They Do Grow Them Stupid...

 ... in economic circles in the US. 

The dollar’s standing as a reserve currency would be jeopardized if the West confiscates frozen Russian assets to aid Ukraine, Nobel Prize-winning economist and Yale University professor Robert Shiller said in an interview with Italian news outlet La Repubblica published on Sunday. According Shiller, seizing the assets would give the global community, especially countries which, like Russia, “convert their savings into dollars and thus entrust them in the reliable hands of Uncle Sam,” grounds to doubt the US currency. “If America does this to Russia today… then tomorrow it can do this to anyone. This will destroy the halo of security that surrounds the dollar and will be the first step towards de-dollarization, which many are increasingly confidently leaning toward, from China to developing countries, not to mention Russia itself,” the economist warned. “I can’t convince myself that this [confiscation of Russian assets] is the right way,” he explained. “In addition to the fact that this will be confirmation for the Russian leader that what is happening in Ukraine is a proxy war, it could paradoxically turn against America and the entire West,” Shiller explained, adding that the situation would likely turn into “a cataclysm for the current dollar-dominated economic system.”

What rock did he sleep under? Now he just woke up, good God. Well, I have news for this guy--it is already over for US Dollar and if he doesn't know this, then he should find himself some actual job like a janitor in his very own Yale or nursing home administrator. Just one example out of very many from three days ago:

Россия сможет кредитовать другие страны вне зависимости от их кредитного рейтинга по версии международных рейтинговых агентств

МОСКВА, 22 декабря. /ТАСС/. Россия изменила условия предоставления государственных кредитов зарубежным странам. Постановление, корректирующее правила выдачи таких займов, утверждено правительством РФ. Так, теперь Россия сможет кредитовать другие страны вне зависимости от их кредитного рейтинга по версии международных рейтинговых агентств. Ранее для того, чтобы получить у Москвы заем, зарубежные страны не должны были относиться к шестой и ниже группам кредитного риска по версии Организации экономического сотрудничества и развития. Также кредит не могли взять государства с рейтингом долгосрочной кредитоспособности ниже уровня "В-" по классификации Fitch, Standard & Poor's или ниже уровня "В3" по оценке Moody's.К получению займов у РФ не допускались и страны, по которым средняя за предыдущие три месяца стоимость суверенных кредитных дефолтных свопов в долларах США на срок 10 лет превышает 800 базисных пунктов (по данным информационной системы Bloomberg при наличии соответствующих котировок). Теперь эти пункты правил признаны утратившими силу.Кроме того, в дальнейшем Москва не будет руководствоваться рекомендациями международных финансовых институтов при выдаче госкредитов.

Translation: Russia will be able to lend to other countries regardless of their credit rating according to international rating agencies MOSCOW, December 22. /TASS/. Russia has changed the conditions for providing government loans to foreign countries. A resolution correcting the rules for issuing such loans was approved by the Government of the Russian Federation. Thus, now Russia will be able to lend to other countries regardless of their credit rating according to international rating agencies. Previously, in order to receive a loan from Moscow, foreign countries did not have to belong to the sixth or lower credit risk group according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Also, countries with a long-term credit rating below the level of "B-" according to the classification of Fitch, Standard & Poor's or below the level of "B3" according to Moody's could not take out a loan. Countries for which the average for the previous three months were not allowed to receive loans from the Russian Federation the cost of sovereign credit default swaps in US dollars for a period of 10 years exceeds 800 basis points (according to the Bloomberg information system when relevant quotes are available). Now these points of the rules have been declared invalid. In addition, in the future Moscow will not be guided by the recommendations of international financial institutions when issuing government loans. 

Most Western "economists", with the exception of such titans of economics like Michael Hudson, have no clue what real economy is and why what Russia does in SMO collapses US Dollar. Right, because US Dollar is based on the mythology of American military power which allegedly can enforce the use of the said Dollar. US cannot enforce the use of the US Dollar when it comes to Russia, because Russia in her turn can enforce the use of Ruble in the US. And so, those fake "Nobel" prize in economics (there is NO Nobel Prize in economics--it is a misnomer) winners begin to deal with reality of US (and Western) financial system, based primarily on coercion and legerdemain, being dismantled. 

This is what real military power and massive industrial economy give you--independence. As "rumor" has it, China also reorienting her economy away from the US and EU and now it seems these two markets stopped being critical for China. Asia is by far more important. Meanwhile Russia raises flags today on three ships and one of those ships is Admiral Golovko frigate--the carrier of those nasty 3M22 Zircons. Well, you already heard also how Russia simply kicked Western insurance companies to the curb, she insures things herself now and thus stopped economic espionage by all those Western insurance and audit companies. It hurts, I know, but that is what real economy and military superpowerdom gives you--you can tell anyone to go and pound sand. And this is exactly what Russia does. This is Mr. Volodin--Speaker of the Duma.

The US has lost its economic dominance, Russian State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin wrote on his Telegram channel on Sunday. Attempts to regain it by unleashing “military conflicts, sanctions and trade wars, organizing terrorist attacks and destroying the European economy” have not brought Washington the desired results, according to Volodin. Russia’s top lawmaker called the dollar the only remaining instrument of US influence. However, other countries are increasingly abandoning it because Washington is using the greenback as a weapon in a “political battle.” He added that US President Joe Biden was depriving his own country of its “last advantage,” since such threats do not build confidence in either the country itself or its currency. The global trend towards using national currencies in trade instead of the dollar began to gain momentum last year, after Ukraine-related sanctions cut off Russia from the Western financial system and froze its foreign reserves.

Hey, Biden wants to run again. Can you imagine how many wonderful things he can do to this country in his second term? Boy, that will be the show to behold. 

June 22... 1941-2022.

This is one of my most favorite paintings of that date:

It encapsulates pretty much what happened at that day in 1941. 27 million Soviet people (most of them civilians) lives and four years later the verdict was announced. But nations and states do not live in a human time-frame, their time is slower and today we are ending the last chapter of the tragedy which started in 1914 and it could be either the end of all this, meaning human civilization, or a new beginning. Even for decomposing and degenerate West. This is what I talked today about:

I guess Putin announcing this should send (It did, most likely) a shock to the "system".

Putin: We are working to create an international reserve currency based on the BRICS basket of currencies

I never bothered myself with the look at the "stock market" and "capitalization". I always follow weapons' development and machine building complex, because they, and what they entail, are the ONLY real indicators of power. In related news, S-500s are being deployed. S-550 is next.

About Dollar, Sort Of.

I am by far not the only one who saw this fate for US Dollar and, frankly, it wasn't that difficult to predict. Now there are some tangibles on this matter. 

After years of talking about abandoning the US dollar, Russia and China are doing it for real. In the first quarter of 2020, the share of the dollar in trade between the countries fell below 50 percent for the first time.To give an indication of the scale of the adjustment, just four years ago the greenback accounted for over 90 percent of their currency settlements.According to Moscow daily Izvestia, the share has dropped to 46 percent, tumbling from 75 percent in 2018. The 54 percent of non-dollar trade is made up of Chinese yuan (17 percent), the euro (30 percent), and the Russian ruble (7 percent).

Pretty much self-explanatory. Russia can afford to sell whatever she wants for whatever currency she wants. She can pump oil to China and get payments in Yans or Euros if she decides to do so. The answer is simple--Russia is a superpower and she behaves as such.  

Movement away from the dollar can also be seen in Russia's trade with other parts of the world, such as the European Union. Since 2016, trade between Moscow and the bloc has been mainly in Euros, with its current share sitting at 46 percent.

That brings us to this point Michael Hudson made recently when speaking on Western economic "science". Remember?

The gunboats don’t appear in your economics textbooks. I bet your price theory didn’t have gun boats in them, or the crime sector. And probably they didn’t have debt in it either.

Indeed, they don't. It is nearly impossible to explain to Wall Street banker what military-economic power balance is and how it influences prices and currencies.  For some dude with degree in "economics" from Western university, who is getting ready to plunge into the world of financial speculation, trading in figments of imagination and intangible myths that is, and who is brought up, in the words of General Latiff, on a steady diet of Hollywood portrayal of a war, connection between hyper-sonic missile technology and economic implosion of the United States is beyond his (her) sensory grasp. But the connection is there and it is very direct. The US can bomb Iraq into the stone age for Iraq's desire, same as Libya's Qaddafi, to sell their oil for currencies other than US Dollar, but Russia cannot be bombed. Well, she can be bombed, but the United States will also cease to exist--so here is a direct connection. Russia unloaded all of her US Treasuries and trades with anybody she wants in whatever currency she desires. 

Many people from "elites" still cannot recognize a simple fact that the MAIN pillar of US Dollar system, apart from "trust", is not even US manufacturing capacity, which is largely gone, but US military power on which US Dollar's primacy was based. Not anymore. US military is turning into a hollow force with an astonishing speed. It is somewhat reminiscent of the process of a decline of the former Soviet Armed Forces in 1990s Russia. While not at that level of decay yet, there is nothing realistically which can prevent US Armed Forces from hitting  such a level. This is yet to be seen if it goes there but the United States is in no position anymore to enforce anything militarily even against regional power such as Iran without sustaining huge losses, both material and reputational. Against China? Hm. Not within First Island Chain. Now consider the fact that Europe has Euro, Russia has Ruble, China has Yan and China and Russia begin to trade in mutual currencies, while US-China trade war accelerates and there you go--the "after-dollar" global picture emerges and... well, just look at this picture:

Isn't that cute how gold "suddenly" (within a year) decided to grow, despite all attempts to suppress its "price". And I am not even talking about the oil price. Somebody is laughing all the way to the bank. In related news, one of the reasons for the US to feel somewhat uneasy--here is a video of Russian Navy's incessant combat drills, this time with Frigate Admiral Essen facing off with two supersonic P-35 anti-shipping missiles fired from famous "sotka" (100), aka Utes, site at the Crimean shore. 

I have to admit--I love this new ship uniform. Seems elegant and easy on your skin. But the thing which conveyed profoundly what Russians think about current historic moment was this simple comment by some Russian person under this video by Russia's Defense Ministry:

Раньше, при советском союзе, я не смотрела программу время, потому как, всё было хорошо ... урожай хлеба высокий, строительство жилья идёт полным ходом, атомные и водородные бомбы есть, армия сильная ... а вот после распада СССР, до прихода Путина, в России был кошмар.Когда к власти пришёл Путин, жизнь в России стала налаживаться ... и вот сейчас, ко мне пришло спокойствие, как при советском союзе ... урожай хлеба высокий, строительство жилья ведётся, вооружение нашей армии идёт по всем направлениям ... это просто кайф👍Главное, больше никому НЕ позволить грабить нашу Россию, как было в проклятые 90-е ... и никаких майданов в России.Сейчас очень спокойно жить в России ... это кайф👍

Translation: It used to be that in Soviet times I didn't watch program "Vremya" (Time, main Soviet and Russian official news broadcast), because everything was good... the harvest was great, housing construction proceeded apace, we had atomic and hydrogen bombs, the army was strong... but after the collapse of the USSR, before Putin, it became a nightmare. Then Putin came, the life started to return to normalcy... and now my calmness returned to me as if back in the USSR... the harvest is great, the construction of housing goes ahead, the rearmament of our armed forces proceeds in all directions... this is bliss. Most important, not to allow anyone to rob our Russia as was happening in condemned 1990s... no any maidans in Russia. It is so peaceful to live now... it is a bliss.

This is a profoundly Russian observation. It is shared by majority of Russians and that is what, in the end, decides the issue. Russia can exist only as superpower or none at all. This lesson was learned well.  

Quoting Michael Hudson.

You all know my attitude towards Michael Hudson as one the brightest economic minds of our time. Here is a quote from one of his latest interviews, as always, loaded with insights and food for thought. 

Now Herman Kahn and I on another occasion went to the Treasury Department, and we talked about what the world would look like on a gold standard. I said, “Gold is a peaceful metal. If you have to pay in gold, no country with a gold standard can afford to go to war anymore. Because a war would entail a foreign exchange payment, and you’d have to pay this foreign exchange in gold, not IOUs, and you would end up going broke pretty quickly.” Needless to say, someone from the Defense Department said, “That’s why we’re not going to do it.”

How do we know that payments in gold bankrupt warring parties? Simple, really. Check where did British gold reserves go in the time span between September 1939 and the end of 1940. The whole mechanism of Great Britain becoming a financial lap dog of the United States throughout WW II is extremely well described  by Barnett. 

The last months of England's existence as a fully independent great power, able out of her own resources both to maintain her national existence and to wage war, passed away.  By the third quarter of 1940 the volume of British exports (including munitions for the empire) was down 37% on 1935. By the turn of the year 1940-1941, the dark mid-winter of the Blitz, England's stock of gold and dollars was near exhaustion... For obvious reasons the advent of "lend-Lease" was represented as an act of unparalleled generosity. In fact, it was clearly to America's advantage that American weapons should be carried into battle by fighting men of England and Empire rather than the sons of American mothers. Even after United States entered the war in December 1941--and not then by her own volition--it was still clearly to her advantage that England should be enabled to wage the war on far greater scale than would have been possible on English resources alone. 

United States, obviously, learned her lessons from British WW II experience and recognized that to fight the real war one needs a lot of gold, or, as it turned out in 1970s when Nixon took the United States, which by then lost Vietnam War, from gold--IOUs. Yes, IOUs which are built around, well... let Michael Hudson speak:

The gunboats don’t appear in your economics textbooks. I bet your price theory didn’t have gun boats in them, or the crime sector. And probably they didn’t have debt in it either.

Modern Western "economists" do not operate with power element at all--it is beyond their grasp because unlike some financial theories, military power requires a much higher level of education and knowledge. Economists do not study physics, systems' integration, chemistry or weapons' design, not to mention operations, in the West they also do not study real economics. Yet, all this IOU (or T-Bills and other paper) alternative universe collapses the moment American IOUs lose the main factor behind their forceful "validity"--US military power, or, rather, myth of it and the threat to use it in case some renegades decide not to "trust" IOUs. Do not believe me, even as early as 2015 there were numerous calls from inside US "analytic" community to consider military operations against Russia. I recently wrote about one such ignoramus, George Fridman, who described in 2014 how Russia will be defeated in Ukraine by combined NATO forces. Yes, they ARE that dumb. 

I am not saying anything new here, once the myth of the US military power began to be destroyed in public space, everything else started to follow. By 2018 it was clear that United States cannot win conventional conflict with Russia not only in her vicinity, which was the case since 2010, but even in Europe. I am not talking about nuclear one, because this kills all other reasonable outcomes and expectations. Once you cannot win the war, what's your next step, what's you next default position, so to speak? Right, money, currency and financial "instruments" manipulation. Indeed, China buys Russian oil and gas and pays for it in Yuan or Euro, what can the United States  do about it? Attack Russia or China? Well, we know what's going to happen. So, the only instrument left are sanctions and financial sabotage. But that doesn't change the fact that China and Russia trade, at least significant part of their trade, in Rubles and Yuans. China is  much more vulnerable to intimidation and  blackmail than Russia, but still, this doesn't change the fact that China is not Venezuela or Iraq and she cannot be invaded without the United States sustaining catastrophic losses. 

The fact that US "elite" is incompetent across the board is not a secret anymore to those who matter, and those are China, Russia and, to a degree, Iran as an emerging regional superpower. So, as Hudson states, and I subscribe to his every word here:

By waging this economic warfare against China to protect America monopolies, America is integrating China and Russia. And probably the leading Chinese nationalist in the world, the leading Russian nationalist, is Donald Trump. He’s saying, “Look boys, I know that you’re influenced by American neoliberals. I’m gonna help you. I believe that you should be independent. I’m gonna help you Chinese, Russians and Iranians to be independent. I’m going to keep pushing sanctions on agriculture to make sure that you’re able to feed yourself. I’m gonna push sanctions on technology, to make sure that you can defend yourself.” So he obviously is a Chinese and Russian agent, just like MSNBC says.  

Ability to integrate a complex interaction between military and economic factors  into systemic and easily grasped picture is not there in the US. The whole generation (or two) of the economic ignoramuses who can operate only in the world of neo-liberal voodoo and reign of financial capital has emerged since the collapse of the Soviet Union and it is incompetent, not able to face the realities, especially military realities of the 21st century, which define the catastrophic departure of the United States from her real, and perceived, greatness. "Economy" built on speculation and selling the snake oil of IOUs, or which depends on such news as this:

The explosion on the tanker in the northern Syrian city of Afrin killed at least 10 people, Reuters reported, citing initial reports from Turkey's state-run Anadolu news agency Tuesday. News of the bomb detonation led to a rise in oil's “risk premium, even in a market with a glut of crude,” Phil Flynn, senior market analyst at The Price Futures Group, told MarketWatch. Against that backdrop, the front-month June West Texas Intermediate crude (CLM20) briefly traded as high of $13.69 a barrel before turning lower again to settle down by 44 cents, or 3.4%, at $12.34 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Is not sustainable, especially when it lost its power to coerce anyone who matters into believing that Wall Street IS the economy, which it is not. But we all are yet to face unfolding reckoning of REAL valuation and that will shake the global economy to its foundation. Just some thoughts for today.   

Geoeconomics As The Derivative Of Power.

In 1990 Edward Luttwalk came up with the notion of geoeconomics and Western political "science" field was hooked. If you are a political "scientists" you cannot miss the opportunity to hang on to yet another theory, in fact--you are obliged to do so, because fraudulent field of political "science" depends on multiplication of essences and doctrine-mongering for a simple reason of a paycheck and tenures, because otherwise most of those "scientists" are unemployable in any serious capacity in which one bears responsibility for consequences. And, of course, who can forget "Thucydides Gap" or "Hybrid Warfare"--a multilayered theology of a BS concocted by people who, quoting great Alexander Pushkin from his Evgenii Onegin:

We all meandered through our schooling 

haphazard; so, to God be thanks,

 it's easy, without too much fooling, 

to pass for cultured in our ranks. 

So this great mind, Luttwak that is, came up with a fascinating stratagem that in modern world military power is really not that important and it is all about, speaking in a layman's lingo, about economic warfare, geoeconomics that is. Wonderful. This is expected from people who study "strategies" of Roman Empire in the age of standoff weapons, super-fast computers and nuclear power and try to apply those mysterious "principles" to the modern warfare. Not to speak, of course, about this teeny-weeny cognitive problem of Western "analysts" (at least most of those who study the world through the lens of various "concepts") which still cannot tie together a decisive influence of a modern military power, itself being a first derivative of large highly developed industrial economies, on a global economic order which is driven, with relatively short periods of peace, by the warfare. Modern Western economies emerged as a result of a warfare and warfare, sadly, remains the main tool of "running" the modern world. Enter US military power.

An embodiment and a main tool of US "rules based order" is a mighty US Navy's nuclear aircraft carrier. Together with hundreds military bases spread all over the globe, they form a foundation of what came to be known as Pax Americana, "Rules Based Order", "globalization" etc. There is NO geoeconomics without USS Theodore Roosevelt or 82nd Airborne Division, period. Never existed, because "economic warfare" can exist ONLY when it is propped up by the bayonets or, in our time, by "power projection force". In fact, US Carrier Battle Group is an Exhibit A of American imperialism rooted in economic system which can exist only through looting those who are "pacified" by means of those Carrier Battle Groups. In fact, those forces become themselves the economic entity because of the modern US economy losing its competitive edge with an astonishing speed and extortion by military means becomes the only viable method of supporting the US economically. 

So, an accelerating shrinkage of the US economy suddenly creates a huge difficulty in maintaining those immensely expensive forces and the reality begins to set in. 

WASHINGTON – An internal Office of the Secretary of Defense assessment calls for the Navy to cut two aircraft carriers from its fleet, freeze the large surface combatant fleet of destroyers and cruisers around current levels and add dozens of unmanned or lightly manned ships to the inventory, according to documents obtained by Defense News.The study calls for a fleet of nine carriers, down from the current fleet of 11, and for 65 unmanned or lightly manned surface vessels. The study calls for a surface force of between 80 and 90 large surface combatants, and an increase in the number of small surface combatants – between 55 and 70, which is substantially more than the Navy currently operates.

For (real) military professionals everywhere there is very little surprise in this development because, speaking in broadsides, the United States simply cannot afford such forces anymore. In fact, the US cannot afford even half of its present Armed Forces because not only the United States' real economy, that is to say industry, cannot produce anymore that number of forces (Google the fate of US tank industry), it cannot pay for them even if it continues to mercilessly print paper money. Moreover, immensely expensive carriers and their operations are not sustainable anymore because there is no effective defense against modern super-sonic anti-shipping missiles which proliferate and, even Iran has many of those, not to speak of having a very good targeting protocols in her ballistic missiles allegedly capable to hit moving targets. I, of course, am not talking about Russia, or China. So, here it is, as with the US shale oil, US military power as it exists today is not only unsustainable but it contributes dramatically to a decline of the US already shrinking real economy, it provides no strategic benefits as it used to, when many ignorant people believed in the myth of an American military power, which always cleared the road towards the economic benefits. 

But you know me, I cringe when I hear (read) people waxing economic and political without understanding the nature and application of military power and how it shapes economic reality. No amount of political doctrine mongering can change a simple fact that Real Revolution in Military Affairs is here, it is now and it seems that some people in the US begin to understand that US military and economic power in present "geoeconomic", let's call it that, paradigm counts increasingly for less and less. But I told you so, didn't I?  

About "Hegemony". Fast Thought.

Even today, when browsing media--I am not going to give links, they are easy to find--I stumble constantly on definition of the United States as hegemon. Hegemon this, hegemon that and all of this usage ONLY in the context of what Fed will do, how Mnuchin slept last night, and what is the state of banks. I think, using financial voodoo which is being presented as a "science" in Anglo-sphere media and its iterations in, say, Russia among what is known today as Russian liberda circles with appropriate media such as Kommersant of RBC, one is literally forced by narrative to believe that the US is a hegemon because US Dollar is world's reserve currency and everything flows from it. Well, this is a preposterous and utterly incompetent view because even a generic definition of hegemony doesn't support those assumptions in the least, because in real world US Dollar being (for now) global reserve currency is merely an advantage, malignant at that for the US itself, but hegemony is something else altogether:   

control by one country, organization, etc. over other countries, etc. within a particular group 

My latest book, my previous book, my third book which I am writing are all dedicated to a deconstruction of the myth of the United States being a real hegemon, because "control" is a very vague term until one begins to specify elements of this control and here is this slight problem: one cannot define "control" merely by balance sheet, because real hegemony realistically is built around... I know, I know, I am such a bore... tangibles. Or, as I write for years--by actual predictors, overwhelming majority of which are based on real economy and real capability. Let's recall this from more than 4 years ago: 

1. Owns and operates the international banking system;

2. Controls all hard currencies;

3. Is the world's principal customer;

4. Provides the majority of the worlds finished goods;

5. Dominates international capital markets;

6. Exerts considerable moral leadership within many societies;

7. Is capable of massive military intervention;

8. Controls the sea lanes;

9. Conducts most advanced technical research and development;

10. Controls leading edge technical education;

11. Dominates access to space;

12. Dominates aerospace industry;

13. Dominates international communications;

14. Dominates the high-tech weapons industry. 

Out of those 14 points, highlighted 11, that is 78.6%, are directly connected to a very serious manufacturing or, in modern lingo, "real economy". If one throws away BS about "considerable moral leadership" (a delusion still propagated by Huntington's founded Foreign Policy magazine) and the point about control of all hard currencies, this share increases to 11 out of 12, that is roughly 92%.  It is also what makes one a military power. And even this list is still incomplete....

In general, real hegemony without military hegemony is nothing more than exercise in PR and feel-good-about-oneself delusion. In general, hegemony without kinetic ability to prove, by means of power enforcing, of the order hegemon wants to establish is not a hegemony. This military hegemony is based on REAL economy, not on stock market or futures or any other paper issued by any bank. Well, guess what American hegemony was based upon--two myths: alleged military power characteristic of hegemon, myth of US economy based on valuations of financial markets. Once those two myths have been removed the collapse ensued, because trust, deep down, in the deepest recesses of their minds many believed primarily in those two myths. Not anymore, the trust had been broken. It doesn't work anymore, it is either non-existent in some places, in other--is running out and really fast at that. Reason--US cannot enforce Bretton Woods, petrodollar, Eurodollar or whatever the hell other simulacra anyone uses to describe Pax Americana, because to do so one actually needs to perform, especially militarily and technologically. US cannot do that. It couldn't for a long time, but it took some effort and time to "explain" or to convey this simple truth to people who, like majority of the so called "investors", know about fictional financial markets but do not understand anything in terms of actual warfare, how military works, how real economy operates based on tangibles, from R&D to industrial manufacturing. They just don't! It is not surprising that good ol' Henry Kissinger ended up on the board of directors of Theranos fraudulent company or Boeing had on its board of directors people, like Nikki Hailey, who have same relation to aerospace as I have to Kabuki Theater. Plus, of course, one cannot continue losing wars against weak opposition non-stop. The doubt, is a like a slow metastasized cancer--once started and not detected, it will spread and kill patient. This exactly what is happening now: we see doubts being realized on the level of general population, some of which is well-off and are "investors" who are completely at loss with their mostly virtual "papers" which very few will be interested in in coming months. 

Addendum To Two "No Shit" Moments In A Row.

It occurred to me that some explanations regarding US Treasuries and main holders of those financial "instruments" must be explored in a separate addendum. This will help understand the dynamics of Russian-American relations. The main question is WHY buy US treasuries or US Treasury Bonds? Let's give those a clear definition from financial "wizards" from Fidelity. 

Treasuries are debt obligations issued and backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. Because they are considered to have low credit or default risk, they generally offer lower yields relative to other bonds.  

So, as you can see, the United States treasury sells US debt to, actually, finance US economy. Foreign entities buy this debt because they think they can earn low yield but reliable buck on those. Buying US treasuries is also a good indicator of trust, or otherwise, in US not only economically, but even more so geopolitically. I repeat ad nauseam that Pax Americana's financial pyramid rests primarily with American military power mythology, not with US real economy. US real economy cannot generate enough growth to even scratch the surface of US debt obligations. Prior to roughly 2014 foreign governments' buying of US treasuries was based on US economic data which was, to put it mildly, not exactly connected to the reality and risk expectations were allayed primarily by the ideas that the United States, having enough military wherewithal, would be able to coerce a whole host of countries to "offer" their resources to the United States, thus providing enough fuel for continuation of the racket for a little bit longer. Then something got broken. Exactly around 2014. 

The US military "primacy" was called into a serious question. You all know what happened then. Then there was 2015, and then March of 2018, and on and on, and on. The only country in the world who can both wipe the United States off the map and defeat in conventionally in Europe simply stated that she doesn't really give a shit. Recall this:

Russia is continuing to diversify state reserves away from US debt. The latest data from the US Treasury shows that Russia's share hit an 11-year minimum and totaled only $14.9 billion.The share of US sovereign debt bonds in Russia's portfolio has been reduced dramatically in recent months. Russia held $96.1 billion in US Treasuries in March before selling half its holdings in April, dropping to 22nd place among major foreign holders of American treasury securities at $48.7 billion.In 2010, Russia was among the top 10 holders of US Treasuries at $176.3 billion. With its holdings falling to $14.9 billion in May, the country is now below the $30 billion threshold for inclusion on the Treasury Department’s monthly report of major holders. On Tuesday, the Treasury released a list of 33 countries which includes the biggest holder China to the smallest Chile. Russia is no longer on the list. 

Pay attention to the date of this report: 18 July 2018. About 100 days after Putin's address to Federal Assembly on March 1, 2018.  The dates are not accidental. As anyone can see, US treasuries are a bit more than just financial instruments (any government issues those) but they have more sacral meaning as world's admission, and a sign of belonging, to what was considered the global elite club based in Washington D.C. Now take a look at this graph:

Can you find Russia in it? Don't even try. Russia is not going to be financing the economy of a country which declared Russia an absolute evil. You just don't help people who viscerally hate and ready to kill you. So, as reputable Vesti reports (in Russian), Russia's "investment" in the US treasuries on December 2019 was exactly $9.974 Billion. In other words, Russia has 7 times fewer US treasuries than Bermuda, and 25 times less than mighty Luxembourg. You see, at issue here is what drives the American "elites" completely mad and desperate. Here is simple answer, unlike even China, not to speak of occupied Japan, Russia has an official receipt of being fully sovereign country. Even economically mighty China cannot have as much freedom as Russia does in China's economically symbiotic relations with the United States. 

Russia does have those freedoms not just because she has one of the most, if not THE MOST, undervalued economy in the world--a courtesy of swindlers from all kinds of Western ratings and economic "analysis" institutions--but because this grossly undervalued economy produces weapons which allow Russia to insulate herself from any kind of blackmail and be her own thing. One of those major things is Russia's refusal to get US financial "debt" as a sign of submission to the rules of self-proclaimed hegemon. Moreover, Russia, considering her global status, is leading the way in dumping US treasuries, and that is a deadly threat to existing regime in the West. As many observers within the Empire are noting, something really strange is happening to the symbol of the financial reign by the United States:

Under the impact of a stupendous spending binge peppered with juicy tax cuts, the Treasury Department has had to issue a flood of Treasury securities to fund the cash outflow. So, over the past 12 months, the US gross national debt has ballooned by $1.5 trillion to $22 trillion as of January 30, according to Treasury Department data. And these are the good times when the economy is hopping. At the next recession, this is going to get cute.But who the heck is buying all this debt? That question will grow increasingly important and worrisome as we move forward with this gigantic ballooning debt, fueled by deficits that Fed chairman Jerome Powell calls “unsustainable” at every chance he gets  

The answer is simple: 

American banks (very large holders), hedge funds, pension funds, mutual funds, and other institutions along with individual investors in their brokerage accounts or at their accounts with the US Treasury were huge net buyers, while nearly everyone else was selling, increasing their holdings by $1.36 trillion over the 12-month period. These American entities combined owned the remainder of the US gross national debt, $7.5 trillion, or 34.4% of the total!

The United States literally turns itself into the self-licking ice-cream cone and, eventually, she will lick herself into the empty cone, with no ice-cream left. Moreover, the United States has been denied her post WW II myth of military omnipotence thus showing very clear signs of weakness, like recent events with Iran, which indicate to many foreign US treasuries' holders that at some point of time they may submit those obligations for cashing without serious consequences for themselves and that is the big game and plan for them--big players, such as China, already doing this, however slowly (but then again, China holds more than a trillion worth of US treasuries) and the whole thing is already in progress and pass the point of no return. 

American "elites" know who drives this process--Russia. And China. And desperation shows: 

Speaking today at London's Royal United Services Institute, Esper said the political and economic leverage wielded by the Chinese is already eroding the sovereignty of some nations. And Russian invasion of Georgia, annexation of Crimea and violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, as it continued to build up its inventory of strategic arms, shows that Russia is unwilling to be a responsible international actor, he said. "[We] cannot stand idly by while authoritarian nations attempt to reshape the global security environment to their favor at the expense of others," Esper said. "Doing so would invite continued aggression and diminish our ability to deter future conflicts. As such, America's National Defense Strategy makes it clear that great power competition is once again the primary concern of U.S. national security."

Mark Esper and many people in Pentagon are not stupid, they can calculate and do operational planning, they know that the US military today is capable to fight only third world militaries, and even there success is not guaranteed. And yes, in Esper's definition of Russia "not willing to be a responsible international actor" is correct, precisely because she knows what kind of rogue state she is dealing with and that is why she was in a separation mode non-stop since 2014. But Russia is still in business with the US, as she should be, because Russians finally learned a good ol' capitalist truism--money doesn't smell, only business--nothing personal. Only hard cold cash--no treasuries. What a funny world we all live in. 

Fareed Zakaria Woke Up?

Fareed Zakaria is a demagogue and a typical talking head contemporary American pundit--talkative, shallow and not really cultured. Yet, when even this poster-boy for pop-geopolitics (after all, he was a Sam Huntington's student), a fig leaf covering general ignorance, arrives to such conclusions, it means it is getting really hot down (or up) there, in the corridors of the American temple of geopolitical "thought": 

Sometime in the last two years, American hegemony died. The age of U.S. dominance was a brief, heady era, about three decades marked by two moments, each a breakdown of sorts. It was born amid the collapse of the Berlin Wall, in 1989. The end, or really the beginning of the end, was another collapse, that of Iraq in 2003, and the slow unraveling since. But was the death of the United States’ extraordinary status a result of external causes, or did Washington accelerate its own demise through bad habits and bad behavior? That is a question that will be debated by historians for years to come. But at this point, we have enough time and perspective to make some preliminary observations. As with most deaths, many factors contributed to this one. There were deep structural forces in the international system that inexorably worked against any one nation that accumulated so much power. In the American case, however, one is struck by the ways in which Washington—from an unprecedented position—mishandled its hegemony and abused its power, losing allies and emboldening enemies.

Well, Fareed, while your whole piece in Foreign Affairs is behind the pay-wall, allow me to give a brief review of those factors which precipitated this death. 

1. While the United States, in the wake of the Soviet collapse, remained the sole superpower, it somehow escaped the attention of all those "analysts" that Russia which emerged from the rubble of the Soviet Union still remained a nuclear superpower herself capable even in 1990s to obliterate the United States. Nor ACTUAL US military power, the only element which dominates completely ignorant minds of American geopolitical "academe" was as great as it was heralded after the Gulf War. It was akin to the situation of throwing an undesirable tenant from the room and trying to shut the door after this tenant, only to see this tenant's foot still in the door not allowing to shut it. 

2. United States, its political class, almost exclusively, do not grasp the nature and application of the modern military power within the framework of real economy, not some BS credit driven monetary indexes which hid so well a catastrophe of American de-industrialization, hailed, including by you, Fareed, as a development and proof of American power, while in reality being an exact opposite. In reality, few humanities educated people have a good grasp of the world-class hi-tech military being a first derivative of advanced and large economies. They simply do not understand this connection.

3. Yes, I agree--NO power on this planet has the ability to control this whole planet, especially with some contenders capable to defeat the United States in their vicinity, which, accidentally happen to be in Eurasia--the main prize of this whole game. So much for "hyper-power". Once military issue is settled, the institutional one follows, with American tools of control, from currency to international organizations, to moronic financial rating agencies, being dismantled or discredited as I type this. Davos "civilization" is going down, Fareed, for a simple reason--it has few resources, it is being raped into the multiculturalism and decay and militarily it can only threaten third-rate armies of underdeveloped states. It still can built skyscraper here and there, it still can produce one or the other piece of wonderful technology, but that is about it--it reached its full moral collapse stage and it is facing down into the abyss of social and economic upheaval--a direct result of suicidal economic and social policies of the last 30+ years. 

4. Ah, yes, American elites in general are second rate, not well-educated, hardly cultured and you, Fareed, is one of their best representatives. Lawyers, philosophers and political "scientists" do not make good statesmen. Not to mention that political science is not a science. 

So, it is a healthy process then, when Zakaria begins to recognize a reality, which he for so long tried, very publicly, to deny, or hide. Will he, and his ilk, recognize REAL factors behind the death of unipolarity is yet to be seen. Considering, in general, a dismal American political scientists' record of correctly predicting or forecasting anything, the forecast is...ahem...not good. But who knows. But in general, the United States, in the wake of Soviet collapse and Russia truly desiring great relations between the two, humiliated Russia by unceremoniously shoving her to the curb and unleashed, starting from the rape of Yugoslavia, a sequence of mindless and criminal military aggressions and color "revolutions'. Well, folks, what do you do when you learn that there is a loony armed with the kitchen knife running amok in your neighborhood with police doing nothing about it? Right, you earn money and buy a shotgun, or two. Just in case. Same applies to geopolitics, always did. And especially so to Russia, who knows a thing or two about dealing with bullies. So, here we are.

In related news: this drone, shot by Iran, thing is interesting in terms of dynamics of reactions. What is also important about this whole situation? A single Global Hawk's price tag is somewhere in the vicinity of $200 million and, yes, it is "stealthy". Make you own conclusions what this message is all about.           

Facepalm Of The Week.

Richard Haas wrote yet another (many others wrote similar crap, see Fukuyama's recent piece in this very same Foreign Affairs, among others) pretentious meandering piece on, what else, global "order", or disorder if one wishes, and continued a glorious tradition of American political "scientists", "diplomats" and other former bureaucrats in avoiding speaking about real reasons for decried by them "decay" or this global order. Haas starts with a wowser of generalizations in his piece titled How a World Order Ends:

• A stable world order is a rare thing. When one does arise, it tends to come after a great convulsion that creates both the conditions and the desire for something new. It requires a stable distribution of power and broad acceptance of the rules that govern the conduct of international relations. It also needs skillful statecraft, since an order is made, not born.

I don't know if Haas senses a deep sarcasm in this his statement but the point is--those who proclaimed themselves the enforcer of this "order" succeeded gloriously in destabilizing the world they thought they "won" by the end of the Cold War. Since the times after late George H.W. Bush, that is starting from Clinton getting to power, terms "skillful statecraft" and the US can not be used in the same sentence since the degradation of American elites responsible for this alleged "craft" is nothing short of catastrophic both for the US and for the world. Haas is one of those "elites". So, to prove that he is "elite" and "intellectual" he, of course, waxes "historical". He gets to the point by predictably asking:

What lessons can be drawn from this history? As much as anything else, the rise and fall of major powers determines the viability of the prevailing order, since changes in economic strength, political cohesion, and military power shape what states can and are willing to do beyond their borders.  

He goes onto drawing parallels and looking for power balance symmetries in the events of the 19th century and this is where most American "thinkers" make huge mistake. History really teaches very little (albeit some generalizations, of course, are possible and even necessary for human nature is slow in changing), it certainly taught very little people like Haas, or Fukuyama who time after time buy into own pseudo-intellectual constructs trying to rationalize a subject which neither Haas, Fukuyama, Allison and most of the crop of the American, ahem, scholars have no clue about--the nature of military power and its application. It is simply not there; not having this clue about what, actually, always defined, defines and will continue to define balance of power, global "order", what have you in the foreseeable future, is rather peculiar feature of American (and Western) political scientists. Of course, appeals to history are cute, knowing few facts more about Metternich or about wording of some 19th Century treaty than your opponent makes a good background for "intellectual" exchange, debate and, eventual arrival to some form of intellectual "discovery" (especially if a good Scotch and cigar are involved) but in order to learn actual history one must learn real military history with all that it entails.They also must understand this simple (can I be arrogant and claim it?) Martyanov's axiom--world class military power is a function of the world-class nation-state, especially its economic and scientific potential. Both cannot exist without each-other.

Once such a commitment to actually learning stuff is made, one inevitably will arrive to conclusions on HOW and WHY "rise and fall of major powers" happens and this is a tricky and very sensitive issue for the United States because she is NOT a continental warfare power. With the exception of a turkey shoot of a third rate Saddam's Army in the Gulf and, granted, a magnificent victory in the Pacific during WW II, all other military events in the American history were of secondary importance when ranked against the background of a global military history. US "victories" in both WWI and WWII were coalition victories with the US arriving very late to the fight. American Civil War, while of importance as a first bona fide war of the industrial age (well, Crimean War certainly qualifies too) was primarily internal US and, to a degree, British endeavor. In other words, America's rise as a global power was predetermined primarily, apart from undeniable American technological and industrial genius, by a combination of very unique favorable circumstances in which NOT fighting a continental war with all it entails was a defining factor in American emergence as a true global player after WW II. Hence a rather foolhardy attitudes towards a war in the US because people who call on it all the time, including Haas (he wanted the US to be a global sheriff), Kagan cabal, US policy-makers and other public "servants" know extremely well that in case of war their asses will still reside in the safety of the America-proper while American GIs will die for whatever BS doctrine is a fad any given day in D.C. 

Haas needs, however, to justify the failure of the American doctrine-mongering (he knows about this failure, if he doesn't--then it is the case for medical psychology, not history) and he does what most of them do, he deludes himself with this:

Although Russia has avoided any direct military challenge to NATO, it has nonetheless shown a growing willingness to disrupt the status quo: through its use of force in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine since 2014, its often indiscriminate military intervention in Syria, and its aggressive use of cyberwarfare to attempt to affect political outcomes in the United States and Europe.   

It is a very telling (false through and through) passage since it discloses a nagging, barely hidden under the surface, complex of inferiority they feel. It is schizophrenic really, akin to Russophrenia--when one has to both proclaim the US the "greatest" power that ever was, while having zero evidence of this power's military successes in the second half of the 20th and, especially, 21st centuries to support such claims. So, Haas and his keen of "intellectuals" who influence US foreign policy need to use a mental therapy by inventing things which are not there:

1. For starters, there is nothing, zero, "indiscriminate" in Russia's participation--Russia was invited to Syria by this country's legitimate government, does Mr.Haas know this? Russia kills in Syria, using a lot of SMART munitions, a Jihad Internationale ranging from ISIS, Al Qaeda to other unicorns ("democratic" head choppers supported by the US and her allies). US desperately wanted Russia and Assad government to fail--but since they didn't study military history they knew very little about what Russia's objectives were and how she fights in Syria. So people like Haas are really pissed--yet another of their forecast didn't pan out. 

2. Russia didn't really use her force in Ukraine. Yes, Russia, obviously, supports LDNR republics but I wouldn't call it use of force since if the force would have been really used, Ukraine would cease to exist as a state really-really fast with NATO getting a western rump of this largely failed state, while LDNR with Russia's help would reconstitute something new in the East and South of present day Ukraine. So, why Haas writes an obvious BS in supposedly scholarly magazine is a mystery. Self-medicating mentally? Possible.   

3. Ah, yes, Russiagate, Russians "meddling" in Western "democracies". Surely both Russia and US conduct cyber operations but this whole circus with Russia "influencing" outcomes is really pathetic (did Haas call Muller recently, I am sure after two years of "investigation" we all will get "evidence" about Russians subverting US "democracy" any minute now) and characteristic of a lack of any self-respect and huge insecurity of US "elites" who long ago hit the bottom and are on the level of travelers to Roswell in their attempts to connect spiritually with aliens. 

In general, there is nothing scholarly in this continuous, often murky, stream of recent American "thinkers" theses, ranging from magazine articles to books, since in their continuous lament about collapse of Pax Americana, or "global order", or "liberal order", whatever the moniker they want to slap on the global chaos the US is trying to perpetuate in an attempt to save its hegemony, they continuously forget to mention one simple military fact. This fact is the loss of American insulation from conventional warfare (who wants to fight a nuclear war, no, really?) she enjoyed since WW II and facing a very grim reality of getting conventional strikes on US Command and Control and military industrial infrastructure in case of igniting conventional conflict with, say, Russia. It is this massive change in military-strategic paradigm, driven this time by a very real, not contrived, Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) which the US appeared to be not ready for. This is what drives this mass hysteria among those who want to blame their own lack of knowledge, education, foresight and of this proverbial statecraft on everyone else but themselves. Indeed, with "scholars" and "thinkers" like Haas (or Fukuyama, or Allison, or.....theirs is the army) there is very little surprise that the United States finds itself where it is. In other words, those "scholars" should have known better but they haven't and for that they have only themselves to blame, even if hiding behind pseudo-scientific rhetoric about "global order", because in the end one reaps what one sows.        

Getting Situationally Aware.

Remember this? 

And this:

However debatable such an approach may be, there is no denial that this proverbial G(t), that is geopolitical potential is quantifiable and here is an interesting piece of analysis by former Indian diplomat M. K. Bhadrakumar, who in his piece US-Russia-China triangle in flux, again comes to some interesting conclusions and provides some valuable insights. He starts with giving a trivial and unimaginative Kissinger "triangulation" of 1970s some treatment, not forgetting to mention earlier Eisenhower's triangulation of 1950s: 

Kissinger argued that the United States, which sought to profit from the enmity between Moscow and Beijing in the Cold War era, would therefore need “to play this balance-of-power game totally unemotionally. Right now, we need the Chinese to correct the Russians and to discipline the Russians.” But in the future, it would be the other way around….Now, this recapitulation is useful today, because Trump’s moves so far are indicative of an agenda to revert to the Eisenhower era – containment of China by forging an alliance with Russia.

As I stated not for once, American geopolitical "theory" is highly unimaginative and rigid. Its main fallacy is an assumption that the US is eternal and ever omnipotent—both being very false notions. It was inevitable in the scholarship represented by such "academe" as Brzezinski or Fukuyama, in general, and a collection of raging Russophobes in relation to Russia in particular. Kissinger may think that US can continue to play this geopolitical triangle or that this triangulation is useful today—an idea Kissinger exercises now—but the reality is much more complex and it is not anymore about this proverbial, and largely obsolete, US-Russia-China triangle. The reasons (some of them) it is obsolete is because: 

1. NO meaningful "alliance" (or whatever other tired term could be used here) between Russia and US is possible today in principle. It is partially due to Russia's increasing G(t) and S(t) with the same diminishing for the US. And, because Russia knows the score in this dyadic relations. US simply cannot afford to "buy" Russia. It could in 1990s, it failed due to hubris and delusion. The question today is if the US will be able to pull itself by the shoelaces from the swamp she is in. 

2. Both Russia and China are the key parts of Eurasia and it is not about just Russian-Chinese relations—it is about new Eurasian economic and security configuration in which the US is viewed as merely another power which needs to be prevented from interfering into the Eurasian affairs. Indeed, India is in play, so is Iran and so is…drum roll—Europe. But there is some worry on China's part and it is understandable:

The government-owned China Daily carried an editorial – Has the meeting in Helsinki reset US-Russia relations? – where it estimates that at best, “Helsinki summit represents a good beginning for better relations between the US and Russia.” Notably, however, the editorial is pessimistic about any real US-Russia breakthrough, including on Syria, the topic that Putin singled out as a test case of the efficacy of Russian-American cooperation.

This unease can be explained in the next passage:

On the other hand, the Chinese Communist Party tabloid Global Times featured an editorial giving a stunning analysis of what has prompted Trump to pay such attention (“respect”) to Russia — China can learn from Trump’s respect for Russia. It concludes that the only conceivable reason could be that although Russia is not an economic power, it has retained influence on the global stage due to military power:

• Trump has repeatedly stressed that Russia and the US are the two biggest nuclear powers in the world, with their combined nuclear arsenal accounting for 90 percent of world’s total, and thus the US must live in peace with Russia. On US-Russia relations, Trump is clearheaded.

On the contrary, if the US is piling pressure on China today, it is because China, although an economic giant, is still a weak military power.

And here is the issue for China and people who formulate strategies there—using mere the size of GDP or the size of nuclear arsenal is not sufficient enough to become really strong military power, that is to gain this main component which plays the most important role in this G(t)--XM. Here I may go on a tangent and recall a very interesting example from the world so completely removed from military that is may seem almost irrelevant—yet, it is very germane to such a discussion. 

About 10-11 years ago two of the greatest jazz and fusion guitar players of generation, Alan Holdsworth and John McLaughlin, had a friendly discussion on the pages of one of the guitar magazines in which they concluded, rightly so, that no matter how good one is in using sustain on their electric guitar, together with other possibilities sound processing affords an electric guitar player, it only matters if you can play acoustic, completely unplugged—that is the real measure of one's ability. Absolutely the same applies to military power—one is either a great conventional military power or, once a serious look is taken both at the nature of a military conflict and evolution of military technology, is a mere static observer of a great global power game in which conventional capability becomes a decisive factor. In this, Mr. Bhadrakumar's final conclusion is wrong:

Indeed, if the crunch time comes, China will be on its own within the Kissingerian triangle. And China needs to prepare for such an eventuality. On the other hand, China’s surge to create a vast nuclear arsenal could make a mockery of the grand notions in Moscow and Washington that they are the only adults in the room in keeping the global strategic balance.

China is (relatively) weak militarily NOT because she doesn't have enough nuclear weapons—this could relatively fast, with Chinese financial wherewithal, be addressed. Chinese relative military weakness comes from a huge technological, cultural and organizational issues of her conventional capability, which, despite its polished outward appearance, is nowhere near with that of the United States or Russia. It is technology—always was, always will be. It is also an operational experience and the way conventional forces are deployed, which matters great deal—China has no real operational experience here. There are reasons to believe that some technological gaps will never be closed—China continues to struggle mightily in aviation, submarine, space technology and other key technological and operational concepts. Moreover, one has to answer the questions of why China needs to prepare for any "Kissingerian" eventuality and what is this "grand notion" in Moscow? All signs from Moscow are unequivocal in their confirmation of Moscow' commitment to Eurasian economic integration and maintaining the peace—this is impossible without China. 

But, paradoxically, the main answer lies within new Russian geopolitical posture, which in today's parlance could be characterized as a pragmatic egoism and in this new Russia's vision of herself China is by far more important, both as an energy and military technology market, than the United States will ever be. Russians finally learned a very healthy cynicism when it comes to Russian interests and in relation with China will continue to observe the dynamics of mutual trade—unlike the US, China does have means to "buy" Russia geopolitically, granted, of course, on Russia's conditions and Russia doesn't mind having China's strategic back. China knows it. This immortal principle "you scratch my back—I scratch yours" applies to Russian-Chinese relations completely, while it doesn't work and will not work in US-Russian relations, thus killing any vain discussion on some "triangle". Indeed, why break a good thing with mutual scratching? Especially when at stake is a new brave world where at least some semblance of balance and real order will be restored. As I stated not for once, the times of an alcoholic low life and cabal of thieves in Kremlin are over—good that at least this idea started to dawn on someone in Washington. Maybe someone is getting, finally, situationally aware there. As they say—better late than never.