Reprinted from RT
A view of a 7th Air Defense Artillery Brigade Patriot tactical air defense system missile launcher deployed during Operation Desert Shield. Another Patriot launcher is in the background.
(Image by Flickr) Permission Details DMCA
Are the US, NATO and Russia on a mad spiral leading to war in Europe? Is it inevitable? Far from it.
The US-propelled vassal Petro Poroshenko, currently starring in the oligarch dance in Ukraine this week advanced the proposition that Ukrainians in the near future, after his "reforms," will be asked to vote on whether to join NATO.
Let's be serious here. Some of you may be familiar with the concept of "shatter belt" -- territories and peoples that historically have been squeezed between the Germanic Eagle and the Russian Bear.
As we stand, the whole shatter belt -- apart from Ukraine and Belarus -- has become NATO members. Were Ukraine to become a NATO member in the -- albeit remote -- future, the shatter belt buffer zone would disappear. This means NATO -- essentially the US -- planted right on Russia's western border.
Washington has just announced that it will be pre-positioning more military vehicles in Europe, to be used in exercises or "potential military operations." This is perfectly in tune with the relentless US "think tank-land" spin that NATO and the US will be "forced" to balance their commitment to security in Eastern Europe against potential Russian "aggression."
As Ukraine, the Baltic States and Poland persist in compounded hysteria about such "aggression," the option of a post-MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) US-Russia nuclear war is now -- casually - back on the discussion table. At least there's a countercurrent; strands of informed Americans are wondering why the US should be paying for Europe's defense when European GDP is larger than the US's.
Russian operational and tactical missile system - Iskander
(Image by YouTube) Permission Details DMCA
Wanna play war, boy?
Now for the "threat" of nuclear war in Europe -- bogus or otherwise. It's pointless to compare the US and Russia strategic nuclear capabilities based on numbers, but not on quality.
Take the compounded GDP of US, Germany, France and England and compare it to Russia; it's a victory by a landslide. Then examine the strategic nuclear scenario, and it's a totally different story. GDP alone does not "win" anything.
Washington/Wall Street elites are now deep into nuclear war paranoia. A few studies at least hint at the obvious; glaring US strategic weakness.
Consider some of the basics:
-- Russian ICBMs armed with MIRVs travel at about 18 Mach; that is way faster than anything in the US arsenal. And basically they are unbeatable.
-- The S-400 and S-500 double trouble; Moscow has agreed to sell the S-400 surface-to-air missile system to China; the bottom line is this will make Beijing impermeable to US air power, ICBMs and cruise missiles. Russia, for its part, is already focusing on the state of the art S-500 -- which essentially makes the Patriot anti-missile system look like a V-2 from WWII.
-- The Russian Iskander missile travels at Mach 7 -- with a range of 400km, carrying a 700kg warhead of several varieties, and with a circular error probability of around five meters. Translation: an ultimate lethal weapon against airfields or logistic infrastructure. The Iskander can reach targets deep inside Europe.
-- And then there's the Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA.