Saturday, January 1, 2022
Monday, February 1, 2021
Saturday, January 23, 2021
But people sent me "news" and "opinions" about slight skirmishes in Russia related to "opposition" rallies in defense of Alexey Navalny. My first message to all: it was a pathetic show of a few thousand infants, including many children, who were controlled and, inevitably, dispersed. As US Police Telegram Channel wrote to Russian colleagues:
Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs already called on US Embassy to visit Ministry where American "diplomats" will be talked to for taking an active part in helping underage children get "politically active" (in Russian). That brings us to the whole Navalny's "poisoning" affair as, primarily, a desperate attempt by the combined West on PR action (aka operation of influence) against Russia. Assuming, which is a really risky assumption, that not all people in Western intelligence-"diplomatic" establishment are complete morons, it is clear that no sane person would expect actions of this type to undermine "Putin's regime". Provide some TV picture for brainwashed Western public? Sure. But that's about it. Russia's political reality is such that it requires an apocalyptic event to change her and even then, it wouldn't be towards the outcome desired by the West. As per Alexey Navalny--everyone in Russia with IQ higher than the room temperature knows that he is an asset of Western intelligence orgs and his support base is within the statistical error, when counting votes during elections. Today's events demonstrated this perfectly. Criminal cases are being now opened as I type this (in Russian). Move along, move along--nothing to see here. Putin again "escaped" the wrath of minuscule minority of Russia's alternatively gifted teenagers and elementary school kids. Talk about "revolution".
Friday, January 22, 2021
Or why American "conservative" (lack of) thought is as fake as GOP's "conservatism". OK, let me "come out of the closet" immediately. Learning anything from Edmund Burke, a holy of the holiest, a designated person of worship for American "conservatives" makes as much sense as applying lessons of Peloponnese Wars to netcetric warfare and resolving targeting issues for stand-off weapons in dense ECM environment. Sounds funny, but that is exactly what they ("conservatives") promote as a foundation for their neoliberal economic agenda which is in the foundation of the America's decline. The American Conservative decides to pull the owl over the globe and comes up with a contrived piece on a new book about Edmund Burke, trying to show how it is "relevant" today. Sure, the guy who lived in 18th century knew all about it. The author of the piece writes:
Evidence such as this demonstrates that in Burke, we do not find ourselves dealing with a market fundamentalist of the Reaganite variety, much less a Malthusian or Randian devotee of the iron laws of supply and demand. After all, Collins notes, Burke frequently violated these laws through his numerous acts of charity to friends and tenants, and insisted that public laissez-faire must be complemented by strong obligations of private charity.
No shit, pardon my French. I wonder how Burke would resolve the issue of automation and, inevitable, removal of the labor force from the most productive and, by implication, well-paid industries. You know, those damn 18th century Anglo-Irish robots and Computer Numerical Control machining centers. They influenced Burke so much when he was writing about markets. The next pearl is this:
Burke has a great deal to offer to conservative political economy today. Most crucially, Burke recognized that the virtues of free markets rest upon an underlying foundation of traditional order and virtue, without which markets will grind to a halt or run off the tracks. Commerce depends on manners, and manners depend on religion, custom, tradition, and good laws. As he wrote in the Reflections: “Even commerce, and trade, and manufacture, the gods of our economical politicians, are themselves perhaps but creatures; are themselves but effects which, as first causes, we choose to worship. They certainly grew under the same shade in which learning flourished. They too may decay with their natural protecting principles” (quoted on 490).
Really? And what is this "conservative political economy"? What is this, is there a "conservative" physics (I know there is a liberal one) or mathematics? Don't these contemporary "conservative" people learn a simple fact that American "conservative" political economy is nothing more than a free trade fundamentalism and laissez-faire which work in the 21st century as effectively as Burke's platitudes about "good laws" and preaching of good morals and "virtues." The surrealism of constant, in fact nauseating, references to some Whig guy who lived in England in 18th century by American "conservatives" is preposterous and it is not surprising that TAC article arrives to this conclusion.
A true conservative, then, must learn how to cherish the offspring—free markets—without allowing it to devour the mother—traditional virtues.
Yes, and I am Mother Theresa and all my life I fight for everything good, against everything bad. No, this is not a definition of conservatism--it is a definition of pretentious Mammon worshipers covering their greed with a fig leaf of absolution every Sunday morning at church. REAL conservatism is an obverse side of sober nationalism, which sees its primary purpose in preservation of the nation and promoting its well-being by formulating a framework of true national interests--a task no American "conservative" is capable to perform. As I said--they are afraid to give definition to a nation, American nation that is, and face consequences for standing their ground on this fundamental issue. Thumping Bible or Torah over the heads of others and trying to convince them that this is a virtue is not conservatism.
Conservatism starts with a question of "what is good for my people", not class, not stockholders but people, as a whole. How this good is defined in economic terms is a completely different matter, which has nothing to do with American conservatives' sellout to Wall Street and stripping America of her remaining economic livelihood, granted, preaching on the way "traditional virtues". Ah, yes, in conclusion--there is no such thing as "free markets". Never existed. But I am sure Edmund Burke also expressed his opinions on this matter, including modern geopolitics defined by immense destructive power of modern nuclear and conventional weaponry and constellations of satellites. As for charity--any chance I can get some donations from Bill Gates, personally? I need a Ferrari to fill my life with meaning. While at it, I will not be against a nice second home in Hawaii./s
Thursday, January 21, 2021
Because it is true. This is the funniest shit I saw in quite a while. Yes, it is cringe-worthy. It also shows a complete lack of culture in US MSM. I mean it, culture being a combination of intellectual honesty, ethics and principles which translate into class. US main-stream media are a pathetic parody, a collection of clowns, however evil. Give RT a hand, it deserved it here, LOL.
Among many "accomplishments" of Donald Trump in what passes in the United States for foreign policy and national security, one of the major achievements was exiting pretty much most arms control treaties with Russia, among them START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) being most notable. As I pointed out not for once, Russia's being rather nonchalant about Trump effectively demolishing arms control regime has its reasons. The main of those reasons is Russia having a decisive qualitative advantage over the United States in delivery systems, especially in the field of stand-off high precision weapons which changed the nature of modern war and deterrence dramatically. Yet, keeping not just the United States but the world, through keeping nuclear strategic arsenals under control, from ruinous and unnecessary investment into nuclear strategic weapons, which realistically are not the weapons of war. Upgrading them, keeping them in a working order? Sure. As simple logic goes: makes no difference how many times over can the United States and Russia obliterate each-other--5-6-7, makes no difference. So, some news from POTUS, a new one.
President Joe Biden has decided to accept Russia's offer to extend the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty for the full five years and is proposing that the two sides "explore new verifiable arms control agreements" in the future. The overture could be a bright spot in an otherwise tense relationship in the opening days of the new administration. The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which caps Washington and Moscow's deployed nuclear weapons at 1,550 each, is set to expire on Feb. 5 unless both sides agree to keep it in force. "The United States intends to seek a five-year extension of New START as the treaty permits," White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Thursday. "The president has long been clear that the New START Treaty is in the national security interests of the United States. "This extension makes even more sense when the relationship with Russia is as adversarial as it is at this time," she added. "New START is the only remaining treaty constraining Russian nuclear forces and is an anchor of strategic stability between our two countries."
The explanation of this change of heart is rather simple. No, it is not because Biden ran on this agenda in his bid for the White House. No, such an explanation is akin to explaining a wind as a result of the movement of the trees' branches. The answer is much-much simpler. And is looking at us from the news.
The Biden administration also says it hopes to use the extension to begin talks on a new series of arms control measures.
There we go. Plans within plans, within plans. Granted, those plans are rather obvious and are not surprising. It is the only way for the United States to get anywhere near technologies which the United States doesn't have and, highly likely, will not develop anytime soon. Sure, the United States may create a system somewhat reminiscent of the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle and, possibly, some sort of analog of the aero-ballistic Kinzhal, but in terms of multi-platform genuine hypersonic cruise missiles similar to 3M22 Zircon I doubt the United States is anywhere near to mock-up, forget technology demonstrator, not to speak of weapon nearing IOC. That's the secret to all that. Once one takes into account such system as Poseidon, let alone Peresvet capable to disable incoming MIRVs one sees immediately America's intentions in terms of START. Obviously, The National Interest's own alternatively gifted Michael Peck comes up, yet again, with self-medicating cretinism of, say, Poseidon being developed because... Russian submarine technologies are lacking, but then again, for the guy who proposed to fight hypersonic anti-shipping missiles with a standard Aegis-SM-6 package, one can also expect a proposition to fight cancer with Band-Aid.
Obviously, a "combat" clown David Axe is not far behind, inventing all kind of amateur shit about subjects he has no clue about, but it shows an interesting pattern with the two of the most hilarious America's military "analysts" having 2018 piece reprinted (Peck) and one new published (Axe) today, precisely when the news about Biden willing, quoting Eric Zoolander, to continue talking about conversation on START, broke. This is not accidental. I want to stress it again, START by itself is not anymore about classic strategic deterrent--it is about the United States gaining any kind of insight into the technologies which drove real revolution in military affairs and, if possible, trying to squeeze as much of strategic benefits as possible. Sure. As Russia stated before--she is ready to continue talking about this conversation (c) and is even ready to consider some weapon systems, such as Poseidon, at the negotiating table. Probably, Russia may agree limiting deployed Avangards to a single division. What Russia is not going to talk about is RS-28 Sarmat, and Zircon and related systems. This is not negotiable. Sarmat is a strategic missile, but it is a substitution for ageing Satana R-36 ICBMs, while Zircon is an ambivalent weapon capable of having a strategic impact even in conventional variant.
So, I have a bucket of pop-corn and am getting ready to observe this whole dance around the main issue which is at the core--if Russia will rub copious amounts of salt (pun is intended: SALT) into the American wound from the necessity to negotiate from an extremely weak position. We'll have to wait and see how this plays out but Russia nowadays is extremely business-oriented and, unlike the United States, has a crispy clear understanding of her national interests. There is even a school of thought that Russia may "exchange" something for Nord Stream-2. I don't know about that. You know, I hate to speculate. Russia can freeze NS-2 for a very long time since she is increasingly involved, hydrocarbons-wise, with the Asian markets and Europe is not anymore a priority. In the end, it is primarily in Europe's interest, not Russia's. Let EU deal with it. Russia has more important business to attend to. How about keeping the world peace.