Our Advertisers Represent Some Of The Most Unique Products & Services On Earth!


Russian Bear Rising
By Joel Skousen
Editor - World Affairs Brief
Flush with cash from high energy prices, Russia continues its long-planned return as a world power, clearly intending to challenge the United States as the world's sole hegemon. According to Newsweek's Owen Matthews,
"A large chunk of the cash has gone into rebuilding the beleaguered Russian Army. Putin has pledged the military $189 billion over five years, commissioning a new generation of ICBMs specifically designed to evade a U.S. missile defense shield and ordering up six new carrier battle groups, which... will make the Russian Navy even mightier than its Soviet predecessor within 20 years. This week, we'll review Putin's latest maneuvers to test Western resolve as he pulls out of the Convention Forces in Europe Treaty.
Despite the grand deception faking the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has continued its underground preparations for war with the West. The development of massive underground bunkers and weapons factories in the Ural mountains, begun after the "collapse," continues unabated. Strangely, the CIA and the State Department continue to downplay and explain away these danger signs. While Russian President Putin rarely misses an opportunity to attack the US for its intervention and bullying worldwide, President Bush continues to assure the world about Putin's "honesty, trust and integrity."
To further test how soft the US is on confronting Russia, Putin has declared he is pulling out of the Conventional Forces of Europe Treaty, signed in 1990. This treaty was completely favorable to the Soviets, and yet they still violated many of its provisions. While both sides were to downsize their respective conventional forces to relative parity, the Russians were allowed to simply remove their massive armored weapons to storage depots beyond the Ural mountains.
This year, as NATO announced that it was going to establish military bases in former Soviet states (now part of NATO), Russia complained that this amounted to a NATO violation of the treaty. Russia's Foreign Minister responded that Russia would consider itself no longer limited in its deployment of heavy weapons (tanks and artillery) to its western border with NATO countries.
While this implies that Russia was formerly in compliance, it is not true. During the 1990s, Russia had used the expansion of NATO as an excuse to demand amendments to the treaty that ratified Russia's huge armor deployments from the Ural depots to the South of Russia during the Chechen war. In fact, Russia had moved those weapons out of storage in clear violation of the treaty and then demanded the treaty be amended to ratify the violation. Russian, never one to give an inch when it can demand a mile, offered to withdraw troops from Georgia and Moldova in exchange for the changes. The deal was made, but Russian troops are still in Georgia.
Russia's latest move is "upping the ante" in its challenge to US plans to install a few token anti-ballistic missile systems in Eastern Europe that directly threaten Russia's growing battery of first-strike Topol M missiles. Russia had been testing the truth of US claims that the ABM systems were aimed at confronting rogue missiles from Iran, by offering basing facilities in southern Russia where they would be more effective against Iranian missiles. For that matter, if the US were really targeting Iranian missiles they would simply base the interceptors in Iraq!
Bush's rejection of the Russian suggestion confirmed Russia's suspicion that these ABMs are meant to target Russian offensive missiles in their boost phase over the poles, when they are most vulnerable. While this appears as if Bush is legitimately defending US and Western interests, the few missiles being proposed are too few in number to stop a Russian attack. As I said in prior briefings recently, I believe the real reason for the ABM proposal in Poland and Czechoslovakia is to threaten the Russians with the appearance of future encirclement to HASTEN Russia's planned pre-emptive strike on the West--a key element in the globalist plan to justify going to war in order to force a New World Order on reluctant citizens, holding fast to "archaic notions" of national sovereignty.
Is unilateral disarmament the answer? No more than during the cold war. But some liberal editors in the US are beginning to wax eloquent again about the foolish "virtues" of disarmament. The editorial board of the Boston Herald told their readers this week, after extolling Russian sincerity in disarmament, "We are not aware of any problems with the inspections that both sides have been conducting since they began under the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. [Really? See below!] The United States has declared total holdings of bombs and warheads to be 5,866 and Russia has declared 4,162. Though these numbers represent reductions of 75 percent or more from peak holdings of the 1970s and 1980s, they are still far in excess of any real military usefulness, and should be reduced by about 90 percent."
Let me add a little analysis to what the Herald wrote to show you why their words are deceptive. Note that they said "the US has declared total holdings..." That word implies no inspections--that the Russians are just having to take our word for it. In fact, that isn't true. We continue to allow Russian teams (housed in luxury condos at US taxpayer expense) to inspect our nuclear inventory. Not so on the Russian's part. The Boston Herald's use of "declared" is totally appropriate in describing the Russian estimate because our inspectors do NOT have access to their nuclear warhead storage facilities, including the one WE built for them. In fact I believe the Herald purposely chose to apply the word "declare" to both nations, to imply they are both acting on the same basis.
As to their statement that "we are not aware of any problems with the inspections" I can only say, they must not read the papers. Even the controlled press made some mention of the egregious Russian violations of the INF treaty. Worldnetdaily.com had Ken Timmerman detail the violations during the Clinton administration:
"As President Clinton met with Russian President Putin in Moscow to discuss nuclear arms control over the weekend, an old story from the Cold War has resurfaced that sheds doubt on Russia's reliability as a negotiating partner: nuclear-tipped SS-23 missiles that the Soviet Union never declared to the United States, in direct violation of a 1987 arms-control agreement.
"During the Cold War, the SS-23 missiles were equipped with a 100-kiloton nuclear warhead and were fired from wheeled launchers, making them virtually impossible to destroy once they were deployed from their underground storage sites. The Soviets secretly deployed the SS-23s in East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria in 1986. In the event of war in Europe between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, they would have given the Soviets a clear military advantage by allowing them to launch a surprise nuclear strike at the heart of NATO forces in Germany.
"Under the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Agreement signed in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 8, 1987, President Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to destroy all existing theater nuclear missiles in Europe, including all SS-23s... While the Soviets allowed U.S. inspectors to witness the destruction of the longer-range SS-20 missiles [the US allowed the Russians to keep the warheads], which constituted the bulk of their force, they secretly rushed several batteries of the shorter-range SS-23s to East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria just prior to signing the Treaty, and never declared them or destroyed them."
The problem of "looking the other way" while the continuing Soviets cheat on all disarmament pacts isn't just a Clinton thing. The Bush administration continues to fulfill its share of the two disarmament reduction pacts signed with Russia recently even though Russia has backed out of their commitments. The Russians announced they were not going to destroy their remaining SS-18 Satan missiles as stipulated in the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, but the US continued to dismantle our 50 Peacekeeper missiles, with 10 warheads each.
Last week the US announced another dismantling of 50 Minuteman III missiles, without any Russian quid pro quo. We must ask, Why is it that the US continues to go head long down this suicidal path to unilateral disarmament? Is Russia getting any less hostile to the US? Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lagrov, have pledged to reduce the arsenals of nuclear weapons "the lowest possible level."
Only one of the two is keeping the pledge, and I fear that is NOT because the US is working in America's best interest, but to further this globalist plot to create future conflict. It's no wonder the American public is so willing to be led like lambs to the slaughter with the Boston Herald declaring, "It's disconcerting to have to say this, but the Russians have the better idea how to do it [disarmament]." This is either incredible ignorance or outright deception.
World Affairs Brief, July 20, 2007. Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World.
Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief (<http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com> http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com )



This Site Served by TheHostPros