Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Russia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Russia AND China - The Two Are Allied
HiloBill    5/13/2005 5:17:09 PM
I have posted at another subforum here never realizing that a "Russia Discussion Board" existed. Most all my posts were related to Russia. As I had explained at the other sub-forum, I believe Russia (and China) pose a lethal threat to America and the rest of the West. The website I had been working on for a couple of months is now completed: http://www.thefinalphase.com It is totally commerical free and no money is made there - it is solely for the purpose of raising awareness of the aforementioned threat. Below is my introduction to the site: "The Final Phase" Thesis An Introduction Russia and China are not our friends. They are not our true partners in the war on terror or in the world of free-trade. They engage the West as partners for now while it is to their advantage, but only as a means to an end. Conventional wisdom concludes that Russia and China "need" the West for their long-term national interests and prosperity. They do not; there are other avenues. Today, we establish joint intelligence operations with Russia's FSB (former KGB) in the war on terror and consider them to be full - "need to know" - partners and share our intelligence with them. This is a dangerous partnership. We invite China as a go-between partner in negotiating with North Korea to cajole them to abandon their nuclear program. We entrust China to act in good faith on our behalf when in fact they are more apt to manipulate the tension using North Korea as a potential diversion ploy in sync with their future military designs against Taiwan. Contrary to Beijing’s pronouncements, they are not concerned about Korea’s saber rattling; they welcome it and use it. Russia and China’s continuing modernization of weapon systems - especially strategic - and buildup of military might is rationalized and explained away by sophisticated, hopeful analyses in the West. However, such analyses fall short of adequately assessing their true threat and intentions. It appears no one dares say or even suggest what could be behind their growing military posture and mutual relationship. Besides, it is now a universally accepted notion that terrorism poses the largest and most imminent threat to the West. Whatever threat Russia and China may pose in the future it has taken a back seat to the more immediate concern of terrorism. (Ironically, there is a distinct possibility that today's terrorism may be interrelated to - part and parcel of - coordinated efforts and influence of Russia and China in the form of asymmetrical and proxy warfare against the West. For example, see Drugs, Russia & Terrorism and China's Military Planners Took Credit for 9/11.) Although masked to varying degrees, Russia and China are hostile toward the West and are jointly aligned with an objective to permanently end the West's "hegemony." The United States and Great Britain have abandoned their Cold War posture and are restructuring their intelligence organizations and concepts compelled by the new threat posed by terrorism. Defense is likewise restructuring and abandoning many of its heavy war-fighting concepts and components. It appears to be beyond the comprehension of Western intelligence that Russia and China may be acting in collusion and coordination against the West. Our preconceived notions about their supposed "primordial distrust" of one another tends to render this concern moot. We view Russia and China as two, distinctly separate nations pursuing their own national interests. But, what if Western intelligence is wrong? Less then two months before the 9/11 attacks, Russia and China signed a treaty in Moscow, on 16 July 2001, which may contain what some intelligence analysts suspect are secret military codicils beyond its overt provisions. However, even its overt language clearly indicates Russia will join China militarily should an "aggressor" interfere with its "internal affairs" over the issue of Taiwan. What are the ramifications of a militarily unified Russia and China to the world's balance of power? Has this been seriously considered by Western intelligence? At this late stage of "the final phase" plans of Russia and China, it may be too late for the West to awaken in time to thwart the emerging threat of their covert strategic alliance - time is running out. "The Final Phase" The threat posed by Russia and China - which trumps the threat of terrorism - does not originate in their alliance of 16 July 2001. The threat goes back much further than that. In 1961, a KGB major defected from Russia and unsuccessfully tried to warn Western intelligence of a long-range strategic deception planned against the West. The defector was Anatoliy Golitsyn. He said that Russia and China would feign a split between themselves in order to work a "scissors strategy" against the West. Confident that the West would try to take advantage of an apparent split between them, they pursued myriad ploys - including border cl
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT
Nanheyangrouchuan    RE:Follow-up to Strategic Deception   7/26/2005 2:51:09 AM
But China and Russia are not exactly friends either. In the event there is some mass nuclear conspiracy played out against the US, the surviving generals might just tell the world "step on our soil and everybody gets it". At least that is my hope.
 
Quote    Reply

glenn239    Anyone ever hear of a thing called an ultimatum?   7/26/2005 6:48:22 PM
Q: But China and Russia are not exactly friends either. A: Not on this thread, Nan. Here they are conspiratorial bum-buddies unleashing a nefarious, but dithering plot to swallow the west. Like two angry turtles, they meander ever so slowly towards us, decade by decade across the ages, cunningly awaiting all our deaths by old age before reaching their goal... Q: In the event there is some mass nuclear conspiracy played out against the US, the surviving generals might just tell the world "step on our soil and everybody gets it". A: Bill appears to be under some sort of dillusion that a nuclear attack can go unpunished if the perpetrators manage to surprise us. That Washington would demand of Russia (or whomever was suspected) immediate, unconditional access to their entire strategic chain of command for intensive interrogations and forensic audits to determine innocence or guilt, failing which it would be war.This seems to continiously elude him.
 
Quote    Reply

HiloBill    Russia AND China - The Two Are Allied   7/27/2005 10:48:00 AM
Glenn239, Before you criticize, denigrate, and misrepresent my positions about what I have said and taken them out of context of their meaning, I would appreciate it if you just speak for yourself and not assume to speak for me. Why do you think you’re justified is doing so in the first place? Have you done any research on the issues I have brought up on this thread? If so, please let me know what resources you have read so that I can engage you on the specifics rather than your prejudiced (as in, “pre-judge”) synopsis of my “deluded” views. What I have presented throughout this thread is not based in “delusion.” You may disagree with what I said and that’s fine. But, you have no moral grounds to demean my views as being somehow beyond the realm of possibility or plausibility. But, your reaction is not surprising. Lashing out at others because their beliefs somehow upset their own world views (that they KNOW they possess the only correct interpretation possible), is nothing new. It’s called “ignorance.” HB
 
Quote    Reply

glenn239    Re: Is it morally bankrupt to make money from trying to cause a war?   7/27/2005 12:28:38 PM
q: What I have presented throughout this thread is not based in “delusion.” You may disagree with what I said and that’s fine. But, you have no moral grounds to demean my views as being somehow beyond the realm of possibility or plausibility. A: I question your motives. Also, do you have specific rebuttals to the points I raised with Nan? These would be answers to questions as follows: 1) Why do China and Russia have to be allied in order to secretly plant nuclear weapons in the United States? Do they have to hold hands or something? You know, like one of those movies where the woman only seems able to run if she's being led by a man? 2) Why is it that this admittingly easy form of attack has never been carried out by the Soviet Union or China during the Cold War? Is 50 years not enough time to ship some bombs? Did they get held up in customs? 3) Same question as #2 above, but substitute EMP attacks instead of bomb smuggling. I've checked the newspapers, and there's been no denotations "south of Chicago". Even though the Russians have had the means for almost 4 decades to do so. Did they lose their launch codes or something? 4) Do you believe that the United States would demand immediate access to Russia or China's military chain of command for intensive investigation and interrogation after a nuclear attack in which one or both were suspected? If you answer in the negative, justify the answer. And please, no more links to nutty right-wing sites! I'd like your opinions on these matters. But, for instance, when I pointed out that Russia wasn't sharing advance strategic weapons and tech with China, you didn't really have any answer, did you?
 
Quote    Reply

HiloBill    Your ideas are stupid, so I'm gonna insult you and question your motives!   7/27/2005 6:23:55 PM
Is this, "I question your motives, connected to this, "Is it morally bankrupt to make money from trying to cause a war?" Otherwise, I don't see a connection to your title. From the sum total of your commentary in this post, it is very clear to me that you do not understand what I have stated here nor at my website, which would be more likely than not the result of you not taking the time to read and try to understand before criticizing. If you would like "my opinions" on the things you addressed, feel free to read throughout this thread and at my website. BTW, what are the "nutty right-wing sites" that I have supposedly linked to from here? Do you mean WorldNetDaily.com, NewsMax.com, FinancialSense.com? What sites qualify for your label-making? There is one thing you've stated that I would like to reply to even though I don't think I'm obligated to do so as it has already been addressed: "I pointed out that Russia wasn't sharing advance strategic weapons and tech with China, you didn't really have any answer, did you?" No, I didn't have an answer for you (and I told you that), because I didn't know. The first weapon you mentioned I had mistook for another one of a similar nomenclature and provided the news article from http://www.missilethreat.com/ (another "nutty right-wing site"?) with an apparent affirmative answer. But, that was not the same weapon, which you pointed out. Ultimately, I didn't have an answer, because I couldn't find anything confirming it. But, if you remember honestly and correctly, I never said Russia DID sell that missile to China. You brought it up, because if they had, it would be serious confirmation in your mind of a strategic alliance between Russia and China - it appeared to me that you thought that factor would have to be confirmed in order to prove that linkage. Well, sorry, I can't confirm that info even today. But, in my view, this factor that's important for your own point-of-view is not a smoking gun for mine. My views are based on all the material you'll find at my site and 16 years worth of following this issue closely. HB
 
Quote    Reply

glenn239    Thread's getting more interesting, at any rate.   7/27/2005 7:29:11 PM
Thanks for not posting a link. I'm interested in YOUR opinions, not links. Q: BTW, what are the "nutty right-wing sites" that I have supposedly linked to from here? Well, for starters, how about that ridiculous article you posted that claimed the Chinese were making inroads into Canada, " the financial network of the Chinese entrepreneurs associated to the organized crime and to the power in Beijing has grown exponentially and very rapidly in Canada. Their influence over local, provincial and national political leaders has also increased." Canada going CCP? What utter nonsense! Or the contention that China was "highly secretive"? I was there. They didn't care what I did. "Highly secretive" was the USSR during the Cold War, or North Korea today. China is nothing like that. Go there. They want your money, and you can talk yourself blue in the face about democracy and freedom. They don't care. Or the claim that "disarming the United States" was a Chinese policy objective. Poppy! No. More than that. Double secret probation poppy. Or the claim that China would be ready for war in "two years" - delusional propaganda. Or the claim that China and Russia are alliance partners - also garbage. List goes on and on anon. But, in the end, it always seems to boil down to some form of nuclear surprise attack, which is taken by myself as an indirect concession that few credible threats exist. Seriously, you STILL haven't answered the question. If they are so hell-bent on smuggling in nuclear weapons for secret surprise attacks, why nothing in the last 40 years? A little late for the party, no? Q: Ultimately, I didn't have an answer, because I couldn't find anything confirming it. But, if you remember honestly and correctly, I never said Russia DID sell that missile to China. A: All correct. The SS-27 was originally mistaken for the SSN-27 - a naval system. But the point I made was in no way limited to that particular system. Bill, you are claiming that Russia and China have some sort of overarching conspiracy against the West aimed to achieve victory in a surprise attack, or whatever. You are claiming that one or both intend to smuggle nuclear weapons into North America. That's a pretty TIGHT pair of jokers in the global deck. And yet, for all the conspiratorial riff-raff, I remain unaware that China ever deployed export versions of the SS-20 or the SS-25, or that Russia has shared much in the way of advanced nuclear technology. How can they be real allies if they aren't sharing the technology they need to win?
 
Quote    Reply

HiloBill    Your ideas are stupid, so I'm gonna insult you and question your motives Part II   7/27/2005 8:35:40 PM
First of all – and asked again - I’d be very interested in knowing what you were inferring with your title: “Re: Is it morally bankrupt to make money from trying to cause a war?” and “I question your motives.” “Canada going CCP? What utter nonsense!” - Glenn Of course this is another misrepresentation of the article you’re referring to. If you take the time to re-read it, you’ll see that – if I’m not mistaken - the source regarding China’s inroads into Canada was the assessment of your own RCMP’s (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) intelligence services. “Or the contention that China was "highly secretive"? I was there. They didn't care what I did. "Highly secretive" was the USSR during the Cold War, or North Korea today. China is nothing like that. Go there. They want your money, and you can talk yourself blue in the face about democracy and freedom. They don't care.” - Glenn The term “highly secretive” is used countless times in America’s Congressional committees by respondents from the CIA, FBI, trade representatives, etc., in describing the characteristics of cases and issues involving them. Do a word search on “secretive China Intelligence Congress” and see how many relevant hits you get in high officials describing their experience with China. There you go again….end of my participation with your “reply:” “Poppy! No. More than that. Double secret probation poppy….delusional propaganda….also garbage….” - Glenn Glenn, if you are so certain of things, why even bother to be bothered? It’s obvious to me that you do not intend to research any of the material that I have provided at my website. It appears obvious that you just intend to lash out at the ridiculousness of it all without exerting the effort to honestly attempt to learn about what it is that you’re criticizing. So, I don’t see much sense in carrying on the “discussion” with you. You have the answers you want available to you. HB p.s. And, last of all, from the first line above: First of all – and asked again - I’d be very interested in knowing what you were inferring with your title: “Re: Is it morally bankrupt to make money from trying to cause a war?” and “I question your motives.”
 
Quote    Reply

glenn239    No, your ideas are dangerous and uninteresting, not stupid.   7/30/2005 1:47:13 PM
Bill do I really have to continue to post the questions you refuse to answer? Are you protesting the form to avoid the problem? 1) Why do China and Russia have to be allies to launch a sneak nuclear attack? Are they in love or something? 2) Why are you allowing no provision for the possibility that their actions are those of rivals and not enemies? Do you want a war? 3) Why didn't the Russians do anything along these lines in the Cold War. Was 40 years not enough time? Was the SS-20 with MIRV warheads made out of cardboard? 3) How can you expect them to evade the consequences of such a rash and foolish act. Do you doubt the fortitude of your own government? Do you not understand that in defense against WMD's, our best defense is not beefed security, it's the ability to savagely punish the aggressor? Anyways, to your questions: Quote: "Do you think that it is morally bankrupt to deliberately stir up hysteria in order to make money?". Seemed pretty straightforward - Do you or don't you? Re: "I question your motives": Very simple: Are you promoting a viewpoint, or are you promoting websites? If a viewpoint, why does your "viewpoints" usually consist of posting links to oblique or entirely irrelevant articles on other websites, generally which promote the worst-case scenario? Do you not agree that it would be difficult NOT to ponder the varying possibilities of what motivates you? Re: Chinese influence in Canada: Opinion noted. To repeat: The notion that China is in any danger of swaying Canadian foreign policy against the United States is a load of crap. Re: "Highly secretive". Bill, you are aware that the CIA is not renowned for its "openness", don't you? Or are you applying different standards of openness, depending on nationality? Go to China, then tell me what you think. Personally, I think they've come an amazing distance since the 1970's and 1980's Q: Glenn, if you are so certain of things, why even bother to be bothered? A: A valid question. Here's the answer. I think jingoistic tripe is dangerous to all of us. I do not trust the opinions of those that promote it, for in my mind they are suffering from a condition whereby they are too sensitive to stimuli to draw proper conclusions. In other words, nattering nervous nellies. Clear enough? For instance, when someone tells me that the collapse of the Soviet Union was part of a "plot" against us? C'mon
 
Quote    Reply

HiloBill    Prejudice is OK When You KNOW You're Right - No Need to Investigate!   7/31/2005 2:45:10 PM
Glenn, You said... “Bill do I really have to continue to post the questions you refuse to answer? Are you protesting the form to avoid the problem? ”1) Why do China and Russia have to be allies to launch a sneak nuclear attack? Are they in love or something? ”2) Why are you allowing no provision for the possibility that their actions are those of rivals and not enemies? Do you want a war? ”3) Why didn't the Russians do anything along these lines in the Cold War. Was 40 years not enough time? Was the SS-20 with MIRV warheads made out of cardboard? ”3) How can you expect them to evade the consequences of such a rash and foolish act. Do you doubt the fortitude of your own government? Do you not understand that in defense against WMD's, our best defense is not beefed security, it's the ability to savagely punish the aggressor?” Glenn, If I thought for a moment that you were questioning in any genuine way, I would take the time to REITERATE has I have already expressed in the life of this thread and what is easily answerable at my website: TheFinalPhase.com. However, your tone and tenor, the things you have said here, the accusatory (out of thin air) assertion that my motives are somehow financial in nature, leaves me to believe that you are not asking honest questions in an attempt to understand, but you ask them only in a rhetorical manner with an attempt to prove my notions ludicrous. Well, sorry, but I’m not going to take the time to assist you. The information you seek is available within this thread and at my site. If you’re truly interested you can go find the answers you posted above - which, by the way, are some of the most elementary aspects of TFP and explained early on in its presentation – on your own. ”Anyways, to your questions: ”Quote: "Do you think that it is morally bankrupt to deliberately stir up hysteria in order to make money?". ”Seemed pretty straightforward - Do you or don't you? ”Re: "I question your motives": Very simple: Are you promoting a viewpoint, or are you promoting websites? If a viewpoint, why does your "viewpoints" usually consist of posting links to oblique or entirely irrelevant articles on other websites, generally which promote the worst-case scenario? Do you not agree that it would be difficult NOT to ponder the varying possibilities of what motivates you?” And, as far as you questioning my motivations, I will not answer this either for similar reasons stated about your other questions. Early on when you first came into this thread, that particular point should have been quite clear to you and you had even acknowledged an understanding about it. But now, you reverse yourself and lash out insultingly calling my motives into question. You KNOW my website has NO advertisement, has NO profit motive, and I receive absolutely NO money from it in any way whatsoever. Any links provided there are for the sole purpose of explaining what TFP is all about and every penny (a considerable number of “pennies” throughout the years have come from my own pocket at the expense of foregoing personal wants. The ultimate motivation? The preservation and perpetuation of liberty; a very selfish motivation, indeed. For you to bring up such a red herring only goes to prove to me more that your intentions are not honorable – in this particular matter anyway – in the least. I will not answer you on this (other than the core reason above), because if I did, I would violate some basic decorum rules of civil discourse and discussion. Your question – especially knowing what you already know – is disgraceful and insulting beyond measure in my view. If you want to ever engage in an honest, civil discussion on this, please first seek your answers already in this thread or at my website. Thereafter, feel free to pose any honest, civil questions you have – I’d be happy to answer them. HB
 
