Why Russia fights? The Crux of the Matter.

Why Russia fights? The Crux of the Matter.

(Part One)

You must have come across an English saying “Never Wrestle with a Pig. You Both Get Dirty and the Pig Likes It”. The quote has been misattributed to George Bernard Shaw, Abraham Lincoln, Richard Percival Calhoon (an American educator, largely unknown outside the US), and a host of other historical personages of lesser or greater import. The adage is old, probably popular in its origin, and, when it comes to the ongoing Russia-NATO conflict, an affair mislabeled by the Fourth Reich’s propaganda media as the Russia-Ukraine conflict, this dictum is also astonishingly descriptive.

Namely, Russia or the Russian Federation since Russia and the Russian Federation are not synonymous (for one Russia is substantially larger than today’s Russian Federation) is now the besmirched and maligned pig-wrestling party. The pig that is being wrestled is of course the Ukraine but not just the Ukraine. The entire porcine Kosher transatlantic Fourth Reich is the hog behind the Zelensky swine. And the mystery, the way I see it, is why Russia is wrestling with this particular Pig instead of just slaughtering it.

I never expected Russia to wrestle with the Pig. In fact, the way this “war” unfolded struck me as profoundly bizarre because, beyond a certain point, there has been no reason for Russia to fight it: there is no sense for Russia to wrestle with the pig.

As I wrote earlier in the blog, I guess my first entry on this subject was on February 27, 2022, the Russian Federation must have undertaken this mission to the Ukraine, because the Russian Federation’s leadership, and not just Putin as the enemy propaganda claims, had no other choice.

Aside from a few traitors and disloyal Jews, who had already fled the country (their speedy en masse departure has been one of the side benefits of the so-called “invasion”), there is a consensus in today’s Russia, a consensus that is broad, deep and goes across the entire political spectrum, a conviction held by people of diverse and often opposite worldviews, that the Fourth Reich (the US and its vassals) has cornered the country, committed gravest offenses for which it must pay, and some sort of preemptive military operation is the only solution to the crisis.

The only way to beat back the advance of the Evil Empire is to beat it back. And by the Evil Empire I don’t mean the largely vegetarian post-Stalinist Soviet Union, the USSR was a comic opera affair compared to the sort of evil Russia is confronting now. I mean the collective Fourth Reich – the USA, its’ vassals, its’ East European minions, and their neocon Jewish and American Deep State masters.

Putin’s hope for a coup, once again by Putin I don’t mean any physical person, has been a miscalculation. Or maybe it was a trap into which Putin’s American partners had tricked him and Russia. I wrote about this on day three (3) of the operation. That entry is still my blog.

the moment the US supplied Javelin rockets were used to ambush a Russian Federation column, this should have stopped. That is Putin, now physical Putin, must have issued a command to the United States to cease all assistance to the Ukraine, to remove all the weapons supplied, and to arrest and deliver the principal perpetrators and puppets like Zelensky and members of his gang.

Simultaneously, an ultimatum must have been given to Poland, Romania, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia commanding them to stop any transfer of arms, open or illicit, to evict NATO bases and personnel, and to make territory available for Russian inspection. If you already forgot, and I didn’t, the whole imbroglio began with the Russian Federation’s long overdue demand to withdraw NATO infrastructure and forces to the borders of 1999, which, in practical terms, means that NATO must retreat to the borders of 1991. This is how the Ukraine “conflict” began (many must have forgotten the Geneva talks that preceded the special military operation, but they had been the fuse that set off the bomb and ignited the pile of trash that is called Ukraine).

I am sure the US and Eastern European puppets would have complied with the ultimatum, tails obediently down, and if not Russia should have carried out massive nuclear strikes on major population centers and NATO installations in the vassal states, and annihilated US bases in Germany. Russia could do that with absolute impunity. With a smirk. Russia can use nuclear weapons with impunity, aside from minor environmental blowback, an insignificant consideration if one compares to the strategic and civilizational benefits of the good deed, something that the Soviet Union was never in a position to do.

Russia has never been prepared and has no interest in fighting NATO by conventional means. The disparity between Russian capabilities and economic, financial, and population resources is so huge that the notion that Russia can or will, or should fight NATO or a party supplied and assisted by NATO is outright foolish. NATO’s population is almost 10 times greater than that of Russia, and the industrial advantage of NATO member states makes this disparity chasmic.

But Russia has an edge in nuclear weapons and it can employ them to nullify the enemy’s advantage. It is as if bad guys have a big Nazimobile, say a shiny expensive Mercedes while you, a poor bum, oppose them on foot. But wait, you’ve also got an old 45mm WWII-era Soviet anti-tank gun and enough ammunition to turn the shiny fine-tuned, and surreally expensive Mercedes into a heap of smoldering scrap metal.

When it came to nuclear weapons, Soviet Union’s imaginary hands were tied. Russian Federation hands are free to strike the daylights out of the scum of the earth.

Though this may seem paradoxical as the Soviet Union may appear much stronger and larger, we are at a point in history where appearances are deceiving.

The Soviet Union’s line of confrontation with NATO, principally the remnants of the Third Reich known as West Germany or FRG and its American masters, stretched along the border with the German Democratic Republic. Fighting could have broken out along the borders and Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces could have penetrated through Hesse into the Netherlands and advanced toward the Rhein. The Soviet Union never had any plans to occupy France (though the French didn’t quite know it). Poland was the Soviet Union’s rear guard. The second front could have been formed along the Czechoslovak border with the FRG (the Bohemian part vs US forces in Bavaria). Austria was neutral and there were no plans to overrun it. In short, the likely front in the case of the war in Europe was relatively small. Turkey could have attacked through the Caucasus but otherwise, by today’s standards, the potential NATO/Warsaw Pact line of confrontation was short while the concentration of forces along the dividing line was dense.

As some of the secret plans and scenarios dating from the 1970s and 80s had been released and partially declassified it became apparent that the Soviet Union had no intention of carrying out nuclear strikes against France, Great Britain, or the USA, all nuclear powers. Neither the US had any intention to attack the USSR with nuclear weapons in case of a conventional war in Europe. Since Americans are no suicidal fools they’ve never planned to sacrifice New York for Hamburg.

I had (and still have) a close friend, an American, who in his younger years was much into strategic defense issues, Cold War planning, and international relations. He must be reading my blog now, so he’ll figure out who I am talking about. He told me that the French nuclear arsenal was a point of contention between the USSR and the USA since the USSR demanded French nuclear armaments to be counted in the total balance while the US insisted that they are a different affair. The truth of the matter was that Americans were afraid of the French and their nuclear weapons. Not because the French would use them against the USA but precisely because of the opposite, because in the case of a front collapse in Europe, the French, then not a member of NATO but a power with independent nuclear strike forces, would do something unspeakable and then the USSR would retaliate not against them, but against the US.

In the case of a Soviet breakthrough, say at Fulda the USSR could not soften up the lines of enemy defense by carrying out nuclear strikes because the US (or NATO, the US really since NATO has no nuclear capability on its own) would have retaliated against the Soviet forces. If the Soviet command struck US forces in West Germany, Americans would have in response nuked Soviet forces in the German Democratic Republic. In that situation using nuclear weapons appeared as madness. If you strike Munich or Amsterdam, the US would strike Dresden or Warsaw in retaliation. Of course, no one would be sorry to see Warsaw gone but I for one would not be able to push the button on Dresden or Leipzig. They are beautiful cities, I love both of them. Dresden is already the victim of history’s worst war atrocity, the place of unspeakable martyrdom. It doesn’t deserve to be victimized again. I am saying the worst war atrocity even though the war’s ultimate atrocity was the Siege of Leningrad, but it was a prolonged story while Dresden was unquestionably history’s worst one-time premeditated heinous crime, the single most vicious and pointless act of barbarity. Like the Siege of Leningrad, it remains a crime yet unatoned and unpaid for.

Russia’s situation today is radically different from that of the Soviet Union. If Russia strikes NATO targets generously, all across the board, say it invests one thousand warheads into prime targets in Europe (bases like Rammstein, NATO installations in Norway, bases, airfields, and major population centers in the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, and Bulgaria), then the US cannot do anything because if the US tries to strike back then Russia will carry out a nuclear strike against American cities. Though Americans may be insolent, they are not insane. No one in the US, in right or wrong mind, would sacrifice New York, the city with the world’s largest Jewish population (Shalom, Blinken!), Boston, Houston, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Miami for a rusty barge with rotten grain and a farmers market in Kovno. The US has way more to lose and preciously little to gain.

If you understand this reasoning, then the Russian Federation’s decision to place tactical nuclear munitions in Belorussia (or Belarus in newspeak, which is, of course, a historical part of old Russia) appears somewhat misguided, or at least I can’t see any logic behind it. Because this move doesn’t seem to enhance Russian superiority in the nuclear field but reduces it. If until now we, the good guys, could strike enemy installations throughout the continent without any second thought, if nuclear weapons are moved to Belarus, then the Fourth Reich would have a justification to retaliate against Belarus. In this way, Russia would create a target in the place where there was none.

As long as there is a nuclear advantage Russia should use it and issue a nuclear ultimatum. It should have done so in March 2022. If the enemy disregards the ultimatum it must be wiped off the face of the earth.

Sometimes I hear talk of some limited nuclear strikes or a nuclear capability demonstration as an attempt to spook off the Polish and other East European vermin. This is silly. Limited use of nuclear weapons would only lead to the collapse of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the speedy erosion of Russia’s current nuclear advantage. If the enemy refuses to comply with the terms of the ultimatum (I am going to describe the desired terms the way I see them in the next post), it should be annihilated. As simple as that. It must suffer damage so catastrophic in economic, human, and environmental terms, that it won’t be able to recover for decades or maybe even centuries to come. The likely outcome must appear so bad that it should force the enemy to comply with Russia’s demands or face the music.

This is by no means barbaric because the leadership of Russia should think of Russia’s survival first and foremost, not of the political ambitions of Russia’s civilizational enemies. Russia faces an existentialist threat and is merely responding to aggression against the Russian state and the Russian nation. If the enemy itself, of its own free will and accord, decides to exterminate itself, then it would be a grave mistake on the part of Russia to deny it its choice. Russia must oblige.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *