US Ukraine Delu..., I Mean Policy.

By now, I usually avoid reading any "analytical" materials from US main stream "media" or any other "intelligence" organizations--some materials of Communist Party of the Soviet Union Congresses contained more substance and actual analysis. Nor am I of a very high opinion of many representatives and senators in US Congress--incompetence (corruption) and delusion are a defining characteristics of many of them. Yet, even if to discount a traditional spin on everything, US Secretary of the State Rex Tillerson's statement on Ukraine (that is Russia) and the so called Minsk Agreements yesterday was a remarkable one. As Bloomberg Reports, Tillerson stated that:

Tillerson said the administration wants the flexibility to intensify or ease sanctions against Russia depending on whether relations improve. He emphasized that he sees the Ukraine issue as separate from evidence that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. election.

“It is very possible that the government of Ukraine and the government of Russia could come to a satisfactory resolution through some structure other than Minsk but would achieve the objectives of Minsk, which we’re committed to,” Tillerson said at the hearing Wednesday. “So our caution is I wouldn’t want to have ourselves handcuffed to Minsk if it turns out the parties decide to settle this through a different agreement."

Obviously, as was expected, some of US congressmen disagreed.

   

Tillerson’s remarks generated immediate resistance from Representative Eliot Engel, a New York Democrat.

“I hear what you’re saying, but I disagree because I believe that the only thing that Russia understands is tough talk, and if they think that we’re somehow willing to relax sanctions before they’ve complied with the Minsk framework and left Crimea, I think it will just encourage Putin to continue his bullying,” Engel said of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

I think Tillerson knows the game (at least part of it), Engel, on the other hand, doesn't, since exhibit all signs of mental disability which struck so many in US politics so hard. Two points immediately:

1. Engel doesn't know what "tough" is when applied to Russia. If he learns, which is not to be expected, his world would turn upside down.

2. Sanctions. Realistically, Russia doesn't care, whatever sanctions are. No doubt, there are many morons in Congress who would love to cut every single tie with Russia, including financial ties. Obviously, consequences will be disastrous for US-designed institutions first of all, but calculating outcomes is not legislators' forte.

I don't single US Congress out, there are many imbeciles in Russia's State Duma too, not to speak of European Parliament--man, that is where a density of idiocy is off the scale. But then again, "democracies" do tend to produce, at best, a mediocrity, at worst--sleazebags and down right stupid people.  Periodic emergence of truly great statesmen, such as Ike or FDR in American case, merely confirms the rule. Yet, Tillerson's statement is important one and this has everything to do with WHO will be paying for Ukraine minus Donbass (and eventually some areas of Eastern Ukraine). Anybody who is not struck with a severe case of Alzheimer or Dementia can easily recall that current regime in Kiev is flesh and blood of the EU and US, who organized and paid for events of early 2014 which brought to power in Ukraine a bunch of neonazis and oligarchs who got rid off a legitimate (yes, corrupt, but in Ukraine this is the only way) government. 

Things are not that peachy in Ukraine from any point of view. They do not work as planned--such as disastrous campaigns by Ukrainian Armed Forces. Russia also didn't get sucked in directly into this conflict and Armed Forces of LDNR are doing their job just fine. It is also obvious that Russia will not allow any military resolution in Donbass. But, here is the catch. What those "great" strategists from State Department and other neocon think-tanks (Vicki "Fuck The EU" Nuland, anyone?) didn't understand was the fact that Russia is not interested in the whole Ukraine. The wet dream of D.C. neocons was Russia involving herself in Ukraine's civil war and getting stuck in the quagmire didn't come to reality. Russia is not going to pay for Ukraine and the mayhem which is coming (in fact, it is there already) in the process of Ukraine's inevitable disintegration. That leaves EU and US with the necessity to deal with this festering hellhole right in the middle of Europe. What was conceived as a valuable bargaining chip in geopolitical game against Russia is suddenly reduced to a trash, penny stock for Russians and a huge pain in the ass for Europe. Let it deal with it. US, meanwhile, and Tillerson's statement is precisely about that, wants out.

Short of outright genocide of Russians in Ukraine--and there are many of those in EU and US who would love to see that--Russia is not going to intervene. Many loyal Ukrainians and Russo-phones moved to Russia already. Let Western Ukraine deal with her European neighbors such as Hungary and, of course, Poland--it is their business and eventually both Hungary and Poland will grow territory-wise. The rest? Who knows. Ukraine can not be singled out of a larger US geopolitical game which was (still is) designed to weaken and eventually destroy Russia. After Ukraine, overwhelming majority of Russians, including Russian political elites, have no doubts whatsoever about US intentions. In the end, empirical evidence is there, right in a front of Russia's nose. 

Here we have to look at a larger picture. Yes, President Trump was successful in "convincing" Saudi Arabia to "suddenly" develop a huge interest in "investing" in US. This money couldn't have come at a better time for US which, frankly, simply ran out of resources to meaningfully "rule" the world. Trump knows it, he is a smart man. So, in the absence of those resources, and US has way bigger fish to fry than Ukraine, strategic tasks of addressing US internal economic situation, not being thrown out of the Middle East and facing off with China will require immense resources and that leaves Ukraine in a position of a free loader who provides very little, if any, benefit to US' strategic plans. Sorry folks, nothing personal, just business. Now, US needs to extricate herself from Ukrainian quagmire through some acceptable arrangement and without losing her face. I think Russia can accommodate such a desire but only on conditions of EU getting Ukraine on their books. Also, sorry folks, nothing personal--just business. In the end, Rex Tillerson is also a shrewd, highly experienced businessman--he knows how the deals are made and what it takes to close them. Russians know this too. Today, during his Direct Link with Russia Putin was explicit about Russia's intentions in turning Syrian Army into modern force, the same is being done with LDNR forces, which, in case of unpleasant contingencies, may be upgraded really fast into world-class military force. A lot will depend on personal meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, I think they may like each-other, for the rest in D.C.--they better start taking blood thinners to avoid heart attacks or strokes. We'll see....

Timely Pat Buchanan's Question.

Just yesterday Pat Buchanan posted his article Are We Nearing Civil War? at Unz Review. The question in the title of his piece couldn't have come at a more appropriate time. Today, American "left" (which is, in reality, not so much real left as neo-liberal cabal), constantly whipped into anti-Trump frenzy by US low life media (in reality propaganda machine--US doesn't have real main stream media anymore, just some few individual journalists with integrity) gave an answer. Today we all got the result of this anti-Trump insanity: the assault on Republican Congressman House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and his aides at the most profoundly peaceful and American event--baseball practice. The contrasts couldn't have been starker, a deranged "lefty", James Hodgkinson unleashed a 50-round salvo on unsuspecting unarmed people who were playing baseball. 

Now even uber-liberal lefty Yahoo News are forced to disclose this terrorist's (there is no other term for that) state of mind:

A glance at the activity on the Facebook page, which has not been verified, reveals that Hodgkinson was adamantly anti-Republican and detested Trump.The Facebook page contains a steady steam of anti-Trump posts. He said Trump should go to prison for treason and called him the “biggest a—hole we have ever had in the Oval Office.”

Hodgkinson was also a fervent supporter of former Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders, who swiftly condemned the violence on Twitter.

I am not surprised in the least with this, luckily less tragic (most people shot seem to be OK in the long run), outcome. I, not for once, pointed out to the fact of the US being completely divided as a nation, the anti-Trump hysteria unleashed in media is altogether something unprecedented in US modern history. Anti-Russian frenzy, based on ridiculous leaks and platitudes without a tiny shred of any evidence is something straight from pre-war Nazi Germany. Now this. Only irresponsible fanatics (which is a first requirement for people working at CNN, NYT, WaPo, NBC etc.) would deny the obvious connection between not so veiled calls for violence against President Trump and his supporters--be it tasteless, a gutter really, supposedly comic shows such as that of ugly and talentless Kathy Griffin or Shakespeare In The Park where Trump look alike and his family are brutally assassinated on the stage of this, supposedly, play--all that is the toxic, pre-war atmosphere American so called "left", which is a euphemism for HRC's supporters, have created. They now have a very real blood on their hands and a necessity to deal with possible escalation. 

They, US so called "liberal media" bear a direct responsibility for atrocious act in Virginia today. All those Colberts, Maddows, Mahers, Griffins,  turned into a complete tasteless sewer, once great, SNL, HRC's "supporters", most of whom would shit their pants once faced with REAL serious violence they are trying to unleash, all of them are guilty and are complicit in undermining what's left of American Republic. Unlike those wussies I know first hand how it all starts and I don't like what I see in the least. Consequences could be devastating. They still have the choice to stop now or we are looking at the very real perspective of this nation fracturing completely and then, God help us all. I would rather not see such a reality--I know how it may look. I hope that we are not pass the point of no return, at least in terms of bloodshed. As per ideological differences? US is long ago not one, or even two, nations--it is a combination of several of them and for that one may "thank" US Democrats.

EU? There Is Nothing European In EU.

Well, as was expected, Brussels, which turns slowly into multi-cultural cloaca, wants to go down the drain (it is, actually, in the process of doing so) taking with it last vestiges of European civilization. EU opened legal case against three quarters of Visegrad Group--Poland, Hungary and Czechia--for not being suicidal and willing to stay European and preserve their national cultures. I could have gone with (justified, I may add) schadenfreude moment of "I told you so", but for some reason I do not want to since in these European nations we at least see some viable remnants of Europe. My friends just returned from France--not good, not good. Paris? Forget it, it is gone. I do not want the same fate for beautiful Prague, Budapest or, say, Krakow--I am still planning on getting there at some point of time to enjoy art, architecture and great cuisine. 

It is only normal for people of these nations to want to adhere to what is dear to them, not to some bureaucrat in Brussels. In the end, accelerating Islamization of Europe is a result, among other important political and cultural factors, of EU's, and US, big shots thinking that they can bomb the shit out of Middle East and expect no refugees and all the trouble which comes with them. In the same time, all listed East European nations, apart from being EU members, are members of NATO and as such are tied with obligations to those supranational bureaucracies. There are consequences for the actions.  I think, eventually, this whole EU "business" will come to a major conflict with desires of people in Visegrad Group which may at some point fully formalize itself as a distinct military-political and economic alliance. Of course, it will also give Poles a desired leadership role in some group. But whatever is the case, I give people of Eastern Europe on the order of magnitude higher marks for loving their culture than I give to Westerners, who lost their civilization (it is a fait accompli) and now can only negotiate the conditions of their surrender. A lot will also depend on the internal dynamics in Poland, which promises to become very interesting with Ukraine getting her desired visa-free travel, but there is also no denial of the fact of Hungary's Victor Orban emerging in the last few years as a major spokesman and a champion of real European values. Who knows, we'll see, but what we are already seeing is a global power re-balancing and judging by the suicidal intentions of West European and US "elites", the process promises to be rather bumpy. So, let's not turn this:

 

 

Or this:

   

 

 Into this:

 

 

Ike, Strategy Rant #1

Late Stephen Ambrose, who for a while was considered America's foremost scholar on Eisenhower, not for once commented to the effect that Ike was not necessarily that great of a strategist. These comments, evidently shared by some other American historians, good and bad, all derive from the Caesarist  (or Napoleonic, if one wishes) view of the warfare. American military bias to Napoleon and his campaigns is not surprising, Carl Sandburg in his Abraham Lincoln: The War Years (if my Alzheimer doesn't fail me. If mistaken I will correct the reference later)  wrote about frustration of US West Point-graduates with the fact that they, instead of studying Napoleon campaigns, were forced to study this Russian Suvara (Alexander Suvorov). Indeed, ideas of beautiful maneuvers, lightning strikes or strategies developed by a single brilliant military mind were all good for wars fought using linear tactics and cavalry, with set-piece battles. Yet, even those set piece battles culminated in a slaughter on unprecedented scale during the Battle Of Borodino and, in the end, tore away the mantle of pure strategic genius from Napoleon. Brilliant tactician certainly he was, a strategist? A strategy as a system of (military) measures designed to achieve  political objectives of a war (Clausewitz inspired definition, later adopted by Marxists) was something else completely and, when judged against the result achieved, tactical and operational brilliance means very little when the war is lost. 

By WW II, strategic thought became what we know it today--a function of military power, which, in its turn, encompassed a huge spectrum of national capabilities ranging from industries to public education and culture. Real strategists saw the world in a very different light than Napoleon saw it. Modern armies and navies required now immense industries, massive logistical chains, originating in national centers of industry and agriculture, new weapons such as radio, tanks and combat aviation changed the outlook of the war dramatically and changed the way armies were commanded and controlled. WW II was the first war with a full blown C3ISR complex becoming a decisive factor. To command a massive army group of 800 000 troops simultaneously required more than just ability to conduct brilliant maneuvers or inspire troops with pep-talks on the even of the battle, it required a profound understanding of the mechanisms of such a command and control and that, on a strategic level, that is level of large bodies of troops capable to influence the dynamics of a whole campaign, it meant the ability to harmonize a huge number of political, purely military, human and other factors. By 1939 to have such an ability one had to be extremely well educated not only as a good field officer, one had to have a serious both education and pedigree in (general) staff work. 

The fact that Ike graduated first out of 245 officers in Command And General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, KS, in 1925 should be emphasized together with Ike's serious staff pedigree prior to WW II. Yet, the shtick of many in contemporary (since WW II) US historiography, let alone vast US military history amateur circles, is pointing out that prior to WW II Ike didn't (field) command anything larger than tank battalion. But that immediately raises a question, why then, a number of battalion commanders want to attend General Staff  academies in any serious Armed Forces? It is because they know that these are academies which open the door to the command of a much larger units. How being a superb and experienced staff officer is considered a disadvantage, while, if anything else, it is an imperative for anyone who is to be considered a serious military strategist. One of the examples of such General Staff leap into the cohort of outstanding military leaders is Marshal Vasilevsky, who, and you may have guessed it already, never commanded, before entering in 1938 the world of General Staff, anything larger than regiment. Yet, one of the most outstanding military leaders of WW II emerged back into the full field command during Red Army's operations in East Prussia. All that, after Vasilevsky planned and coordinated such battles as Moscow 1941 counteroffensive, Stalingrad, Kursk and Operation Bagration.  Not too shabby for a staff officer. 

How Eisenhower's staff pedigree could be a disadvantage, as many profess, in the war where strategic inception (Zamysel) required immense planning, hence large staffs, remains a complete mystery to me. How being a star graduate of what amounted to Russian (Soviet) equivalent of General Staff Academy is not a perfect pedigree for command of large complex forces and being a good level strategist is also a mystery to me, when speaking about Ike who has an overwhelming empirical evidence in his favor. Serious wars are not fought without serious plans and Eisenhower sure as hell was a good military planner with a good grasp of what was at stake in WW II. It couldn't have been otherwise, since in many important respects serving under George C. Marshall's command was more than ample evidence of Ike's talents. Illiterate references (in many US sources) to Ike's "administrative", a euphemism for staff officer, talents merely underscore a complete lack of understanding what is involved in serious operational and strategic planning and Ike sure has done more than his share of it. He ended up, finally, the greatest American practitioner of military strategy, which becomes even more evident against the background of many today's general officer mediocrities whose "planning" (in reality promoting their own careers) helped to squander American resources and embroil her in useless and unwinnable wars globally. 

Yet, Ike's first attempt on real strategic planning was both noble and professional. The first thing Ike understood--a fact which is largely downplayed or deliberately ignored in many American sources--was the fact that successful Allied strategy in Europe hinged on Red Army. Compare this view with the view of then Senator Harry Truman: "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible." The contrast in attitudes and the level of a strategic thinking couldn't be starker, when Ike wrote in his diary in July 1942, after the Second Washington Conference rejected his and Marshall's Operation Sledgehammer Plan, in favor of Torch.  Depressed and dejected Ike wrote that the prize "we seek is to keep 8 million Russian soldiers fighting Germany. Failing to provide help to Russia will constitute one of the gravest mistakes in history" (need precise quote, this one from memory, but almost exact). You can find this entry in same Stephen Ambrose's national bestseller "The Supreme Commander". Ike's prophesy will come true but Cold War ideological realities helped to not only obfuscate but essentially completely reverse the clock work of the early WW II to a such degree that, in the end, real events and strategic discussions between Allies in 1941-42 have been completely overtaken by Hollywood imagery and a mythology which only now, not least thanks to immense academic efforts of Colonel David Glantz and Lt.Colonel Jonathan House, is being penetrated with the actual facts "on the ground".  

To Be Continued...

Ike-Intro.

This post or, rather, a series of posts was long in the making since required a significant thinking and re-thinking (and recalling) of many details of WW II and Western Allies approach to that war, and, I think, it is as good time as any to start writing about Dwight D. Eisenhower and his role both in WW II and, as a consequence, in what followed until his famous farewell speech on 17 January 1961 from the White House. I stated not for once, that we all still live in the world which was largely formed in the crucible of battles of WW II and it seems it is a good idea to revisit some very important (and crucial) events of that war. So here is a short intro:

--------------

It is  rather an arduous task to discuss WW II, namely European Theater of Operations, with many Americans who, as strange as it sounds, are more or less acquainted with the peculiarities of Allied operations after D-Day. The reason for this difficulty is simple--it is normal to be patriotic and have many biases associated with such a position. The amount of books in the US dedicated to European Theater is immense, so is the number of different TV shows and, of course, there is always Hollywood which is hugely responsible for developing of those American biases when dealing with WW II. Yet, it is, very often, precisely this gigantic number of "studies", narratives, stories and reflections on Allied operation in Europe which creates a problem--for an average American it simply becomes impossible to dig for the truth, especially for the one which requires at least basic understanding of issues of military strategy, operational art and, to a certain degree, tactics. Moreover, understanding of how those three interact and how they relate to a larger military-political picture is even more difficult task, since requires a good grasp on realities of a war, and especially the war as complex and brutal as WW II. Hence, Hollywood and pop-history. 

My personal experiences with these uniquely American attitudes and biases throughout the years ranged from being overwhelmed by militant ignorance on anything WW II related to me, a former Soviet military professional, explaining actual facts of US Army military planning and operations to a number of people who would pass, under normal conditions, for people "well-versed" in US WW II military history. The case in point is me, not for once, being forced, with quotes and even scans of documents, to debate many American WW II history buffs that Operation Cobra was a result of Omar Bradley's idea and planning and that General George Patton was merely an attribute to this operation. But it is almost impossible to break through American Patton's myth, which was enhanced immensely by the famous movie with George C. Scott's genius (and detached from actual war reality) performance, which won him an Oscar. As Ladislas Farago noted in his book, when the movie came out in West Germany early 1970s, Germans couldn't understand how" an obscured American general merited a movie", when there was not one made about Zhukov, Montgomery or even Rommel. But that is what constitutes the main problem--a Hollywood version of WW II and of Allied operations in Europe. Idealized view of the WW II, as merely a combination of artsy maneuvers conducted by military leaders who were modern reincarnations of Napoleon and who were ready to "breakthrough", "pursue", "envelop" or "annihilate", continues to persist in the US. Patton, who was just another Army Commander, and by far not the most remarkable one, among very many generals of anti-Hitler Coalition, merited two major Hollywood motion pictures, while Allied Supreme Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower got himself a 1979 TV mini-series and a rather obscured, yet again TV, 2004 movie with Tom Selleck as Ike--hardly an appropriate tribute to a man, who not only was a huge part in American push, together with incomparable George Marshall, for the Second Front but effectively stopped the war in Korea and went on to become a truly great American President, especially viewed from today's vantage point, against the background of a number of mediocrities who since occupied the White House. In US WWII mythology Ike was and is hardly a persona who fits into American perception of the war, which is not surprising--most Americans simply have no grasp of realities of the warfare in general and of WW II in particular and that is a travesty. 

While Hollywood portrayed Patton as a hand gun whipping, fearless "leader" ready to literally lead his Third Army to, well, even Moscow, Ike's balanced, no-nonsense approach to the realities of his high command, while being militarily admirable, made not a very good material for Hollywood. Yet, both Eisenhower and Patton represent an inherent and, probably, irresolvable contradiction of contemporary American military history, since are counter positioned a strategic and operational reality and a myth, and this brings to the fore the issue of scales and proportions, which is crucial when dealing with WW II. The question is then this: was Ike a great general? 

Here is the catch: real military leadership under conditions of WW II had absolutely nothing to do with the qualities exhibited (and greatly embellished later by his propagandists) by Patton. As studies of his campaigns, especially his debacle at Lorraine, pointed out (such as review by Dr. Christopher Gabel for Combat Studies Institute at US Army Command And General Staff College at Leavenworth, KS) Patton's exploits were "ruthless and reckless". The question is, then, why reckless. It will be answered later. To understand this issue one has to look at the realities of the Western Front's South by Fall of 1944. Realities were such that the Third Army faced "Few of the Germans defending Lorraine could be considered First-rate troops. Third Army encountered whole battalions made up of deaf men, others of cooks, and  others consisting entirely of soldiers with stomach ulcers. The G2 also identified a new series of German formations designated voIksrenadier divisions). These hastily constituted divisions numbered only 10,000." It is hardly a force to be compared to Wehrmacht circa 1941-43 but that is mainly the force on fighting which Patton's mythology is built in the US and the one which obscures serious strategic and operational choices Ike was facing since he, unlike Patton, had two large Army Groups under his direct command and was the one, who, among very few others, was responsible for finally turning Overlord into the actual operation--a command and leadership level of which Patton could only dream about and for which he was ultimately unqualified. But, if one discounts Patton's mythology, which is strictly a local American phenomenon and the one which complicates and, in fact, impedes understanding of WW II dynamics, was Ike, in the end, a good military leader? The answer to this question can be found in identifying qualities which realistically were required for the prosecution of such a war as WW II was. It is immediately possible to say that Ike was qualified to do so and the only debate which is possible here is the one of a style not of a substance of what Ike was doing, especially once one begins to go back to 1941-42 and see how Eisenhower, then assuming the position of the head of Marshall's OPD, viewed European Theater and that will require an excurse into the Sledgehammer ideas. It all comes down to this: 

  

To Be Continued.....       
 

Scott Ritter Gets It.

I seldom browse the pages of Huffington Post--to avoid a stroke--but in a rather dramatic departure from peddling those omnipotent Russkies, who are about to overtake democratic West by means of their hackers and fashion models, HuffPo suddenly published Scott Ritter's piece. You should remember Scott (I sure do) when he was one of the few loud voices who openly challenged US "intelligence" on Iraq possessing vast quantities of WMD--an act of professional and civic duty by US military officer which should be highly commended--after all, the history of Iraq debacle completely vindicated Scott. So, two days ago HuffPo, probably because of a finally dawning realization that all this Russiagate is about to take a dramatic (and catastrophic for US main-stream media) turn, as former FBI director Comey's testimony proved so amply, decided to post non-Russophobic material by an actual professional. 

The article, titled NATO Would Be Totally Outmatched In A Conventional War With Russia,  is long and largely to the point, but this is not purely military but policy issues which Ritter captures so brilliantly. 

The fact is that both NATO and the United States have allowed their national security to be hijacked by Poland and three Baltic nations whose collective hatred of all things Russian creates an inherent tension that the deployment of NATO “tripwire” forces can only exacerbate, and never deter.  Neither London, Paris, Berlin nor Washington, D.C. should permit their larger national security interests to be held hostage by a historical enmity toward Russia that exists in Poland and the Baltics, whether justified or not. NATO’s original mission was to keep the Russians from reaching the Rhine, not fight and die in the same forests and fields surrounding the Masurian Lakes district where Russian and German soldiers died by the hundreds of thousands in 1914 and 1945. Allowing the decision for a general war in Europe between NATO and Russia in 2017 to be made in Warsaw, Riga, Vilnius or Tallinn is the modern day equivalent of placing the fate of 1914 Europe in the hands of a radical Serbian nationalist in Sarajevo, with potentially similarly tragic results.  

It is rather grimly ironic that this reality escapes so many in D.C. "establishment", but then again, visceral Russophobia is not just a feature (and affliction) of  Polish or Baltic "elites", it is as natural and organic to large parts of American establishment, so much so that Mr.Clapper can not contain himself from calling Russians an untermench. Ritter makes a correct conclusion, though:

 A recognition by all parties that America will not automatically fill the gap left by a miserly European defense establishment unwilling to match its harsh anti-Russian rhetoric with blood and steel may actually help ratchet down NATO-Russian tensions before the build-up of military forces along the Suwalki Gap, and elsewhere, reaches the point of no return, triggering a self-fulfilling prophesy of war in Europe no one wants, and no one could win.  

I have nothing to add here. Just read the article.  

Four Oscars To Be Modernized For Russia's Pacific Fleet.

As Igor Korotchenko's blog reports (in Russian), it is official--4 Russia's Pacific Fleet SSGNs of Project 949A  (aka Oscar-II) will be modernized to carry Kalibr family missiles. 72 of them. The announcement was made by Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov. One of the Pacific Fleet Oscars, Irkutsk, is already undergoing modernization and is planned to re-join the fleet in 2021, three others should be modernized by 2025. 

Omsk

It remains to be seen how many of newest Yasen-class (Project 885) SSGNs will join Pacific Fleet or when all 6 of newest missile carrying SSKs will do the same, but judging by the speed with which first six of those have been completed for the Black Sea Fleet, 2025 seems to be a realistic date for completion. Of course, as it is always the case with Russia, things may and, most likely, will change somewhat but it seems that somebody finally started paying attention to the Pacific Fleet which was left to manage with whatever was available to it since the collapse of the Soviet Union. 

Of course, one can not ignore the fact of the two newest SSBNs of the Borey-class (Project 955A) Alexandr Nevsky and Vladimir Monomach serving with the Pacific Fleet, but SSBNs are a completely different commodity than attack subs. The same goes for the surface component and here, apart from Marshal Shaposhnikov undergoing modernization, Pacific Fleet is in dire need for new hulls in its surface component. Looks like, the fleet will be getting, starting this June, long-awaited corvettes of Project 20380. So, by 2025, it seems, Pacific Fleet will have a serious submarine force capable to provide for a massive salvo against any threat, as well as "project", if need be (hopefully, not), against anyone's shores in the Pacific Ocean.  It will be very interesting to observe in the nearest future the way the Pacific Fleet will be getting its face lift, and not by the ships and subs only. New Il-38Ns with Novella complex and Mig-31s modernized to BM version, together with new sensors, should provide a very robust A2/AD capability against any combination of threats.