The Russian art of war

) 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

For years, we have heard that the Russian Army is a backward, ill-equipped, rag-tag force. But Col. General Anatoly Sitnov paints a different picture. At a Tuesday press conference, Sitnov revealed that the Russian military now has "a rich new arsenal" to test. In this context, because of the civil war in Russia's south, Dagestan and Chechnya have become giant test ranges.

Already the Russians have used the upgraded SU-25 attack aircraft against Chechen targets. "If there is ground combat," announced Sitnov, "we will test the Shark [helicopter gunship] as well as other weapons. We will also use advanced gear, such as night vision goggles and new firearms, including the new sniper rifles with increased range ... and also [we have] tanks which provide better protection from the enemy in close combat."

How can this be?

In the early days of the Yeltsin presidency, a curious announcement went largely unnoticed in the West: The Russian government admitted to an increase in armaments spending. While the Kremlin cut back its troop numbers to save money, and while it held back pay to hundreds of thousands of soldiers, it nonetheless decided to modernize its military equipment. Russian soldiers might live in desperate conditions for a few years, and the army might fall to a quarter of its Cold War strength, but in the next war they would have the most advanced weapons.

One of the costs of maintaining a large army is the cost of paying the soldiers. The other great cost is that of purchasing new weapons. The solution to Russia's military backwardness was therefore simple: Neglect the soldiers while you upgrade the weapons. Once the weapons are upgraded, go back to paying the soldiers -- and fill up the armed forces with recruits.

Col. Stanislav Lunev, a defector from the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Russian General Staff, noted over a year ago that Russia had as many generals as it did at the height of the Cold War. "It takes eight weeks to make a soldier," said Lunev, "but it takes two years to make a division commander." In other words, Russia's military build-down was equivocal from the start. Russia created a mechanism for rapidly mobilizing millions of men in a short time and putting them into ready-made combat divisions. Today we see that a mobilization is taking place, masked at first by the Yugoslav crisis, then by the current civil war in Russia's south.

The details of Russia's mobilization are fuzzy, the extent of the buildup has been blurred, but it is nonetheless taking place. Hundreds of thousands of additional men have been put under arms since March. Russia's Black Sea Fleet has been manned. The Kremlin's armed forces have engaged in many war exercises, and now there are unprecedented joint naval maneuvers planned with the Chinese Navy. It should be noted that China has been mobilizing troops and ships as well.

But new conventional weapons and conventional mobilizations are nothing compared with Russia's new weapons of mass destruction. Earlier this month, the Russians launched a state-of-the-art ballistic missile. It lifted off from Russia's west Arctic cosmodrome and traveled 6,000 miles before slamming into a target range in Siberia. The missile scored a direct hit.

Russia's new Topol M is the world's finest strategic rocket. It was designed to leave the earth's atmosphere, to glide through space and return to earth with deadly precision. It was even built to evade interception. But the most important fact about the Topol M has yet to be mentioned. The Topol M was built for one purpose -- to attack America.

Russia's military is organized differently than the U.S. military. In America, we have five services: the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard. In Russia, they also have five services: the Army, Air Force, Navy, Strategic Rocket Forces and Air Defense Forces. This organizational arrangement tells us a great deal. Russia's nuclear missiles have their own dedicated service branch. Even more interesting, Russia has a special anti-air and anti-ballistic missile service that is dedicated to shooting down American bombers and missiles (the Air Defense Forces). In other words, two of Russia's five service branches are entirely oriented towards nuclear world war.

Russia's current defense minister, Igor Sergeyev, used to be the head of Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces. His close friend and relative (by marriage), General Yakovlev, is the current head of those forces. We need to remember that Sergeyev and Yakovlev have been thoroughly schooled in Russian nuclear war theory. You could even say that the theory and practice of nuclear war was the "mother's milk" of their military education. And what does Russian military theory teach about nuclear war? According to "Soviet Military Strategy," the classic text in use when Sergeyev was educated: "The appearance of the nuclear rocket weapon radically changes previous concepts of the nature of war."

Because of its "destructive and death-dealing potential," surprise is the most decisive factor in any future world war. Whoever attacks first not only has the initiative, but a decisive advantage. Therefore, all war preparations must take place under the cover of various "diversions." The enemy must not be allowed to suspect that an attack is being planned.

"Military strategy under conditions of modern war," says the Soviet text, "becomes the strategy of deep nuclear rocket strikes in conjunction with the operations of all services of the armed forces in order to effect simultaneous defeat and destruction of the economic potential and armed forces throughout the enemy territory."

For the Russian theorists, nuclear war is not merely an exchange of nuclear strikes. It is a war involving infantry, artillery, tanks, ships and aircraft. Therefore, troop mobilizations must take place before the first rockets are launched. In this context, it also should be noted that Russia is currently engaged in country-wide civil defense drills. The terrorist bombings against Russian apartment buildings now serve as the pretext for these "civilian exercises."

Russian theorists believe that nuclear weapons dictate new strategies for the battlefield. Under modern circumstances, it is dangerous to concentrate ground forces. The proper strategy is to conceal and disperse one's armies. Continuous defensive lines are now obsolete, and there is no possibility of maintaining a steady supply line. Something like "Sherman's march" is no longer done, because Atlanta is burnt by rocket attack in the first few minutes of the war.

Conventional wisdom about the Russian military says that Russia neglected its conventional forces in order to build up its nuclear forces. It is more accurate to say that Russia neglected its soldiers in order to modernize its hardware -- both conventional and nuclear. As Yeltsin seals off the Russian border, as dissidents are silenced and tens of thousands are arrested throughout the former Soviet Union, our sources of information grow narrower and narrower. With each passing day, we know less and less about the ongoing crisis in Russia.

It would be comforting if our own leaders were aware of the danger that all of this presents, but no such awareness exists. The Russian art of war is something our own leaders apparently know nothing about. ( and neither do most on this forum, although we post it right in front of their eyes. )

J.R. Nyquist is a WorldNetDaily contributing editor and author of 'Origins of the Fourth World War.'

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), September 30, 1999

Answers

Still, the best reason to prepare....the best reason to have gold and silver....the best reason to be away from major military locations and cities....and a good reason to follow the advice of John 3:16. BB

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), September 30, 1999.

It is amazing how some people still think a nuclear war can be fought and "WON" !? Let's not kid ourselves ! However STUPID it may be, the concept of " mutually assurred destruction " still holds. This is today's ACCEPTED INSANITY.

However, the reality is that our planet will not survive a full scale nuclear war, period.

I don't trust the russians either, but they and the chinese are not that stupid. (I would hope)

One single modern nuclear submarine has enough firepower to vaporize a good portion of the planet and we have dozens of them ready to pull the trigger if needed.

Ever hear of the terminology "NUCLEAR WINTER" NO ONE will survive a world wide nuclear exchange.

SO, lets do what we can, for us and future generations, to put some water in our wine (political rhetoric) and try to strongly enforce global peace through development and co-operaation and not domination.

Y2K is as much an opportunity to do that, as it is a threath. Its just from what "angle " you see it. Now go in peace but be prepared for a little " volatility ". AMEN

Canuck

-- Mike Williams (michelwi@colba.net), September 30, 1999.

That's how little you and Nyquist know about Russia, BB. The quote, "and fill up the armed forces with recruits" is so BS. Everyone, yes everyone, big and small, thin and fat, go into the military. It's not voluntary, like in America. Everyone must serve. Do you think they have recruiting signs like, "Be all you can be". You and Nyquist are so out of touch, it's hysterical.

Then the quote, "The Topol M was built for one purpose -- to attack America" is like a no brainer. Well, duh. Where does he come up with these "words of wisdom". Where has he been for the last 30 years?

BB, move on to reading some other stuff would ya?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 30, 1999.

Maria:

Its funny how you would rather believe the Russians and the Traitor in the White House rather than Nyquist --- where do YOU get your assurances that Russia is so benign ? --- Just hope and delusion, I guess.

"Leaders" (traitors) like Talbot prove that the American people have been betrayed. How dare he say (basically) that he wants the US to cease to exist in preference for a world government? At least our forefathers knew what to do with Benedict Arnold --- we put these people in the highest offices.

Sorry for ranting a little, but HOW can you be so blind --- look at whats happening with an unemtional eye and you will see that we are headed for deep do-do. While our "leaders" whistle "Don't Worry---- Be happy".

-- Jon Johnson (narnia4@usa.net), September 30, 1999.

Maria, Please tell me what specific signs, and what specific circumstances would cause you to have serious concern that Russia (or any foreign nation) might attack America.

Thanks...

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), September 30, 1999.

Canuck, what makes you so sure we would launch back?

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), September 30, 1999.

I don't know why the Russians would want to attack us. We keep sending them piles of money.

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.comn), September 30, 1999.

Never said Russia is benign. I've worked on strategic planning and nuclear missile basing. I know Russia and our capabilities quite well. What I have said is that this is nothing new. Russia has and always will be an enemy who can't be trusted. Again nothing new. I've seen it many times in the past and I suspect I'll see it many times in the future. The title of this thread needs to delete the word "NOW". Get it?

But the thing that Nyquist and BB don't know is the past. The blinders are only focused on today's events. They need to start digging into the past events that have lead up to today's to understand what's going on.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 30, 1999.

You will notice that all Maria can do is flaunt credentials that she never proves, and when pushed she tells us her information is contained in secret classified documents.

She won't respond to Mumsie's question "to provide signs" for a coming attack, because everything to her is the way it has always been. She filters the information. She admits they can't be trusted, yet wants us to trust that nothing can happen 'NOW'. Maria, if nothing happens by January 1st I will fly to where you live and take you out to eat at the restaurant of your choice, that is how elated I will be that you are right.

As Nyquist points out, our leaders like Talbot and Albright are blinded by their dream of a NWO. Their little minions, like Maria, follow along in their dark sunglasses and canes. They cannot recognize the signs, because they do not have eyes to see. Listen to them at your peril.

Maria, I am honored that you put my handle next to Nyquist. That is the nicest thing you have done for me. Thanks.

You charge that Nyquist and I are ignorant of the past. It is you, that fails to understand Soviet military strategy. What can you tell us about Golitsyn, the men mentioned in Nyquist's article? Just what is it we are missing?

You say you have been involved in strategic planning and missile basing. Thanks Maria, your failure to strategically plan a missile defense system is going to get a lot of people killed. Wake up! NOW stays in the thread until further notice.....get it?

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), September 30, 1999.

Mike Williams,

Mike, where have you been on this forum for the last six months. The idea that a nuclear war CAN be initiated and won is not argued anymore here.

The idea is to so surprise us and devastate what remaining nuclear weapons we have in a strategic strike, that there will not be much of a response.

That is now possible because there is no such thing as MAD anymore. You need to dig in the archives here and find the references to Clinton/Talbots change in our launch on warning which alone assured safety. The new policy is that we will wait to be hit before we launch just to be sure we are really being fired upon.

Our leaders fail to understand the ruthlessness, the cruelness, and the satanic power behind Kremlin's thugs.

The answer will not be found in negotiations Mike, or that global cooperation crap. Nuclear winter is a myth. And so is the idea that our subs will prevent an attack. We only have 18 nuke subs. Only a handful are out of port at any one time. Russia has them covered. It is only a matter of time now.

Be glad you are in Canada.

Isaiah 41:10

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), September 30, 1999.

Maria,

Since they could not pay so many recruits, they now have a volunteer army. IN case of war they will draft everyone, but not right now.

-- Boris (served@sovietarmy.ru), September 30, 1999.

Instead of vague comments Maria, why not use your superior knowledge to teach us facts and data ? "A one-paragraph mention on page 12 of The New York Times [appeared] on December 28, 1998. That paragraph read:

Russia: 10 Nuclear Missiles Debut

Russia deployed 10 new Topol-M nuclear missiles in the Saratov region, 450 miles southeast of Moscow. the deployment was a major step for Russia's cash-shy military, because the Goverment does not have enough money to maintain all of its armed forces and decided to concentrate on developing the single-warhead Topol-M, which has a range of 6,200 miles."

----------------------------------------------------------

Now, I'll kick the discussion off with some links:

R ussian Nuke forces, end of 1997
R ussian Nuke forces, end of 1998
Statement by Gen. Yakovlev on Russian nuclear war doctrine Russia n Federation arsenal (from Janes)
Topol M comments
More on Topol M


-- count vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), September 30, 1999.

GOD said ,he will put the hook in the bears jaw[russia] and DRAW it into armeggedon.---russias pride gets fried.

-- prophecy-clues. (dogs@zianet.com), September 30, 1999.

Actually, the Bible never mentions Russia.......read it and see.....there is one reference to the tribes of Gog and Magog which some speculate may have lived in the area of the Republics of Southern Russian (Chechnya etc.).......

It is indeed a stretch to say this refers to modern day Russia.....apart from the fact that the scripture is not even refering to the times we live in now. It was actually written to the people of Israel who lived around 500BC.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), September 30, 1999.

BB,

Nuclear winter a myth????

Now there's a contention that needs a LOT of backing data.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), September 30, 1999.

Yeah, they are definitely gettin ready, along with the Chinese. See related threat about naval excercises in the Pacific this weekend:

Pre-war warmup

-- @ (@@@.@), September 30, 1999.

Bokonon,

I offer you the following, you may read the whole at The Myth of Nuclear Winter I would excerpt some lines from the article but it is short and needs to be read in full.

Blessings

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), September 30, 1999.

At the peak of the defense buildup during the Reagan era, it was probably argued by the Kremlin that "those evil Americans are planning to attack us". There is NO reason why they would want to physically destroy America. Control America yes. Destroy, no. In my opinion, they are simply posturing, in order to exert influence the next time NATO comes calling in their backyard, and also to gain political/military clout when it comes time to redefine the boundaries, relationships and roles of US Dep. Sec. State Talbott's Global World Government that will begin taking shape in the next few years.

What we are seeing is the beginning of another Cold War. Assuming that "only" a depression befalls us next year, billions of dollars will be created by the US government and used to fuel Star Wars type anti-missile development, a larger army and navy, and a ramp up of conventional and nuclear defenses.

The leaders of Russia have no desire to start lobbing nukes. They're perfectly happy in their duchas catering to the needs of the new leaders in Moscow, Organized Crime. The real threat is terrorists, or if y2k spawns a third world war.

-- a (a@a.a), September 30, 1999.

In a nuclear war, better to be at ground zero, IMHO...

watchin' the birds...

The Dog

-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), September 30, 1999.

a,

I disagree. People like Talbot and the NWO elite are not going to settle for half of a new world order, they want the entire planet. Otherwise they would change the name to The New Half-World Order.

-- @ (@@@.@), September 30, 1999.

Anecdotal data A friend of mine was in Kiev in July and August doing missionary work. Her perception was the general population expects war with the U.S. at any time. None of the grain sales to Russia in the last couple of years have gone to the general population. It has all been stored in underground silos in case of war.

-- y2kdon (y2kdon@hotmail.com), September 30, 1999.

BB,

The experts that Nyquist quotes, indicates that there is a controversy surrounding nuclear winter. That does not prove that nuclear winter is a myth, anymore than controversy regarding Black Holes, proves that to be a myth.

Do you have anything else?

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), September 30, 1999.

Bokonon, you originally wrote: Nuclear winter a myth???? Now there's a contention that needs a LOT of backing data.

In fact, the proponents of the nuclear winter theory are the ones making a positive claim, the burden of proof, testability, falsifiability, and "backing data" are entirely on their shoulders. It is not clear that this has been fully undertaken. As Carl Sagan himself used to say: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

-- Count Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), September 30, 1999.

My first two questions stand.

I would like Maria to tell me specifically what would set off alarm bells in her head that Russia is poised to attack. This is actually the second thread that I have asked her that, and she continues to dodge this question.

Also, on what basis does anyone now feel that we would launch a retaliatory nuclear attack? It is my understanding that Clinton's standing orders currently are to not do so.

Just for theory's sake. Picture bio and nuclear warfare on American shores. Death and chaos. CHAOS Demoralized, hungry, wounded, sick and frightened people. Martial law. God knows what. And we have the idea that there will be an orderly and united response by Americans that will get it all in hand? With a prez who is poised to capitulate and continue ruling under the new regime?

Americans have seen too many movies.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), September 30, 1999.

@ There is NO reason why they would want to physically destroy America. Control America yes. Destroy, no. In my opinion,......

Why would they want to physically destroy America? How about as a sign of strength to the rest of the world? How about as a means of eliminating their one rival for world power? How about as revenge for their Slavic brothers from Serbia? How many valid reasons do you need?

What we are seeing is the beginning of another Cold War. Assuming that "only" a depression befalls us next year, billions of dollars will be created by the US government and used to fuel Star Wars type anti-missile development, a larger army and navy, and a ramp up of conventional and nuclear defenses.

"Beginning of another Cold War?" That statement assumes the last one really ended. The reports I've seen indicate that we may have thought the first one ended, but that the Russians never thought so.

Cold war? It's only a cold war as long as it doesn't go hot. It has never gone hot because both sides saw the insanity of starting it. Things seem to have changed.......the Russians appear to have stockpiled food (our wheat), but we haven't. You have heard the terms GI and DGI, haven't you. The Russians GI, we DGI. The Russians appear to have concentrated on civil defense, even to the tune of building huge underground cities. We have gone from launch on detect and confirm to a launch after taking the first strike policy. And, the Russians had established a plan of initial engagement by means of terrorist attacks. How much assured destruction do we have left after nuclear, chemical and biological terroist attacks, assasinations of key government officials, etc.

-- de (delewis@XOUTinetone.net), September 30, 1999.

To anyone still laboring under the "nuclear winter" myth please note that Carl Sagan predicted that if Sadam Hussein sets fire to the Kuwaiti oil wells during the Gulf War then "nuclear winter" worldwide would result. Sadam Hussein shocked the world by setting most if not all the Kuwait oil wells ablaze and voila .... no "nuclear winter" the rest is history. Carl Sagan was wrong about many things.

There is a book on the internet about how to survive a nuclear war with a forward by Edward Teller and it discusses how most of the nuclear devices made in the 80's and 90's are miniaturized for greater accuracy and deliverability and in most cases reduced the range that a wood frame home would be at risk from 25 miles from ground zero to 5 miles. In other words, I was left with the impression that most of the modern nukes were a lot smaller than those that were built in the 50's and 60's and 70's. Don't claim to be an expert so someone please correct me if I am mistaken.

sdb

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), September 30, 1999.

de: I think you're being too superficial. Just as the ruling class made the peasants build pyramids to keep them occupied, citizens of the superpowers toil their whole lives in order to feed the military-industrial complex.

People with money rule the world de, not military planners. Russia's ruling class wants to stay rich, not live in underground bunkers during nuclear winter. Sadaam may desire to play those types of games, but not the Russian elite and Mafia. They just want more money. So as I said, influence-yes. Control-good luck. Extort-possibly. Destroy? There's a better chance civilization will fold from an Infomagic scenario. You're underestimating the backroom politics.

It would take the Devil himself in the Kremlin to nuke America...and I'm not going there...

-- a (a@a.a), September 30, 1999.

de,

Your putting words in my mouth... someone else's words!

Try to get your a's straight from your @'s, especially since "@" does not agree with "a" on this issue.

-- @ (@@@.@), September 30, 1999.

Bokonon,

I don't think we are going to have to worry about 'nuclear winter'. As De so eloquently pointed out, if we allow them to strike us first there will never be a nuclear winter. They say the Mt. St. Helens explosion was a blast greater than all nuclear weapons put together. I think Nyquist was convincing on this point. But I really don't think we will have to worry about it, if the Soviets have any say about it. Consider this quote: ----------------------------------------------------------------------

The principle of the employment of nuclear weapons in combination with other means of destruction follows from the fact that it is impossible to destroy all varied objectives on the battlefield with nuclear weapons alone. It is believed that nuclear weapons, as the main means of destruction, will be employed only for the destruction of the most important objectives; all other targets are neutralized and destroyed by the artillery, aviation, and the fire of tanks and other weapons. -Colonel A.A. Sidorenko, Soviet Strategist

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), September 30, 1999.

Full-blown nuclear war will have no winners; Russian / Chinese victory or Western victory is irrelevant. The lucky ones will be incinerated. The unfortunate ones will die over the course of several days from radiation poisoning and accelerated cancer. The unluckiest will witness the complete breakdown of our fragile ecosystem. These folks will get to watch the planet die from plutonium exposure.

-- mil (millenium@yahoo.com), October 01, 1999.

mil,

What if Russia and China don't attack the U.S. but they invade Europe and overthrow the NATO countries there? They could still achieve the same goal of crippling the U.S. without ever launching a nuke.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 01, 1999.

Nearly anything is possible. Do you think the U.S. would refrain from the use of nuclear weapons in that situation? What would that likely trigger?

-- mil (millenium@yahoo.com), October 01, 1999.

Personally, this is what I think Russia and China are going to do. If they were to simultaneously attack critical NATO countries like England, Italy, and France it would be days before U.S. forces could get into position to help. The population of Russia, China, and Iraq is 3.5 times or over 1 BILLION more, than all 17 European NATO countries combined, and I don't know the stats on their armies, but I would guess that they are fairly proportional.

So would the U.S. launch nukes into NATO countries just to stop Russia from attacking, even though they would be killing millions of people in NATO countries and risking a very likely nuclear response form Russia? That is a question that they might just be willing to call us on considering their current dire condition. Do you realize that they could knock out 17 out of the 19 NATO countries without ever even coming near the American continent? This would virtually destroy the U.S. and Canada and leave us at their mercy.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 01, 1999.

BB and @:
I think Russia and China are protecting themselves from the U.S. and NATO. I've read over and over again on the forum, "It's better to be prepared than to be sorry." Both Russia and China were alarmed by NATO's attack on Slobo - sovereignty was apparently no longer an issue for them. If you are nervous about "enemy" activity, blame the true aggressors.

-- Klar (klarbrunn@lycos.com), October 01, 1999.