[Tours]

I certainly don’t agree with Mr. Orlov’s Russian centric view of the U.S., but his concept of how a future U.S. - Russia conflict would unfold is fascinating. Very asymmetric.

[Arthur McGowan]

There is absolutely no reason for WWIII. The current criminal governments of Western Europe and North America are itching for it, as cover for their plan to batten down a police state on their people.

[Carthego delenda est]

“The next large-scale war, if there ever is one, will be fought on enemy territory. Thus, if the US attacks Russia, Russia will counterattack the US mainland. Keeping in mind that the US hasn’t fought a war on its own territory in over 150 years, this would come as quite a shock.”

Yes, it would of course be a “shock” to have ANY foreign army attack CONUS, but that army would be in for even more of a shock when it discovered how well armed our citizenry is and how motivated we are to defend our nation!

[JimRed]

Besides Hillary’s missing emails, what do the Russians have that we want anyway?

[nathanbedford]

There is exactly one nation in the world that nukes other countries, and that would be the United States. It gratuitously nuked Japan, which was ready to surrender anyway, just because it could. It prepared to nuke Russia at the start of the Cold War, but was prevented from doing so by a lack of a sufficiently large number of nuclear bombs at the time. And it attempted to render Russia defenseless against nuclear attack, abandoning the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, but has been prevented from doing so by Russia’s new weapons.

It shouldn't be necessary to take the trouble to remark that the allegations in this paragraph are not only false but they are the opposite of the truth. For example, Japan was not ready to surrender (it took two atomic bombs), the decision was clearly not gratuitous in view of the certainty of the immense casualty estimates on both sides. The United States refrained from using the bomb or even the threat of the bomb against Soviet Russia during the period 1945-1949 when we had a monopoly of the weapon. It can hardly be contented, therefore, that the United States "nukes other countries."

The entire article is filled with deceits such as these compounded by bizarre extrapolations and generalizations. In fact the article is so distorted that it should simply be rejected out of hand by rational people. But what prompts me to even note the article is the fact that so many people here in Germany accept virtually every crazy proposition of this article and actively circulate similar screeds in German throughout their subculture.

I have been warning for a long time now that there is a cosmic shift in alliances and balances of power that pose enormous risks for United States security. Orlov is uniquely coming close to the truth when he knows that Russia and China are in a virtual military alliance and he is also describing Russia's alliances in the Middle East which run from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. The great existential risk for America is not just the breakup of NATO but the alliance of Germany in a kind of a replay of the Ribbentrop/Molotov pact which triggered World War II.

So far the subculture here in Germany is so small and is such a discreditable fringe element that it is unable to exert significant political weight but the potential is always there.

[riverdawg]

The idea that Russia is growing stronger is ridiculous. It is a ticking economic and demographic time bomb, with a growing share of Muslims in a long run declining population. And it’s even worse than that. Many of the best and brightest in the 25-34 year old generation have already left for Europe and the U.S. and they aren’t going back to a Putin-led dictatorship.

I agree that the U.S. and Russia have shared geopolitical interests, but the opportunity to exploit them has been squandered by the Obama-Clinton administration.