This article was published originally on June 9, 2016. But its time again to focus on these issues. The risk of war with Russia grows daily. Most experts say that if Hillary wins, war with Russia is inevitable. However clumsy Donald Trump is, it will take wisdom that looks past his flaws to make our decision on who will be the next president based on the consequences of the election, not the character of either candidate, because both deserve criticism. Indeed, neither are role models. But their policies are very different. In the end, we must concentrate on the most vital policies they will enact vs. personal traits we admire or hate. Whoever wins remember: there will be immediate consequences.
NUCLEAR WAR WITH RUSSIA: THE RISK IS REAL FOR LOTS OF REASONS
The Bible Tells Us the United States Will be Destroyed.
This week I’ve posted two blogs that have had a tremendous reaction boosting average daily views by 600% (thanks mostly to being noticed on Steve Quayle’s News Website). Many of the comments don’t understand why there would be a threat today. We have been so focused on ISIS and the fact that Russia has been more effective than our own military in diminishing the IS Caliphate, it seems silly to contemplate that Russia could represent a threat.
This is despite the fact that most of our Pentagon leadership has been testifying before Congress that ISIS is a threat but its meager compared to the existential threat posed by Russia. I’ve written extensively about why this threat exists and why I believe that the Bible prophesies that the United States (who I believe is the “daughter of Babylon” written about by Jeremiah and Isaiah) will be destroyed and its land made desolate for generations. The description is not talking about an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse effect from a nuclear explosion in the atmosphere), but about bombs that devastate the land and desolate its ability to sustain life. Jeremiah says in chapter 50:
For out of the north there cometh up a nation against her, which shall make her land desolate, and none shall dwell therein: they shall remove, they shall depart, both man and beast. (verse 3)
For, lo, I will raise and cause to come up against Babylon an assembly of great nations from the north country: and they shall set themselves in array against her; from thence she shall be taken: their arrows [missiles?] shall be as of a mighty expert man; none shall return in vain. (verse 9)
Because of the wrath of the Lord it shall not be inhabited, but it shall be wholly desolate: every one that goeth by Babylon shall be astonished, and hiss at all her plagues. Put yourselves in array against Babylon round about: all ye that bend the bow, shoot at her, spare no arrows: for she hath sinned against the Lord. (verses 13-14).
A sound of battle is in the land, and of great destruction. How is the hammer of the whole earth cut asunder and broken! how is Babylon become a desolation among the nations! (verse 22-23)
Of course, Babylon on the Euphrates has been conquered on several occasions (the famous conquest by the Medes-Persians when “the handwriting was on the wall”), but after Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, it never was destroyed by any attacker. It existed for hundreds of years and finally was taken apart, brick by brick, for building materials and eventually buried in the dust of Iraq. To fulfill Bible prophecy, either Babylon must be rebuilt and become “the hammer of the whole earth” (which might take half-a-century to accomplish), or the prophet references Babylon, the land of Chaldea, and the daughter of Babylon as metaphors (just as Ezekiel uses the King of Tyre and the Merchants of Tarshish as metaphors for future nations). That is the position of many authors like myself who believe that the U.S. will fulfill these prophecies in the years just ahead and is threatened by a nuclear attack “from nations from the north” with arrows that will hit their targets with 100% accuracy and “none shall return in vain”. Authors like John Price, Patrick Heron, Rob Skiba, J.R. Church, R.A. Coombs, Frank Logsdon, Noah Hutchings, Dr. Stanley Montieth, Tom Horn, and co-authors Douglas W. Krieger and Dene McGriff – all support this position. Recently, many others have published books including a fine study by Allen Bonck entitled, The Daughter of Babylon.
Nuclear Weapons in the Diatribe between East and West?
The first reason such bluster has begun again after a 50-year hiatus, is that Europe, by itself, can muster little more than a brave face when confronting Russian aggression. Europe acts as 28 independent states. The revived Roman Empire—a United States of Europe predicted by traditional eschatological writers—has failed to materialize. Iconic eschatology writers like Hal Lindsay, Tim LaHaye, and the late Grant Jeffrey speculated for decades that Europe would unite and become the final and ultimate world power, creating the platform for the evil empire predicted in Revelation 13. A one-world government would soon follow headed by “the man of lawlessness” aka the Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12).
However, the most recent provocation by Russia in Crimea and the Ukraine demonstrates just how far Europe remains from a unified position, even when threatened with truly existential developments. In March, a EU spokesperson lamented how difficult it is to get consensus among the European states. Andrew Rettman from the EUObserver (March 16, 2015) noted the words of Donald Tusk, EU Council, who stated, “a common policy of 28 member states doesn’t exist. We have 28 different foreign policies.”
So far as it concerns Ukraine, Europe has agreed to nothing more than approving economic sanctions. Essentially, sanctions are all that Europe can do. (Europe must still rely heavily on the United States to defend its interests and protect its borders.) Despite much mention in the U.S. Press, these sanctions are having such an economic impact on Russia that they constitute a key reason talk of nuclear weapons has once again been heard from Moscow. Remember, the U.S. oil embargo against Japan drove it to declare war on the United States and attack Pearl Harbor.
Western commentators that do opine suggest Putin’s words are for internal consumption only—meaning that the Russian state doesn’t intend to make good on its threat. For them, Putin seeks to create unity within his country through jingoistic language, deflecting the economic hardships the Russian people now face with a collapsing Ruble and dropping oil and natural gas revenues. The real question remains, however, whether experts are too quick to dismiss Putin’s rhetoric. In other words, does Putin really need to strengthen his political position by talking tough? Or is another more sinister plan coming to into focus?
CLICK HERE TO VIEW A SHORT VIDEO ON THE RUSSIAN SUBMARINE – SEVERODVINSK (2.5 minute report of its christening from RT Televsion)
For the most part, Putin appears popular with the Russian people. During his time in office, he has staged a remarkable comeback for the once proud people. Other experts in Russia less likely to trivialize the current situation suggest we should take Putin at his word. Journalist Bennetts quotes Sergey Markov, a Russian political strategist, who underscores that Putin’s threats are not to be taken lightly:
This threat of nuclear war should be taken seriously. In Russia, we believe that Ukraine has been occupied by the U.S. And that this occupation is not about democracy, or even money, but that it is the first step in a war against Russia. The U.S. is seeking to undermine our sovereignty, neutralize our nuclear potential, and steal our oil and gas. Under these circumstances, the danger of nuclear confrontation is very real.
Still, the so-called experts in a “neutral” position doubt that Putin’s comments are sincere. Andrew Rettman reports on the counter-point casting doubt on the veracity of Putin’s threat:
Military analysts, such as Pavel Podvig of the UN’s Institute for Disarmament Research in Geneva and Igor Sutyagin, from the Rusi think tank in London, previously told EUobserver the nuclear bluff is not credible. They noted the most likely scenario is that Putin could fire a small-scale, or “tactical”, nuclear weapon against a remote island to cause fear if he felt threatened by NATO.
And yet, the lessons of history suggest that aggressors with substantial military capability, once they perceive that they have a significant tactical advantage, do back up their words with deeds. Before World War I, few experts believed that war would result from the bombastic speeches delivered by the crown heads in Europe. After all, almost all these monarchs were first cousins. Why would they war against one another? But war they did. World War I wound up being not “the war to make the world save for democracy.” Instead, “the Great War” sped the rise of communism throughout Europe and pre-Soviet Union Russia. The Bolsheviks assassinated the Czar and his family leading to the 1917 Revolution. (A weak provisional government eventually gave way to the formation of the Soviet Union in 1922).
Likewise, after World War I, Germany was turned upside down with large parades of workers “taking it to the streets.” Communists fought vehemently against the newly formed Fascist party known as National Socialism, more commonly referred to as the Nazi Party. If not for the powerful speeches of Adolf Hitler and the malicious tactics of his Brown Shirts beating up “those Jewish communists” nightly in the streets of Germany’s major cities, Communism would have won out there as it did in Russia. Thereafter, few European monarchs felt secure. The world had forever changed.[i]
What is Driving Russia Toward the Use of Nuclear Weapons?
The second reason these rivals resort to dramatic measures, including the threat of using nuclear weapons, is the military importance of the geography in question. Russia argues that the West has effectively taken over territory that historically has belonged to Russia. But the real issue has to do with ensuring a strong defensive position. Crimea happens to be the location of Russia’s largest submarine base near the city of Sevastopol,[ii] which enables Russia to dominate the Black Sea on its southern flank. The Black Sea remains vital to Russian security.
About one year ago (May 30, 2015), a minor confrontation between the two transpired there:
MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russian military aircraft were scrambled to head off a U.S. warship that was acting “aggressively” in the Black Sea, state news agency RIA reported on Saturday, citing an anonymous source in Russia’s armed forces in Crimea. The source was quoted as saying that the U.S. destroyer Ross was moving along the edge of Russia’s territorial waters and heading in their direction.
“The crew of the ship acted provocatively and aggressively, which concerned the operators of monitoring stations and ships of the Black Sea Fleet,” RIA quoted the source as saying.
“Su-24 attack aircraft demonstrated to the American crew readiness to harshly prevent a violation of the frontier and to defend the interests of the country.”
Russia’s Defense Ministry was not immediately available to comment on the report.
The incident is the latest example of encounters between Russian and Western militaries, as tensions continue over the crisis in Ukraine and Russia’s annexation of the Crimea peninsula, home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, last year.
Earlier this month both Britain and Sweden said that they had scrambled fighters to intercept Russian bombers near their territory.[iii]
Remember that Russia has been the subject of catastrophic wars of German and Japanese aggression several times over the past 100 years. Consequently, Russia does not trust its neighbors. Additionally, Russia resents our ideology, which sees Russia as the enemy of America’s “God-given directive to sponsor democracy throughout the world.” As Americans, we believe our victory confirmed, “God was on our side and our cause proven righteous.” But were our motives noble?
Plus, Russians contend the U.S. underappreciates the sacrifice Russia made to help win WWII. Americans are taught that our country was the primary reason the Allies won World War I and II. But didn’t the Russians sacrifice way more than the Americans? (Answer: Yes, estimates are than the Russians has 27 million dead. The U.S. suffered 419,000 deaths altogether in both Atlantic and Pacific theaters). (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties).
Regarding our ideology: Woodrow Wilson argued in 1917 that the U.S. should enter the European theater to war against Germany (one year after he won the Presidential campaign on the platform of neutrality) because it would be the “war to end all wars” and would “make the world safe for democracy.” In reality, America had financed the Allied war effort to such an extent that it couldn’t afford to allow Germany to win the war. It would hit our economy hard. [Wars are almost always fought for economic reasons. Those that argue they are fought for religious reasons fail to understand that religion is often cited to justify military action or terrorism, but the deeper reason is economic advantage gained or lost, or reaction to that economically motivated action, i.e., retaliation].
Perhaps less obvious: our successful participation in WWI immediately elevated America to the top of the stack—we
would take England’s place as the dominant world empire. In short, the success and size of the American military in WWI commenced the “American Century.” This was so despite the fact that the U.S. dramatically reduced its army after WWI to a small fraction of its former size.
When WWII began, America had a standing army of only a few hundred thousand. After WWII, the U.S. possessed a standing army of five million. At war’s end, America had become the only true superpower long before it was acknowledged as such.
As I have documented elsewhere, this status was due in part to America being the primary financier of Allied efforts in both World War I and II [iv] and the primary banker to Germany after both wars. In effect, Europe had nearly destroyed itself through these two massive wars enabled by American lending. Europe’s destruction left America the king of the mountain. Russia acquired eastern European “buffer states” (like Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and the Baltic countries, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia), but these countries were decimated and would require many years to rebuild. Instead of being the Lebensraum (living space) Hitler coveted, these lands became the buffer for Russia to distance itself from would-be invaders. It also became a “cross-continent” force destined to foment communism globally.
In a wonderful series of articles published by The Telegraph which address WWI, insights related to this matter are smartly presented:
By its entry, America changed the course of the war. It did not, though, achieve its war aims. Wilson had talked about making the world “safe for democracy” and envisioned a post-conflict international landscape bathed in the light of reason and harmony. Instead, in Russia, autocracy was replaced by the dictatorship of the proletariat and everywhere in Europe saw the rise of fiercely nationalistic and anti-democratic parties.
As a result of the First World War, the world was presented with two completely contrasting models of how society might be ordered. One promoted materialism and personal liberty, the other collectivism and the virtue of the mass over the individual. The struggle between the competing ideologies would last for much of the rest of the century, being laid aside for a few years only when self-interest demanded that the US and the USSR joined forces against Nazism and Fascism.
Their shared victory only sharpened the rivalry, giving birth to a Cold War whose effects were felt all over the globe and linger today.[v]
As to World War II, U.S. losses (as mentioned above) were 419,000 military deaths with only 12,000 civilian losses (in the form of U.S. Merchant Marine sailors). Soviet losses have been estimated at 13
million in the military and perhaps as many as 20 million civilian deaths due to starvation, war crimes, and the “collateral damage” of combat. [vi]
In essence, major wars have devastated Russia for over a century and it remains understandably suspicious regarding Western intentions.
Max Fisher from Vox.com has this to say about Russia’s residual existential fear so pervasive among its intellectuals and politicians:
When you speak to influential people across institutions and the political spectrum in Russia… the story you hear over and over is one of Russia’s fundamental weaknesses. And you hear a preoccupation with the United States that goes far beyond what even many Americans, who are famously narcissistic about our country, would expect.
In this telling, Moscow capitulated at the end of the Cold War, and even tried to make itself a friend to the far more powerful United States. But an irrationally aggressive America has instead sought repeatedly to weaken, control, or even destroy Russia. Their country, in this view, is insecure against an overwhelmingly powerful West. Its actions that we see as aggressive are actually defensive. And Moscow is kept safe only by careful vigilance and by the nuclear arsenal that you hear Russians cite over and over.
This is the version of history you hear in Russia from detached foreign policy pragmatists, from pro-Putin ideologues and anti-Putin ideologues, even from members of the pro-Western political opposition who support what they believe be to a Western agenda of weakening Russia.[vii] [Emphasis mine]
Even after the time of Mikhail Gorbachev (“evicted” from leadership of the Russian empire when the Soviet Union fell), his policy of Glasnost (openness) has had a lasting effect of “freer” speech (not perfect but better) and broader support for Russian nationalism amidst the people. During the days of the Soviet Union, the media was controlled by the State far more than it appears today. In the 21st century, nationalism flows as much from the bottom up as it does from the top down. Furthermore, the people esteem Putin “liberating” Russia from the much-hated “oligarchs” who dominated the Russian economy for over a decade (during the time of Boris Yeltsin). The net result: If Putin called for war against the West, the Russian people likely would support him.
I will continue to post information pertinent to this subject. It is time for Americans to wake up and clamor our representatives to focus on this topic. It is time for Americans to repent and seek God, that our fate might be deferred. Otherwise, we will fulfill these prophecies and we will be no more.
This post was drawn from my book, IS RUSSIA DESTINED TO NUKE THE U.S.? It is available this week, on sale for Kindle at $3.75 (Paperback is $9.95). My more recent book, THE NEXT GREAT WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST is also on sale, again for Kindle at $7.55. Amazon is selling this book (print version) at a nice discount off the cover price of $19.95 (their price is $17.79).
[i] After World War I, the power players changed from monarchs to magnates. This new “power elite” were the corporate oligarchs and the financers who supported them, particularly in America. “New Money” and the New World took control and it has dominated ever since.
[ii] From Wikipedia: ‘Sevastopol has a population of 342,451, concentrated mostly near the Bay of Sevastopol and surrounding areas. The location and navigability of the city’s harbours have made Sevastopol a strategically important port and naval base throughout history. The city has been a home to the Russian Black Sea Fleet, which is why it was considered as a separate city in Crimea of significant military importance. Although relatively small at 864 square kilometres (334 sq mi), Sevastopol’s unique naval and maritime features provide the basis for a robust economy. The city enjoys mild winters and moderate warm summers; characteristics that help make it a popular seaside resort and tourist destination, mainly for visitors from the former Soviet republics.” See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol.
[iii] See May 30, 2015 article: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/05/30/uk-russia-usa-destroyer-idUKKBN0OF0PM20150530.
[iv] See my books, Power Quest, Volumes 1 and 2, for in depth discussions of how America’s bankers were only too happy to supply arms to both sides in these crucial world conflicts.
[v] See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/inside-first-world-war/part-nine/10801898/why-america-joined-first-world-war.html.
[vi] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties.
[vii] See online article from May 4, 2015 at http://www.vox.com/2015/5/4/8535963/russia-putin-america.