Some People Misunderstood My Latest Video...

My latest video was not just about this BSer Mr. Blinkov. 

If you look at the intro to this video it merely refers to military "analysts" from UTube. Blinkov, who some people say is Croatian gamer, and his pseudo-military BS were used merely as a vehicle to address a larger problem of militant incompetence permeating public space. It is not just about Blinkov, but also about all those Podolyakas, Rozhins (aka "Colonel" Cassad), a bunch of other "pro-Russian" or "anti-Russian" analysts. The issue is much larger than some ignoramus who learned a few big military words beginning to "analyze" something which they cannot possibly understand without at least basic intro into operational and strategic level thinking. Even "tactically" they are lacking. So, I decided to address the issue in general. 

Now, in a more important news, after the meeting with State Duma leaders on July 7, which officially was primarily about upcoming elections, Putin reiterated now well known position:

Today we hear that they want to defeat us on the battlefield. Well, what can I say? Let them try. We have already heard a lot about the West wanting to fight us ”to the last Ukrainian.“ This is a tragedy for the Ukrainian people, but that seems to be where it is going. But everyone should know that, by and large, we have not started anything in earnest yet. At the same time, we are not rejecting peace talks, but those who are rejecting them should know that the longer it goes on, the harder it will be for them to negotiate with us.

It is more than position, it is Russia's MO for the last 15 years and it is the one in which every next offer from Russia will always be much worse for those who didn't accept the previous one. Putin also, implicitly--highlighted in yellow--confirmed what Alexander spoke about yesterday at our Roundtable with Gonzalo, Larry and me: Russia most likely will make an "offer" which will be rejected by the West and its puppet in Kiev and that will be the end of Ukrainian State as we knew it. In related news, UK defense establishment continues to parade themselves as clowns and toy soldiers. 

Russia has lost more than 30% of its land combat effectiveness in Ukraine, but military issues won't prompt regime change in the invading country, Britain's top military official said Sunday. Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, chief of defense staff, dismissed any suggestion that Russian President Vladimir Putin could be toppled or assassinated as "wishful thinking." But  Ukraine's spirited defense, aided by NATO weaponry, has set back Russian plans for swift victory, he said. “What that actually means is 50,000 Russian soldiers that have either died or been injured in this conflict," Radakin told the BBC. "Nearly 1,700 Russian tanks destroyed, nearly 4,000 armored fighting vehicles that belong to Russia destroyed.” Still, Putin's regime is viewed as stable and the Russian president continues to easily quash opposition, Radakin said. Russia's hierarchy is "invested" in Putin, he said, removing the motivation to challenge his authority.

Looks like Sir Radakin didn't really study anything related to actual warfare at all. Indeed, here is CV from WiKi. 

Radakin was born on 10 November 1965 in Oldham, Lancashire, England. He was educated at state schools and St. Brendan's Sixth Form College in Bristol.  Radakin studied law at the University of Southampton, and was sponsored through university by the Royal Navy, graduating with a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree in 1989. He continued his legal career alongside his naval service, and qualified as a barrister and was called to the Bar from the Middle Temple in 1996. He later studied international relations and defence studies at King's College London, completing a Master of Arts (MA) degree in 2000.

I really don't know what they really study in UK in those "defense studies" at King's College, but there is very little doubt in the manifest ongoing degeneracy of Western elites and educational institutions which "prepare" them. Western militaries are not an exception, as fantasies by this Royal Navy Admiral testify to. To a great credit to Scott Ritter he penned a good piece precisely about a complete, not just decline, but collapse of the UK as a military power and Ritter writes:

Even as Johnson proffered the proverbial hand of assistance to his newfound Nordic allies, the UK Ministry of Defense was wrestling with planned force reductions that would see the British Army cut from its current “established strength” of 82,000 to 72,500 by 2025 (the actual strength of the British Army is around 76,500, reflecting ongoing difficulties in recruitment and retention.) Even these numbers are misleading – the British Army is only capable of generating one fully combat-ready maneuver brigade (3,500 to 4,000 men with all the necessary equipment and support). Given the reality that the UK is already on the hook for a reinforced battalion-sized “battlegroup” that is to be deployed to Estonia as part of NATO’s so-called enhanced Forward Presence (eFP) posture (joining three other similarly-sized “battlegroups” fielded by the US in Poland, Germany in Lithuania, and Canada in Latvia), it is questionable whether the British could even accomplish this limited task.  

The sorry state of the UK as a whole, as a nation, does not translate to merely ground forces. The state of Royal Navy and Air Force is also nothing to be proud of. Royal Navy's only real fighting force, its submarines--any NATO surface ship is a sitting duck in a real war--are also dependent on the US weapons and for British SSBNs the number of the warheads they carry continues to dwindle since 2010:

We will retain and renew our independent nuclear deterrent – the United Kingdom’s ultimate insurance policy in this age of uncertainty. As a result of our value for money review, we will reduce the number of operational launch tubes on the submarines from 12 to eight, and the number of warheads from 48 to 40, in line with our commitment vigorously to pursue multilateral global disarmament.  

Now, the total number of MIRVs carried by RN's SSBN fleet will be somewhere round 120 plus MIRVs and no more than 160. BoJo wanted to raise the cap to 200. Right. Good luck with that. To take things in perspective, UK's most important and existential enemy, Russia that is, deploys 5 newest state-of-the-art Borei-class SSBNs, one is outfitting, and four more are under construction. With a single Borei-M (pr. 955A) capable of carrying 160 MIRVs in their always fully armed 16 tubes (20 on the lead ship of the series). This is not counting six active good ol' Delta IV (pr. 667BDRM) SSBNs each capable to carry between 4 to 10 MIRVs in each of their 16 tubes. So, at full load 6 of those Delta IVs pack a salvo of 960 MIRVs. So, to put it in perspective, a single Delta IV or a single Borei SSBN carries as much fire-power as the whole of Royal Navy's fleet of SSBNs. And I am not going to go into multi-purpose submarine fleet, because RN's 5 nukes (four of them of Astute-class) barely register against the background of Russia's multi-purpose submarine fleet, even when considering its dispersal among four fleets of the Russian Navy. And these are just naval forces.

So, in this case I agree with Ritter when he concludes: 

Given what we now know about the reality of modern warfare, courtesy of the ongoing Russian operation in Ukraine, the British battlegroup would have a life expectancy on an actual European battlefield of less than a week. So, too, would its allies in the Estonian 2nd Infantry Brigade. First and foremost, the units lack any sustainability, both in terms of personnel and equipment losses that could be anticipated if subjected to combat, or the basic logistical support necessary to shoot, move, or communicate on the modern battlefield. Artillery is the king of battle, and the British and Estonians are lacking when it comes to generating anywhere near enough tubes to counter the overwhelming fire support expected to be generated by any hostile Russian force.

Stoltenberg’s hypothetical 300,000-strong Response Force envisions the existing battlegroups to be expanded to brigade-sized formations, ironically tasking the British to generate more combat power at a time when it is actively seeking to reduce its overall manpower levels. While the British may be able to scrape enough substance from the bottom of the barrel, so to speak, to accomplish this projected reinforcement, there would literally be nothing left to back up Boris Johnson’s bold offer of substantive military assistance to Sweden and Finland, leaving the British prime minister looking more like the captain of the Titanic after it hit the iceberg, issuing directives and acting as if his words had any impact, all while his ship is sinking.

But Russia is not responsible for a professional incompetence of British elites across the board, military included, nor for UK being incapable to resign itself to the position of a second-third tier state with a joke of an economy and military and Russia is not responsible for all that--United Kingdom did it to itself completely on its own and I can only quote a truly great Briton. 

As Adam Smith, the founder of liberal economics, put in 1776:"By pursuing his own interest (an individual) frequently promotes that of society the more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." It was Adam Smith who formulated the doctrine of Free Trade, the keystone of liberalism, which was to exercise a long-lived and as baneful effect on British power as Wesley and Whitefield's preaching. Adam Smith attacked the traditional "mercantilist" belief that a nation should be generally self-supporting.... According to liberal thinking, a nation was no more than so many human atoms who happened to live under the same set of laws... 

Couldn't have said it better. After all, read Putin's speech to Duma leaders, he speaks about liberal totalitarianism.

P.S. I loved the title of Ritter's article;)