About Talked About Article.

I want to start with solemn "thank you" to our very own Johnny Rotten who two days ago pointed out to me some thoughts by President of Russia on political "science". And, of course, I am profoundly thankful to Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin for his proper and long awaited statement on the issue of a fraudulent pseudo-academic field known as political "science".  I am talking about this:

МОСКВА, 7 июля. /ТАСС/. Президент РФ Владимир Путин усомнился в том, что политологию можно классифицировать как науку, потому что сложно найти метод исследования, присущий только этой области знаний. Такой оценкой он поделился в четверг на встрече с победителями четвертого сезона конкурса "Лидеры России". Услышав о том, что одна из конкурсанток собирается защищать кандидатскую диссертацию в области политических наук, глава государства удивился: "В области политологии?" Есть такая наука - политология?" Услышав утвердительный ответ, он со смехом добавил: "Спорный вопрос". "Я так понимаю, всегда так считалось, что чтобы какая-то сфера знаний претендовала на то, чтобы называться наукой, у нее должен быть собственный предмет исследования и собственный метод исследования. В политологии как-то трудно найти присущий только ей метод исследования", - поделился Путин своим видением ситуации.

Translation: MOSCOW, 7 July. /TASS/. Russian President Vladimir Putin doubted that political science can be classified as a science, because it is difficult to find a research method that is unique to this field of knowledge. He shared this assessment on Thursday at a meeting with the winners of the fourth season of the Leaders of Russia contest. Hearing that one of the contestants was going to defend her Ph.D. thesis in the field of political science, the head of state was surprised: "In the field of political science?" Is there such a science - political science?" Hearing an affirmative answer, he added with a laugh: "A moot point." "As I understand it, it has always been believed that in order for a certain field of knowledge to claim to be called a science, it must have its own subject of study and its own research method. In political science, it is somehow difficult to find a research method inherent only to it," - Putin shared his vision of the situation.

It is one thing when some insignificant washout like me tries to get across the point that political "science" is a fraud, totally another when arguably the most important statesman, highly educated and cultured at that, of the 21st century finally speaks his mind on a fraudulent field "of study" which, to a very large extent, is a reason why the modern West continues with its both homicidal and suicidal policies and arrived at the precipice of the historic, tectonic, defeat. It is becoming exceedingly obvious that 99% of Western political "scientists" are people who shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions (I underscore: opinions) on any subject dealing with modern civilization in so far as its complex machinery, both directly and figuratively speaking, least of all in the field of warfare. 

The record of utter, grotesque failure of political "science" is easily traceable through the even brief review of the Western geopolitical "thought" which provided us with copious amount of geopolitical speculations practically all of which are nothing more than pseudo-academic trash ranging from risible sophomoric Fukuyama's demagoguery to Huntington's "Clash", and I don't mean the band, to 2018 Mearsheimer's meandering and ignorant speculation on the fate of liberalism. We all can go further and recall writings of late Zbig, or the fate of Russian Studies field in the West stuffed with this kind of pseudo-academic parasites, or we can all laugh at pretentious BS produced by CFR which is saturated with political "scientists", including its big honcho Richard Haas, who cannot find their own asses with their both hands in a brightly lit room. In the end, look at the US Congress. 

Speaking of the Council on Foreign Relations and its main publication Foreign Affairs. Here is the guy who penned a few days ago yet another "gem" of the Western political "science" thinking, or, rather lack thereof, and his name is Barry R. Posen who is Ford International Professor of Political Science at MIT. If a well documented inability of the political "science" to predict own next bowel movement wasn't enough--purely on statistical merit they should have predicted by now something right, you know broken clock being correct twice a day thing--Posen decided to buttress Vladimir Putin's (and mine, for a very long time, mind you) thesis about this academic fraud filed, which exists only for generating credentialism for people who, otherwise, have issues with serious fields of study, to which political "science" does not belong and is characterized by Pushkin's immortal words from Evgenii Onegin. 

We all meandered through our schooling 

haphazard; so, to God be thanks,

 it's easy, without too much fooling, 

to pass for cultured in our ranks. 

Well, Mr. Posen penned this talked about (in some circles) article in Foreign Affairs. The title of article is a classic pretentious BS one would expect from the American political "science" so called "experts" in matters of war and Russia: Ukraine’s Implausible Theories of Victory.The Fantasy of Russian Defeat and the Case for Diplomacy. As I already stated (and wrote three books on that) American political class and the "expert" community, a euphemism for a cabal of primarily political scientists, which shapes its views on the outside world are utterly ignorant in two fundamental things:

1. Warfare, which requires a range of expertise which is not even in the same vicinity of the political "science", because you have to have a rock solid graduate level STEM and tactical-operational background and that means actual service in military and intel environment at the officer level. 

2. Russia. West, it can be stated clearly and decisively now, has no clue what it is dealing with in Russia and Russian people. American political "science" field contributed mightily to a complete delusion of the West about Russia and that brought about this current situation of the combined West committing suicide by Russia. 

Obviously, Posen's article title immediately exhibits a fantastical thinking because the "case for diplomacy" has long expired and it has everything to do with:

1. Actual state of the SMO in Ukraine and the dynamics of operations in Ukraine in terms of obvious changing correlation of forces engaged and that is pointing towards utter destruction of VSU. 

2. Inability to see (or admit) the fact that Ukraine is but one of many theaters of a global warm war between Russia and combined West and that war has been started by the West. So, when Lavrov says openly that there is nothing to talk about with combined West that means NO "diplomacy" the way ignorant and incompetent US "diplomats" understand it. 

So, the title alone with its "case for diplomacy" is nothing more than a fantastical thinking by Posen who, naturally, has no clue about Russia and Russian way of war. Posen's tenure in Pentagon and RAND as analyst is of no use, because neither Pentagon nor RAND have a grasp of what the US was getting itself into when organized bloody and criminal coup in 2013-2014 in Ukraine. Plus, pardon my French, one has to have at least some record of successes and accomplishments, which in case of Pentagon is non-existent in the last 20+ years. I doubt the product of organization with a totally confused fighting doctrine and miscalculating every single enemy it ever fought can have anything to add to the issue of outcome in Ukraine.  Yet, he tries, and in doing so betrays the desperation for a face saving exit for the US which now observes its greatest ever proxy SOB being taken apart by Russia. 

A negotiated solution to the war would no doubt be hard to achieve, but the outlines of a settlement are already visible. Each side would have to make painful concessions. Ukraine would have to relinquish considerable territory and do so in writing. Russia would need to relinquish some of its battlefield gains and renounce future territorial claims. To prevent a future Russian attack, Ukraine would surely need strong assurances of U.S. and European military support, as well as continuing military aid (but consisting mainly of defensive, not offensive, weapons). Russia would need to acknowledge the legitimacy of such arrangements. The West would need to agree to relax many of the economic sanctions it has placed on Russia. NATO and Russia would need to launch a new set of negotiations to limit the intensity of military deployments and interactions along their respective frontiers. U.S. leadership would be essential to a diplomatic solution. Because the United States is Ukraine’s principal backer and the organizer of the West’s economic pressure campaign against Russia, it possesses the greatest leverage over the two parties. 

A fantastical, detached from the reality thinking. Each phrase in this segment is an Exhibit A of a delusion of a grandeur, hubris and stupidity. I have news to Posen: for starters, there will be no "concessions". Russia will take what she needs without asking anybody what and how they think about her actions. Moreover, Posen is being totally disingenuous, and I repeat, SMO is but the part, however important, of a larger existential conflict between Russia and combined West. This time it is fully global and to even grasp what is going on here and what mechanism have been engaged on the Russian side, ranging from economic, military, cultural and spiritual, Posen needs to know Russia's real history, culture and, especially so, her military history and the history of WW II. None of these subjects is properly taught in the US. Posen as most US political "scientists" has no clue of the subject. But the quip about "US leadership being essential for diplomatic solution" is altogether risible. 

For Posen and people who took this baloney of his seriously: the US cannot provide any "leadership", because it is not viewed as a serious counterpart by Russia (and many others) because any arrangements with the US are not worth the paper they written on (non-agreement capable). Secondly, the US "diplomacy" is an insult to an honorable profession and looking at the US State Department and its "quality" it is only natural to avoid any contact with those people who have no honor or integrity. Thirdly, the US IS NOT a military factor in Ukraine because, short of all out war, in which the US and NATO will be physically annihilated, nothing the United States can do to influence a military outcome which dictates a political one. I am not sure Posen ever heard of Deng Xiaoping's famous inversion of Clausewitz: "Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other, peaceful, means." Russia has an overwhelming escalation dominance in Ukraine. 

But Posen, who, obviously doesn't understand what escalation dominance is (you need a very serious military professional background to understand that), has to be reminded:

It ended with Peskov "clarifying" that Russia didn't even engage its main forces in Ukarine. They don't understand the correlation of forces and combat effectiveness issues in political "science" community. But Posen continues to have wet dreams:

It is easier to state these principles than it is to hammer them into the implementable provisions of an agreement. But that is precisely why negotiations should start sooner rather than later. The Ukrainian and Western theories of victory have been built on weak reasoning. At best, they are a costly avenue to a painful stalemate that leaves much Ukrainian territory in Russian hands. If this is the best that can be hoped for after additional months or years of fighting, then there is only one responsible thing to do: seek a diplomatic end to the war now.

No, Western "theories of victory" have been built on utter propaganda and completely made up numbers, with propaganda being spread as information influence operation driven, among many others, by losers from US top brass, who apart from parading themselves as amateurs, couldn't hide their utter butt-hurt from seeing how real operations with severe constrains due to civilians being used as human shield (a good old Nazi tactics and Nazis are admired by many in the US) are conducted. And no, Mr. Posen, the only solution will be Russia dictating the conditions of capitulation by Kiev regime and its main puppeteers from Washington D.C. The fear of a much larger and far reaching humiliation than even shameful run from Afghanistan is the main reason for this sophomoric and fantastical thinking article by Posen. This, plus absolute inability to wrap their political "scientists'" brains around a simple fact that none of them understand real war and nothing can help them with this understanding because, as Putin succinctly noted: "As I understand it, it has always been believed that in order for a certain field of knowledge to claim to be called a science, it must have its own subject of study and its own research method. In political science, it is somehow difficult to find a research method inherent only to it." 

There is no research method in it, never existed and the only reason this pseudo-science was created, same as another fake filed of "geoeconomics" or, for that matter, Queer Studies is to bestow some higher education degree on people who never were and are good in anything other than pseudo-academic demagoguery on subjects which are hard to learn. Plus, there are always historians and lawyers, granted they are honest people, who can provide all needed expertise on matters of political "science". The article by Posen proves the failure of political "scientists" perfectly. As Russian military has a saying--учи, блядь, материальную часть (Study the fucking equipment). Applies to Posen and his ilk perfectly.     

What Worries Me, Really...

No, it is not even the fact that Rep. Adam Kinzinger is a corrupt neocon and his main degree is in political "science", and that despite him earning his "wings" and flying safe tanker and, later, recon missions over Afghanistan (known for its world-class air force and air-defense, s/) as a member of Air National Guard, the guy has zero understanding of real war and operations. So, he pushes now a legislation on AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) should Russia use WMD in Ukraine. This boy Kizinger should ask first if he wants to take part in such a war, and then kiss his family and property goodbye, because it will be the US (always nuclear-biased) which will initiate nuclear exchange once it will meet realities of such a war. But then again, modern US establishment, including very large portions of military-intel community do not have a clue what war with Russia, even conventional one, means. It is expected from the US political elites.

This is what Douglas MacGregor and some alternative media person discuss here. MacGregor, as always, being to the point, professional and realist. 

But it was not Kinzinger, who should be checked (together with his donors) into mental institution, and his sick initiative, it was the fact that the host asks MaGgregor at 8:00 minute mark. He asked if it is true that Russia has weapons which can obliterate something like France. I almost choked. The reason I had this reaction is because even well-wishing, good people in America, like this host, reside in a complete obliviousness to the fact that even at the height (or bottom depending on the point of view) of her national catastrophe in 1990s, Russia still could wipe not just France, but the whole United States and NATO in the "first" second strike. And I mean literally--wipe off the map. 

A salvo of a single pr. 941 Akula (NATO Typhoon) SSBN without leaving even its base would unleash around 200 MIRVs at the US Eastern Sea Board and would wipe out all major (from Philadelphia, New York, Boston to Charlotte, Jacksonville, Miami--the list is too long to read) cities and military bases wrecking a chaos and losses of unimaginable scale in the first 30 minutes of the US attack of Russia. And that was just one of many Russian subs, not to mention other means of delivery, which would literally eliminate the US and NATO countries as nations and functional states. That was at the height of Russia's destitution of 1990s. It was then a common knowledge that Russian nuclear arsenal was functional. Why this knowledge evaporated is the main point--it is the matter of incessant US media propaganda and BS by its policy-makers who really took a beating of the third rate Arab military of Saddam in 1991 for a real war.

Today is 2022, Russia not only fully retained but perfected her strategic arsenal which makes US nuclear forces look like a backwater. Moreover, unlike it was the case in 1990s, the United States cannot fight Russia in her immediate geographic vicinity conventionally and hope not to sustain a defeat. As I am on record for many years, the US simply has no experience in modern times with the scale of losses and warfare it would experience if it decides to fight Russia. Russia is also fully capable to wreck havoc in the US proper without resorting to nuclear. These are the facts that neither Kinzinger nor the most of the US Congress know, not to speak of having a good grasp of it. None of them ever fought in defense of their motherland and have no clue about real consequences of a continental war with modern "peer". MacGregor does, but that is why he is not in the US Armed Forces anymore. 

But it was this question of the host which struck me: both the United States and Russia have and had for the last 50 years enough firepower to turn the whole planet into a cinder rock--it was and remains the common knowledge. Another matter, a purely technological one, that the balance is shifting radically in Russia's favor both in nuclear and conventional technology and that creates challenges for the US it is incapable to meet precisely because the US Congress has zero understanding of modern military power and formation of the geopolitical balance. And, of course, as always they have no clue about Russia and what she is today. But that is a given in modern US politics.

Pepe Escobar's Review And Other Points Of Interest.

Pepe wrote a wonderful review of my latest book for Asia Times, and I am deeply thankful to Pepe for his wonderful writing and being my de facto friend. Distant, for now. You can read the whole thing at The Saker's blog or Unz Review. Here is Pepe in his own words. 

Here, Martyanov, in meticulous detail, analyzes the imperial decline thematically – with chapters on Consumption, Geoeconomics, Energy, Losing the Arms Race, among others, composing a devastating indictment especially of toxic D.C. lobbies and the prevailing political mediocrity across the Beltway. What is laid bare for the reader is the complex interplay of forces that are driving the political, ideological, economic, cultural and military American chaos.

The book, evidently, is doing well, all things considered, and if it contributes to "righting", however feeble this hope seems now, the United States in any way, so it is all for the better. Meanwhile, Biden Admin is literally chasing Russians trying to arrange the summit. Russia waits and doesn't commit because knows that there is very little to negotiate and, finally, Ria publishes today an analytical piece by Pyotr Akopov with symptomatic title: Russia Needs a Predictable Confrontation With the USA. Kinda speaks volumes, doesn't it? Here is an excerpt:

Предсказуемой и стабильной может быть и конфронтация. Но она и так уже идет и точно не закончится ни с каким саммитом — так что можно попробовать поставить ее в определенные рамки и сочетать с разумными компромиссами там, где это отвечает интересам обеих сторон. Для этого действительно нужно разобрать часть завалов на пути двухсторонних отношений — и тут все понимают, что "заваливали" в основном американцы, а разбирать придется вместе.

Translation:  Even confrontation could be predictable and stable. The confrontation is ongoing and surely will not stop after any summit--but at least some effort could be made to put it into some defined framework which allows for reasonable compromises where they satisfy the interests of both sides. For that, certain logjams should be removed on the path of mutual relations--everyone understands that the "jamming" was done primarily by Americans whole removing those logjams will be a job for both.  

Akopov doesn't see many positives in all this hustle around summit and he, justifiably, is not optimistic about American elites who are lost in both international and domestic policies and are totally inadequate to the challenges global tectonic shift in power balance represents. As I say it all the time--they are one trick ponies. Just to illustrate to you  how bad things are, let's take a short walk down the memory lane. It is June of 2015 and popular US geopolitical tabloid The National Interest (I know, I know...LOL) publishes this: 

American Hegemony Is Here to Stay. U.S. hegemony is now as firm as or firmer than it has ever been, and will remain so for a long time to come.

The guy who wrote this 6 years ago is Salvatore Babones, he is an associate professor of sociology and social policy at the University of Sydney and an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. I am positive he still teaches... somewhere. Can you imagine WHAT kind of "expertise" this guy procures and what kind of views he holds? Here is his other "prediction" from 2017. 

Globalism Lives. China Won’t Overtake America Any Time Soon

He, Babones, is one of many who do "research" which produces no value whatsoever and thus he arrives, in 2017 no less, to this:

What is America? The world recoils when U.S. President Donald Trump says “America first,” but nothing should be more natural than a president putting his country first. The problem with “America first” is that for many people around the world, America is not just a country. The United States is a country. America is something more—not only the most powerful state, but the cultural, economic, and institutional center of a world that it has partially recreated in its own image. The West does not have a good word to describe America in this expanded sense because the modern West has never seen something like it before. The last time a whole world was so organized around a single, central state was in the fifteenth century, when East Asia was centered on Ming-dynasty China. China at the time wasn’t just the leader or regional hegemon; it was the central state of a political and cultural realm that stretched from Burma to Japan. And the word that came to describe this world was tianxia. 

Even a broken clock is right twice a day but one MUST ask the question on a validity of such opinions which are presented under the titles of "expertise" and being advanced as "scientific". And here is the point--the drama and the tragedy of the outside observer when writing on a contemporary American geopolitics is in the fact that out of a huge volume of alleged American geopolitical "scholarship" vast majority of it are fantasies or contrived concepts one is subjected to in order to form one's opinion about them. Most of them never pan out and fail in the relatively easy task of setting up a realistic framework, forget about giving weighted and probable forecasts. This trait defines modern American geopolitical thought, top-bottom, and there is no way it is going to change any time soon--the rut of American exceptionalism and the rot of the US academe are such that Babones is not an exception, he is the rule. That is why Akopov, in essence, repeats the thesis I advanced now for many years, including in this blog:

Поэтому никаких иллюзий насчет диалога с Вашингтоном в Москве не существует — то есть речь даже не о возможности о чем-либо договориться, а просто о способности вести диалог, спорить и слушать аргументы друг друга. И дело тут не в личности Байдена — хотя у Путина есть негативный опыт общения с ним — или его команды. Проблема куда шире: в настроениях пребывающей в кризисе американской элиты.  

Translation: That is why Moscow has no illusions about the dialogue with Washington--at issue is not even the possibility to settle anything but at least about ability to conduct dialogue, argue and listen to the arguments of each-other. The problem here is not with Biden's personality--albeit Putin has a negative experience of communicating with him--or Biden's team. The problem is much larger--in the moods of the American elite engulfed in crisis. 

You want to see what kind of crisis it is? Read Salvatore Babones, you will get a feel. 

About This "Pro-Russian" Article.

From Atlantic Council's Emma Ashford and Matthew Borrows. Evidently their piece called:

Reality Check #4: Focus on interests, not on human rights with Russia

Which calls for a pragmatic approach to Russia created a shit-tempest in the cup of American (lack of) foreign policy "establishment" and think-tankdom. Even silly points, made by Ashford and Borrows, such as these among few others, were too much for the so called US "hawks":

1. The US-Russian relationship has too long been predicated on the fantasy that Russia could be reshaped – whether through aid or coercion – into a Western, liberal democracy. However, there is little prospect of transformation or of ending human rights abuses. Policymakers must be clear-eyed about Russia: it is not a minor power that can be punished for its transgressions, but a powerful autocracy with the capacity to undermine US interests and act as a global spoiler. 

2. US policy toward Russia has become punitive. Though sanctions are ostensibly framed as deterrence or coercion, existing frameworks offer no real way for sanctions to be removed even if Russian behavior improves. In some cases, the United States has painted itself into a corner, demanding unrealistic policy change (i.e., that Russia relinquish its hold on Crimea) in exchange for sanctions relief. 

It is really funny to read about reaction of hawks who even blame, as Sputnik reports:

Describing the anger at the Washington DC-based pro-NATO institution, Politico posed the question as to how such an unorthodox article found its way to the think tank's website. One of the report's critics pinned the blame on Charles Koch, an American billionaire and philanthropist, who donated $4.5 million over five years to the Atlantic Council. Politico's interlocutor suggested that the article is a product reflecting Koch's influence, accusing the billionaire of "destroying good institutions" and having "pretty much the same views as the Russians."

The problem, of course, with this "realist" approach, and the piece from Ashford and Burrows qualifies clearly as such, after all Koch finances, together with Soros, what openly is proclaimed to be THE realist think tank, Quincy Institute, that both allegedly "realists" and hawks, while differing in some approaches to foreign policy, are drinking the same Kool Aid and are joined at the hip by the American exceptionalism and the gross ignorance of the America's real status and role in the world. I wrote about this on many occasions, such as this four years ago. In the end, you can always get John Mearsheimer's The Great Delusion, of which I also wrote both in my books and in this blog and you will be treated, again, to a completely false narrative of America's role and her real power. 

Ashford and Burrow's piece is yet another demonstration of America's delusion about herself, now projected from the allegedly "realist" point of view. Read my lips: America HAS NOTHING to offer modern Russia. None, zero, zilch, nada. In fact, if the United States have disappeared tomorrow, very few people in Russia would have noticed, other than few minor things and the change of the tone of the informational background, which would be less tense. As Petr Akopov of Ria noted today about this Atlantic Council silly business.

Нам в России такой накал борьбы только выгоден. Потому что, когда робкие попытки голоса разума забиваются на корню, это свидетельствует только об одном. Американская глобалистская элита (а АС* — это ее важная часть) утратила адекватное восприятие реальности, а значит, и чувство самосохранения. То есть она не может различить пропаганду и геополитику, агитацию и национальные интересы.

Translation: for us in Russia such intensity of a struggle is only beneficial. Because when even timid attempts at common sense are stomped at the root it testifies only to the fact that American globalist elite (Atlantic Council--is an important part of it) lost the adequate perception of the reality and, hence, the sense of self-preservation. This elite cannot distinguish between propaganda and geopolitics, agitation and national interests. 

Hm, what this conclusion by Akopov reminds me about? Couple-three books by some guy whose name is on the tip of my tongue but I cannot still recall it. Yeah, he writes about it constantly, wink-wink. I will only add here, that if not for the weapons of mass-destruction and a complete loss of a strategic awareness which may still result in a global conflict unleashed by the US, Russians, generally, do not give a damn about America--this is a bitter pill to swallow for American exceptionalists, be them hawks or the so called "realists", because the whole notion that America's danger for the world is not in her strength, always grossly inflated, but in her weakness ranging from economy, to military to institutions and a complete loss of competence by the American "elites", is an intolerably painful thought for them to accept. So, they delude themselves. The whole affair with the article by Ashford and Burrows demonstrates this perfectly--there is nobody to talk to in the US for Russia. But I warned about it years ago. 

The Fools Are On Display.

Have you heard the news? Well, a bunch of losers from "Republican" Administrations of both Bushes wrote a letter. Why losers? Because those people in normal governments wouldn't be allowed to run housekeeping in the mental ward, and yet they are expressing their "opinions" on Trump. Let's get this out of the way--I don't like Trump, he is full of shit narcissist but in comparison to utter lunatics from Democratic Party, such as Harris-Biden ticket, I would (I will) vote for Trump, because he is less dangerous to the world. As for the United States--they all are clear present danger. So, here it is, a bunch of "Republicans" calling on everyone to vote for... Biden. 

We are former national security officials who served during the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and/or Donald Trump, or as Republican Members of Congress. We are profoundly concerned about the course of our nation under the leadership of Donald Trump. Through his actions and his rhetoric, Trump has demonstrated that he lacks the character and competence to lead this nation and has engaged in corrupt behavior that renders him unfit to serve as President. For the following reasons, we have concluded that Donald Trump has failed our country and that Vice President Joe Biden should be elected the next President of the United States.

Signatories are basically "who is who" on how not to govern, let alone run "national security", not to mention fight wars which no one, including military figures, in this list of signatories knows how to do. Those are losers who allowed 911, who lost wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and who are nothing more than representatives of the so called swamp. They have good skills in navigating D.C. bureaucracy and that is about the extent of their skills--excellent military leaders, outstanding diplomats, good scale geopolitical thinkers they are not and they ARE an embodiment of the American "elites", a euphemism for ignorance and incompetence.  You may read those 10 points those losers concocted but the summary of those points stands out: 

While we – like all Americans – had hoped that Donald Trump would govern wisely, he has disappointed millions of voters who put their faith in him and has demonstrated that he is dangerously unfit to serve another term. In contrast, we believe Joe Biden has the character, experience, and temperament to lead this nation. We believe he will restore the dignity of the presidency, bring Americans together, reassert America’s role as a global leader, and inspire our nation to live up to its ideals. While some of us hold policy positions that differ from those of Joe Biden and his party, the time to debate those policy differences will come later. For now, it is imperative that we stop Trump’s assault on our nation’s values and institutions and reinstate the moral foundations of our democracy.

Here is the point which needs separate elaboration. Biden's (not really his) national "security" team is a collection of dumb fanatical liberal interventionists, or, if one wishes, yet another issue of the neocons, whose defining characteristic is a complete ignorance on the issue of war. Enough to look at Kamala Harris who has zero qualifications in foreign, let alone military policies but who is an uber-hawk precisely because she has no idea. Same goes for mentally fading Biden, but he will be removed from the task of governing, let alone formulating any policies for the United States one way or another. But to give you a more focused insight into the "Biden's" foreign policy people, let's take a look at a possible Defense Secretary in Biden's Administration (should he win) and her name is Michelle Flournoy. 

Flournoy's career reads as an exemplary fanatical neocon's advancement along the path to the highest political offices in D.C. , not forgetting, of course, getting rich while taking a break after HRC's 2016 loss. Flournoys' qualifications for SecDef within American political setup seems to be enough--she graduated some "foreign relations" and "government" programs which in Anglo-Saxon world primarily prepare illiterate ideologues and military ignoramuses--and she knows how to use big words and speak Pentagonese. Here is where this lady has some peculiar ideas on war.  Even lunatic never-Trump Huffington Post had to point out to this:

Biden’s foreign policy circle also points to a potentially more hawkish approach. Michèle Flournoy, widely expected to be tapped by Biden as defense secretary, recently wrote that while conflict would not serve the interests of either the U.S. or China, the American military and its partners should consider developing capabilities to, for instance, sink the entire Chinese Navy within 72 hours to deter Beijing. Flournoy argued that China was becoming more confident because it perceives Washington as weak.

You may read the Flournoy's original here, in Foreign Affairs, if you want to read yet another empty collection of consonants and vowels from a person who obviously has no idea of what it would take to develop such a capability "to sink entire Chinese Navy in 72 hours" be my guest and enjoy syllables, words and sentences in English which carry no meaning. Such ignorance and idiocy IS EXPECTED from Anglo-American humanities (un)educated elites who have no idea, including on the policy-setting level, including on the level of even uniformed top bureaucracies, of what it takes to develop such a capability. I have news for them, while I am, unlike many others, do not view PLAN as a real ocean-going navy, because PLAN for now is not a competitor to US Navy, say, in the Indian Ocean, I can certainly see how China's armed forces can respond to attempts to "sink Chinese Navy in 72 hours" within First Island Chain.

1. US cannot develop such a capability because it lags dramatically behind China and, especially so, Russia in development of the main strike weapon of the modern naval war--anti-ship cruise missiles. China has an impressive arsenal of ASMs which is far more advanced than anything the US has. The US Navy, meanwhile, has no viable defense against salvo of modern high super-sonic ASMs launched from three domains and China, allegedly, has hype-sonic weapons;

2. Unlike Iraq or Yugoslavia, China has an impressive Air-Force and air-deference capable to mitigate attacks on her naval bases by the United States and respond, as the US learned the hard way with Iran, with variety of strikes on US Navy's bases in the region. US WILL NOT be able to intercept meaningful number of modern intermediate-range Chinese ballistic missiles. Simple as that;

3. Will Russia provide Chinese ASBMs with targeting and recon if push comes to shove? I am sure Russia will do more than that within the framework of what is already emerging as a serious military Russian-Chines alliance. Vietnam cough, cough.... But situation here is even more serious, the fact that Russia aids China in building Chinese own Missile Attack Early Warning System (SPRN) speaks volumes. If Russia does this, who said that China may not "suddenly" obtain the access to such things as S-500 or some other weapon systems (or Russia's domestic, not export, variety)? I don't see why this cannot be arranged. In fact, this is highly likely. After all Russians and Chinese now train in fully unified battle-space mode as single combat units. And those funny shipping containers with 3M54s and P-800s are coming. 3M22s?    


4. In the end, the United States simply has no resources to develop such a capability. China's shipbuilding capacity is monstrous and it dwarfs that of the United States and Chinese surely can "redistribute" resources, if need be, to produce more platforms. 

These are just some, very few, points Michelle Flournoy must consider and reflect on when she bloviates on the issues of which she, certainly, has zero understanding. Did Flournoy contemplate a possibility, in fact high probability, of a destruction of even single US Navy's CBG? Does she even have a clue on what can of worms this will open for mostly cowardly US politicians, who would rather bring the world to the edge of nuclear exchange, rather than have a courage to stop madness and admit a defeat. Yes, it takes sometime courage to do so. US didn't win a single war in its history against peer, if one discounts US WW II Pacific War.  But that is not what defines modern American "elites" who traditionally display themselves as delusional, ignorant and utterly dysfunctional and unprofessional. Flournoy is an embodiment of these "fine" qualities of modern American establishment and that should give us all a pause in a front of this display of America's utter failure to produce courageous and responsible statesman in many decades, only fools.  

Stage-3 Butt-Hurt.

Bloomberg (yes, this famous propaganda outlet) produced today a fascinating example of delusion and an extreme, stage-3, butt-hurt, stage-1 and 2 being butt-hurts which still could be controlled by meditation and delusions. Stage-3 however, while allows one to produce delusions hits hard because those who stick to this delusion begin to understand that this is just that--a delusion and begin to grasp, however fleetingly, an unfolding reality. This is what makes Stage-3 so painful and makes delusions so unconvincing.  Get a load of that:

The real wild card here has been the coronavirus. Not just the direct economic hit, but also Putin’s distant initial reaction and the lack of a fiscal boost, which means he hasn’t seen the sort of rallying effect in the polls that has helped U.S. President Donald Trump and other political leaders. Nigel Gould-Davies, at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, suggests the risk is a repeat of Putin's Kursk debacle two decades ago, when his perceived leadership failure at the time of the submarine tragedy triggered widespread criticism. This isn’t a threat to the plan to change the constitution to allow him to stay on, but his “father of the nation” gambit may be harder to implement, especially if Russia’s under-resourced health system buckles.

The cretinism of this statement is such that it is even difficult to deconstruct it because it is basically a verbal diarrhea which even those who produce it know is shit. Reference to Kursk disaster and alleged "criticism" of Putin, of course, misses this teeny-weeny fact that it was precisely Kursk tragedy which DID reveal to Russia Vladimir Putin Russians came to know and appreciate. Then there was an end to war in Chechnya, then there was a Nord-Ost hostage drama, then there was a tragedy of Beslan and through all of this Putin  emerged as a true statesman and a national leader. But as it was always the case Western journos and "analysts" have huge issues with causality, that is they cannot properly tie together cause and effect (which is normal for people who have no viable education). Drawing parallels to Donald Trump's rating to Putin's position as a national leader is the same as comparing a high-school musical to opera from La Scala. But that is Western journos for ya. 

But why, one may ask, such statements:

Moscow is pragmatic. But Trump will need to make some concession-like noises at least on American production cuts, to help Putin save face. Not easy, but given the shut-ins already triggered by the price fall, also not impossible, with the help of U.S. state energy regulators.

LOL. So, it is not about killing, or letting live, US shale oil whose fate is in Russia's (not even Saudi) hands but to "help Putin save face". This is Stage-3, folks. It is a level of butt-hurt which triggers the only "defense" one hurting (in the butt) can offer--to project own pain onto those who are just alright. You  know like the statement on Russia's "under-resourced" health care. But why, why (wink, wink) such a drama--here is the answer.  

“The U.S. oil industry is being wrestled to the ground by the Russians and Saudis,” Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy and Economic Research in Winchester, Massachusetts, said before the report was released. “Involuntary participation is the best way to put it.” EIA forecasts that the U.S. will return to being a net importer of crude oil and petroleum products in the third quarter of 2020 and remain a net importer in most months through the end of the forecast period. The agency expects Brent, the global benchmark crude, to average $33.04 a barrel this year, down from earlier expectations of $43.30.

Ah, that's warmer. But here is even more increased temperature:

A deal still hinges on some form of co-operation with America, according to delegates involved in the talks. That may be difficult for OPEC to achieve, as President Donald Trump resists any partnership with the cartel that he’s vilified for years. However, the collapse in crude prices to 18-year lows has triggered deep reductions in U.S. drilling that mean a drop in production is inevitable, which could be enough to satisfy Saudi Arabia and Russia. “Nobody’s asked me, so if they ask I’ll make a decision,” Trump said on whether the U.S. would participate in cutbacks. American producers are “already cutting back and they’re cutting back very seriously. I think it’s happening automatically.”

So, Trump DOES make "some concession-like noises" after all to "help Putin save face" as we are told. And sure, he absolutely must "help" Putin to save "face" because the US shale oil industry is being wrecked completely even this very minute I type this, and the United States can do absolutely nothing about it unless (and even this may be too little, too late) it does cut production and gets to negotiate, de facto joining OPEC+ and turning it into OPEC++. If not, follow the news in coming weeks. I warned, genuine multi-polarity is a bitch--one suddenly needs to calculate consequences, a skill long time ago absent from current US political class, which is not surprising once one learns how the "history" is "taught" in the US and, this ever present trouble with cause and effect, add here the sudden epiphany about own self experienced through the acute, Statge-3, pain in the rear and, who knows, one may begin to suspect that producing verbal diarrhea is not the best way to deal with cold hard facts. This, mind you, without us going into the issue of REAL productive economy, which the United States needs to return in some form to its shores, thus giving itself at least some chance to survive intact. But that is a huge, separate discussion in itself since the projection numbers on the US GDP are staggering:

The bank expects second quarter GDP to contract by 33.5%, according to a Monday note. That means the period from April 1 to June 30 is shaping up to be the worst quarter on record going back to 1945, analysts led by Jonathan Golub wrote. It shows the stark effect the coronavirus pandemic is having on the US economy. In the financial crisis, the worst quarter of 2008 suffered only an 8.4% GDP slump, according to Credit Suisse. Coronavirus is also outpacing the previous record — a 10% slump in the first quarter of 1958, amid the Eisenhower recession. 

What it all means in real terms, even if the economy "bounces" back in some way in the future, nobody knows in the United States, unless we are talking about minds of the scale of Michael Hudson. Meanwhile, printing press is overheated and with each cycle it spells the end of the US Dollar as we know it and that can push butt-hurt to 11, granted we somehow survive to observe and experience it. I am not looking forward to it.

Daniel Depetris Has No Clue.

Which is a defining feature of the US so called "journalist corps". In his utterly delirious piece in the American Conservative he waxes geopolitical and continues to spread all kinds of beaten to death cliches about Russia. For starters, he repeats a tiresome Wall Street claptrap about Russian economy. 

Trump’s desire to get along with Putin was not a bad idea at its core. Russia may be a weakling compared to its Soviet ancestor (its GDP is about $400 billion less than recession-threatened Italy), but it remains a major power in Eurasia. 

Obviously because Depetris is an American "journalist" and it automatically means that he has no tools for operating with facts on the ground and it can come as a surprise to him that Russia's GDP actually dwarfs that of Italy and is already larger than that of Germany. Even IMF agrees on that, not Depetris, of course. Somebody forgot to inform Depetris about this teeny-weeny fact but, be patient, Depetris is not alone in his economic delusion--he is, actually, very typical of US punditry whose defining characteristic is ignorance. 

But by far the most astonishing in all this is Depetris' delusions is the title of his piece:

With Mueller Done, Now is the Time for Better Relations With Russia

You see? So simple! OK guys, it is over now let's get better relations. He even proposes:

The report is also a plus for the country—not only because Washington won’t be consumed with a constitutional crisis anytime soon, but also because it provides the Trump administration with its first opportunity to settle on a Russia policy without the risk of an extreme political backlash.

Life is so easy, you see? Of course, I have news for optimistic (a euphemism for delusional) Depetris:

1. Yes, Trump Administration "settled" Russia policy will be (already is) all out, short of hot, war on Russia and this war is already proceeding in earnest. Things will get even worse, much worse, than they are now. This is not to mention the fact that Trump is not very smart geopolitically and his "team" of foreign policy "experts" is a laughing stock of the world--a bunch of aggressive exceptionalist neocons.

2. Patrick Armstrong yesterday when posting his Russia SitRep provided this astonishing piece of data. Just think about it for a second:

SANCTIONS. A sentence from Awara’s latest struck me: “Russia’s imports from China (26% of total) are now three times bigger than those from Germany (7.8%). Total imports from the EU now make up only 30% of all Russia’s imports.” I don’t think the EU is going to get much of that market back, do you?

I know that Depetris has no clue on that but I have to inform him that EU for Russia, strategically, economically, culturally is on several orders of magnitude more important than the United States. In fact, the only real importance, diminishing daily, of the United States for Russia is the fact that US tries to sabotage (unsuccessfully) Russian economy. But if Russia gave up on the EU, what's so important for Russia in the US? US doesn't even factor in economically here. 

This, however, doesn't prevent Depetris from continuing with his delusion:

But with the investigation complete, the report submitted, and the conclusions made, the Trump administration may now have a chance to at least explore whether the Russians are open to collaboration on fair terms.

No, Mr. Depetris, Russians are "not open" to "collaboration on fair terms" and the only things Russia is going to discuss with the US are strategic arms limitations and the terms on which US economy will be landed. Russia doesn't want it to be a global economic catastrophe but a slow and relatively soft landing. In general, people who keep the gun to your head do not "collaborate", they usually dictate conditions, but I am sure Daniel Depetris knows all about it--sarcasm is intentional. He also is not aware of a simple fact of the United States committing final act of cultural suicide in Russia. If Depetris doesn't comprehend that, nothing will prevent him from continuing to write a delusional rubbish such as his piece in TAC.  

UPDATE: Masha Zakharova explains as eloquently as always (Skabeeva's shoes are always top) things which Depetris obviously doesn't understand.