Tuesday, December 31, 2019
Here is the post which I will try to keep sticky for people to ask questions and share their thoughts which are not on topic. This, I think is known as Open Thread. Fire away.
Friday, August 16, 2019
Before talent-less creeps occupied pop charts--twerking, exposing tattooed asses and other body-parts instead of actually writing and playing (singing) good music. There was this.
Of course, later in 1980s Go-Go's split and Belinda Carlisle decided that she needs to say that she is the most beautiful woman in the world in the times of VHS and...she was. She also sang some damn good tunes.
Of course, there were others, too;)))
But Seattle girls, Annie and Nancy, did it best. And yes, they rocked and still do. They also wrote a hell of a music.
There were others of true talent and beauty, unlike modern hos.
And, of course, they all could play and sing:
I salute you, girls of real rock-music of 1970s and 1980s. You were (and still are) the best in your actual talent and beauty. It is Friday, after all.
P.S. Lita Ford, sorry.
P.S. Lita Ford, sorry.
For people of any serious professional regimen, be that military, police and civilian pilots, heroism could be defined in a very dry way. Carrying out own professional duties under the circumstances which drastically impede carrying those duties out is heroism. I recall, Chesley Sullenberger and his crew beating everything deadly what the fate threw at them that day of 15 January, 2009 when their professionalism saved lives of 155 people. Miracle on Hudson was both miracle and skills, incredible skills of those who flew the plane. But apart from elation when seeing on live TV all ferries on Hudson rushing to save those passengers from Hudson's cold waters, it was Sully's incredible humility which struck me then--that humility was a true measure of a true Man. That he, and his crew, were heroes we knew already the moment we could see the doors of US Airways A-320 popping open and people getting out to aircraft's wings.
Yesterday Russia got her own miracle in the corn field. Simply stunning and simply no words of the humility of this crew, which, led by their incredible first pilot, did almost impossible--saved 234 people.
Yet again, the true measure of a Man--humility. "I just did my job". Hell no, you didn't--you told death "fvck you" and refused to surrender lives of men, women and children on-board. This is pure heroism. The similarity, despite obvious dramatic differences--water against hard ground--is startling in a sense of timing: few seconds to make the only correct decision, in case of Ural Airlines A-321, not to lower landing gear and get the aircraft into the field on its belly, as in case of Sully--splash down, don't even try to get to the nearest airport. This is "Carrying out own professional duties under the circumstances which drastically impede carrying those duties out". They succeeded and people lived. I would also be dishonest if I will not point out that in both cases these were Airbus 320-321 series aircraft which turned out to be tough mofos. Kudos to Airbus. Meanwhile, I cannot describe in words the wave of inspiration drowning Russia out now, same as it was 10 years ago with Miracle on Hudson. That is what real heroes do to people--they give them their faith in humanity back. Damir Ysupov and your flight crew--you did just that. Congratulations to both pilots on the highest honor of Heroes of Russia and cabin crew with their Orders of Courage--well done, heroes.
Thanks to RT, I got involved in reading a piece from Naval War College Review, by lecturer from Naval Post-Graduate School in Monterrey, CA, Thomas-Durell Young. This is what RT has to say:
Young’s article, titled ‘NATO’s selective naval blindness’ and published in the most recent issue of the Naval War College Review, makes the case that the situation is “both serious and desperate,” and that the navies of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Albania and Montenegro all suffer from not just old ships but “legacy concepts” when it comes to sea power.
One of the moments, which RT also paid attention to, in puzzlement, was this passage from Young's article (you can download it directly from RT site):
7. Lastly, in this summary of remaining antithetical concepts, in central and eastern Europe there is an odd absence of either a conceptual understanding of or linguistic cognate for capability. In some Slavic languages this is defined as potential, which misses the fundamental meaning of such a key concept of modern Western military planning and operations. Thus, the concept that a platform is not an asset unless its crew is fully trained, exercised, and provisioned is being recognized only slowly. The lack of understanding of this key concept throughout these defense institutions partly explains why commanders do not have operations and maintenance budgets, and therefore cannot reliably produce capabilities.
I was floored, honestly. I don't know under what stone Mr. Young lived prior to writing his piece but I am personally is exactly the product of those "legacy concepts" Mr. Young is feeling so desperate about when speaks of the navies of the (relatively) new NATO members such as Poland, Croatia or Romania. To start with: Russian-language word возможности (or Polish, for that matter, możliwości) which are capabilities ARE NOT defined in Russian language as potential (потенциал), which had a somewhat different meaning. In fact, definition of capabilities in Soviet/Russian military environment sounded and continues to sound like this:
БОЕВЫЕ ВОЗМОЖНОСТИ ВС (ВОЙСК, СИЛ ФЛОТА) - количественно-качественные показатели, характеризующие возможности ВС (объединений, соединений, частей и подразделений) выполнять боевые задачи в установленное время в конкретной обстановке. Зависят от состава ВС (войск, сил флота), их боеспособности, уровня подготовки, морально-психологического состояния, искусства командного состава, а также характера противодействия противника, условий местности и погоды.
Translation: Combat Capabilities of Armed Forces (Troops, Naval Forces)--quantitative-qualitative indicators which characterize capabilities of Armed Forces (formations, units, sub-units) to fulfill (complete) combat tasks in defined time under specific circumstances (situation). They depend upon force composition, level of training, moral-psychological state, abilities (art) of command core and also on character of counter-actions by enemy, weather and locality's conditions.
I don't know what Mr. Young studied but "legacy" as well as modern military structure of USSR/Russia was and is revolving around Combat Readiness (боеготовность), which, in the end is built around exactly the concept, and I quote Mr. Young:
Thus, the concept that a platform is not an asset unless its crew is fully trained, exercised, and provisioned is being recognized only slowly.(c)
Hm, I don't know what "legacy" things exist in all those new NATO navies, after historic Russia left them alone to pursue their "democratic" future, but in the Soviet military science "capabilities" were recognized exactly for what Mr. Young is trying to preach (to a choir, I may add), so, if those navies have their "legacy" issues today--this is precisely because they didn't study or trained well, nor copied properly their Soviet vis-a-vis. And then, you wouldn't become a real military professional until you owned a process of combat training to the utmost degree. But that is the whole other story altogether. If Mr. Young doesn't know what is the difference between potential and capability in former Warsaw Pact, with Potential having a variety connotations, ranging from the Military Potential of the State, to the same (combat) of Armed Forces, to specific services--he really should update himself on those issues, especially since potential and capability are closely related synonyms even in English language.
One, then, has to ask a question--what's the point of Young's article? Here is the point:
The governments of the new navies must move in the short term to reconceptualize the use and management of their navies. Perhaps controversially, this policy redefinition should precede a commitment of funds to recapitalize their navies so as to ensure that money is not wasted unwittingly supporting legacy concepts and platforms.
Now, it all becomes clear. In other words, buy "advanced" and "democratic" platforms and weapons. This what this article is all about--money. The pseudo-linguistic and pseudo-operational mambo-jumbo is just that, to create a fluffy (and false) filler for a sales pitch. In the end, Mr.Young should understand (I am sure he does) that the only thing those new NATO navies are good for is to be a buyer of new shiny military toys which will be, in case of a serious war, annihilated within first minutes of real hostilities, their geography notwithstanding. If Thomas-Durell Young doesn't understand that, he may talk to Mr. Ochmanek of RAND--he may explain to him how it all will look like. Just saying. I, of course, do not even talk here about capabilities of "legacy" NATO members--that is a sad-sad (for NATO) story.
Thursday, August 15, 2019
John Bolton, apart from being unqualified to be in his current position, is also not a very bright fellow in anything related to actual weapons and technologies. You would expect this from an aggressive coward with degree in...law. Yet, John Bolton outdid even himself yesterday in his interview to Voice of America when stated at 19:57 that Russian hypersonic technologies were "largely stolen from the United States".(c) Before that he repeated ol' tired bromides about Russian economy being the size of the economy of Netherlands, but statement on hypersonic technology being "stolen" by Russia from the United States is a very peculiar one.
Let's start with the simple fact that Bolton lies, always, this is what US degenerate so called "elites" do, in breaks between their pedophilia urges and being cuckolds at group sex parties. So, it is expected from these creeps to live in the world of their own, with their own "morals", "facts" and "reality". In their "reality", patent, into your face, lies is a given and are accepted as normal behavior. Bolton's BS, apart from laughter from many corners in Russia, including from the State Duma, is being laughed at for a simple reason that the United States simply doesn't have any. There is simply nothing to steal. One "teeny-weeny" fact of the United States lacking any dedicated true SUPERsonic strike (anti-shipping) missile is a first clue in all that. US efforts to produce such a missile were met constantly with a variety of technological and fiscal failures, in the end all attempts to build one were abandoned. The continuous propaganda, designed for the consumption of the fanboys, that aircraft carriers firepower was more than enough to compensate for the lack of powerful strike weapons is just that, same as Bolton's statement, a BS. Feeble attempts to base a super-sonic strike missile on the SM-6 anti-missile missile design are a typical desperate stop-gap measures which inevitably resulted in failure.
So, the United States simply lacks any record of producing viable super-sonic missiles, unlike USSR/Russia who crossed into genuine supersonic territory already in 1959 with venerable, M=1.3 capable, P-6/35 anti-shipping missiles. P-500 Bazalt and P-700 Granit, M=2.5 capable weapons, followed in 1960s and 1970s respectively, resulting, eventually, in a plethora of Russian genuinely super-sonic strike missiles ranging from P-270 Moskit, 3M54 Kalibr family, to P-800 Onyx, capable of roughly M=3, to a terrifying weapon, M=4.8 capable Kh-32. Mr. Bolton should know (he is the National Security Adviser, after all) that the United States has nothing even remotely comparable to this class of weapons and doesn't have technologies to produce one. That means only one thing--the United States never reached a crucial stepping stone of workable supersonic technologies, ranging from materials, fuels and control and targeting systems, among many others, to get into the hypersonic realm.
It is, of course, also evident, judging by the rather mediocre, politely speaking, results obtained in PGS (Prompt Global Strike) program that US is not capable to control hypersonic vehicles, which, for some reason, continued to explode on tests (hint: material science). So, the statement by Bolton that Russia, who already deploys a whole class of hyper-sonic weapons, ranging from strategic Avangard to Kinzhal and upcoming 3M22 Zircon, stole something is not just preposterous, it is also very indicative of a massive butt-hurt and realization that the United States lost the arms race. I think, for all his feeble "intellectual" capabilities, Bolton knows that, and he is hurting, badly. That is why he creates ridiculous stories in desperate attempts to hide a reality from public and there is no better way to do it than in interview to am exhibit A of US propaganda and lies than Voice of America. It is a long and tedious process of sorting out who is genuinely clueless or who is simply lying among US "elites". I am not interested anymore in sorting sorts of shit out. But I tell you what, which this Bolton's interview served as impetus to note this: global markets' volatility, apart from all those "inverted curves" and other Wall Street mambo-jumbo, is just a symptom of a much deeper "illness".
I am on record with this: once world begins to understand REAL, very much exaggerated, US military capability, which is in the foundation of US-driven and owned global financial order, things will begin to collapse economically in the US. US Dollar hegemony rests not with the crooks from the Wall Street and investment banks, it rests SOLELY on the ability of the United States to enforce dollar-dominated world order. That means military, everything else is derivative. Wall Street indices can go down, or up, or stay the same--this changes nothing. The fight always was to overthrow US Dollar monopoly. In 2008, in August, first message was sent--Russia refused status-quo. Today, in 2019, Russia not only refuses status-quo, she builds her own and she can do it because she initiated Real Revolution in military affairs with technological and operational concepts which completely shifted the global balance of power in what in historic terms can be defined as an instant. Once the US ability to enforce militarily US Dollar-driven global order was lost, the game was over. Now, with all this full-scale economic warfare US is waging on China, Russia and the rest of the world, with US markets being shaky, with real American economy being a pale shadow of itself of 20 years ago, with a degeneracy of the US ruling class, with crime shooting through the roof, with opioid and drugs crisis never seen before--all those are the signs of an Empire in decline which knows that she lost control and now it is just the matter of time before she either surrenders or takes down the world with itself. To avoid this catastrophe, these are what precisely the weapons Russia created for. Not to wage the war, but to avoid one. This is the reality check Mr. Bolton MUST perform but he never will--he is a flesh and blood of US ruling class nobody of rudimentary self-respect and integrity is going to negotiate anything with and not just because this class is non-agreement capable, but because there is no strong enough soap to wash one's hands after shaking them with these people.