It Has Been Posted ...

 ... in comments, but it is worth repeating by Dmitry Medvedev. 

The U.S.–Iran conflict has been put on hold. Predictably, both sides are claiming victory. So who won? First of all, common sense did – though faith in it was badly shaken when the White House started talking about wiping out Iranian civilization in one day. Still, the very fact that Trump agreed to discuss the 10-point plan is a win for the Iranians. The question is whether Washington will accept it, since it includes, among other things, compensation for the damage inflicted on Iran, the continuation of its nuclear program, and Tehran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz. The answer is clearly no. That would be humiliating and would amount to a real victory for the Islamic Republic. So what then? Back to war?

That’s possible. But there is also another option. Trump neither wants nor can sustain a long war, and he won’t find support in Congress for one, either. This means he must maintain the fragile ceasefire and pretend that everything is fine. Because every step on this board pushes the situation closer to zugzwang. But this is a game of chess with three players, not two: there’s also Israel, which is not playing on the U.S. side. It has no use for a ceasefire, and it has not achieved its objectives. It could very well make its own move: simply sweep all the pieces off the board. That makes the situation highly uncertain. Which also means the pigheaded European Russophobes will have to live in austerity mode for a long time. Because there is no cheap oil in sight…

Highlighted is the crux of the matter. I want to remind you:

A particular strategic policy must be devised for every war; each war is a special case, which requires its own particular logic, rather than any kind of stereotype or pattern, no matter how splendid it may be. The more our theory encompasses the entire content of modern war, the quicker it will assist us in analyzing a given situation. A narrow doctrine would probably confuse us more than guide us.

That's Svechin. The US "strategic policy", strategy and operational art is the always the same--launch whatever you have in stand-off weaponry (long range fires) and see what, like that proverbial substance, sticks. Svechin continues:

The first duty of the art of politics with respect to strategy is to formulate the political goal of a war. Any goal should be strictly coordinated with the resources available to achieve it. The political goal should be appropriate to one’s war-waging capabilities. To meet this requirement, a politician must have a correct conception of the relations of friendly to hostile forces, which requires extremely mature and profound judgment; a knowledge of the history, politics and statistics of both hostile states; and a certain amount of competence in basic military matters. The final statement of the goal would be made by the politician after an appropriate exchange of views with strategists, and it should help rather than hinder strategic decisions. 

As you might expect, it is not a secret, American politicians do not know what resources are, how they affect operational issues and, of course, average American politician thinks that he (she) is the brightest, most powerful and knowledgeable strategist because he (she) graduated Harvard or similar degree mill's political science or law school, while denying the same to their opponents. The fact that most people in US decision circle are highly uncultured, primitive uneducated hacks who know only apparatus games and staying elected (or appointed) doesn't occur to them. 

Rephrasing old military truism that "while amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics", while amateurs discuss capitalization and stocks, professionals discuss tons, units, kilowatt-hours and correlation of forces and means (COFM). So, Medvedev is spot on here and if hostilities resume (it may happen), they will resume with Iran dominating the battlefield even more and being able to inflict much more pain on the US and that chihuahua in Levant which without its nukes and American welfare is a third rate power. 

This guy, however, was pushed to sue for ceasefire by his Israeli masters because neither could take it anymore. So, will wait and see what comes out of it in the long run. 

Muscovites Continue To Bring ...

... flowers, icons and children's toys to Iran's Embassy. Especially toys in memory of 171 innocent children ... Russians know, they had atrocity of Beslan directed by "intel services of unfriendly countries". 

Meanwhile 

The Trump administration is using up its stockpiles of missiles and other munitions during its war in Iran at a completely unsustainable rate, according to a report. Sources told the Financial Times the U.S. has already burned through “years” worth of missiles since the Middle East conflict began on Feb. 28, raising concerns about the spiraling cost of the war and whether the U.S. military will be able to replenish its arsenal.

I will reiterate, the US does not know what REAL war is, period. All "operations" by the US are designed against third rate enemies and are nothing more than a burst of "shock and awe" against people who cannot shoot back, developing of the fifth column to overthrow the "regime" and voila'--that's the American Way of War. Pete Hegseth is a product of this "culture" and he thought that he knows. He knows shit, because he is ROTC product with degree in "politics" and has no grasp of strategy of REAL war. Not surprising with his "experience" from Afghanistan. 

For people who still do not understand what is going on with the US arsenals, I want to reiterate--in comparison, in SMART munitions only Russia produces ORDER of magnitude (x 10 and even more) those munitions ranging from laser guided rounds to loitering munitions. Per bombs with UMPK--I don't know, 30 times more? And, then, of course, missiles--all kinds from stand off weapons ranging from Kh-101, 3M14(M), Kinzhals, 3M22 Zircons, P-800 Oniks and, of course, air defense missiles--the US does not even register here. It is simply insignificant. So, make your own conclusions. Now, to those who compare Iran and Russia--two different intensities of a conflict, two different weight categories. So, I remind you now sacramental from A.A. Svechin, Valery Gerasimov quotes him:

Memorize and internalize it, this may help in orienting oneself in the complexities of the warfare and geopolitics. 

Absolutely!

 You can take it to the bank. Two top Russian officials, Sergei Lavrov and Yuri Ushakov repeated the same thing today:

US President Donald Trump is being misled about the Ukraine conflict by those pushing Washington toward supporting the Kiev regime and taking a more aggressive stance on Russia, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.

Surprise, surprise (not really)! Trump, again, surrounded himself with the bunch of shysters such as sore loser Kellogg and a bunch of neocons who keep highly primitive geopolitical mind Trump in a complete darkness. When Lavrov and Ushakov speak like that, it means only thing--Donnie, you are being played for the fool that you are. But in the end--getting to the position of POTUS objectively requires what Alexandr Svechin wrote about 90 years ago in his seminal Strategy, I quote:

The first duty of the art of politics with respect to strategy is to formulate the political goal of a war. Any goal should be strictly coordinated with the resources available to achieve it. The political goal should be appropriate to one’s war-waging capabilities. To meet this requirement, a politician must have a correct conception of the relations of friendly to hostile forces, which requires extremely mature and profound judgment; a knowledge of the history, politics and statistics of both hostile states; and a certain amount of competence in basic military matters. The final statement of the goal would be made by the politician after an appropriate exchange of views with strategists, and it should help rather than hinder strategic decisions. 

Trump doesn't satisfy ANY of those requirements. Not surprising from the guy who is a showman, and real estate shyster from NYC. That will be the topic of my today's video. 

Long Gone Are The Times...

 ... when the US Dollar was supported by America's massive industrial might. Today, the only thing "supporting" it are Wall Street and a bunch of code writers who pass for "tech companies". 

Moscow will continue expanding trade relations with ‘friendly’ countries and boost the use of national currencies, cutting the US dollar’s share, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated on Friday. According to the top diplomat, Moscow has no intention of undermining the US currency’s global role, but Washington is doing that itself. “We obviously are not developing our line against the US, against the West. It’s not that we want to ruin the dollar. The US no longer ensures the dollar’s global role that could satisfy everyone. That’s the problem,” Lavrov told students at the Moscow State Institute for International Relations (MGIMO).

Lavrov is absolutely correct--accounting fraud becomes a feature, not a bug of the US economy. But in real world only tangible things matter. The warfare delusion that the Gulf War produced is easily paralleled by money making out of a thin air by Wall Street shysters. Indeed, the US is doing a swell job herself discrediting and annihilating the US Dollar--Lavrov is spot on here. Now consider the removal of the PR myth about US military power and you get a perfect storm of factors coming together in undermining the USD. 

Yep, the times of the American mighty industries which seemed to have no limits in their output are long gone. I touch upon this issue a little bit in my latest video which I will post shortly (in 30 minutes or so). Tucker definitely stirred the pot with his prediction of the hot war between Russia and the US but one has to ask the question if the US has the capacity to build armor (hint: she doesn't) and if many of those military experts read Svechin and know about strategy of exhausting the enemy? Valery Gerasimov is an avid reader of Svechin, wink, wink.

Strategic Inevitability.

Sasha Rogers wrote three days ago an excellent--typical Rogers with his laser guided sarcasm and acerbic tone--piece which is titled "The Meat Storm" (in Russian). In it he posted Rusvesna video on how what's left of VSU and 404 simply have no options in purely military terms but to conduct much promised and spun by morons from Western media "offensive" with disastrous results. 

Here is how one Russian unit deals with four Ukie APCs (looks like M-113) and this tiny tactical action projected against the realities of a huge, 1000+ kilometers long, front demonstrates perfectly how VSU is going to be dealt with in case of their "offensive", now promised by Kiev regime to be along... several axes. Yeah, sure. 

The reason I call strategic inevitability is because neither Pentagon nor Kiev "planners" know what to do at this stage, and, considering the fact that most wars by the US are driven by PR, they need to undertake something--call it anyway you want: counter-offensive, offensive, massive attack or simply attack but it has to be repeated time after time--not on  a single occasion VSU took any ground or settlement as a direct  result of their combat activity. Each time these were Russian forces who have been withdrawn from operationally and strategically insignificant positions to save personnel. Enough to recall VSU "operations" around Kherson when they couldn't take anything around Kherson, not a single village, until the decision was made to save civilians and personnel and abandon Kherson. Only after Russian withdrawal VSU "captured" abandoned villages and the city. 

Naturally, illiterate media and military "professionals" touted it as a huge success, even calling it stunning, because in the West the "victory" is defined only through TV picture and spin. What, of course, those "experts" do not understand is that the "stretching" of VSU forces is ongoing the picture, such as demonstrated in the video, repeats itself every single day with VSU and their "allies" being slaughtered in some catastrophic numbers. But that is strategic inevitability now not only for remnants of Kiev regime forces but NATO as a whole which exposed its military illiteracy in the most dramatic way. In doing so they "ensured" the picture which you can see in the video being replicated everywhere in 404. 

Here is what Svechin wrote and was noted about Strategy in the preamble to his seminal work. 

I criticize many of my colleagues in the study of problems of military history and tsarist Russia, in that they usually strove, immediately following a factual statement of events, to develop their deductions and conclusions, which often had rather limited scope and depth. A truly scientific approach consists of, once the facts have been stated, shifting to a reflection of them. "The difference between the terms, conclusion [vyvod], on the one hand, and contemplation [razmyshlenie], on the other, reflects different understandings of the relationships between theory and real life." 

The problem with modern Western military as a whole is that it fails both in theory and real life with equally disastrous results and that is a strategic inevitability framed by illiterate military-political class of the combined West. They refused to do the homework (Svechin also writes about homework) and failed the test not just in 404, but globally. 

Let Me Repeat.

And I don't mean it disrespectfully, but American operational experience in any war the US fought since Vietnam is absolutely worthless in application to real war in the so called "peer-to-peer" environment. Some tactical tricks are for the consumption and discussion of armchair generals from mommy's basement during school breaks. But that truism, evidently, is not known to Mr. Kelley.

A group of senators from both parties is pressing the Pentagon for more information on what it would take to send F-16 jets to Ukraine.  The fresh push came in a letter Tuesday to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin from eight senators, and obtained by POLITICO, as top administration officials from President Joe Biden on down have poured cold water on bipartisan calls to send U.S.-made fighters into the fight for now. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is “now at a critical juncture,” the senators wrote, arguing F-16 fighters could give Kyiv an edge as Moscow’s full-tilt invasion enters a second year. “After speaking with U.S., Ukrainian, and foreign leaders working to support Ukraine at the Munich Security Conference last month, we believe the U.S. needs to take a hard look at providing F-16 aircraft to Ukraine,” the senators wrote. “This would be a significant capability that could prove to be a game changer on the battlefield.” The letter was organized by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.).

Senator Mark Kelly was a great astronaut and I deeply respect him for his career in NASA, and for his aeronautical engineering degree, but this line in his C.V. doesn't make him an authority of the REAL air combat:

He was then assigned to Attack Squadron 115 (VA-115) in Atsugi, Japan, and made two deployments to the Persian Gulf on the aircraft carrier USS Midway, flying 39 combat missions in Operation Desert Storm.

In other words, he flew missions against the enemy with NO functional air defense, air force and command and control. I spoke in depth about debilitating influence of a "victory" of the US Armed Forces against utterly incompetent and, in some areas, utterly defenseless enemy in Desert Storm. For those who want again to refer to proper description of this turkey shoot, here is CSIS's analysis of that campaign.    

Anthony H. Cordesman's book, The Gulf War, was published in October 1994, and was the first comprehensive analysis of the strategic and military lessons of the Gulf War. Unlike previous studies, which concentrated primarily on the diplomatic and policy decisions affecting the war, or decisions at the high command level, Cordesman provides a detailed analysis of all of the military trends and actions that occurred during Desert Shield, a net assessment comparing Iraqi and each of the major Coalition military forces, and a detailed analysis of the history and lessons of each phase of Desert Storm.

Kelly, never flew in his life against the best Air Defense in the world and against one of the best Air Forces in the world. In fact, he has zero understanding of it, which is true for most US military professionals who grew out of the beating defenseless kids in the sand box of the Middle East and because of it thinking that they know the war. He is a classic representative of this very environment of the US warmongers and neocons who due to their ignorance counted on Russia collapsing in a few months since the start of SMO. But then again, Kelly never attended any kind of schooling related to Operations and Planning. So, it is only natural for him, and his ilk, to think that F-16 in any numbers could be "a game changer". 

As Larry once stated in 2018 and I quoted him in my first book:

Any air defense engineer with a security clearance that isn't lying through his teeth will admit that Russia's air defense technology surpassed us in the 1950's and we've never been able to catch up. The systems thy have in place surrounding Moscow make our Patriot 3's look like fucking nerf guns. All of the knowledgeable aircraft commanders are usually scared shitless about the prospect of a legitimate air-to-air skirmish with a SU-30 or any Russian air superiority fighter.

I omit, of course, here anecdotal but very reliable evidence of Russian SU-35s literally toying with US F-22s in Syria. Senator Kelly, evidently, for all his impressive C.V., lacks basic understanding of the SEAD and its requirements to deal with Russia's VKS, not to speak of the issues which the US military didn't encounter ever--that is having its operational depth, including its airfields being mauled by stand-off high precision weaponry against which US simply has no effective means of defense. Hey, he flew Shuttles and didn't have time to study war. But behind that one can easily see a desperation from complex of inferiority in the field where the United States, while losing its wars even against weak enemies, managed to convince itself that it has "the finest fighting force in history". It is difficult to part with this delusion and Kelly articulates this pain in the open. He should have asked SACEUR General Cavoli.

And all this, while Russia didn't even deploy her main forces. Throwing few Brigade Combat Teams from 101st and 82nd at Russians as some suggest will change absolutely nothing strategically in 404 but will kill many of American personnel which shouldn't even be  there to start with. 

But Kelly is not alone, here is another RAND creature (combat veteran, adviser and "model major general") whose military exploits, again, are not applicable operationally and strategically to modern warfare. Yet, the guy writes on the subject he has no clue about:

One does not easily imagine Russian President Vladimir Putin and his generals poring over maps or conferring with his cabinet, gazing at PowerPoints, weighing various options. Surrounded by servile opportunists who depend on his approval, one suspects that Putin may hold his immediate circle in outright contempt. These are, after all, his minions—mere messenger boys talking taxidermy. At home, Putin faces no elections, no party or state institutions that threaten his rule, no domestic political opposition. He is Russia. And Russia is his—so long as he projects strength. Avoiding defeat is his paramount objective. According to his foreign minister, Putin takes his counsel from Ivan the Terrible: He fires generals, jails dissidents at home, poisons those abroad. Measuring by his years in power, Western leaders are mere novices. He faces his third president of China, his fourth president of France, his fifth U.S. president, and his seventh prime minister of the United Kingdom. Longevity doesn't make one smarter, but, as the Russian saying goes, Putin “has seen the parade quite a few times.”

I am Russian, and with professional military pedigree but I never heard in my 60 years this "Russian saying" about parade. But then again, and I am beginning to speak openly about it--we ARE facing the issue of professional military incompetence on the American side. SMO exposed it dramatically and the way US Military-Industrial-Media complex shrieks and lies, while being consistently wrong on any Russian and warfare matter, is the best proof of a lost, largely self-proclaimed, military superiority. Hence hysteria about MQ9 Reaper. It is a fodder for US media bottom feeders, but reality is very simple--Russia will start dealing with ISR assets in a much more strict way and that was the message. I think the next step will be killing one or two commercial satellites the US uses to spy on SMO. Russia has all means to disable what she sees as a threat and issued warning officially on a number of occasions. 

But in the end, the 800-pound gorilla in the room is the fact that Russian General Staff is older than the United States as a nation, and that Russian military history dwarfs, in scale and quality of enemies, anything the US ever fought, with the exception of the primarily naval Pacific War, in its history, not to mention the fact that US lost all of its modern wars. One has to have a good credit history to get a loan and the US is sorely lacking in this department. The US simply stopped, long time ago, being this "American observer" of which Alexandr Svechin wrote in his Strategy and became exactly what he warned about--a third rate student who doesn't do his homework. 

A particular strategic policy must be devised for every war; each war is a special case, which requires its own particular logic rather than any kind of stereotype or pattern, no matter how splendid it may be. The more our theory encompasses the entire content of modern war, the quicker it will assist us in analyzing a given situation. A narrow doctrine would probably confuse us more than guide us. And we must not forget that only maneuvers are one-sided, while wars are always two-sided. We must be able to get a grasp of war as it is perceived by the opposing side and clarify the other side's desires and goals. Theory is capable of benefitting only those who have raised themselves above the fray and have become completely dispassionate; we have chosen this path, despite the dissatisfaction with which several of our young critics have encountered the excess of objectivity, "the posture of an American observer," in military questions. 

Hey, I am on record--find better professionals who understand the real war of the 21st century and what it entails, and why the United States cannot and must not fight it because it will lose catastrophically. 

About Angst.

Thanks to Thomas Malthaus providing link to Mr. Bhadrakumar's piece, symptomatically called Biden’s existential angst in Ukraine. As is expected, Bhadrakumar's piece revolves largely around the article in WaPo by Robert Gates and Condoleezza Rice titled Time Is Not on Ukraine’s Side. As is the case with many policy "pieces" in the United States it is written by people who fucked it up big time one way or another in their distinguished careers. Robert Gates, being a smart man, had his own delusions on the matters he was dealing with during his tenure as the head of CIA, Secretary of the State and SecDef. In the end, I remember his public speaking in 1996-97 (IIRC) at the Seattle's Madison Mayflower Hotel conference where he didn't understand that his threats to choke financially Yeltsin's Russia were a highly desirable act for those forces in Russia which, in the end, came to power due to US and NATO criminal idea to gang-bang Serbia in 1999. 

But that is common for the majority of America's graduates of Soviet/Russian Studies field--to exercise illusion that they know what Russian people want, based on communicating with circles of people in Russia who tell those graduates, from CIA's chief to such "scholars" like Michael McFaul, what they want to hear. That's the MO of the US "Intelligence Community". And whilst Rice and Gates' piece is sober and grim (for 404 and US hegemony) there is also a tacit recognition of the strategic realities on the ground. Here is what Bhadrakumar points out which is crucial:

Rice and Gates indirectly acknowledge that Russia is on a winning streak, contrary to the western triumphalist narrative so far. Evidently, the expected Russian offensive ahead is rattling their nerves... Pentagon is unsure of Surovikin’s future strategy. From what they know of his brilliant success in evicting NATO officers from Syria’s Aleppo in 2016, siege and attrition war are Surovikin’s forte. But one never knows. A steady Russian build-up in Belarus is underway. The S-400 and Iskander missile systems have been deployed there. A NATO (Polish) attack on Belarus is no longer realistic. 

And here is the issue. Pentagon CANNOT be sure of any strategy of Surovikin, because they cannot be sure of a larger geopolitical strategy of Kremlin which is surrounded by fog deliberately and if there is one thing neither Pentagon nor higher-ups in US policy-making establishment ever followed is what Alexander Svechin wrote in his "Strategy" almost 100 year ago--"Each war represents an isolated case, requiring an understanding of its own particular logic, its own unique character." Yes, it is that simple, yet, it seems, so beyond the reach of the US policy-makers other than self-evident platitudes that Ukraine is merely a pawn in a huge game designed to finish off self-proclaimed US hegemony and that Russia was at this game since at least 2007. 

One of the hall-marks of this game is a practical maintenance by Russia of escalation dominance on the battlefield and her ability to employ it tactically and operationally in dozes required to achieve political objectives, and, in this case, whatever Surovikin did in Syria is not sufficient for application to this proverbial Svechin's "isolated case", because the war is different than it was in Syria. And it is different dramatically in its scale, scope and final objective. This is precisely the thing they cannot wrap their brains around in Washington and it merely confirms the American tradition to lose her wars, ranging from Vietnam to Afghanistan, due to inability to recognize the nature of the conflict and due to sheer ignorance of the enemy the US fights. 

So, here we are, speaking about rather simple things, in theory, but which are so difficult to attain in practice. As per doctrinal, policy and strategy chaos in Washington--old news. It was like this since 9/11 with armies of neocon and American "exceptionalists" shysters pushing for a complete remake of the world order without giving a cognizance to a simple fact that America they thought they knew, let alone the world at large, had very little to do with their own perceptions. I will try to talk about it tomorrow in depth in video. In related news:

Newly elected US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy reportedly won over the final few votes needed to secure the gavel by promising conservative lawmakers that he will help pass legislation that would limit future economic and military aid to Ukraine.    

We'll see about that. Every laundromat eventually gets broken, or gets new management. Per Kissinger... LOL)) Neutrality for 404, no shit, genius...