Freedom from Alaska!

Skousen: The New Cold War — Russia Testing the Limits and Finding No Resistance

World Affairs Brief, August 22, 2008. Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World.

Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief.


The US under the globalist Bush regime has been all too eager to threaten and invade nations that can’t hit back. Now, faced with a defiant Russia occupying Georgia, the US is all talk and no action. After years of dealing with the Soviets in the cold war, the West should have learned one core lesson: the Russians only respect force–not words, not treaties, not agreements, only power. It was the same with Hitler–the West aided and abetted his aggression by monetary investments in his armaments industry and purposely keeping their own military forces weak so they had every excuse not to confront Hitler militarily when they could. Only when Hitler was too strong to stop, did the West declare war, with all its disastrous results (for innocent parties on both sides). It is happening all over again, and for the same globalist purposes–to force the world into new and more restrictive globalist legal structures, antithetical to liberty and national sovereignty. This week, I’ll explain more in detail how the current crisis will eventually lead to a larger war.

US Neocons, who have been virtually silent about the Russian threat for years, are suddenly changing their tune. Instead of supporting the chorus of government shills like John Isaac claiming that “we mustn’t provoke Russia because we can’t do without Russia’s help in foreign policy” (i.e., persuading Iran and North Korea to abandon their nuclear ambitions) neocon Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute devastated Isaacs appeasement arguments Wednesday on the Jim Lehrer News Hour saying, correctly, that Russia hasn’t been helpful in Iran at all. Until now, neocons have only been attacking Iran itself, (which they are still doing as part of the globalist strategy to provoke a new and larger Middle East war as soon as possible), but as I pointed out last week, this sudden openness about the Russian threat represents a major globalist tactical turn–from covering for Russian war preparations to suddenly admitting Russia is a major threat.

Fred Kagan is a brother to Robert Kagan, and son of Donald Kagan, all highly placed neocons who helped design the “New Pearl Harbor” strategy of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the showcase document promoting a resurgence in American military might, and using force to rid the world of regimes out of touch with the new globalist agenda. They and others in government have long used the phony “war on terror” to justify past and current US intervention around the world. Now it looks like they are beginning the switch to warn about the real war coming with Russia and China.

Here’s another example from Gabriel Schoenfeld of Commentary Magazine, a flagship neocon publication: “What lies behind Moscow’s willingness to crush Georgia with overwhelming force?” Schoenfeld amazingly takes on the issue of Russian nuclear superiority–something the neocons have heretofore downplayed with a vengeance [my comments in brackets].

“Analysts have highlighted Russia’s newfound economic confidence, its determination to undo its humiliation of the 1990s, and its grievances over Kosovo, U.S. missile-defense plans involving Poland and the Czech Republic, and the eastward expansion of NATO. But there may be another major, overlooked element: Has a shift in the nuclear balance between the U.S. and Russia helped embolden the bear? Under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which went into force in 1994, both the U.S. and the USSR made radical cuts in their strategic nuclear arsenals — that is, in weapons of intercontinental range [actually, only the US made radical cuts. Midway through the process of Russian disarming of SS-18 ICBMs (which was done at US expense, and nuclear warheads were being turned back to Russian custody) Russia announced it was going to retain its remaining missiles and stop disarming. In fact, the US has never been able to fully inspect Russian compliance on any treaty. The US has reduced its listing of Russian stockpiles of warheads and missiles based upon the foolish assumption that “we take Russia at their word” -this is what I mean about covering for Russian duplicity. We also know that Russia cheated on the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty by NOT removing all intermediate range missiles from Eastern Europe after the deceptive “fall of the Soviet Union.”].

“The 2002 Moscow Treaty pushed the numbers down even further, until each side’s strategic nuclear umbrella was pocket-size [again, he foolishly assumes Russian compliance. The US has never been allowed inside Russia’s huge underground bunker city under Yamantau Mountain, which is capable of housing secret nuclear manufacturing and storage facilities and much more]. Yet matters are very different at the tactical, or short-range, level. Here, the U.S., acting unilaterally and with virtually no fanfare, sharply cut back its stockpile of nonstrategic nuclear warheads. As far back as 1991, the U.S. began to retire all of its nuclear warheads for short-range ballistic missiles, artillery and antisubmarine warfare. According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, not one of these weapons exists today. The same authoritative publication estimates that the number of tactical warheads in the U.S. arsenal has dwindled from thousands to approximately 500.

“Russia has also reduced the size of its tactical nuclear arsenal [again, we have only their word for it], but starting from much higher levels and at a slower pace, leaving it with an estimated 5,000 such devices — 10 times the number of tactical weapons held by the U.S. Such a disparity would be one thing if we were contending with a stable, post-communist regime moving in the direction of democracy and integration with the West [the Grand Deception the West bought into and help facilitate by not exposing the ample evidence that this was a carefully crafted fraud orchestrated by Moscow]. That was the Russia we anticipated [no, the CIA knew Russia was cheating, but covered for them] when we began our nuclear build-down. But it is not the Russia we are facing today. Not only has Russia retained a sizable nuclear arsenal, its military and political leaders regularly engage in aggressive bluster about expanded deployment and possible use, and sometimes they go beyond bluster.

“Six months ago, Russia began sending cruise missile-capable Bear H bombers on sallies along the coast of Alaska. As recently as July, the newspaper Izvestia floated the idea that Moscow would station nuclear weapons in Cuba if the U.S. went ahead with the deployment of an anti-ballistic missile radar in the Czech Republic and interceptors in Poland. Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, chief of Russia’s strategic missile command, has openly spoken about aiming nuclear-tipped missiles at those two countries [Another figment of Western propaganda. Russia never stopped aiming missiles at the West. Even if they did, targeting can be changed in a matter of minutes by computer]. Vladimir Putin has warned Ukraine that if it were to join NATO, ‘Russia will have to point its warheads at Ukrainian territory.’ Not long before that, Mr. Putin cheerfully described a series of ballistic-missile flight tests as ‘pleasant and spectacular holiday fireworks.'”

What Mr. Schoenfeld and his Commentary crew won’t tell you is that they noted many of these things months ago and never raised a finger of warning to the West about Russia. Why the sudden change? Of course, the Georgian occupation is a convenient excuse to bring this to the forefront, but it is also obvious that they had in their possession the same evidence I have had for years that Russia has always been a threat–yet they only now bring it forth. This is dishonest and indicates, in my opinion, complicity in their former promotion of the false notion that Russia was a good candidate for integration into the West (speaking of Russian leaders, not the people). The globalists used that excuse for a decade or more to allow the transfer of advanced military, industrial and civilian technology to Russia that could not have been done unless Americans had been duped about the deceptive “fall of Soviet Communism.” The Communists simply went underground. Top Communist leaders like Boris Berezovsky (who were the real power behind Gorbachev and Yeltsin) transformed themselves into “capitalist Oligarchs” not only to mask their origins as former Communist leaders but to give capitalism a bad name in Russia.

We mustn’t forget that Berezovsky’s public fight to finance and overthrow the Putin regime is merely a charade to enhance Putin’s image in Russia as a defender of Russian nationalism, and help Putin justify to his people a “them versus us” image. In reality, the so-called banished Oligarches, living in luxury in Paris and London, are still calling the shots in Russia and Vladimir Putin is their front man, just like George Bush is the puppet of the Anglo-American globalists. As evidence for this, I reported in 2000 that, according to Spanish intelligence, Putin met secretly with Berezovsky 5 times at Berezovsky’s Spanish villa in 1999-just before ascending to the Presidency on Dec. 31 of 1999. I believe they were planning the transition back to Russian nationalism and hegemony in the world. The image Putin projects that Boris Berezovsky is his “arch enemy” is merely part of the ruse.

All of this growing rhetoric about the Russian threat on the part of the neocons really means that the globalists are intent upon raising American and world consciousness about a coming US Russian conflict. They don’t intend to defuse it, but rather exacerbate it. That’s why they keep irritating Russia with the installation of anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland and ABM radars in the Czech Republic. The fact that a purely defensive missile system sets off alarms in Russia is strong evidence of the reality of Russia’s strategic plan to use a nuclear preemptive strike on the US to begin this next war. Of course, as US intelligence well knows (and keeps silent about) the Russians always begin every major military exercise with a simulated nuclear missile strike on America–according to defectors.

In revealing this, I am not saying that the threat of a Third World War is imminent. I still don’t believe that either Russia or China (who will, in alliance with Russia, gobble up the Pacific rim nations in this next war) is ready yet for a worldwide conflict. My best estimate is the middle of the next decade at the earliest. However, now that the neocons are on the warpath, and Russia is openly defiant of the West, it pays to be very watchful for a major triggering event that may justify Russia’s initiation of a first strike on US military targets–especially if you live in any of the major American cities that host a nearby military or military-industrial facility (i.e., Seattle, San Diego, Long Beach, Las Vegas, Colorado Springs, Denver, Omaha, Washington DC, Norfolk, Jacksonville, and others–see my book Strategic Relocation for a complete list). These are first strike targets and those who live in these areas should be prepared to relocate and/or have significant preparations against nuclear fallout and the massive social unrest that will surely accompany this next war.


Russia is using the Georgian conflict to set up the rationale for future aggression and war. The US and Russia have been jockeying for position in Georgia since the early part of the decade. Ivan Simic gives us the background:

“For Moscow, the Caucasus is a geopolitical backyard, rich in energy resources and crucial to the conflict in Chechnya. Moscow’s refusal to remove its military bases from Georgia [specifically in So. Ossetia] has long fueled tensions between the two countries. Georgia’s President, Mikhail Saakashvili, came into office saying the removal of the Russian troops would be high on his government’s priority list. The US, whose own stakes in the Caucasus include a multi-billion dollar Caspian oil pipeline, backs this demand.” In 2004 the US announced that it would notbe pulling out its military trainers from Georgia because of the threat of Chechan and al Qaeda fighters in Georgia’s Pankisi Gorge (bordering Chechnya), and said directly they would be staying a long time. Pres. Saakashvili welcomed the news, viewing the presence of US troops as a “security guarantee against Russia.” Obviously, that was an illusion (fomented by US assurances in private).

The US has a nasty habit of setting up nations for invasion by giving false assurances of support. Richard Cohen told the Washington Post how this conflict is similar to US provocations and betrayals in the past. “When Russia invaded Georgia, the brief war ignited an immense barrage of analogies and comparisons: It was Germany taking the Sudetenland (1938) or the Soviet Union rolling tanks into Czechoslovakia (1968) all over again. We will see which ones — if any — are apt. But one that occurs to me is the Hungarian revolt of 1956 and how the Soviets brutally extinguished it. Afterward, some inquiring minds in the U.S. government wondered whether the Hungarians had been led to expect U.S. help. They found, in the records of Radio Free Europe, several broadcasts that ‘implied that foreign aid would be forthcoming.’ Yet another analogy occurs — the speech that Secretary of State Dean Acheson delivered to the National Press Club in 1950 excluding South Korea from the U.S. defensive perimeter in Asia. Later that year, the North Koreans went over the 38th parallel and the Korean War began. Had the North Koreans been listening?” Of course–that was the intended audience. Or, we could add Ambassador Glaspie’s wink and a nod to Saddam when she told him, “Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.” Now, that was a green light for war.

Effects on former Soviet States: The shock waves of instability have quickly spread to other vulnerable former Soviet states, particularly the Ukraine. Ukraine’s banking sector is highly leveraged and is now at risk of default since Western lenders have suddenly lost interest in putting more money into a region directly threatened by Russia’s actions in neighboring Georgia. The Ukraine is completely dependent upon foreign investors to refinance.

The Baltics are sandwiched between Russia to the north, Belarus to the East, and the Russian province of Kaliningrad to the south. Refusing to demand the independence of the Kaliningrad enclave during the phony breakup of the Soviet Union was one of the evils of the first Bush administration’s negotiations with Gorbachev. Kaliningrad has provided Russia with a military safe haven within the NATO circle to stockpile arms and missiles as a prelude to retaking the neighboring regions. The Baltic Republics of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have particularly suffered grievous occupations by the Russians in Soviet times. They have no military and are vulnerable to reoccupation due to the strong antagonism between their native peoples (millions of whom were killed or purged during the Soviet era) and the hundreds of thousands of Russians who were moved into the area and who are often discriminated against due to former resentments–the stuff of future provocations.

As the Times Online wrote, “Russia’s relations with Ukraine and the Baltic States have worsened in recent years as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania joined Nato and the European Union and Ukraine has tried to follow in their path. One man was killed in riots and demonstrations between the Estonian Russian diaspora and police in Tallinn last year after the Estonians moved a Second World War monument that had been erected in the city by the Soviet regime. Russia has complained that ethnic Russians are discriminated against in the Baltic states, an accusation that the EU has supported in some cases. Ukraine and the Baltic States were quick to support Georgia.”

In late 1990, then Sec. of State Baker unwisely promised Gorbachev that the US would NOT expand NATO membership to any of the former Soviet satellite states. Of course, it was a false demand on the part of Russia to protest such membership in the first place. Russia has secretly encouraged NATO’s absorption of its former colonies as that allows its agents still within those nations to spy on NATO, and also provides a ready excuse to protest NATO’s “unfair advantage” over “poor Russia.” Russia has used this ploy to gain all sorts of foolish concessions from NATO, and the US, including financial and military aid and shared intelligence on the NATO-Russia council.

The key to justifying future Russian aggression is found in President Medvedev’s harsh language threatening to “crush” any other ex-Soviet states that attempted to follow Georgia’s example by “killing Russian citizens.” This is all too convenient for Russia, having long ago established a policy of forcing most satellite nations to accept millions of Russian immigrants during the Soviet period. Medvedev’s threat will target each of these areas for eventual occupation under the excuse of “safeguarding Russian citizens.” All it takes is a convenient provocation against Russian citizens to trigger another occupation and eventual war. Hitler used this excuse for invading Poland.

Within the Georgian conflict there is much evidence that Russia is now ready to intensify its conflict with the West. Russia is obviously not trying to defuse the situation in Georgia. In fact, it appears as if Russia is seeing how far it can push Western resolve.

1) Medvedev promised Russian troops would begin withdrawing last Monday. Instead, they moved deeper into Georgia, attacking and destroying Georgian military targets and runways, and occupying major road intersections in central Georgia around Gori with military checkpoints. Today showed the first signs of actual troop withdrawal, but not all will completely leave Georgia, according to maps shown reporters by Russian Generals. Their new security perimeter surrounding So. Ossetia will be within Georgia proper, indicating Russian will claim the need for a buffer.

2) Russians attacked military targets in the Port of Goti and took Georgian military men hostage, presumably to increase their ability to exchange prisoners. These were clearly not security measures except in the offensive sense.

3) Russians installed more SS-21 short range missiles in So. Ossetia. Evidence and witnesses prove that cluster bombs were used by Russia in the attack on Gori, exacerbating charges of violating international war standards. UK Times reporters have found debris from cluster bombs, and SS-21 and BM-21 rockets within Georgia, both of which can carry cluster munitions.

4) Russians continue to permit So. Ossetian militias and even imported Chechan thugs to pillage, burn and encarcerate Georgian civilians. It was no surprise to find out that the Russian code name for the entire operation was “Chistoye Polye” which means “clean field” in Russian –the equivalent of the Western term, “scorched earth”.

The US claims the issue of military checkpoints violates the terms of the cease-fire deal both countries signed. They do only in the sense that Pres. Medvedev verbally said Russian forces would leave. According to the language Georgia was coerced into signing (by the West), the Russians can call all their forces “peacekeepers” and they do not have to leave. The expansive language found in Point #5 states: “While awaiting an international mechanism [which Russia has the power to veto], Russian peacekeeping forces will implement additional security measures.” Note, there are absolutely no definitions that limit Russia’s interpretation of what constitutes a security measure and no conditions or limitations stipulated. The Russians can do nearly anything and call it a “security measure.” Let’s not be shocked when the Russians say, “We’re not pulling out of Georgia.” Sadly, all of this is not stupidity on the part of Western leaders, nor even timidity. It is a carefully calculated series of provocations and counter-provocation leading to an eventual larger war to serve globalist purposes in rearranging the world’s power structure.

The next provocation is coming with the announcement by Russia that it is preparing to recognize the independence of the two Georgian breakaway provinces, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This will be hard for the West to counter after pushing through with independence for Kosovo against Russian objections.

In every case now before the international tribunals, Russia is able to justify its actions by highlighting a similar US action before the UN. It is the US that unilaterally invaded Iraq. It is the US that established the doctrine justifying pre-emptive attacks on other sovereign nations–based on the flimsiest of excuses. It is the US that established blocking checkpoints in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq against ethnic conflict. It was the US that used excessive military force in Iraq and then refused to heed calls to end the occupation.


Broccoli Reverses Diabetes Damage?


HeartQuotes: Journey


  1. Good article. I think the table are changing (quicker than anyone could imagine). Not so long ago, the US projected their images as being the all powerful and untouchable but now it seems that all powerful image is in decline (dramatically). For some reason, I can’t help thinking that before Russia’s war in Georgia, Israel had something to do with it. If you read between the lines of this conflict Israel will be involved at some stage.

    Israel has cause much suffering and is the result of most conflicts around the world.

  2. Neil

    If the Russians were to supply the Taliban with man portable anti-air missiles, that would change the equation in Afganistan quite quickly. In fact I find it hard to understand why the Taliban arent shooting planes down. Thats what precipitated the Russian withdrawal. I realize that it was predominantly choppers with the Russians, but still, the Nato troops depend so much on close air support to win their firefights…

  3. Neil

    I have been an avid reader of Skousen’s thoughts for years now, and agree with what he says about the coming conflict with Russia. But the one thing i disagree with is the timetable. I believe that the prime time for a pre-emptive strike by the Russians, would be sooner rather than later. In fact, this year, 2008, on a long weekend right after the election fits the bill. Thanksgiving, Christmas or New Years. The stroke of midnight New Year Day, while there are millions of people at ground zero, counting down the last seconds to the new era lol.
    There would be some confusion as to who is running the country, Bush or Obama, and competing groups in the White House in the middle of a transition.
    Russia cant afford to wait another 10 years. By then, Americas military will be 45% robotic.

Leave a Reply

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

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén