Anastasya Lapteva.

Remember This?

Turned out this girls' smile and swordsmanship (known as Flanking--Фланкировка) charmed very many. Her name is Anastasya Lapteva and, yes, her smile and femininity (well, also the ability to separate one's balls from one's body for doing stupid things) is "sexier" ( I hate this stupid qualifier) than any modern slut can provide. 

Her beauty, as her smile, are irresistible, and that is what, probably, should make real symbols (I deliberately omit here cheapening "sex" qualifier) for modern men to fall in love to. And I mean Men, not some soy-boys. 

Very Personal.

They are the class of 1989 (I am 1985). The video was uploaded in 2009 (this is NOT the class of 2009--by then it did not exist) Baku and my Naval Academy, which even today continues to deliver...

Knee bending ceremony is for Stalingrad's Marines (Naval Infantry), I still remember me and Admiral Kemp Tolley almost crying to each-other on the phone in 1997 about what we knew from those years--I'll give you a hint, Kemp Tolley knew our WW II superintendent really well. He, of course, wrote Caviar and Commissars too.  He was THERE. 

 

But if anyone needs other reference points, here is Sasha Turilin (Tourilin), well Rear-Admiral Alexander Turilin (class of 1983), they were our company's Seniors (yes, we drank together):

One of many others among my class-mates, company and faculty fiends and buddies, many of them today people who face realities of the modern world. No bigger than late Vice-Admiral Vasily Alexandrovich Arkhipov, whom I had an honor, the same as knowing Rear-Admiral Kemp Tolley to know in person, physically, or sometimes over the phone. Those who wanna see early 1980s in Baku with English--here it is;-)

Today Baku is STILL stunning, as it was in 1970s and 1980s. It probably is even better but just lacking something...But it still comes to me in my dreams...

Those who don't know who Vice-Admiral Arkhipov IS, Google Caribbean Crisis, he didn't allow the world to die, he was Commander then, Chief Of Staff of 69th Brigade of Diesel Submarines, those proverbial Project 641 (Foxtrots). 

Alexander Rogers As A True Russian Left.

I single Alexander Rogers out--a Russian journalist and economist--for a very important reason--he, using a Western political parlance, however confusing, is an Old Left. Old Russian Left. He embodies this intricate balance between actual and workable left economic ideas and Russia's historic-cultural reality. That is why I like to read his writings and once in a while find there some gems I quote. Here is another one (in Russian) which conveys an idea very many Russians who care to study their own real history arrived to long time ago:

Stalin had it easier than Putin because he had an outstanding human material which rammed Luftwaffe's fighters, fought at Stalingrad and Kursk and built and rebuilt historic Russia from ashes. 

Putin, following Rogers' logic, a correct one, I may add, also has such people but their numbers are smaller and that defines Putin's and Siloviki's strategy. I am writing as of now a large post (an article, really) precisely on this issue--a quality, or rather lack thereof, of contemporary elites. Western "elites" are pathetic and degenerate in human and professional terms, and so are Russian so called "liberal" elites cloned from their Western "idols". How this came about? Well, a thorough discussion on that is the part of my new book I am working on and some snippets of it should appear in this blog and maybe some other media outlets.    

Pepe Escobar Wrote A Superb Piece On Geopolitcs.

A very worthy excursion into the practical geopolitics. Excellent, highly recommended. 

Get ready for a major geopolitical chessboard rumble: from now on, every butterfly fluttering its wings and setting off a tornado directly connects to the battle between Eurasia integration and Western sanctions as foreign policy. It is the paradigm shift of China’s New Silk Roads versus America’s Our Way or the Highway. We used to be under the illusion that history had ended. How did it come to this?

I liked the part on Kissinger. I guess one cannot, indeed, teach the old dog new tricks.  

Matthew Bodner Has Something To Say About Defense.

Of which he has no clue as is expected from a product of US "education" in the "political science" and persona associated with the liberal sewer of Moscow Times. Funny thing: here is the Russian comment from Bodner's article in Defense News, or rather its Russian translation on famous InoSmi (Foreign Media) website:

Я, может быть чуть более информирован, но меня, как российского гражданина, пугают не военные возможности НАТО, а его оторванность от реальности и от собственных народов. Есть у Запада такая склонность - упоровшись собственным величием, двинуться на Россию наносить добро и причинять освобождение.

