Using plausible deniability against a systematically lying adversary
19444 Views
June 28, 2017
https://thesaker.is/using-plausible-deniability-against-a-systematically-lying-adversary/
This column has been written for the Unz Review.
The Internet has been buzzing with reactions to
the latest Stratfor report about how a military
confrontation between Russia and the United
States would play out. I did not find the full
text, I suppose it is behind a Stratfor paywall
or for subscribers only (and, frankly, I have
better use for my time and money than to
subscribe to that rubbish), but since the same
excerpts are quoted everywhere, I might as well
list them here and assume that they form the
highlights of the article. Here we go (taken from
the Business Insider quoting and paraphrasing the original article):
While Russia has some advanced surface-to-air
missile systems and very agile fighter aircraft
in Syria, it wouldn’t fare well in what would be
a short, brutal air war against the US (…) Russia
has “about 25 planes, only about ten of which are
dedicated to air superiority (Su-35s and Su-30s),
and against that they’ll have to face fifth-gen
stealth fighters, dozens of strike fighters,
F-15s, F-16s, as well as B-1 and B-52 bombers.
And of course the vast US Navy and pretty much
hundreds of Tomahawks.” “Russians have a lot of
air defenses, they’re not exactly defenseless by
any means,” Lamrani told Business Insider, “But
the US has very heavy air superiority.” Even
though individual Russian platforms come close to
matching, and in some ways exceed the capability
of US jets, it comes down to numbers. If US
surveillance detected a mass mobilization of
Russian jets in response to the back-and-forth,
the US wouldn’t just wait politely for Russians
to get their planes in the sky so they can fight
back. Instead, a giant salvo of cruise missiles
would pour in from the USS George H. W. Bush
carrier strike group, much like the April 7
strike on Syria’s Sharyat air base. But this
time, the missiles would have to saturate and
defeat Russia’s missile defenses first, which
they could do by sheer numbers if not using
electronic attack craft. Then, after neutering
Russia’s defenses, the ships could target the air
base, not only destroying planes on the ground
but also tearing up the runways, so no planes
could take off. At this point US and Coalition
aircraft would have free reign to pass overhead
and completely devastate Russian forces.
So is the author, Omar Lamrani, right in his
assessment? Yes and no. Yes, that is exactly what
would happen if the Russians decided to engage
their small number of air superiority aircraft to
try to prevail over the entire CENCOM and NATO
air force for the control of the Syrian skies.
And no, simply because the Russians would never do that.
The author of the article, a civilian with no
military experience, makes a basic mistake, he
assumes that the Russians will act like idiots
and fight the kind of war the US would want to
impose upon them. That is kind of assumptions
most newbies make and which make for excellent
propaganda articles. The problem is, of course,
that there is absolutely no reason at all why the
Russians should collaborate with such a
ridiculous scenario. So, let’s get back to basics here.
Question 1: are the Russians in a position of weakness in Syria?
Yes, absolutely. And they know that too. First,
the Russians are operating only 2 facilities
(Tartus and Khmeimim), far away from home, and
the size of their task force in Syria is tiny
compared to the huge amount of firepower
available to the AngloZionists and their allies.
Second, the USA have poured billions of dollars
into this region to make sure that the Soviet
Union could never successfully invade Iran and
not only do they have an immense numerical
superiority over the Russians, they also have a
world-class network of bases where even more
forces can be brought in. Syria is squeezed
between CENTCOM to the south and east and NATO to
the north and west while the closets Russian
forces are in Crimea. The truth is that not only
could the US and NATO take control of the Syrian
skies, even Israel alone could probably do it.
So, assuming the Russians are not suicidal
imbeciles, what do you think they should do? If
you were Russian, how would you play your cards?
Question 2: do the Russians have advantages of their own?
Absolutely. In fact, they have many advantages
over the Americans. Here they are in no particular order:
All the boots on the ground that matter are
either Russian allies or at least on good terms
with Russia: the Syrians, the Iranians, Hezbollah
and even Turkey are all much closer to Russia
than to the AngloZionists. The only AngloZionist
boots on the ground that matter are Daesh & Co.
Internal public opinion: in Russia, the Russian
military intervention is understood and backed by
a overwhelming majority of Russians. In the USA
the public is clueless and profoundly skeptical
of this latest US war of choice. Not only that,
but Putin personally has an immense credibility
with the Russian people, while Trump is barely avoiding being impeached.
External public opinion: while in the USA the
Ziomedia is engaged in a truly heroic effort to
avoid even mentioning the fact that even the US
presence in, and nevermind the actual aggression
against, Syria is completely illegal in terms of
international law, most of the planet is quite
aware of that. This only further erodes the US standing worldwide.
The Russians have fewer lucrative targets to
offer the AngloZionists than the Americans.
Simply put, the Russians have Tartus and
Khmeimim. The Americans have an long list of
bases and facilities in the region which all could become potential targets.
The willpower, courage and determination of the
Russian solider is stronger than his US
counterparts by many orders of magnitude. There
are many reasons for this, historical as well as
political, but I don’t think that anybody doubts
the fact that while Americans love to kill for
their country, they are much less enthusiastic
about dying for it, especially when the “for it”
part is extremely dubious and when the frontline
solider feels that he is being used in some
complex political game which he does not
understand but where he is definitely used as cannon fodder.
There is Russian personnel and military hardware
interspersed within the Syrian forces. We know
that Russian technical specialists, military
advisors and special forces are operating on the
ground in Syria. This means that the Russian can
probably use a Syrian S-300 to shoot down a US
aircraft without necessarily giving the US proof
of their involvement. To use and old CIA term,
the Russian can have “plausible deniability”.
We know that Russia has a vastly superior
intelligence capability in Syria as reflected in
the kind of damage Russian air and missile strike
inflict on their targets especially when compared
to the painfully obvious lack of US understanding
of what’s really going on on the ground.
So what does all this add up to?
1) Plausible deniability in the air
First, it is pretty darn clear that the Russians
have no incentive to begin a large scale air
battle in the skies of Syria with their US
counterparts. However, the fact that such a
battle would not be in their interest does not
mean that they would necessarily avoid it either.
For the time being, the Russians seem to have
chose a strategy of deliberate uncertainty and
harassment of the US aircraft, but they could
decide to engage US aircraft using their ground
based S-300/S-400 batteries. Here is how they could do it.
First, the Russians are the only ones in Syria
with S-400s. So let’s set them aside for a minute
and keep them for serious emergency purposes.
Next, let’s look at the Syrian inventory of air
defenses found on Wikipedia. Notice especially
this one: the Pantsir-S1 (SA-22). According to
Wikipedia, there are 50 SA-22 in Syria. Have you
ever heard of the Panstsir-S1? Probably not.
Forget the S-300/S-400, think Pantsir
The Pantsir-S1 (aka “SA-22” in US/NATO
classification) is an absolutely awe-inspiring
air defense system, yet nobody in the general
public or Ziomedia ever mentions it. Let’s take a look at it:
The Pantsir-S1 is mobile short to medium range
surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft
artillery weapon system which uses phased array
radars for both target acquisition and tracking.
Detection range: 32-45km (20-28mi). Tracking
range: 24-28km (15-17mi). It can track up to 20
targets, engage up to 3 with 4 missiles at the
same time. It has a secondary Autonomous
Optoelectronic System with a 25km (15mi)
engagement rage against a small F-16 size
aircraft. The Pantsir’s missiles are solid-fuel
rockets with a range of 20km (12mi), a ceiling of
15km (9mi) and a speed of Mach 2.3-2.8. The
Pantsir also has two dual 30mm autocannons
shooting up to 700 rounds of high explosive at a
rate of 2’500 rounds per minute at a distance up
to 4km (2.5mi). Now here is the really neat thing
about it: both the Russian and the Syrian operate
these mobile systems. In other words, not only
might these Pantsirs be anywhere, but they might
be operated by anybody. Heck, even the Iranians have them!
Though the Pantsirs look the part (they look like
something out of a Terminator movie to me), they
are even more dangerous than they appear because
while they are capable of fully autonomous
operations, they are also designed to be
plugged-in into a global network via a digitally
encrypted datalink which makes it possible for
them to receive their engagement data from other
land-based and airborne platforms. Finally, keep
in mind that nobody really knows how many
Pantsirs the Russians have brought with them to
Syria, how many the Syrians currently operate,
how many “Syrian” Pantsirs are operated by
Russians and plugged in into the Russian digital
air-defense network or, for that matter, how many
Syrian and Iranian Pantsirs might be out there.
So what do we have? A system which is extremely
mobile (being mounted on a heavy high mobility
truck), easy to conceal (being small), which can
engage any airborne target at altitudes ranging
form 0m to 15’000m as far as 20’000m away. To do
so, they can used their passive electronically
scanned array (PESA), their Autonomous
Optoelectronic System (AOS) or even data received
from other radars including Russian S-300/S-400, Su-35 or AWACS.
Initially and officially, the Russian Pantsirs
are solely tasked with defending the longer
ranged S-300/S-400 systems and the Russian
installations in Khmeimim and Tartus. But in
reality they could be rapidly deployed anywhere
and used to shoot down US aircraft with no
evidence whatsoever that the Russians did it! Of
course, the Russian would have to be very careful
as to what source they would use to track the US
aircraft and provide the Pantsir’s missile an
engagement solution. As far as I know, the
Pantsir’s missiles do not have an active or even
semi-active radar system, but their AOS allows
for completely silent/passive engagements.
Depending on what intelligence assets the
Americans do or do not have available at the time
of attack, their might be no way of proving who shot down the US aircraft.
The bottom line is this: while the world is
focused on the bigger S-300/S-400 capabilities,
the Russians already have in place a far more
flexible short-medium range air-defense system
which would be impossible to destroy with
Tomahawks (being mobile) and very hard to destroy
with airstrikes. That system could be deployed
anywhere in Syria and it could be used while
providing the Russian with a plausible
deniability. Of course, the US could try to fly
outside the Pantsir’s flight envelope, but that
would make use of any airpower very difficult.
Another option for the Americans would be to rely
solely on their low-RCS aircraft (B-1, B-2 for
strikes, and F-22s to protect them), but that
would dramatically decrease the overall capabilities of CENTOM/NATO over Syria.
I will conclude this section by reminding
everybody that neither the US nor any other NATO
country has ever had to operate in an environment
as dangerous as the Syrian skies. The poor Serbs
had only ancient air defenses and yet even
against them NATO failed miserably. In Syria the
Russian air defenses could give the Americans a
run for their money without ever using any of
their (admittedly few) air superiority aircraft.
2) Plausible deniability on the ground
Has anybody ever considered that the Russians
might decide to attack US forces deployed on the
ground in Syria (or Iraq for that matter?)?
Apparently not, if only because most people would
assume that the Russian force in Syria is tiny
and therefore cannot attack a much larger and
stronger US force. But, just as with the air
warfare, this is a mistaken assumption based on
the idea that the US would know who is attacking.
In reality, the Russians could attack the US
using their special forces (either those already
deployed or specially brought in) to attack US
targets and retain plausible deniability.
How?
This is what we already know:
Russian operators are already deployed and active in Syria:
First the famous Spetsnaz ( Spetsnaz GRU Gsh).
These are special units drawn either from the
Southern Military District or, possibly,
subordinated directly to the Military
Intelligence (GRU) HQ in Moscow. Unlike the
Spetsnaz GRU forces of the GRU brigades of the
Military Districts, these small groups (8-12 men)
are staffed by career officers only.
Next, the Russian Special Forces (SSO), a
relatively new creation not to be confused with
the Spetsnaz GRU even if they are similar in many
ways, are also more or less officially in Syria
(Russian TV channels have made reports and
interviews with them). They are subordinated to
General Staff of the Armed Forces. Here is a
photo of them taken by a Russian journalist in Syria:
Finally, there ?re reports of some unnamed but
very secret Russian unit working in Syria (for
example here) but neither Vympel nor Zaslon fit
the bill (the former is now subordinated to the
FSB, i.e. deal with internal security issues,
while the latter is more of a protective service
for officials, their residences and Russian
civilians abroad). I have found no info on who
they are, but my guess is that they are what
Vympel used to be: special forces of the Foreign
Intelligence Service (SVR) working in close
collaboration with the SVR agent networks in Syria.
Whatever may be the case, the Russians already
have more then enough special forces in Syria to
start attacking US targets in Syria or even
elsewhere in the region. For example, during the
battle for Aleppo there have been numerous
reports of Russian snipers killing Daesh leader
one after the other almost decapitating their
entire leadership. That could happen to top US
officers on the ground in Syria. Special forces
could also arrange for “unexplicable” missile
strikes hitting US forces. But the most important
aspect here is that these forces could be used in
complete secrecy with nothing identifying them as
Russians. They would look like Arabs, speaks like
Arabs and have Arabic IDs with them. The Soviets
did use exactly this technique in Afghanistan to
overthrow Afghan President Hafizullah Amin.
Likewise, Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov has
openly admitted that Chechen operators have been
infiltrated into the Daesh command structure..
Finally, even if “Russians” are caught and
somehow identified, there are about 5’000 Russian
citizens of all sorts of ethnic groups (including
Slavs) fighting in the ranks of Daesh and it will
be impossible to prove that fighter X or fighter
Z are agents of a Russian intelligence service.
Bottom line is this: Russia also has the option
of ground attacks against US forces with plausible deniability.
So think of it – Russians SAMS shooting at US
aircraft in the air, and Russian special forces
killing US officers on the ground. And all this
with complete plausible deniability.
Not convinced yet?
One the many uses of plausible deniability,
especially against a systematically lying enemy
You might wonder how useful plausible deniability
is against a country which makes up all sorts of
ridiculous stories about Russian hackers stealing
elections or invisible Russian armies in the
eastern Ukraine. And I agree, a country which has
16 intelligence agencies and a long and shameful
history of making up intelligence – yes, sure,
they could say that “the Russkies did it” and
have the Ziomedia repeat it all over and over again without any evidence.
But there is another side to this story: since
the US propaganda machine has made up so many
stories about genocidal Serbs, Viagra-enhanced
raping Libyans, baby-tossing Iraqis,
wannabe-nuclear Iranians, barrel-bombing Syrians
and God knows who else – how credible will they
be when they accuse the Russian of “this vicious
and dastardly act” (whatever the act is, really)?
Even as I write this, there are reports that the
White House is already setting the stage for yet
another false flag attack in Syria. Let’s be
honest here and agree that Uncle Sam lies every
time he moves his lips and while the brain-dead
Ziomedia pretends to take each lie very
seriously, the rest of the planet, including much
of the American public, is under no illusions.
Now imagine a Russian operated Pantsir-S1 crew in
Syria shooting down US aircraft or Russian
operators blowing up a tent with the HQ of the US
forces in Syria. Not only will there be no proof
that the Russians did it, but even if there was,
nobody would trust the Americans anyway.
Furthermore, this also begs the following
question: would it really be in the USA’s best
interest to point the finger at the Russians? I
would argue that it would not. It would make far
more sense to blame the Syrians, then bomb some
kind of Syrian government building (say the
probably empty military intelligence building in
downtown Damascus) and declare that “a message
has been sent” then to take the military and
political risk of attacking Russian forces in Syria.
Could the Americans retaliate in kind?
Probably not. Remember, they don’t have the boots
on the ground, the intelligence capabilities or
the political support (internal and external) to
get away with that. Not only that, but US special
forces have a long history of screwing up even
relatively simple operations and I don’t see them
trying to get away with a direct attack on
Russian forces in Khmeimim or elsewhere. At most,
they will do what they almost always do –
subcontract the mission to some locals, which
works great against defenseless civilians and
ends up on disaster against a real “hard” target.
The many paradoxes of warfare
First, we should always keep in mind that any
military action is just a means towards a
political goal, the “continuation of politics by
other means”. Because of that highly political
nature, there are circumstances where being the
weaker side can yield advantages. The key to the
defensive strategy of the weaker side is not to
let the stronger side impose the kind of warfare
which maximizes the stronger side’s advantages.
In the case of Syria, trying to defeat the entire
air force of CENTCOM with just a few fighters
would be plain stupid. And since the US does have
an immense advantage in the number of cruise
missiles it can launch – do what the Serbs did in
Kosovo and Hezbollah did in 2006 against Israel:
don’t give them a target. In the Syrian context
this means: use only mobile air defense systems.
Last but not least, hit the Americans were it
hurts most – their morale. Remember how crazy
they got when they could not find out who was attacking them in Vietnam?
An elephant in a porcelain store is a scary sight
for sure. But once you get over your initial
fear, you soon will realize that being a big bad
elephant makes it very difficult to make a smart
move. That is exactly the USA’s problem,
especially the US armed forces: they are so big
and confident that almost every move they make
lacks to sophisticated caution imposed by life on
a much weaker actor. This is why the almost
always end up breaking the store and looking
stupid. Add to this a quasi-total focus on the
short-term quickfix, and you get a recipe for disaster.
The two options for a Russian counter-attack
under the cover of plausible deniability are just
the two that came to my mind. In reality there
are many more, including many even much less
“visible” than those I have suggested. My main
goal was to illustrate that there is absolutely
no reason for the Russians to behave like Omar
Lamrani suggested in his frankly silly article.
The truth is that I have absolutely no idea how
the Russians might respond, and that is exactly
how it should be. All I am sure of is that they
won’t respond how Lamrani thinks they will, that’s all.
The wiser folks in the Pentagon and, apparently,
on the ground are trying hard to avoid getting
tangled up with the Russians not because they
fear some specific Russian response, but because
they are aware that they are dealing with an
unpredictable and sophisticated actor. The good
news is that the Russians are also trying hard to
avoid getting tangled up with the Americans,
especially so far away from home and smack in the
middle of a thoroughly CENTCOM/NATO-controlled part of the world.
In conclusion, I want to mention just a small
sampling of what I did not mention but which US
commanders will have to consider before deciding
on a direct attack on Russian forces: various
naval scenarios, especially those involving
diesel attack submarines, Russian options to
deploy into Iran, Russian retaliatory options in
other theaters such as Iraq, Pakistan and,
especially, Afghanistan. Here is a good one:
*real* Russian cracking (“hacking” is the wrong
word) of crucial US computer networks, including
the release of possibly very embarrassing
information (think of it as “Wikileaks on
steroids”). Finally, if cornered, one possibly
option for Russia would be to draw US forces,
resources and energy away from Syria to some
other region truly critical to the USA. DPRK anybody?
The options are endless and the stakes very high.
In the dreamworld of Mr Lamrani it’s all simple
and easy. Which only goes to prove, yet again,
that war is far to serious a matter to entrusted to civilians.
The Saker
--
+44 (0)7786 952037
Twitter: @TonyGosling http://twitter.com/tonygosling
http://rt.com/op-edge/authors/tony-gosling/
http://groups.google.com/group/uk-911-truth
http://www.youtube.com/user/PublicEnquiry
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Diggers350/
http://cryptome.org/2014/06/video-report-axed-2.htm
http://www.reinvestigate911.org/
http://www.thisweek.org.uk/
http://www.911forum.org.uk/
http://groups.google.com/group/uk-911-truth
uk-911-truth+subscr...@googlegroups.com
"Capitalism is institutionalised bribery."
_________________
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.globalresearch.ca
www.public-interest.co.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/series/Bristol+Broadband+Co-operative
www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1407615751783.2051663.1274106225&l=90330c0ba5&type=1
<http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf>http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic
poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
<https://217.72.179.7/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/>https://217.72.179.7/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Fear not therefore: for there is nothing covered
that shall not be revealed; and nothing hid that
shall not be made known. What I tell you in
darkness, that speak ye in the light and what ye
hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. Matthew 10:26-27
Die Pride and Envie; Flesh, take the poor's advice.
Covetousnesse be gon: Come, Truth and Love arise.
Patience take the Crown; throw Anger out of dores:
Cast out Hypocrisie and Lust, which follows whores:
Then England sit in rest; Thy sorrows will have end;
Thy Sons will live in peace, and each will be a friend.
http://tinyurl.com/6ct7zh6
--
--
Please consider seriously the reason why these elite institutions are not discussed in the mainstream press despite the immense financial and political power they wield?
There are sick and evil occultists running the Western World. They are power mad lunatics like something from a kids cartoon with their fingers on the nuclear button! Armageddon is closer than you thought. Only God can save our souls from their clutches, at least that's my considered opinion - Tony
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"PEPIS" group. Please feel free to forward it to anyone who might be interested
particularly your political representatives, journalists and spiritual leaders/dudes.
To post to this group, send email to pepis@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pepis-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pepis?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PEPIS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to pepis+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.