothing. Let’s take a simple example: if a war happens between, say, China and Russia then the fact that China has, say, 1000 tanks in its Yunnan province, will make no difference to the war at all, simply because they are too distant. When we apply this caveat to the Russian-US conventional military balance we immediately ought to ask ourselves the following two basic questions:

a) What part of the US military worldwide would be immediately available to the US commanders in case of a war with Russia?

b) On how many reinforcements could this force count and how soon could they get there?

Keep in mind that tanks, bombers, soldiers and artillery do not fight separately – they fight together in what is logically called “combined arms” battles. So even if the USA could get X number of soldiers to location A, if they don’t have all the other combined arms components to support them in combat they are just an easy target.Furthermore, any fighting force will require a major logistics/supply effort. It is all very well to get aircraft X to location A, but if its missiles, maintenance equipment and specialists are not there to help, they are useless. Armored forces are notorious for expending a huge amount of petroleum, oil and lubricants. According to one estimate, in 1991 a US armored division could sustain itself for only 5 days – after that it would need a major resupply effort.

Finally, any force that the US would move from point A to point B would become unavailable to execute its normally assigned role at point A. Now consider that “point A” could mean the Middle-East, or Far East Asia and you will see that this might be a difficult decision for US commanders.

“Heavy” warfare

We have one very good example of how the US operates: Operation Desert Shield. During this huge operation it took the US six months and an unprecedented logistical effort to gather the forces needed to attack Iraq.

Furthermore, Saudi Arabia had been prepared for decades to receive such a massive force (in compliance with the so-called Carter Doctrine) and the US efforts was completely unopposed by Saddam Hussein. Now ask yourself the following questions:a) In case of war with Russia, which country neighboring Russia would have an infrastructure similar to the one of the KSA, prepositioned equipment, huge bases, runways, deep ports, etc. ? (Answer: none)

b) How likely is it that the Russians would give the USA six months to prepare for war without taking any action? (Answer: impossible)

One might object that not all wars run according to the “heavy” scenario of Desert Storm. What if the US was preparing a very ‘light’ military intervention using only US and NATO immediate or rapid reaction forces?

Light (or rapid reaction) warfare

I will repeat here something I wrote in December of last year:

The Russians have no fear of the military threat posed by NATO. Their reaction to the latest NATO moves (new bases and personnel in Central Europe, more spending, etc.) is to denounce it as provocative, but Russian officials all insist that Russia can handle the military threat.

As one Russian deputy said “5 rapid reaction diversionary groups is a problem we can solve with one missile”. A simplistic but basically correct formula.

As I mentioned before, the decision to double the size of the Russian Airborne Forces and to upgrade the elite 45th Special Designation Airborne Regiment to full brigade-size has already been taken anyway. You could say that Russia preempted the creation of the 10,000 strong NATO force by bringing her own mobile (airborne) forces from 36,000 to 72,000.

This is typical Putin. While NATO announces with fanfare and fireworks that NATO will create a special rapid reaction “spearhead” force of 10,000, Putin quietly doubles the size of the Russian Airborne Forces to 72,000.

And, believe me, the battle hardened Russian Airborne Forces are a vastly more capable fighting force then the hedonistic and demotivated multi-national (28 countries) Euroforce of 5,000 NATO is struggling hard to put together. The US commanders fully understand that.

In other words, “light” or “rapid reaction” warfare is where the Russians excel and not the kind of conflict the US or NATO could ever hope to prevail in. Besides, if the “light warfare” was to last longer than planned and had to be escalated to the “heavy” kind, would the USA or Russia have its heavy forces nearer?

Shock and Awe

There is, of course, another model available to the US commanders: the “shock and awe” model: massive cruise missile attacks backed by bomber strikes. Here I could easily object that bombing Russia is not comparable to bombing Iraq and that the Russian air defenses are the most formidable on the planet.

Or I could say that while the USA has an excellent record of success when bombing civilians, its record against a military force like the Serbian Army Corps in Kosovo was an abject failure.[Sidebar: 78 days of non-stop US/NATO airstrikes, 1000+ aircraft and 38,000+ air sorties and all that to achieve what? Ten or so Serbian aircraft destroyed (most on the ground), 20+ APC and tanks destroyed and 1000+ Serbian soldiers dead or wounded. That is out of a force of 130,000+ Serbian soliders, 80+ aircraft, 1,400 artillery pieces, 1,270 tanks and 825 APCs (all figures according to Wikipedia). The 3rd Serbian Army Corps basically came out unharmed from this massive bombing campaign which will go down in history as arguably the worst defeat of airpower in history!]

But even if we assume that somehow the US succeeded in its favorite “remote” warfare, does anybody believe that this would seriously affect the Russian military or breaking the will of the Russian people? The people of Leningrad survived not 78, but 900 (nine hundred!) days of a infinitely worse siege and bombing and never even considered surrendering!

The reality is that being on the defense gives Russia a huge advantage against the USA even if we only consider conventional weapons. Even if the conflict happened in the Ukraine or the Baltic states, geographic proximity would give Russia a decisive advantage over any conceivable US/NATO attack. American commanders all understand that very well even if they pretend otherwise.

Conversely, a Russian attack on the USA or NATO is just as unlikely, and for the same reasons. Russia cannot project her power very far from her borders.

In fact, if you look at the way the Russian military is organized, structured and trained, you will immediately see that it is a force designed primarily to defeat an enemy on the Russian border or within less than 1000km from it.Yes, sure, you will see Russian bombers, surface ships and submarines reaching much further, but these are also typical “showing the flag” missions, not combat training for actual military scenarios.

The sole real purpose of the US military is to regularly beat up on some small, more or less defenseless country, either in order to rob it of its resources, overthrow a government daring to defy the World Hegemon, or just to make an example of it.

The US military was never designed to fight a major war against a sophisticated enemy. Only the US strategic nuclear forces are tasked to defend the USA against another nuclear power (Russia or China) or actually fight in a major war.

As for the Russian military, it was designed to be purely defensive and it has no capability to threaten anybody in Europe, much less so the United States.

Of course, the western corporate media will continue to “bean count” US and Russian forces, but that is pure propaganda designed to create a sense of urgency and fear in the general public. The reality for the foreseeable future will remain that neither the USA nor Russia have the means to successfully attack each other, even with only conventional forces.

The only real danger left is an unprepared and unforeseen sudden escalation which will lead to a confrontation neither side wants nor is prepared for. The Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006 or the Georgian attack on Russian peacekeepers in 2008 are two scary reminders that sometimes dumb politicians take fantastically dumb decisions.

I am confident that Putin and his team would never make such a dumb decision, but when I look at the current pool of US Presidential candidates I will tell you that I get very, very frightened.

Do you?


Revolt Against Oligarchy

Revolt Against Oligarchy

A Russian Nationalist Speaks


Revolt Against Oligarchy Manezhskaya Square on December 11th, 2010

Russia rises from its knees, only to stand again at a crossroads. The country must choose its guiding idea, the transcendent value that will define the fate of its culture and people. Under President Dmitry Medvedev, the liberal segments of the ruling elite are again emboldened. They speak ceaselessly of modernizing- not only industries but the population at large, to form a “civil society” in accordance with Western norms. All of this is ostensibly for competitive advantage at the international level. For Russia not to fall behind, Medvedev’s advisors intimate, it must fully integrate with the U.S.-led market order.

Such is the assertion. It is readily apparent that Russia must diversify an economy dependent on energy revenues, yet what the Kremlin liberals propose is no more than the imposition of the latest variant of Western materialism in the manner of the Bolsheviks and post-Soviet “shock therapists”. Men like Igor Yurgens, head of the Institute of Contemporary Development and the acknowledged architect of the modernization schemes, have shown little but contempt for the actual, historical Russian nation. They welcome the massive influx of Central Asians and Caucasians into Moscow and other cities as cheap labor, upholding EU-style multiculturalism as a model for imitation. These policies inevitably generate further friction between Russians and ethnic groups known (in some cases not unfairly) for their criminal tendencies.


