In December, 2018 I wrote an article for Asia Times discussing Russia’s Avangard fractional orbiting nuclear weapon system. Today’s revelation suggesting that Russia intends to deploy a space based nuclear weapon has elicited demands that the Biden administration tell the American people what the intelligence reports say, and that the information should all be declassified.
I realize it is difficult to summarize 60+ years of arms control discussions and very difficult to characterize where missile defense technologies and programs fit in. Since we cancelled our only ABM system in North Dakota (protecting our responsive ICBMs) in 1975, we have never fielded a system that is capable of stopping incoming Russian or Chinese ICBMs in any significant numbers. You are correct that our only, extremely limited, missile defense might be good against a rogue missile or two. All ICBMs are hypersonic weapons and some maneuver a little and some a lot. But if there is no missile defense then the argument that this is a magic, destabilizing weapon from Russia is just nonsense and blather. The day after this is fielded nothing will change - just the hyperbolic rhetoric.
You points are well taken. Missile are hypersonic but they slow down on entering the atmosphere. But if they are specially designed they all are hard to detect on radar. In any case, we don't have real missile defenses so the argument(s) are largely academic.
Stephen, I appreciate your view but I am afraid you are missing the technology arguments. RV's DO NOT slow down very much and enter at Mach 16+. They have their low drag, very sharp shape so that they can ablate while going through the atmosphere to the target. The shuttle is an example of something that gives up energy at high altitude - the opposite of an RV. Everything screaming through the atmosphere has a radar signature; nothing stealthy about endo-atmospheric hypersonics. This is a critical topic so do not stop writing about it. Having nuclear weapons in space is just another place to base them. Orbital dynamics means it can take longer to get on target than the existing Triad configuration. But, that kind of "militarizing space" is huge politically. If this is a Russian nuclear-tipped ASAT, that is not a new concept but of limited value. Would you risk total annihilation just to take out a few satellites?
What I read is that weapons moving at hypersonic speed create a plasma around the weapon that blocks radar returns. Avangard as I understand it is a glider that skims the outer part of the atmosphere, thus it is not actually space based such as an orbiting satellite. Of course the plasma generation does not happen outside the atmosphere. The one thing we agree on is that this is mostly an effort by Biden and company to gin up anti-Russian sentiment.
There is a great plasma physics problem in there. The plasma in the boundary layer prevents communication through that plasma and that is the returning space capsule problem. Cobra Dane and Cobra Just have tracked RVs after re-entry. The North Dakota ABM did use giant radars to track incoming ICBMs but the Sprint missiles, with their 10 kT warheads, were supposed to engage eco-atmospherically. The SDI-era interceptors, not allowed to use nuclear warheads, used the optical (UV - visible - IR) signatures since that gives a better position estimate. Biden has been stupid with respect to USSR / Russia since he entered public life and has normally been afraid of confrontation and surrender peremptorily (Shut down ABM, oppose SDI, pull US Navy from Black Sea, etc.). I do not think he is smart enough to use this piece of information to generate anti-Russian responses. This is the man who designed the strategy that optimizes the number of Ukrainians killed by Russia by not providing sufficient number of the right weapons that would have ended the conflict early; but enough to keep Ukraine in the fight. Good to the last grandmother.
So, we p*ss off Russia and wonder why they invest heavily into new weapons? Or are we scared that their investments had actually effective results? I mean Washington has nothing to show, despite all those fancy military contractors that devour billions of dollars.
Where did it all go wrong?
You know, I watched the Putin interview and I realized the guy actually wants to settle Ukraine and negotiate a solution everyone can live with. It was an invitation to the West, but during the last few days, every single Western mainstream piece insulted him and the Russian government, and many Western politicians did the same. Even the Germans speak of a potential Russian attack in 5 to 10 years. Just imagine how stupid that sounds...
I, too, watched the Putin interview. I though his justification for invading Ukraine so as to root out the "Nazis" was a load of crap and destroyed whatever credibility he might have had.
Michael, that's because our media doesn't report about the fascist elements in the Ukrainian government.
Have you googled how many politicians and journalists have died since 2014 in Ukraine?
Have you watched videos of the right wing battalions on the battlefield (Azov, Kraken etc).
One reason Zelenksy wasn't able to push for peace is because the right sector in Ukraine became so powerful after 2014.
Fascism there is very real, or what else would we call the cancellation of the Russian language, orthodox Church, elections, some of which took place before the war started?
I see the main problem in how our media reports about this conflict. It's no surprise though, considering how they have reported about Afghanistan, Syria and Lybia....
This is a very good conversation and before we continue it further, it would be helpful if you could define "fascist", "right wing" and even "Nazi" so we all can know we are talking about the same thing.
I bet you know perfectly well. Nazis were specific to a place and time, but the key characteristics are (1) white supremacist (defined in favor of the local majority) (2) nationalist (3) authoritarian political system (4) capitalist. And all of the above taken to a violent extreme.
Insofar as naziism was specific to a place and time, the connection to today is that WWII Germany took over lots of countries, and encouraged collaborators to run what was pretty much a franchise of the political-ideological system. With the necessary allowances for diffences in ethnicity, as original German Nazis thought Eastern and Southern Europeans, among many many others, were biologically inferior. But that didn't seem to stop some of the Eastern European collaborator regimes, who ended up even more sadistic in ways, although lacked the industrial scale of the original.
After WWII ended, some of these offshoots were never fully eradicated, in particular in Ukraine where the US funded Bandera's organization post war, because they were still willing to go out and fight communism. The very same organization saw a revival in the past decade, for an analogous reason. That's what we have today. People renaming hundreds of streets to names of WWII collaborators and war criminals, building statues of them, postage stamps, national holiday, etc etc etc etc. Unfortunately it is real, and we in the US are supporting it in a sort-of ends justifying the means situation. Specifically, immediately after Maidan, Ukraine government and army and police etc were purged of Russian sympathetic personnel, and the single reliable power center who was 100.0% anti Russian were the ultra nationalists who marched with the black-and-red flag or the wolf-cross flag. Just before that revolution they were mere mafia thugs or at most brown-shirts, but then they became elevated to something more like the SS. A key part of the military system holding it all together.
The modern day twist is that post 2019 election, they eventually toned down the anti-semitism, at least in public, and adopted Zelensky as a Jewish frontman of sorts, for the purpose of making them more palatable to the western audience. A very shrewd PR move -- though it was made after a brief initial reaction to him which was death threats.
Agree on the good conversation. I'll throw out the name Zelensky as a fascist because he's not allowing any elections, produces prodigious amounts of propaganda and is persecuting churches and anyone in the press that doesn't agree with him up to and including contacting American social media companies to censor their users that weren't Ukraine positive.
Michael-- Apparently there have been virulent anti-Russian Nazis influencing the Ukraine government since 2014. They've been building monuments and naming streets after people such as Stefan Bandera. It's a legitimate concern.
Excer;t "Amongst others, we discussed Stepan Bandera, the leader of the OUN, an organization that was the spearhead of Ukrainian Nationalism. “This organization and its offshoots were responsible for mass killings including up to 850,000 Jews, 220,000 Poles, 500,000 Ukrainian and Belarusian civilians and 400,000 Soviet Prisoners of War” ( Sakwa, p. 274)... What was to be the makeup of this new 1992 nation-state where the majority spoke Russian? ... Reminiscent of Germany of the 1920s-30s is the formation of paramilitary groups. Three of these ultranationalist groups are Sloboda, Right Sector, and Azov, all three birthed in Lviv, Bandera’s birthplace in far western Ukraine."
Advocates of the purification of nation as espoused by Nazis such as Adolph Hitler and Ukrainian leaders in 1920-1945 time period., supported by militant groups such as Sloboda, Right Sector, and Azov. Much like the German Nazis of the 1920s, these groups operated as terrorists and intimidated elected leaders until the coup on 2014 when they were empowered to take leadership roles in society, including provision of weapons by the West. Like Germany in the 1930s, once in power they began to attack their enemies on an ethnically defined basis -- in this case Russians living in eastern Ukraine and in places like Odessa. For BBC interviews with these Nazis and display of classic Nazi regalia, please see https://mbasta1.substack.com/p/in-memory-of-gonzalo-lira-galician.
"While authoritarianism is nothing new in the country, it has severely worsened in the wake of the invasion, which has seen a centralization of power by Volodymyr Zelensky’s government, and a crackdown on dissidents and all things 'pro-Russian.' ... This staged process was for propaganda reasons, to ascribe popular antiwar sentiment to traitors and to blame people with antiwar views for the insufficient readiness of people for military recruitment ... As reports of the arrest of dissidents began spreading early in the war, Zelensky and his party first suspended and then banned eleven opposition parties over 'links to Russia.' ... All opposition figures previously promoting the peaceful resolution of conflict with Russia have either fled or are in prison... He has also criticized far-right militias like the Azov Regiment and the oligarch bankrolling them. One of the photos of his arrest shows a man’s hand hovering over a bloodied Matyushenko, holding the Nazi-inspired Azov emblem.
Matyushenko’s wife later told the German left-wing newspaper Junge Welt that SBU members had entered and searched their apartment, confiscating computers and other property, while another man in military uniform — the one brandishing Azov’s emblem — spit in her face, cut her hair with a knife, and beat her husband for hours."
It goes on and on, with a lot of details. Much of this was reported in the western press before 2022.
If that's all you took from that interview, then you should go back and watch it. Handing out NATO memberships after the Cold War like they were Fitness USA free trial passes may not have been the best idea. Speaking of credibility, he probably thinks we don't possess any either as we were still using Russia to negotiate with Iran even after he invaded Ukraine and we were putting sanctions on him. Putin is also the guy who is all in for Biden-Harris 2024, so I think it isn't an issue of credibility but sanity.
You may know more history than most, but that doesn't mean Putin was wrong in putting the Urkainian situation in historical contect. A couple of posts that make this point:
Excerpt: 'It is reasonable to conclude that this interview of Vladimir Putin has been seen by a larger global audience than has ever previously watched an interview of a major national leader... Yet others — and my sense is that this category comprises the majority — found the interview surprisingly enlightening and came away from it with a favorable impression of President Putin.... Vladimir Putin is the current leader of a great “civilizational power” — a nation whose history stretches back over a millennium, and whose voluminous archives document that history. And, given the fundamental importance of that fact in the context of what is in many respects a civil war taking place in Ukraine, it was imperative that certain elements of evidence be presented as a preface to the eventual discussion of the illegitimacy and demonstrable falsehoods of Ukraine’s presumptuous claims upon portions of the longstanding “Russian nation”.'
There are some people who think that "borders are all that matters", but discard that reasoning when Israel or Yugoslavia or Syria are the topics of discussion. In these other situations, the discussion is (appropriately) more nuanced, including historical context and the actual opinions and experiences of the inhabitants.
Just switch off EU Parliament and Commission in June, and all of this will end.
US have planned EU and EU Commission nazi powers... can u imagine what could have happened in the last 10 to 20 years without EU Commission and that fake Parliament, but only an economic and commercial pact including open frontiers?
Simply, not many would have followed sanctions to Russia, few would have sent any cents to Ukraine. Many would have voted against Israel on Gaza genocide at UN. Few would have followed covid measures by WHO.
Before EU Commission existence, US had to deal with 20 countries governaments and voters now only with few puppets US put in the EU Commission...
Better than any weapon of mass destruction... instead they created "Idiots of mass distraction" 😉
Just remember what happened after your inside job of 9/11: France President showed a "middle finger" to the illegal invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq by US/UK, and other eu countries did the same...
So, no US coup in 2014 in Maidan - Kiev, no war in 2022. Simple.
But I guess you all know how many US citizens serve and work in the Industrial Military Complex and Army corps, and what does it mean for US economy and GDP... 😉
This is an ongoing issue people on the Hill are well aware of... that is being weaponised to frighten Congress into re-authorising unrestricted warrantless domestic surveillance.
Surely Avangard et al have been the Russian response to the US unilateral abandonment of nearly every Nuclear Arms Treaty? Putin, and other Russian officials, have many times been on the record of having warned the US that if they pursued this reckless policy of exploiting perceived Russian 'weakness', meaning Russian interests and concerns could be ignored and disregarded, then Russia would have to counter.
Putin always accompanied this with the observation that Treaties agreed in good faith, and the freedom to pursue education, healthcare housing etc, were a much better alternative to focusing state resources on military.
So while useful, especially to a professional domestic audience, I do feel the article comes across as at least in part a prisoner of the official US (& western) narrative policy, which is somewhat Orwellian to say the least. I find your friend Larry Johnson's analysis on this to be more realistic. eg this podcast of his (in which he refers positively to your work)
Yet certain politicians in the west continue to obsess about sending “Ukrainians of convenience” high tech weapons to fire weapons deep into Russian territory. Imagine the opposite? The world would be on fire already. The Alzheimer’s patient that is POTUS would have us all burn.
So, when Putin presented a list of weapons in 2018, the West laughed it off as "cartoons"..........
The hypersonic Kinzhal and Zircon (Number 4 and 5 on his list) have been tested in the Ukranian conflict, nobody disputes their existence and effectiveness now. Hopefully 1, 2 and 3 will never have to be proven up...
The timing indicates it's another hail mary toss for Ukraine aid and anti Russia hysteria, all for campaign purposes. You know they have known this for a long time. It's just another performance to distract attention from the border of Mexico. Total dog and pony show. Not to say the issue is not very worrisome but we don't have the capacity to down ballistic missiles so what's new??! We already have zero notice for hypersonic misses fired from subs. They are playing us again. Better we leave a shit hole undemocratic church persecuting neo nazi haven that we have ZERO national interest in and find a way to reestablish ties to Russia and reverse the destructive sanctions that hurt us much more than it did them.
i would say it's the opposite. it dresses UP Russian capability so "prudence" can now be ascribed to the greatest Murican Jive pivot coming up....bye bye Ukraine!
This is one of the most insane claims by our government. The idea that Russia could shoot down satellites and not destroy their own at the same time from space debris shooting around at 17,500 mph or faster, is ludicrous. Not only would satellites from that time onwards be impossible to deploy but space exploration could be curtailed forever. The domino theory gets a new set of clothes and Russia is going to invade Europe. Comical at best because not only NATO our government included have declared Russia as the loser. Where is Russia going to get the wherewithal to advance through Ukraine to get to Europe. I forgot Finland……
I suspect that we are talking about nuclear reactor powered satellite, not space-based nuclear weapon. Nuclear reactors have been widely used in satellites as power sources for six decades. Maybe all the fuss is about the effect this new nuclear rector powered satellite could generate. One possibility is it is suspected to be orbit-based powerful Electronic Warfare platform that may be capable to disrupt normal functioning of Western military and civilian satellites. Anyway, all this speculation based on intel data may be a hoax.
The idea of "gliding" above the atmosphere is a bit silly. I could power a non-ballistic vehicle and shorten the time-to-target versus an ICBM at a significant energy cost. Any shape the could actually generate lift during the flight phase is certainly not a low observable shape. I think this whole kerfuffle from the past couple of days in DC is just a recycling of previous Putin cartoons, and wildly ridiculous claims, from 2 - 3 years ago.
Good article. What really worries me is that the Pentagon is more concerned with pronouns, gender and DEI rather than dealing with stuff like, you know, actual threats to the American way of life.
Nick Schifrin on The NewsHour on PBS had this to say:
"Russia regularly launches space — has space launches. You see one right there. And the officials describe that Russia recently launched a new anti-satellite capability, meaning a satellite that can attack other satellites. The officials tell me that this satellite, which is possibly nuclear-powered, has an electronic warfare capability to target American satellites that are essential for U.S. military and civilian communication."
Which makes the threat not a space-launched nuclear weapon to attack ground targets but a non-nuclear weapon intended to target satellites, presumably using various electronic warfare methods to disable them.
The Chinese have already demonstrated such a capability and have destroyed at least one satellite to demonstrate. We have had nuclear powered satellites ourselves. I don't see this as anything especially new if that is what Biden & folks are saying.
It probably comes under the heading of "everything old is new again". Powering satellites with plutonium was relatively common early on, with satellites switching to solar power later as solar panels became more efficient
A nuclear power source DOES raise a question of what happens when the satellite falls back to earth--and if it is in low earth orbit (110-1200 miles above the earth) odds are it will eventually fall back to earth.
I am also curious as to how the anti-satellite technologies operate (and I have not yet seen any reporting which describes them). Disabling satellites with focused high-intensity beams of radiation (not necessarily a laser) is of course possible, but requires a certain proximity to the target to minimize collateral damage among other satellites. Attacks from a distance would invariably involve a larger coverage area--not just because of beam propagation but also because of the different orbital paths of the two satellites. The larger the coverage area the greater the possibility that other satellites could become collateral damage.
There's also the question of how high up this presumed anti-satellite weapon is orbiting. Geosynchronous orbits are some 22,000 miles above the earth, while the International Space Station is a mere 245 miles above the earth. GPS satellites orbit at around 12,500 miles above the earth. Any orbital path chosen for an anti-satellite weapon is going to limit its range of possible targets. Yes, it is possible to move a satellite to a higher orbit, but that requires a significant expenditure of energy, which would increase the mass of the satellite at launch.
The physics of orbiting bodies presents a number of challenges to a hunter-killer satellite being broadly effective. Yes it is possible, and yes it has been demonstrated--but a proof of concept does not by itself make for a viable weapon in space.
I realize it is difficult to summarize 60+ years of arms control discussions and very difficult to characterize where missile defense technologies and programs fit in. Since we cancelled our only ABM system in North Dakota (protecting our responsive ICBMs) in 1975, we have never fielded a system that is capable of stopping incoming Russian or Chinese ICBMs in any significant numbers. You are correct that our only, extremely limited, missile defense might be good against a rogue missile or two. All ICBMs are hypersonic weapons and some maneuver a little and some a lot. But if there is no missile defense then the argument that this is a magic, destabilizing weapon from Russia is just nonsense and blather. The day after this is fielded nothing will change - just the hyperbolic rhetoric.
You points are well taken. Missile are hypersonic but they slow down on entering the atmosphere. But if they are specially designed they all are hard to detect on radar. In any case, we don't have real missile defenses so the argument(s) are largely academic.
Stephen, I appreciate your view but I am afraid you are missing the technology arguments. RV's DO NOT slow down very much and enter at Mach 16+. They have their low drag, very sharp shape so that they can ablate while going through the atmosphere to the target. The shuttle is an example of something that gives up energy at high altitude - the opposite of an RV. Everything screaming through the atmosphere has a radar signature; nothing stealthy about endo-atmospheric hypersonics. This is a critical topic so do not stop writing about it. Having nuclear weapons in space is just another place to base them. Orbital dynamics means it can take longer to get on target than the existing Triad configuration. But, that kind of "militarizing space" is huge politically. If this is a Russian nuclear-tipped ASAT, that is not a new concept but of limited value. Would you risk total annihilation just to take out a few satellites?
What I read is that weapons moving at hypersonic speed create a plasma around the weapon that blocks radar returns. Avangard as I understand it is a glider that skims the outer part of the atmosphere, thus it is not actually space based such as an orbiting satellite. Of course the plasma generation does not happen outside the atmosphere. The one thing we agree on is that this is mostly an effort by Biden and company to gin up anti-Russian sentiment.
There is a great plasma physics problem in there. The plasma in the boundary layer prevents communication through that plasma and that is the returning space capsule problem. Cobra Dane and Cobra Just have tracked RVs after re-entry. The North Dakota ABM did use giant radars to track incoming ICBMs but the Sprint missiles, with their 10 kT warheads, were supposed to engage eco-atmospherically. The SDI-era interceptors, not allowed to use nuclear warheads, used the optical (UV - visible - IR) signatures since that gives a better position estimate. Biden has been stupid with respect to USSR / Russia since he entered public life and has normally been afraid of confrontation and surrender peremptorily (Shut down ABM, oppose SDI, pull US Navy from Black Sea, etc.). I do not think he is smart enough to use this piece of information to generate anti-Russian responses. This is the man who designed the strategy that optimizes the number of Ukrainians killed by Russia by not providing sufficient number of the right weapons that would have ended the conflict early; but enough to keep Ukraine in the fight. Good to the last grandmother.
So, we p*ss off Russia and wonder why they invest heavily into new weapons? Or are we scared that their investments had actually effective results? I mean Washington has nothing to show, despite all those fancy military contractors that devour billions of dollars.
Where did it all go wrong?
You know, I watched the Putin interview and I realized the guy actually wants to settle Ukraine and negotiate a solution everyone can live with. It was an invitation to the West, but during the last few days, every single Western mainstream piece insulted him and the Russian government, and many Western politicians did the same. Even the Germans speak of a potential Russian attack in 5 to 10 years. Just imagine how stupid that sounds...
Where will this madness end?
I, too, watched the Putin interview. I though his justification for invading Ukraine so as to root out the "Nazis" was a load of crap and destroyed whatever credibility he might have had.
Michael, that's because our media doesn't report about the fascist elements in the Ukrainian government.
Have you googled how many politicians and journalists have died since 2014 in Ukraine?
Have you watched videos of the right wing battalions on the battlefield (Azov, Kraken etc).
One reason Zelenksy wasn't able to push for peace is because the right sector in Ukraine became so powerful after 2014.
Fascism there is very real, or what else would we call the cancellation of the Russian language, orthodox Church, elections, some of which took place before the war started?
I see the main problem in how our media reports about this conflict. It's no surprise though, considering how they have reported about Afghanistan, Syria and Lybia....
This is a very good conversation and before we continue it further, it would be helpful if you could define "fascist", "right wing" and even "Nazi" so we all can know we are talking about the same thing.
I bet you know perfectly well. Nazis were specific to a place and time, but the key characteristics are (1) white supremacist (defined in favor of the local majority) (2) nationalist (3) authoritarian political system (4) capitalist. And all of the above taken to a violent extreme.
Insofar as naziism was specific to a place and time, the connection to today is that WWII Germany took over lots of countries, and encouraged collaborators to run what was pretty much a franchise of the political-ideological system. With the necessary allowances for diffences in ethnicity, as original German Nazis thought Eastern and Southern Europeans, among many many others, were biologically inferior. But that didn't seem to stop some of the Eastern European collaborator regimes, who ended up even more sadistic in ways, although lacked the industrial scale of the original.
After WWII ended, some of these offshoots were never fully eradicated, in particular in Ukraine where the US funded Bandera's organization post war, because they were still willing to go out and fight communism. The very same organization saw a revival in the past decade, for an analogous reason. That's what we have today. People renaming hundreds of streets to names of WWII collaborators and war criminals, building statues of them, postage stamps, national holiday, etc etc etc etc. Unfortunately it is real, and we in the US are supporting it in a sort-of ends justifying the means situation. Specifically, immediately after Maidan, Ukraine government and army and police etc were purged of Russian sympathetic personnel, and the single reliable power center who was 100.0% anti Russian were the ultra nationalists who marched with the black-and-red flag or the wolf-cross flag. Just before that revolution they were mere mafia thugs or at most brown-shirts, but then they became elevated to something more like the SS. A key part of the military system holding it all together.
The modern day twist is that post 2019 election, they eventually toned down the anti-semitism, at least in public, and adopted Zelensky as a Jewish frontman of sorts, for the purpose of making them more palatable to the western audience. A very shrewd PR move -- though it was made after a brief initial reaction to him which was death threats.
Just look up Right Sector on Wiki and other websites. Before the war started, even the Western media voiced their concerns.
Agree on the good conversation. I'll throw out the name Zelensky as a fascist because he's not allowing any elections, produces prodigious amounts of propaganda and is persecuting churches and anyone in the press that doesn't agree with him up to and including contacting American social media companies to censor their users that weren't Ukraine positive.
Doesn't that describe Putin as well?
Michael-- Apparently there have been virulent anti-Russian Nazis influencing the Ukraine government since 2014. They've been building monuments and naming streets after people such as Stefan Bandera. It's a legitimate concern.
Here's a good history: <a href="https://mbasta1.substack.com/p/galician-nationalism-ukraines-disaster">GALICIAN NATIONALISM: UKRAINE’S DISASTER: PART ONE</a>, <a href="https://mbasta1.substack.com/p/in-memory-of-gonzalo-lira-galician">Galician Nationalism: Ukraine's Disaster: Part 2</a>.
Excer;t "Amongst others, we discussed Stepan Bandera, the leader of the OUN, an organization that was the spearhead of Ukrainian Nationalism. “This organization and its offshoots were responsible for mass killings including up to 850,000 Jews, 220,000 Poles, 500,000 Ukrainian and Belarusian civilians and 400,000 Soviet Prisoners of War” ( Sakwa, p. 274)... What was to be the makeup of this new 1992 nation-state where the majority spoke Russian? ... Reminiscent of Germany of the 1920s-30s is the formation of paramilitary groups. Three of these ultranationalist groups are Sloboda, Right Sector, and Azov, all three birthed in Lviv, Bandera’s birthplace in far western Ukraine."
Can you please define "Nazis" in terms of today's Ukraine?
Advocates of the purification of nation as espoused by Nazis such as Adolph Hitler and Ukrainian leaders in 1920-1945 time period., supported by militant groups such as Sloboda, Right Sector, and Azov. Much like the German Nazis of the 1920s, these groups operated as terrorists and intimidated elected leaders until the coup on 2014 when they were empowered to take leadership roles in society, including provision of weapons by the West. Like Germany in the 1930s, once in power they began to attack their enemies on an ethnically defined basis -- in this case Russians living in eastern Ukraine and in places like Odessa. For BBC interviews with these Nazis and display of classic Nazi regalia, please see https://mbasta1.substack.com/p/in-memory-of-gonzalo-lira-galician.
Please also see "The State of Ukrainian Democracy Is Not Strong" by Branko Marcetic -- https://jacobin.com/2023/02/ukraine-censorship-authoritarianism-illiberalism-crackdown-police-zelensky Excerpt:
"While authoritarianism is nothing new in the country, it has severely worsened in the wake of the invasion, which has seen a centralization of power by Volodymyr Zelensky’s government, and a crackdown on dissidents and all things 'pro-Russian.' ... This staged process was for propaganda reasons, to ascribe popular antiwar sentiment to traitors and to blame people with antiwar views for the insufficient readiness of people for military recruitment ... As reports of the arrest of dissidents began spreading early in the war, Zelensky and his party first suspended and then banned eleven opposition parties over 'links to Russia.' ... All opposition figures previously promoting the peaceful resolution of conflict with Russia have either fled or are in prison... He has also criticized far-right militias like the Azov Regiment and the oligarch bankrolling them. One of the photos of his arrest shows a man’s hand hovering over a bloodied Matyushenko, holding the Nazi-inspired Azov emblem.
Matyushenko’s wife later told the German left-wing newspaper Junge Welt that SBU members had entered and searched their apartment, confiscating computers and other property, while another man in military uniform — the one brandishing Azov’s emblem — spit in her face, cut her hair with a knife, and beat her husband for hours."
It goes on and on, with a lot of details. Much of this was reported in the western press before 2022.
If that's all you took from that interview, then you should go back and watch it. Handing out NATO memberships after the Cold War like they were Fitness USA free trial passes may not have been the best idea. Speaking of credibility, he probably thinks we don't possess any either as we were still using Russia to negotiate with Iran even after he invaded Ukraine and we were putting sanctions on him. Putin is also the guy who is all in for Biden-Harris 2024, so I think it isn't an issue of credibility but sanity.
I did watch the whole interview and, yes, that is what I took away from it.
You may know more history than most, but that doesn't mean Putin was wrong in putting the Urkainian situation in historical contect. A couple of posts that make this point:
https://imetatronink.substack.com/p/the-vladimir-putin-interview-part - Part One
https://imetatronink.substack.com/p/the-vladimir-putin-interview-part-209 - Part Two
Excerpt: 'It is reasonable to conclude that this interview of Vladimir Putin has been seen by a larger global audience than has ever previously watched an interview of a major national leader... Yet others — and my sense is that this category comprises the majority — found the interview surprisingly enlightening and came away from it with a favorable impression of President Putin.... Vladimir Putin is the current leader of a great “civilizational power” — a nation whose history stretches back over a millennium, and whose voluminous archives document that history. And, given the fundamental importance of that fact in the context of what is in many respects a civil war taking place in Ukraine, it was imperative that certain elements of evidence be presented as a preface to the eventual discussion of the illegitimacy and demonstrable falsehoods of Ukraine’s presumptuous claims upon portions of the longstanding “Russian nation”.'
There are some people who think that "borders are all that matters", but discard that reasoning when Israel or Yugoslavia or Syria are the topics of discussion. In these other situations, the discussion is (appropriately) more nuanced, including historical context and the actual opinions and experiences of the inhabitants.
Just switch off EU Parliament and Commission in June, and all of this will end.
US have planned EU and EU Commission nazi powers... can u imagine what could have happened in the last 10 to 20 years without EU Commission and that fake Parliament, but only an economic and commercial pact including open frontiers?
Simply, not many would have followed sanctions to Russia, few would have sent any cents to Ukraine. Many would have voted against Israel on Gaza genocide at UN. Few would have followed covid measures by WHO.
Before EU Commission existence, US had to deal with 20 countries governaments and voters now only with few puppets US put in the EU Commission...
Better than any weapon of mass destruction... instead they created "Idiots of mass distraction" 😉
Just remember what happened after your inside job of 9/11: France President showed a "middle finger" to the illegal invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq by US/UK, and other eu countries did the same...
So, no US coup in 2014 in Maidan - Kiev, no war in 2022. Simple.
But I guess you all know how many US citizens serve and work in the Industrial Military Complex and Army corps, and what does it mean for US economy and GDP... 😉
This is an ongoing issue people on the Hill are well aware of... that is being weaponised to frighten Congress into re-authorising unrestricted warrantless domestic surveillance.
I hear you but I think we need to wait before saying anything about motives
Just a week after Tucker interview, and when more billions to Ukraine are stopped in the House. We all know the motives.
Past performance predicts future performance. They have played us at every turn in foreign and defense policy. There is almost no credibility left.
Avdiivka is falling, Congress is resisting further Ukraine funding, and what a coincidence, Russia has a super duper space weapon!
Sorry, not trying to be a gramma nazi here, but just could not help it. The name goes back to Avdey as a name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avdey#:~:text=The%20name%20derives%20either%20from,from%20the%20Biblical%20prophet%20Obadiah.
The pronunciation of the name of the town would approximately be like "Av-deh-eev-kah" of may be "Av-de-yev-kah". Not that it is too important...
....and Tucker gives Putin a valentines card! You guessed it....time to DIGNIFY "the enemy" so as to save the fecal nose effect as Murica "pivots".
Surely Avangard et al have been the Russian response to the US unilateral abandonment of nearly every Nuclear Arms Treaty? Putin, and other Russian officials, have many times been on the record of having warned the US that if they pursued this reckless policy of exploiting perceived Russian 'weakness', meaning Russian interests and concerns could be ignored and disregarded, then Russia would have to counter.
Putin always accompanied this with the observation that Treaties agreed in good faith, and the freedom to pursue education, healthcare housing etc, were a much better alternative to focusing state resources on military.
So while useful, especially to a professional domestic audience, I do feel the article comes across as at least in part a prisoner of the official US (& western) narrative policy, which is somewhat Orwellian to say the least. I find your friend Larry Johnson's analysis on this to be more realistic. eg this podcast of his (in which he refers positively to your work)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsd575-uTD8
Yet certain politicians in the west continue to obsess about sending “Ukrainians of convenience” high tech weapons to fire weapons deep into Russian territory. Imagine the opposite? The world would be on fire already. The Alzheimer’s patient that is POTUS would have us all burn.
Just in time for Congress doing last minute tweaks to the FY2025 budget. If they manage to pass one.
So, when Putin presented a list of weapons in 2018, the West laughed it off as "cartoons"..........
The hypersonic Kinzhal and Zircon (Number 4 and 5 on his list) have been tested in the Ukranian conflict, nobody disputes their existence and effectiveness now. Hopefully 1, 2 and 3 will never have to be proven up...
here is what he presented in 2018:
1) Sarmat
2) Avangard
3) Poseidon
4) Kinzhal
5) Tsirkon
The timing indicates it's another hail mary toss for Ukraine aid and anti Russia hysteria, all for campaign purposes. You know they have known this for a long time. It's just another performance to distract attention from the border of Mexico. Total dog and pony show. Not to say the issue is not very worrisome but we don't have the capacity to down ballistic missiles so what's new??! We already have zero notice for hypersonic misses fired from subs. They are playing us again. Better we leave a shit hole undemocratic church persecuting neo nazi haven that we have ZERO national interest in and find a way to reestablish ties to Russia and reverse the destructive sanctions that hurt us much more than it did them.
i would say it's the opposite. it dresses UP Russian capability so "prudence" can now be ascribed to the greatest Murican Jive pivot coming up....bye bye Ukraine!
This is one of the most insane claims by our government. The idea that Russia could shoot down satellites and not destroy their own at the same time from space debris shooting around at 17,500 mph or faster, is ludicrous. Not only would satellites from that time onwards be impossible to deploy but space exploration could be curtailed forever. The domino theory gets a new set of clothes and Russia is going to invade Europe. Comical at best because not only NATO our government included have declared Russia as the loser. Where is Russia going to get the wherewithal to advance through Ukraine to get to Europe. I forgot Finland……
I suspect that we are talking about nuclear reactor powered satellite, not space-based nuclear weapon. Nuclear reactors have been widely used in satellites as power sources for six decades. Maybe all the fuss is about the effect this new nuclear rector powered satellite could generate. One possibility is it is suspected to be orbit-based powerful Electronic Warfare platform that may be capable to disrupt normal functioning of Western military and civilian satellites. Anyway, all this speculation based on intel data may be a hoax.
The idea of "gliding" above the atmosphere is a bit silly. I could power a non-ballistic vehicle and shorten the time-to-target versus an ICBM at a significant energy cost. Any shape the could actually generate lift during the flight phase is certainly not a low observable shape. I think this whole kerfuffle from the past couple of days in DC is just a recycling of previous Putin cartoons, and wildly ridiculous claims, from 2 - 3 years ago.
Good article. What really worries me is that the Pentagon is more concerned with pronouns, gender and DEI rather than dealing with stuff like, you know, actual threats to the American way of life.
Nick Schifrin on The NewsHour on PBS had this to say:
"Russia regularly launches space — has space launches. You see one right there. And the officials describe that Russia recently launched a new anti-satellite capability, meaning a satellite that can attack other satellites. The officials tell me that this satellite, which is possibly nuclear-powered, has an electronic warfare capability to target American satellites that are essential for U.S. military and civilian communication."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/national-security-warning-reportedly-involves-russian-space-weapon
There is a considerable difference between "nuclear weapon" and "nuclear powered".
CNN and other outlets have also described the immediate cause for concern as a new (or perhaps enhanced) Russian anti-satellite weapon.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/14/politics/house-intel-chairman-serious-national-security-threat/index.html
Which makes the threat not a space-launched nuclear weapon to attack ground targets but a non-nuclear weapon intended to target satellites, presumably using various electronic warfare methods to disable them.
The Chinese have already demonstrated such a capability and have destroyed at least one satellite to demonstrate. We have had nuclear powered satellites ourselves. I don't see this as anything especially new if that is what Biden & folks are saying.
It probably comes under the heading of "everything old is new again". Powering satellites with plutonium was relatively common early on, with satellites switching to solar power later as solar panels became more efficient
A nuclear power source DOES raise a question of what happens when the satellite falls back to earth--and if it is in low earth orbit (110-1200 miles above the earth) odds are it will eventually fall back to earth.
I am also curious as to how the anti-satellite technologies operate (and I have not yet seen any reporting which describes them). Disabling satellites with focused high-intensity beams of radiation (not necessarily a laser) is of course possible, but requires a certain proximity to the target to minimize collateral damage among other satellites. Attacks from a distance would invariably involve a larger coverage area--not just because of beam propagation but also because of the different orbital paths of the two satellites. The larger the coverage area the greater the possibility that other satellites could become collateral damage.
There's also the question of how high up this presumed anti-satellite weapon is orbiting. Geosynchronous orbits are some 22,000 miles above the earth, while the International Space Station is a mere 245 miles above the earth. GPS satellites orbit at around 12,500 miles above the earth. Any orbital path chosen for an anti-satellite weapon is going to limit its range of possible targets. Yes, it is possible to move a satellite to a higher orbit, but that requires a significant expenditure of energy, which would increase the mass of the satellite at launch.
The physics of orbiting bodies presents a number of challenges to a hunter-killer satellite being broadly effective. Yes it is possible, and yes it has been demonstrated--but a proof of concept does not by itself make for a viable weapon in space.
Which CNN are we talking about? This one?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/09/politics/spy-balloon-technology/index.html
(note they changed the story the following week after that story, saying what they shot down weren't spy balloons)
It doesn't take much to generate hysteria in the national security press
And the relevance of this is....?
that CNN has a habit of jerking their viewers around
And the relevance of this is...?