Quote    Reply

HiloBill    Letter re: Russia AND China - The Two Are Allied   8/3/2005 4:48:24 PM
This is an excerpt from a recent correspondence of mine to someone in which the Russia/China threat is explained AND how the nexus between the terrorism of al-Qaeda & bin Laden ties into the Russian and Chinese long-range objectives. Appropriate portions are deleted. WW 3 August 2005 Dear Mr. [name omitted], [Irrelevant & personal lead-in portion deleted.] This writing will not attempt to “prove” what is asserted here; it’s meant to just be conversational in expressing certain notions. I won’t be footnoting or presenting a scholarly piece. However, Jeffery Nyquist (J.R. Nyquist), a friend of mine and an accomplished author, is a walking encyclopedia on this subject matter. For a more scholarly presentation of the matters mentioned here, he would be an excellent source to contact. His grasp and his knowledge of the issues brought up here and on broader historical intelligence issues, would likely enable him to “talk shop” with you as if he were one of your contemporaries. (BTW, Jeff dedicates his 1999 book, Origins of the Fourth World War, to “…the memory of James Angleton.”) _____ As far as Golitsyn’s predictive intelligence is concerned, his track record post-1985 was quite impressive (judging from what he predicted in New Lies for Old and later in The Perestroika Deception). This will be mentioned later, but I’ll begin now starting with an overview. “I don’t think we’ve been deceived – at least, I hope we haven’t.” (Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher re Golitsyn’s information in his book New Lies for Old) In 1969, Golitsyn was told by CIA that his services were no longer needed. This was due in large part to his insistence that the Sino-Soviet split was fake. He said it was a “scissors strategy” being used against the West. By manipulating the West’s perception of a serious divide between the two nations, the strategy calculated that the West would try to take advantage of the apparent split for its own strategic purposes. It figured that the West would be enticed to normalize relations with China and build it up economically, which Russia could not afford to do itself. Moreover, projecting the image of animosity between these two countries would advance their other long-range strategic plans. Although the West was initially suspicious of the divide, they became convinced of it once actual hostilities broke-out between Russian and Chinese forces – real lives were lost and real blood was spilled. Golitsyn insisted this was just part and parcel of the deception. The Nixon administration saw an opportunity to exploit the Sino-Soviet split by developing a rapprochement policy with China – to divide these two communist threats further, to play one off the other. If Golitsyn was right, the West fell headlong into the trap – we forgot the “Trust.” After Golitsyn departed the CIA, he continued sending memoranda on a regular basis attempting to warn of the various manifestations of the long-range deception plan and about how the plan might unfold in the future. None of his warnings were ever taken seriously. Exasperated with his attempts to warn CIA, he decided to get his warnings into the public domain. In 1980 - ten years before the Berlin Wall came down - he submitted his manuscript for New Lies for Old to CIA’s review committee for clearance. The book was published in 1984. The time-line here is important in understanding the reliability of Golitsyn’s predictive intelligence and his methodology of analysis. A key component in his analysis was in understanding the dialectics behind the long-range plan. The publisher of Golitsyn’s second book, The Perestroika Deception, made the following remarks: “By applying the dialectical methodology which drives the strategy, the Author has been able to score innumerable “bulls-eyes”. This unparalleled track record reflects the Author’s personal experience of four years in the KGB’s strategy “think tank”, together with his deep understanding of the dialectical nature of the strategy and the Leninist mentality of its originators and implementers.” [Emphasis added.] In understanding the dialectical components involved in the plan, Golitsyn was able to accurately predict 139 out of 148 of the events that would unfold a decade later in Eastern Europe. Mark Riebling, author of Wedge:the Secret War between the FBI and CIA, 1994 (pages 407-408), also highlighted Golitsyn’s remarkable predictive capability. But, more importantly, the meaning and implications of what the fulfilled predictions portended then and now is really at the heart of the matter. Golitsyn said that the long-range strategic plan of deception was purposed to eventually defeat the West. This would be accomplished in many ways. In order to optimally affect Western perceptions and to implement the plan, the KGB would be restructured resulting in an inner- and outer-KGB. The outer-KGB would continue serving its vital r
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics