Is it really possible to destroy Russia?

In times of war and with the threat of nuclear conflict, it is important to reflect on the future of the countries involved in the main geopolitical disputes. Western propaganda often tries to reinforce a narrative suggesting that Russia could be destroyed, but the geopolitical reality is very different. Many in the West believe that, in a nuclear war scenario, Russia would be vulnerable, but this view disregards the country’s unique resilience, its vast territorial expanse, and the historical and cultural factors that sustain its ability to survive. In a potential “post-apocalypse” scenario, even a large-scale nuclear war would not be enough to irreversibly destroy Russia. The complexity of Russia’s geography, along with its self-sufficiency and the resilient mindset of its people, ensures its survival, regardless of the severity of the destruction.

Obviously, this type of scenario is not one of a simple military confrontation, where the conventional firepower of both sides would be used to achieve victory. In a global nuclear war, surely everyone would “lose.” However, Russia, due to its geographical, historical, and cultural characteristics, would remain a viable nation, regardless of what happened to its major cities, which would be targets of Western missiles. Even if the West managed to destroy Russia’s major urban centers and critical infrastructures, the country would still retain a vast physical survival base, from the Urals to the Far East, and from the Arctic to Lake Baikal. In other words, Russia, despite any destruction that the West could cause, would continue to be the largest nation in the world, with sufficient resources to ensure self-sufficiency and the long-term continuity of the nation.

Russia has the advantage of its vast territory, which makes it almost immune to total destruction. While Western Europe, with its small size and high population density, virtually has no uninhabited areas where it could survive a nuclear conflict, and the United States only benefits from the relative isolation of Alaska, Russia possesses an extensive and rich area. This territory, which still holds part of its population in regions far from major urban centers, would allow for significant recovery after a global catastrophe. This vast region, with its abundant natural resources, would ensure that Russia not only survives immediately but also has the ability to physically rebuild itself for the future.

It is essential to understand that the Russian mentality, very different from the Western one, is deeply rooted in the country’s historical experience, especially regarding major military events, such as the recent and tragic Second World War. Russia managed to withstand one of the greatest massacres in history and, even amid extreme conditions, rebuild its manufacturing capacity by relocating heavy industry to Siberia and expanding essential infrastructure to sustain the fight against Nazism. This experience of overcoming extreme adversity not only reflects the resilience of its people but also a structure capable of recovering the country’s productive strength in times of crisis.

Keep reading

Are The Danes Up For A Two Front War?

Word is that Denmark plans to increase defense spending on Greenland, following Trump’s statement that acquiring Greenland for the US is “an absolute necessity.” The Danes had better watch their backs, because Russians like Trump’s idea—they see Trump’s idea as an endorsement, in effect, of a multipolar world:

Russians Respond to Donald Trump’s Greenland Proposal

Excerpts:

Russian media personalities have responded to President-elect Donald Trump’s proposal regarding buying Greenland in a state broadcast show. In his show Evening with Vladimir Solovyov on Russia-1, host Vladimir Solovyov and others responded to Trump’s idea to potentially buy Greenland and voiced their support.

On his evening show, Solovyov and his guests largely cheered on Trump’s proposal to buy Greenland. Sergey Mikheyev, one of Solovyov’s pundits said that Trump’s proposal is in accordance with “the American mindset” that his predecessors attempted to “disguise and hide”.

“Trump simply says it straight—we are everything and you are nothing,” Mikheyev noted.

“This is especially interesting because it drives a wedge between him and Europe, it undermines the world architecture, and opens up certain opportunities for our foreign policy,” Mikheyev said, adding that if Trump “really wants to stop the third world war, the way out is simple: dividing up the world into spheres of influence.”

Stanislav Tkachenko, a top academic at the St. Petersburg State University also voiced his support for Trump’s discussion of buying Greenland and said that Russia should “thank Donald Trump, who is teaching us a new diplomatic language.”

“That is, to say it like it is. Maybe we won’t carve up the world like an apple, but we can certainly outline the parts of the world where our interests cannot be questioned.”

Keep reading

Russian MoD Reveals U.S. African Biolab Complex, Sponsored by the Gates and Clinton Foundations

Major General Aleksei Rtishchev, Deputy Chief of the Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Protection Troops of the Russian Armed Forces, recently delivered a briefing highlighting U.S. biological activity in Africa. In the following excerpt, he states, “The US administration views the region as an unlimited natural reservoir of dangerous infectious agents and a testing ground for experimental medical drugs.”.

Keep reading

Righty Tighty: A Simple Way Donald Trump Can End The Ukraine & Israel Wars

Upon his inauguration as president, Donald Trump will become the leader of a United States executive branch mired in two major wars via its continuing pumping of money, weapons, and intelligence into support of the Ukraine and Israel governments. Trump has declared his opposition to the continuation of these wars. But, how can he end them?

The means by which Trump can end the wars is simpler than many Americans think. This means just does not come to mind for many Americans because it is far removed from the course US presidents have tended to pursue over the last few decades.

Righty tighty. That’s it. Taking the US out of these wars is as simple as turning off a standard outdoor water faucet. President Joe Biden has turned the handle all the way lefty loosey. Trump should just turn it back all the way. Shut off the money flow. Shut off the weapons flow. Shut off the intelligence flow.

And there is no good reason for Trump to take his time about it. He should turn off the flow of aid in all forms promptly in his presidency.

Doing so would comport with Trump’s stated objectives regarding the Ukraine War and the Israel War during his campaign and since. Trump has repeated his promise to end the Ukraine War in a day. He has also commented on multiple occasions that he wants the Israel War over before he is even sworn in as president.

Without US support, Ukraine and Israel lack the means to continue their wars. Deprived of the means to continue fighting in anywhere near the strength they have, both governments will immediately find themselves in a new situation where their best option is to seek peace.

Keep reading

Ukrainian Drones Pummel Russian City Over 600 Miles From Front Line

Ukraine’s drone and missile attacks deep inside Russia have already been a near daily occurrence, but now these projectiles are reaching further and further into Russia, often utilize Western-supplied weapon systems.

“Ukraine brought the war into the heart of Russia Saturday morning with drone attacks that local authorities said damaged residential buildings in the city of Kazan in the Tatarstan region, over 600 miles (1,000 kilometers) from the front line,” The Associated Press reports Saturday.

The regional governor said that eight drones attacked the city, with anti-air defenses only able to shoot down one. The others hit residential buildings and an industrial facility. 

No casualties were indicated by emergency services, but the attacks halted flights at Kazan’s airport, and all public gatherings were canceled due to the threat of more possible inbound drones.

The last several days have seen deadly attacks on Rostov and Kursk regions. The several waves of assaults involved US-provided ATACMS, UK-provided Storm Shadow missiles, as well as a HIMARS attack which occurred Friday.

The Russian Defense Ministry said: “These actions by the Kiev regime supported by Western handlers won’t be left unanswered.”

Keep reading

Trump Reportedly Plans To Continue Aid To Ukraine But Will Raise NATO Spending To 5%

President-elect Donald Trump is expected to continue sending military aid to Ukraine, despite Trump earlier on the campaign trail mocking Zelensky for being the “greatest salesman on earth” for his getting tens of billions of US taxpayers’ money with ease.

A new Financial Times report has cited European officials who say Trump’s team told them he plans to continue military aid to Kiev after his inauguration. He’s reportedly trying to calm fears of an immediate US withdrawal of support, and this is connected to an expected Trump policy for NATO member states to increase defense spending to 5% of their GDP.

“Donald Trump’s team has told European officials that the incoming US president will demand Nato member states increase defense spending to 5% of GDP, but plans to continue supplying military aid to Ukraine,” FT writes.

NATO’s existing target of 2% of GPD for defense spending certainly has not been met by all members… not even close. The 2% is being met by only 23 of the alliance’s 32 members, and so a significantly higher bar set of more than double that is certainly going to rile Europe.

European NATO leaders have long been trying to figure out how to ‘Trump proof’ future defense aid for Ukraine, as has the Biden administration.

But there’s at least one severe critic – Hungary’s Viktor Orban. He estimated in a radio interview on Friday that the US and the EU have pumped over $300 billion in financial aid and military assistance into Kiev’s coffers since the war’s start.

“During the negotiation with the Americans, I received the figure that Europe and America together have spent €310 billion so far. Those are huge numbers!” the Hungarian prime minister declared.

He went to describe that such a massive amount “could have done wonders” for European people themselves, instead of sinking the funds into an unwinnable war, while avoiding the necessity of negotiations with Moscow.

Keep reading

British Media Gloating Betrays Masterminds Behind Kirillov’s Killing

The reveling by the British news media over the assassination of a top Russian general in Moscow is revealing in several ways.

The reveling by the British news media over the assassination of a top Russian general in Moscow is revealing in several ways.

First of all, it is a sickening display of wretched so-called journalism. The celebratory tone in British media outlets at the sight of Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov’s bloodied corpse lying in the snow speaks volumes of a despicable lack of respect. It says something about the depraved depth of British culture.

By comparison, the reporting of the assassination by American media outlets was relatively mundane and matter-of-fact.

Not so in Britain. The British media were almost euphoric in their reaction.

The Pentagon’s response was significant. Spokesman Patrick Ryder denied any U.S. involvement in the killing. He said the Americans were not forewarned about the assassination and he added that the United States did not support such action.

Of course, such denials should always be treated with skepticism.

However, while the Americans had the decency to remain reserved, the British were giddy in their ghoulishness.

The London Times editorial board declared that Lt Gen. Kirillov was a “legitimate target” for assassination.

The Daily Telegraph ran an oped piece by Hamish de Bretton-Gordon with the headline: “Putin’s chemical weapons henchman Kirillov was a truly evil man. He deserved to die.”

Meanwhile, the BBC blithely used the Foreign Office’s description of Kirillov as a “notorious mouthpiece for Kremlin disinformation” to convey an implicit justification for murder.

Over at the Guardian, their Russophobic reporter, Luke Harding, abandoned all pretense of journalistic standards by glorifying Ukraine’s military intelligence service (SBU) for its “success,” adding: “The agency has cemented its reputation as an outfit that administers its own form of brutal extrajudicial justice. It is an abrupt and swift form of vengeance, delivered as if from the heavens.”

Keep reading

Bloomberg Is Manufacturing Consent For More Western Meddling In Sudan

The pretext is to jointly contain Russian and Iranian influence in the broader region amidst their recent setbacks in the Levant.

Bloomberg published a detailed piece on Wednesday about how “Russian Guns, Iranian Drones Are Fueling Sudan’s Brutal Civil War”. The content is self-explanatory and presents the Sudanese Armed Forces’ (SAF) change of fortune in the nearly two-year-long civil war as the result of those two’s backing. Russia provides fuel, arms, and jet components while Iran supplies arms and drones in exchange for privileged access to Sudan’s mineral wealth (particularly gold) and the promise of Red Sea naval bases.

The Russian modus operandi builds upon the model explained here in early 2023 whereby Moscow provides military support to its Global South partners to defend them from externally connected threats to their national models of democracy in exchange for resource and other rights. Iran’s approach is similar but more ideologically driven given the SAF’s closeness with political Islam since former leader Omar al-Bashir’s rise to power in 1989. Both want to make up for recent setbacks in the Levant.

Russia risks losing its bases in Syria following the joint American-Turkish regime change there while Iran’s regional Resistance Axis partners have taken a beating at the hands of Israel. Egypt and Turkiye are also allegedly backing the SAF while the UAE and its Libyan ally Haftar are accused of supporting their Rapid Support Forces (RSF) rivals. Even so, Emirati mineral companies are still active in the SAF-controlled Port Sudan that serves as the country’s temporary capital, thus highlighting the complexity of this conflict.

Readers should also be reminded that “Russia’s Veto Of The UNSC Resolution On Sudan Saved It From A Neocolonialist Plot” last month after the UK tried to turn it into a Western vassal by unsuccessfully attempting to create the legal pretext for a foreign military intervention there to that end. Such a threat still remains though as suggested by Bloomberg’s latest piece, which is clearly aimed at manufacturing consent for more Western meddling there on the basis of jointly containing Russia and Iran.

Keep reading

Alleged Killer of General Kirillov Arrested, But Holes Remain in the Story

Akhmad Kurbanov is suspected of murdering Lt. Gen. Igor Kirillov, the head of the Radiological, Chemical, and Biological Defense Troops of the Russian Armed Forces. He was located and detained shortly after planting the bomb that killed Kirillov and his aide. In the photo above, reportedly lifted from social media by the FSB, Kurbanov is chanting, “I’m number one.” (Okay, that’s a joke.)

Russian authorities made quick work of scouring surveillance video feeds to identify the suspect car and capture Mr. Kurbanov. Within 24 hours, with no signs of torture or duress, Kurbanov was spilling his guts:

I came to Moscow on instructions from the Ukrainian special services”: interrogation of Igor Kirillov, the head of the RKhBZ troops, and his assistant Ilya Polikarpov, detained for the murder. The citizen of Uzbekistan faces punishment up to life imprisonment, the FSB reported.

“Why did I do this, for what? They offered me 100 thousand dollars and a European passport”

On instructions from the Ukrainian special services, a native of Uzbekistan installed a high-power IED on an electric scooter, which he parked near the entrance to Kirillov’s house. For observation, I rented a car sharing car and installed a Wi-Fi video camera there – the filming was broadcast online to the city of Dnepr. When the officers left the entrance, the contractor remotely activated the IED.

Keep reading

America’s Origins of Russophobia

For those that grew up in the United States in the 1990s and 2000s, the explosion of Russophobia over the past decade likely came as something of a surprise. A brief survey of the history of Russophobia, however, reveals that the decade and a half after the end of the Cold War was something of an anomaly in the past century and a half of American foreign policy, with a blend of inherited geopolitical fears and ideological tensions leading to a generally anti-Russian sentiment in Washington.

Our investigation begins with the so-called “Testament of Peter the Great.” An eighteenth century forgery of largely Polish origin, it purported to show, in the words of the University of London historian Orlando Figes, that the aims of Russian foreign policy were nothing less than world domination:

“…to expand on the Baltic and Black seas, to ally with the Austrians to expel the Turks from Europe, to conquer the Levant and control the trade to the Indies, to sow dissent and confusion in Europe and become the master of the European continent.”

First published in Napoleonic France in 1812, on the eve of the Grand Armée’s ill-fated invasion of Russia, it was to go on to provide the grist for many an English fear-monger’s mill.

In 1817, Sir Robert Wilson’s A Sketch of the Military and Political Power of Russia in the Year 1817 luridly detailed the military and geopolitical threat supposedly posed by Russia, and a decade later George de Lacy Evans’s On the Designs of Russia repeated these earlier warnings—both were favorably received by the public and among the ruling establishment, paranoid as ever about any potential threat to British control of India. Then, in 1834, the highly influential David Urquhart published his own pamphlet, England, France, Russia and Turkey, casting Russia as the perpetual antagonist to British interests in the Near East and Central Asia.

Not everyone was fooled, however. As noted by the Mises Institute’s Ryan McMaken, the great British liberals, such as Richard Cobden and John Bright, often opposed these characterizations and exaggerated threats. In turn, they were rewarded only with the scorn familiar to today’s scoffers. Indeed, the perception of Russia as a natural, age-old enemy became embedded in British geopolitical thought.

Keep reading