The Preparatory Period
by J.R. Nyquist, May 1, 2020
Nuclear war … should not be thought of as a gigantic technical enterprise alone — as a launching of an enormous number of missiles with nuclear warheads…. Nuclear war is a … many-sided process, which … will involve economic, diplomatic and ideological forms of struggle. They will all serve the political aims of the war….
ON WAR AND ARMY, P. 12
The generals in Moscow and Beijing were educated under war-fighting principles antithetical to ours. Marxism-Leninism borrowed its military theory from Clausewitz; especially believing that “war is simply the continuation of politics by other means.” (Ibid, p.2) Though Americans will refuse to believe this, Russia’s strategists have long held that nuclear war is no exception to Clausewitz’s rule.
In The Philosophical Heritage of V.I. Lenin and Problems of Contemporary War, edited by Gen. Maj. A.S. Milovidov, we read on page 37 that American strategists are mistaken in their beliefs about nuclear war. The “overwhelming majority” of those who discount nuclear war as a continuation of policy are making a purely “subjective judgment.” This judgment, says Milovidov’s text, “expresses mere protest against nuclear war.”
Moscow’s generals, and Beijing’s generals, have long understood that nuclear weapons are asymmetric. Totalitarian society is adaptable to conditions of nuclear war. Bourgeois society is not. To the American mind, nuclear war makes no sense. Therefore, Americans do not take Russian strategists seriously when they write, “preparation and waging … [of nuclear war] must be regarded as the main task of the theory of military strategy and strategic leadership.” (See the Harriet Fast Scott trans. of Soviet Military Strategy, p. 195.) Denying that Russian and Chinese strategists are serious, American strategists think in terms of deterrence. Once deterrence fails, America has no strategy. Being uniquely vulnerable, our thinking devolves into denial; that is, the denial of nuclear war, the denial that the enemy means what he says, and that adjustments must be made.
Naturally, the Russian and Chinese strategists agree it would be best to avoid a nuclear war. But the avoidance of war, for the communist bloc, has a completely different meaning than it does for the free world. For the communist, the only alternative to nuclear war is political and social convergence on communist terms. Such may be disguised under the auspices of “sustainable development,” by way of “climate change” treaties, or through trade. There is also the possibility of convergence by way of pandemic — through “global health governance” and the “managed” depopulation of entire regions (i.e., the United States). The present Chinese communist pandemic may be exactly such a device — to accelerate “convergence.” It may also be a nuclear war precursor, deployed to divert and disrupt target societies in advance of the mass use of nuclear rockets. Of course, a pandemic may serve both functions. If the free world does not embrace China’s plan for global health governance, Moscow and Beijing lose nothing. In that event, the turn to war could be seamless, the "maskirovka" (Russian for military deception or surprise attack) undetected.
Given the central role the Chinese have given to biological attack (as described by Defense Minister Chi Haotian), the communist bloc would have long ago targeted, for infiltration and subversion, the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control. America’s engagement with China would provide an even more powerful opening for attack; namely, the American pharmaceutical industry — current bedfellows of China’s military-industrial-medical complex, providing medical ingredients and vaccine-related “precursor” elements (opening a path for binary biological/chemical attack, combining medicines and/or vaccines with a viral weapon, enhancing the lethality of each vector by combination.)
If the West should balk convergence, drawing back from mandatory vaccinations and medical martial law, full-on nuclear war may follow. Sabotage, in this context, is not an imaginary activity of the Chinese and Russian special services. It is one of their specialties, designed for the “preparatory period” in advance of nuclear strikes. The presence of Russian and Chinese agents in our government pose a special danger during this period. The enemy’s operations in Washington, evident in the recent impeachment fracas, are as yet unchecked. In all probability, their attack on the country’s institutions will intensify. Perhaps the most devastating sign of impending attack will be news that hundreds of officials, generals and legislators are in the pay of the enemy. According to GRU defector Vladimir Rezun, the Russian special services will betray all their high-level agents on the eve of the war — to sow a maximum of distrust and confusion. They will also prepare false allegations against innocent persons — a prewar tactic underway since 2016.
What inclines to the suspicion we are now in the “preparatory period,” is the disappearance of various communist leaders. Vladimir Putin fired his government in January, immediately before the pandemic hit China. Yet the fired Russian prime minister, Dmitri Medvedev, retained his position on the Russian security council. The Russian cabinet vanished (with sparkly nobodies in their place). And now Putin has disappeared as well.
The communist leaders of Nicaragua and Venezuela have also vanished from view. If this is not a strange coincidence, consider the case of Kim Jong-un of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — missing for more than two weeks. Meanwhile, intelligence sources in Asia report that top Chinese leaders are bunkered somewhere in northwest China.
I quote from an Asian source as follows: In Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, “our intelligence organs can confirm: … key leaders … [party and military] have been hiding alternately.” The Asian source adds that China and Russia are studying the West’s reaction to the virus, preparing for “their next moves in more aggressive coordination towards the final phase of thunderous war….” The timing, says the source, will be sudden.
According to Marshal of the Soviet Union K. Moskalenko, writing in Voyennaya mysl’ (January 1969), “The employment of qualitatively new weapons … will create conditions in a future war for the achievement of results in its beginning period which cannot compare with the results of … the past war. The first nuclear strike can immediately lead to the disorganization of the government, military control, and the whole rear area of a country and to stopping the systematic deployment of the armed forces and all measures being conducted for mobilization. All of this will have a telling effect….”
The present situation is not one of peace. When countries of the East Bloc maintain strict secrecy, prohibiting investigations and inquiries, hiding their leaders in remote locations, we ought to set all naive assumptions aside. We have been under intensive ideological attack for many years. Advanced methods of psychological warfare have been deployed against our institutions. Our media has been subverted and used against us. But we elected Donald Trump anyway, and Trump defied the mechanisms of convergence. He balked the communist plan.
So here we are.