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
HiloBill    RE:the US as Troy   6/15/2005 10:32:28 PM
GoG, Thanks. Your words are quite encouraging. The website itself doesn't even fully lay-out the whole matter. Many of the links that follow the intro, however, are intended to help with the historical aspects. (Troy is just an analogy of course. But, the bottom line threat is that America could be lost at some point in the future unless there is an awakening that happens.....this is just my opinion, of course, and I'm not demanding that everybody listen to me - just doing what I believe is my life-long duty.) Aloha, HB
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim    Okay... NOW What?   6/16/2005 12:08:18 PM
"One book that came out recently (Mar 05) is Dr. Constantine Menges's "China: The Gathering Threat." Therein, he lays out distinctly how much of a threat China is today; not a rising threat, but an arisen threat. And, he points out the strategic alliance between Russia and China that too often goes unnoticed by policy wonks and is not sufficiently discussed enough within Intel, Security and Defense circles. (At the bottom here, I'll post a review of the book by Cal Thomas.) "Although Menges points out the China threat today and tomorrow and the strategic alliance between Russia and China, he does not view the consequences of such an alliance in the way I have presented. Without understanding - or at least considering - that this alliance has been covertly in existence for decades (even and especially during the time of the supposed Sino-Soviet split) and that it has been purposefully hidden to deceive the West, then a full and complete understanding of the threat can not be realized." -- HB ------ I have great difficulty believing you could find anyone in DoD who doesn't think China is an arisen threat. I have great difficulty believing you could find anyone in DoD who doesn't think Russia remains an arisen threat. I'm not sure how many would agree that there's any formal and/or deeply, mutually held alliance between Russia and China, say for example, like on the level of the U.S./U.K. alliance. Again this gets to the issue I have with TheFinalPhase--unlike perhaps some others who have responded, I have no problem with assuming arguendo that there's a huge alliance and grand strategy being followed. Let's discuss it as if that's a given, instead of spending any time trying to prove/support that idea. Okay, they're of like mind: now what? What are they doing about it, and with what/where/how/etc.? That's what's important. I love history and there's always some value in learning of it so you can learn from it, but don't bother telling me about Philby or something from 1963 unless you show how those events are observed today in what's going on now. -- Displacedjim =============== "Jim's profession makes it very difficult to see how such a thing can be pulled off against the West in the fashion I have suggested in the past. This is completely understandable. The people Jim is surrounded by (and himself) are absolutely dedicated military professionals. They are competent guardians of our national defense in the field of technical intelligence gathering. "However, that said, once the notion is accepted as true that an enemy CAN NOT surprise you, that is the time we are most vulnerable." -- HB ------ To the contrary, I never said, nor do I think, that they aren't trying to surprise us. I never said, nor do I think, that if we slack off they can't surprise us. Probably what you're keying on is my attitude in my responses, in which I acknowledge reality that our intelligence capability is so pervasive that the likelihood of their being able to successfully surprise us dwindles to nil as the complexity of the nature of their attempted surprise increases toward great. Once again I will emphasize the nature of intelligence collection is such that the individuals involved are constantly trying to find anything new, anything "surprising," because that's our job. The mission statement of DoD Scientific and Technical Intelligence Centers like the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (where I work as a reservist) includes literally "To prevent technological surprise." Preventing surprise, by the way, is a big part of trying to prevent asymmetrical attacks. The way any analyst gets recognition is by discovering new information. We don't sit around saying, "China? Hah, that place is dead, they can't surprise us. Move along people, nothing to see here." Completely to the contrary, and as I've said before, at this time China is probably about the single most scrutinized country overall. Some of our focus varies by technology category as to which countries we key on the most, and also we need to focus on real-world support to the warfighter in the GWOT, but China is at or near the top of the list most of the time. We are also involved in general military intelligence (GMI) production (stuff like how much do they have, where is it, how are they training, what is their doctrine, what are their possible and likely courses of action and how successful are they likely to be, etc.), and it is indisputable that China has shot up the priority list. Assessing their training, doctrine, and possible and likely courses of action, by the way, is a big part of trying to prevent asymmetrical attacks. While "real-world" contingencies related to GWOT (Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc.) certainly also receive high priority, I'd say that among the nations not directly associated with being terrorist threats, once again China is right near the top of the list overall. By the way, unlike rum
 
Quote    Reply

glenn239    RE SS-27   6/21/2005 9:06:35 PM
Bill - I'm still curious. Have you reason to suspect that Russia is sharing SS-27 ICBM technology with China?
 
Quote    Reply

HiloBill    RE:RE SS-27   6/22/2005 8:42:26 PM
Glenn239: “Bill - I'm still curious. Have you reason to suspect that Russia is sharing SS-27 ICBM technology with China?” Glenn, Yes I do (see below). And, there's probably so much more going on that we'll never know. (Please excuse the bried response - I'm pressed right now.) Bill http://www.sinodefence.com/news/2005/news29-04-05.asp Russia to Deliver SS-N-27 to China Russia is to deliver the advanced 3M-54E1 (NATO codename: SS-N-27) anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) as part of its sale of eight Kilo class diesel-electric submarines to China, according to the U.S. intelligence. China ordered eight improved Project 636 (NATO codename: Kilo class) submarines from Russia in 2002. As a part of the sale package, these submarines will be fitted with the 300km-range Klub-S submarine-launched ASCM system designed by Novator Design Bureau. The system consists of the 3M-54E1 (SS-N-27) missile and an advanced fire-control system. The Kilo class submarines will probably also be equipped with a Russian-made anti-submarine missile. According to the report, Russia soon will deliver the first batch of the SS-N-27 missile to China for use on the Kilo class submarines. The same missile has also been sold to India. U.S. officials believe China is purchasing the weapons in preparation for countering U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups in any future conflict over Taiwan. 29 April 2005 Copyright © 2002-2005 Chinese Defence Today. All rights reserved________________________ The new 2-against-1 arms race Russia, China team up against U.S. with American technology http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17232 Other References: Taiwan: Chinese Military Budget is Three Times Stated Size http://www.missilethreat.com/news/200412280835.html ." target="_blank">http://english.> December 28, 2004 :: News Taiwanese defense official Wang Shih-chien commented upon reports of a new Chinese defense white paper which targets Taiwan, reports the Taiwanese Central News Agency. Wang noted that Communist China’s national defense budget expenditures have increased every year at a double-digit rate, and added that the current report is incomplete in China’s true military spending. Wang asserted that the actual figure for China’s defense budgets should be three or four times that of the amount published. Wang also continued to urge support for Taiwan’s request to purchase from the United States eight diesel-electric submarines, a squadron of 12 P-3C anti-submarine aircraft and six Patriot PAC-3 anti-missile batteries. (Article, Link ______________ Praise for Topol Missile Unit http://search.ft.com/search/totalSearch_Form.html?vsc_appId=ts&symb=&ftsite=FTCOM&searchtype=equity&vsc_query=missile&searchOpti December 14, 2004 BBC Worldwide Monitoring :: News Russian television yesterday carried a report profiling a Topol (SS-25) missile squad based in Siberia. The profile was of the 51st Strategic Missile Troops Division. The discussion of the reporter points to the mobile nature of the Topol missiles, a capacity to evade certain satellite detection, and targeting. The United States, by contrast, has no mobile land-based missiles: all American Minutemen are in silos, easily targeted in advance by Russia. An excerpt: (More »»») » More stories on: Russia » Missile details for: SS-25 __________________________________ New Publication: Getting MAD http://www.missilethreat.com/news/200412.html December 14, 2004 :: Analysis The latest in a series of books co-published by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center and the Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute has been released and is available in full online. Edited by Henry D. Sokolski, Getting MAD is a collection of timely essays about how one may think about nuclear proliferation and nuclear strategy today. Claremont Institute Fellow Mark T. Clark contributes a chapter to the book, which considers the recent nuclear proliferation to a number of smaller regimes, and asks whether the cold war framework of purely offensive deterrence, namely mutually assured destruction, can be imposed upon them with any level of confidence—or even with a straight face. Do North Korea and Iran pursue nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them only to deter others? Clark concludes that “the idea that SNPs [small nuclear powers] are limited to some form of mini-MAD deterrent seems unreasonably optimistic. The optimism rests on the notion that because MAD, even its mini-version, would be so catastrophic that its realization is exceedingly remote, if not a virtual impossibility.” Such faith in the nuclear deterrence doctrines of the past rests upon the idea of that somehow merely technological advances in destructive capacity—the “nuclear revolution”—have somehow rendered obsolete the classical rules, ends, and possible outcomes of war. But human nature remains the same, an
 
Quote    Reply

glenn239    Not the SSN-27. The SS-27 ICBM system.   6/23/2005 12:32:13 PM
Bill. Sorry - I don't mean anti-shipping popguns. I'm talking the hypersonic, defense evading, city-busting SS-27 ICBM and warhead system. You know, the type that arranges to see New York renamed as "New New York" after a visit. You're claiming Russia and China are allied. Sharing this type of technology would be a meaningful expression of such an alliance. Have they done it?
 
Quote    Reply

HiloBill    RE:Not the SSN-27. The SS-27 ICBM system.   6/24/2005 4:05:09 AM
Duh..........I knew that! Sorry, I just went too fast with a search. I'll have to check if there's any indication of what you're looking for out there. But, keep in mind a few things. In "Unconventional Warfare" from 2002, Bill Gertz writes in the foreward a scenario based on then known Chinese missile weaponry of a future conflict over Taiwan wherein their missiles were off-loaded from containers brought in via China's now controlled canal threatening to launch and within range of all major US cities. Moreover, if Russia and China didn't want the world to know of such sharing, I doubt we would have any idea. All that we know, with the exception of what can be seen and heard by national technical means of intel gathering (which is susceptible to being used as disinformation channels to further our misperceptions), ultimately comes from official sources within China and Russia. Data which is not desired to be released to the West is still very much a controllable item. Data about military budgets and programs, etc., is accepted at face value by the West unless it can be contradicted by the above mentioned tech intel. So, the absence of evidence (of the sharing of SS-27 technology) is not evidence of absence. HB
 
Quote    Reply

glenn239    But the SS-27 is the benchmark for a nasty alliance against us.   6/24/2005 12:22:06 PM
Q: So, the absence of evidence (of the sharing of SS-27 technology) is not evidence of absence. A: Ok, but keep this point in mind, because if you can prove it, you're argument gets stronger in my opinion: China isn't going to take Taiwan with some fancy-dancy asymmetrical attack. DJ and the boys will pound them back to the Stone Age for such stupidity. The easiest, most reliable method by which China will project power beyond her boarders is to follow Hitler's tried-and-true method of confrontational, severe brinkmanship, and take the prize when the opposition blinks. The tools of brinkmanship are nuclear weapons and the willingness to use them, and the SS-27 is the most important of the bunch on account of its intended use as a reliable penetrant of a Star Wars type defense. If Russia shares this tech with China, then it is a dead-on sign that they are aiming for the United States - because the SS-27 is a sub-optimal system for any other country on earth (you don't need hypersonic evasive warheads to attack a country with no defense). And if they are NOT transferring this stuff, then doesn't that mean they're not too serious as allies?
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim    RE:But the SS-27 is the benchmark for a nasty alliance against us.   6/24/2005 1:12:50 PM
"Moreover, if Russia and China didn't want the world to know of such sharing, I doubt we would have any idea." Not just no, but hell no. For any such sharing of technology to get anywhere beyond someone's hard drive would require activity that we would soon learn about (and we might easily learn of it before then), certainly years before China could develope and deploy operational SS-27s. It would be incredible that the Chinese could have SS-27s ready to fly without us knowing about it. I'm not saying this has anything to do with their level of alliance. Like I said before, I for one don't care if they're secretly allied per se. I only care about what they're doing and what they're planning to do. I have no problem assuming for the sake of argument that Hu and Putin are secret lovers or whatever. What about it? Who specifically is doing something, what are they going to do and with what, where, when, and how? Displacedjim
 
