vineri, 9 octombrie 2015

How Islam is Psychologically Toxic - by Dr Michael Hurd

Reprinted with the permission of Dr Michael Hurd

New Research: How Islam is Psychologically Toxic

Some people object to even talking about “Muslims” or “Muslim culture” as a group, because doing so, they claim, deindividualizes and stereotypes them. “Stop making it about ‘us’ versus ‘them,’” a few readers of this column complain.
However, it’s an observed fact that Muslims, as a group, are responsible for nearly all of the organized, ideologically based violence in today’s world. As a movement, they are the ones who have set the terms of “us” versus “them.” Their organized movement faces little or no moderate opposition, from within, against the extremists who call for worldwide murder and/or enslavement of anyone who disagrees. Like it or not, that’s what we’re dealing with in the real world today.
If we wish to survive in life as we know it, we have to understand why this is. If we censor certain thoughts or ideas as politically incorrect or otherwise insensitive, and therefore outside the realm of intellectual consideration, then we run the risk of not understanding what we’re confronting, nor why we’re confronting it.
How rational is that? How “liberal,” enlightened or safe is that?
Consider the following, from “How Islam Creates Sociopaths” [ 10/4/15], an interesting study done by Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels:
Nobody is born a mass murderer, a rapist or a violent criminal. So what is it in the Muslim culture that influences their children in a way that makes so relatively many Muslims harm other people?
Kudos to Sennels for even asking the question. Because things have reached a point in our so-called quest for knowledge that certain questions might never be asked, much less explored.
The psychology field should be at the forefront of launching such an investigation into the social and psychological dynamics of Islam; instead, at and elsewhere, we’re greeted with diatribes against political candidate Ben Carson for suggesting that Islam might not be the best ideology for world peace. They call for diversity and multiculturalism, without any attempt to grasp what gives rise to all these beheadings, skyscraper-topplings, toddler-bomb-strappings, hostage-takings and everything else Islamic we have been reading about for decades now. Same old stale, unhelpful and anti-intellectual garbage.
To understand something, especially something involved in the creation of evil, is to risk offending it. Evil and irrational people are usually quite cranky. You risk offending Nazis by trying to understand what animates such an ideology. The same applies to Islam. If you don’t like this fact, then you’re due to get over it.
Sennels goes on:
As a psychologist in a Danish youth prison, I had a unique chance to study the mentality of Muslims. 70 percent of youth offenders in Denmark have a Muslim background. I was able to compare them with non-Muslim clients from the same age group with more or less the same social background. I came to the conclusion that Islam and Muslim culture have certain psychological mechanisms that harm people’s development and increase criminal behavior.
Word of caution: People are, in the end, determined by their thoughts and ideas. It’s thoughts and ideas that determine how people feel, act, and make choices, not their cultures.
Circumstances, including culture, are important, but not the final and determining factor. We’re all exposed to certain ideas via parents, family, schools, and other cultural institutions or media; it’s whether or why we accept those ideas, that counts.
Brainwashing people into believing or doing things against their own human nature — such as hating or even killing innocents they do not even know — is traditionally done by combining two things: pain and repetition. The conscious infliction of psychological and physical suffering breaks down the person’s resistance to the constantly repeated message.
Totalitarian regimes use this method to reform political dissidents. Armies in less civilized countries use it to create ruthless soldiers, and religious sects all over the world use it to fanaticize their followers.

This is key. Islam promotes and even requires the existence of totalitarian governments to enforce the ideology. The totalitarian government is part of the ideology. These governments are able to enforce rules at gunpoint.
Imagine a conservative Christian government controlling all media and personal behavior in America. You could be jailed or murdered for choosing to have an abortion, for using birth control, for having sex outside of marriage or for engaging in homosexual sex. That, and much more, is what Muslims are up against. Yet they are not total victims. While not all Muslims may support everything about their totalitarian governments, those totalitarian governments are based on the religion to which the vast majority of them subscribe. In a very real sense, they asked for it.
Muslim culture [Sennels continues] simply does not have the same degree of understanding of human development as in civilized societies, and physical pain and threats are therefore often the preferred tool to raise children. This is why so many Muslim girls grow up to accept violence in their marriages, and why Muslim boys grow up to learn that violence is acceptable. And it is the main reason why nine out of ten children removed from their parents by authorities in Copenhagen are from immigrant families. The Muslim tradition of using pain and intimidation as part of disciplining children is also widely used in Muslim schools — also in the West.
The basic issue here is reason. All parents must set limits on their children and keep them from running free or unrestrained. It’s a question of degree, but also of philosophy. If your basic approach is reason-oriented, you set limits on children so they will grow up into thinking, independent and self-responsible adults with minds of their own. Intellectual and psychological independence is the goal of reason-based parenting; indoctrination is the goal of dogmatic and authoritarian parenting, and there is nothing more dogmatic or authoritarian on earth, at present, than Islam.
According to this study, reason is obviously not the dominant idea in Islamic cultures. In fact, reason does not appear to be present at all. It’s not that Muslim parents are basically reason-oriented with conservative tendencies; it’s that brutality and force are all they know, or perhaps what they believe is ideal.
Given how most parents in such cultures treat and view their own children, what makes us think there’s any hope for them viewing the children of “infidels” in lands their religion has trained them to hate any more positively? Those people prattling on about, “Stop making it about us versus them,” are completely (and I think willfully) ignorant of the fact that the dominant majority of people in such cultures have already made it about “us versus them.”
If the totalitarian regimes ruling places like Iran did not have the support of most of the people, that would be one thing. Free countries would have the option of waiting out the dictatorship, and even providing underground support to pro-freedom elements who existed in that country. While such rebellious or even more secular elements undoubtedly exist in Iran, they have not been strong enough to overcome the totalitarian regime, most likely because the widespread support for them has not been there. Our own American government, particularly since the Obama administration, who actually sides with the totalitarian regime over and above any rebellious elements, is partly to blame as well.
Not only does a traditional Islamic upbringing resemble classical brainwashing methods, but also, the culture it generates cultivates psychological characteristics that further enable and increase violent behavior.
Starting with Islamic youth, Sennels boils it down to four mental factors enabling the cause of aggression and violence. These factors are anger;  lack of self-confidence;  no sense of responsibility for oneself; and  intolerance.
Anger and lack of self-responsibility are key. These two factors, in turn, fuel the lack of self-confidence and tolerance which follow in most Islamic cultures.
Take anger. Sennels makes a fascinating and insightful point:
When it comes to anger, Western societies widely agree that it is a sign of weakness. Uncontrolled explosions of this unpleasant feeling are maybe the fastest way of losing face, especially in Northern countries, and though angry people may be feared, they are never respected. In Muslim culture, anger is much more accepted, and being able to intimidate people is seen as strength and source of social status.
In other words, Islamic children grow up with the idea that anger is a show of strength. Most Americans come from the opposite perspective, as Sennels says. As a result, they mistakenly conclude that, “If we just show our strength by not being angry, this will calm the Muslims down.” This tactic will usually work when dealing with individuals or groups where the dominant attitude about anger is the same. But not with people in Islamic cultures, because the dominant attitudes in that group are that anger is strength, not weakness. When, for reasons of political correctness, moral cowardice, misplaced pacifism or whatever else, we respond to their violence with calm, rational “turn the other cheek” sorts of measures, they feel contempt and no respect whatsoever for us–thereby leading them to strike out more.
Consider self-responsibility. Sennels states,
…here the psychological phenomenon “locus of control” plays a major role. People raised by Western standards generally have an inner locus of control, meaning that they experience their lives as governed by inner factors, such as one’s own choices, world view, ways of handling emotions and situations, etc. Muslims are raised to experience their lives as being controlled from the outside.
It’s impossible to exaggerate what a profound difference such an attitude makes. That’s why Bush’s Iraq war was, in the end, such a miserable failure. We’re taking it for granted that all human beings think, act and feel the same way. “If we only liberate them, they will exercise self-initiative, thinking and acting for themselves.” Not everyone wants to do this, or even believes it’s an option.
With regard to Islam, these attitudes are the precise opposite of everything the religion and culture stands for. You’d have to be a total and complete turncoat against Islam to have any sympathy for such an ideal. Yet all of our leaders – left and right – take it for granted that eventually it will all work out. In the meantime, the violence and danger only grows, as ISIS spreads its influence.
Keep in mind that ISIS is not merely a military movement. It’s at root an ideological and psychological one. It appeals to the grass roots. ISIS exists and grows because it appeals to the hearts and minds of Muslim people everywhere. Its attitudes, ideals and values are the polar opposite of everything that have always been the dominant attitudes in America – self-control, self-responsibility, individualism. These values require freedom, not subservience.
When most Muslims are confronted with freedom, it makes them realize that what you’re really talking about are self-control, reason, independence and individualism. These frighten them on a level most of us will never comprehend. And, because of their cultural attitudes about violence, it sends them into a rage, as a show of strength against their own inner fear. ISIS stands ready and waiting, particularly with younger people, to convert that rage into political and military action on a scale that—left free to grow—could make Nazi Germany look like a day at the beach.
Keep in mind that at the root of most rage and hatred is the emotion of fear. People who have internalized the values and beliefs dominant in Islamic culture hate rationality, capitalism, Westernism and science precisely because they are effective. The very existence of our advanced, rational system of life rains on their whole mystical, deterministic and fatalistic world view. The result is fear, then rage, then militant action (because angry action is viewed as strength). That explains why advocates of Islam are not merely content to counterattack Americans for their presence in the Middle East; they are determined to go on the offensive, destroy America, and decimate all Western values, at all costs. That’s what Islamic totalitarianism is all about, according to every single word and action of its movement’s representatives.
I agree with people who say that in order to defeat an enemy like militant Islam, we first have to understand it. But the more we look honestly and objectively at what Islam is really about –in actual cultural practice, and in psychological characteristics, not only theoretical ideology—the more we’re forced to confront an ideology more at odds with any version of Americanism/freedom/secular individualism than has ever existed. As bad as Nazism and Communism were, militant Islam may be the ultimate and complete inversion of all that made America what it was, and (though starting to fade) still essentially is. They’re forcing us to come to terms with our values and ideals by attempting to systematically destroy them.
Like it or not, Islam is making it about “us” versus “them.” They’re forcing us to decide: Do you really want to live as happy, free, and always materially progressing on earth? Or do you want to denounce those values altogether?
You’re either with them or against them. That’s not me saying it; they are saying it. Those are the terms they have set, not those of us who disagree with them.
Remember that as events continue to play out in the months and years to come. Understand what you’re up against; otherwise it will devour you.
Be sure to “friend” Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael  Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interestAlso follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1

miercuri, 9 septembrie 2015

Asturias featuring Frank Hiemenz

Asturias guitar: Frank Hiemenz (@fhgitarre)

Ernest Renan (1823 - 1892), Sorbonne lecture: 

"Those liberals who defend Islam do not know Islam. Islam is the seamless union of the spiritual and the temporal, it is the reign of dogma, it is the heaviest chain mankind has ever borne. In the early Middle Ages, Islam tolerated philosophy, because it could not stop it. It could not stop it because it was as yet disorganized, and poorly armed for terror….But as soon as Islam had a mass of ardent believers at its disposal, it destroyed everything in its path. Religious terror and hypocrisy were the order of the day. Islam has been liberal when weak, and violent when strong. Let us not give it credit for what it was merely unable to suppress."

luni, 29 iunie 2015

Supreme Court Is NOT The Ultimate Arbiter Of The Constitution

Image credit:
It seems that the Supreme Court has forgotten that we are a Constitutional Republic--and that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, not Congress.

SCOTUS is NOT the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution; the STATES hold that power. How does it make any sense that one part of the federal government holds the authority to determine the power of the whole?
It makes no sense; and as a matter of fact, James Madison told us that in no uncertain terms:
“…that the ultimate right of the States, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another–by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.” Virginia Assembly Report 1800
However, that is exactly what has happened with Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in King v. Burwell. It seems that the Supreme Court has forgotten that we are a Constitutional Republic–and that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, not Congress. Interestingly, all you need to know about the King v. Burwelldecision is contained in the second-to-last paragraph of the majority opinion. Consider these words:
In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.”  (emphasis mine)
IF we were a democracy, as Roberts is asserting, this opinion would be absolutely correct–Obamacare would result from an absolutely lawful use of federal power, and we would have no real argument to make. However, we are NOT a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. In a Constitutional Republic, the Legislature is NOT unlimited in its power and authority. Article 6, clause 2, The Supremacy Clause, makes it perfectly clear that there is a hierarchy to the federal system and that the Legislature is NOT on top; the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”

When Roberts says, “But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done,” he is asserting that whenever the Legislature makes a law, we are bound by it without question. Nothing could be further from the truth. According to the Supremacy Clause, we have an obligation to undo what Congress has done if what they are doing is not “made in pursuance” to the Constitution.
Additionally, if the “Laws of the United States” are not made in pursuance to the Constitution, then they cannot legally exist. To allow Legislative Acts contrary to the Constitution to remain law would elevate the Congress ABOVE the Constitution, destroying the Constitution itself and transmuting the nature of our Republic into an Oligarchy.
There is no specific enumeration in the Constitution for the federal government to provide healthcare to the States or the people. There is only errant interpretation of clauses to justify such an exercise of power.
Because there is no specific enumeration for healthcare, the Tenth Amendment makes it very clear that healthcare is not a power to be exercised by the federal government.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (emphasis mine)

But what does Roberts use to justify this federal encroachment? Not a clause from the Constitution, but an opinion by the Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison. How convenient that the Supreme Court can write opinions that declare themselves the ultimate rulers of the universe and then be allowed to credibly use those opinions to justify their emperor-like behavior! Ironically, the most important role of the Supreme Court is to make sure that the Congress acts within its Constitutional limitations. But since it is ridiculous to believe that any entity of power would act on its own to limit itself, our framers didn’t trust these federal employees with that task. They trusted the States.
Madison declares in 1789 that the STATES are to be the ultimate control against the expansion of federal power, the greatest opponents to the federal government necessary to preserve the Liberty of the people:
“The State legislatures will…be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a federal government admit the state legislatures to be sure guardians of the people’s liberty.” House of Representatives 1789 (emphasis mine)
But, when the States REFUSE to live up to their obligations and allow any branch of the federal government to expand power and limit the people and the States, they are simply declaring that they believe we are not a Constitutional Republic, but instead a Federal Kingdom built of 50 colonies subject to the whim of the feds.
Justice Roberts told the States in the original PPAC opinion:
“We look to the States to defend the their prerogatives by adopting the simple expedient of not yielding to federal blandishments when they do not want to embrace federal policies as their own. The States areSEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGNS. Sometimes they have to act like it.” (emphasis mine)
We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic, where the federal government is limited by specifically enumerated powers. It is time for the States to ACT like States, instead of cowering like colonies. It is time for the States to fulfill their obligation to be the SURE GUARDIANS OF THE PEOPLES’ LIBERTIES.
It is time to dethrone the Supreme Court. It is time to STAND for the Constitutional Republic and defy this theft of State Power and destruction of the Constitution.
Healthcare is NOT a specifically enumerated power delegated to the federal government. The exercise of that power is therefore contrary to the Constitution. According to the Supremacy Clause, any law by Congress that is not made in pursuance to the Constitution is NOT the law of the land. That makes the law null-and-void of any force. Since the Affordable Care Act is NO LAW AT ALL, when we REFUSE TO COMPLY we are not breaking the law…we are enforcing the Supreme Law of the Land, defending our Republic, and guarding our Liberty!
There is no intellectually honest way to distinguish the reasoning on gay marriage from, say, reasoning used to support polygamy.

RUSH: That Supreme Court decision that Kennedy wrote is basically all about self-esteem and dignity. That's why Scalia openly wrote, he would be embarrassed to...

joi, 19 martie 2015

Russia depends on Ukraine to be able to fulfill it's military aspirations

Russia depends on Ukraine to be able to fulfill it's military aspirations

This article is submitted to the Ukraine@war blog by a co-author who prefers to remain anonymous. It has been edited for readability only. As you will see there is a lot of detailed information. Some essential parts have been highlighted to be able to quickly scan through the document. One might at least want to read the conclusions...


The top-level analysis of Russia's motivations to intervene in Ukrainian affairs is provided in [1]. Currently there is almost a consensus on the matter by now, namely pointing at:
  1. the imperial aspirations of the Russian federation and Vladimir Putin,
  2. the need to protect Russian-speaking compatriots, 
  3. fear of NATO expansion into Ukraine, which will give Russia an extra 2.000 kms of border with NATO.

Imperial aspirations
The imperial inspirations of Vladimir Putin are driven by the internal Russian forces, which are worth a separate analysis (but not given here).

Protecting Russian-speakers
As of the Russian-speaking compatriots, the realities are somewhat different. The real divide in Ukraine is between people who associate themselves with Ukrainian historic and cultural tradition, and the ones who associate with Russian or Soviet one, regardless of the spoken language [2]. 

NATO expansion
Concerns about NATO expansion also has a different background. Russia already has a common border with NATO, in the Baltic states, where NATO is 200-300 kilometers away from vital Russian centers, and at the far north. We believe that the real source of the Russia's concern is that while it has sufficient resources to effectively counter the military threat from the border with the Baltic states and Norway, it has no economic and military resources to adequately address such a threat if it will be coming from an additional 2.000 kms long common border with Ukraine

Consider that Russia has 60.900 kms of border to protect, a 144 million population and $2,6 trillion GDP. Maintaining the armed forces which can guarantee national security in such situation is beyond Russia's demographic and economic capabilities, unless it surrounds itself with buffer states like Belarus or Kazakhstan.

Some myths busted

Myth 1: Russian army is sufficient to serve it's imperial ambitions 
Russian conventional armed forces are also insufficient to serve the needs of its expansion using military force. At the height of the confrontation in Ukraine Russia had to pull troops from the places as remote as Norwegian border of Novosibirsk to form the strike force, and still could not expect for “blitzkrieg” against Ukraine. This military aspect of the balance of power is almost completely overlooked by the expert community, which tends to believe that Russia cannot be defeated on the ground. 

Myth 2: Ukraine is dependent on the Russian market
Another myth which needs to be addressed is the story of critical dependence of Ukraine on the Russian market. Russia accounts for 29,6% of Ukraine's external trade, including 27,9% of export, and 31,1% of import by Ukraine. From the standpoint of the trade balance (according to Russian Ministry of Economic Development), 65% of Russian export to Ukraine are mineral resources, predominantly natural gas; 11,3% are machinery, tools, and transportation vehicles, 8% are chemicals, and 6,9% are products of metallurgy. Ukrainian export to Russia includes: machinery – 39,2%, products of metallurgy 21,3%, food products – 11,4%, chemicals 10,8%, and mineral products 7,6%.
Ukraine has negative trade balance with Russia because of the import of natural gas, but still remains the principal “tool shop” for Russian industry, including its military sector. Russia still remains supplier of raw materials and fossil fuels for Ukraine, as it was during the Soviet era.
If the gas imports is eliminated from the trade balance between two countries, Ukraine becomes big net exporter to Russia.

Myth 3: Ukraine cannot survive without gas from Russia
Meanwhile a successful experiment of operation of the Ukrainian trunk and distribution gas pipelines, which Ukraine was forced to do during the 2009 winter demonstrated that it is possible in principle for the Ukrainian economy to survive without importing natural gas from Russia. After 2009 Europe developed a series of gas pipeline interconnectors, which allow to maneuver natural gas supply inside EU, and gradually switch from Russian gas supply to receiving the necessary amounts of natural gas from Qatar, US, Norway, and UK. This system is connected to Ukrainian pipelines. As the conflict in the Eastern Ukraine unfolded Russia terminated gas supply to Ukraine (July 2014). Ukraine managed to negotiate replacement of 60% of Russian natural gas imports by the gas supply from the western direction already, without putting Russian gas supply to Europe at any risk.
This certainly could be done earlier, but gas trade between two countries was the most corrupt area of trade relations between Russia and Ukraine, with corruption revenues allegedly traveling to the very top of political establishment in Kyiv and in Moscow. In this regard the gas trade between Russia and Ukraine is a showcase of the devastating impact of corruption on the economy, with machinery (including military) products being the lead exported item. 

Myth 4: Russia is independent from Ukraine
Another factor which is overlooked as well is Russia's dependence on Ukraine in the fields of industry and selected mineral resources. If these dependencies would not be resolved, the Russian Empire Project becomes unrealistic.

How Russia tried to resolve its dependency on Ukraine

Russia tried to replace all Ukrainian components by Russian ones
After the disappearance of the USSR, the interdependence between Ukraine and Russia was very deep. In November 1993 the Russian Federation decided to break its dependence on Ukraine, first of all in the military-industrial complex. A correspondent Classified Decree was issued by Russian President Borys Yeltsyn, and echoed by the special government program of the Russian Federation. Following these decisions Russia gradually replaced all Ukrainian components which it could replace with Russian-made parts.
Then there were ups and downs in this program, but now, 21 years later, it is safe to say that, particularly in the military field, Russia buys from Ukraine only the components which it cannot manufacture in Russia. Nevertheless Ukrainian machinery still is the leading article of Ukrainian export to Russia, which amounts for over $300 mln per yearbanning the machinery import from Ukraine will inflict heavy damage on Russia, so Russian threats to do so are mostly a bluff.
From another hand, if Ukrainian companies will find buyers for their production outside Russia, and severe ties with (which is usually difficult) the Russian market, this will be a major blow for Russian defense industryAt this time Russian defense industry reached the point when it cannot replace Ukrainian partners at affordable cost and in a reasonable time

Russia tried to buy critical Ukrainian enterprises in 2013
Under such conditions during the 1st half of 2013 Russia came to conclusion that the optimal strategy would be to buy the Ukrainian enterprises which it cannot replace. On December 2-3, 2013, at the starting days of Ukrainian Revolution of Dignity, Russian Vice Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin embarked on a “shopping tour”, visiting several enterprises of Ukrainian East and South. The Rogozin's tour did not yield any result for two reasons: Russia wanted to get control of the enterprises which are banned from privatization by Ukrainian law, and also because of the change of the regime which followed in three months.

'Novorossiya' consists of the regions Russia depends upon most
After the Yanukovych regime collapsed, Russia came up with the concept of Novorossiya, wrapped up in artificial ideological justifications of 'common language' and 'historical tradition'. In realityNovorossiya (Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporizhya, Mykolaiv, Kherson, and Odessa regions) is the collection of the regions that house the most advanced Ukrainian industry assets, on which Russia depends.

For Russia the most effective way to address these problems now, is to establish its control over entire Ukraine, or at least over its most critical parts.

The following sections will provide the necessary details of Russia's dependence. 

Detailed Dependencies of Russia on Ukraine 

A. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

Russian conventional forces are deficient numbers- and technology-wise. At the same time Russian WMD are still massive; as a matter of fact Russia is the only state, which has nuclear deterrent capabilities that are compatible to the US.
To great extent this is due to the Russian (built in Ukraine and serviced by Ukrainian engineers) SS-18 missiles, which together can deliver 680 nuclear warheads to any part of the World, and overcome most of the existing missile defense systems.

Russia needs to replace it's Nuclear Missiles in ten years
These missiles are far beyond the initial manufacturer's warranty time, but so far the annual verification launches show no serious problems.
Nevertheless the first group of ten missiles is due for retirement in 2016, and remaining 58 will have to go out of service during 2021-2024.
Russia builds new solid propellant missiles SS-27 and SS-N-32, but it has to deal with the need to replace the earlier built SS-25 and SS-27, which have a warrantied service term of only 12 years. In order to replace the phased out SS-19, and SS-18 which are due for retirement during the next 10 years Russia has to build circa 250 new SS-27 in ten years, not including the replacement of the aging SS-25

Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile (SLMB)
The SLBM component of the Russian nuclear triad relies on Delta-IV in the north, and Delta-III (in Pacific) submarines. Pacific submarines are due for retirement, while the gap remains to be closed.
The emergence of the gap in the Russian navy component is in part due to the early phasing out of the giant Project 941 (Typhoon) submarines.
Scrapping these submarines was in part due to Russia's inability to manufacture SS-N-20 Sturgeon missiles, which used the Ukrainian-made first stage. The construction of the new generation of the submarines is going on schedule, but new SS-N-32 missile for them is not ready for deployment. When it will be ready, Russia will have to build 48 nuclear missiles at impossible schedule for already built vessels.
Meanwhile SS-N-32 and SS-27 are made by the same Votkinsk factory, which also builds Iskander (SS-26) missiles. Building this number of missiles is beyond its capabilities; expanding these capabilities faces quality control, financial, and human resources challenges.

Building a new ballistic missile
Under such conditions Russia accepted the idea of building the new heavy ballistic missile, which was proposed by NPO Makeyev in 2002. The project is funded since 2008, but it did not even come to first tests by now. The set target of acceptance of the new missile in service was 2016-2018, but it is already clear that it will not be met.
This means that in order to maintain the status of a nuclear superpower Russia must turn to using the capabilities of Ukrainian Youzhmash rocket factory, which manufactured the SS-18.

It is not a surprise that Russia reacted extremely nervously at the April 2014 rumors about the Ukrainian plans to sell technical documentation for SS-18. For the sensitive matter as it is, Russia needs full and reliable control of the Youzhmash factory, and of Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv regions (where the production is based).
Without such control in ten years Russia will have lost its parity to the US in the WMD field

Furthermore, Russia's plans of production of the new nuclear-capable cruise missiles Kh-101/102 also depends on Russia's ability to develop the alternative to Ukrainian-built engine, or to get the Ukrainian one.
These engines are built in Zaporizhya by Ukrainian Motor-Sich – Ivchenko company. 

B. Space Industry

Besides being the key component of the Russian nuclear deterrent, SS-18 missiles are also used commercially under the name Dnepr, jointly by Russia and Ukraine. Because of the optimal combination of performance, price, and reliability it became the principal workhorse for the booming small satellite industry.
Ukrainian Youzhnoye developed a multi-restart thrust engine for the rocket, and provides the 3rdstage of the rocket as well as the payload integration. Without Ukrainian participation Dnepr dominance at the small satellite market will be lost, delivering also a blow to the small satellite industry World-wide.

There is also a “negative” component for Russia in the absence of control over Youzhnoye. One can remember that at the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis, after the first round of the Western sanctions was rolled out, Russian Vice Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin jokingly stated that US will now have to use a trampoline for sending supply to the International Space Station (ISS). In a twisted way he was right: on July 13th 2014 the commercial cargo was delivered to ISS by the US rocked Antares-120, which used a Ukrainian-made “trampoline” - the 1st stage for Antares is made in Ukraine. 

The guidance control systems (GCS) for Russian workhorse space launch vehicle Soyuz, and main commercial space bread-winner launch vehicle Proton are manufactured by the Kharkiv Kommunarcompany, which also makes the GCS Ukrainian-Russian Zenit.
Russia may have residual capability to make some GCS sets in Moscow at the Academician Pilyugin Centre, which developed them, but the production rate in such case cannot match even the bare-bone needs of the Russian military.
Ukrainian-built and designed Zenit operates from the SeaLaunch floating platform, which is an engineering marvel and commercial disaster simultaneously. SeaLaunch is a subsidiary of the Russian flagship space company RSC Energya. The ownership of this corporation is not completely disclosed, but its 11-member Board has 3 members from the Leader management company. This company hasRossija-Bank as its biggest shareholder. Rossija-Bank was exposed to the Western sanctions, as the cornerstone of the financial operations of the close circle of Vladimir Putin. This means that the close circle of Vladimir Putin to some extent depends on the smooth supply of the key components from Ukraine. 

C. Nuclear Power Generation

On the side of the nuclear power generation Russia's dependency on Ukraine is not less critical. Currently Russia prides itself with the fact that 17% of the worlds nuclear power is generated by Russian-made reactors, mostly the VVER-1000.
At the same time the Russian nuclear power plants (NPP) which use the VVER-1000 also rely on the K-1000-60 turbine, which is built by the Ukrainian Turboatom in Kharkiv. Russia is capable to build turbines for power generation, but its own production capabilities are insufficient for serving the market, and the VVER-1000 units would have to be redesigned. 

Furthermore, Russian nuclear power generation faces imminent threat from Ukraine's program of cooperation with Westinghouse. Under the auspices of this program Westinghouse developed its own version of the fuel rods for VVER reactors. The testing of these rods was completed at a South Ukrainian NPP, and the first experimental stock of Westinghouse rods were delivered to Ukraine in 2014.
The successful operation of these rods means that starting 2015-2016 the procurement of the fuel rods to 10 Ukrainian VVER-1000 can be lost for Russia AND Westinghouse will be perfectly positioned to compete with Russian nuclear fuel concern TVEL for fuel supply to another 8-12 reactors in Bulgaria, Iran, China, Czech republic, and India.
See this article.

Westinghouse also established JV Westron with Ukrainian Khartron electronics company. Westronoffers control systems for NPPs, and already challenges Russian dominance in the control of the VVER-1000 segment of the nuclear power generation World-wide. 

All these expected developments are disturbing for the Russian nuclear power sector, and are far beyond the point where they could be addressed using just commercial instruments. Practically half of the Russia's nuclear fuel market will face a probable takeover by Westinghouse, plus Russia critically depends on Ukrainian materials. It has no time to develop the replacement capabilities for Ukrainian zirconium components, and doesn't have sufficient supply of Uranium.
Under such conditions the only way for Russia to secure stability of its nuclear power sector is to use military and/or political instruments to guarantee continued supply of Ukrainian materials and to prevent expansion of Westinghouse in Ukraine, and internationally within the “Russian” 17% of the nuclear power sector.
Naturally, this applies only if Russia don't want to cooperate with Ukraine in a good faith and as equal partner. Unfortunately such cooperation contradicts its imperial agenda. 

D. Conventional Weapons and Machinery Production

In total there are 250-280 Ukrainian companies which are suppliers for the Russian defenses and aerospace enterprises. Among these the most important are as follows. 

Kyiv Artem factory
In particular, Kyiv Artem factory is the manufacturer of the P-27 (АА-10 Alamo) air-to-air missiles, which are used by the Russian fighters Su-27, -33, and -34, MiG-29, and new bomber Su-35. Russia has no production of these missiles.

Kyiv Arsenal
The seeker heads for the operational Russian air-based missiles were manufactured by one of the oldest defense companies in ex-USSR (since 1764), Kyiv Arsenal

The interdependence in the field of transport and commercial aviation between Russia and Ukraine is particularly close. Ukrainian-designed super heavy cargo transporters An-124 were built in Russia, and still uses Ukrainian-made engines. The restoration of the production of An-124 is one of the key elements of the Russian 2020 defense program, while technical documentation, design documents, know-how and engines are all Ukrainian. The newest regional jet An-148 is manufactured in parallel in Russia and in Ukraine, also with reliance on Ukrainian documentation and power plant. Russia also developed the regional jet Sukhoi Super Jet Su-100. One of the key elements of the Super Jet design was the requirement to build the airplane which will not be using Ukrainian components. Following several years of efforts Sukhoi ended up buying the replacement components and systems from the West. According to Russian estimates, the cost of the imported components now is ~55% of the cost of the airplane; this ratio is a good yardstick to measure the degree of dependence of the Russian aviation industry on Ukrainian supply. 

Zaporizhya Motor-Sich
The design and production of the turboprop, turbofan, turboprop fan, and turbo shaft engines for Russian IL-38; Be-12, -132, -200; Tu-334; and all Antonov airplanes (including An-124 and An-225 giant cargo transporters) which are operated by Russia is concentrated at Zaporizhya Motor-Sichcompany.
Importantly, it also manufactures engines for all Russian helicopters, military and civilian, including the newest Mi-28H and Ka-51- and -52. Russia regularly states that it is about to break its dependence from Motor-Sich in two years, repeating this mantra since 1993.

Additionally, Motor-Sich makes gas power drivers for gas pumping turbines for Russian gas pipelines, gas preparation facilities, gas pumping units, and wind power turbines

Mykolaiv Zarya-Mashproekt
Another critical turbine designer and manufacturer is Mykolaiv Zarya-Mashproekt, which makes gas turbines for navy vessels (up to 6.000 deadweight destroyers), and retained the ability to build gas turbine engines for cruisers.
It also manufactures power plant for Russian landing hovercrafts Zubr, and for hydrofoil vessels. Russia plans to replace import of the navy turbines from Ukraine by 2018, but it is yet to be seen how it will manage to do so under the international sanctions.

So far the new series of Russian frigates Project 22350, which are built by Kalinungrad Yantarshipyard rely on procurement of gas turbines from Mykolaiv, and prospective designs of the Russian navy vessels account for the possibility of using Ukrainian gas turbines.
Zarya is also the leading supplier of the compressors for the Russian gas pipelines

Kyiv Petrovsky Automation Plant 
Dependence of the Russian navy on Ukrainian components also includes supply of gyroscope based control and navigation systems for main operational types of Russian torpedoes, and navigation equipment for Russian submarines; these are made in Kyiv at Petrovsky Automation Plant.
Russia's own production of gyroscopes was mostly lost during the 90s. Russian manufacturer of the subsea weapons Dvigatel from St. Petersburg is the main customer of the Petrovsky's production; in 2013 81% of the company's revenue came from export to Russia. 

Naval shipyards in Mykolayiv, Kherson (and Crimea)
It has to be noted also that Russian imperial ambitions require it to rebuild blue-water navy, which was mostly lost during the 90s.
Current Russian surface navy includes one aircraft carrier, one Kirov-class battlecruiser cruiser, 3 Slava class cruisers, and destroyers. The resources of the Russian navy are insufficient even to effectively control the entirety of the Russian economic zone. As Russian oil and gas production moves north and east due to exhaustion of the developed deposits Russia also need to grow its tanker fleet, building ice-class tankers and icebreakers. Combined needs of the Russian oil and gas industry, and of the Russian navy, especially for the large dead-weight vessels by far exceed the capacity of the Russian shipyards. Situation is so pressing that Russia had to turn to buying the amphibious assault ships from France, for the first time in a hundred years. The root of the problem is that the Soviet shipyards which have built aircraft carriers, Slava-class cruisers, and number of other blue water navy vessels were located in Ukrainian Mykolayiv, Kherson, and in Crimea. Russia needs to use the capacity of Ukrainian shipyards if it wants to restore its blue water navy

Snizhne Turbine Blades factory
There are also scattered numerous suppliers of small, but mission-critical and sophisticated components for the most advanced machinery products of Russia; for instance the Snizhne Turbine Blades factory (on the occupied territory) holds monopoly position in supply of turbine blades for aviation engines.

Lviv Lorta company
Lviv Lorta company provides electronics service stations for Russian surface-to-air SAMs S-300.

Sumy PJSC Sumy Frunze NPO
There are also selected enterprises which don't have defense and aerospace as the main field of cooperation with Russia. For instance, Sumy PJSC Sumy Frunze NPO is provider of the special pumping equipment for VVER reactors; pressure vessels, exchangers, and columns for chemical production; compressors for Russian oil and gas industry, etc.

Kramatorsk NKMZ
Kramatorsk (recently re-taken by Ukrainian side) NKMZ is unique for ex-USSR provider of heavy machinery for mining, metallurgy, ore processing, pipelines, and shipbuilding.

Mariupol (re-taken by Ukrainian side in May of 2014) AZOVMASH is ex-USSR leading provider of the heavy steel-making equipment, heavy gantry cranes, containers for radioactive wastes, and variety of other heavy machinery. 

E. Raw and Special Materials

Russian corporation AVISMA controls 30% of the World titanium market, and works mainly for export. Consumers of the company are Boeing, EADS, Embraer, UTAS, Messier- Bugatti- Dowty, Rolls-Royce plc, Safran SA, Pratt & Whitney; in Russia – Sukhoi fighter manufacturer, and Perm Motors.
Without titanium products of AVISMA Russian aerospace industry will come to a stand still, and the World aerospace will have problems as well.

Meanwhile 100% of titanium ore comes to AVISMA from Irshansk and Volnogorsk mines in Ukraine. These mines were recently transferred under control of Ukrainian PRIVAT Group, which is controlled by Ukrainian billionaires Kolomoisky and Bogolubov. There is a politically-motivated criminal case in Russia against Kolomoisky; he has no reason to supply titanium ore to Russia, while being capable to find international customers.
Scale of the disaster for the Russian defense industry, aerospace, shipbuilding and motors production following termination of Ukrainian ore supply is difficult to access. 

