A New Product.

B (Bernhard) of Moon Of Alabama posted today a good review of the situation between Qatar and KSA (and others) and this point by him should be explained:

  

It has friendly relations with Russia. Yesterday the Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani talked with President Putin:

Russian-Qatari cooperation, primarily in the trade, economic and investment areas, was discussed, and the results of the meeting of the bilateral Intergovernmental Commission in April 2017 were highly praised.

International issues were also discussed. Vladimir Putin reaffirmed Russia’s principled position in favor of settling crises by political and diplomatic means, through dialogue.

Translation: Qatar offered additional money for Russia's support. A preliminary deal was made but there was no promise (yet) of full Russian support in a military conflict.

B makes an excellent point here in a sense that, far from being damaging, say for Russia, this Saudi-Qatari conflict may present yet another opportunity for marketing of one of the most potent, if not THE most potent, Russia's export products--geopolitical stabilization. One may ask, what is that. Well, you can see this product now on full display in Syria. Consider now where was Syria and Assad's government two years ago and where it is now. In 2015, despite efforts by Iran and Hizbullah, Syria still struggled with ISIS and the calls to attack Assad were getting louder in Washington. This all changed with Russia Air-Space Forces and Forces of Special Operations (SSO) being deployed to Syria. As Assad himself admitted two days ago: the worst is behind us. 

Nobody with even rudimentary sense of reality would debate the fact of Bashar Assad being a pivotal figure for Syria not only for now, but for the future. While thesis (a popular one), that Russia doesn't abandon her allies (which is not entirely true--remember Najibullah), may be used as currently valid explanation for Russia sticking with Assad, there is no denial of the fact here that current Russia is not Soviet Union and she pursues objectives in her foreign policy which are different from those of the USSR. Apart from fostering relations with other nations, Russia, using Corben Dallas' dictum "you play soft, we play soft, you play hard, we play hard", likes not only to be flexible but also to be compensated for what she does, or sells, if one wishes. Russia sells stability and this commodity is hot-hot-hot. Forget about Libya where Russia is already establishing relations with General Haftar, looks like, considering the speed with which Qatari Foreign Minister called Lavrov, Russia is in for the big time and money because Qatar, which is more "competitive" than Russia, surely would love to have this very Russia on her side for a simple reason--Qatar wants to preserve herself (which is only natural) and Russia already has a pretty impressive record of propping up governments which are due for a "regime change". 

Cynical? You bet, but can one imagine what price an enormously rich Qatar would be willing to pay to Russia for her making some moves which would stabilize Qatari ruling elite and provide some guarantees? Mind you, there will be more than money involved but a lot, and I mean a lot, of geopolitical favors, including some things related to terrorism, of which Qatar is a big supporter. Corben Dallas stratagem in action--chose you own play, soft or hard. This is how big geopolitical realism is practiced. This is also how nations are stabilized, the contracts and money follow. It is also a great lesson in transition between hard power to a soft one and vice-versa. In the world which is increasingly destabilized due to wholesale crisis of the Pax Americana "system" such an ability is a truly hot commodity. 

Some Other Thought On Qatar Crisis.

The ongoing crisis between (mostly) KSA and Qatar, which now Kuwait tries to mediate, presents another opportunity to set one very wrong right. I mean, of course, a Soccer World Cup 2022 which is supposed to be held in that shithole--a decision by FIFA which can only be explained by Qatar bribing decision-making body of FIFA. You may recall, that Qatar, which is not fit by any metric to host the most important global sports event, was preferred over Unites States, which not only has a world class soccer infrastructure but also has an experience with hosting World Cup 1994. Yes, the booze and partying (and rowdiness) which accompany every major soccer event are also as American as they are German, Russian, British or Italian. How the hell, Sharia-ridden  hell-hole ended hosting the event which, apart from a wonderful game, is a global party is beyond me.

I was stunned when learned that US, which was a natural choice for WC 2022, was bypassed in favor of Qatar. Now, it is as good of a time as any to bring up political instability in the Middle East as a huge argument and return hosting of the World Cup 2022 to a country which gets top grades on any world cup metric. Apart from the world-class stadiums, the United States has an excellent experience in safety and security for such massive events. Good infrastructure, good (and bad) booze, partying, vast numbers of relatively affordable hotels, motels and hostels. In the end, inevitable atmosphere of celebration--those are qualities which Qatar can not possibly have, even if they try. So, time to start a petition, maybe? 

        RETURN WORLD CUP 2022 BACK TO THE USA 

P.S. Do I have personal vested interest in it? Hell yeah. If I live through 2022 I would love to attend;) And no, I am not going to Qatar.         

A "Competitiveness" Fraud.

Two very recent, and seemingly unrelated, events caught my attention.  

1. Publication of IMD 2017 World  Competitiveness Ranking;

2. Qatar being thrown under the bus by his Arab neighbors led by the ever anti-terrorism and human rights vigilant Saudi Arabia. 

Frankly, I will enjoy the show of two terrorists states, of KSA and Qatar, spitting at each other--both richly deserved to be declared terrorists states and be put under severe international sanctions. But since this is not going to happen, the next best thing is to observe two medieval, albeit rich, satrapies going at it. But while anticipating those two shitholes trying to outdo each-other in terrorism accusations (it is, actually, funny), the pp.1 is more important. 

This Swiss, supposedly very authoritative and internationally renown, business-school's "competitiveness" rating should be something really-really solid, very "scientific" and very revealing. Well, guess what, it is not. It is the same contrived crap which has no relation with reality and here is why: 

Food lines in Qatari supermarkets

Qatar today rushed into supermarkets to grab whatever food is available since, in accordance to this Swiss outlet (which prides itself on being a NASA of competitiveness rankings), Qatar in 2017 ranks higher than:  

   

And:   

Let's list which nations Qatar, which produces nothing, "leads" and, in accordance to numerous sources:

 In 2012, Qatar was ranked third from the bottom of the 65 OECD countries participating in the PISA test of maths, reading and skills for 15- and 16-year-olds, comparable to Colombia or Albania, despite having the highest per capita income in the world

So, those nations are: China, Australia, Republic Of Korea, Japan, Austria, Russia (but then again, Saudi Arabia and Lithuania are higher than Russia), just to name a few. Get it, boys and girls? In modern Western "economics" the fact that one builds space stations, leads the world in education, builds best cars in the world, builds best airplanes, best weapon systems, produces best engineers and scientists--all that doesn't matter. Even the food rush in Qatari stores will not prove to those Swiss morons who came up with this POS "rankings" that truly competitive economies do not rush food stores unless directly attacked. They do not do this for a simple reason--because they are self-sufficient and are able to feed themselves, apart from doing other serious things. But for IDM it really is not an argument. Apart from Qatar, as well as most ME satrapies, being, using good ole' John McCain's parlance, merely gas stations camouflaging as countries, IDM, it seems, doesn't mind looking like a bunch of imbeciles who are ready to come up with any nonsense as long as it pays for pseudo-academic sinecures. 

As Correlli Barnett wrote 40+ years ago:

"As Adam Smith, the founder of liberal economics, put in 1776:"By pursuing his own interest (an individual) frequently promotes that of society the more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." It was Adam Smith who formulated the doctrine of Free Trade, the keystone of liberalism, which was to exercise a long-lived and as baneful effect on British power as Wesley and Whitefield's preaching. Adam Smith attacked the traditional "mercantilist" belief that a nation should be generally self-supporting.... According to liberal thinking, a nation was no more than so many human atoms who happened to live under the same set of laws.."

And while a diplomatic crisis between Qatar and other Arab states is important and may have some bearing on prices of oil and gas, it is Western economic "science" which is an unmitigated disaster and which, to a large degree, is responsible for unending economic crisis which engulfed Europe and the United States. It is not surprising then that we are where we are in the world where virtual money buy virtual services and "products" without benefiting overwhelming majority of people, because they are... virtual, unreal. The same world in which Qatar is more competitive than Japan or Russia, and where Saudi Arabia fights Islamic terrorism. So, who is bigger fool then, semi-literate medieval terrorist states which produce nothing but oil and gas, and even then--thanks to Western science and technology, or people who try to use pseudo-science to convince others that black is white? In the end, I can come up with a very well justified ranking of academic fraud and this one will be way more precise than any "competitiveness" trash IMD provides. In fact, in this academic fraud ranking, IMD will be very close to the top, together with Qatar's only top competitive position--in terrorism sponsoring ranking. No statistics is needed for that.  

Very Personal It Was Then And I won The Bet.

These were early 1990s and we were sitting with my dearest American friends (well, almost relatives now...) on the balcony of their wonderful house (she was and still is huge TV executive and he owned restaurants and Ferraris--they are divorced today) looking at Puget Sound, drinking coffee. And I asked them how they liked California Dreaming in Beach Boys version. They almost saw it as in insult and said that this is Mamas And Papas song. I told them that I know, M&P double LP was officially issued in Soviet Union and it was collection of their best, plus, of course, Michelle Phillips was the most beautiful thing ever, then. But there was this stunning Beach Boys cover of the masterpiece--they didn't believe me.  Well, there was but there was no Youtube then. As much as I love the original, the cover was absolutely stunning.

Original (and immortal by now):

But, there was the cover (guess who features there in the white dress as a ghost), and it was stunning. Now I take my revenge;-) I won......

Down The Memory Lane.

Stumbled upon this very fresh photograph (in Moscow) today and suddenly was taken down the memory lane:  

Ah, the summer of 1980--the last summer of personal civilian freedom, the hottest Summer on memory in Baku, Moscow Olympics, entrance exams to Naval Academy and this song blaring from so many open Baku windows. 

    

Damn, Debbie was drop dead gorgeous and the music was so good, it stood the test of time. And the Heart Of Glass was not the only thing which made those biorhythms get in sync... 

Finally, A Valuable Addition To Politcal "Science" Degrees.

Yes, Megyn Kelly (formerly of FOX NC) made headlines today, first when she moderated  21st St. Petersburg International Economic Forum next to Vladimir Putin. 

And now, the whole world holds its breath in anticipation of what message and meaning Kelly's dress will have when she interviews on Sunday good ole' Volodya on the most important issues facing the world. The whole "analytical" piece on Yahoo News was dedicated to this. Quoting from this serious and, what is most important, timely analysis (2 000 + comments, no less)

...while out and about promoting her book, Settle for More (the cover of which features her in a sleeveless dress), and attending other typical celebrity events, she has given us so many different views of her sculpted deltoids. She even told the Times that she wore that dress again, saying, “I felt very strongly, I was not going to be defined by what someone else deemed appropriate.”

Man, talk about serious issues. In the end, the author tells us, that without fashion intelligence (FBI? Fashion Bureau Of Investigations) and analytic organizations such as NSA (National Shopping Agency) we, oh, the horror! will face this:

Then again, this blue dress is her evening attire for a state dinner and photo op with Putin and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who are both speaking at the economic forum’s plenary session, where Kelly is the moderator. But if she chose to keep it on for her interview on Friday, well, in her words, it’s on us to get our heads around it. 

I don't know how to live now, since I will not be able to get my head around it since I am simply unqualified to interpret messages and meanings of Megyn Kelly's dresses and other attires. This horrible situation may call for a new academic field of attire interpretive science, which goes really well with such fields as political "science" and journalism. Meanwhile, I would suggest Kelly, who is a known expert on Russian hacking and other national security issues to come to Putin's interview completely... naked. That will show them, those deplorables, and Putin what real freedom looks like. You know, freedom from decency, professional integrity, honesty and other obsolete, old fashion values. Coming naked to this interview will finally leave nothing to imagination and may actually show what a giant self-serving cun. ... I mean, fearless journalist Kelly is. In the end, she is "not going to be defined by what someone else deemed appropriate". Real facts and issues be damned. 

 

A Lesson In Delusion.

This morning I stumbled upon some paper from Major Amos Fox who was (is) a student at the School of Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth, KS. This couldn't have come at more opportune moment, against the background of Ukrainian National Security Council (SNBO) big honcho (and war criminal) Alexandr Turchinov (aka Bloody Pastor) promising his troops to take Moscow (in Russian). So, the acquaintance with Maj. Fox's fairly fresh paper titled: Battle of Debal’tseve: the Conventional Line of Effort in Russia’s Hybrid War in Ukraine was a lucky coincidence. It also goes back to the very beginning of this very blog where the importance of OODA Loop and situational awareness were underscored in the series of posts.  

My task here is not to review Fox's paper but stress, yet again, the importance of a solid grounding in reality when dealing with war, since as famous truism goes--one can not make correct decisions based on a wrong information, let alone lacking a solid knowledge. When one reviews today some US institutional reactions to the outside world--be it  ad nauseam Russiagate conspiracy pushed relentlessly on unsuspecting public by corrupt US media and political establishment, or be it a virtual world of Wall Street economy--one can not fail to notice this disturbing, dangerous and continuous (in fact, accelerating) departure from the reality. I am not going to elaborate on that now, but with all my due sincere respect for the US Armed Forces, I was literally floored by what I started to read. Especially when Fox provides a rationale for the study of the Battle of Debaltsevo:

It is the most recent major battle of the Russo-Ukrainian War, where the significance is that the battle reflects the collective conventional lessons learned by the Russian army throughout the conflict.

It seems that people in the West continue to live in a bubble of a complete disinformation when it comes to the so called "Russo-Ukrainian War". If this kind of a confusion is permissible for a housewife watching CNN or NBC, the same exhibited by a military professional is, frankly, dangerous since the failure to understand the nature of the conflict (war) is the first and most important strategic blunder which usually leads to the loss of a war, which is bad enough, but what is worse--this confusion may lead to unleashing the war. Vietnam and Iraq come to mind immediately. While there is no doubt that Russian Army learns from the conflict in Ukraine and Russia does support Donbass Republics and their militaries, Russia is not and never was a warring side in the so called "Russo-Ukrainian War" which is a figment of imagination of the West' propaganda-pushers and globalist ideologues. Should Russia have been involved in the "Russo-Ukrainian War", Russia would have had by now a huge pain in the ass in form of most of Ukraine, which would require a huge flow of Russia's resources in order to keep this largely hostile and ungovernable territory under control--a perspective which is not in Russia's interests and Russia explicitly refused to pursue such an objective. 

By now, it is an axiom, not even a theorem that US "intelligence" organizations are simply ignorant, despite their major resources dedicated to Ukraine and a constant flow of information from the ground. One also gets a better understanding of the dynamics of a civil war (and that is precisely what it is) in Ukraine once all propaganda trash is removed from serious political and military considerations behind combined West's instigation of a bloody coup in Kiev. While Fox makes some correct references within operational framework, he completely discards main Russia's reaction to the West's "plan" for Ukraine which was to use her as a ram against Russia. In this sense, Ukrainian civil war must be viewed within the framework of geopolitical clash between the United States (and her European vassals) and Russia--a reality, which many in US desperately try to hide despite overwhelming empirical evidence of US intelligence and other government organizations and personas being directly involved in the Ukrainian catastrophe. The war in Ukraine is not between Ukraine and Russia--this hypothetical war would last a week or two and would result in a complete annihilation of Ukrainian Armed Forces and a collapse of a Kiev regime. This war is, at least was, between US  powerful neocon (globalist) lobby entrenched in American institutes of power, and blessed by then US President Barak Obama, and Russia. Viewing this war outside this framework does not provide a proper strategic angle and, in fact, obfuscates real objectives of the sides, including on the operational level.  

But what about actual military part of Fox's paper? Here we immediately run into the myth of Gerasimov Doctrine and of hybrid warfare yet again.

Russia’s hybrid warfare is deftly articulated in what is known as the Gerasimov Doctrine. Pundits argue whether Gerasimov’s ideas encompass a new mental model of warfare or a new approach to warfare, but Russian action indicates the efficacy of the Gerasimov Doctrine in driving Russian operational art, planning and tactical action

I wrote a short piece on that "hybrid warfare" crap a year ago.  I by no means fancy myself a military "thinker" or "theorist" but that is what I wrote:

I don't know how this idiotic term came about but whoever invented this label should have known better. The reason for my irritation is simple--all warfare is "hybrid" by definition and widely known in narrow military-analytical circles as Gerasimov Doctrine is nothing more than further development of, to a significant degree, Marxist view on the warfare. Warfare is more than just application of military power and is fought in many fields simultaneously. Yes, you know all those fields such as propaganda, operations of influence, strategic diversionary operations, info operations, famous Soviet "maskirovka", economic warfare and on, and on, and on.  

An idiotic meme invented in the deep recesses of US military-entertainment complex. Charles Bartles, from the same Fort Leavenworth's Foreign Military Studies Office, gives a retort to this completely superficial "theory" and stressed:       

Of note, there is a general consensus in Russian military circles that hybrid war is a completely Western concept as no Russian military officer orstrategist has discussed it, except to mention the West’s use of the term, or to mention the West’s use of hybrid warfare against Russia.The Russian military has been adamant that they do not practice a hybrid-war strategy. Moreover, there have been many Russian commentaries that state this concept is nothing new, that the aspects of hybrid war mentioned by Western analysts have been practiced since warfare began.

In my piece on the so called "Gerasimov Doctrine" I listed a number of major wars, from earliest to latest times, which would otherwise be known not as Napoleonic Wars or WWII but as "hybrid wars". But it seems now that for many the understanding of a war as a combined effort across the whole spectrum of state's activities (military, intelligence, political, diplomatic, economic, ideological, cultural etc.) is beyond the reach. Why, then, such a desire for doctrine-mongering and creation of purely mental structures in the West when it comes to war? Some of Fox's sources used in his paper are dated by 2016, yet he still repeats yet another myth:

The Russian army, like many armies in recent years, eliminated divisions and aligned its expeditionary capability in its brigades and regiments.

The  statement is false since evidently very few really paid attention to the fact of a massive roll back of Serdykov's "reforms" in Russian Armed Forces, which, among many things saw the return of thousands of forcefully "retired" Russian officers back to service and return of Russian Army to a division structure on the most threatening strategic  axes (directions)--Western. Despite Fox constantly referring to Donbass Republics' military forces as "Russian Forces", despite being supported in some important respects, those forces emerged primarily as people militias in the time (mostly throughout 2014) when Russia's response to Ukrainian events was largely situationally driven. While there is no doubts that some Russian special forces and intelligence officers are on the ground, as well as there are so called "vacationers", it is impossible to close eyes to a massive flow of Russian volunteers to Donbass. Most Russian men served in the armed forces. There are NO regular Russian Army units in Donbass, however, despite constant, unfounded claims and pure propaganda BS being perpetuated as a fact in the West. Fact is, many in the West do not even understand the simple fact that Russia is not a party to Minsk Agreements. Yet, even from the vantage point of 2016, when it became fairly clear what forces (political, military and intelligence) were involved in Ukraine, the myth of "Russian Forces" being in Donbass continues to be used, courtesy of such organizations as ISW (Institute For The Study Of War) whose "analysis" involves such neocon "pearls" as this "report".  

There is nothing wrong with Major Fox preparing his paper and it is not his fault that he has to draw from the pool of tailored "facts" or open fabrications. But that is what kills, in the end, the whole purpose of supposedly academic research into something which provided a major political and cultural shock to the US. So, after reviewing all facts on the ground, one has to ask the question, especially when one considers US monstrous military-political think-tankdom, well-financed and promoted--what would it take for this so called "analytical" machine to face the facts on the ground? How many more wars need US to lose before all this pseudo-academic environment, which generates an astounding amount of pseudo-analytical trash based on hearsay, suppositions, "faulty" intelligence and down right incompetence (such as "reports" of Ukrainian military, aka "strongest Army in Europe"), will admit simply that they are not good at what they do and long ago live in the world of delusions? I doubt they will, precisely because they suck and would rather lie to cover this up. But then again, if not for Russians Hillary Clinton would have been POTUS, right?