Postmodern anarcho-tyranny may suit the coterie of oligarchs who dominate the economy, but it is ordinary Russians who suffer from their predations. And discontent with the current regime is no longer so concealed. After the murder of football fan Yegor Sviridov by a Dagestani gangster in early December, young Russians have taken to the streets to send authorities a message: no longer will they tolerate the intolerable. On December 11th thousands of football fans, nationalists and students flooded Manezhskaya Square across from the Kremlin and battled the riot police sent to control them. President Medvedev deemed the protests to be driven by radical provocateurs, but he missed the point completely. The current situation is untenable- the kleptocratic, clan-ruled North Caucasus republics receive billions in federal aid to keep a lid on instability and Islamic extremism, all the while sending migrants to swamp the Russian center. This supposed safety valve brings interethnic violence right to the streets of Moscow, a phenomenon exploited by jihadists seeking their own emirate from the Black Sea to the Caspian.Corruption in Russia is certainly more pronounced and pervasive in its measurable forms than in the West. Bribery, extortion and theft are corrosive to the state and society at large, but importing the contemporary pathologies regnant in America and Europe is positively lethal. The alleged “transparency” of liberalism masks spiritual corruption- the inversion of virtue itself and cultural disintegration. Russians must already confront the murderous legacy of Marxism-Leninism, a vacuum filled today by anything from drug addictions to electronic entertainment and consumer distractions. To forge a path to resurgence, the new iterations of atheist materialism must be combated and vanquished rather than welcomed.

The role of Vladimir Putin in restoring Russia must therefore be examined more closely. In a number of cases, the current prime minister has vigorously prosecuted the interests of his nation; curbing the power of Open-Society tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky and standing up to Washington in the post-Soviet space are examples that come immediately to mind. Yet it is not clear that Putin has any overarching conservative vision for Russia. Indeed, his entire power “tandem” with Medvedev attests to absorption with tactics and expediency at best. Thus intelligent and fearless criticism from the right becomes a necessity. The words of nationalist and academic Andrei Saveliev carry special resonance in this regard. In this two-part interview with Alternative Right, Saveliev provides us an insider’s look at Russian politics and elaborates his tough and principled opposition to the liberal oligarchy.


Andrei Saveliev has a PhD in Political Science from Moscow State University. He was an elected deputy of the Fourth State Duma on the “Rodina” ticket (2003-7) and the right-hand man of Rodina’s leader, Dmitry Rogozin. He is chairman of the unregistered political party Velikaya Rossiya (Great Russia). He is the author of over 300 articles and several books, including Political Mythology (2003), Nation and State: A Theory of Conservative Reconstruction (2005), The Image of the Enemy: Racial Studies and Political Anthropology (2007). He currently teaches courses on the Sociology Faculty at Moscow State University.

Alfred Smith is the alter ego of a graduate student somewhere in the UK. He was happy to conduct this interview and skilled translation for Alternative Right during a recent trip to Moscow. Some of his writings can be found at The Devil’s Review.

Many conservatives in the West have a favourable opinion of Vladimir Putin, seeing him as true national leader who is working in the interest of the Russian people. Many of my colleagues believe him to be a conservative, even a nationalist. However, in your book Nation and State: A Theory of Conservative Reconstruction, you write that Putin is actually a liberal. How is Putin a liberal?

I was very surprised when I met with some Italian conservatives, they gave me a publication in which Putin was extolled as a great world leader, as some sort of model of a nationally oriented head of state. Their confusion had to do with the lack of information about the real situation in Russia, and the misinterpretation of certain rude words spoken by Putin, which were taken as ‘anti-American’ and quoted many times in the Western media. At the time I wrote a short explanation and sent it to the Italians.

Let us remember, for a start, that Athenian democracy made much use of slave labour, ritual prostitution and a monopoly on maritime trade, which more close resembled piracy. In ‘totalitarian’ Sparta the number of hangers-on (the city demos) was much smaller, while the relationship between the Spartans and the helots was more reminiscent of the relationship between landowner and tenant. Besides, even in Athens it was not permitted to kill a slave arbitrarily. In one of the dialogues of Socrates, his interlocutor tells how the murderer of a slave was bound and thrown into a ditch before being taken into custody.

