from ZeroHedge, 10/27/22

Note: Emphasis in original.

Update(1534ET): Putin in his nearly four-hour long annual Valdai Discussion Club speech (which included a the lengthy Q&A portion) “appeared relaxed”, Reuters observed while at times questioned by journalists and panelists about the prospect of nuclear war. 

Importantly, he rejected head-on the allegations from the West that he ever so much as hinted at plans to deploy nukes in Ukraine, describing a nuclear strike in the context of the “special operation” to be ultimately pointless. “We see no need for that,” Putin said. “There is no point in that, neither political, nor military.” He underscored, “it doesn’t make sense for us to do it.

He went on to emphasize that Russia had “never said anything proactively about the possible use of nuclear weapons by Russia.” At the same time he lashed out at Washington, for being the “only country in the world that has used nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state” – in reference to WWII and the bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

He specifically referenced prior statements of Liz Truss and vague references to his saying he’s willing to defend Russia “by all means available” as having been intentionally misinterpreted and distorted: 

Putin said an earlier warning of his readiness to use “all means available to protect Russia” didn’t amount to nuclear saber-rattling but was merely a response to Western statements about their possible use of nuclear weapons.

He particularly mentioned Liz Truss saying in August that she would be ready to use nuclear weapons if she became Britain’s prime minister, a remark which he said worried the Kremlin.

“What were we supposed to think?” Putin said. “We saw that as a coordinated position, an attempt to blackmail us.”

Literally as Putin was speaking, the Pentagon decided it was a good time to unveil a stunning nuclear strategy reversal, saying it would no longer rule out use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear threat.

As we detailed earlier, the Defense Department said in the long-awaited document issued Thursday that “By the 2030s the United States will, for the first time in its history face two major nuclear powers as strategic competitors and potential adversaries”. In response, the US will “maintain a very high bar for nuclear employment” without ruling out using the weapons in retaliation to a non-nuclear strategic threat to the homeland, US forces abroad or allies.

In the document, which was framed well before the invasion, the Pentagon says Russia continues to “brandish its nuclear weapons in support of its revisionist security policy” while its modern arsenal is expected to grow further. 

Of course, Putin is now essentially pointing the finger at Washington and its allies for being the real nuclear threat in the world. The DoD briefing certainly didn’t hurt his case, at least from the point of view of Moscow and its allies. 

* * *

“Russia is not challenging the western elite. We are not trying to become the hegemon,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said early in an important speech before the Valdai Discussion Club meeting outside Moscow on Thursday. Each year the Valdai speech is a major one and closely watched by Western officials and media.

This year it was touted with the eye-catching title of “A Post-Hegemonic World: Justice and Security for Everyone.” And of course, this year’s Valdai meeting comes against the backdrop of the biggest war Europe has seen on its eastern doorstep since WWII. 

Putin said in his remarks that Russia merely wants to “defend its right to exist” and “won’t let itself be destroyed and wiped off the geopolitical map.” This as nuclear rhetoric and threats of defending red lines between Moscow and the West have reached heights not seen since the Cold War. 

He repeated a familiar refrain of a crisis unfolding because the Western allies are using Ukraine for their “dirty game” in an ultimate drive for world domination. “Power over the world is what the West has put at stake in the game it plays. This game is certainly dangerous, bloody and I would call it dirty,” he said according to a state media translation. 

“But in the modern world, sitting aside is hardly an option. He who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind, as the proverb says,” he added. Repeating a well-known theme of his, juxtapositioning collapsing unipolar order vs. multipolarity, he said “new centers of power in the multipolar world and the West will have to start talking as equals about our common future.”

“[This game] denies the sovereignty of nations and peoples, their identity and uniqueness, and has no regard whatsoever for other countries,” Putin added.

Commenting on one segment of the talk, The New York Times said the Valdai speech sought to appeal to conservatives in Europe and the US: 

Mr. Putin insisted that Russia did not fundamentally see itself as an “enemy of the West.” Rather, he said — as he has before — that it was “Western elites” that he was fighting, ones who were trying to impose their “pretty strange” values on everyone else.

“There are at least two Wests,” Mr. Putin said in his speech at the plenary session in Moscow of an annual foreign policy conference. One, he said, was the West of “traditional, mainly Christian values,” which Russia was close to.

But Putin drove home in contrast that “There’s another West — aggressive, cosmopolitan, neocolonial, acting as the weapon of the neoliberal elite.”

Ukrainian officials have been watching the speech closely, and commenting: 

“Confidence in one’s infallibility is a very dangerous state, one step away from destroying those they don’t like” – Putin knows what he is talking about at Valdai. pic.twitter.com/0VRSjKlWiu— Maria Avdeeva (@maria_avdv) October 27, 2022

And more specifically on the Ukraine conflict, the Russian leader charged of the West’s actions, “They’re always trying to escalate…They’re fueling the war in Ukraine, organizing provocations around Taiwan, destabilizing the world food and energy markets.” 

And more via state media translation:

Putin warned that the West’s confidence in its “infallibility” is a “very dangerous” condition, with there only being “one step” between this self-confidence to the idea that “they can simply destroy those they do not like, or as they say, to ‘cancel’ them.”

Emphasizing that Russia is not a natural “enemy” of the West, Putin urged Western political elites to stop seeing “the hand of the Kremlin” behind all their internal problems.

On multipolarity, Putin’s message to Europe is essentially “take it or leave it”…

Putin is at it again. New Munich III speech at Valdai conference. He is laying the foundations of new multipolar world order. The message to Europe is “take it or leave it”. pic.twitter.com/oUixDO7Jmm— србин (@forzaserbia) October 27, 2022

Western officials are also keeping a close watch on Putin’s words regarding nuclear doctrine and usage. Putin at Valdai underscored he sees “no political or military reason” to conduct a nuke strike in Ukraine. He also stressed Moscow’s nuclear doctrine is defensive in nature. “Russia has never talked about nuclear use, only replied,” he said. 

He went on to warn that it remains Russia will never “put up with what the West tells it to do” – and that while Russia should not be seen as a direct challenge to the West, it reserves the right to develop. With this theme established, Putin asserted that Washington has discredited international finance “by using the dollar as a weapon” – thus he posited that in the future continued moves toward “settlements in national currencies will dominate.”

By Sarah Lindemann-Kamarova, Echo of Siberia Blog, 10/26/22

Sarah has lived in Siberia since 1992. Was a community development activist for 20 years. Currently, focuses on research and writing.

Photos available at original publication.

October 22 was an unseasonably warm Saturday night in the Altai Republic. 8PM and thousands of well-wishers crowded the Victory Square to see their mobilized men off. The first of two ceremonies, this one was for men from the outlying districts. Many of them are Altai and this will be their second farewell of the day.

The first came in the morning with a sendoff from their villages. The one I attended the mobilized young men stood on one side of the road smoking and palling if they were waiting outside school for the bell to ring. One young woman hung onto the arm of her man. The children and grandchildren of these men will see pictures where the line is straightened and a few of the men have wrapped their arms around each other with big smiles while others stare with looks of duty and resignation into the cameras.

On the other side of the road relatives were distraught and silent except for comforting those who were crying. Both sides of the road shared a disbelief that this was happening. A short speech by the Mayor, final hugs, and the minibus pulled away with very sad people left behind waving and horns honking.

As farewell number two began there were surprisingly few tears at Victory Square. Those devastated by this parting hold them back. The focus here is on how proud they are of their husband, son, brother, friend. There are scattered conversations among the crowd that includes many who just wanted to be supportive, “are you seeing someone off?” “Yes, my son in law”, “Contract?” “No, mobilized”. A mother explaining to her young son “these men are going off to something terrifying”.

There were also surprisingly few flags and the ceremony was kept to a civilized 30 minutes. Music was a mix of patriotic and hard rock. The usual suspects spoke, there was no self-indulgence. The Governor defined their purpose, “… to protect the Motherland, its sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity” that will now include Kherson and Zaporozhets as well as the Donbass, Luhansk, and Crimea. A returned participant in the special military operation and recipient of the Order of Courage told the mobilized, “We had a motto, ‘No one but us’, now that applies to all of Russia!”.

Born in 1936, Boris Konduleevich Alushkin, Chairman of the Republican Council of Veterans and the Union of Journalists, reflected on a childhood memory “I was a first-grader, when we had to see off our fathers and older brothers during the Great Patriotic War. Together with grandmothers and mothers, we remained in the rear. Today the situation has arisen so that you have to go to the front line of Russia’s defense. You can rely on us. We will take care of your children, families…. Today, the entire Altai Mountains and Russia, representatives of all faiths, are praying for you. I wish you to return to Altai with victory, may the great achievement of our older generation keep you safe.”

Then came the call to board the buses, the final final goodbye. The friends slap backs, laugh, “we’ll be meeting you soon there”, and hug. A small crowd surrounded a not so young man as everyone got a proper, individual goodbye. The longest is for what seemed to be his wife who can no longer hold back her tears as he bends down to the grandchildren and then back up to hug the friends and other relatives.

A couple of wives and girlfriends lingered inside the buses until they were forced to leave when they were fully loaded. Outside, small children sat on shoulders for a last wave to Daddy, brother, or Uncle. Here, as in the morning, there is a contrast between the people going, band of brothers camaraderie, and those staying many of whom have finally allowed themselves to cry. Everyone waved goodbye as the buses pulled out for the 450 km trip to Novosibirsk where the mobilized will spend the next month training.

As this scene played out, “Farewell of Slavianka” blasted from the loudspeakers . The doleful march was written to honor the women seeing their men off to the First Balkans War. A reminder, as if one was needed, that this ritual has been repeated throughout history. There are undoubtedly wives, children, fathers, mothers, and friends waving goodbye to their loved ones in Ukraine. Some of those getting on the buses in Ukraine may be relatives or friends of those getting on the buses on this unseasonably warm Saturday night in the Altai Republic.

from The National Security Archive, 10/27/22

Washington, D.C., October 27, 2022 – The most dangerous 24 hours of the Cuban Missile Crisis came on Saturday, October 27, 1962, 60 years ago today, as the U.S. moved closer to attacking Cuba and nuclear-armed flashpoints erupted over Siberia, at the quarantine line, and in Cuba itself—a rapid escalation that convinced both John Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev to strike the deal that would stop events from further spiraling out of control.

The surviving notes of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff meeting on that day, October 27, provide a six-and-a-half-hour cascade of crises where human error, miscalculation, reckless deployment of nuclear weapons, and testosterone ruled the day. The JCS notes from October and November 1962, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and published today by the National Security Archive, are all that survive after the Chiefs’ decision, in the 1970s, to destroy the tapes and transcripts from over two decades of JCS meetings.

The notes depict how top U.S. military officials reacted to the unfolding crisis in real time, including the shootdown of a U-2 spy plane over Cuba that afternoon—seen as a major escalation—while at the same time the JCS were unaware that U.S. naval forces were dropping grenades on a Soviet sub armed with a nuclear-tipped torpedo near the quarantine line. As they continued to prepare for a full-scale invasion of Cuba, JCS chairman Maxwell Taylor told the Chiefs that President Kennedy was “seized with the idea of trading Turkish for Cuban missiles” and “has a feeling that time is running out.”

Today’s posting features the JCS notes along with photographs and additional context about the most dangerous day of the missile crisis, and the sequence of events that persuaded both Kennedy and Khrushchev to reach the trade that would ultimately end the superpower confrontation.

Read the document here.

Link here.

Col. MacGregor discusses his latest article, which can be found here.

By Fred Weir, Christian Science Monitor, 10/20/22

Eight months ago when Russia invaded Ukraine, one of its key fronts was launched from Belarus. Since then, Russia’s only major ally has remained on the sideline of the conflict between its two neighbors.

But now, Belarus appears to be edging toward directly joining in the war, under pressure from Moscow. And experts say that by doing so, it may ultimately be hastening its own absorption by Russia.

At a meeting this month to discuss the “increasing threat level” emanating from NATO states to the west, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to create a joint “regional group of forces,” to augment Belarus’ 70,000-strong army with about 9,000 Russian troops.

Social media has been full of reports of Russian troops arriving in Belarus, and also difficult-to-interpret videos apparently showing trainloads of Belarusian heavy equipment moving eastward. Experts differ as to whether this means Russia is drawing on Belarus’ large stocks of Soviet-era tanks, mobile artillery, and armored vehicles to replenish its own forces, or if the equipment is being sent for modernization in Russian factories.

The level of military cooperation, which will create at least one joint Russian-Belarusian division-sized force, is something new.

Russian troops invaded Ukraine last February from Belarusian territory, but Belarus’ own forces did not participate. Kyiv is warning that the new military grouping might be preparing to open a whole new front against Ukraine. Even if Mr. Lukashenko remains disinterested in committing his army to the war, the existence of a credible striking force hovering in the north will be a continuing worry for Kyiv.

Few options for Minsk

Minsk insists that it fears Western “provocations,” given the concentration of exiled Belarusian opposition figures in neighboring NATO countries such as Poland and Lithuania, who might try to create trouble for Russia amid the current Ukraine war turmoil through political destabilization in Belarus.

Belarus has theoretically been part of a “union state” with Russia since 1999, one that confers a lot of advantages to Minsk. But in practice, Mr. Lukashenko has resisted full integration and political subordination, playing a complicated game of ceding to the bare minimum of Moscow’s demands while flirting with the West and keeping the levers of local control firmly in his own hands.

Yet his ability to do that was deeply compromised when his rule was threatened amid mass protests two years ago. He quashed the uprising, but doing so left the West enraged at his suppression of opponents and Russia as his only source of political and economic support.

Even though Mr. Lukashenko’s rule seems more entrenched than ever, the insertion of Russian troops into the country is a new move and suggests that a permanent merger of the two security establishments is in the offing.

“We are moving toward the full-fledged erosion of Belarus’ military and political sovereignty at the very least,” says Artyom Shraibman, a Belarusian political scientist who currently lives in Ukraine. “The options for Lukashenko are narrowing. Much will depend on the results of the war. Will Russia be able to stabilize the front? How will Russia’s mobilization work out? Will Belarus get directly involved or not? What if Russia loses the war, or it reaches a stage of nuclear escalation with the West? Too many questions without answers.

“But it’s becoming harder and harder for Lukashenko to play the game of keeping his autonomy while using Russian resources,” he says. “For now, Belarusian trade with Ukraine is about zero, while sanctions have greatly reduced trade with the West. Russia is increasingly the only option for trade, finance, and political support, and the only question is how long it will take to completely absorb Belarus into Russia’s sphere. I suppose Russia might lose the war before Belarus completely loses its sovereignty, but the process right now is very alarming.”

An unpopular conflict?

Russia’s wartime exigencies may be not only accelerating the pace of Russia’s efforts to integrate Belarus, but also changing Moscow’s concept of the future Russian Federation. If Moscow wins the war in Ukraine, it will result in large parts of eastern Ukraine being permanently digested by Russia. With that process underway, Moscow’s planners may have less patience for the bureaucratic complexities of the union state, and look for more direct ways to incorporate Belarus into an expanded Russia.

“What we are seeing right now is connected with urgent military needs,” says Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs, a leading Moscow-based foreign policy journal. “The big new military grouping in Belarus could be used to attack Ukraine from another angle, or at least divert Ukrainian forces from other fronts. I don’t think either Putin or Lukashenko is entertaining any grand long-term thoughts.

“Lukashenko has clearly made the decision to be helpful because he has no other options but to bet on Putin and Russia,” he says. “The future of Belarus’ relationship with Russia – whether it will become part of Russia or something else – will depend on how things progress on the battlefield. If Russia fails in Ukraine, that will have huge repercussions in all areas, including Belarus.”

Most analysts doubt that Mr. Lukashenko wants to get directly involved in the conflict.

“The Belarusian army is about 70,000 men, but its combat-ready component is much smaller,” says Andrey Suzdaltsev, an independent Belarusian expert living in Moscow. “The army is really too weak to actually face the Western-armed Ukrainian forces with their fighting experience. By forming this joint grouping with Russia, Lukashenko wants to imitate participation in the special operation without actually doing anything.”

A random telephone survey of 1,000 Belarusians conducted in September by Andrei Vardomatsky, a leading Belarusian sociologist currently living abroad, found that support for Russian actions in Ukraine is roughly split, with 41.3% approving and 47.3% opposed.

But when asked about direct participation in the war, Mr. Vardomatsky says, “85% of respondents gave a negative answer, and 11% said they would react positively to it. Asked how they feel about using Belarus’ territory and military infrastructure to implement Russia’s military actions in Ukraine, more than 62% said they were against and 29% said they were positive.”

“He’s in the same boat with Putin”

Alexander Khramchikhin, deputy director of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis in Moscow, says he does not know the purpose of the joint force currently gathering in Belarus. But he suggests it’s probably a hedge against unexpected developments on Russia’s western flank and a bid to bolster Mr. Lukashenko’s grip on power. If it worries the Ukrainians and makes them divert forces, so much the better, Mr. Khramchikhin adds.

Russia is facing troubles around the post-Soviet region, aggravated by Western meddling, and needs to take actions to boost stability, says Vladimir Zharikhin, deputy director of the Kremlin-funded Institute of the Commonwealth of Independent States in Moscow.

“The situation is causing a more rapid consolidation of ties with friendly countries, like China and Belarus,” he says. “Lukashenko has realized that he’s in the same boat with Putin, and he faces threats from NATO. That’s why this military grouping has been formed, and the integration process in general is speeding up.”