• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

The greatest danger facing America is a possible nuclear attack from Russia. This danger is not something imaginary. Russian nuclear missiles can reach America in about 30 minutes, reducing America’s cities to rubble. Unlike Russia, America has no anti-ballistic missile defenses and no national shelter system. Furthermore, political changes in Russia have not reduced the danger of nuclear war. According to former CIA analyst Peter Vincent Pry, there has been a five-fold increase in nuclear war scares since the collapse of Communism.

What accounts for the increased danger?

We have to look at Russia with an eye to previous defector warnings about Kremlin strategy. Americans need to reconsider the importance of KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, who predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union several years before it happened. Golitsyn’s 1984 book, “New Lies for Old,” alleged that the coming Soviet collapse would be orchestrated by the KGB in order to disarm the West. Gen. Jan Sejna, a high ranking Czech defector, made a similar claim in his 1982 book, “We Will Bury You.” In 1967 Sejna learned of a plan to fake the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. This plan hoped to advance the arms control process, encourage Western disarmament, and alter the balance of power in Russia’s favor.

Golitsyn and Sejna — two significant defectors from the Communist bloc — both described a long range Soviet plan. Both of them said this plan involved a grand deception, unprecedented in scope. Western policy-makers did not believe Golitsyn or Sejna’s statements. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, for example, refused to consider the possibility of a Soviet plan. “One of the basic problems with the West,” explained Sejna, “is its frequent failure to recognize the existence of any Soviet ‘grand design’ at all. Those rejecting this concept unwittingly serve Soviet efforts. …”

To understand why the danger of nuclear war is increasing, we need to remember what Golitsyn and Sejna said about the final moves envisioned by Soviet deception planners. In 1984 Golitsyn predicted a future Russian military alliance with China. This alliance would be formed towards the end of the “final phase” of the long range strategy, when Russia would turn the tables on America and emerge with renewed strength. Golitsyn’s 1984 book suggested that the end of the “final phase” would roughly correspond with the year 1999. A quick review of recent events shows the accuracy of this astonishing prediction. Consider Golitsyn’s overall description of the future: First, the West disarms after Communism’s “collapse”; then, Russia forms a military partnership with China while both countries increase their military power.

Accurate predictions need to be credited. If Golitsyn’s allegations about a Soviet long-range deception are true, then Gorbachev and Yeltsin were never our friends. In that context, an increase in war scares may not be entirely accidental — but intentional. In fact, every time Russia prepares its nuclear forces for launch, or sends its ballistic missile submarines to sea, America’s reaction is studied by Russian specialists. Is there a weakness in U.S. early warning systems? Can these systems be bypassed or fooled? How quickly can America get her submarines to sea and her bombers into the air?

One can almost hear Russia’s top generals saying, “Let us test the Americans.”

It should be noted that the Norwegian rocket launch of January 1995, which momentarily triggered panic among the Russian generals, was definitely not such a “test.” This case is interesting because of its psychological implications. Russia’s generals feared that a harmless science rocket was part of an EMP precursor attack on their communications infrastructure — a standard opening move in a nuclear war. Given America’s generosity toward Russia, and the good relations that existed at the time, the generals’ had no reason to fear a NATO attack. It might be argued, however, that their momentary panic suggests a bad conscience. In other words, no one is more paranoid of being robbed than a thief. And nobody is more frightened of a surprise nuclear attack than those who are plotting one themselves.

Totalitarian mentalities are always projecting their own evil intentions onto others. For example, Stalin plotted against his colleagues, accusing them of plotting against him. In nearly all cases Stalin’s victims were innocent and Stalin was guilty. The same technique was used by Chairman Mao. When the Chinese tyrant wanted to destroy someone, he would begin with false accusations. In most cases Mao’s accusations against others could justly be turned against Mao.

Armed with this psychological insight into the totalitarian mind, we need to take a fresh look at the statements of Russian strategists and military planners. According to “Soviet Military Strategy,” a classic text used in the education of Russia’s current crop of generals, America “plans to initiate a new world war by a surprise nuclear attack. …”

“It must be realized,” explains the Russian text, “that (America’s) preparation for such a blow has gone too far, that too great financial and material resources have been expended (to permit a reversal of policy). Moreover, it must be remembered that adventurism and recklessness have always been characteristic of imperialism.”

According to this same text: “The (American) imperialists are preparing an offensive against our country, a war of total destruction and mass annihilation of the population with nuclear weapons.”

When Russian military texts say that America is planning to launch a surprise nuclear attack, it is time to consider what the Russian generals are up to themselves. In fact, Russian military literature takes great pains to justify a surprise nuclear attack on America. Since the Americans are planning an attack on Russia, and the best defense is to strike first, then Russia must prepare a surprise attack against America. According to Col. A. Sidorenko, Doctor of Military Science at the Frunze Military Academy, “Preemption in launching a nuclear strike is considered to be the decisive condition for the attainment of superiority … and the seizure and retention of the initiative.”

Last Friday a meeting took place between Russia’s top generals. It was the last day of a three-day conference. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who attended this meeting, emerged from the occasion with warlike resolve. He spoke of building up Russia’s military. “I very much hope,” he said, “that concrete decisions … will allow us to mobilize all available resources to make our armed forces more powerful and effective.”

Why the big military build-up?

Russia’s military leaders now believe — or pretend to believe — that Russia is in grave danger. And what is the grave danger at hand? Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev gave a speech last Friday. In that speech he accused America of attempting to “weaken Russia and squeeze it out of the Caspian region. …”

Most of Russia’s oil is located in the Caspian region.

Sergeyev’s anti-American vitriol was unmistakable. He said that the North Caucasus military conflict was “fanned from the outside” and U.S. national interests required this. He said that America was purposely destabilizing the global situation by following a plan based “on the use of force, disregard for universally recognized international legal norms, dictatorship and arbitrariness.”

With this idea in mind, the General Staff wants to dispatch strategic bombers to Cuba and Vietnam. Meanwhile, the commander of the Russian Air Force, Gen. Anatoly Kornukov, lamented Russia’s weakness in air power: “The geopolitical state of the Russian Air Force is depressing,” he lied. Kornukov said the air force budget should be increased. He warned that a powerful NATO military force is approaching the Russian border.

“When aggression cannot be stopped by conventional weapons, when it poses a threat to the very existence of Russia and its people, then Russia has the right to use all its potential in defense of its sovereignty, including its nuclear potential,” said Col.-Gen. Valery Manilov, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff.

Manilov made this statement on Russian television three days ago.

America is being accused of plotting Russia’s downfall. The terror bombings in Moscow and other cities, which have claimed 300 innocent lives, are being indirectly laid at our door. These accusations, of course, are vintage Communist propaganda. As noted above, totalitarian accusations involve subtle reversals; in truth, they are unwitting psychological confessions. America is not following a plan based on “dictatorship and arbitrariness.” It is Russia that follows such a plan — which involves the deception and disarmament of the United States. If the complete and total disarmament of America cannot be achieved, then America will be smashed by nuclear missiles.

“Nuclear strikes by strategic missiles will be of decisive, primary importance to the outcome of a modern war,” says the text of Soviet Military Strategy. “Massive nuclear blows on the enemy’s strategic nuclear weapons, economy, and system of governmental control, and the concurrent defeat of his armed forces in military theaters will permit attainment of the political aims of war much more rapidly than in previous wars.”

The logic of the situation — psychologically and militarily — should be obvious.

In Chapter 7 of “Soviet Military Strategy,” the classic text quoted above, “victory in (nuclear) war is quite unthinkable without thorough and timely preparation of the country and the armed forces.”

In this type of war, preparation is 90 percent of the game. The leaders of a successful nuclear offensive must plan for the survival of their own people. They must lay the groundwork for post-war economic recovery. Without such preparations the war becomes an exercise in suicide. Therefore, if Russia’s leaders have decided on war, their preparations must give them away.

As it happens, the Russian generals are taught that war preparations follow three main lines: 1) preparation of the armed forces, 2) preparation of the national economy and 3) preparation of the population.

In terms of preparing the armed forces for nuclear war, the Russian generals are taught that surprise is essential. They are also taught that large forces must be mobilized beforehand. But how can force mobilizations take place without giving away the game? That may seem like an insurmountable problem, but it isn’t.

In 1968 the Soviet General Staff established the Chief Directorate of Strategic Camouflage (Glavnoe Upravleniye Strategicheskoy Maskirovki). It should be added that the Russian term for “camouflage” (maskirovka) also translates as “diversion” and “deception” as well. The Chief Directorate of Strategic Camouflage is tasked with guiding the enemy toward erroneous conclusions by the use of authentic information. In other words, the Russian strategists do not deny the reality of a mobilization. They merely paint it in harmless colors.

For example, the Americans see Russia mobilizing forces in 1999 (authentic information), but American analysts are nonetheless tricked into concluding that the mobilization is to deal with a terrorist threat in the North Caucasus (erroneous conclusion). They will not notice that a deployment exceeding 100,000 troops is out of proportion to the 5,000 lightly armed guerrillas that are led by one of the GRU’s own agents (in this case, Shamil Basayev). As the operation proceeds, the Chief Directorate of Strategic Camouflage will continue to generate diversions and feints.

If belief in the authenticity of the Russian crisis wears thin, a second tier of strategic camouflage and misdirection stands at the ready — like rumors of a Yeltsin dictatorship accomplished by a bogus state of emergency, or the latest manipulations of Moscow’s fake capitalist oligarchs, or the elevation of Boris’ newest KGB pet. Many confusing questions arise. Are the generals taking over? Is somebody exploiting all this to gain votes in upcoming parliamentary elections? American analysts, lost under the big tent of Boris’ three-ring circus, aren’t likely to break free of the clowns, the bears and other performing animals. Distracted and diverted by a torrent of trivia, American observers always fail to boil Russia’s mess down to the inconsistencies which rise on every side, blocking out all light and truth. Consequently, they never ask why the general who lost the Maikop Brigade in the first Chechen war should be promoted to chief of the General Staff. They never ask how 1.5 million Chechens could possibly defeat 147 million Russians in a military conflict. Once you fall for the first lie in a series, the next lie becomes easier to swallow. Continue swallowing lies and after a while you aren’t a human being any more — you’re a joke.

“Men are so simple, and so much creatures of circumstance,” wrote Machiavelli in The Prince, “that the deceiver will always find someone ready to be deceived.” The inconsistencies of a strategic maskirovka operation will never be noticed by people whose reality is encompassed by the Washington Beltway.

Maskirovka is a technique which utilizes real military movements — even defeats — to disguise the true intentions of the Russian General Staff. That is how you accomplish a mobilization in plain sight without alarming the enemy’s high command.

Having explained the technique of deceptive mobilization, it is now time to list ten indicators of Russian military preparations for nuclear war:

  1. Significant troop mobilizations in response to a fabricated crisis;

  2. An increase in missile tests, to assure the readiness and accuracy of the Strategic Rocket Forces;
  3. An increase in prohibited underground nuclear tests;
  4. An increase in war exercises of all service branches;
  5. Significant troop mobilizations in satellite or allied countries, especially China, North Korea, Iraq or Serbia;
  6. Any attempt to create a unified nuclear command;
  7. Efforts to extend the range of fighter-bomber formations by upgrading them with extra fuel tanks and in-flight refueling capability;
  8. An increase in high-level meetings between government and military leaders;
  9. Misleading official statements about the military readiness of the armed forces;
  10. The sudden distribution of a new generation of conventional weapons to the armed forces.

Item 2 — underground nuclear tests in Russia — is not proven, but is strongly suspected by some intelligence experts. As for item 4, China is mobilizing its armed forces, North Korea has been mobilizing since last December, Iraq slightly increased its force levels during the winter, and Serbia has been building its troop strengths since June. Item 6 — the creation of a unified Russian nuclear command — was reported last January but was supposedly dropped. (The importance of this item has to do with advantages related to unity of command in coordinating a surprise attack.) Every other indicator in the above list has been reported and verified by the Russian or Western press.

Next, we should look at the question of Russian Economic preparations for nuclear war. Any close examination of Russian industry will reveal it is oriented toward war preparedness more than it is oriented toward profit or productivity. According to the text of Soviet Military Strategy, Russia’s leaders want “the capability … to wage war over a protracted period; the ability to ‘stand up’ under massive nuclear assault by the enemy, with minimum losses; and the maintenance of a high level of morale and will-to-win among the population.” These officially mandated capabilities require a different type of industry than that possessed by Western countries engaged in commercial competition. Consequently, Russia has a very unusual industrial system. Its deformations baffle Western economists. But there is nothing baffling about a country that bases itself on war instead of commerce.

The normal prewar pattern acknowledged by Russian military theorists holds that “the volume of military production sharply increases with the start of military operations.” It should also be noted that increased troop training and mobilization also consumes resources. Filling out military formations and distributing new weapons requires large expenditures of fuel, along with nonferrous and rare metals needed to produce the new weapons. Therefore, the ten key economic indicators of Russian war preparations are:

  1. The unusual stockpiling of nonferrous and rare metals;

  2. Significant cutbacks in petroleum exports for increased military consumption and/or stockpiling;
  3. Large government purchases of gold;
  4. A large increase in food imports (above normal domestic consumption);
  5. Large imports of agricultural machinery;
  6. The creation of hardened underground sites for the relocation of war factories;
  7. The sudden closing of heavy industrial plants or key scientific centers involved in aerospace research;
  8. An increase in shipping assets operating along the Volga and Caspian waterways;
  9. A sharp increase in rail traffic in the Ural Mountains and Far East regions;
  10. A sudden rise in domestic energy consumption.

Except for item 8, all of the above listed indicators have been reported in the Russian or Western press.

The third “main line” of war preparation described in Russian military writings is the preparation of the population. This consists of four elements which are listed in Russian military texts:

  1. Warning the population in advance of attack;

  2. Evacuating areas which lack blast or fallout shelters;
  3. Construction of emergency shelters;
  4. Proper instruction of the population on protective measures against weapons of mass destruction.

More important however, is the psychological preparation of the population. According to Soviet Military Strategy, “The political preparation of the morale of the people is of decisive importance … since the use of weapons of mass destruction in war imposes exceptionally high and unprecedented demands on the political morale of the population.”

First and foremost, the population must be taught “love of the Motherland.” The architects of war must motivate the people to bear all the hardships of war in the name of victory. To accomplish this, the Russian leadership must clearly expose America as a vicious and warmongering country. America’s preparations for surprise nuclear attack on Russia must be exposed. To quote again from the text of Soviet Military Strategy, “Hatred of the enemy should arouse the desire to destroy the armed forces and military-industrial potential of the aggressor and achieve complete victory in a just war.”

From these excerpts it is obvious what the Kremlin must do in order to psychologically prepare the Russian public for nuclear war:

  1. Convince the Russian people that America is out to destroy them;

  2. Show that Western capitalists have been looting the Russian economy;
  3. Say that the United States has designs on Russia’s neighbors, or on Russian resources;
  4. Say that the United States is preparing to build new weapons — in violation of treaty obligations — that will make
  5. America invincible to attack;

  6. Suggest that corrupt Russian officials and capitalist “oligarchs” are agents of the CIA;
  7. Work behind the scenes to provoke a regional crisis that makes the United States appear in the role of aggressor;
  8. Repeatedly expose the public to official statements that nuclear war is close at hand;
  9. Increase the number of civil defense drills;
  10. Require the population to organize itself into voluntary civil defense units;
  11. Initiate a new program of education on methods of defense from nuclear weapons and fallout radiation.

All of the above indicators have been reported in open press reports except for item 10. The closest thing to 10 involved a special Kremlin meeting chaired last summer by former Prime Minister Stepashin. This meeting focused on civil defense and the creation of an improved program for the people. Russia’s leaders reportedly agreed that protecting the Russian people from nuclear attack was the government’s number one priority. Detailed reports about specific policy changes or programs were not given.

In the event a nuclear war is only hours away, further danger signals will be evident. If any three of the following indicators appear, then nuclear attack is probably imminent.

  1. A rash of high level assassinations within the United States and other Western countries;

  2. A sudden outbreak of an unknown and virulent disease which quickly kills or debilitates thousands of people in a matter of hours;
  3. Unexplained underwater nuclear explosions in the North Atlantic, Norwegian Sea, North Pacific or Arctic;
  4. Reports or rumors of an attempted military coup against the president of the United States;
  5. A collapse of the power grid throughout most of North America;
  6. Failure of the phone system in the United States and Canada;
  7. Motor vehicles with computerized ignition systems failing to start up;
  8. Widespread terrorism, mayhem in the cities, rioting, looting, fires and general unrest caused by “unknown forces” (regardless of who is blamed);
  9. The Russian population is moved into fallout and blast shelters; and
  10. Russia evacuates many small towns and rural districts.

In this coming Thursday’s column I will discuss recent reports from Russia on the stockpiling of strategic metals, food and fuel. I will go into greater detail about some of the indicators listed above. China’s war preparations will also be touched upon.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.