The Main Motif.

People constantly ask me, or express their desire to see Russia saying bye-bye to the West. I have news: Russia already said bye-bye to the West. It is a done deal, fait accompli, over with or however else you want to formulate this state of the affairs. Here is one such sign out of very many. 

БРЮССЕЛЬ, 9 фев – РИА Новости. Если предположить, что газопровод "Северный поток — 2" не будет введен в эксплуатацию, Россия найдет других покупателей на этот газ, заявил в интервью РИА Новости постоянный представитель России при Евросоюзе Владимир Чижов.

Translation: BRUSSELS, February 9 - RIA Novosti. Assuming that the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline is not put into operation, Russia will find other buyers for this gas, Vladimir Chizhov, Russia's permanent representative to the European Union, said in an interview with RIA Novosti.

The idiots in Brussels and D.C. still cannot wrap their feeble brains around the fact that NS2 is about Europe, not Russia. Russia is fine without NS2 and she has all market she needs for her hydrocarbons in Asia. It is about how the United States will eat EU to prolong its own agony. Then Chizhov adds:

Russian energy company Gazprom is fulfilling its contracts and is under no obligation to increase supplies of natural gas to the EU, despite some politicians in Brussels accusing Moscow of using its exports as a weapon, Russia’s permanent representative to the bloc stated on Wednesday. Speaking to Moscow news agency RIA Novosti, Vladimir Chizhov explained that, since gas prices are on the rise, Gazprom’s European customers do not want to commit to buying more gas. If there is no demand, there will be no supply, he said.“Of course [Gazprom] is not obliged. Besides, it is already providing some extra supplies of ‘blue fuel’ to Europe, which is, apparently, still not as much as some would have preferred.”

Russia is not obliged to solve Europe's problems. There are contracts and that's it. Want more?  Get new contracts, like Hungary did. While signing new contracts Russia and Hungary signed a bunch of other mutually beneficial contracts across the whole spectrum of economic activity ranging from nuclear power stations to agriculture, to consumer goods to transportation. Soviet Union was a major market for legendary Hungarian-made Ikarus buses. Boy, a wave of sentimental nostalgia came over me, from the childhood: 

To adulthood:

Our favorite "Garmoshka" (Garmon) which transported hundreds of millions of passengers in USSR to and from. They are still beloved in Russia. You may counter may argument saying that doesn't the example of Hungary contradicts my statement that Russia bid adieu to Europe. Not in a slightest. Here is the explanation: 

The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) has released a new poll suggesting that the majority of people in countries like Germany, Poland, and Sweden say that a Russian invasion of Ukraine is “likely” before the end of the year. However, when asked if they wanted their country to be involved in “defending” Ukraine, only the Polish respondents were likely to agree. A majority of respondents polled in Poland, Romania, Sweden, Germany, Italy, and France believe an invasion of Ukraine is “highly” or “fairly” likely this year, with Polish and Romanian citizens fearing an invasion the most. Over 70% of respondents from Poland believe an invasion could happen, while over 60% of Romanian respondents hold the same belief. 

Implications of that are huge and they do show degree to which majority of European public is brainwashed and, by implication, views Russia as an aggressor. In other words, there is not a single impetus on the level of population to question the interpretations (a euphemism for Western media propaganda) of current events. Sure, people are not obliged to be specialists in psychological operations or analysis of reporting. So, this has to be taken merely as a given, most people are immersed in their daily lives and bread and butter issues and don't se any alternative to Western political "status quo". 

Here is Waldemar Herdt, former member of Bundestag, speaks to Vladimir Solovyov (sadly only in Russian) and admits that Germany is not a sovereign country and that German "elites" are overwhelmingly a product of the US "educational" (a euphemism for being brainwashed) programs and that Germany right now is in the split position. 

Make no mistake, I do sympathize with average Germans but it is what it is. Both poll and spineless German political "elite" WILL sell Germany to the United States and, as Biden said himself, NS2 will be eliminated. As Herdt admits in horror--that will be the end of Germany's chemical industry, which will be the end of Germany's manufacturing. This is precisely what the United States desires above all. Obviously, the most optimal outcome for the US would be a good scale European War in which Russia would destroy EU and the United States then, pretending to be the savior of the West, will make a shitload of money and save own declining economy by helping to "restore" Europe. 

As I said many times, most people in D.C. are one trick ponies and most of them do not understand modern warfare nor know the actual history of WW II. They still don't get a simple fact, that if the big war happens in Europe, D.C. will repeat the fate of Brussels. But then again, considering level of the American "elite education" it is not surprising. We can see some of its products in Europe and suicidal economic and cultural policies, which are also policies du jour in the United States. So, the decision by Russia's government to break off is totally justified. This is not to say that this whole process is without hiccups, including BS from CNN such as this:

Russian officials have expressed fears that an invasion of Ukraine could prove to be more difficult and costly than Russian President Vladimir Putin and other leaders realize, according to intelligence intercepted by the U.S., a CNN report states. CNN cited four people familiar with the intelligence in reporting on the fears within the Russian government. "In the assessments we see it is clear some people on the [Russian] defense side are not really understanding what the game plan is," one official said, according to CNN, speaking of the possible invasion. The official also noted that the defense personnel think "it's a very difficult game plan to stand up."

You can bet your ass on the fact that these CNN's "four people" are most likely a figment of imagination and their Russian sources are some BSers such as senile Ivashov. In the same time US media continue to quote such "specialists" (primarily from liberal globalist Moscow "think tanks") and rumor-gatherers from Moscow foreign policy beau monde such as Andrei Kortunov from globalist RIAC. 

Yet two Moscow-based analysts who specialise in deciphering the signals from the Kremlin said Putin's late-night comments after hours of talks with French President Emmanuel Macron suggested that he was serious about negotiating. "Of course he sticks to his positions but I've not got the impression that he's in the mood for escalation," said Andrey Kortunov, head of the Russian International Affairs Council. "Probably you wouldn't speak to an opponent for seven hours if you wanted just to lecture him and close the file."

Kortunov is a pure Soros creature who was in charge of Russia's "education and development" department in Soros' Open Society fund in Russia. So, you get the idea. As for Lukyanov--a typical MGIMO-produced journo who rubs shoulders with "big shots" and elbows in already mentioned by me Moscow's primarily globalist foreign policy beau monde which is very big on credentialism but very low on actual knowledge of the outside world and what forms geopolitical reality. It is the same cabal where demagogues like Karaganov, Timofeev (of Valdai fame) and others (RT loves to invite these "experts" who have no clue about practical geopolitics) suck on a fat teat  of grants and sinecures in conducting some "research", which anyone with with IQ above room temperature can do in half the time these many offsprings of yet another globalist madrasa, VShE, do and get more accurate and more competent forecasts. But then again, there is a reason why Western propaganda loves to speak to those "experts". 

But whatever the case with hysteria in modern West, including the United States, regarding Russia "invasion", the problem raised by Moscow in ultimatum remains: it is not just about 404, it is about NATO. At this stage Washington not only non-agreement capable, there are nobody to talk to in it, including the main slave of US war-mongering MSM, US Congress which creates the feedback loop with US media in calling for measures which, actually, are going to hit (already did) both EU but, remarkably, will deteriorate already tenuous Washington's position even more. Let's face it, Washington's "strategy" (quotation marks are intentional--they don't know what real strategy is in D.C.) of splitting Russia from China failed miserably, it accelerated the emergence of Russian-Chinese alliance whose economic and military capabilities dwarf those of the United States and relegated EU to a passive victim, whose consumption still will not resolve US problems. Italians nailed it in La Stampa. 

The tactical victory of Evromajdan thus produced a strategic nightmare: the China-Russia duo is here to stay. And the Pentagon’s equations include the risk of finding themselves fighting a war on two fronts, the Indo-Pacific and the European. All this for having won in Kiev, an objective neither central nor urgent in the world view of the American apparatuses. So much so that Biden has signaled in every way that he is unwilling to wage a war for Ukraine against Russia. Washington's uncertainties in the Ukrainian theater stem from a miscalculation of Moscow's intentions and capabilities. Quite normal for the superpower, used to seeking victory and only then to draw the consequences. What has prevented her from winning a real war since 1945 while leading her to bleed into unlikely minor theaters. Therefore to lose credibility, the most precious asset of any power. To correct this negative trajectory and avoid an unwanted but nonetheless disastrous war, Washington tries to get out of the Ukrainian trap that Moscow has set for it. This entails recognizing Russia's role and rank by involving it in an all-out negotiation on pan-European security arrangements. To undermine the basis of her engagement with China in the only possible way: by showing her that she does not need it. The alternative is to slip into a dead end tunnel of which we Europeans would be the first victims, starting with the next barrage of sanctions and counter-sanctions. All the more reason why Rome also makes her voice heard. Nothing is lost yet.   

This is a machine translation, but give Italians credit where the credit is due, except, of course, for mentioning a two-front war--the United States is incapable to fight a war in a single theater against first rate power. But in general, Italians got strategy right, problem, of course, that in the last 30 years American machine of producing "elites" produced nothing but incompetent, ignorant, badly educated narcissists across the full spectrum of national activities, from economics, to military, to education, who have zero skills in governing such country as the United States, or, for that matter, even running 7-11 convenience store. They are hysterical because they do not want to face the facts which, they correctly feel it, will blow their world view up completely. Because in the end, they understand deep down that they are losers and always were--this is not an easy way to encounter reality. 

In related news, it seems that some sort of Russia-Belarus genuine integration process has started and in the mid-to-long term that also means a much closer integration between Russian and Belarus armed forces. I know, adding another 60,000+ of well equipped and well trained personnel doesn't sound that good for many in NATO. Plus with Belarus getting ready to receive own S-400s and MiG-31Ks with hypersonic Kinzhals are now flying over Kaliningrad:

The message is clear. Not to forget, of course, the Baltic Fleet whose main base is in Baltiisk already received first 4 latest SU-30SM2 which are very advanced versions of venerable SU-30 and it is not just fully netcentric but is capable to operate swarms of UAV by forming its own network with them. I think it is just a warm up before Russia (after Beijing Olympic Games close) begins to "take measures of military-technical character" due to the West's inability to give a coherent and favorable response to Russia's ultimatum. But I warned about it from the start.   

Being A Devil's Advocate. In Defense Of US Military.

Yes, yes, you didn't misread that. As promised, I bought Kindle edition of Tim Bakken's much anticipated The Cost of Loyalty: Dishonesty, Hubris, and Failure in the U.S. Military and gave it a first "browsing" go. I immediately found myself in a "hot water" of sorts since, while very readable, the book completely blew my views out of the water--the book's major premise is that of a lack of civilian control over US Military and I couldn't agree with this at all, because it is simply not true. While being correct in many crucial details of US Military existence, Bakken, obviously, makes a very grave mistake when thinking that there is no "civilian control" over US Military. There is plenty of this "control" to go around, because American civilian political elites, with some minor exceptions, are the most militaristic, aggressive war-mongers in history and it is they NOT US Military who the "buck stops with", because US Military establishment, while undeniably having its own share of mindless, incompetent and even evil careerists, is not the one who makes final decisions on unleashing America's, one after another, disastrous wars. Those decisions are made in the civilian corridors of power. Let's recall where and how it all started in the immediate wake of WW II and continued in the post-Soviet collapse times of 1990s.

It was early in Clinton's first term, back when she was U.N. ambassador during the first showdown with Serbia over Bosnia, that Albright showed her stripes on foreign policy. At a 1993 meeting with Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell--who gave his name to the doctrine that the military should be used only after a clear political goal has been set, and then only with decisive force--she challenged the general: "What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?" As Powell later recalled, "I thought I would have an aneurysm."

I guess, we shouldn't lose the sight of this simple fact that it is US Congress which the power to declare war lies with. And POTUS--if these purely civilian institutions cannot figure it out, granted often manipulated by the so called (lack of) intelligence and military community, what good they are for then? Most active and most enthusiastic addicts to American (often completely primitive and distasteful) military porn are precisely American civilian government officials overwhelming majority of who never served a day in the uniform, let alone in operational zones and are, in fact, major enablers of primitive American militarism, since lacking appropriate human (and real men) qualities, overcompensate by associating themselves with a military power, thus creating an echo chamber, or a feedback loop, if one wishes, to a non-stop US military pornography being re-amplified with each election cycle. So, I emphatically disagree with Bakken on this particular issue--US Military carries out the orders which civilian US men (and women) in suites from political parties, to media (propaganda, that is) to corporations issue to it. 

It does not absolve US military from atrocities it commits in its wars, but those who give (or help to push for) those orders are the most culpable in this unmitigated disaster which US failed wars in the last 75 years are. Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton, John Bolton, Bill Clinton, Lindsey Graham, his late buddy John McCain (granted former officer), Robert Kagan, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney are just a few examples of war-mongers, if not outright sociopaths and war criminals, who played and continue to play a crucial role in spreading a bloodshed and misery around the globe and use US military as merely their own personal tool for promoting most delusional geopolitical agenda, which, in the end also destroys the United States from within.  I cannot accept, in this case, this Bakken's argument as valid. I quote myself (pardon me for this):

In March 2018 an influential American magazine, The Diplomat, published a short piece by Francis P. Sempa on the Thucydides Trap. In this piece Sempa, citing a collection of articles and essays by U.S. senior military officers titled Avoiding the Trap: U.S. Strategy and Policy for Competing in the Asia-Pacific Beyond the Rebalance, noted in amusement that:

The most remarkable aspect of this study is the lack of “hawkishness” among the contributors, most of whom are high-level military officers. Only one article asserts that China intends to become the Asia-Pacific’s regional hegemon and is following a step-by-step expansionist strategy to displace the United States in the region. Two of the contributors emphasize the need to strengthen and improve U.S. defense ties to Japan and India in order to counterbalance China’s military growth.

It is, sadly, not surprising that Sempa, an attorney by education and a political “scientist” by occupation,  is surprised by the fact of military professionals being reluctant to take political science whiteboard theories to heart. But military professionals are absolutely correct in their reluctance and they have ample reasons to be suspicious of international relations concepts cooked up in the deep recesses of Western in general, and American in particular, political science kitchens populated by people who, for the most part, have zero military backgrounds and experiences. 

Far from exhibiting military "corporatism" I merely point out the fact that these are primarily American civilian institutions which allowed and, in fact, incited militarism which now reached grotesque forms and ignores completely the reality of the United States losing (or not winning) all her wars since the end of WW II. I have another major disagreement with Bakken in regards to military education and engineering courses modern officer should take, but that will require a separate post. I'll do it later, including some review of principles of Combat Training and military bureaucracy. Now, about what Bakken's gets with precision and does it well. 

Bakken goes for the jugular and, correctly, starts with deconstructing one of the darlings of American WW II military mythology General Douglas MacArthur whose myth of a great military leader was pretty much destroyed in Korea when MacArthur's arrogance and a complete detachment from military reality when grossly underestimating Chinese intentions and military capability did cost the US a war. Bakken is correct when starting from WW II and it seems I and he very much on the same page when stating the obvious fact that the US Military learned all the wrong lessons in WW II. In my case, I reviewed George Patton, whose actual military merits were exceeded by far by his ability for self-promotion and manipulating US press. As I wrote in my first book:

...there was a real downside to the famous 1970 Hollywood flick and genius acting of George C. Scott which contributed not only to the Patton myth but to an always foggy, very skewed American understanding of World War II and warfare. While the movie was a cinematographic triumph in the United States, those who knew war first hand—the Germans—had a different opinion. Ladislas Farago was blunt in stating the obvious:

German interest in Patton was still so spotty many years later that the famous motion picture with George C. Scott, a smash hit everywhere else, flopped dismally in Germany. After a week or two playing to empty houses, its showing had to be cancelled. Rommel, yes. Zhukov, surely.  Montgomery, maybe. But the vast majority of the Germans simply didn’t know why General Patton rated a film.

Nor did Russians, who, after the liberalization of the 1980s and the spread of VHS culture, were not amused by the movie which glorified, in Paul Fussell’s words about Patton, “a master of chickenshit”. For Russians, who had a pretty good idea of the scale of WWII and were used to its imagery, the film raised the inevitable question of why so much pathos would be generated about a general who commanded a single army at the Western Front in the last year of WWII

This could have been as well written not by me but Bakken himself, because, as I continue to state non-stop, problems with the US Military started with the failure to learn the actual history of WW II, which, through its "interpretations" in the US steadily removed the Red Army as the main contributor to a defeat of Nazi Germany and substituted it with a narrative of the United States, with some help from Great Britain and USSR securing European Continent for "democracy" and "liberty". There is no surprise that famous revisionist work of Earl Ziemke, in which he states that these were Anglo-American Allies who defeated Hitler and makes such a statement, is till being referred to:

The Soviet contribution to the victory in Europe was important but not overwhelming. Soviet postwar claims notwithstanding, the war in no sense demonstrated the superiority of Marxist theory. The German-Soviet conflict was euphemistically billed in Germany from the start as a crusade against Bolshevism, but the Soviet Government chose not to submit its system's popularity to a direct test and, instead, nominated itself to lead a war for national survival. The Soviet people opted for the indigenous dictatorship.

This hardly qualifies as a real military history, yet, it is precisely what was laid in the foundation of the American view of WW II and lead to what Atkinson, when describing Patton, defined as: the creeping arrogance, the hubris, which would cost the American Army so dearly in Vietnam. It is of no surprise then, but sadly ironic, when former Soviet military professional (me, that is) is forced to explain to American posters on all kinds of forums, that Operation "Cobra", a breakout from Normandy, was a plan conceived and, essentially, executed by Omar Bradley, not Patton, that the victory in Ardennes was won well before Patton's 3rd Army ever got there and it was Hodges' 1st Army which stood firm against Dietrich on the Norther Face of the Bulge and that is what determined the outcome. That Patton, far from being the "genius for war" was just another army commander whose record is simply not that impressive and is inapplicable to even comparison with anything tank warfare wise on the Eastern Front.  Bakken is correct--arrogance, ignorance and, often, lack of professional military adequacy is what to a large degree defined US Military which was forced to believe in own invincibility against the background of overwhelming empirical evidence which testifies that self-proclaimed "finest fighting force in history" is not, actually, that good when facing an enemy which decides to fight for real, but about this later. This is just a warm-up, a primer of sorts, on Bakken's undeniably controversial but, in my mind, very important book which provides some very necessary insights into how the US Military views itself....

To Be Continued....