Liberal ideas appeared and began to manifest themselves in the life of the world in the context of the slave trade and the drug trade (the Opium Wars, for example). And now formal democracy rests on various forms of slavery (including sexual), unprecedented levels of drug addiction world-wide, various forms of theft, and speculation on commodities and financial instruments, which destroys industry and agriculture through debt bondage.

As far as contemporary Russia is concerned, I judge by the results, by the way of thinking and the actions of Putin. His aims are exclusively liberal. And the results of his governance have been deplorable for the country. The crisis which Russia fell into in 2008 is still deeper than the one in the Yeltsin period, and Putin’s policies are largely to blame for this. The main cause of this crisis is the legalization of the capital obtained by the oligarchs. This was possible only under an ultra-liberal government. What this means is the pardon of enormous crimes concerning the seizure and transfer of property in previous years, during Yeltsin’s presidency. Under Yeltsin they managed to make about ten billionaires right with the law, under Putin, about a hundred.

Liberalism has various definitions. The main mark of contemporary liberalism is not the demand for freedom of enterprise, but the globalisation of the economy and the de facto liquidation of national sovereignty. Free elections and parliamentary debates are only the façade of the political system. In Russia this façade looks filthy and absurd, but the basic blueprint, accepted in the West, has been preserved. There are no real elections, no real debates. But there are semblances of them. More important is what is behind the façade. What’s behind it is the absolute power of the oligarchy and a corrupt bureaucracy, which is ripping the country to pieces.

OMON Riot Police on Manezhskaya Square, December 11th, 2010

Putin is representative of those power groups who have transformed the Russian economy into a part of the global economy, who have changed the economy such that it no longer serves the national interest. The oligarchic order which has developed in Russia was created by the experience and the pressures of the global economy, which is promoted by unaccountable people who have no fatherland. This is not small or medium sized business – this is big business, global business which has penetrated into other countries and integrated itself with similar global businesses: Gazprom, Lukoil, Rosneft etc. These are the main fuel and energy corporations. But that’s only the beginning of what they do. They have become involved in other arenas, including politics. Their interests are in no way connected to Russia’s national interests. The interest these corporations have in Russia is to use the energy resources of the country in such a way that the Russian people will not gain any benefit from them.

The second aspect of liberalism which is relevant to our country is the formation of a liberal (that is, free from any and all responsibility) bureaucracy. This bureaucracy has basically become its own social class. It’s not only civil servants, it’s a class formed by familial ties and ethnic solidarity which is opposed to the ethnic Russian majority. This is something else we can thank Putin for. And for the ‘iron law of oligarchy’ which in this case met with no resistance from our government: any democratic system degenerates into oligarchy. In this case we see the highest officials included in the oligarchy and the formation of civil service that acts as a mechanism for the suppression of civic consciousness. Liberalism in this environment is an ideology meant to keep citizens on a short leash. It has replaced the communist ideology, employing the same form of rhetoric, and differing only in its terminology. In the Putin bureaucracy we see not fidelity to law and national interests, but the conviction that one has the right to be arbitrary and flout the law.

Putin in this matter is a perfect model: he ignores the law both as an administrator (constitutional norms are unknown to him, and of no interest), and as a politician, constantly showing off before the whole country. The sanctions of law that are supposed to be common to all do not apply to him. He is like a driver who gets away with breaking all the traffic rules. His cynical flouting of the law is censured only by independent online journalists. Putin provides the model for all the local bureaucrats. Behind the façade of formal obedience to the law they conceal their complete contempt for law. This is their understanding of freedom: freedom to be independent of the law. But with the option of forcing citizens to follow the most absurd and illegal rules.

The liberal bureaucracy has transformed Russia into an open hunting zone, a wild west, where a few are allowed to hunt, and the rest to either observe or become the prey. All the rest must live strictly in accordance with the law and go to the bureaucrat to ask his permission for anything they wish to do. The bureaucrat, for his part, may act in accordance with the law, or may not act at all. And this pernicious inaction on the part of the bureaucrat is his main tool of manipulation and taking bribes.

Yet another aspect of the liberalization of Russia under Putin is the mass media, where the level of pornography has exceeded all bounds, while the reliability and completeness of information has ceased to be a priority. State television promotes freedom from restraint, free love, homosexuality, prostitution, slovenliness, ignorance and cynicism. And all of this is under the auspices of the government, which demands only complete loyalty to the regime. In the rest of the media, the most depraved and dissolute people are allowed to run things.

Putin has not carried out a single project, though he had at his disposal such a colossal sum of money as no ruler in the world ever had. It all went into the pockets of the oligarchs. And now that the oil prices have gone south, it turns out that the electronic credits Russia received as payment for oil and gas are worthless. Now we lack the resources to provide for a more or less decent standard of living for the vast majority of the population, let alone for modernization.

Putin has committed a series of criminal acts to kow-tow to the liberal world community. He has handed over the lion’s share of Russian firms to foreign capital and the deracinated oligarchy, ceded vast territories to China, abandoned the Northern Caucasus (especially Chechnya) to criminality, and destroyed close relations with Ukraine and Belarus using ‘gas blackmail’. The harsh grimaces of this actor should not deceive us. It is no more than an act.

Facing Terror – The Russian Future

Facing Terror

The Russian Future


Facing Terror Viktor Vasnetsov, A Knight at the Crossroads. 1882

The January 24th terrorist bombing at Domodedovo Airport in Moscow serves as a reminder of why Russia throughout its history has dwelt in a state of mobilization. The vast spaces of the Eurasian heartland have concealed a wide array of adversaries, from Poland’s Winged Hussars and the Grande Armée to Turkic nomads and rebellious Caucasian mountaineers. War is a reality that manifests itself here with depressing regularity, and it has been firmly impressed in the Russian historical memory. From fields of battle to the dark recesses of the soul, Russia more than other cultures is defined by struggle.

And so the carnage persists into our brave new twenty-first century; this time a suicide bomber killed 35 innocents during the hours of Monday-morning travel. The attack was most likely carried out by a cell of the Caucasus Emirate, a jihadist umbrella organization. It was calculated to further destabilize the republics of the North Caucasus and possibly drive inter-ethnic tensions in Russia’s major cities to a breaking point. Retribution, as Prime Minister Vladimir Putin remarked, will be inevitable. But in calibrating a response, the Kremlin is placed in an extraordinarily difficult position, as it must attend to a situation that could quickly spin out of control.


The North Caucasus is a region of high strategic value for Russia- oil transits there from the Caspian to the Black Sea, and holding it allows Moscow to anchor its southern flank. Georgia and Azerbaijan can be kept in line, and Russian power projected into the Middle East. Yet for all these advantages, the provinces of Dagestan, Kabardino-Balkaria and Karachai-Circassia, not to mention Chechnya and Ingushetia, are not simply poor and undeveloped; they are systemically unstable.Two centuries of intermittent warfare have resulted from the mountaineers’ refusal to submit to Russian dominion, and the nature of the contest has changed little. Clan societies with the enduring custom of blood-feud and criminality as the national pastime can hardly be expected to integrate into whatever model of civil order technocrats in Moscow might have planned. Mountain tribes the world over are known both for their defiance and noble savagery, and those of the Caucasus maintain legendary status in this regard thanks to Mikhail Lermontov and Lev Tolstoy.

After the Second Chechen war wound down, considerable funds have been devoted to reconstruction and economic development across the region. Lower-level bloodshed spread from Chechnya into neighboring republics over the decade, and led to counterinsurgency operations against multiplying terror cells. If the North Caucasus could never be permanently pacified, perhaps it could be bought off. President Dmitry Medvedev has pushed forward with this strategy, appointing a financial expert as his plenipotentiary there. Yet massive funds from the federal budget have done little to change socio-economic conditions. The clans that maintain power dominate what might exist of the local industries and often use the money from Moscow for their own purposes. Even more than in other parts of Russia, corruption is endemic.

When one factors in the growing population among Caucasian Muslims, young men in impoverished cities like Nalchik and Khasavyurt have little opportunity for advancement. They might end up in Moscow as migrant laborers (or engaged in various criminal enterprises), or they could join the local Wahabbi jaamat (Islamic association) and with it the terrorist underground. In either case there is an expanding potential for chaos. Moscow’s Muslim population nears two million, with increasing numbers from the south and Central Asia. Reserves of Russian good will are depleted in the face of displays of Islamic power, habitual violence, and generally aggressive behavior. The Caucasus Emirate is looking to capitalize on events such as the December murder of Russian Yegor Sviridov to ignite interethnic war and push the country over the edge.

Militants have the resources needed to play out their gambit. They possess cash siphoned from crime and corruption, weaponry drawn from government arsenals, and radicalized volunteers with a deep hatred of Russia. And due to the particularities of culture as well as Mohammedan ethical standards, buying off the tribes will come to naught. Presidential advisors like Igor Yurgens and Arkadii Dvorkovich are but liberal social engineers who see the world through an exclusively materialist prism. Their vision of society, a Russia westernized and decadent, can only evoke the contempt of enemies. The Eurasianist Aleksandr Bovdunov writes:

The main allies of the Wahabbis today are the inactivity of the central government, lawlessness in the regions, and Russian national television. So a young Caucasian should love this, respect this? Our Russia [a comedy sketch show], Urgant [an MTV-style television personality], Tsekalo [a producer of musicals], and the iPad- are these your values, Mr. Medvedev? Are these your aspirations, Mr. Dvorkovich? Is all this what is worth living and dying for? If not, then why are you surprised that against such a system of values where deceit and shamelessness are honored and elevated as norms, where the scammer and the prostitute are ideals and examples for the rising generation, these men carry out unrelenting struggle? What is Russia for them?

And what is Russia for ethnic Russians? Never will they gain the affection of the mountaineers, but they could win respect. To do so, the Russian nation must reassert control over its own cultural destiny and act against the liberal forces that corrode, subvert and destroy tradition in the name of the Open Society. Only then might Russia confront separatism and the Islamic challenge, on its own terms and without falling to provocations. In geopolitics as in other matters, beasts of prey are not moved to pity; they can only be defeated through the will to resistance and renewal.

The most profound terror Russia faces is in the premonition of its own death. The effects of the Soviet experiment and its collapse still reverberate today, having brought the Eastern Slavs to the brink of oblivion. Time operates against the Russian people; they face the harsh realities of declining demographics and are scourged by alcoholism, abortion and HIV. Every year 30,000 die from heroin addiction, a phenomenon equivalent to losses in a major regional war. The Kremlin has restored much of its influence in the former Soviet space, but the state can ultimately do little without a spiritual resurgence from Russians themselves.

Wherever doctrines of progress pervade the minds of men, despair and nihilism prevail in their hearts. Modern civilization forsakes God and enshrines self-worship; it proclaims mastery over nature even at its moment of implosion. How frivolous and wretched are the attempts to build a workers’ paradise, or a global society of free and equal consumers, under the shadow of omnipotent death? To stand against desolation and to conquer calls for nothing less than supernatural grace, that the fight for existence might be sanctified. Action in the face of catastrophe only affirms what was revealed in Christ’s path from Golgotha to the Resurrection: Love is stronger than death, and the lives of men and nations attain their full meaning in eternity.

Globalist elites will look on with satisfaction if Russia is eviscerated by plundering oligarchs, jihadists and secular anti-culture before moving in for the kill. Meanwhile Russians are supposed to congratulate themselves on their tolerance and rejoice in disintegration. Yet as Fedor Dostoevsky foresaw, this great Slavic tribe must not perish with the atheistic West, but survive and save it under the sign of the cross. And as our age grows darker, may Russia be a light from the East.

‘North Caucasus Emirate’ attacks Chechnya’s parliament building

“Watching the pot come to a boil”

20-Oct-10 News — ‘North Caucasus Emirate’ attacks Chechnya’s parliament building
China halting ‘rare earth mineral’ exports

‘North Caucasus Emirate’ attacks Chechnya’s parliament building

Russians were shocked on Tuesday morning by the news of a successful large-scale terrorist attack on Chechnya’s very well protected Parliament building in Grozny.

The attack began when vehicles containing rebel militants made their way into parliamentary grounds by following cars taking lawmakers to work, according to Ria Novosti. A suicide bomber then blew himself up, and in the confusion the other militants reached the main building. There were several deaths, but no casualties among lawmakers.

It was just a year ago that Russians had been assured by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin that the Chechen insurgency had been quelled for good. Since that time, there have almost daily terrorist attacks in the Northern Caucasus, which refers to Russian southern provinces of Chechnya, Ingushetia, and Dagestan. Several attacks in recent months have been spectacular.

The brazenness of Tuesday’s attack has reignited fears among the Russian people that the Caucasus provinces are becoming lawless again, as they were during two wars of independence, one in the 1990s, and one in the early 2000s.

However, the nature of the rebel movement has changed since the earlier wars. The two Chechen wars were along ethnic fault lines, with Chechnya’s clans and warlords versus the Russian people and leaders.

However, in 2007, the Chechen rebel leader, Doku Umarov, created the “North Caucasus Emirate” and made himself the “Emir,” with the objective of uniting the three North Caucasus provinces into a single jihadist conflict with Moscow.

However, the rebel movement is still split along ethnic and clan lines, according to the Eurasia Daily Monitor. On October 7, three rebel field commanders announced that they were renouncing their oaths of allegiance to Umarov. They said that they would still be part of the North Caucasus Emirate, but that they would form their own legislative bodies.

Historically, the Caucasus region is one of the most violent on earth, because of the interethnic wars, and because it’s one of the major regions (along with the Crimea and the Balkans) where fault line wars have been fought between the Muslim civilization and the Orthodox Christian civilization. Thus, a small regional war in the Caucasus could spiral into a much larger war very quickly.

That’s one of the major reasons — often overlooked by Western journalists and politicians — for Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008. At that time, Georgia and South Ossetia were beginning a conflict that could have spread quickly from Georgia into Russia’s southern provinces. Undoubtedly one of Vladimir Putin’s major reasons for intervening was to prevent a larger war.

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, the violence in the Caucasus is following a familiar pattern. Low-level violence occurs for years or decades, often punctuated by peace agreements or temporary ceasefires. Each time the violence flares up again, it’s more lethal and more genocidal, until finally it crosses the line into a full-fledged generational crisis war. Generational Dynamics predicts that the Caucasus region is headed in that direction, but this should hardly be news to anyone, since it’s happened so many times over the centuries.

Additional links

In the last four days, 79 people have been killed in gun violence in Karachi, Pakistan. On Tuesday alone, 28 people were killed. Since the Pakistan floods, and resulting flood of refugees to Karachi, many people are saying that the city is ungovernable. As a result, some people are calling for the army to come in and control the violence. Pak Observer

France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy continues to stand firm with plans for pension reform that will raise the retirement age from 60 to 62, despite massive public opposition and massive public strikes that have all but shut down the country. Plans are still going on for the French Senate to vote on the pension reform plan on Wednesday, and it’s hoped that the strikes will end when the pension reform law becomes a fait accompli. However, Sarkozy’s opponents are attempting to stall the vote, to force him to back down. Bloomberg

Pregnant women taking fish oil supplements to not make babies smark, or the mothers less depressed, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association. NY Times

An H1N1 swine flu pandemic is not expected in the coming flu season, but researchers are still recommending people over 50 to be immunized. Bloomberg

China has quietly halted “rare earth minerals” to Western countries, following the recent step taken in retaliation for the Japanese arrest of a fishing boat captain. These minerals are used in high-tech products, and China controls more than 95% of the global market, and the embargo has spread to the European Union and the United States. Germany plans to ask the World Trade Organization and the European Commission to intervene. NY Times

The European Commission is lifting its threat to take legal action against France over concerns about its expulsions of the Roma Gypsies, after France committed to make changes to its laws. BBC

(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 20-Oct-10 News — ‘North Caucasus Emirate’ attacks Chechnya’s parliament building thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be posted anonymously.) (20-Oct-2010)

Jared Taylor on Russian Television

Jared Taylor on Russian Television

More news stories on AR in the News

YouTube, February 2010

Jared Taylor appeared as a guest on the “Cross Talk” program on the Russia Today channel.

Source: YouTube:

Original article

(Posted on February 8, 2010)