As I stated not for once--US media is a sewer which has nothing to do with journalism and is reduced basically to propaganda outlets. Their butt-hurt is also palpable and produces Freudian outcomes, especially in projections. Kremlin, however, didn't wait to yet another US main-sewer media BS to fade away and responded almost on the spot.:
Apart from the purely military aspect of the matter--such as the ability of both sides to obliterate each-other many times over already now, what does it even mean to "win the arms race"? Did those cretins in NBC know, just for a warmup what is this:
This is apart from an obvious fact that recent Russian technologies make US anti-ballistic missile defense just a waste and restore what Russia was aiming for from the get go--return of the US within more or less stable confines of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), which the US for decades tried to leave. If the US wants to increase her nuclear arsenal--sure, Russia can accept the fact that now she can be annihilated whole twelve times over instead of the measly eight or nine as it is the case today. Sure, who wouldn't like to be obliterated by nukes twelve times over--nine times is so yesterday. In the end, it is strictly internal American matter on deciding how to completely bankrupt itself while stealing hundreds of billions (or trillions) of dollars in producing dubious weapon systems which do not work (a track record of that is available upon request) and a lot of CGI driven fantasy movies about how they do.
This disinformation (well, lie) by NBC, however, is very indicative of a complete mental breakdown of the American body politic and it does show how all those good ol' boys and girls in US establishment do feel humiliated, despite constant declarations to the contrary. Yep, sore losers. Plus, I think Donald Trump is smarter than those in US media give him credit for. So, as in the case with Skripals, which in the better times could have been a great material for Monty Python, people in US establishment are utterly incompetent for coming up with even believable lie. Indeed, what a massive case of sour grapes and of being pathetic sore losers--can not even lie properly.
In related news, as was expected for some time now, the idea of "declaring the victory and leaving" is being floated now at the highest political levels. If this comes to fruition it will be a massively good thing for all parties involved with the exception of "democratic" head-choppers and other jihadist scam in Syria. Well, and for Kurds, but they were warned from the get go--they didn't listen.
These three points are rather startling, however implicit, admission of Russia's actual rather massive real economic weight and that is the thing which most in US (and UK) still can not deal with being in a complete denial. As Bloomberg admits:
In some respects, the sanctions imposed on Russian companies and
individuals in 2014 showed that Russia can always muddle through on its
own.
One may ask then--how do they, Russians, do it? Granted, of course, that it is not to 2014 but 2018 and I am not going to be original here by continuing to review enclosed (that is full) technological cycles which Russia grows as mushrooms after the rain and will refer to the World Bank data. Look at these two tables, they speak volumes and, again, those are merely WB projections:
As you can see, it is industrial sector which contributes most to Russia's growth. Not finances, not services, however many of them crucial or important. So, what's the catch? There is none. Russia's so called "financial", "debt" or "stock" market is absolutely irrelevant in Russia's economic outlook, real economy, however is, hugely at that. Nobody in Russia gives a damn, with the exception of a minuscule strata of Russia's moneyed and hip who make money in stock and speculations, about how quotes are doing daily. Russians, of course, do care how Ruble does but that is the extent of the interest of the overwhelming majority of Russians in the so called "financial" (euphemism for hollow bubbles of derivatives detached from the reality) markets.
The explanation is as simple as explanation of a propaganda BS of US GDP being 19 Trillion Dollars--in reality being probably half of declared number. Russians DO care about internal market. This caring, unlike it became the case with otherwise sensible Trump's campaign re-industrialization slogans, manifests itself in Russia's steady industrial, especially manufacturing, output.
There should be no surprise in that for a simple reason: Russia has the largest, and by far, population among European nations, her market is, actually, huge and is primed for a massive industrial outputs (inputs). How so you may ask--very simple. Take aerospace. Or, much maligned initially Sukhoi Super Jet 100. While media were screaming about this regional jet being an economic failure, 170+ of those have been already produced and flying, while there are 170+ are on orders already. This is just the start, Sukhoi already announced development of a 75-seater with 50+ confirmed firm orders plus with almost full localization, including fully Russian-engines, for future aircraft. Russia's regional (a relative term) commercial aviation is not about to explode--it is already exploding, with new SSJ-100s and upcoming IL-114 long overdue removal of old and obsolete Antonov and Western aircraft. Together with MS-21 Russia needs thousands of those in upcoming decade or two.
A very similar picture is repeating itself in many industrial fields from car market which is expanding (a first sign of people willing to buy durable and expensive consumer goods) both for domestic and foreign manufacturers to pharmaceutical. Russians do not care about making money on stock exchange, what Russians do care is to have a decent and, most importantly, stable job--guess who provides it? Right, State. Not in a sense of a direct employment, albeit this too, but in what today increasingly looks like Russia's second industrialization guided by the government based on largely nationalized or financially controlled and supported strategic industries which continue to turn out world class products be it commercial aviation, industrial equipment or consumer goods. Russians just love building machines, so much so that recent poll in Russia found a startling revelation--many Russia's young hipsters with all those "useful" degrees in marketing, finances, banking, sociology and "strategic analysis" were ready to retrain for a blue (really?) collar jobs such as CNC Operators or machinists of all kind. Russia doesn't need "financial analysts" (BTW, the US doesn't need them either).
Even brief review of jobs sides both in Russia and US gives a very interesting insight into Russia's economy. Russia, which is less than half of US in population has more than a half, 2500+ against about 5000 jobs, demand for CNC operators than it is the case in the US. Obviously those numbers are not precise and they do fluctuate but even the approximate ratio is revealing. Unlike the US which surrendered her consumer and industrial market to China, Russia has a very different view on that issue and continues on with re-industrialization. For majority of Western "analysts" still stuck in the Soviet memes of 1970s and 1980s, the acquaintance with Russian-made world-class consumer goods may provide a cultural shock. Not to mention professional top of the line equipment.
The market which is so voluminous as Russia's will be increasingly in need of a whole spectrum of consumer and industrial goods. But nobody in the West, it seems, can wake up to the reality that at this stage Russia doesn't really care if somebody "punishes" her or not, especially such a pretentious economic "giant" as UK, whose GDP is barely 60% or Russia (if to believe the very shysters from London who run a global financial ponzi scheme) and which is the GDP of utterly de-industrialized backwater still thinking that it is a superpower. And then, of course, there are Russia's Military-Industrial Complex and massive strategic natural resources against which UK doesn't even register as a serious power thus raising the question--how, indeed, can UK "punish" Russia when Great Britain was the first, as incomparable Corelli Barnett noted:
"… swift decline in British vigor at home and the failure to
exploit the empire were not owing to some inevitable senescent process of
history....That cause was a political doctrine....The doctrine was liberalism,
which criticized and finally demolished the traditional conception of the
nation-state as a collective organism, a community, and asserted instead the
primacy of individual. According to liberal thinking a nation was no more than
so many human atoms who happened to live under the same set of laws....It was
Adam Smith who formulated the doctrine of Free Trade, the keystone of liberalism,
which was to exercise a long-live and baneful effect on British power....Adam
Smith attacked the traditional "mercantilist” belief that a nation should
be generally self-supporting…"
Russia is increasingly self-supporting and no amount of blackmail, especially in such fields as snake oil sales and trading of the air and useless papers (or machine code lines), aka financial sector, can change the fact that the only way UK can "punish" Russia is to make Russians speak to Boris Johnson and thus make life of Lavrov and Zaharova miserable. Meanwhile London should start paying more attention to a wide spread pedophilia and rape of English girls by increasingly culturally enriching (did the land of Shakespeare, Newton, Conan Doyle and Beatles need that "enriching"?) "Asian men" (and local ones) and resign itself to the fact that it is nothing more than a nice tourist attraction. That is until it gets completely "enriched" and will be finally ruled by Sharia.
Yes, my friends,
you read it right. The Times in its editorial calling for Closing Ranks,
suggests to engage in de facto state terrorism against Russia's civilian
aircraft. Obviously, to a fine lads in The Times the whole notion that their great
compatriot, Sir Isaak Newton, formulated Third Law as:
Is absolutely
unknown. Obviously, disregarding issues of international law and legal process,
the idea that Russia can, in case of Times' hysterical scenario coming to life,
also seize some UK property escapes the bright minds of British journos, who by
now have to feel a real pinch with Skripal affair literally falling apart,
especially after
Scotland Yard making some startling revelations. So, in accordance to
Scotland Yard The Skripals were poisoned at home, then went to restaurant and
then managed to walk to a now proverbial bench where they allegedly succumbed
to this evil Russian poison, which is alleged to be stronger than UK's own VX
neuro-paralytic agent. Yes, small detail, as I already
described it here--VX can kill you in a minute. Something doesn't add up,
don't you think? Especially so, after UK's pathetic, eight grade book report
level attempt on presenting Skripal's case in comic.
The main pearl of
this "adviser" for the Obama national security cabal which went out
of its way in allowing Al Qaeda and ISIS to wreck a havoc in Syria and
destroying Russian-American relations, is this:
Still,
military force is always on the table. Of course, a nuclear Russia changes the stakes in every perspective,
but with regime change trending around the Cabinet, brute force could inch its
way up on the agenda. Russia might be undermining international security, but
there is some good news. Every Situation Room meeting ends with a statement of
conclusions, or SOC in wonk-speak. An SOC from this discussion on retaliation
would invariably note that the United States, along with its partners, took an
unprecedented step to hold Russia accountable for its actions after a careful
process and stakeholder outreach strategy (a lot of intelligence, diplomatic,
policy and news media coordination would have transpired among all of the
countries involved). So, in this respect, the Russia policy process does seem
to be functioning under the Trump administration. Now, it just remains to be
seen whether this step will actually deter Russia from its global bullying
campaign and, if not, what will.
I understand that
they teach all kind of "exceptionalist" crap in US "national
security studies" programs, such
as this, what they don't teach there, and overwhelming empirical evidence
supports me in this (I even wrote a book on that), is sound methodology in
military-political analysis and they certainly don't teach real history there.
I had experience of communicating with several American Ph.Ds in history from
different schools (including Ivy League)--I was stunned with them lacking even
basic understanding of the nature and application of military power. This is
not to mention them not knowing a whole collection of crucial historical
facts.
Apart from
Vinograd being a total amateur in military issues, she, evidently, doesn't
understand and is not aware of the actual military force balance in US-Russia
stand-off and I am talking ONLY about conventional forces. It doesn't favor US
on ANY potential theater of operations, unless the US wants to commit suicide
in getting into the conventional fight with Russia, with US being initially
highly biased towards nuclear option since it will encounter human, materiel
and reputational losses on such a scale that it will be forced to seriously
consider the use of nuclear weapons. But never mind, I am sure this New Jersey
girl knows all about it, including how the US will (not may be, but will) throw
Ukraine under the Russian bus in a desperate attempt to attain any kind of a
result against
the background of immensely accelerating decline. This war is coming. Well,
this war plus wars against Iran and North Korea are certainly on the table--the
Empire is desperate.
But, but in the
midst of this unprecedented hysteria one still cannot escape this bizarre
feeling of a complete unreality of all that and it has nothing to do with some
seemingly dangerous developments, no. This bizarre feeling is in the depth,
grossly underestimated, of the weakness and powerlessness of the combined West
lead by the US. It is, actually, surreal. But then again, none of them read War
and Peace to have a glimpse into the nature of their own downfall--it is not
taught in National Security Studies:
"But all
the general and soldiers of [Napoleon’s] army…experienced a similar feeling of
terror before an enemy who, after losing half his men, stood as threateningly
at the end as at the beginning of the battle. The moral force of the attacking
French army was exhausted. Not that sort of victory which is defined by the
capture of pieces of material fastened to sticks, called standards, and of the
ground on which the troops had stood and were standing, but a moral
victory that convinces the enemy of the moral superiority of his opponent and
of his own impotence was gained by the Russians at Borodino…The direct
consequence of the battle of Borodino was Napoleon’s senseless flight from
Moscow… and the downfall of Napoleonic France, on which at Borodino for
the first time the hand of an opponent of stronger spirit had been laid"(c)
