Iyah May.

No comments. She said it all. 

It Doesn't Matter.

The thing which many people still don't get--Russia negotiates for the sake of negotiations. I don't know how many times I have to explain this:

Ukrainian officials are expressing frustration as U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner repeatedly visit Moscow but delay a promised trip to Kyiv. The hesitation reflects both stalled Ukraine-Russia-U.S. peace talks and Washington’s focus on the Iran conflict, raising concerns in Kyiv that U.S. diplomacy is no longer balanced. Polls cited in local analysis show most Ukrainians doubt U.S.-led negotiations will succeed, with only a minority viewing the U.S. as a reliable partner.

It was repeated by Russian side, including two days ago in Putin's call to Trump that ALL aims of SMO will be achieved. There will be NO "settlement", there will be capitulation either willingly or through full physical annihilation of 404 as a country. 

Meanwhile, POTUS--tell me this is AI? 

Per possible resumption of attacks on Iran. My take, after I recovered from Homeric laughter form Larry's description of the matter:

Donald Trump must have stayed at a Holiday Inn last night because when he departed the White House on Friday to head to Florida to give a speech at The Villages, geriatric community known for Sexually Transmitted Diseases, he thought he was a lawyer. Friday, May 1st, marked the day that he is required by the War Powers Act to seek Congressional approval to continue the war in Iran. But Trump, thinking like an ambulance-chasing attorney, announced that the war with Iran is over.

Is that you cannot put anything, including the most stupid and senseless thing, past this POTUS. Including, of course, a resumption of attacks and even "ground operations" with the force so inadequate for achieving any sensible results that it WILL result in heavy casualties for the US military. Well, what can I say--pop-corn time. 

They Will Live ...

 ... they now know it. UAVs taking POWs are not that rare anymore. Surrendering from VSU to Russians is a hell of a risky business to VSU personnel. Their own will kill them if they learn about it. 

But Why?

I want to immediately state that I am no tank officer, but I am also not as dumb in ground warfare as I come across, if you know what I mean. So, before commenting on The National Interest tanks' rankings, I want to remind you what one of their contributors ... from Israel and ties to IDF wrote this in early 2025:

While the latest T-72 and T-90 MBT variants may be more sophisticated than earlier models, they really have not performed well in Ukraine. The rate at which these tanks have been destroyed by Ukrainian weaponry is alarming. To make matters worse, it is doubtful that Moscow will be able to replenish its MBT stockpiles anytime soon.

Here is her CV and you may have already guessed she--she is a militant ignoramus and hack which spreads 404 propaganda. Judge for yourself--a classic degree mill product with no clue about combined arms operations and operational planning. Judging by the "performance" of IDF (mind you--they are allegedly "professionals") which has its ass handed to it in the most humiliating fashion in Southern Lebanon by Hezbollah, Israel is not that good, to put it mildly, in anything which doesn't involve atrocity, bombing with impunity and, generally, they are nothing more than a collection of punitive battalions (and brigades) whose main training is in genocide. Real war? Not so much. 

So, The National Interest comes up with this recent rating of world's tanks. And puts T-72 at the first place as the best tank in the world. Well, that's fine and here TNI staff makes this assertion:

1. T-72 (Soviet Union / Russia) This old Soviet tank may be seen as an odd choice for “best in the world.” But the fact remains that it checks all the boxes for an effective tank. It is used by dozens of countries, making its supply chains redundant and durable. It is easy to operate. And it is very cheap. The Russians have found that their war in Ukraine has not gone well by using either its T-90M MBT or its aforementioned T14 Armata. The T-72 has kept the Russians in the fight. What’s more, these systems are easy to mass produce and when they’re lost (so many have been lost in combat), it doesn’t really matter, because Russia can quite easily produce many more. 

The immediate question which arises is where the hell did the staff of this magazine, which continues to regurgitate CIA and Pentagon's fairy tales about SMO, get this idea highlighted in yellow? Who told them that? Ukies? Sure, Washington is dumb enough to believe any kind of shit, but how about the fact of basic (forget about serious expanded) attrition modelling of (armor) combat which requires a set of verified serious inputs? That is to say--requires PROFESSIONAL qualifications for assessment of the data sets which ARE critical in 24/7 modelling of the combat, which is in the foundation of the operational work of, say, Main Operational Directorate (GOU) of Russian General Staff? 

We, of course, cannot discount a fever pitch coping ongoing across the US media and military-political circles after yet another military humiliation for the US and Israel, but words do not provide anymore the palliative they used to and, obviously, statements about Russian tank losses (not that Russians do not sustain losses, they surely do) and especially about T-90M Proryv, which IS the best MBT in the world now, are nothing more than trying to shape narrative which has nothing in common with the reality. For starters, Russians use primarily (not exclusively) three types of MBTs: T-72B and its iteration T-72B3, T-90M Proryv and a few T-80BVM. Of course, Russians used even T-54 when necessary as self-propelled guns from ZOP (Defended Firing Position) and as a moving mine with devastating results for VSU strong points. And here is a clue from TNI. Highlighted in yellow is data for T-72 (whatever that means) and in green, of course, M1 Abrams.

The question--what T-72 are they talking about, because T-72B3 and T-72B3M, a mainstay of Russian tank forces, have this:

First batches were upgraded to T-72B3 standard, also known as T-72B3 obr (obrazets--model) 2011 in Russia. Many vehicles retained their V-84 engine. The T-72B3 upgrade includes the 2A46M-5 gun, Kontakt-5 era on glacis and turret front, improved autoloader, Sosna-U gunner's day and thermal sight with monitor for commander and various other upgrades. Easily recognizable by the Sosna-U sight while retaining the rubber side skirts. T-72B3M Further improved upgrade package, also known as T-72B3 obr 2016 in Russia. This adds the large and distinctive new side skirts, slat armor and Relikt ERA to the turret sides. There is also a PK PAN sight for the commander with day and thermal optics. All T-72B3M include the more powerful V-92S2F engine and drivetrain upgrades.

Note: T-72B3 has been produced since 2011 (11 years before SMO) while T-72B3M since 2016 (6 years before SMO). So, how many altogether of this tanks did Russia have--over 1,700. No, not some conservation (reserve) assets--all moving and fighting tanks. But as you can see yourself all of them have a very good and modern sight and fire-control systems. Did Russians use simply T-72Bs? Absolutely, remember the one which blew away Abrams' turret from the first shot? Yep, that's T-72B. 

Hm, why do I see thermal sight, but, back to our goats, so to speak, because, obviously, Russians produced thousands upon thousands (9,000 by different estimates) of T-72Bs and how many have been upgraded to B3? A lot. And then comes another 1,500 or so of T-90s and, its latest iteration of T-90M Proryv. This one is a state-of-the-art fully netcentric machine and it has real and positive combat experience ... yes, look at Abrams' "experience" "Iraq/Afghanistan", while for some reason omitting M1 Abrams "experiences" in 404. Those have been very painful "experiences" both against Russian tanks and against loitering munitions, so much so that whatever the advantages M1 might have had (not really) have been completely annulled and ... 

Nobody gives a shit how much M1 Abrams costs--neither it, nor vaunted Merkava are tanks designed for modern warfare and, pardon my Russian rah-rah and military background, but for people trying to come up with all kinds of rankings--try for starters internalize what COFM (Correlation Of Forces and Means) is and why one may start from this point.

In reality, however, three best tanks in the world today are 1. T-90M Proryv, 2. T-72B3M and 3. T-72B3. The rest is for consumers of Kool Aid provided by Kiev regime. 

This is from yesterday. And yes--one T-90M Proryv took ...47 (Forty Seven!) drone strikes and stopped only when hit the anti-tank mine. 

UK Still Pretends ...

 ... to be a great power, which it is not. Four Germans and the Fourth Reich. 

Losing Military ...

 ... ah, wait. This cannot be, right? But NYT somehow arrives to this conclusion yesterday. 

The U.S. Military Was Losing Its Edge. After Iran, Everyone Knows It.

From the get go they bring up same beaten to death argument.

On paper, the war in Iran should not be much of a contest. The United States spends around $1 trillion a year on its military, more than 100 times as much as Iran. That money buys a vastly larger Air Force and Navy, as well as advanced weapons technologies that Iranian generals can only dream about. In the war’s early days, the mismatch played out as one might expect. American forces destroyed much of the Iranian military. Now, however, the contest looks less one-sided. Iran has taken control of the Strait of Hormuz, and its missiles and drones still threaten America’s allies in the region. While President Trump seems eager for a negotiated truce, Iran’s leaders do not. Somehow, the weaker nation is in the stronger negotiating position. That reality exposes the vulnerabilities in the American way of war. Tactical success has not yielded victory.

I have news for NYT--the US doesn't know what REAL war is. Nor can it sustain not to mention increase the effort--a critical operational parameter, because ... yes, again, even the fanatical Russophobe Richard Pipes figured it out: 

The United States wants to win its wars quickly and with the smallest losses in American lives. It is disinclined, therefore, to act on protracted and indirect strategies, or to engage in limited wars and wars of attrition. Once it resorts to arms, it prefers to mobilize the great might of its industrial plant to produce vast quantities of the means of destruction with which in the shortest possible time to undermine the enemy’s will and ability to continue the struggle. Extreme reliance on technological superiority, characteristic of U.S. warfare, is the obverse side of America’s extreme sensitivity to its own casualties; so is indifference to the casualties inflicted on the enemy. 

When even this hack figured it out. Russians, the ones who really matter, not some retired generals in search for publicity and with political aspirations, have never been impressed with the "American Way of War". Nor "technological edge" which Hollywood portrayed and pundits love to talk about was that great to start with, especially with a technological and operational complexity of the war growing exponentially since 1960s. 

Today? Well, some obscure Russian author wrote something about this.

Trying to warn that the encounter with a reality will be devastating for the US military in particular and the US as a whole when the REAL balance of power will emerge. Now it emerged and it cannot be hidden anymore behind mountains of corpses of VSU's cannon fodder. All it took was for the US to step out from the behind backs of its proxies and try to fight a real fight. 

Now it may not matter at all because, as NYT (to my surprise) noted correctly--now everyone knows it(c). In related news, Israel has been defeated in Southern Lebanon. 

This Is Really Strange ...

 ... or not. 

Washington — A fire broke out Tuesday on the USS Higgins, a guided-missile destroyer and a mainstay of the Navy's forward presence in Asia, according to U.S. officials. The fire knocked out electricity and propulsion on the destroyer, one of the officials told CBS News, speaking under condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly. It was contained to one piece of equipment, and the flames didn't spread. No injuries to U.S. service members had been reported as of Wednesday. Details of how the fire started and the exact location of the Higgins in the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) were not readily available. Details regarding what sections of the ship were damaged and how long it will take to repair were also not available. 

I call this BS outright. Because of this: It was contained to one piece of equipment. What does it even mean? USS Higgins is by no means a young ship, she is 26 years old, but ANY ship in any navy is built with redundancies (2+ diesel-generators, four gas-turbines et al) which preclude a loss of power and propulsion, UNLESS it is a sabotage or external something, whatever that might be. Arleigh Burkes are fine boats and as on any ship they have a main propulsion control room, which also contains main distribution console, but it is also reserved (I am sure in other places around the ship) and it will take a fucking huge effort to do to such a significant ship what is described in the news. 

I am not going to speculate on reasons, but those "small fires" in laundry room which took 30 hours to extinguish, 3 F-15 shot down "by rogue Kuwaiti pilot", now this. Yes, USS Princeton lost her power for 15-20 minutes when struck a mine in 1991 and there was other damage and another fire just a few days ago while in the dock. And the only question one has to ask is this: WTF? Iran? Sure, but there is something more sinister behind all that and one CANNOT exclude the possibility of technology simply malfunctioning due to abuse at the service of disintegrating empire.