I Talk To Ania...

 ... and something else:

This "something else" is, thanks to Saker's Blog discussing it today, about the fact that they cannot do strategy inside the Beltway and I am talking top-bottom, Pentagon including, not to speak of think-tanks such as RAND. One can build a cottage industry based just on debunking RAND's BS and exposing their incompetence. Enter Foreign Affairs rag. These people have been very busy as of lately discussing things they have no clue about--e.g. United States doesn't have diplomacy in any operational sense, among many other things--related to SMO and Russia. Here is one such Exhibit: 

What Russia Got Wrong. Can Moscow Learn From Its Failures in Ukraine?

As I stated, thank to Saker's blog I stumbled on this "jewel" of a "strategic (lack thereof) thought" from Dara Massicot who, if to believe a very limited info on her background, is: 

DARA MASSICOT is a Senior Policy Researcher at the RAND Corporation. Before joining RAND, she served as a senior analyst for Russian military capabilities at the Department of Defense.  

And here I have to immediately point out the issue I am dealing with for the last almost decade and a half, and that is that neither Pentagon nor the so called US "intel community" have any clue about Russian military capabilities because they don't have proper academic framework economically, militarily, historically and politically because of the scandalously low intellectual level of US "elites". Dara Massicot, considering the paucity of info on her, could have been a spook or simply yet another "product" of the US "strategic studies" degree mills for good ol' boys and girls, who in either case wouldn't last academically a semester in any serious military academy in Russia. Consider also aggravating factor of a Russia Study field in the US being a playground of academic frauds, primitive ideologies and all kinds of former Soviet citizenry selling themselves as "experts" while having no clue about the subject. E.g. former English Language teacher with not even DSP clearance in Russia/USSR "consulting" US on Russia's "strategic culture". 

The record of shysters from USSR/Russia selling BS to rather uncultured US "elites" on Russia is long--from notorious Golitsyn who damaged CIA profoundly, to no less notorious Bezmenov who packaged well known open facts into "intel" and sold it to US media, to, of course, Solzhenitsyn with his fiction on just about anything to, already mentioned, "expert" in Russia's "strategic culture" Koffler. So, to expect that some gal from RAND, who wouldn't know the difference between the doctrine and strategy and how many parts the latter is subdivided into, and what it all means, is down right risible and Massicot doesn't disappoint with confirmation of what I wrote three books about and am writing fourth one--they cannot do strategy in Washington D.C. They also cannot fight the modern war and they do not understand, in the nation subverted by ethnic and religious lobbies, from Israel to Saudi Arabia, and Qatar with Ukraine, what national interest is and how it is formulated. 

Massicot immediately goes for the jugular of a remaining credibility she might have had and states:

Why Russia did not prevail—why it was instead stopped in its tracks, routed outside major cities, and put on the defensive—has become one of the most important questions in both U.S. foreign policy and international security more broadly. The answer has many components. The excessive internal secrecy gave troops and commanders little time to prepare, leading to heavy losses. Russia created an invasion plan that was riddled with faulty assumptions, arbitrary political guidance, and planning errors that departed from key Russian military principles.  

Well, Massicot who, obviously, never attended any serious military institution and has zero serious military background, doesn't understand the process of serious strategic and operational planning by such institutions as Russian General Staff, and she never heard of a development of decision tree, which manifests itself in such thing as contingency planning. I will omit here the issue of Markov Processes and how they apply in modern operational and strategic planning, but Massicot, of course, parades her ignorance here by presenting her personal (that is serving only narrative) preferences as strategic wisdoms. They are not, this is the writing of the amateur who doesn't understand what Russia is and how she fights. Not to mention the fact, that she simply lies, especially about Russian losses or Russian intentions. It is natural for a "senior analyst of Russian military capabilities" from organization which loses all of its wars since Korea. She should simply go back to Washington Post's famed Afghanistan Papers and relearn how Pentagon "fights", primarily in media field. 

But she doesn't stay there, she develops another thesis, which shows both a serious butthurt and lack of knowledge of Russian military culture:

Yet in January 2023, Surovikin was demoted in favor of General Valeriy Gerasimov. Although the reasons for this command change are unclear, palace intrigue and cronyism may be behind it rather than any specific failure of Surovikin’s leadership. And no Russian commander has been able to break Ukraine’s will to fight even though Russia continues to launch missiles that inflict suffering on the Ukrainian people. But the bombings and entrenchment may well degrade Ukraine’s capacity, making it harder for the country to reclaim more of its land.    

The reason she writes this sophomoric BS straight out of the Ukie propaganda, about Surovikin being "demoted", is because she doesn't understand what coordination is and why, the Red Army was using throughout WW II the "institute" of Representatives of STAVKA at the fronts, who, like Zhukov and Vasilevsky, at different times either coordinated or directly commanded several fronts (army groups). She, obviously, never heard about it, because she doesn't know that Russian General Staff IS the main organ of combat control (Главный Орган Боевого Управления) of ALL Russia's Armed Forces ranging from ground forces to strategic nuclear ones, to navy and the list goes on, and on, and on. The big honcho in all that is Valery Gerasimov, who, as a Chief of a General Staff, unlike Surovikin, who never was "demoted", has supervision of everything, and Russia is playing here for much more than Ukraine. But, evidently, this former Pentagon's and present RAND's "analyst" doesn't read what is openly available in Russian media and not a secret since the inception. Here is me from BEFORE February 24. 

1. Q: Do Russians know who people in D.C. are? 

A: Yes, they do, in fact, I think they know it better than people in D.C. themselves. 

2. Q: Did Russia issue ultimatum to NATO in hope of a compromise? 

A: NO! The reason Russia issued this ultimatum was to publicly frame what will happen after the expected "maneuvering" by the US (I do not count Europe here at all--they are nobodies). 

3. Q: Do Russians have a military contingency plan in case (highly probable, but not fully guaranteed) the US throwing the tantrum and "refusing" this ultimatum? 

A: Yes. As Bismark is known to say: even when going to toilet for number 2 Russian makes a plan(c). Not arguably, but historically--Russian General Staff is the best planner not just militarily but across the whole spectrum of national security and national interests issue. Nobody comes even close. 

Russia DOES have all military-technological, economic and political  means to stop NATO expansion, NATO's desires notwithstanding--simple as that. I write about the widening technological and operational gap for many years now. 

You see? I warned. Nobody heeded, least of all all those Russia "experts" (most of them frauds) in the US. In the end, after reading this sophomoric BS from Massicot, she has to contend with the fact of the US military technology failing dismally in Ukraine, moreover, with the fact that the fields of strategic planning, strategic intelligence, TOE of the US Armed Forces, doctrine, strategic studies, national defense policy, procurement policy are a complete wasteland of academic and intellectual fraud which cannot hide anymore Western military impotence against serious military power, let alone military power such as Russia who exposed Western military impotence for the whole world to see. Massicot's sophomoric propaganda in the CFR's rag is one of the many signs of a systemic crisis of the combined West, who in desperate attempts to save the face, is also desperately trying to re-frame BS narrative, with some therapeutic BS added to the new one, by means of constructing the alternative reality. This is the only thing they are capable of doing.

Law Against BS Is Signed...

And look who's got the message:

The BBC, CNN and Bloomberg have suspended operations in Russia after President Vladimir Putin enacted a law that makes the deliberate spread of disinformation punishable by up to 15 years in prison. After the anti-fake news law was approved on Friday, CNN said it would “stop broadcasting in Russia while we continue to evaluate the situation and our next steps moving forward.” Bloomberg – the news agency founded and owned by US billionaire Michael Bloomberg – similarly said it would “temporarily suspend the work of its journalists inside Russia” and accused Moscow of criminalizing “independent reporting.” The New York-based outlet claimed that the crackdown on disinformation would make it “impossible to continue any semblance of normal journalism inside the country.”

In the US "independent reporting"  is a euphemism for spreading BS. Now, that one has to answer for BS by the law suddenly this "independent reporting" seems scary. Not to mention the fact that neither BBC nor Bloomberg are related to "independent reporting" or real journalism in any way. They all are narrative-mongers and I think it is about time all these CNNs of the world must be kicked out of Russia and just make shit up in their respective offices in London, NYC and Atlanta. Saves money and effort. No, really. 

But get this--a shining example of the Western intel (I am not being facetious--these are the types who consult on Russia in the West). 

THREAD I know it sounds contra-intuitive, but it feels that Russia and its army are about to collapse. RU obviously has no reserves left: the tanks they send to the front are very old, without active armor, look like training machines. They do not have trucks, using civilian ones. 

Look at the credentials of this guy:

Berlin-based 🇩🇪 Eastern Europe expert. 10+ yrs of work in Ukraine, Russia, Belarus. Former Director @boell_stiftung Kyiv (UA+BY)office. Speak 🇩🇪🇺🇦🇧🇾

Great "expert", I am sure he is needed as the aid to some US Congressman or Senator. He is a perfect candidate for this kind of jobs. I know, I know there are so many other Russian "experts" in the West, take Masha Gessen or Julia Ioffe. Mr. Remnick or Mark Galleotti--all bring to the table years and years of studying all kinds of BS which has very little relation to the reality, but then again, Western political discourse long ago transitioned into the virtual realm and is shaped by narratives. Because tangibles are hard and require a systemic knowledge and thinking which has long ago left Western so called "intellectual" class. This class' military "expertise" is altogether something to behold. So, yes, prepare to Russia and its army's collapse. Any minute now Russia will run out of ammo, gas, soldiers and tanks. In (very) related news, I wonder when are the next indictments from John Durham's investigation coming. Remember, this guy Trump being a Russian stooge?

It Is So Good Not To Feel Alone.

 I am not the only one who loses my cool when writing about Western (American especially) Russia "expertdom". This "expertise", or rather inability of those "Russia experts" to find their own ass with both hands in a brightly lit room, evidently got to Patrick Armstrong too and he wrote, traditionally incisive, rebuttal.

One of the favourite delusions of the people Scott Ritter calls the “Putin whisperers” is that Russia or Putin – to them the two are synonymous – are always on the point of collapse and one more push will bring them down. To the sane, observing the development of Russia from 1991 to 2021, this conviction is crazy: Russia has endured and prospered. But, as I have said elsewhere, these people fit Einstein’s definition of insanity and forever repeat their failures: Ritter calls them “intellectually lazy”. They’re not Russia experts, they’re wrongness experts and constant practice has made them quite good at being wrong.

I also do not share Scott Ritter's optimism about "Putin Whisperers" getting ready to leave the stage and I can only support Armstrong's conclusion that:

I hope he’s right but I suspect that there is still more to come: they’ve made an easy living at this grift and they can’t change now. And it’s depressingly unlikely that they will be replaced by people who can see reality.

Couldn't have said better myself. But then again, intellectual corruption is what defines the field of geopolitical expertise in the United States today. The financial one, is not far behind.  Paul Craig Roberts, meanwhile, wrote a superb piece on feminization of the Western man--the problem which now reaches a truly catastrophic scale. PCR writes:

For a number of years I have noticed that unless I am among older men I often only hear males with women’s voices, speaking like girls, the same intonation and the same words, “like,”  “really.”  I hear males who sound like Valley Girls. When you look at them you don’t see male strength, and neither does Camille Paglia who says androgyny is historically a sign of cultural collapse. 

So is an obsession with macho culture and sports, especially in the US where American Football is more than just the sports-event but long ago became a revivalist ritual for a feminized men, who sublimate their lack of real masculinity and tawdry sex-appeal through the images of new age gladiators throwing a ball in the breaks between the commercials. Let me put it this way, this is, certainly, not an ice-hockey where physical loads and fights are very damn real and very manly in a good sense. These are real fights and they are not for wussies. 

But then again, who would want to fight for this: 

But then...again, what do I know.

Sergei Viktorovich, Finally.

 Lavrov finally got it. 

The Western countries should not expect Moscow to confess to all deadly sins and beg for forgiveness, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters on Friday. "If our counterparts plan to end the current tensions by making Russia confess to all deadly sins and say ‘I was wrong in every aspect, forgive this sinner’ - if they have such expectations, it means they have no experts on Russia left," Lavrov said. He quoted a Russian saying that goes "God dwells in truth, not in strength." "I believe it fully reflects the principle the Russian people are guided by," Lavrov stressed.

I am being facetious, of course. The realization that there is nobody to talk to in the West and that the Western "Russian expertise" is a sewer or a joke, if one prefers, started to dawn on Russians I would say around 2013. After Ukraine most of the doubts have been dispelled.  The trust, of course, was lost much earlier—around the time of US unilaterally existing ABM Treaty in 2002. This fact, actually, explains Russia's rather nonchalant attitude towards Trump's proposal for summit in Washington D.C. Russia simply doesn't care anymore. There are signs that Russian political top is not really enthusiastic about Trump's summit proposition (in Russian).  Indeed, to discuss what, with who? One of many signs of such Russian indifference is the fact that yet another round of sanctions slapped against Russia by the United States today is, well, nonchalant behavior of Russian currency, Ruble.

It is very difficult to articulate to the American elite their actual state both vis-à-vis Russia and the world. As I wrote last year, during short breaks from laughing at Frye's statements that field of Russian studies is "thriving" in the US:

No, Mr. Frye, au contraire, it is rooted precisely in a low quality of the so called "academic research" since it is for the most part is done based on a complete lack of understanding of Russia's culture, history and psyche. "Studying" this in Brooklyn's so called "Russian" community of immigrants is not a good idea. This "research" is also based on a pervasive and prevailing arrogance of American intellectual elites and messianic view of the outside world and that is the main problem--it creates a myopia which doesn't allow to see what is "hiding" in a plain sight. No knowledge, let alone cogent policy recommendations could be drawn from such a "research", especially in the country which considers Russia an existential threat and makes it normal to call for killing Russians or calling them genetically inferior in national media. Why doesn't Mr. Frye do an "academic research" on the role of "political science" in fanning the flames of American elites' Russophobia the likes of which the United States never witnessed before? After all, very many of those in US political and punditry class have their "academic" backgrounds precisely in "political science" field.  Judging by the atrocious results, domestically and globally, of their activity in the last 20 or so years one is forced to conclude that either they were shitty students or that political science is not science at all. I tend to believe both conclusions are true. Will Mr. Frye "study" or "research" those?

Basically, Lavrov today merely stated the obvious fact—the United States has no "expertise" on Russia across the board. The problem here is not in the number of Russian-speaking CIA or State Department, which are the two sides of the same coin, operatives who will do a HUMINT in and on Russia. No number of those will change the situation and increase the knowledge or understanding. The problem is systemic and it is within American academe and "intellectual" milieu which services American political class. American version of Russia's history, especially of the 20^th century, bar some very few, however important exceptions, is the history of Russia which never existed and does not exist. It is akin to explaining a 6 year old child the meaning of the extrema in polynomial functions, or explaining to John Bolton what real military and war are—futile since it is beyond their grasp. The recipe for such situations is simple and is condensed in one phrase—don't waste your time. This is precisely what Russia is doing.  

On Flynn's Affair.

I didn't really take a "pause" in my commentary on Flynn's situation nor did I "delay" this commentary. I indulge myself in posting on sites such as Unz Review and, sometimes, at the Moon Of Alabama. My commentaries are available there, especially in both Saker's threads on this issue. But before I proceed with commenting on an extremely interesting piece by Phil Giraldi, I want to remind those who read this little blog of mine what I wrote on Trump's Inauguration Day:

I am a realist and I do not hope for too much. But we may finally exhale understanding that US and Russia, while not becoming friends in any meaningful way, may actually not get embroiled in a global conflict. That is already a huge tangible, the rest could be discussed and settled on something which may actually work.

I wrote this on the run, so I apologize for possible errors and misinterpretations. I will  repeat again--nothing is settled yet and the whole Flynn's affair is merely a starting point in a conflict between President Trump and whole...if you are not sitting--sit...current US political system. I will repeat myself: Trump's sacrificing Flynn was what in chess is known as the exchange of a major figure for a tempo. US political system, the proverbial US "democracy" or "Republic" is a "Deep State", not just some US "intelligence" (the quotation marks are deliberate) community. Phil Giraldi, himself a former CIA officer, wrote today an extremely interesting piece in TAC.  It is not the fact that Giraldi is correct in identifying the underlying cause for Flynn's affair as anti-Russian mood in US political class--for anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of the world this is not a news. This is not what struck me in Giraldi's piece. I quote the most crucial part, I highlighted what matters in yellow:

"Everyone who matters in the United States is now rushing to demonize Russia, even though Moscow was pretty much a passive player in what happened and has subsequently developed. The narrative that Moscow somehow influenced the outcome of the recent U.S. election has not completely gone away, largely fueled by Democratic Party rage over the final result even though no hard evidence has ever been produced to support the allegations regarding Putin’s interference. Some senators, including John McCain and Lindsey Graham, have always been prepared to respond dramatically to Russian initiatives. And the media has been on an anti-Putin binge ever since the fighting over Georgia in 2008. Quite a lot of what is now taking place is feeding off of a shift in perception in Washington. Russia is no longer seen as an adversary or competitor but as an enemy. This was clear in the Hillary Clinton campaign’s insistence on punishing Moscow, and it resonates in most mainstream-media coverage of any and all developments in Russia. 

Some suggest that the intelligence community is also on board with this sentiment, though that is often dismissively attributed to a desire for larger budgets and increased turf in Washington. But my own recent encounters with intelligence officers of the current generation has led me to believe something quite different—that many people in the IC really have come to believe that Russia is a major and very active threat against the United States, just like in the old days with the Soviet Union. I assume they have come to that conclusion through their understanding of developments in Syria and Ukraine, but I nevertheless fail to understand how they have adopted that point of view given the real limitations on Russian power. Whatever the reason, they believe in their Russophobia passionately, and I have discovered that arguing with those who are fixated on Moscow as the fons et origo of global chaos is futile".

So, let us start with making some very important notes here:  

1. There is no doubt that the pitch of Russophobia in D.C. is feverish, in fact--it is full blown anti-Russian hysteria. That goes BEYOND mere consideration of Russia as an "enemy". History knows many occasions when even an enemy was afforded a degree of respect, this is not the case in US vs. Russia, emphasis on US. Russians do respect American people and this respect does manifest itself even in Russian media. Why such an anti-Russian hysteria? If to throw away a classic West's racial hatred towards "dirty Slavs", Russia being the largest Slavic country, it is, as I said many times, the fact of Russia:

    a) Never being conquered by combined "West". In fact the

        combined "West" had its ass handed to it on a number of

        major occasions;

    b) Ability of Russia to generate serious spiritual, social and       

            alternatives, such as it is happening now. 

These are good enough reasons to hate Russia but I may add here another factor, which is one of the major factors behind the existence of this blog--West is supremely ignorant of Russia. It doesn't understand Russia and this fact makes it mad.  But "West" can not help it.

2. Now we come to 2008 Georgia. I will omit here today what many in Russia knew all along, that Saakashvili's military adventurism was coordinated with McCain and served as a a last ditch attempt to boost terrorist US Senator before US presidential elections with "We are all Georgians now". There were many, including supposedly "top" US military "analysts" (not to mention all kind of Russia's domestic clowns such as Pavel Falgenhauer), who thought that NATO trained and partially NATO and Israel equipped  Georgian Army would have no problem dealing with those primitive obsolete Russkies. The speed with which elements (not even the whole) of Russia's 58th Army demolished "westernized" Georgian Armed Forces sent many in D.C. and European capitals into shock. And here is a very interesting point which has to be made: contemporary "West" and especially the United States (I am talking about governments, of course), while claiming a European cultural heritage remain, especially in the US, very Asiatic in their approaches to the foreign policy--no surprise when one considers a dominance of neocon Jews in US institutions responsible for formulation and implementation of the foreign policy. Any attempts on peaceful resolution of the conflict are viewed as weakness, which has to be exploited--a feature very characteristic of tribal people. Well, US' Georgian puppet exploited it, all right. The outcome of this whole operation didn't sit well with many in D.C.  and the main reason, as always, was the fact that they miscalculated. But I wrote about this from the inception of this blog--US' "elites" continue to live in the permanent Chalabi Moment. 

US political class, much of which is very badly educated, concocted for itself a parallel universe of pleasant narratives, The End Of History anyone, which, granted a general propensity of the US for messianic views, doesn't sit well with such very easily understood truisms, which create a very tense reactions even among US "elite" people who want to try to understand the outside world. Some of those many truisms as related to Russia are:

a) Russia's history is much longer than that of the US, in fact--the combined time Russia spent fighting wars (and invasions)  is much longer than US history. That is a fact to consider. 

b) Russia's military history, experience and the scale of wars she fought dwarf anything United States ever encountered, with the exception of magnificent naval battles US Navy fought in the Pacific in WW II. But bringing up the issues of contributions and costs in any serious conflict creates a very defensive reaction, at best, a hysterical one at worst. Yet, the simple historical fact that Russia throughout her history destroyed every single West's (I omit here other, non-Western, invasions) invasion, from Teutonic Knights in 1242 to  Polish occupiers, to Napoleon to Hitler was somehow lost on those who thought that it was US who defeated Hitler, and won WW I, WW II and, of course, "won" the Cold War. 

Nobody likes to be proven wrong, but considering general lack of culture among neocons-neolibs-interventionists, the only reaction they know is to blame someone, not their own ignorance and incompetence. Russia's actions on 08-08-08 paraded them as complete hacks and it was never forgiven. Nothing is culturally European here, don't you agree? Where is here this wonderful ancient Greek self-deprecating and self-irony, where is admission of mistakes and learning from them which is in the foundation of Western rationality? Not a trace of it--just Asiatic hatred for those who dared to expose the true face of someone, with all of its stupidity and weakness. In fact, modern American political discourse is all about appearances, not substance--an American oligarchy's Kabuki Theater. The substance is long gone, that is why Trump is also hated so passionately and hysterically--he does bring substantial issues into discussion. Trump is also a real European in all that, for all Trump's many faults. 

3. It is now my academic position, and I was making this case for some time now, that US political class, with some notable exceptions, lacks culture, intellect and education. By education I do not mean some faux-scientific "humanities" degrees but real, enlightened and encyclopedic, view of the outside world. Very few American "academics" are really academics in a full meaning of this word since, after living within US "culture" (or rather lack thereof) of history, one is bound to arrive to a disheartening conclusion that US political "elite" is literally not capable of basic departure from the main vector of its "education"--that US was, is and will be the best there ever was in the history of the world in everything. I do not exaggerate. Those people really DO think that US "defeated" Hitler, "won" Cold War, was a decisive force in WW I, that US' GDP is 18 trillion dollars, they still believe that US is a "democracy" etc. They literally live in a parallel universe and whenever encountering reality they fail, time after time, to learn and prefer to blame reality for their discomfort--not themselves. This is Asiatic in its very foundation.  On the level of institutions of higher learning, political clubs, even media, while still dangerous, this attitude could be mitigated or even resisted, when this set of attitudes propagates into policy formulation and decision making circuit this becomes a clear and present danger, not to the US herself only but to the world. Phil Giraldi today confirmed what I was writing about since the inception of this blog--see the highlighted and in screaming red font above.

4. Neither Soviet, nor modern Russian (despite own spectacular failures, but it happens to anyone) Intelligence people are of very high opinion about US IC. These statements from former Soviet and Russian intelligence professionals are widely available in Russian media, ranging from interviews to a major media outlets such as Vzglyad or RG to less prominent news services and blogs. What Philip Giraldi points out is a testament to the utter incompetence of US analytical organizations which is a strategic failure. It is also an utter failure of US academic institutions who prepare this "new generation" intelligence officers because formation of such a "point of view" can happen only under two conditions:

1. Indeed, atrociously low academic level of teaching those people about outside world in general and Russia in particular. Judging by the "level" of such Russia's "scholars" as Michael McFaul or Samantha Power--no surprise here. The field of Russian "studies" in US is a pathetic "academic" wasteland of hearsay, propaganda, ideological and racial memes, populated by amateurs with some fancy academic "degrees". But we knew this all along. What is being omitted, despite understanding, is the fact that US Russian "studies" field has one and only one curriculum whose "academic" essence can be expressed as "Why the United States Is Better Than Anyone Else".  This is not a starting point from which anything could be learned. 

2. And here comes this punch line: even if one is an average thinker and has an access to modern media, one can not fail to notice that:

a) United States, starting from the Korean War, didn't win a single war with the exception of the victory over grossly and deliberately overrated Saddam's Army. Yet, it still has an audacity to claim that its military is the best in the world.

b) Most of the time, US found itself supporting either bloody dictators or Islamic terrorists. From Afghanistan, to Kosovo to a collection of own Sons Of Bitches in Central and South America, to Ukrainian neo-nazis, to having a Beltway being completely in the pockets of Saudi and other Gulf satrapies supporting terrorism. This is not a glorious record, in fact--it is a shameful one. One has to be in denial to try to present it otherwise. The case of US foreign policy being run, de facto, by Israel is the whole other story altogether--today, US foreign policy is not US foreign policy, it is AIPAC's foreign policy, which has very little in common with real interests of average Americans.

So, unless one is sublime to the point of a complete idiocy (and this is still not excluded as a possibility), one has to ask, what's all the fuss is about? The answer is in Philip Giraldi's own words: "given the real limitations on Russian power"(c). I wrote about complete misunderstanding here. I will repeat the point: US "elites" do not understand nor know what military power is and how it is applied. Their record of failures is simply stupefying. Least of all they understand that in regards to Russian military power. Russia's (military) power is indeed limited but it is designed not to pursue global confrontations. Russia has no desire nor plans to storm US or Canadian coasts, US does have such plans regarding Russia. Russia is not an expeditionary power. If today both United States and Russia would find themselves stripped off their respective nuclear arsenals, any attempt of NATO (that is US) to attack Russia, as it was done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yugoslavia, conventionally will result in a catastrophic level of NATO (US) casualties and will lead not only to a military defeat but to a dramatic political changes in US and Europe. Or, putting it in a layman's lingo and speaking in broadsides:

              US Can Not Conventionally Defeat Russia.  

"Russia is not a country that can be formally conquered--that is to say occupied--certainly not with present strength of the European States and not even with the half-a-million men Bonaparte mobilized for the purpose. Only internal weakness, only the workings of disunity can bring a country of that kind to ruin"

  Clausewitz, Vom Kriege, Book 8, Chapter 9.

Hitler had almost 4.5 million under his command. When viewed in conjunction with inevitable and warranted comparison of respective histories (especially military ones), cultures and accomplishments, Russia is a clear and present danger to this new (and old) generation of "intelligence officers"  and of other representatives of this proverbial "Deep State" because it makes them metaphysically:

                                FEEL INFERIOR

But that is not what they have been taught and how they were brought up. In their Manichean world Russia, by the virtue of her existence and history blows this whole narrative of American exceptionalism out of the water, no matter how one tries to interpret it. United States must be "good" and Russia, as a consequence, "evil". Anything short of this means only one thing--US losing it self-proclaimed status of a "Shining City" on the hill, this means death. No other nation can do this to US "elites": neither Germany, conquered in large part thanks to the Red Army demolishing cream of the cream of Wehrmacht by 1944, nor France, nor even China--an economic powerhouse but culturally a complete foreign object. Russia can and DOES it. Hence, in Kissinger's words--It means that breaking Russia has become an objective (c). Washington's shift in the perception of Russia does not matter as long as it is confined to the discussion clubs, but in case of this "Deep State" we are talking about a bizarre collection of myopia, incompetence, inferiority complex bizarrely mixed with racism, and, in the end a complete hatred and obsession with Russia. If this is how US "elite", "deep state", IC, what have you, thinks and feels it inevitably will lead to emotional, mental and political breakdown and that is exactly what we all observe now. The worst thing for them? They can not bomb Russia and declare a victory. Trump is hated and is associated with Russia in one very important, however unnoticed by many, metaphysical aspect--he won elections because he stated what Russia by the virtue of own existence and surviving everything what was thrown at her, continues to state: the self-proclaimed emperor has no clothes. 

What we observe today is unprecedented--forget lying and propaganda, those people actually do believe in it. Detached from the reality, hysterical to the point of being apoplectic--we are witnessing a wholesale "elite" going completely insane. It is legitimate to say today, that this "Deep State" is an enemy of American people, it is clear and present danger to the world, even when it will try to use indirect strategies for undermining anyone it views as an enemy, Russia being #1 for them outside, Trump being the enemy #1 inside. The war just started: a political one  in Washington, and it may yet become a hot one elsewhere. Until the corridors of the American political power are completely cleared of this filth, the United States will remain in a decline and be a clear and present danger to the world and to herself. American survival today hinges on a complete removal of this "Deep State". If not, we may, indeed, lose the whole country to a turmoil and, probably,  bloody disintegration. That is how high are the stakes. In this case, Michael Flynn's affair is just a small tactical bump in the epic struggle.       

Happy, sort of, New Year from WaPo

Washington Post suddenly had a feat of some sanity when published this yesterday. 

Lack of Russia experts has some in U.S. worried 

The problem, however, is not in the lack of Russia's "experts", the problem is in fact, of which I wrote many times, that US NEVER had serious Russia experts with the exception of such figures as Kennan or Matlock, as an example. In fact, US always had the whole army of  Russia's "experts", as it has it today, who, for the most part, were and are nothing more than dissidents who know really well what their masters want to hear. The result of that was and still remain a parallel Russian universe in which American power elites live. It is not surprising when one sees the world through the prism of some post-modern social ideologies and  studies not history but the subject called "why the United States is better than everybody else". 

It doesn't take reading this D.C. rag WaPo to recognize that there is a huge problem with American perceptions of Russia. When Russian history was solzhenitsified to the point of being unrecognizable--what can one expect?  Enough to open CIA's forecast from 2000 in regards to Russia. 

 NIC Chairman: The CIA in the New World Order

Mind you, these are the guys who are charged with US "defense" and even they still can not get anything right. Militant incompetence--that is how the state of the affairs in US Russia's "expert" community is. I write on this issue constantly, US OODA Loop lacks those two "O's" or, as some people succinctly observed, like in the Wheel Of Fortune game, even when all letters are guessed correctly, the player still is not able to read the whole word right. I do not expect any improvement in this field, which is crucial in helping US to avoid stupid and irresponsible steps, such as destabilizing Ukraine. The parade of all those Zlobins, Masha Lipmans, Dmitry Simeses, Pavel Falgenhauers, human rights "activists", dissidents and other presstitudes will continue.  No amount of resources will help until US "elites" will take a look in the mirror and will understand that they, not Russia, have a problem, no amount of "experts" will fix. 

As hapless former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul noted: “Trying to figure out decision-making in Russia on foreign policy requires a great deal of qualitative depth… and that requires new investment and knowledge. We’re going to disagree with the Kremlin and with the Russians on certain issues over time, but what we can’t have is disagreements based on misperception and bad information.”  How strange, to observe a sudden breakout of common sense semblance from the guy who contributed greatly to misperception and bad information about Russia.