Ah, Yes. As Was Predicted.

On this blog too, from the get go. But then again, each time I hear Ph.D in economics from Harvard, I cringe. Well, I cringe from Ph.Ds in political "science" too, from any Ivy League madras.

So, Russian economy is not in tatters, eh? 

Have to hand it to Forbes, McCain's photo with caption looks great. Remember me thanking this old hack with pushing for France not to sell these two floating Mistral-class coffins to Russian Navy? 

As for Serdyukov and his handlers...well,Mistral embarrassment will be with them for a long time. John McCain, meanwhile, should double his efforts to prevent Mistrals' delivery to Russia--there will be many Russian naval professionals who would thank him for that.   

But what do I know, really. Wait, this was my first post in this blog (wink, wink). Does McCain even know how much good did he do for Russia? I am not being facetious.

Does United States Have Enough Currency?

No, I am not talking about good ole' greenback, which could be printed by US FRS and Mint (coins) thus flooding the world with papers and inflation. Hey, beats dealing with it domestically and why, when inflation could be exported to some other locality. I am talking about real hard currency which exists beyond the virtual world of Wall Street indices and blown out of proportions, grossly exaggerated US GDP figures. I am talking about the hard currency of the real military and economic weight--a geopolitical hard currency. It is this currency, which rules the world, always did, always will. Donald Trump's victory changed geopolitical calculus dramatically and underscored a titanic scale of changes world is coming through now. For starters, it became (as was anticipated with Trump) OK to ally with Russia to fight this ISIS filth. These are great news but let's slow down a bit and look at even larger picture. Even before President Trump's Inauguration a bunch of the US foreign policy "experts" started to float the idea that now, that Trump is a winner, United States might do a "trick" on Russia, or, go full Nixon-Kissinger in order to regain Russia as an ally in US struggle with China. There are three problems with this plan, though, especially as seen from Russia and by that I do not mean the only source of US "knowledge" about Russia--a collection of US sycophants from Moscow's uber-liberal Parnassus--but from people who deal with facts:

1. It is simply inconceivable for any foreign policy realist to consider Nixon-Kissinger "opening of China" (understandably, as a counterweight to the Soviet Union at that time) any sort of a success. Speaking frankly, it was this very policy through which United States initiated and then accelerated the growth of her own economic and, to a degree, geopolitical competitor. Now, with China's nominal GDP being larger than that of the US, not to mention the actual GDP which is in manufacturing--here, the gap is huge and continues to grow--how can one in his own mind consider this any kind of success or a viable geopolitical concept? We all know the results of this "success", which, in large part, is responsible for deindustrialization of the United States--the very factor which, among very few others, defines nation's geopolitical weight. Russia's professional analysts know the real situation in the US economy. And that is why Russia's leadership, at least at this point, is not convinced at all that this game should be played. Let's face it, China as an economic entity is worth for Russia not simply more, but on the order of magnitude more than the United States.

2. For some reason, many people in the US who offer this bizarre triangulation with using Russia as an ally for the US in her struggle against China, still reside in late 1980s-ealry 1990s thinking that Russia is simply still enamored with the US, her standard of living and culture. This simply has no bases in reality anymore. Russians, unlike it was in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, are simply not interested in US anymore. Other than Russian traditional fear (justified completely) that some nut-job in US will start a war with Russia, the appeals of US "democracy" and liberalism faded dramatically and overwhelming majority of Russians merely go about their daily business and live their lives. The US in Russia today are viewed mostly from the point of view of a threat--a dramatic departure from 25 years ago when United States were viewed as an ally and a friend, those sentiments disappeared pretty fast. Russians' "going about their daily business" involves a lot of bread and butter issues and here United States are not even in the first ten of Russia's main trading partners but, as you may have guessed it already, China, sure as hell, is. Thus the irresistible and highly warranted question arises: what's in it for Russia? What can possibly United States offer Russia economically, when economic dynamics in Eurasia offers Russia a host of incredible economic opportunities?  

3. The reason this blog was started. It is a huge one, a defining one--Obama's Administration and its cabal of neocon war criminals is responsible for what even during Cold War seemed inconceivable. United States, her paid for, encouraged and supported proxies, Ukrainian neo-nazi junta, spilled the blood of Russian and Russo-phone civilians in Ukraine. I stress it, not military--military is expected to face death, but civilians. Russians do not forget easily these things and it was here where a huge obstacle exists culturally--US political class as a whole simply has no grasp of what a spilled blood means in international relations. This factor is tectonic and can not simply be dismissed. That is what behind statements by many high ranking Russian officials when they admit that repairing Russian-American relations will be a long and arduous process. Truth is, today Russians simply do not trust the United States, period.

Both Russia and the United States need to repair their relations and a lot of good will come out of it, but considering Russia as a possible Nixonesque "counterweight" to China? I don't think that the United States has enough geopolitical (and financial) currency to "buy" Russia. Yes, the discussion on new geopolitical structure involving US, China, Russia and, eventually, strong regional players must start today and this is possible with new Administration, but Russia is not for sale in any, even the most sophisticated,  geopolitical game as a "counterweight" or as a mercenary. The game has changed and so did Russia, China, United States and so did the world at large. We either start to negotiate with each-other or we will perish all under the ruins of the old world.  

UPDATE on a long way to normalization of relations.

  

Neo-Liberalism Is A Mental Ilness.

I mean it. Some imbecile local Swedish politician has resigned because he asked somebody "to shoot Donald Trump". Evidently, in Sweden, who prides itself on wholesale "democratic" rapes of cute Swedish blonde girls by ISIS and jihad sympathizers, who pass in Sweden as "refuges", and on great academic achievements in discovering alternative genders, it is not known that calling for, in effect, assassination of the leader of a foreign nation is not only a despicable act, it is also criminal. It is akin to this mama's boy Marco Rubio accusing President Putin of being a "war criminal".  Not as severe as some Swedish dimwit calling for Trump's assassination, but all the same--a position wrought with dangers of being sued. 

But apart from being morally reprehensible (US Secret Service--you can organize the meeting of this Swedish cretin with Tony "Torn Spleen" Bonaducci), the reasons why this imbecile has called for an attempt on Trump makes this whole thing surreal. As RT reports:

“He [Trump] risks the future of the entire Earth,” he said, adding that “now, when the world has started going in the right direction,” Trump plans to increase oil and coal production.   

Got it? Remember that psycho-environmental-bitch from England who aborted a child in order "to reduce a carbon footprint"? This is exactly the same situation with one huge difference. If that British pathetic excuse for a woman could abort a child with impunity, this environmental terrorism should not be left without attention and proper action. Any hysteria from liberals should be met with a decisive slap, a  legal one, or better yet, when situation calls for it, with mae-geri,  into their faces. This is the public, be it in US in a form of BLM, anarchists or militant SJWs, or in Europe with their sexual perverts and environmental terrorists, who, given the chance, will have no inhibition to arresting, torturing or killing normal people who would not agree with their insane ideological positions. They already wrecked numerous innocent lives of decent people. Of course, those acts will not be performed by this public, most of it are cowards and cry-babies, but they do have influence and we all should be ready for dealing with this insidious totalitarian threat. Meanwhile, a robust legal action should begin against this, now peeing into own pants, Swedish SJW who has to face a book thrown at him for calling for assassination of democratically elected President. This, below, has to be put back to where it belongs--mental asylums. Wake up, Sweden, wake up. 

       

Congratulations, America! Congratulations, Mr. President.

It is a new day in USA! A badly needed and a long, very long expected day. Will American and world's problems disappear with Donald Trump's inauguration? No way! But for the first time in three consecutive US Administrations (in reality even longer), the United States has a President who gets it and speaks to people directly. Trump's inauguration speech (I am at work and had to listen to it in parts) and now reading a transcript was incredible, his vision is solid and good, some of his statements probably gave aneurysms to the whole generation of political whores in Congress, on both sides of an isle, and D.C. bureaucracy. No, the wars will not stop immediately and badly needed manufacturing will not return to the US in a flick of the magic wand, but Trump's vision of the world and of the US, while not perfect, is a good place to start to saddle those powerful winds of change, which will sweep cancerous neo-liberalism into the dust bin of history. 

I am a realist and I do not hope for too much. But we may finally exhale understanding that US and Russia, while not becoming friends in any meaningful way, may actually not get embroiled in a global conflict. That is already a huge tangible, the rest could be discussed and settled on something which may actually work. In my mind, the most important strategic, nay, metaphysical thing Trump stated was this: 

"We've made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and the confidence of our country has dissipated over the horizon. One by one the factories shuttered and left our shores without a thought for millions of millions of American workers left behind. The wealth of middle class Americans has been ripped from their homes and redistributed across the world. But that is the past but now we are only looking to the future...  We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow."

And that, my friends, is simple and pure truth. The words which resonated in me with Orwell's: In a Time of Universal Deceit — Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act. That is what this President did on his way, along which he was spat on, humiliated, lied about, blackmailed and threatened, towards this day. I am not going to lie, I got a little bit emotional. I sincerely congratulate America of decent, hard working, honest people with the chance and a hope. I also congratulate 45th US President, Donald Trump, with doing it all against all odds. I think he will need these incredible skills in overcoming those odds soon enough. It is a new day in America, and in the world and I also congratulate myself with the excuse for opening the bottle of a bourbon and lighting a cigar--it is a good day. Ah, yes, peeking at this Inauguration and seeing Melania, the most gorgeous US First Lady, probably ever, (don't give me this Jackie shit) was a treat. Isn't that cool? Hell, yeah. 

              

P.S. I can not wait when these no good Hollywood "celebrities" stick to their word and self-deport themselves from the United States, as they promised to do if Trump wins. Well, he won.   

 

Samantha Power Really Needs A Vacation Or (Better Yet) Permanent Retirement.

When one will write the real history of  the 20th and early 21st century, as long as this person would maintain even rudimentary scholarship and objectivity, one will have to stress one of the major history's truisms--scale and proportions matter a great deal. In fact, they define how history unfolds. In this respect, US Ambassador  to UN Samantha Power is a great demonstrator of a major reason (one of several) for why the United States found herself in the position it is today. This is not a good position, to put it mildly. In her last (yesterday) press-conference in UN Security Council, during her incoherent babbling about Russia, Power repeated the old and fundamental myth of American politics of the last 70 years. 

 

THE COMMON THREAD CAN BE FOUND ONLY IN WHAT RUSSIA IS AGAINST, NOT IN THE RULES IT FOLLOWS. BUT THE RULES IT BREAKS. RUSSIA'S ACTIONS ARE NOT STANDING UP A NEW WORLD ORDER. THEY ARE TEARING WORLD -- THAT THEY ARE TEARING DOWN THE ONE THAT EXISTS. THIS IS WHAT WE ARE FIGHTING AGAINST. HAVING DEFEATED THE FORCES OF FASCISM AND COMMUNISM, WE NOW CONFRONT THE FORCES OF AUTHORITARIANISM AND NIHILISM. 

And here is the issue: each time I hear, from many corners, that United States "defeated" "communism" (remember this? "You lost, we won") or, let alone, that US defeated Nazism (Fascism, etc.), I am forced to ask a question. The question is: have anyone in US political class ever tried to claim credit for Sunrises (and Sunsets) or for change in the seasons, you know--to issue a medal "For Changing Summer Into Autumn"? Each time when I hear that somebody "defeated Soviet Union", I try to recall desperately when was the parade of "victors" held on the Red Square? The degree of idiocy of the US elites' post-Cold War triumphalism is astonishing. It is especially noticeable against the background of contemporary Russia trying to stem the flow of all those "liberated" nations into Russia, and here we are talking about millions upon millions people. So much for the "liberty". What is also strange about those claims is that the ability of Russian Federation to annihilate most of the world on the eve of dissolution of USSR didn't change after its dissolution. Obviously, the fact that multicultural empires do not live long, and that is how (primarily) Soviet Union collapsed, is beyond the grasp of people like Power and US political and "intellectual" strata she is the product of. Yes, US did "help" somewhat but metaphysical and material rot of the so called "communism" had very little to do with the United States, whose, accidental material wealth of the second half of 20th Century was based primarily on the outcome of WW II in which the Soviet/Russian contribution to victory in it against Nazism, Fascism, what have you, is overwhelming, both in blood and treasure. 

Yes, Power gets to it too in her press-conference and does this, now traditional, lip service to Russian sacrifice, but denying Russian people any agency is a traditional pseudo-intellectual shtick of US "elites" who are desperate for any kind of meaningful "victory". Well, here is the opinion of the man who was and is close to Russia's political top and he, actually, knows Russia inside-out.

     

The statement of Cold War "victory" flies out of the window once one gets closer to real Soviet History of 1970s and 1980s and understanding of what country that was--the insights neither CIA (yeah, right) nor Soviet "dissidents" (most of them discredited) could and can provide. Russians didn't "surrender" in Cold War, they, as it turned out today, naively thought that the better way was possible and extended "hand of friendship to US. This hand has been slapped away".  Or, putting it in layman's lingo, Russians got screwed over and those who BSed naive Russians proclaimed themselves "victors". Now, former influential Congressman Curt Weldon exclaims in desperation: how did we get here, meaning disastrous relations with Russia. Obviously Weldon conveniently "forgets" how NATO moved to Russia's borders (because US was a Cold War "victor") and how American advisers and firms did their utmost to place an alcoholic and West's door mat Yeltsin into Kremlin (all on Weldon's Congressional "watch"). 
      

US "hacking" Russia's elections in 1996. 

Yeah, Russians, certainly, must exhibit a very warm feelings towards US "diplomacy" whose only task was and is to lecture Russians on how to do things right, that is how the US defined "right". That is what Power and US "elites" (most of them) represent. It doesn't matter that their triumphalism and false sense of entitlement have no foundation in real life, and those few years in 1990s of controlling Russia's "elites", who would sell their own mother for the grant from US NGOs and would follow just about any insane policy "advice" from their American curators were the acts of high treason towards Russian people. As long as United States was able to re-write the history, it was all good. 

American post-Cold War triumphalism is a love child of American exceptionalism which is one of the pillars of American founding. This exceptionalism is not unique, Russians themselves had this "exceptional" thing going for them for a century or three, so had British with their empire "on which the Sun never sets". So were Germans, we all know where this led to. All great nations, and American are a great nation, have this exceptional streak. But American messianic exceptionalism really overdid it, big time. It was a very specific way it overdid it. As Alexis De Tocqueville wrote in his masterpiece "Democracy In America" (Chapter 16): All free nations are vainglorious, but national pride is not displayed by all in the same manner. The Americans in their intercourse with strangers appear impatient of the smallest censure and insatiable of praise. The most slender eulogium is acceptable to them; the most exalted seldom contents them; they unceasingly harass you to extort praise, and if you resist their entreaties they fall to praising themselves. It would seem as if, doubting their own merit, they wished to have it constantly exhibited before their eyes. Their vanity is not only greedy, but restless and jealous; it will grant nothing, whilst it demands everything, but is ready to beg and to quarrel at the same time. If I say to an American that the country he lives in is a fine one, “Ay,” he replies, “there is not its fellow in the world.” If I applaud the freedom which its inhabitants enjoy, he answers, “Freedom is a fine thing, but few nations are worthy to enjoy it.” If I remark the purity of morals which distinguishes the United States, “I can imagine,” says he, “that a stranger, who has been struck by the corruption of all other nations, is astonished at the difference.” At length I leave him to the contemplation of himself; but he returns to the charge, and does not desist till he has got me to repeat all I had just been saying. It is impossible to conceive a more troublesome or more garrulous patriotism; it wearies even those who are disposed to respect it (c). 

Most of American "elites" live by this rule, it is the thing which makes them tick, it is their clockwork, and with the events of the 20th Century the vanity of American exceptionalism reached a feverish pitch. So much so, that American "elite" started to directly steal and deform history. One of manifestations of such a global brainwashing is the fact that most West Europeans today believe that it was the United States which won WW II. The results of such a mythology are an unmitigated disaster, whose embodiment Samantha Power is--arrogant, badly educated, boastful and completely detached from the reality. She is also a fanatic Russophobe. I specifically emphasize here American "elites", those hordes of humanities "educated" offsprings of American coastal well-off class and of Ivy League degree mills. I know American people, met thousands of them and have a deep love and respect to those folks but very many (not all) representatives of the American "intellectual" class is another matter altogether. But it is this "intellectual" and moneyed class who writes the history books and owns media. And the march of American exceptionalism and triumphalism seemed unstoppable by late 1990s. That is for those who didn't know the history. Things changed dramatically in the last 3-4 years and those, yet again, who knew the history and had background could see this change coming afar, I anticipated this, hence this blog. That is those who were not American "intellectual" class--a distinction which needs to be worn with pride today. A Departure of Samantha Power, who is an embarrassment to the highly regarded  profession of a diplomat coincided with the wholesale epiphanies by this very American "intellectual" class, that one can lie only for so long, eventually the truth will emerge through empirical evidence. 

I wrote about Harlan Ullman's partial sobering--it is partial since he continues to repeat the idiocy about Russia "invading" Ukraine, as an example. Good luck building your conclusions and argumentation on the sand, yet again. Then Professor of Strategy from  Naval War College Nicholas Gvozdev got the ball rolling and yesterday he continued with his, finally dawning realization that this very "intellectual" elite pretty much knows nothing about Russia. He offers to rethink American "assumptions" on Russia. No, Mr. Gvozdev "rethinking" assumptions which were a result of a failed American "scholarship", shoddy, if not mostly fraudulent, Russia's "academe" and, in the end, falling into the trap of own, extremely false and arrogant narrative, is not possible at this time. Gvozdev, after making a hodgepodge and very weak argument, calls for: at the end of the day, however, whatever position on Russia wins out should be rooted in analytically rigorous and dispassionate analysis (c). 

I have some news for Nicholas Gvozdev: a "dispassionate" analysis is impossible at this time in the United States because very many of those "analysts" either comprehend or feel that once the "dispassionate" analysis starts, one has to completely throw American exceptionalist and triumphalist mythology out of the window. It kills American messianic narrative and brings to the fore the issue of scales and proportions--the factor which American Samantha "Powers" want desperately to ignore for a simple reason, they know, even if by gut feeling only, they will come out losers.  Hence Russophobia. The United States needs a complete overhaul of its corrupt "academe" and revival of a real Russian Studies field, which would be led not by some insane neocon (Pipes) or irrational Russophobe such as Brzezinski, let alone clownish hack such as Macfaul--the damage they did to Russian-American relations and scholaship is vast--but with people who actually bothered to study and understand the subject of their interest. In the end, as even yesterday's piece by Gvozdev shows, without understanding Russian culture, which is immense, and Russian warfare, both of which are two sides of the same coin, any attempt to "study" Russia in the way she was "studied" for the last 70+ years will end up precisely where they ended up today for the United States--on the brink of war with the nation which will not "stand for the cost" when it fights on its own land. Mr. Gvozdev better start his "cost" analysis with studying a real history of WW II. This is a good primer.
              

As Father Robert Tobias wrote in his remarkable "Heaven On Earth, A Lutheran-Orthodox Odyssey": When of late in this (American) culture we turned our eyes to divine epiphanies, we perceived only two-dimensionality, not great depth. Perhaps that was provisionally inevitable in a culture dominated by two-dimensional television, movies, billboards, cameras and sports events. (c)  I have a suggestion for those who really want to perceive a real depth--start with dispassionate study of the Soviet WW II and after history, and not just of GULAG. But most importantly--in this century of global communications and travel, go to Russia, and not Moscow or St.Petersburg only, go talk to Russian people, especially those who are in their 40s and 50s (they run the country) and see for yourself why Russia seeks peace, not war and why, after 1000+ years of her history, she will never again fight on her own land. Have a epiphany.       

 

A New Global Strategy By Srdja Trifkovic.

I do read Chronicles Magazine periodically and want to point out an interesting piece by Srdja Trifkovic. The reason for this is that I do lean (still) towards Northern Belt civilization idea. That is why I also do not take Dugin, a devout Eurasianist ideologue, too seriously.     

                                                 A New Global Strategy     

And while I agree with fundamental message of this article, I, honestly, can not see the emergence of this "new thinking" from US "elites". Yes, Trump Presidency, even if impeded by US neocon-neoliberal cabal, leaves some "wiggling room" for rationalizing such a possibility. But, I don't see anything of like emerging until US (I dismiss NATO and Europe here--those are not subjects of history anymore) begins to actually formulate her national interests, not to be mistaken with the interests of Wall Street and Military-Industrial-Media Complex. In general, no serious consideration could be given to such an idea in the nation whose legislative body swears its allegiance to Israel first and own nation second. Pan-European Entente' is NOT possible whilst US foreign policy is formulated by ethnic and religious mafias. Plus, it is too late anyway. And while emotionally I share Trifkovic's sentiment to a degree:

"In an uncertain and constantly brutal world, the Northerners must find the way of banding together, lest they be defeated in detail. This historic opportunity has been open to us since the end of the Cold War, but no U.S. leader has recognized it or acted upon its geopolitical imperative. Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama have all opted to pursue global hegemony, ideologically construed, and devoid of any tangible relation to our country’s rationally defined interests. Trump can and should reintroduce grand-strategic sanity, and help prolong the life of a civilization in mortal peril. Whether it will survive is an open question. That it is utterly doomed in its current form is beyond doubt."

It has to be openly stated--salvation of the United States and of the European Civilization will not come from within the economic and ideological framework (Уклад--Formation, Lay-Up) of globalist, transnational financial capitalism--the system which is itself in a death throes and still can light the world on the fire of WW III. I can only refer Trifkofic to the obvious conclusion by Edik Limonov who largely correctly stated recently about Russia: "We are the West now". Until this geopolitical fact is understood and internalized, that Marseilles, London or Brussels are not Europe anymore, no serious discussion on Pan-European Entente is possible. This is not to mention European limitrophes such as Poland, Baltic States or even Sweden who in their Russo-phobic insanity will do their utmost to impede such a discussion. But then again, if history is any indication, United States seems to have a very vague idea about exchange rate in geopolitical currency. 

           

Why Hysteria?

I know I am repeating myself non-stop and at some point it may even look like an obsession, but, as events of the last several years have shown, it is better to be obsessed and hammer the point home, than continue on the previous, very dangerous trajectory. So, here it is: most of the US "Russian Studies" field is a wasteland of ignorant hacks and shysters. It is especially true in the fields related to the evolution of Russia's geopolitical views but even more so in military-political field. While many in US still continue to write a truck load of all kinds of speculations on what and how Russia's military evolves, it becomes absolutely clear that most of those people, using Russian proverb, open the book and see a middle finger extended from there (Smotryat v knigu--vidyat figu). Figa, a combination of five fingers, a physical expression of fuck you, obviously, in today's global informational world, lost out to a more universal extended middle finger but, I assume, you get the picture--this is what US Russia "experts" see when they deal with Russian military and that is why coherent and reasonable assessments of Russia's military are such a rare commodity in the US. More importantly, most of those "experts" can not even interpret a real open book of Russia's modern military doctrine, which openly emphasizes conventional High Precision Weapons (HPW) as preferred weapons when defending Russia:

26. В рамках выполнения мероприятий стратегического сдерживания силового характера Российской Федерацией предусматривается применение высокоточного оружия.

Translation: Within the framework of the measures of power character (kinetic, combat)  for strategic containment by Russian Federation the use of High Precision Weapons is suggested. 

What's not to understand here? It is in the open, it is clear, however formal, Russian language which is easily translated to any language. The pp.26 precedes pp.27 (the use of nuclear weapons), thus denoting the precedence, priority of conventional weapons over nuclear when dealing with the strategic threat. I write about the tectonic military paradigm shift constantly, such as here: 

It was none other than general designer of Bulava SLBM Yuri Solomonov who in 2008 predicted that US will offer in some form to get rid of nuclear weapons based on perception of own advantage in high precision weapons. Solomonov made a mistake in only one sense--that the offer will be made openly. In reality the US was moving into conventional paradigm for quite a while now, enough to take a look at really rundown state of US nuclear deterrent. 

Wars can not be fought with strategic nuclear weapons--everyone understands that. Those weapons are deterrents, not actual weapons of war. United States wanted the shift away from nuclear to conventional for a simple reason--it thought that it possesses a vast superiority in those weapons, both qualitative and quantitative. Well, it is not the case anymore and it has not been the case for some time. Russia's military doctrine practically spells out the "preference" for the conventional option. Isn't it very much following in the wake of what the United States was doing for the last couple decades militarily? I write about possible conflict between Russia and US escalating into nuclear exchange not because Russia will initiate it but because of the United States, approaching possible conflict with Russia conventionally, will encounter military realities it never encountered before. The scale of losses and, with it, of operational and strategic failures, knowing the "character" of many "exceptionalists" in the US military-political top, will force them to commit unthinkable. This is the main idea behind my warnings about dangers of possible conventional conflict between Russia and US which, and I hope the use of Past Tense is justified here, existed in the Ukraine and Syria. 

The paradigm shifted sometime ago, and apart from Military Doctrine, more, down to earth, elaborations on the status of Russia's military views started to appear in main stream media interpretations. One of them (in Russian) is today's interview of former Russian Air Force Deputy Commander Lieutenant-General Aitech Bizhev to a very popular Russian media outlet "Vzglyad".  There, Bizhev reiterates an old point of many High Precision Weapons having operational and strategic impact properties of nuclear ones, without destruction of civilian infrastructure and vast civilian casualties. Rabidly pro-Western (that is Russo-phobic) Moscow Times didn't hesitate to find a conflict where there is none (nothing else is expected from ignorant hacks) but they also carried the news of Sergei Shoigu merely articulating a new military technological reality of High Precision Weapons (HPW) paradigm. For any observer of Soviet/Russian military with even rudimentary knowledge of evolution of Soviet and Russian military thinking it was clear that such a shift, which already started in the late 1970s but was temporarily arrested by the economic and political collapse of the 1990s, was inevitable. Now the obvious was stated. 

Make no mistake, there will be (actually, there is already) hysteria coming from all kinds of US lap dogs such as Poland or Baltic States, who, eventually, will become completely irrational (not that they are much rational now) who would interpret (for a number of bad reasons) any Russia's conventional move as a direct threat to them. And it is, if one considers NATO's troops being deployed there for the attack on Russia. Russian military has such a "thing" called "ugrozhaemyi period", that is "threatening period", which is a time, speaking in layman's lingo, when the attack on Russia is imminent: the necessary enemy forces are assembled and pre-deployed, political and military intelligence identify signs and patterns of preparation for the war, etc. Just an example, if deployment of the US 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team in Poland and Baltics is hardly a sign of the impending strike, a pre-deployment of several US and NATO divisions and Air Force operational units at Russian or Ukrainian border combined with militant Russo-phobic propaganda in Western media and calls from high tribunes to "punish" Russia--well, then it is a totally different matter and this is precisely where Russian HPWs come into play. Most of the assembly areas of the enemy troops, including their C4ISR centers, will be identified, airfields too, and the sequence of the events is pretty predictable after that. NATO will have to face what it never faced before in its history--a massive salvo of cruise missiles, which are HPWs, at their military infrastructure in staging areas. Of course, some missiles will be shot down, but dealing with massive first strike which will contain huge numbers of Iskanders, Kalibrs and X-101s, is not something NATO or US are capable of dealing with, especially when many of sensors and communications will be suppressed. 

This is containment in a nutshell: degrading enemy's capabilities in order to compel it to refuse from attacking Russia. If not, well--conventional war starts and NATO will have to deal with the first-class military. Such a war will be fought on the territory of Poland, Ukraine and Baltic States but it will not be fought on Russia's territory. If, after that, NATO forces will still be willing, let alone capable, to mount an attack on Russia, London, Paris, Brussels among many will have to face conventional attack on their military-industrial and political infrastructure. But what about the United States, who will be in charge of all this mayhem? It is not immune anymore to conventional strike and resumption of production of TU-160  (in reality a completely new bomber bearing superficial similarity to old Blackjacks) is a first indication that having  about 600 long range stand off HPWs in first salvo from 50 new TU-160s, which will be reliably protected by Air Defense inside Russia's airspace is really a very unpleasant perspective.  Once one considers another around 50 old timers such as TU-95 Bears, who are capable to launch 8 (eight) X-101 weapons, without leaving Russia's airspace, one may begin to grasp the "weight" of such salvo from Russia's strategic aviation. And that is without considering other old-timers such as TU-22M3s capable of launching X-32 Mach=5, 1000 km range, missiles.  Those are not interceptable by anything in NATO's arsenal and with the range of 1000 km are exactly the weapons to be launched at the staging areas, without leaving own air-space. If to consider that, by different estimates, there are already and will be about 50 of such machines in service soon, each capable of carrying 6 such missiles, we may finally speculate on the weight of this salvo, say, by 2025.  From Russia's Strategic (Dalnyaya) Long Range Aviation we can count about 1100 to 1300 standoff HPWs ready to be launched. Add to the mix land-based launchers, a naval component, capable of launching just about anything and the grim picture for any aggressor emerges. Hence this:

        

What Ralph Peters, who passes in US as Russian "military expert", does not understand is that Russian Armed Forces are not in the business of "humiliating" anyone. In fact, be that in Soviet or present times, there was always a great deal of a professional respect to the US military in Russia. Russians, however, do not celebrate victories over pathetically inept enemies. Russian military is in a business of defending own nation and its closest allies. Russia is also in a business of fighting real wars and for that Russia has all necessary tools. Now (or rather since around 2008) she has all necessary conventional high precision stand off weapons which can deal a massive conventional blow to any enemy before it even contemplates doing a stupid thing. The gap in stand off weapons will continue to grow with some really bizarre and cutting edge technologies coming online shortly: from the whole spectrum of hyper-sonic weapons to something akin to Sarmat ICBM, capable of carrying hyper-sonic, maneuverable conventional "gliders". But Russia is not going to use them, unless attacked first or is about to be attacked. Russia's military doctrine is explicit on that but more than that--Russia's history, a real one, not the one narrated in US by hysterical (and incompetent) Russophobes, especially the history of invasions into Russia and massive losses and devastation she sustained because of that--this is the only true indicator of Russia's intentions in 21st century. To be left alone. No nation in the history knows better what war is and what tragedy and suffering can it bring. That is why, with Trump's victory, any chance should be used to rearrange the world in such a way that no conventional, let alone nuclear, weapon should ever be used between major powers. It is possible, especially now, when the world is really becoming multi-polar and diplomacy must take precedence. Russia was calling for that always, sadly, American warmongers interpreted it as a sign of weakness, well.... Times change, and the tables turn, don't they? 

The Verdict Is In.

After US "intelligence" report on Russian "hacking" which exhibited a complete rot of US establishment, I thought that there is nowhere lower to go, when even CIA professionals (real ones) started questioning intentions behind this report. The "report" itself is a pathetic exhibition of intellectual impotence and rumor-mongering. Boy, was I mistaken. I stated not for once that US "main-stream" media are a sewer, including most of their "iconic" figures, who are nothing more than paid shills with egos larger than cathedrals and with no applicable life skills. But this morning proved that United States Of America is in deep systemic crisis which is much more serious than mere economic decline, covered up with preposterous indices and cooking of books. No, the crisis in metaphysical--the whole notion of an American idea is being destroyed in a front of our eyes. Most important US institutions are either discrediting themselves or are being discredited.

Forget the legitimacy and prestige of the institute of US Presidency being in decline since Bill "wondering willy" Clinton or a disastrous W or, even more disastrous, Obama. Today, by attacking US President (elect) Donald Trump in the most despicable way, US political class and its coterie of media figures, pundits and "analysts" has shown how deep their depravity is and... how impotent they are. 

The Deep State Versus Donald Trump - New Smears And A Ukrainian Connection

I have Moon Of Alabama blog in the list of my favorite blogs but above is a direct link to B's great analysis. I want, however, to support and... refute Donald Trump when in his tweet he asks: "Are we living in Nazi Germany?" My answer to that is: no, Mr. President, we live in the United States of America in the age of pathetic mediocrities and establishment a-holes who, like those proverbial monkeys, can only throw shit at others. Doing so, they are destroying, including by making it a laughing stock of the world, their own (??) country. History, using a beaten to death Marx' cliche, repeats itself first as a tragedy, then as a farce. For all evil of Nazi Regime, it had some of the most outstanding political, military, economic and intelligence professionals, who created a machine whose efficiency is beyond the grasp of Beltway operators, who are capable of producing only a farce and are, as, yet again, that proverbial monkey, playing with a grenade, a nuclear one. United States today is a panopticon, not a Nazi Germany.

Never again will any American claims on "democracy" and "republic" which are being destroyed from within, be seriously viewed in the world. Any claim to "free press" will be laughed at. Yet, there is a silver lining to all that. The hysteria of neocon-neoliberal mafia in US is a good sign, it means they know they are defeated and I don't mean just Trump's victory. The trend is global and it is unmistakable:

1. New "left's" (in reality neoliberal) ideology, which was in the foundation of US foreign policy for decades, is done. Globalization, under the aegis of "liberal democracy" and "human rights" is being turned back as I type this. Weakening of the United States is not just the function of some bad personalities who were hellbent to do bad things to the US--the system is flawed, it bore the seeds of its own destruction. Massive  de-industrialization, the reign of the financial parasites, decline of the living standard, institutional crisis, moral and cultural decay, de facto racial war--those are just some signs of the crisis of the "formation" in the US and elsewhere. In effect, American (economic) future was sacrificed at the altar of free trade fundamentalism, military adventurism and utopian social experiments. 

2. Nation-state won the battle, or, rather, after brief tactical retreat, came back with a vengeance. Nation-state, not some globalist dystopia,  remains and will remain a decisive player in the world affairs. The rise of China, Russia, of populist and nationalistic movements in Europe, Brexit, in the end--Trump's victory, are just some indicators of a collapse of the globalist "world order".  Davos ideas are just that--rubbish. We are, after 25 years of self-proclaimed Pax Americana, back to power balance politics. We are also back to re-emerging understanding of productive forces, with the emphasis on productive. Manufacturing, building things has much bigger meaning than mere numbers--it is a crucial human function, without it--cultural, intellectual and moral decay. More tattoo parlors, more marijuana dispensaries, more transgender bathrooms and more crime and drugs ridden hoods. Globalization=national lumpenization, and that's what happened to the United States, that is also why Trump won.   

That is why people who almost destroyed the United States and wreaked havoc on the world are so desperate and so hysterical in their attempts to delegitimize Donald Trump and the modicum of common foreign policy and economic sense he and his team are trying to bring back to the US. So, what is prognosis? This one is very simple:

1. US Congress, which does not work in the interest of the majority of the Americans will continue to impede Trump in any of his attempt to normalize relations with Russia. Every tool will be used to maintain hostile relations with Russia until the real war happens or until new generation of thinking American politicians will emerge. Unlike former, which is still probable, the latter...well, I don't know. Judging by what Ivy League madrasas produce as foreign policy "experts", one has to admit that the quality of the "product" is at best shoddy, at worst--American "exceptionalists" who live in parallel universe. 

2. US main-stream media will continue to throw shit at Trump and any of his initiative until, hopefully, they will cease to exist as "free" media institutions. Basically, CNN, NYT, WaPo, NBC etc. are nothing more than the elements of MiniTrue, who still think that 1984 was written NOT about them, while in reality it was about them exactly. 

3. The split between US "elites" is evident today and the house divided against itself can not stand. Will there be some new consensus down the road? I don't know, but it has to be understood that US globalist "elites" are anti-American to the core. They have no loyalty to American people. Are their loyalties to transnational capital? Yes. To anti-white racism? Absolutely. To sexual-deviancy and degeneracy in culture? You bet! To global uniform "world" with "deplorables", that is overwhelming majority, reduced to the slaves of sexual, cultural, racial and other fringes? That is their quintessential idea, raison d'etre. Are they in the pockets of the Military-Industrial Complex? Hell, yeah. Do they care about lives of people they bomb to smithereens or do they care about American soldiers coming home in coffins or with horrible wounds? Nope. But that are the people who, waving American flag, continue their (self) destructing campaign against Donald Trump and doing so, they lost even residual sense of decency. 

There could be no compromise with this crowd. Otherwise, constant US decline and eventual disintegration with high probability of a global war.  Avoiding this scenario is a worthy goal to pursue and it will require an effort. The Augeas Stables must be cleaned. Is Donald and his team are capable of Heracles' Fifth Labor? We may learn the answer soon and, after all, do we have any other option? The verdict is in--this can not continue as it is and it will not, one way or another.

    

F-35 In National Review. The STOVL Issue-I

I never was a fan of National Review, a rather neocon leaning rag, but when even National Review has had enough with F-35 program it is time to see it for what it is--it is a corporate welfare.

The F-35: Throwing Good Money After Bad. 

I will abstain here from "analyzing" this bird as a weapon system. First, I am neither a military aerospace analysts with the intimate knowledge of aircraft design, nor a military pilot, but it is kinda self-evident by now that F-35 program is becoming increasingly an embarrassment, despite the stream of opposite views (by hacks and biased observers mostly) praising F-35 for what it certainly is not. I am not even talking here about this stupid obsession of many with the so called "stealth" whose real utility was blown out of proportion, until it was blown out of the skies, especially against modern signal processing and power of radar capable of seeing it just fine. My thing with F-35, since I pretend to be a sort of "analysts" (in reality a free-time dispenser of my, not always precise, thoughts) was not in the fact that it is a "fifth generation" flop, after all, United States has an impressive history of producing a world-class cutting edge weapon systems, in general, and combat aircraft in particular. My spiritual doctrinal connection, as a former Soviet naval professional, was with namely F-35B STOVL. On paper, this Short Take Off Vertical Landing bird looked very promising. Yes, it is not SU-35 but as a carrier aviation this looked extremely attractive. Forget my personal bias towards STOVL carriers--it is understandable since Project 1143 "Krechet" Kiev-class aircraft carrying cruisers were just that  and, despite initially having a mediocre Yak-38 as the backbone of their air wings, they had a really monster of a fighter, V/STOVL Yak-141 Freestyle, coming to them instead of Yak-38s. That is until Soviet Union collapsed. Later, some Yakovlev Design Bureau's technologies, including nozzles' design, were used in F-35B.   

But the issue with Yak-141 and, now, with F-35B were not just some advanced technologies. It was in the fact, that after rather clumsy and fairly limited in their performance, however legendary and rightly so, Harriers, Yak-141 (and later F-35B) offered performance comparable (range, speed) to a regular carrier-borne aircraft. That had a major strategic implications, this time for ships or, rather, aircraft carriers. In the end, since the end of WW II the only carriers which saw an actual combat, not being parked outside some third world hellhole's shore blowing this hellhole's shit with impunity, were Royal Navy's small STOVL carriers of the Invincible-class. They actually fought a battle with more or less competent adversary who had a viable Air Force and, actually, bloodied Royal Navy pretty badly. Yet, British jump-jets came away from their Falkland battlefield bathed in totally deserved glory. They also left a lesson which today remains as relevant as ever. This lesson I would like to ponder in coming weeks, especially against the background of old-timer Admiral Kuznetsov leaving her Syria station and setting sail back home to Severomorsk. She did her job, earned awards but raised the issue of CATOBAR against STOVL carriers yet again and that issue is survivability--Kuznetsov's arresting wires performed dismally and, at some point, forced the whole wing of  her Su-33s and MiG-29Ks to redeploy to the Khmeimim Air Base. The pondering starts with this question: whatcha gonna do when your arresting wires are gone and the deck is partially damaged in real combat, with real opponent?   

    

In the end, Royal Navy decided to go with STOVL F-35Bs for its brand new carriers. Hm, I wonder, why the devil, those bloody Britons went with STOVL option. What do they even know about naval combat. I am being facetious, of course. Royal Navy can tell us a lot about carrier operations...I wouldn't disregard the lessons they can teach. 

To Be Continued....