Quote    Reply

HiloBill    RE:Russia AND China - The Two Are Allied   6/28/2005 1:40:23 PM
Just to let you know, I will be sending a somewhat extensive reply by COB today...at least that's the plan. HB
 
Quote    Reply

HiloBill    RE:Russia AND China - The Two Are Allied   6/28/2005 8:39:03 PM
This will be my last chance to attempt an adequate response to the comments and issues mainly brought up by Displaced Jim (DJ) & Glenn, as my course work starts up again next week which will virtually take away most of my spare time. Prior to putting this together, I went back and reread many of the exchanges that DJ and I have had in particular going back a considerable period of time and realized a couple of things: An adequate explanation of the complection, nature and extent of The Final Phase (TFP) thesis was never expressed; the notions I did express got stuck and focused on the “what if’s” that might preceding any future “event;” and, repeated instances of talking over each other (mostly on my part) leading to misunderstanding or lack of full understanding. So, let me try explaining a bit more. TFP thesis is not exactly the same as Golistyn’s past warnings about the long-range strategic deception to dominate the world. He foresaw that it would entail a process of “convergence” wherein the West would eventually be encircled (geopolitically & militarily) and forced to a point of “surrender” on the East’s terms. He suggested that the West would be defeated without firing a shot. America would be the number one target in this quest. However, he did hold out the possibility that it might take a limited nuclear strike on the US in order to accomplish a checkmate position, along “Pearl Harbour lines.” Golitsyn’s analysis was based on first-hand information of the plan’s existence and, more importantly, upon understanding the dialectical make-up and thinking behind the plan and its planners. This is why, even before 1980, he was able to predict the rise of a “Gorbachev;” the “democratization” of the Eastern bloc; the fall of the Berlin Wall; the reunification of Germany; the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact; the dissolution of the USSR; and, about 139 other events that came to pass, all part and parcel of the long-range strategic deception commenced in 1958-59. All these things, the background, etc., are contained in his book, “New Lies for Old,” published in 1984 after having first been presented to the CIA for clearance in manuscript form in 1980 (which indicates that his predictions were first penned at least a year or two before being submitted to the CIA. But, there’s not telling how much earlier his analysis lead him to these conclusions). Who else in the world predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall, etc., a decade before it happened?! This is a very important question to ask and ponder. It goes to the validity of Golitsyn’s bona fides and lends credibility to his overall predictive methodology of analysis. Here’s a few excerpts from his second book, “The Perestroika Deception,” published in 1995: “If...American leadership fails to change course and to correct this error [of understanding about the strategic deception], it will face responsibility for the progressive loss of Western Europe to socialism (Communism) and, ultimately, for the end of the great American experiment with democracy.” (p. 209) And, “...to save the American people from the blood baths and re-education camps which such ‘convergence’ will eventually bring about, of which the West currently has no conception.” (p. 209) Lastly, “Until the West abandons its simplistic thinking, penetrates mentally the complexities of the ‘changes’ which have taken place in the Communist world, and comes to terms with the Leninist dialectic driving those ‘changes’, the Communist strategists will retain the upper hand.” (p. 211) What “convergence” would really mean is that it would be better to be dead than red. In an apparent - but not really - perverse way, this is why I think it would be better for the future survival of (or a future resurrection of) freedom if the US was attacked in a dastardly, surprise nuclear attack as opposed to the easily hidden from view re-education camps ensuing from a “converged” America. Golitsyn has not been heard from again for ten years following the release of his second book, “The Perestroika Deception.” That book might have represented his final, last ditch effort to warn the West of the continuing deception. This August he will be 79. Reportedly, Golitsyn has worked on his memoirs and there is some indication that they may have already been submitted to the CIA for review. But, actual information on the status is very sketchy. (Golitsyn lives under an assumed name at some undisclosed location - it’s even possible he is no long alive.) TFP thesis is a deductive outgrowth of Golitsyn’s methodology, albeit imperfect. Much of it is directly supported by Golitsyn’s previously stated concepts and principles, such as, that all endeavors undertaken by Russian and Chinese intelligence organizations are coordinated and dedicated to the overall long-range strategic plan against the West. _____ Multifacets of TFP: China’s initial inroads into the gang/dr
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics