... editorial board ranging from CNN to WaPO and NYT with WSJ is a collection of not only corrupts prostitutes (non-corrupt prostitutes provide honest service for the money) but a collection of cretins with credentials in BS as are their "experts" (e.g. Petraeus, Keane or Forbes' own David Axe). Moreover, Journalism Schools all across the world are nothing more than degree mills for feeble-minded chimpanzees who couldn't understand quadratic equations, as are all those Ph.Ds in this shit and "professors", who are shysters, in every single Ivy League "journalism" program. Finally, somebody begins to call them out.
And then, of course, this "teeny weenie" issue of high treason and war crimes which US MSM so gladly supported. As I already said, Tucker was too generous when he said that "every other person (in US journalism) is an asshole"; I think the number is closer to 80%, but then again--I am not Tucker, he knows the environment better than me.
... why not me, asks Christian Amanpour. It is difficult to explain to this war criminal and psychobitch why Mr. Putin wouldn't touch her with a 10 yard stick, because her place is on the bench at the war crimes tribunal starting from Yugoslavia. As would be the case for most (not all) American corporate whores, pardon me, "journalists". Amanpour is an ambitious sociopath who has no understanding of the difference between crime against humanity and normality--a standard "morality" yardstick for people congregating around Washington establishment. So... people react:
Amanpour is a human trash and as such she can attract only, right, human trash, which is Western media.
To have normal, like in not a perpetual war of a different variety, relations between Russia and the US? The answer is rather simple--the United States views Russia as an existential threat. But that is a blanket, however correct, statement, the devil is in details. Let me explain. I am on record for years that the field of Russia Studies in the US is a wasteland. Even Matthew Rojansky, whose candidacy has been successfully sabotaged recently by neocon mafia which infested US foreign policy establishment top bottom, is not really an "expert" in Russia--he is an "expert" in US "think-tankdom" echo-chamber hustle and rubbing shoulders with big honchos, which then migrate onto CVs and Resumes for bearers to be recycled in the cesspool of Beltway "expertdom". The fact that Rojansky doesn't want an outright war with Russia and passes for a "realist" in D.C. was enough to remove him from the pool of "Russia Experts" trying to make it into the Biden Admin. Well, even an iota of a common sense towards Russian-American relations is a disqualifying trait in D.C.
Now recall Alexander Vindman, A Ukrainian Jew in the rank of Lieutenant Colonel who decided that he, not the President of the United States, is to define what kind of relations the United States must have with Ukraine and Russia. When one has such people as Vindman and a cabal of neocons being omnipresent in the establishment, it is bad enough. But then comes a "heavy artillery" of US main stream media, which are literally a propaganda machine which drives a complete destruction of Russian-American relations on the American side and "experts" there range from psychopaths such as Max Boot, deranged and confused non-binary russophobes such as Masha Gessen, to some butt-hurt ignoramuses such as "Doctor" Stephen Blank, who though it possible sending US Navy's ships to... the Sea of Azov. As you may have noticed already, a huge portion of this army of psychopaths consists of former Soviet or Russia's citizenry, primarily, but not exclusively (let's be objective), of a Jewish descend, who, instead of learning and working for the benefit of the American national interests, among which not being wiped off the map by Russia, should be a primary one, are in it for settling all kinds of accounts and grievances, most of them totally made up and fake, with Russia. If it takes US bureaucracy and sacrificing US interests, so be it in their opinions.
But what about middle level "journalist", are there any people of common sense who view Russian-American relations as crucial for global stability? Hm. Here is an example of yet another former Soviet "journo" (euphemism for not being educated), a graduate of the Moscow State University and MBA writing on the issues of modern geopolitics and Russia from Toledo, Ohio. His name is Mike Sigov.
As is the case with many former "Russians" who get to write for all kinds of US media outlets, few of them really have any background in the issue of modern geopolitics and fields adjacent to it. What they have, which ultimately qualifies them for spreading mostly BS, is their ability to read and speak Russian and navigate Moscow Metro. They also have a lot of "feelings" towards their place of birth and as a result one gets such a mental excrement as Sigov provides:
Ukraine has long been pressing NATO to admit it as a member, but the
defense alliance has been reluctant so far to expedite the long process
of extending its membership to Ukraine, without openly denying it one. NATO
membership would all but secure Ukraine from Russian aggression but
also would mandate that all the member countries — the United States
included — treat such an act as a war on each one of them as well. To
be sure, Ukraine's accession to NATO would increase the stakes for the
United States and other members of the alliance in Ukraine. The alternative may be worse, however.
Sigov, having no clue what he is writing about and calling on Ukraine being admitted to NATO, should understand one very simple constant of modern geopolitics--Russia can annihilate any force in Eastern Europe, including combined NATO forces, even without the use of nuclear weapons and in this case, Russia will end Ukrainian statehood, much less Ukrainian armed forces, in a matter of days. Yes, Russians do not want this shithole of a country on their balance, but if push comes to shove, what will happen will be more than just annihilation of Ukraine as we know it today--a Nazi shithole and a used condom for neocons--Russia will demonstrate a complete military impotence of the United States and NATO which will be left to the only device they have at their disposal, you guessed it, propaganda. Russia CAN reject Europe, Europe CANNOT reject Russia and if Mr. Sigov doesn't understand that, I am sorry, he should have chosen a serious field of study to wrap his brains around this simple fact.
Yet, this doesn't prevent him from agitating for a situation which could be much worse than the Cuban Missile Crisis, because the United States, having very limited conventional, not to speak of combined arms, capabilities will have no chance other than commit whatever troops it will able to assemble, for annihilation in Ukraine and will, being inherently nuclear-biased country, resort to escalation towards nuclear threshold, because what the United States doesn't like is to lose big. It will not get any bigger than getting a death wish of fighting Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine granted. The moment any announcement about Ukraine "joining" the NATO is made, that seals the fate of not just Ukraine, it seals the fate of Europe and of the United States. Mr. Sigov, in a fine tradition of "Russian" (wink, wink) immigration to the US, and having no viable skills other than spreading BS and grievances, provides an Exhibit A of a "materiel" which dominates America's field of "Russia Studies" and foreign policy establishment, and which bears a huge share of responsibility for royally fucking it up for the US, and the world, in the time the US desperately needs not only face saving but a dramatic rethinking of its suicidal in its sheer incompetence foreign policy, which bankrupted the country and exposed it as a big bully capable only of big words.
Yet, Mike Sigov is an embodiment of Russian-American troubles. The United States' government institutions are neoconised and ukrainised thoroughly, top-bottom, and that is why any semblance of normality in Russian-American relations is impossible and, in fact, they will continue to deteriorate and for that, the United States has only itself to blame. I omit here sheer idiocy of American geopolitical "thinking" of the last 30 years which should be studied as a severe case of a delusion--I wrote three books on that, and may yet write another one--but even some weak signals from Biden Admin about desire to talk to Russia, in a feeble attempt to "free" dwindling and grossly overstated resources to fight China, even these signals are successfully distorted, suppressed and the transmitter is sabotaged, because the United States' foreign policy is completely subverted by ethnic and religious mafias operating within the establishment and media. If Putin-Biden summit happens, in the end, we will see what happens after it and I don't hold my breath, because the United States is non-agreement capable entity and armies of Mike Sigovs are standing by, ready to sabotage any possible move towards normalization of Russian-American relations. That is why such a normalization is not possible in the foreseeable future. That is not to mention that Russia and China seem to be committed to each-other in a geopolitical sense and the US has nothing, zilch, nada to offer Russia.
In related news, new Russian Armed Forces Cathedral held an Easter Liturgy yesterday.
I can only imagine what US "Russian Experts" think looking at it.
Because it is true. This is the funniest shit I saw in quite a while. Yes, it is cringe-worthy. It also shows a complete lack of culture in US MSM. I mean it, culture being a combination of intellectual honesty, ethics and principles which translate into class. US main-stream media are a pathetic parody, a collection of clowns, however evil. Give RT a hand, it deserved it here, LOL.
On a serious note--don't be surprised by the US turning into softer, slightly milder version of North Korea. US media already are there.
No really. Is it even a news anymore for anyone with a half-brain and an attention span longer than the length of a hemorrhoid cream commercial? I don't think so. Recall what I wrote 5 days ago:
But before Durham releases his findings, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe declassified a wonderfully telling letter:
My question remains the same--will we see anyone going, finally, behind bars? I would love to see a few Pulitzer Prize winners, who abuse life-giving remuneration springs in all kind of shitty US propaganda rags like NYT, or WaPo, or NBC, or whatever else is out there which took part in de facto coup, to be stripped of their mostly crappy credentials and spend some time in solitary confinement contemplating the fact that words, which constitute malicious lies, do have consequences. But then again, American main-stream journalism being a euphemism for whoring, usually destroys psychological mechanisms responsible for a sense of honor, duty and honesty, pretty fast. I would love to see it, even more so than seeing HRC's and Obama's cabal getting persecuted for treason. Never mind, those ass-holes destroying relations with Russia--the only country on Earth capable to wipe the United States off the map completely. All of that in order to hide the fact that they are incompetent crooks. Is what remains of the Republic even salvageable? As Captain Ed Hocken (played by incomparable George Kennedy) from The Naked Gun would say:
Doctors say that it has a 50/50 chance of living, though there's only a 10 percent chance of that.
We all live in a time of devaluation. Everything is being devalued: human live, dignity, US Dollar, liberty, you name it. But what devalues even faster than all that are words, or, rather, their meaning, their semantic load. Like an old line of words written in ink which fades away with the age, words lose their meaning in the modern United States. I am not talking about Orwellian trick of replacing an actual meaning with something else, such as rioters and insurgents in Seattle or Portland being called "protestors", no, not that. I am talking about US main-stream media, who apart from being staffed with a lot of human compost, and who share responsibility for tearing already damaged United States apart, are complicit in devaluation of meanings.
Here is an example:De Blasio Blasts 'Tyrant' Trump Over Election Delay Musing. Make no mistake, I like good hyperbole myself and use it once in a while, but US media do not know the limits beyond which meaning of tasteful disappears and simple BS and pathos start. They don't--look at them, from morons in NYT and WaPo, who do not understand that if shit they shovel into out faces hits the fan they may experience a rather unpleasant reckoning with people coming for them, to all kinds of other media personalities who never experienced any real difficulty, let alone danger in their life and still think that journalism is actual profession. Yet, most of pampered self-proclaimed "intellectuals" and words handlers, most of who would shit their pants when faced with real anger, real weapons and real danger, use the militant vernacular whenever they can and as a result, already disturbed and uneased American mind faces those facts that someone "blasted" someone, of someone "torched" somebody, or that someone "destroyed" someone else on a daily bases.
Remarkably, all those terms are used by people who never served a day even as a cook in any armed forces, by people who would contemplate suicide if denied dining in upscale restaurants and shopping for designer brands. Yet, they have no problem using aggressive battle-like rhetoric and descriptions disregarding the fact that most of them are cowards. One has to wonder what such mama boys as Don Lemon or Chris Cuomo experience when they "fire back" at someone. What can possibly this Cuomo dude, an offspring of rich New York political family, experience in reality when not "embedded" with US troops and faces something he and his kind want all of us to face completely on their own? What can possibly they "analyze" with any degree of competence and courage? US media-political elite is pathetic, specimens of corrupt political animals from Jerry Nadlers and Liz Warrens on one side to a hypocritical Jim Jordans and Lindsey Grahams on the other, who are in it not for America and her people, but to satisfy their urges to realize their mediocre selves through power, is terrifying as is a media class which serves them. The US is burning and disintegrating in a front of our very own eyes but nothing is being done about it, nothing. Even when one makes an allowance for presidential election year politics.
Thus we are all subjected to an incessant daily assault of all kinds of "blasting", "torching", "destroying", "firing back" and other battle terms making up an opaque massive stream of utter BS pouring out of every type of media on people. All that designed to cover up a complete paralysis, corruption and incompetence of US "elites". But the real downside of all this media battle of evermore is devaluation of meanings of all those terms. This devaluation, in the country which is ready to explode, can have a dire consequences for these very same "elites" when real blasting, torching, destroying and firing back starts. We'll see then how well people who are in the business of pep-talking the country into the real civil war will deal with real, not devalued meanings. It could be very scary and deadly, I know--been there, done that. We'll see how degree in journalism, political science or law will help to survive a real deal, which now seems almost assured.
I am really happy that Colonel Lang expressed his feeling on this staffer, because I am not in the position, considering my background and experiences, to pass judgements on this Lt.Colonel before American officers do. Now they spoke:
Colonel nails it where it really matters, see highlighted in yellow. This is, from purely service POV, a heavy misconduct. You don't like what you see? Submit a request to be transferred to other position or retire if you can. The other, very important part, why this Vindman dude advised Ukraine on how to deal with White House and Rudi Guliani is a subject for the agency which is supposed to actually defend national security, not undermine it as it is the case so far. You know what alphabet (hint: FBI) agency I am talking about.
All this, including insane Articles of Impeachment written by openly treasonous Adam Schiff and his cabal of democrats, is nothing more than yet another attempt, after RussiaGate hoax going south, at anti-Constitutional coup and it is being played out in a front of our very own eyes. Democratic party has to be eradicated as a political entity because it becomes obvious that it is a party of national treason. Same goes to American mass media, with some exceptions, which are one of the main culprits for a severe political crisis threatening to grow into actual hot civil war. If those people think that they will hide in Europe when things get hot--they better think twice. As per Vindman, someone MUST ask him questions re: his strange relations to Ukrainian side and how those relations correspond to his highly classified access to, however bad, the kitchen in which US foreign policy is cooked. Fascinating.
Tulsi Gabbard? Here comes Russiagate 2.0. In a self-destructing Republic main stream media are totally adequate to making the US, yet another time, world's laughing stock and confirm US media reputation as a collection of miscreants and lowlifes (many with all those Emmy's, Grammy's, I am sure Oscars and Pultizer prizes). So, Russians are at it again and this time they chose Tulsi Gabbard to manipulate US elections and it must be true since MSNBC and their "investigative" cretins said so:
United States is slowly turning into Idiocracy meets Ninety Eighty Four and, of course, I am sure those unnamed "experts" all graduated Law School at COSTCO or maybe those highly regarded Walmart Schools of Broadcasting to make those conclusions. But we already knew who next Russian Manchurian Candidate will be--Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. On a more serious note--US main stream media (euphemism for mostly, not exclusively, DNC propaganda machine) are in the overdrive to completely turn this country into a paranoid madhouse. Oh wait...
They always lie but here is an example with not so subtle difference. It is obvious that most current US media are floating now in the cesspool of their own making, probably sensing (most of them are stupid, they cannot think rationally) that they are the very substance they are floating in. But as any drowning person grasps for the last straw, they continue to lie. Here is a title of USA Today.
But even this title lies, since the issue is not that "Vladimir Putin's team doesn't like it", but in the fact that what Peskov said, even before commenting on Russia's "interference", thus framing the whole message, was, speaking in diplomatic language, a humiliating and sarcastic rubbing it in. Here is what he said:
Translation: We are saddened that the documents (Mueller's Report) of such quality influence directly a development of Russian-American relations which are already not in the best of shapes. Peskov elaborated further:
"Speaking on a lighter note, should this Report have been published in Russia, we would have our Accounting Chamber (an analogue of US GAO) be very interested in how the taxpayers' money were spent".
Yes, US media (with very few exceptions) have to get ready to be treated from now on as...pieces of shit, which they are, and in terms of Russia get prepared to follow Sergei Lavrov's advice to write whatever BS they want since nobody with any integrity is going to view them more than whores and lying lowlifes they really are. They fully deserved it. As per this instance--Russians do not "not like it", Peskov merely pointed out that Mueller's Report is nothing more than a...well...BS and that is sentence, not comment. Laura Ingraham was on point. Indeed, Laura, what do we do now? Wear face masks and rubber gloves, with powerful disinfectant and air freshener at hand, when reading or watching CNN, MSNBC or this clown Zakaria--that's what. NYT and WaPo should be on the list of forbidden substitutes for a toilet paper in times of social upheaval and shortages of necessities for a danger of brain cancer developing from an anus wiped with those. As per US "intelligence community", I don't know how they will ever be viewed other than a parody on what otherwise should have been national security institution. Right. Meanwhile I will continue to enjoy one of very few people with integrity, brains and wit left on the ruins of the American so called journalism.
After US "intelligence" report on Russian "hacking" which exhibited a complete rot of US establishment, I thought that there is nowhere lower to go, when even CIA professionals (real ones) started questioning intentions behind this report. The "report" itself is a pathetic exhibition of intellectual impotence and rumor-mongering. Boy, was I mistaken. I stated not for once that US "main-stream" media are a sewer, including most of their "iconic" figures, who are nothing more than paid shills with egos larger than cathedrals and with no applicable life skills. But this morning proved that United States Of America is in deep systemic crisis which is much more serious than mere economic decline, covered up with preposterous indices and cooking of books. No, the crisis in metaphysical--the whole notion of an American idea is being destroyed in a front of our eyes. Most important US institutions are either discrediting themselves or are being discredited.
Forget the legitimacy and prestige of the institute of US Presidency being in decline since Bill "wondering willy" Clinton or a disastrous W or, even more disastrous, Obama. Today, by attacking US President (elect) Donald Trump in the most despicable way, US political class and its coterie of media figures, pundits and "analysts" has shown how deep their depravity is and... how impotent they are.
I have Moon Of Alabama blog in the list of my favorite blogs but above is a direct link to B's great analysis. I want, however, to support and... refute Donald Trump when in his tweet he asks: "Are we living in Nazi Germany?" My answer to that is: no, Mr. President, we live in the United States of America in the age of pathetic mediocrities and establishment a-holes who, like those proverbial monkeys, can only throw shit at others. Doing so, they are destroying, including by making it a laughing stock of the world, their own (??) country. History, using a beaten to death Marx' cliche, repeats itself first as a tragedy, then as a farce. For all evil of Nazi Regime, it had some of the most outstanding political, military, economic and intelligence professionals, who created a machine whose efficiency is beyond the grasp of Beltway operators, who are capable of producing only a farce and are, as, yet again, that proverbial monkey, playing with a grenade, a nuclear one. United States today is a panopticon, not a Nazi Germany.
Never again will any American claims on "democracy" and "republic" which are being destroyed from within, be seriously viewed in the world. Any claim to "free press" will be laughed at. Yet, there is a silver lining to all that. The hysteria of neocon-neoliberal mafia in US is a good sign, it means they know they are defeated and I don't mean just Trump's victory. The trend is global and it is unmistakable:
1. New "left's" (in reality neoliberal) ideology, which was in the foundation of US foreign policy for decades, is done. Globalization, under the aegis of "liberal democracy" and "human rights" is being turned back as I type this. Weakening of the United States is not just the function of some bad personalities who were hellbent to do bad things to the US--the system is flawed, it bore the seeds of its own destruction. Massive de-industrialization, the reign of the financial parasites, decline of the living standard, institutional crisis, moral and cultural decay, de facto racial war--those are just some signs of the crisis of the "formation" in the US and elsewhere. In effect, American (economic) future was sacrificed at the altar of free trade fundamentalism, military adventurism and utopian social experiments.
2. Nation-state won the battle, or, rather, after brief tactical retreat, came back with a vengeance. Nation-state, not some globalist dystopia, remains and will remain a decisive player in the world affairs. The rise of China, Russia, of populist and nationalistic movements in Europe, Brexit, in the end--Trump's victory, are just some indicators of a collapse of the globalist "world order". Davos ideas are just that--rubbish. We are, after 25 years of self-proclaimed Pax Americana, back to power balance politics. We are also back to re-emerging understanding of productive forces, with the emphasis on productive. Manufacturing, building things has much bigger meaning than mere numbers--it is a crucial human function, without it--cultural, intellectual and moral decay. More tattoo parlors, more marijuana dispensaries, more transgender bathrooms and more crime and drugs ridden hoods. Globalization=national lumpenization, and that's what happened to the United States, that is also why Trump won.
That is why people who almost destroyed the United States and wreaked havoc on the world are so desperate and so hysterical in their attempts to delegitimize Donald Trump and the modicum of common foreign policy and economic sense he and his team are trying to bring back to the US. So, what is prognosis? This one is very simple:
1. US Congress, which does not work in the interest of the majority of the Americans will continue to impede Trump in any of his attempt to normalize relations with Russia. Every tool will be used to maintain hostile relations with Russia until the real war happens or until new generation of thinking American politicians will emerge. Unlike former, which is still probable, the latter...well, I don't know. Judging by what Ivy League madrasas produce as foreign policy "experts", one has to admit that the quality of the "product" is at best shoddy, at worst--American "exceptionalists" who live in parallel universe.
2. US main-stream media will continue to throw shit at Trump and any of his initiative until, hopefully, they will cease to exist as "free" media institutions. Basically, CNN, NYT, WaPo, NBC etc. are nothing more than the elements of MiniTrue, who still think that 1984 was written NOT about them, while in reality it was about them exactly.
3. The split between US "elites" is evident today and the house divided against itself can not stand. Will there be some new consensus down the road? I don't know, but it has to be understood that US globalist "elites" are anti-American to the core. They have no loyalty to American people. Are their loyalties to transnational capital? Yes. To anti-white racism? Absolutely. To sexual-deviancy and degeneracy in culture? You bet! To global uniform "world" with "deplorables", that is overwhelming majority, reduced to the slaves of sexual, cultural, racial and other fringes? That is their quintessential idea, raison d'etre. Are they in the pockets of the Military-Industrial Complex? Hell, yeah. Do they care about lives of people they bomb to smithereens or do they care about American soldiers coming home in coffins or with horrible wounds? Nope. But that are the people who, waving American flag, continue their (self) destructing campaign against Donald Trump and doing so, they lost even residual sense of decency.
There could be no compromise with this crowd. Otherwise, constant US decline and eventual disintegration with high probability of a global war. Avoiding this scenario is a worthy goal to pursue and it will require an effort. The Augeas Stables must be cleaned. Is Donald and his team are capable of Heracles' Fifth Labor? We may learn the answer soon and, after all, do we have any other option? The verdict is in--this can not continue as it is and it will not, one way or another.
The guy, who, evidently, is very big on
doctrine-mongering, frames this "urgent" need in this way:
"As a consequence, it is only
relatively recently that greater analysis of Russian intentions has reawakened
following the intervention in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea in 2014,
last year's sortie into Syria and Moscow's increasingly harsh rhetoric of
intimidation. At the NATO summits in Wales in 2014 and in Warsaw this year, the
alliance took military steps to respond to Russian aggressive actions through
enhancing deterrence and reassuring allies particularly on both flanks and on
the eastern borders. The reality is, however, that these decisions were made
less on a thorough analysis of Russian strengths, weaknesses and
vulnerabilities and more on Cold War concepts of responding in kind with
military solutions."
There is a Russian proverb which
states that if the person is dead--this is for a long time, but if a person is
an idiot--it is eternal. In one sense Ullman is right though. US doesn't have
and, arguably, never had any serious Russian study field. Bar some few
exceptions, what went under American "Russian Studies" was reduced to
pushing some expedient ideas (US "elites" seem to be, unlike
Russians, utterly obsessed with GULAG, as an example) and, indeed, was reduced
to Kremlinology, not the study of real Russian culture and history. Fact is,
Russian history, especially that of the XX century, has been reduced to
caricature and memes in which the "culture" and "history"
of narrow strata of Soviet/Russian pro-Western dissidents, their
"vision" of Russia, very often completely detached from the reality,
has been substituted for the real thing. It couldn't have been otherwise,
especially in the XX century, where realities of the two European Wars and of
the Soviet period of Russian history completely escaped those in grossly
overrated American Russia's "academe" and analytic organizations
ranging from intelligence to think-tanks. US has plenty of Kremlinologists,
what it doesn't have is the knowledge of Russia and, judging by this Ullman's
piece, probably will not have it in the nearest future--there is a reason for
that of which I will tell later. This little blog of mine for the last two
years was documenting an utter failure of all those proverbial US and
"Western" Kremlinologists to find their own ass in brightly lit room,
let alone forecast or correctly assess the events in and around Russia. Nowhere
this utter failure manifested itself more profoundly than in their tedious,
unimaginative, incompetent and hubris, or, otherwise, barely hidden complex of
inferiority, stricken "analysis" of Russian military. This whole American
Russia "establishment" should be fired the same way as everyone in US
mainstream media should--these guys helped to bring the United States to the
verge of war with Russia. This whole establishment is struck with a disease
which prevented and will continue to prevent them from seeing the world for
what it is. This disease is American exceptionalism.
Let's hope that with the new day
dawning in the United States after Trump's victory, we all may finally get to
the facts, not bullshit of "making own reality", of how world operates
and maybe, just maybe, the necessary arrangements for more secure and
prosperous world could be made. There is no rational reason for American and
Russian peoples (US "state" is a separate matter) to be enemies and
if Mr. Ullman thinks that he has what it takes to consult on Russia, he may
start by learning real Russian history, culture and attitudes to warfare and maybe
he will admit to himself that most of what he knows about Russia is crap. I
doubt he will, though. In the end, the guy still thinks that:
"The results of these
analyses should be made available in a Wikipedia-type online service in order
to inform and expand public debate on Russia. What has singularly plagued
the United States in the past has been the failure to understand and gain the
knowledge necessary to prevail over an adversary. Vietnam and the
second Iraq War underscore the tragic consequences of, as the great Chinese
Gen. Sun Tzu warned, "not knowing the enemy."
If he thinks that he is going to
fight Russia and win just by learning about her I may only recall Sir Bernard
Pares' prescient quote:
"And
knowledge alone is not enough without understanding, which is much more hardly
won. To no country does this apply more
than to Russia....This gap has to be filled, or will it cost us dear."(c) It almost did.
Disclaimer: If anyone will misconstrue this
post of mine as some kind of "offering an alternative" on an official
level to whatever organization or person--wrong. Not interested, even for a
good money. I love my job and down to earth lifestyle and prefer to remain
independent in my assessments of the outside world. At least I am not wrong all
the time;-)
Ah, the panic, oh, the suffering of the armies of flag-waving uber-"patriotic" fanboys. US Military is in "ruins" and evil Russkies are about to encircle Chicago and bomb the hell out of Detroit, which, at this point, will make no difference for Detroit whatsoever. That is what armchair "strategists" take from Lt. Colonel (Ret.) Daniel L.Davis' piece in The National Interest:
Before those who read this piece and are about to commit seppuku or go apoplectic, I would suggest--do not leave this world as of yet. And here is the reason, or, rather reasons.
1. US Armed Forces still remain the most potent force in the world, especially US Navy.
2. American soldiers and sailors are among the best in the world.
3. Lt. Colonel Davies said NOTHING new what has not been known to anyone with even the modicum of analytical ability and knowledge of modern (20th-21st Centuries) military history. In fact, this phenomenon, which Lt.Colonel Davis refers to, is endemic in the American system. And I don't mean just the process of acquisition and procurement of the weapons. I also mean US media-military-industrial complex which acts totally within Hollywood paradigm of Dream Factory or, in layman's lingo--BS. Granted, that it takes sometimes Paul Verhoeven's tongue in cheek genius to bring a piece of reality into the contemporary la-la military toys' world of media universe.
And here I am forced, yet again, to deviate from writing Military Power and write something which was, otherwise, planned for that series of the posts. Let's, for starters, give definition to all those terms: Hyperpower, Superpower etc.
"The truth is, the United States is nowhere near as powerful and dominant as many believe."(c) If we will look in the history of the term "Superpower" we may see how it came to be defined as it is defined in Wiki: Superpower is a word used to describe a state with a dominant position in international relations and which is characterised by its unparalleled ability to exert influence or project power
on a global scale. This is done through the combined-means of
technological, cultural, military and economic strength, as well as
diplomatic and soft power influence. Traditionally, superpowers are preeminent among the great powers (e.g., as the United States is today).
Superpower Is the United States a superpower? Absolutely! There is no even discussion about that, what discussion MUST be about is how much "super" is in this "superpower", what the doughnut, so to speak, is filled with. That MUST be the focus of a discussion. Since this blog is driven mostly by military-political and geopolitical issues, let's start with....yes, military power. A Hard Power, so to speak, as defined by late Samuel Huntington. Here, Davies makes (almost) a correct observation. "In the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm in 1991, there was great
celebration in America that the crushing military victory over Saddam
Hussein’s Iraq, “kicked the Vietnam syndrome
once and for all” and demonstrated the United States was now the
world’s sole military superpower. That was no empty bluster. Even
Beijing and Moscow were impressed and openly lamented they were
militarily inferior. Americans across the board were optimistic and
proud. However justified that pride might have been at the time, it
quickly mutated into distasteful arrogance. Now, it is an outright
danger to the nation." Why almost? Here is why. This statement proceeds from ignoring the state of development of the Soviet Armed Forces circa 1990 and here we have a problem. The problem is in what, by that time, Gorabachov and his "team" represented both metaphysically and in terms of their "activity". Long since discredited both at home and abroad, and thrown into the dust bin of history, this "statesman", due both to his incompetence and cowardice, followed a path of destruction which resulted in the geopolitical shock of the millennium. While US side tends to emphasize, for obvious reasons, as Lt.Colonel Davis does, that Moscow was impressed (I don't know how China even factored in here--it wasn't even a first rate military power then), the term "Moscow" must be explained. And here what was happening then: 1. Moscow by 1991 was not a homogeneous (or monolith) entity. The de-sovietization was in a full swing and the first and strategic goal was to ultimately discredit Soviet Armed Forces as one of the main pillars of the Soviet State. This absolutely doesn't mean that Soviet Armed Forces didn't have issues--they did and some of those were huge and required serious reforms. But nobody in Soviet military circles, who had a minimum of professional common sense, had any illusions about staying power of Saddam's Army. The military reputation of Arab "allies" in the Soviet Union was approaching zero. So, the question was not if Saddam could resist coalition, which comfortably pre-deployed without any interference from Iraq, but how fast will it collapse. It was the speed with which Iraq was defeated that impressed "Moscow". That was a military anomaly. And so it remains even today. Traditional Arab militaries' utter tactical and operational incompetence, inadequacy in operating even the "monkey models" of weapons were legendary and very few in the Soviet Armed Forces had any illusions. 2. While trailing in some issues related to communications and computers behind US military, Soviet Armed Forces by 1980s were fast closing the gap, for some it was too fast. Massive "digitizing" started as early as mid-1970s. By 1980s the gap was narrowing very fast and was becoming extremely narrow. It was precisely then, in 1980-1982, when MiG-29s and SU-27s started to be procured in large numbers for Soviet Air Force. Arguably the best strategic bomber of generation, TU-160 Blackjack, went into the production. Other, new and capable, weapon systems were being deployed, including first rate ECM and ECCM capabilities. Computerization was in a full swing. Nowhere this state of the affairs manifested itself more than in the Soviet Navy. Introduction of the submarine launched S10 Granat (SS-N-21 'Sampson' GRAU:3M10) cruise missiles, with the range of 3000 kilometers, in 1986 was one of such many developments. By mid-1980s Soviet Navy was deploying one of the best submarine force in the world and led some of the most advanced research in cutting edge technologies. In the army, the procurement of very advanced T-90 tanks was expected in early 1990s. Here is some CIA report on one of many Soviet Precision Guided Munitions developments: Soviet Artillery PGMs So, to put it mildly, talks of Soviet military "inferiority" were greatly exaggerated. But, most importantly, all these military technologies and ability to conduct operations by modern Russia, which became both the subject of admiration and jealousy (and hatred) in the West lately are ALL, without any exception, results of Soviet military technological and operational development of 1970s and 1980s. In the mayhem of Perestroika, which unleashed massive destructive forces in USSR and, eventually, resulted in the collapse of the country, the fact of the Soviet Armed Forces undergoing deep modernization, was forgotten or grossly misinterpreted by the self-proclaimed Cold War "victors" in their own favor against the background of the victory over utterly incompetent, third rate, however large, Arab army. The event almost repeated itself on 08-08-08, during Russian-Georgian War, when it took elements of Russia's 58th Army roughly 60 hours to demolish Georgian Armed Forces (trained and partially equipped by the "West" and Israel) and to open the road to Tbilisi and, eventually, to a partition of Georgia. A lot of rumors and criticism ensued but, with all Russian shortcomings, both real and many others very much fabricated, the result was pretty impressive. Nobody, however, celebrated anything in Russia, Russian Armed Forces in general were subjected to great domestic criticism for not doing the job even faster and more efficiently. Nobody also talked about overcoming Afghan "syndrome", if one ever existed to begin with. Nobody also filled the streets of Russian cities in jubilation when perpetrator of many atrocities terrorist Shamil Basayev was liquidated. The reason for these very much tame attitudes was very simple--most Russians did not and do not consider Georgia a serious military power. They also view Chechnya wars as tragic necessity. Being "impressed", which did take place, and resigning as the prime military power are two very different things. It took Yeltsin and his coterie of criminals, overt and covert, who put in place suicidal economic and foreign policies which effectively demolished the remnants of the Soviet Armed Forces without creating new Russian ones. That came to tragic "fruition" during First Chechen War, when badly trained, supplied and constantly betrayed at the top political echelons of Russia, Russian Army still managed to take Grozny, while paying a steep price. However, even during those grim times, Russia remained a nuclear power which was still unassailable by anyone, including "sole military superpower" which came to all the wrong conclusions out of its triumph in Iraq. Self-proclaimed "victors" in the Cold War still never conquered Russia, never marched at the Red Square in parade of the victors (except on 9th May 2010 as dear guests and WW II Allies), never fought Russia, yet, for some inconceivable reasons equated, even weakened and humiliated, Russia to Iraq. A massive, and very dangerous, misjudgement, amplified greatly by triumphalist and incompetent US media, on part of US military and policy makers occurred. The issue in early 1990s was not that the volume of Russian arms deliveries collapsed, for obvious reasons, the issue was that wrong conclusions were made on the account of this collapse. Evidently many, not all, Western analysts based on their, often wrong, perceptions of Russia's realities in 1990s, concluded that American conventional superiority was a given and that Russia was a done deal. What they didn't see was an enormous Soviet scientific and industrial potential behind Russian military development. True, Russia's military-industrial complex was left to fight for its survival alone. But by 1994 Russia opened new export markets, such as UAE or Malaysia, or even South Korea. Weapons which went there were effectively Soviet weapons and those should have given a very serious shock to the Desert Storm triumphalists. That is when the issue of, in the words of Lt.Colonel Davies' "the truth is, the United States is nowhere near as powerful and dominant as many believe", should have taken a center stage at US doctrinal and political discussion. But this didn't happen and having a human and political buffoon in Kremlin seemed to define West's perception and vision of Russia. The fact that even in 1990s Russia was selling abroad some of the most advanced weapon systems which were on par, and, sometimes, better than the best US could offer not only abroad but for itself, generally, went missing on many people. Post-Desert Storm triumphalism reigned supreme both in media and in political establishment. The obvious fact that fighting non-existent Iraqi Air Force, which was nothing more than hodge-podge collection of basic aircraft, the core of which were 236 Mig-21s, "monkey versions" of 1950s design jets, was not the same as fighting trained and determined Air Force which operated MiG-29s, SU-27 and monster of an interceptor MiG-31s also went missing on many. Iraq's "Integrated Air Defense", a favorite cliche by US media, was nothing more than a collection of outdated, easily suppressed, obsolete missile systems. All that, and much more, was lost on people who declared the "end of history", the unfolding of "New World Order" and other cliches for the consumption of a jubilant public. The very notion that what Russia was selling on the global weapons' market place being as good, if not better, than what US had to offer seemed blasphemous for some. The "American Way Of War" was pronounced to be the only way and US military technology to be the best and that was it. Well, many people in US, actually, thought otherwise. Especially those who bothered to at least check on state of Russia's military once in a while and who had real military experience. It was Colonel Douglas Macgregor's Breaking The Phalanx, which came out in 1996 which rang some bells. There were others, such as, later in mid-2000s, Professor Roger Thompson with his, shocking for some, Lessons Not Learned.
But no matter how many, or, rather, few professionals were trying to address some serious doctrinal, operational and technological issues, the post-Desert Storm delusion endured and resulted: 1. In horrendous strategic miscalculations which led to Iraq catastrophe, among many others; 2. A complete loss of situational awareness on the account of emerging or "returning" superpowers, who, like Russia were able not only to narrow or even close military-technological capability gaps but to come up with the lead in some crucial areas. All it took for the shit to hit the fan in US was a salvo of, actually, very mature Kalibr complex from small missile ships of Russian Caspian Flotilla at the terrorist targets in Syria, plus demonstration by the "rusty" elements of Russian Air-Space Forces an operational tempo and the range of Precision Guided Munitions which US thought only its forces had. The question here is not in the fact of US mainstream media having an aneurysm from this fact or, the fact that most of US political establishment resides in geopolitical la-la land, or, if one may, parallel universe, no. The question here is that it was happening all along, in the open, since mid-1990s not only Russia demonstrated its military development openly, in fact, Russian Military Industrial Complex aggressively promoted its technologies and tactical and operational concepts which came with those at the international weapons markets, it was done in the best marketing way possible. What, didn't US military know that Kalibr and Onyx missile complexes were in production since early 2000s? Didn't they know that super-maneuverability in aircraft development was becoming a mainstay and that new development radar technologies (yes, pioneered by Russia) were making stealth even more vulnerable? I don't doubt for a second that US military was aware of that. But maybe, just maybe something wrong is not with Russia but with this whole US leviathan military-industrial-media complex. This monster thought that the future of war is still in blowing badly trained Arab pilots in their badly maintained obsolete aircraft from the sky, or fighting in the ECM (ECCM) free environments, or with the opposition which never had any stand-off weapons. Well, should they have studied real Russian/Soviet military history, they should have known better. Now, we all face a hysteria in US media, when it became obvious that military capability gap not only closed or narrowed, but some non-US weapons, such as game-changer Zirkon hyper-sonic missiles to be procured, together with revolutionary Armata platforms or with S-500 coming online soon are simply beyond current US technological capability. Yes, this is not Arab military, it is from the country which smashed Wehrmacht at the peak of its might. But I will elaborate more on that back in my Military Power series. As for now, US still remains a military superpower and will remain one for a long time but it will be more and more constrained by emerging advanced military technologies and operational concepts which will require US "response" on such a financial scale that F-35 or LCS will look like a pocket change and how US will be able to afford it--it is not for fainthearted to understand.
