The Times, this rag which prides itself on being very, oh so, British, and pretends that it has expertise, on March 22 went as far as to suggest this:
So far Mrs May has reacted cautiously to the attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal. She has been reluctant to escalate tensions until she has broad support from her partners. Nato has made clear that it stands four-square behind Britain, recognising that the first offensive use of a nerve agent on an alliance member is not a straightforward crime. Now it is time for the EU, in its summit communiqué, to face reality. With its backing it will be more effective to freeze Russian state assets, to subject Russian property purchases to close scrutiny and to deny visas to human rights abusers. It would be useful for EU states to throw Russian spies out of embassies and it is worth considering the seizure of Aeroflot planes that have in the past carried assailants to Britain.
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:
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
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.
But no worries, for Closing Ranks there is always good ol' USA with its very own collection of all kinds "National Security Experts", such as this headless "specialist" Samantha Vinograd "advising" on what to do with Russia in ever hysterical POLITICO.
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)
Tolstoy, War And Peace.
Post a Comment