AVISMA claimed in September that they accumulated 8 months of reserves. Probably there are less, and countdown started in August. AVISMA can find ore elsewhere, but it will take time to adjust production, replace purification which is made in Ukraine, and the task will not be easy to accomplish, considering that AVISMA needs an increase of the World production of titanium ore by 50%. Accordingly 6-8 months since August 2014, is the natural time limit during which Russia must either restore normal relations with Ukraine, or put a pro-Russian government in Kyiv. 

Ferroalloy materials
Besides that Kolomoisky controls up to 30% of the World production of ferroalloy materials. Ferroalloys are a necessary doping component for production of quality steels. Russian metallurgy depends on Ukrainian ferroalloys, without which everything will crack, crush, and fall apart.

Special steels for rockets
Further upstream in the ferrous metallurgy, Ukrainian Dniprospecsteel metallurgy company is another source of critical import for Russia. This electric metallurgy company from Zaporizhya is monopoly supplier of the special steels for rocket and jet engines, instrumentation and bearing steel. 

Furthermore, zirconium components, as well as yellowcake for production of the fuel rods for VVER-1000 come from Ukraine. It is exported to Kazakhstan, where it is further enriched and tableted, and then goes to Russia for the fuel rod production by Russian TVEL. Kazakhstan's government-ownedKazatomprom holds a 10% stake in Westinghouse, and can be interested in the Westinghouse's expansion in the VVER-1000 market.
Russia has no equivalent replacement for Ukrainian components, and has no developed deposits which can replace Ukrainian supply of uranium and zirconium for the needs of the nuclear industry

Uranium - yellowcake
At the same time Ukraine holds Europe's biggest Uranium deposit in Novokonstanyinovka, and operates Zhovty Vody yellowcake refinery. Russia's own Uranium deposits are limited (although it has considerable stockpile of HEU), and it will take it years to develop the production of sufficient amounts of yellowcake to support its nuclear industry. Similar considerations apply to zirconium metallurgy, which is also critical for nuclear port generation. 

Rare Earth Metals
Ukrainian Pridneprovsky Chemical Works (also near Dnipropetrovsk) was the Soviet provider of Uranium salts, and of the rare earth metals, including hafnium, and also zirconium, tungsten, gallium, and molybdenum. Their customers are mostly in Russia. 


The provided examples of the Ukrainian export to Russia does not constitute the main part of the final product's cost, and almost never are the only product which Ukrainian company makes. At the same time without these products whole branches of the Russian military-industrial complex and of the Russian energy sector cannot function. In many cases the Ukrainian side holds critical know-how for which it will be necessary to develop an alternative production. This means years of research and big capital investments to be able to replace some piece of hardware that comes from Ukraine.

So if one disregards the opportunity of a normal trade relations and set the mind on an enclosed and self-sufficient Empire, there are only two options left:
  1. To go all the way and develop alternative production after years spent on developing the know-how and millions spent to build the national production capability, or
  2. To grab the production in the neighboring country by force or by integration of this country in the super-state structure like Customs Union of Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan.
Russia weighted the first option, and tried that for over twenty years; it did not work.
Accordingly, Russia had to either abandon the imperial agenda, or to try to take over the needed assets. Russia obviously elected the takeover, after the attempt of integration of Ukraine in the Customs Union failed. This was not the only factor which defined Russia's decision to start the “hybrid war” in Ukraine, but was certainly among the important factors which Russia considered. 

The geographical location of the critical assets are Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv, Zaporizhya, Donetsk and Mykolaiv regions, with only four companies located further West. Mykolaiv and neighboring Kherson house four big shipyards (two other are in Crimea), which are the birthplace of the Soviet blue water navy. Lack of shipyard capacity in Russia, especially for the big deadweight vessels, is so critical that Russia had to turn to buying the landing assault vessels in France.

These regions, together with Odessa (which is a major warm water port) and Lugansk form the imaginary Novorossiya state which Russia initially planned. The regions are mostly Russian-speaking, which gave Russia the reason to expect that Novorossiya will practically fall of from Ukraine after just a little “hybrid war” push. This was a miscalculation. The people in the targeted regions do mostly speak Russian, but most of them (over 80% now) consider themselves Ukrainian, as French-speaking Swiss are still Swiss, German-speaking Austrians are still Austrians, or English-speaking Irish are still Irish. The Novorossiya agenda failed everywhere except for eastern part of Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk regions, where the majority of locals associate themselves with Russian or Soviet cultural tradition. 

As the result of this miscalculation of the factors of public support, Russia found itself in a dire situation. The “imperial project” failed; it had destroyed its relations with the supplier of the critical components for its defense and aerospace, and has now to make big investments in development of the national production capabilities. Meanwhile it is exposed to the international sanctions, its finances are in disarray, and the main source of the budget revenues is drying out because of the decline of the oil prices. These factors are relatively slow-acting, but can cripple Russian military power and nuclear sector in 2-3 years, pushing it deeper in the ranks of the resource-based economies with no prospective of becoming a modern state. 

  1. Yana Korobko, Mahmoud N. Musa. The Shifting Global Balance of Power: Perils of a World War and Preventive Measures, 2014, USA.
  2. A. Zhalko-Tytarenko, Ukraine at a Divergence Point Diplomatic Courier, November 27, 2013.