People Complained About MoA Link...

 ... Guys, this is not me, this is Disqus algorithm which removes some posts with links to Spam folder. Here is the link to Bernhard's excellent piece at his blog MoA. 

When I was in officer school, pre-1991, NATO was less dependent on air-superiority than it is today. We also had some good air defense systems. Our artillery was not superior to the Soviet one but was well layered - from short, medium to long ranged systems - and would have created very significant damages. We also had good pioneer equipment that allowed for the crossing rivers and ditches as well as serious mine fields. All this changed after the 1991 Gulf war in which U.S. air superiority and tank fist destroyed the Iraqi defense forces. That war was misconstrued as a big win when it in fact was simply the effect of a by far superior professional force over a unmotivated conscript army with old and often defunct weapons.

As an effect of the first Gulf war and later operations in Serbia, Afghanistan and again in Iraq the believe in NATO air-land doctrine was reinforced. Air superiority was the holy grail while the strong land force capabilities atrophied. An emphasis on guerilla suppression and on vehicles that could withstand simple improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Iraq and Afghanistan further unbalanced the force. It explains why the Ukrainian troops were miss-trained and miss-equipped for a counter-offensive even when the opposing force was a much harder to crack one than some goat herders from Helmand, Afghanistan.

Absolutely correct! And this doctrine could have emerged only through the operational and technological wishful thinking and self-erected mythology. Again, the Army that worships Patton as "genius" tank commander is bound to be defeated, because it doesn't study the REAL WWII history, and has some issues with basic arithmetic, forget about operational calculus. Read the whole thing at MoA. 

Bernhard Had It With ISW.

He correctly discusses a complete delusion of a famed neocon BS-tank Institute for the Study of War. As he notes: 

The neo-conservative 'Institute for the Study of War' (ISW) releases daily 'Russian offensive campaign assessments'. A lot of people in Washington DC seem to read them. They are of course pure propaganda only slightly aligned with the actual tactical situation in the Ukraine. I confess that I read them once a while purely for my amusement. Their main source seems to be the Ukrainian defense ministry which is of course lying left and right about the state of the war.

Bernhard asks after his excellent review: What are these guys smoking? I think I have a part of the answer: they smoke a BS of the exceptionalism. In general, if people like Keane or Petraeus do not understand what they dealing with when drinking Ukrainian military Kool Aid, one inevitably concludes that it is not accidental that these, and others like them, guys are genuine articles who are heavy on PR and very light on basics of real wars. Just read the whole thing on MoA (follow the link).

Bernhard of MoA Did A Good Write Up.

On "strategy" of brainiacs in D.C. 

The U.S. strategy to 'fix' Russia in Europe by imposing 'crushing sanctions' on it to then attack China is failing. That is because it was completely misconceived.

Strategy is a buzz word among politicos and journos because it is "loaded" and it gives an impression of something really mysterious and cool. I will be talking about it in my next video. Strategy as a "plan" of achieving political aims in anything, however, in the field of practical geopolitics of the second half of the 20th and the 21st centuries is a bit more than a "plan". As in military campaigns, one cannot become a "strategist" without having tactical and operational background and that is why all advanced military education in the world is structured around taking an officer from the tactical, to operational to strategic level of thinking, thus providing a pivot around which all strategic decisions, with inputs form tactical and operational levels, will revolve. This is not how modern political "science" and what passes for "strategic decision making" in the West works. 

Modern geopolitics as primarily the realm of raw power of the states projected against the geographic background is unknown to Western governing class. It cannot be known due to a radical lack of comprehension of instruments which dictate geopolitical reality--physical economy and military. These ARE very complex fields and at some point of time West's "intellectual elite", which is grown and brought up primarily within the confines of "humanities" departments of the US Ivy League and UK's old educational institutions, simply ran out of expertise which already was lacking even by the end of 19th century. In the 21st century--explaining to Vicky Nuland or Jake Sullivan what is combat networks' topology (granted basic course in the Graph Theory is taught) and how it is no less important than raw firepower--this is a fool's errand and an exercise in futility. 

But this is just one small segment out of very many of modern day reality which is more important to practical geopolitics and global power balance than what comes down to personal opinions of incompetent people with zero backgrounds in real strategy development and governance. And it is this and many other factors, not some abstract political concepts, which drive modern real strategies. US "elites" don't do strategies, they do strategy and doctrine-mongering which exist in a virtual world of illiterate personal passions, vendettas and ambitions and results of such "strategies" are telling--the country, the US is being run into the ground by people who literally do not know how the world works. Read Bernhard's excellent piece. It explains how those "strategies" fail. The US needs better "strategists", not political hacks operating on a white board "strategies" which fail time after time because they are detached from reality. But then again, that brings us to a larger question of US "political elites" being adequate to the task. The answer is obvious--they are not.  

Merry Christmas.

To everyone and let there be peace and calm. Of course, we know that this is impossible with neocons in charge in D.C. but for good people of this planet--let your wishes come true and stay healthy and prosper. Just to remind how Putin now weeps in his Main Kremlin Palace because he is denied shopping in Paris by Germany's Defense Minister and how he gazes across the Red Square at GUM.

To find solace there, I guess))) Moscow is magical at Christmas(es) (both Catholic and Orthodox) and New Year. 

But still sticking to my business, Bernhard of MoA published an interesting piece on, and you may have guessed it, hypersonic weapons and the paper from Naval Post Graduate School. Worthy of reading, believe me.

   U.S. Navy Acknowledges Russian Weapon Superiority

I will gladly elaborate more on this issue, including within the larger framework of European (in)security and will explain why things maybe changing faster than we may expect. In fact I was already preparing this explanation for video too. The gap is growing and the US is trying desperately to do something about it but there is very little what could be done. Now that Putin admits that Russia and China work on joint projects in developing advanced weaponry I doubt that the combined West can do anything about it. As I am on record--the gap is not years, it is generational, weapons and CONOPS of the 20th century against the warfare of the 21st. 

Scott Ritter is pretty straight-forward in his predictions. 

Russia is operating on its own timeline, one that seeks a rapid resolution to these issues. While Russia has agreed to direct talks with the U.S., and multilateral talks with NATO and the OSCE, these talks will not be allowed to drag on. Should the U.S. not agree to the Russian demands outright (never going to happen) or a reasonable counterproposal (highly unlikely), and should the U.S. go forward with its plans to deploy the Dark Eagle hypersonic missile system to Europe (prompting a Russian response to deploy weapons systems of its own that place the totality of Europe under the immediate threat of annihilation), then the outcome is a foregone conclusion—Russia will destroy Ukraine militarily.

But I have my doubts about timetable for Dark Eagle to start with and, once and if deployed, about its real capabilities, especially against Russia's anti-missile systems which are already in place. As Scott notes further:

Moreover, Russia may very well deploy hypersonic weapons into the Caribbean, either in Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, or a combination thereof, to counter the threat to Moscow posed by U.S. systems in Europe.  

True, but (K-329) Belgorod is already in IOC and Khabarovsk is getting ready, that is 12 Poseidons. But even 6 of them is enough to... well, I don't want to go there. 

This is K-329 in June. So, there are options... many of them.

Tough Talk, As Usual.

US State Department declares that it will counteract Russia's "military activity" near Ukraine (in Russian) and we all know that it cannot but there are other ways. 

The U.S. imposed sanctions on a ship involved in the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline as the Biden administration looks to exert more pressure on Russia without antagonizing Germany.

In related news, I have in mind a list of janitors and drivers from Gazprom who could be sanctioned by the US. Hey, that will show them, damn Russkies. And, of course, how can one live without Ted Cruz performing a simulation of productive activity. 

The move is unlikely to mollify critics of the Biden administration in Congress. Lawmakers from both parties want the U.S. to take a tougher stand against a project they say undermines European security by giving Russia more leverage over the continent. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas has held up most of President Joe Biden’s State Department nominees over the issue.

That's modern America for you. Having said all that, I want to reiterate--NATO doesn't have forces not only to "counter-act" anything Russia does but even if it wanted to it still has no means to fight a war with Russia. Meddling in 404? Absolutely! Throw in some advisors, some Javelins, some ammo and some boats. Of course, it changes absolutely nothing, but CJCS General Milley and Valery Gerasimov had a conversation today over the phone.

Amid growing tensions in Europe, Russia's most senior military general, Valery Gerasimov, has discussed “pressing issues of international security” with his direct American counterpart Mark Milley, during a phone call on Tuesday. The Pentagon confirmed that the two “military leaders discussed several security-related issues of concern.” The phone call was part of efforts aimed at ensuring “risk reduction and operational de-confliction,” its statement added.Neither the Pentagon, nor the Russian Defense Ministry have revealed any additional details of the call in their respective statements. It came as Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said American nuclear-capable bombers had made dozens of sorties across Eastern Europe in recent weeks.The drills involved the bombers practicing “their ability to use nuclear weapons against Russia,” Shoigu said after meeting with Chinese defense minister, Wei Fenghe, in Moscow on Tuesday.

It is good that they talk, because the rest of a discussion in the US public policy sphere, including the US State Department, is a show for US media. Here is an example, General Keane providing zero content of any value on those hyper-sonic technologies (and Ukraine, of course). 

I respect General Keane's career and all, but he really should update himself on "what the US learned" about Soviet Union and deterrence. I'll give him a hint--US learned nothing. At this stage I doubt that General Keane who is retired and is 78, I believe, even despite his, I am sure, serious connections in Pentagon fully grasps what has already transpired. For starters the United States never could defend itself from the launch of Soviet cruise missiles and that is why were so anxious to sign the INF treaty which would make this missile removed from Soviet subs.Obviously we are talking about RK-55 Granat (SS-N-21) "Sampson" cruise missile. But never allow facts to get in a way of a good narrative, including this BS about Russia "invading" 404. 

 

But Keane struck me absolutely with his lack of understanding what it means to "intercept" hyper-sonic missile. Apart from the fact that US recon satellites and X-37 are already made obsolete, especially with S-550 and A-235 already deployed or about to be deployed in the nearest future, especially as mobile complexes, the main question is this: even if you see the hyper-sonic weapon's launch, what are you going to do about it? Moreover, you can "observe" gliders, what are you going to do when you "observe" launches by 3M22 Zircon or Kinzhal from MiG-31K or TU-22M3M, how does it change the situation for the targets. I have the answer--changes absolutely nothing because you cannot shoot down those. There is nothing in the US arsenal now and in the foreseeable future which can intercept Mach=9-10+, let alone M=20-27, targets. That's the issue. Same analytical method applies to a situation in 404. The only thing US (NATO) can hope for is to somehow provoke Russia into the invasion of this shithole of a country and then get ball SIGINT it can once Russia's C4ISR gets into full combat mode. 

 

Only military "experts" from the US media still believe that:

Russia still has a military edge over Ukraine, but Ukraine has plans to make a future war more costly for Moscow.

They have no clue how this war, if it comes to it, will look like, including if NATO, headed by the US, decides to somehow "intervene". Here is a question to General Keane--what are you going to do if this happens and provocation succeeds? Keane was in Vietnam, so he knows how it looks and feels like when things go not as planned. I am not counting all those "experiences" in Iraq and Kosovo as serious campaigns. I already gave a ball park number of a required NATO force to fight Russia in Ukraine--it has to be around a million of combat personnel to have any chance to accomplish anything, forget having some sort of "victory", whatever it will be called such by NATO. Good luck assembling it in a month (while Russia can mobilize 2 million in approximately the same time), or even in 3 months and then trying to conduct combined arms operations in 404. The United States cannot conduct serious combined arms war in Europe even if it wants to--she simply has no resources for that and time doesn't stand still. With each passing moment the myth of the "finest fighting force in history" evaporates and without this myth the scaffolding of the American Empire continues to collapse with the increasing speed. The time is running out fast, really fast.

This is what drives D.C. insane, especially humiliated Pentagon, which still has enough policy "advisors" (mostly civilian political scientists warmongers) who think that the US can fight Russia in Ukraine. As Bernhard of Moon of Alabama suggests:

The White House Needs An Off-ramp From War In Ukraine

For an institution which didn't win a single war in the last 70 years with the exception of a turkey shoot against utterly backward Iraqi force and never faced equal of superior enemy (no surprise for an institution venerating a military mediocrity such as Patton as a "great" general) the desire to wash off, let's speak without undue restrain here, the shame of Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea that they can fight Russia is down right preposterous. As are, for the most part, most of the military power metrics used till recently by the US policy-makers as a proof of the US military superiority such as... the size of military budget and visuals of, indeed, impressive US Navy carriers. As Bernhard concludes:

I don't think that a deal would actually help Biden in the polls. The hawks would scream about it. They want a war in the Ukraine and the U.S. involved in it. However the U.S. public is still unlikely to support a war against Russia which would likely soon escalate. But a Ukrainian Russian war that the Ukraine is sure to lose and in which the White House does not intervene will lead to huge loss of face. That prospect then may indeed motivate Biden to give Russia the guarantees it wants.

Now, Andrei Raevsky gives a good write-up on Russia's forces and their distribution at what one would call "threatening directions (axis)". Andrei concludes:

And so, yes, of course, NATO commanders are frightened by what they see, this is true, and quite understandable.  What is not understandable is why these delusional idiots created the condition which left Russia no other choice than to be ready to fight a full scale war in Europe, including a nuclear one.

And that is why Milley and Gerasimov spoke to each-other. Russia's and America's war experiences can not be compared, Russian one dwarfs that of the United States both in scale, scope and in quality of enemies Russians fought in defense of their country. With the exception of the magnificent US victory in the Pacific in WW II, most of US military experience is that of an expeditionary force designed to fight utterly inferior opponent, and even here the American record is not impressive. But, as I am on record non-stop, the US is ungovernable and is immersed in the internal life-and-death struggle between several oligarchic clans which do not give a rat's ass about the well-being of the majority of Americans, most of who are just decent folks who want to live their lives, and about once beautiful country which was the envy of the world. 

Bernhard Of MOA Wrote An Excellent Piece...

.... on steel testing against the background of the scandal with fake test results for steel for US Navy's subs. As a man myself who for years was in charge of testing and certifying composite materials and structures for commercial aviation, I can totally relate to what Bernhard writes. 

There was a life before I started to write about politics at Moon of Alabama. So when a news story comes up that relates back to my previous life as an industrial engineer I will certainly read it and at times even write about it. Here is one of these.

Read the whole piece, it is educational. And yes, while steel needs to be tested in -100 F, I had to perform the testing of some composite structures in special ovens at 150 and 200 F, despite the fact that those parts on B-737 or 777 are actually outside and are subjected primarily to very low temperatures which one encounters at 33, 000 feet in the sky. Yet, here we are, the whole Volume 15.03 of ASTM is dedicated to the exhaustive physical, mechanical and chemical testing. Materials, be them steel, aluminum, composites, silicons, paints, you name it are exhaustively tested for a reason. Especially due to the last 100 years when Material Science (yes, science--a real one) reached an incredible level which allows to "program" and obtain desirable properties of materials allowing safe use of technology made out of those materials under the most adverse conditions. 

The fact that this metallurgist would fake test results especially in the defense programs is down right stupefying. Once you put your QA stamp on the Manufacturing Plan allowing part or material go into production or be shipped to customers (how about Boeing or Bombardier)--you take responsibility for the lives of people who will use it. So, the US subs for years were built from the substandard steel because some QA person decided that testing is "stupid". Just read the piece by Bernhard. 

For Those Who Care.

About a clusterfuck in Afghanistan, Bernhard of Moon of Alabama posted an excellent piece by Michael Brenner, who sums it up pretty nicely in the piece symptomatically titled: The Foreign Policy Borg And The Retreat From Afghanistan. I liked this introduction:

There are few things in this kaleidoscopic world of ours that we can count on – for predictability, for fixity of outlook, for unswerving resistance to the vicissitudes of life. The American foreign policy community is one of them. They reliably react to stunning events in the world with reiteration of what they have been saying for years and decades They do so in unison. They never admit error of analysis or of policy, they preserve a righteous tone, and they retain a permanent inventory of persons to scapegoat – and, equally important, those who are always exempt from blame. The Afghan debacle demonstrates, once again, how deeply entrenched this behavioral pattern is. It is self-evident, it is glaring, and it is a reason for both shame and for doubting the United States’ ability to conduct its external relations in a sober, reasonable manner.

Read the whole thing at MoA, it is worth your attention. I just want to add that a sober foreign policy by the US is impossible in principle within the existing framework of American statecraft, which doesn't understand war for what it is. It can't. But I didn't say anything here what I didn't say before. It is a cultural thing. 

Bernhard Is Furious, And Rightly So.

Bernhard of Moon of Alabama is furious with Glenn Greenwald and rightly so.

Greenwald seems to presume that it is the right or the job of a U.S. president to 'permit' pipelines between two foreign country? That is of course completely false. The U.S. has no right, duty or whatever to interfere in regular businesses between foreign partners. Such interference is in fact illegal under international law. Biden, as well as Trump, should be criticized for even thinking about 'permitting' it.

B's fury is entirely justified. Recall what I wrote few years ago about US "realists". I merely qualified them as yet another iteration of the American exceptionalists. Even American "realists" still operate on the utterly false basis of the American omnipotence and God-given right to decide what to do and how to do it, including making decision for others, denying them any subjectivity and the right to decide for themselves. 

As I wrote yesterday, and B confirms it, US dropping sanctions on Nord Stream 2 is a result of Germany finally having enough of the US meddling into Germany's affairs, especially having, for Germany, an existential significance, once one considers Germany's industrial and living energy costs being one of the highest in the world. Yet, Greenwald, evidently thinks that the US "granted" Germany the right to have NS2 completed this year. This is a very wrong way to rub German business. But then again, recall John Mearsheimer, one of the foremost US realists talking couple of years ago about Russia as having economy the size of Texas (or Spain, or Netherlands, what have you) and "mediocre" Armed Forces. This is not an exception, this is a feature of American "realists". They still think that the United States controls the world and is the one which grants everyone the right to exist.This is a complete delusion. 

American circumstances today are dire--both economically and politically, with country losing fast its weight and influence globally and being, for the lack of better word, a complete fvcking mess internally, surviving only on printing a shitload of money which already run a serious inflation. Reputational losses are altogether a whole other story ripe for truckload of Ph.D theses to be written on that issue. It took Germany merely an act of a serious talking to the United States and threatening with actions--some of them could include a complete reorientation towards Eurasian projects--that the US got the message that not only it may lose its main vassal, which is trying to break the bonds of vassalage as we speak, but any serious prospects in Europe. Now imagine US worst nightmare: Berlin-Moscow-Beijing axis and a much faster coalescence of the colossal Eurasian space into a unified market. That removes the US immediately to the rank of the regional powers and to the fringes of what evolves already into the engine of global economic and civilizational development. 

This will happen one way or another, but at least, as the US thinking goes now, this will be a somewhat protracted process once Germany's demands re: NS2 are accepted and the sanctions are dropped. This, as they think in D.C., buys the US a little bit more time but it also marks a rather significant inflection point in the post-Soviet history of Europe when Germany stated her interests clearly and exhibited a will to defend them and the United States caved in. Let's be honest, with Russia's support behind the scene. And those ARE Germany's interests because Germans are the ones who finance a huge share of NS2 project. Who gave the United States the right to decide for Germans, or, for that matter, anyone else how they are supposed to live and solve their internal problems? And Germany, sure as hell, has a shitload of problems, many of them of own making, but it is what it is. Things change, ever so incrementally, until they accumulate into a qualitative shift and this is exactly what we observe today in the US-German relations. 

But, as I said--Zugzwang, ladies and gentlemen. You observe here a classic case of Zugzwang and of a black belt level geopolitical Judo (or Aikido). Well, Putin and Steven Seagal are personal friends, I am sure Steven has shown his martial arts buddy some Aikido moves. But in the end, these are German people who have the right to decide how they want to live and run their country and no one has the right to deny them this opportunity. It is also crucial for Germany in the long run if it wants to get well after a long and nightmarish globalist slumber. Germany is not a country in the Middle East or in Central America, which could be sneezed at by the US and it seems Germans begin to get a feel of that.

Thanks To Bernhard Of Moon Of Alabama...And Happy Easter.

Bernhard's meticulous and steady digging through the pile of media sources provides for a truly great news aggregator, and I may feel today somewhat vindicated and have my rah-rah and ego, which is larger than cathedral, pleasantly tickled.  MoA provides a weekly review of notable sources and in one of them I ran into this conclusions by Esteemed Ambassador Chas Freeman--a former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and deputy assistant Secretary of the State for African affairs, among many other important diplomatic posts he held in the times when the United States actually did have a competent diplomacy. Just take a look at his skills: he speaks Chinese fluently, Spanish and French at the professional level, and Arabic conversationally, in addition to several other languages. Ambassador Freeman studied at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, and he earned a JD from the Harvard Law School and an AB magna cum laude from Yale University.

Here is what attracted me in Freeman's excellent interview:

But there’s not much evidence of China wanting to replace us. They are displacing us in some spheres because they’re big and growing and successful. Do they want to take on our global dominion and hegemony role? No, but we assert that they do. We posit that China thinks and behaves like us: “We had Manifest Destiny and it took us across the Pacific to the Philippines. Therefore, China must have a Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny in mind.” This is wrong. Things don’t work like that. So I would argue that we have inhaled our own propaganda, and we are living in the appropriately stoned state that that produces. If we have sound policies, we can out-compete anyone. But we’re not looking at sound policies; we’re looking at pulling down our competitor. 

Boom! I, of course, would argue that at this time the United States lost its competitive edge in a number of crucial fields in which it can not "out-compete" China or Russia, but the message about propaganda is ultimately correct and this "inhaling" is precisely what I warn about non-stop for the last 7-8 years. Just read my Sand Castle Geopolitics series of posts from 2014 in this blog. Recall introduction to my first book:

It is doubtful that such a miscarriage of a historical justice will be challenged successfully in the combined West, let alone in the US itself, where many media figures, politicians and “scholars” are in overdrive, doing their utmost to falsify the actual truth about the birthplace of American, real and perceived, superpowerdom—World War II. The real danger from such manipulations arises not when those manipulations are done out of knowledge of reality which is distorted accordingly for propaganda purposes, but when those who manipulate information begin to sincerely believe in their own falsifications, when they buy into their own narrative. They stop being manipulators, and they become believers in a narrative. They become manipulated themselves.   

In other words, US "elites'" "inhaling" own propaganda is a clear and present danger to the world because acting upon what in proper societies is called a historical and geopolitical bullshit is not the way to conduct oneself in the world where we all are merely 30 minutes away from a complete mutual annihilation--an idea many in D.C. simply cannot grasp. In general, Freeman's interview is excellent, including his superb definition of good diplomacy. Freeman's justification of his dropping out of law school is also instructive and explains my concern about huge swaths of America's foreign policy (or lack thereof) big honchos being lawyers primarily. 

Law school is not irrelevant, but it isn’t as interesting as dealing on behalf of the United States with foreign governments and cultures. The French have a phrase, “déformation professionnelle,” which means that you take on the mindset and reasoning skills of a particular profession and you become narrow-minded because you don’t see the whole picture. The first year of law school is a sort of ideological bootcamp in which you are taught to reason in terms of rights, duties, privileges, and immunities, and various other categories relevant to legal reasoning. That training is all very injurious to diplomacy because if you approach an international relationship in terms of who’s right and who’s wrong, you’re wasting your time. There is no superior authority, no court system, and no legal system to sort out many diplomatic questions. If you insist that the other party’s wrong, the other party may decide to go to war with you.

So, enjoy Freeman's interview, while I express my appreciation to Bernhard for pointing out a very important view by a real professional American diplomat of what today could be termed as an "old school" of American diplomacy, because a new one, frankly, is a bunch of ignorant ideologues pretending to be diplomats. I am very happy to have correctness of very many of the key points of my writing being corroborated by an important figure in the ever-shrinking field of the American genuine international relations professionals. 

In related news: my sincere congratulations for Westerners celebrating Easter today. Christ is risen and all the best to all of us. Most importantly--peace on Earth. 

Happy Easter.

I Am Too Lazy...

To comment on the cretins who run Germany, so I re-post here Bernhard's excellent write-up on this Navalny guy, who, as was expected by many is worth more dead, or, rather, undead for now, than alive for the West. Navalny is a classic case of a used condom and all this circus has been predicted the moment the dude got, most likely, hypoglycemia (he was on a diet and drinking moonshine is not good) or, less likely but still possible, got spiked by one of his "allies". 

Yawn! was my first reaction when I read this. Couldn't they come up with a more believable fairy tale?

The German government says tests performed on samples taken from Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny showed the presence of the Soviet-era nerve agent Novichok.
...
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said in a statement Wednesday that testing by a special German military laboratory had shown proof of “a chemical nerve agent from the Novichok group.”

Read the whole thing at Moon of Alabama site, I cannot emphasize enough how predictable all this is. It is also downright funny and boring. Sanctions, please. LOL.

A Needed Take?

Recall what I wrote (on a number of occasions, I merely refer to the latest one) about this whole Trump thing in May:

I resigned myself completely--it was a process--to the fact that Donald Trump is a hollow BSer once John Bolton entered Trump's Admin as National Security Adviser. I started to suspect that Trump was not what he tried to portray himself while running for the office even earlier. There were some signs, especially when one considers well documented emergence of "Mad Dog" Mattis as an "adult in the room". If Mattis was considered an adult in the room, one could only imagine who such a room was filled with. 

Bernhard of Moon of Alabama today posted an excellent range (well, the range having only two possibilities) of interpretations on Donald Trump and his national security (insanity?) team's idiocy around Iran. He refers to Alastair Crooke's opinion too.  

Trump is the president. He hired those people and is responsible for what they do. But does he know what they do? There are two possibilities. Trump wants a war with Iran and what we see is a good cop, bad cop strategy in which Trump plays the good guy for his voters until some 'grave incident' happens that lets him says that he has no choice but to 'hit back' at Iran. The other scenario is that Trump is a fool and that the war hawks use him as their tool to implement their preferred policies. Former MI6 agent Alastair Crooke says that the second scenario is the real one:

The consensus on ‘no conflict’ unfortunately, may turn out to have been overly sanguine. This is not because Trump consciously desires war, but because the hawks surrounding him, particularly Bolton, are painting him into a corner – from which he must either back down, or double down, if Iran does not first capitulate.And here is the point: the main Trump misconception may be that he does believe that Iran wants, and ultimately, ‘will seek a deal’.

Crooke describes how Bolton, and Netanyahoo behind him, outmaneuver the U.S. intelligence services over Iran. They stovepipe "intelligence" to the president and the media just like the crew of then Vice President Dick Cheney did in the run up to the war on Iraq:

Bolton chairs at the NSC, the regular and frequent strategic dialogue meetings with Israel – intended to develop a joint action plan, versus Iran. What this means is that the Israeli intelligence assessments are being stovepiped directly to Bolton (and therefore to Trump), without passing by the US intelligence services for assessment or comment on the credibility of the intelligence presented (shades of Cheney confronting the analysts down at Langley). And Bolton too, will represent Trump at the ‘security summit’ to be held later this month in Jerusalem with Russia and Israel. Yes, Bolton truly has all the reins in his hands: He is ‘Mr Iran’.

'Mr Anti-Iran' is a more precise moniker. Or one may just call him President Bolton.

It has to be understood very clearly that Bolton-Trump and Trump-Pompeo relations are symbiotic ones. If one recalls--Trump made his admiration for Bolton known even before Trump was considered a serious contender for the Oval Office. In the end, he DID hire Bolton. Both Trump and Bolton are frauds as statesmen: Bolton is a Beta-male and a coward who sublimates his complexes in aggressive rhetoric and behavior, this is not to speak of Bolton being an Israeli asset par-excellence.These are precisely the traits Trump recognizes in him because he is one himself. Recall his statement about his, Trump's, "military background" he received in a... boarding school for boys. Recall how Kevin Costner's character in undeservedly chastised The Postman, in the final battle with Will Patton's character, astutely notices how one fraud can recognize the other. This is exactly the situation. Trump is fool, but Bolton is merely an experienced bureaucrat, which testifies to the level of Trump's foolishness and incompetence. I doubt there is any Good Cop-Bad Cop dynamics there. 

The problem here is not with Trump, who by now paraded himself long enough as a person who is nothing more than NYC real estate shyster and one trick pony who ended up in Oval Office due to good reciting of speeches written for him by Stephen Miller. After all, one expects at least mediocre acting and diction from TV personality such as Trump. The issue is deeper--it is the fact that the person who formulates and drives US foreign policy, John Bolton that is, is himself a fraud who lacks, as did most US National Security Advisers, any serious background in what increasingly constitutes main drivers behind geopolitical balance. As Colonel Larry Wilkerson noted about his harsh encounter with John Bolton, Bolton stated "I do policy, you do war." How can anyone make policy without knowing war, especially against US dismal track record of both policy (so called) and military failures is beyond me, but it is what it is.  

So, Bolton, who is a coward and, hence, is obsessed with some kind of institutional violence which, in his opinion, may give him some relief from him understanding that he is a beta-male and a cuckold (literally) loser, and Pompeo who is a full blown Christian Zionist--they are essentially in charge of US foreign policy. They, plus, of course, as was stated not for once--Bibi. Phil Giraldi gives additional insight into Trump Administration's "foreign policy" cadres, so at issue here now is WHAT IS IT GOING TO BE? Most likely it will be repetition of April 2018 Syria's strike with "very smart missiles" (most of them intercepted). In the same time, considering an appalling lack of any expertise in the US top echelon of power and personalities who operate there--there is some, however insignificant now, chance that Trump could be manipulated (on the account of dick measuring contest) into more serious actions against Iran and then, well--good luck to those who are deployed in the Middle East. 

Trump Administration is the most Zionist, Israeli-first administration in the US history. It is a scale of corruption and real collusion with foreign power unprecedented in the existence of the American Republic, or, rather, whatever remains of it. There are many ways to explain how this happened, but as I stated in the previous post--top echelon simply has nobody better out there, period. US elites can not produce statesmen anymore, and even this mechanism which is in place in a shape of Ivy League universities teaching all kind of "humanities" crap, supposedly to future American "leadership", can only produce semi-literate doctrine-mongers who are only good for contriving false narratives and selling themselves out to a highest bidder, be that done on purpose or "accidentally".  

In related news, Russia issued a warning.

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia told the United States on Tuesday to drop what it called provocative plans to deploy more troops to the Middle East and to cease actions that looked like a conscious attempt to provoke war with Iran.

I guess we'll see soon where it is all going, but I would have given up a lot to learn what Moscow and Tehran are actually discussing between them. Or are they?   

A New Product.

B (Bernhard) of Moon Of Alabama posted today a good review of the situation between Qatar and KSA (and others) and this point by him should be explained:

  

It has friendly relations with Russia. Yesterday the Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani talked with President Putin:

Russian-Qatari cooperation, primarily in the trade, economic and investment areas, was discussed, and the results of the meeting of the bilateral Intergovernmental Commission in April 2017 were highly praised.

International issues were also discussed. Vladimir Putin reaffirmed Russia’s principled position in favor of settling crises by political and diplomatic means, through dialogue.

Translation: Qatar offered additional money for Russia's support. A preliminary deal was made but there was no promise (yet) of full Russian support in a military conflict.

B makes an excellent point here in a sense that, far from being damaging, say for Russia, this Saudi-Qatari conflict may present yet another opportunity for marketing of one of the most potent, if not THE most potent, Russia's export products--geopolitical stabilization. One may ask, what is that. Well, you can see this product now on full display in Syria. Consider now where was Syria and Assad's government two years ago and where it is now. In 2015, despite efforts by Iran and Hizbullah, Syria still struggled with ISIS and the calls to attack Assad were getting louder in Washington. This all changed with Russia Air-Space Forces and Forces of Special Operations (SSO) being deployed to Syria. As Assad himself admitted two days ago: the worst is behind us. 

Nobody with even rudimentary sense of reality would debate the fact of Bashar Assad being a pivotal figure for Syria not only for now, but for the future. While thesis (a popular one), that Russia doesn't abandon her allies (which is not entirely true--remember Najibullah), may be used as currently valid explanation for Russia sticking with Assad, there is no denial of the fact here that current Russia is not Soviet Union and she pursues objectives in her foreign policy which are different from those of the USSR. Apart from fostering relations with other nations, Russia, using Corben Dallas' dictum "you play soft, we play soft, you play hard, we play hard", likes not only to be flexible but also to be compensated for what she does, or sells, if one wishes. Russia sells stability and this commodity is hot-hot-hot. Forget about Libya where Russia is already establishing relations with General Haftar, looks like, considering the speed with which Qatari Foreign Minister called Lavrov, Russia is in for the big time and money because Qatar, which is more "competitive" than Russia, surely would love to have this very Russia on her side for a simple reason--Qatar wants to preserve herself (which is only natural) and Russia already has a pretty impressive record of propping up governments which are due for a "regime change". 

Cynical? You bet, but can one imagine what price an enormously rich Qatar would be willing to pay to Russia for her making some moves which would stabilize Qatari ruling elite and provide some guarantees? Mind you, there will be more than money involved but a lot, and I mean a lot, of geopolitical favors, including some things related to terrorism, of which Qatar is a big supporter. Corben Dallas stratagem in action--chose you own play, soft or hard. This is how big geopolitical realism is practiced. This is also how nations are stabilized, the contracts and money follow. It is also a great lesson in transition between hard power to a soft one and vice-versa. In the world which is increasingly destabilized due to wholesale crisis of the Pax Americana "system" such an ability is a truly hot commodity.