Now It Is Becoming...

 ... a comedy. 

It’s been two months since ex-American M-1s tanks arrived in Ukraine. And two months since we’ve seen any evidence of the tanks.  It’s not clear what Ukraine is doing with its 31 Abrams, but it is clear what it should be doing: up-armoring them to resist attacks by Russia’s explosive-laden first-person-view drones. FPV drones are everywhere all the time along the 600-mile front line of Russia’s 23-month wider war on Ukraine. They now rival mines as the biggest threats to tanks on both sides. It’s all but inevitable that Ukraine will lose some of its four-person, 68-ton M-1s. The 2000s-vintage M-1A1SAs that Ukraine received are some of the best-protected tanks in the world, but they’re not invulnerable to attack.

In related news, it is also good for M-1s to lose a couple of pounds... ahem, I mean, 10-15 tons, to get a lower profile, to get new tracks with a better traction, get a turret's effective anti-FPV screen and, in general, to stop being M-1 and become something which is suited for modern war not for rolling over incompetent and demoralized Iraqi infantry in ideal desert conditions. 

Per sights and other "avionics"--they are all about the same in most modern tanks and Russian T-90M Proryv and T-14 Armata are fully netcentric tanks capable to communicate and even provide targeting not only within homogeneous tank (armor) unit but even for aircraft and AD complexes. Ah yes, all (ALL) Russian tanks are capable to launch a very nasty ATGM Reflex through their guns, M-1 cannot. So, the great military "expert" from Forbes David Axe can wet dream whatever he wants about those 31 VSU Abrams but they ain't getting to the battlefield where they will be blown up by Russians and then the pictures and videos of them burning will be gladly shared by Russian military with global community. 

I mean, for many going through the realization of NATO weapon systems being NO GOOD in modern war is a difficult moral journey, but, believe me, for me also when I fully realized the depth of Pentagon's incompetence it was a shocking discovery. Here are German Welt's journos and "experts" suddenly recognized that Patriots PAC-2,3 in 404... suck and cannot stop X-32 cruise missiles. Welcome to the Putin Krieg, morons.

Of course, X-32 while being extremely high supersonic and stand-off is still not hypersonic missiles. Here is me 4 years ago explaining this simple fact that and explaining that no NATO AD system, naval or ground based, can stop the salvo of X-32, which also since then underwent even deadlier modification.

The reason for that is a simple fact that large and expensive surface combatants are not survivable in the modern naval combat, unless they have weapon systems which can fight REAL hypersonic weapons such as fully combat ready and deployed Kinzhal, 3M22 Zircon or even nearing M=5 X-32 anti-shipping missiles. That is the real hypersonic threat, not those exotic Avangard gliders which merely exist to forestall the appearance in the future of similar systems in the United States and, if it ever materializes (I doubt it, but who knows) some sort of strategic anti-missile system. Unlike Avangard, which is a nuclear deterrent, another one in Russia's arsenal, Kinzhal, X-32 and Zircon are actual weapons designed specifically to fulfill a classic Sea Denial (or, if one wants an exercise in Pentagonese from me--Battle Space Denial) in both conventional or nuclear variants. They, not the Avangard, are the weapons which, being tactical-operational ones, achieved already a strategic and even doctrinal effect and these weapons are extremely precise. United States knows that. Liana, as Shoigu reported recently, namely last Peon NKS is nearing completion (in Russian), that's what is going to complete creation of Liana, which will (already does) provide detection, tracking and targeting for hypersonic and supersonic weapons against any targets. 

People love to talk about hypersonic Kinzhal, which performed brilliantly, but the salvo of X-32s which actually carry false targets and extremely ECM resistant is also not survivable. Unless, of course, it is in 404 and Western media, but then again, they still cannot wrap their brains around the outcome of SMO which unfolds while I type it here. Russia also launched more satellites in the last couple of weeks and is gaining a much better situational awareness and targeting certainty in preparation for... what? Make your own conclusions. The SMO is a paradigm shift for which Russia was preparing since 2008. Recall, I wrote this book 5 years ago:
    

In it I explained that physics and mathematics for NATO' victory in modern warfare are absent and that combined West operates legacy systems based on self-aggrandizing mythology (a euphemism for lie) of its part in WW II and, of course, BS of the Gulf War. The worst part for the West (USA generally) is that this cannot be changed because the clockwork of Western views on warfare is broken and doesn't work. 

As Alexei Leonkov (aka Comrade Maduro) explains in Russian--the thesis which I advance for the last 10 years in my writing--US doesn't have great strategic analysis as such due to a complete degeneration of the American educational system, including military education, and belief in all kinds of equivalents of computer Teslas, not understanding that they operate primarily on myths. 

You cannot fix this system without destroying it and rebuilding it anew based on verified datasets and proper history and historical assessments. And here is what I noticed recently, once in a long while I go to the comments to my books on Amazon. And here is the comment to my first book. Take it for whatever it is. 

This first of Martyanov's three books is the most infuriating, aggravating, sickening and depressing book that I’ve read in years. He dispassionately debunks the myths of American exceptionalism and that of the US military as the finest fighting force in history. As a retired USAF pilot, this has been a bitter pill for me to swallow. At no time during my four years in the Pentagon in USAF Plans & Ops, as well as USAF Requirements, plus Armed Forces Staff College & Air War College, plus 15 years in the cockpit in both crew and command positions, none of the significant information he shares was ever made known or disclosed to me. His experience, knowledge and footnotes are impressive. Likewise his writing style is straightforward and to the point; no hyperbole. This book should be MANDATORY reading for EVERY senator and congressman, particularly those on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, as well as every US military officer, senior NCO, DoD, State Department, NSA and Executive Branch decision maker, especially the Offices of the President and Vice President. We are woefully unprepared to engage in a conventional conflict with either Russia or China and no one wins a nuclear war.

So, you see--I warned.  And just let me add--we ain't seen nothing yet. Or as Vladimir Vladimirovich said--we haven't even started yet.

Larry Gets Mathematical...

... and that's the way you do it.  

Russia not only has destroyed Ukraine’s stockpiles that existed at the start of the war, but it is eliminating planes, tanks and MRLS systems subsequently provided by NATO and the United States. Has Ukraine destroyed some Russian aircraft, helicopters, tanks and armored vehicles? Yes. But so what. Russian losses are only a minuscule fraction of their total strength and Russia, unlike Ukraine, has factories that are continuing to produce equipment and weapons lost or expended during the course of this conflict.

So with these numbers in mind, carefully consider what is happening to Ukraine’s military force in its current offensive. It is being decimated. Capturing a rural village or two or pushing the Donetsk or Luhansk militias backwards a few kilometers is tactically insignificant. The truth of the matter is that Russia is relying on the Donbas militias to do the bulk of the front line fighting because it is home for those militias. Claims that the Russian military has suffered major casualties is delusional because the Russian forces are in the rear and providing fire support–ground and air–to the Donbas militias. Yes, there are some Russian troops on the frontlines in some places, but the cold, hard fact is that Russia has not committed a significant portion of its total military forces to the battle. Not yet, anyway. The reality, which the United States and NATO are loathe to accept, is that Russia’s defeat of the Ukrainian military is inevitable; even if the United States or NATO made the suicidal decision to send their own forces into the fray.

Read the whole thing at Larry's blog. Meanwhile, listen to these 15 minutes of incomparable Michael Hudson's explanation of compound interest and how it defines the race between real productive forces and banksters' and Wall Street mafia and why creative industrial capitalism is doomed...

... to be sacrificed at the altar of one percenters' greed, perversion and insanity.

Creme de la Creme.

Whenever I stumble onto any "education rating" produced in the West I smile, ironically. Just look at this "ranking" for the fun of it. Good luck finding any Russia's university in the Top 100. Never mind the fact that "achievements", as an example, of #27, London School of Economics and Political Science, in advancing a wholesale ignorance of Western "elites" will take decades to address. But then again, meaning of education in Russia and in the West differ dramatically. And here is the proof. 

Here is the map of global competence in the programming and, by default, mathematics field. Here is a part related to technology, in terms of Data Science, Russia also leads the field of Cutting Edge, never mind other, less advanced, fields. You may ask, but how this could be, when there are no a single Russia's university in Top 100 in all those rankings. Agree, there are none. Russian universities and military academies do not teach tolerance, social justice and do not have programs on gender-studies. Most Western students taking entrance exams in mathematics and physics to any good Russia's STEM school of higher learning will not pass them. Large portions of required knowledge for math, physics and chemistry with other natural sciences are simply not taught in the West, and elsewhere where Bologna Process is followed and education is modeled after American K-12 and higher ones. 

Yet, somehow those backward Russians top the world of cutting edge IT and programming, same as the world of radar, signal processing, network centricity, and are direct and ONLY competitors to US Military-Industrial Complex. I would dare to state that a very successful competitor. Recall, ladies and gentlemen, as it is written in plain English in my first book, couple of chapters in fact are dedicated to it, that already by 1960 average Soviet high school graduate received three times more instructions in math, physics, biology than it was stipulated for the entrance to Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Things didn't change since, in fact, what passes for mathematics and general "science" being "taught" in American schools today is pathetic, it is a third world level of "education" which, inevitably, translates into atrociously small numbers of American kids deciding to go into STEM fields in universities, not to mention the fact that those who go there, they start with a dramatically lower level than their Russian counterparts in those backward and low-rated Russia's universities. 

I guess that explains why, then, Russia leads the world and by a huge margin in nuclear energy, cutting edge weapon systems, continues to dominate piloted space flight, why she builds her own satellite constellations, commercial aircraft, top notch jet engines and super-computers. It is all because they teach mathematics and physics (and chemistry, I hate chemistry) in Russian public schools the way it is supposed to be taught. Hence, the results I presented here, but I write about this matter for years. Just to give you example. here is one of Russia school math teacher's way of introducing 7th or 8th grade kids to factoring  (squares of the sum and difference and operations with algebraic fractions). The end result of this simple problem is what comes down, when is factored properly, to I Love/You in Russian. 

I guess this is one of a good ways for introduction to factoring. It is also the only way to maintain national intellect in the top notch form--by challenging kids by means of serious and systemic math-physics-chemistry curriculum which develops proper synapses which, in the end, translate into new cutting edge technologies, ranging from space exploration to hyper-sonic weapons. It is also the only way to grow and educate real national elite, which is creme de la creme of nation's brightest and most capable, in numbers sufficient to feel oneself independent and free.  

Mathematical View.

An extremely interesting comment of professional Swiss (I believe) mathematician Paul Schmutz Schaller on my two books at Saker's blog. Paul starts with this intro: 

In some sense, this article is a comment on some aspects of Andrei Martyanov’s two books „Losing Military Supremacy: the Myopia of American Strategic Planning“ (2018) and „The (Real) Revolution in Military Affairs“ (2019). I am not aiming at discussing these excellent books...My interest here is the content of these books which is related to mathematics. In this regard, here is a try to condense some of Martyanov’s writing into simple theses:

1) The power of a nation very much depends on its military strength.

2) Military strength is a complex thing, depending on the strength of the whole society: its economy, its culture, its scientific level, its historical experiences.

3) Mathematics are crucial for the military strength, not only for the production of sophisticated weapons and military technology, but also for strategic planning and for warfare.

4) Western societies in general and the USA in particular suffer from a lack of education in mathematics and this is an important reason for their decline.

5) Without understanding mathematics in relation to military, one cannot understand military strength, nor geopolitical developments.

I agree with Paul's distillation, so to speak, of what I am writing about.  But Paul disagrees with me on the 5th point and, I agree, it is at least a debatable one--in a sense of being worthy of a separate discussion. But it is what Paul writes after this which is of a particular and great interest. He makes some extremely important observations, while giving a short retrospective of mathematics development throughout human history: 

Mathematics in the West are declining. This is may-be not yet visible when regarding some top Western universities; they still are quite attractive for mathematicians from other countries due to their prestige and their money. The decline concerns above all the Western societies as a whole. They have become quite hostile towards mathematics. Increasingly, mathematics are just seen as a necessary evil. Typically, in the film „Salt“ (USA, 2010), starring Angelina Jolie, the latter says: „I hate math.“ Could you imagine this in a Chinese, Iranian, Indian, or Russian film?

And Paul observes shift of mathematics to Asia. I agree--this, indeed, is taking place. Very little doubt that mathematics made the West, with Western society exploding with mathematics genius in the last few centuries, with the West, later, changing the whole world, but today balance changes. Oswald Spengler's famous The Decline of The West  takes a very close look at the mathematical thinking of civilizations and, in the words of one academic observer, defines Spengler's claim in the next words:

that similarities may be discerned in the style of mathematics, art and music developed by a particular High Culture – looking first at his discussions of the Ancient Greeks and how their thought-processes differed from that of Western Europeans,as well as from the Persians and Arabs. An attempt is then made to extend Spengler's theory to the Ancient Egyptians (referring to their Rhind Papyrus)and to the Sino-Japanese (by appealing to their 'Sangaku' mathematical art-forms). Finally, it is suggested that we may already be able to identify certain distinctive features and characteristics of the recently born Russian Culture.

Speaking of Russia. Already in Spengler's times (and that is almost a century ago), some feature of Russian high culture started to emerge, as David L. McNaughton continues, and I quote him in full:

Spengler (1922, pp. 192-196, and 1934) believes that a new High Culture has recently crystallized in Russia. He even attempted to discern and analyse the nature and character of its 'soul'. For example, he maintained that the Russian death-impulse "is an expressing and expanding of self (Sichentäussern) till 'it' in the man becomes identical with the boundless plain itself... That 'All are responsible for all' ... is the metaphysical fundament of all Dostoyevski's creation. Mystical Russian love is the love of brothers under equal pressure all along the earth., ever along and along" (Spengler, 1922, p.295 note 1). Spengler may not be completely correct in asserting that the 'prime symbol' of the new Russian Culture is the infinite plain. If so, he can perhaps be forgiven – because he made that assessment one hundred years ago. But if he is right that another 'Cultural organism' has indeed been born, then new discoveries and developments in mathematics, art and music will blossom there. On that assumption, can we try and guess what sort of mathematics might emerge?Without doubt, Russian mathematicians have already made prominent contributions in that field. In particular, Grigori Perelman should be highlighted for demonstrating the truth of the Poincaré Conjecture. In 2006, the world-renowned journal “Science” recognized his achievement as the scientific ‘Breakthrough of the Year’ – the first time such a tribute had ever been accorded in mathematics (Mackenzie, 2006). For his work, Perelman was also awarded the highly prestigious Fields Medal – but refused it. After interviewing him, John Ball (outgoing president of the International Mathematical Union) remarked: "He has a different psychological make-up, which causes him to see life differently" (BBC News, 2006). Earlier, Perelman had confirmed the Soul Conjecture with (what Wikipedia describes as) "an astonishingly concise proof". His two discoveries are important insights and landmarks in the development of mathematical topology (which may be defined as the study of spaces and their connectivity). So perhaps the new Russian mathematics will specialise in this topic? For example, eventually it might produce a comparatively simple proof of the Four Colour Theorem (explained by Appel and Haken, 1977). If the Spenglerian 'timetable' is correct, Russian art, music and mathematics will attain their zenith (after a few more centuries) during what he calls their 'summertime' – so it is probably too soon to know how exactly they will manifest themselves. Despite that, it is worth asking whether the Russian ability and love for the game of Chess is evidence that a new cultural soul is unfolding in that landscape. Each piece on the chessboard commands or controls only certain squares, i.e. a 'subspace' of the whole. And game-strategy assesses how the power or potential of each piece can best coordinate and interact with the others. In a different field, there might be grounds for arguing that it was no coincidence that the Periodic Table of the Elements was first conceived in a Russian mind – that of Dmitri Mendeleyev – rather than a Western one.

It is a very loaded but not incorrect conclusion. The article by McNaughton was written in 2016. You all know what happened in March, 2018. Since then, this is what has been dictating the logic of geopolitical shift on unprecedented scale and what is effectively keeps the world from sinking into one huge global conflict. Math had everything to do with it, math and physics, with physics being, in effect, a mathematical description of the natural world. Does math define a high culture? Absolutely: music is very mathematical, so is architecture and, of course, so is technology. But that is my main point--only nations with high culture can produce what Russia produces today. Far from military technology alone, breakthroughs in such field as aerospace, nuclear energy, new types of propulsion, new materials, among many, have already happened or are about to happen. This happened because of the way the world is viewed by Russians--in a very mathematical way. In the end, Russia awards degrees in Military Science which is same higher math projected at the stochastic world of the warfare.     

As Paul Schaller concludes:

Coming back to the question of the power of a nation, we have to refine. This power is not only related to the present level of mathematics, but also to the attitude with respect to mathematics. In this regard, two items are obvious for everybody. First: The Western empire(s) are fading away. Second: Asia in general and East Asia in particular have already a huge advantage over Western countries.  

Difficult to disagree: both in Russia and China mathematics is a secular religion of sorts, because there is clear understanding that mathematics and future are inseparable. Empirical evidence supporting this is overwhelming. But I wrote on this issue not for once myself, it is pleasant to read similar thoughts from a professional mathematician. 

In other news, meanwhile, Russian government is buying back all shares held by Russia's Central bank in Russia's main consumer bank SberBank (in Russian). Do you smell that smell(c)? Ahh, poor-poor dear German Gref, the CEO of SberBank, the boy always complained that Russia is a nation-downshifter  and, in general, is very backward. Well, I am sure Gref's "expertise" will be in demand among people attending Davos forums. But as Russian government stated--Russia's Central Bank having shares of SberBank is a, and I quote, conflict of interests. Take this news any way you want, but paraphrasing Mr. Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain)--the reports of death of Russia's financial sovereignty have been greatly exaggerated.    

Total Recall-2.

Before I start--a disclaimer: this is to give an impression, not to gloat or be condescending. It is for educational purposes only. 

This is so funny how it all coincided with the whole vector of my series of posts about military education. Almost surreal.  I am on record that Bologna Process, all these Bachelor's and Master's Degrees are useless inventions in the world where something else is needed entirely for a serious and deep education. Now get this, today:

Президент России Владимир Путин поставил под сомнение разделение обучения на бакалавриат и магистратуру. «Это модная схема или в этом есть какой-то смысл». Кроме того, министр просвещения Ольга Васильева заявила, что бакалавриата недостаточно для обучения гуманитарным специальностям. Глава ведомства считает, что бакалавриат – «всего лишь незаконченное высшее образование».

Translation: The President of Russia Vladimir Putin express doubts about separation of education for Bachelor and Master degrees. "Is this some kind of fad, does it make any sense?" Moreover, The Minister of Education Olga Vasilieva declared that Bachelor is not enough for humanities education. She (Vasilieva) thinks that Bachelor's Degree is merely incomplete higher education.  

Finally! This stupid and baneful European gradation of "degrees" came to post-Soviet Russia on the heels of devastating "reforms" of by a bunch of creeps in power in 1990s. It had a disastrous influence on Russia's always very impressive higher education. Yet, leading Russia's universities, such as the cradle of Russia's (and world's) space program, nuclear power and weapons, Bauman Moscow State Technical University (MGTU), among many others, still maintains the program of Specialitet (Specialist). Take a look:

Specialist Ed is highlighted in Yellow.

Now, let us define what Specilaist is: 

Специалитет — это традиционный для России уровень высшего образования, подразумевающий пятилетнее обучение. Выпускнику присваивается степень «специалист» и выдается государственный диплом о высшем профессиональном образовании. В связи с переходом в 2011 году на государственные образовательные стандарты III поколения и присоединении России к Болонской декларации осуществлен переход на двухуровневую систему образования: бакалавриат (1 уровень высшего профессионального образования) и магистратура (2 уровень высшего профессионального образования). В рамках специалитета были специальности и специализации, а в рамках бакалавриата — направления и профили.     

Translation: Specialist, is a traditional for Russia (and USSR, I may add) level of higher education implying 5 year long study. The graduate is granted degree of Specialist and receives diploma (degree) of Higher Professional Education. In 2011 due to the transfer to the educational standards of the III  generation and Russia joining Bologna declaration and transferring to two-tier system of education: Bachelor's (1st level of higher professional education) and Master's (2nd  level of higher professional education). Within the framework of Specialist type education, specialties and specializations do exist, within Bachelor's--only general directions and profiles. 

Confusing? Hell, yes. Now let me explain what five-year long higher education was in USSR. In reality it was 6 academic years long due to Soviet military academies studying full day on every Saturday, with the exception of holidays. Calculate the number  of the work weeks for each of the five years? Right--additional year of education. Here comes another thing in modern Russia, people with B.S. (Bachelor's) in engineering, as an example, are viewed in very many places as nedouchki (not fully educated people). I happen to agree with such harsh assessment. In STEM, to become a good level professional roughly 50 weeks x 4 years= 200 weeks, and 50 x 6 years= 300 weeks (all very roughly) in case of specialist or, for that matter, Master, compare very unfavorably. I am, of course, not talking about humanities. A remarkable comment to the news of Putin and Vasilieva effectively putting this stupid two tier system down as, pardon my French, complete crap and hinting on return to good ol' superb Soviet professional Specialist education reads like this:

          И кому-то понадобилось 25 лет, чтобы это понять...   

Translation:  It took somebody 25 years to finally figure this out...

Here comes second important notion--Russian and Western STEM higher educations are simply NOT-compatible on a fundamental level because even today, after disastrous "reforms" of 1990s, kids in Russia (I am not even talking about USSR) who aspire for STEM higher education receive in public school the volume of instruction in math, physics, chemistry or geography to name a few subjects, which is beyond the grasp of most Western schools, including elite private ones. This was even more true in Soviet times where average Soviet school graduate received three times more instruction in math, physics, chemistry and biology than it was stipulated for the entrance to MIT. Not to mention the fact that institutions of such level as Bauman's MGTU, Moscow State University, Novosibirsk SU etc. still retain own ENTRANCE exams beyond the required scores at standardized school exams known as EGE. Here is a typical problem in Physics (1 level of priority) at the entrance exams, that is upon graduation from public school, to MGTU. 

Translation: the bubble of gas  with the diameter d has occurred at the bottom of the pond. During ascent to the surface its diameter increased n-times. Find the depth of this pond in this place. Atmospheric pressure Po, coefficient of surface tension (lower case sigma) and water's density p (rho) to be considered known. During the expansion gas temperature remains constant. 

Here is the solution:

A typical problem for a school graduate. Requirements for entrance to MIT you can see here. While tests for Physics you may see here--as expected from College Board.  In fact, you are not even required to take Physics exam, you can take Biology instead. Wanna know what Math 1 stands for? Browse MIT site. Hell, while at it go to Math 2 also, and why not. The point? The point is that students who have to solve trigonometric equations like this by the 10th grade:

an extremely easy equation based on basic identities and quadratic substitutions, will have very little difficulty after going though hell of physics-math-language entrance exams getting to serious calculus and differential equations, not to mention mechanics and, eventually, weapons' and industrial design.  And that is the only thing that matters--HOW hard it is for future elite to go through this academic survival course. In my case add here nightmarish conditions of a brutal military regimen, especially the boot (and especially in Baku in Summer) and combination of simply unrelenting pressure of academics combined with an incessant sleep deprivation, hunger and necessity to carry out military duties ranging from duties in company quarters to actual guard duties of naval academy arsenal and classified facilities. If you survived the first year (many didn't), our company shrank in 1980 from 4 platoons and roughly 125 cadets to 3 platoons of about 90 cadets. The same trend was in other new companies--washouts numbered in many dozens. Symptomatically the first year of academy is called Guilty Without Guilt (Bez Viny Vinovatye) after Alexander Ostrovsky's famous play. As the senior (starshina) of our company in 1980, then himself a cadet of the 4th year (a normal practice of appointment of senior cadets to command 1st-2nd year companies, assistant to officers in charge. used to say--you will be like that until you stop shitting with home made pies, then, maybe something will come out of you....Damn he was right. It begins to dawn on you once you enter the world of serious military technology and weapons, and people who use them--that is a cultural shock. 

To Be Continued....

Military Power (Cont'd-2)

So, what is a "framework" for comparison? Speaking in a very broad terms, and here I am not writing an academic thesis, but rather a popular explanation on military power, a framework is a taxonomy (or set of taxonomies) of sorts which allows to relate military powers. Since even the American, usually highly globalist, set of doctrines emphasizes a nation-state as a primary player in global politics, we can refer ourselves to a popular metric known as the Composite Index Of National Capability (CINC) which is a measure of nation-state's six resources which are considered to be most important (or as Stephen Biddle defines them as "most consequential") for military (power). They are:

1. Military Personnel;

2. Military Expenditure;

3. Steel/Iron Production;

4. Energy Consumption;

5. Total Population;

6. Urban Population. 

This, oh, hell yes, taxonomy is a favorite "predictor" of victory and defeat for proponents of the Material Preponderance Theory of military power. The higher is the nation state's global share of those totals, the theory goes, the higher is the score and, consequently, the more it is militarily powerful. It is, obviously, calculated as an arithmetic average (mean). You can review those basic, 5th grade level, formulas in Wiki, as well as review the ranking of nations in according to CINC. 

    Composite Index Of National Capability

Even after the brief review of both: "math" behind this theory and the table, granted it is from 2007, it becomes painfully clear that the theory is either wrong or incomplete, which is a "softer" version of wrong. I would suggest the latter, while Stephen Biddle went further and altogether discounted (or even rejected) all available "military power" theories in favor of his own (in reality, not) "theory" of forces deployment as a main predictor of victory or defeat. He wrote a good book on this issue, which is worthy of reading, but Biddle's "predictors" are still NOT ENOUGH, nor his "sample space" creates enthusiasm among true aficionados of military history:

         

WORTH READING.

Here we encounter couple of terms, which are the part of any military doctrine--Victory and Defeat. Doctrines, of course, are not written for achieving a defeat but are developed for the opposite objective--achieving a victory. We will review what defeat and victory are later, but for now, we should ask ourselves a question of how much is missing in those, obviously incomplete, 6 points of the CINC. This brings us back to the square one--WHAT FOR military power.We also have to define Superpower or fairly trendy Hyperpower. This hyperpower term is very popular in the midst of neocon Parnassus which is well known for its outlandish military and geopolitical "theories" but, since the term exists, we may as well define what is behind it.  

We start with defensive posture in CINC framework in order not to become overly general and not to reduce the argument to platitudes. 


1. Military Personnel.

This refers to numbers and quality of armed forces' personnel and mobilization resources of the nation (remember, we are talking about nation-states?). In general, it is about how good nation's actual military people are and how good (and large) are its mobilization resources. Couple of the major metrics of the military personnel quality are its educational and intellectual capabilities. They, those capabilities, translate directly into combat capability, especially on the modern battlefield which started to emerge during WW II. Sensors' and computers' paradigm shift happened already on the battlefields of WW II and by 1960s satellites, radar, modern communications, advanced sonar, new materials, new ammunition, gyro-inertial navigation complexes and advanced weapon systems became  every-day reality of modern armed forces. That meant only one thing--a requirement for modern soldier and, especially, sailor to be prepared and educated well enough to operate a very complex military technology. 

Enter Admiral Rickover, who, as early as 1950s, recognized the importance of this "personnel' issue and, as he usually did with anything, created a lot of commotion. So much so that US educational establishment was forced to publicly debate him, especially in regards to what Rickover defined as...."Russian educational menace" (c)

 Russian Educational Menace.

While Western Cold War propaganda was portraying Soviets as backward and robot-like, the shocker of Sputnik forced Life Magazine to seriously re-evaluate the reality and when it did:

Life Magazine 


it turned out that average Soviet public school graduate was receiving three times more instructions in math, physics, chemistry and biology than it was stipulated for the entrance to....Massachusetts Institute Of Technology (MIT). That fact had a major strategic ramifications. Rickover got the message. Yet, the myth of educational (that is qualitative) superiority of the US military personnel endured, and continues to endure, despite the fact that even today, after two decades of debilitating and criminal reforms, Russian (forget Soviet) public school education, especially when it comes down to STEM instructions is far superior to the American one. Obviously, it absolutely doesn't mean that every military man of Soviet/Russian Armed Forces was or is Einstein reincarnate,  absolutely not. Both yesterday and today Russian Armed Forces continue to have a substantial number of the dumbest sons of bitches who would make Three Stooges look like geniuses. What it all means, is that on average intellectually Soviet/Russian enlisted military personnel was at least on par with the best (read American, as it is a popular point, at least in US) military personnel and thus was capable always (as 75 years of recent history proved beyond the shadow of a doubt) to be very adaptive to the modern battlefield and capable of operating most complex weapon systems effectively. It also means that in terms of trainability, that is ability to obtain and hone most complex combat skills, Russian average military man is....well, pretty good. In Soviet/Russian combat training methodology those are still known as Complex of ZNU (Znaniya, Navyki and Umenia--Knowledge, Skills and, ahem, Skills again). I would leave elaborations on IQ and its distribution issue to Anatoly Karlin, after all, if not for his post on military power, I, probably, wouldn't write anything dedicated to this specific issue for a long-long while. As per officer corps, I will touch upon it later. 

The question here is: can this complex of skills or, more generally, educational-intellectual capability to fight modern war be quantified? Yes, it can. In fact it was quantified long ago. For anyone, even remotely acquainted with combat training, it is known that most of the tasks carried out by military personnel are split into the set of constituent elements which are described by numbers. From the time it takes a soldier (sailor) to get his personal weapon ready to be used and standard deviations while shooting targets (or enemy) to the times of changing damaged block in radar or dealing with any issue of ship's or sub's damage control--everything was quantified. Hence the regimented  and, frankly, quite uncomfortable existence of military professionals the world over. Once we get those numbers, we can, theoretically, compare the quality of military personnel, by going number by number of every conceivable element of combat training and operations, granted, of course, that those numbers will become available after being declassified. Hell, we can always  play games with some functionality and use exponential function as a descriptive tool of the military personnel's quality. How about this:

  Quality= Ce^(quality of shooting+quality of eating+quality of running + quality of whatever)


As long as we assign numerical coefficient to any quality, speaking in a very generalized manner, we can always concoct some sort of the metric. This metric can give us some insight into what is going on. As an example, after Royal Navy's disastrous acquaintance with Exoset missiles during Falkland's War in 1982 and the loss of HMS Sheffield, US Navy made correct conclusions and when USS Stark got hit by two Exocets in 1987 the crew of Stark have, certainly, given an excellent account of themselves while fighting for ship's survival. The ship survived and, eventually, returned to the fleet. In this respect, that is damage control, Stark's crew exhibited an excellent capability or quality. The problem of this metric, however, is in this coefficient C in our:

                 Ce^(whatever the hell we want to put here)

We can quantify whatever we want and, if we have too much time on our hands, we can delve even deeper into the fascinating world of mathematics. After all, there are numerical expressions of even geopolitics, such as Vladimir Potehin's Theorems of Strategic Advantages Of Central Localities. If anyone wants to see how our world could be quantified, you can see it here:

     Potehin, Theorems Of Geopolitics (In Russian)

 

This looks about right;-) I am being facetious, of course. We are not going to go  deep into the math, with the exception of Lanchester-Osipov's differential equations, really simple ones, and some Salvo Modelling, which is even simpler. The problem with this coefficient C is in fact that it is realistically not quantifiable. After all, wars are fought by PEOPLE, humans and we are very complex machines, especially so under duress which what military service actually is--cascading stages of constant duress.  Remember Napoleon's maxim that in war "The moral is to the physical as three to one".

Napoleon Maxims 

How can we give number to this "C"?  How can we quantify morale? The trick is, we still can do it but we have to consider a culture. As Brereton Greenhouse recites in his The Israeli Experience when speaking about Arab and Israeli pilots: "Courage they had in abundance, but they lacked "the high degree of our (Israeli) pilots' personal identification with their assignments...." ...There also was the unquantifiable psychological element explained by the Israeli flight leader who reported on the combat. "A good pilot", he said, "is not merely a mixture of skill, resourcefulness, discipline and good judgement, but also, even primarily, an outgrowth of the spiritual values and the cultural level which have nurtured him..." 
"Case Studies In The Achievement Of Air Superiority", Editor Benjamin Franklin Cooling, Center For Air Force History, Washington, D.C., 1994, page 580.

Here we are getting into the field of factors which produced things of the magnitude of Brest Fortress, USS Samuel Roberts (DE 413), Cruiser Varyag and Stalingrad. That will require very serious elaborations and we are not even half-way through discussion of the Military Personnel factor. 

To be continued..........