Translation: Maybe I am slightly more informed, but I, as a Russian citizen, is more afraid of not NATO's military capabilities but of NATO's detachment from reality and own people. The West has this feature--getting drunk on own greatness, then moving to Russia and inflict the goodness and violently cause liberation.

A superb sarcastic summary by the Russian user with a handle of Jadefalcon. And here is my point--most of current American, so called humanities-"educated" (in reality dumbed down and misinformed) talking class is utterly unqualified for expressing their "opinions" on any issue related to actual defense and, least of all, on any issue related to Russia's defense policies and geopolitical status in particular. It is understandable that all kind of media outlets in US are always ready to publish any kind of contrived unprofessional trash, especially coming from "specialists" like Bodner who lives in Russia now for a whole three or four years and on this merit alone, supposedly, should know how defense policies are formulated, but no. The only degree most American "journos" and "experts" in Russia have could be identified as this: BS (or MA) in Rubbing Shoulders Inside Russian Uber-liberal "tusovkas" For Reinforcement of Western Narratives on Russia. Majors vary from Specialization in Solzhenitsyn and Russia-Mordor GULAG to Specialization In Listening To The Same Clueless Russian "liberal" Military Experts (Rumor-mongers) who Say What Is Expected From Them. 

Let us also be very clear--American Russian military "expertise" even among actual professionals is not that great, now comes the class of American political "scientists" who never served a day in any military capacity and have zero military academic, which is on several  orders of magnitude more complex and difficult than any BS degree in political science, background continuing to pontificate on issues they have no clue about. I have news to Mr. Bodner--to concentrate visiting Moscow's wonderful theater and gastronomical scene with his Russian "military experts" since this is the only circle of people Mr. Bodner can have legal access to in Russia, not to speak of most important thing of them all--there are NO real military experts in category of public Mr. Bodner gravitates to naturally. 

Here is an example, from his latest piece:

NATO has long been Russian President Vladimir Putin’s favorite foreign boogeyman and, as far as political footballs go, this one has been easy and fruitful to kick around at home.Most of Putin’s legitimacy in recent years has been rooted in a well-designed domestic narrative of Fortress Russia under siege from foreign powers — with NATO being the focus of concern.

This could have been written only by a complete ignoramus of Russian history and of Russian people (expected from US-"educated" Moscow Times' material) since NATO is NOT Vladimir Putin's "favorite foreign bogeyman" but it is sure as hell favorite "bogeyman" of overwhelming majority of Russian people who ARE NOT in communication circle of Mr. Bodner, which, I am 100% positive, consists of Russian liberal West's sycophants whose only real skills are in distinguishing Glenlivet from Johny Walker's Black Label. My suggestion to Mr. Bodner would be in this case to visit, when he has a time away from writing his sophomoric "military analysis", Poklonnaya Gora Memorial Complex or Piskarevskoye Cemetery in St.Petersburg. Not that it will educate him on anything--the level of ignorance of the body of "political science" in US of a warfare is appalling, but maybe it will give him some insight. I don't hold my breath though. I have some news, however, NATO was a real threat to Russia even in Soviet times. As recent (20+ years) history showed, Russians had ample reasons to be worried. They sure as hell got all evidence they need.

Bodner proceeds then to offer Vladimir Frolov's ("independent political analyst") opinion on Russia's grand strategy:

“Even the shouting match over the 2 percent spending, not to mention Trump’s lunatic call for 4.5 percent, is a significant concern for Moscow,” Frolov said. “Were Germany to start remilitarizing, approaching the capabilities level of the Cold War, we should be worried. And we would hate to see Poland emerge as the new Germany for U.S. forward basing and positioning.”   

I don't know what stone Mr. Frolov lived under last 20 years but I may remind him and Mr. Bodner that it was NATO's barbaric acts against Yugoslavia in Spring 1999 which became the last straw in Russia's reassessment of herself and served as grounds for soft removal of drunkard Yeltsin and emergence of Vladimir Putin, as representative of Siloviki power block at the top of the political power. By 2008 reassessment was largely complete and after War of 080808 there was no turning back in relations with the West. I guess Putin's 2007 Munich speech could be a clue? No? Well, then... So, I have news for Mr. Bodner--while Russia is always open for business dialogue, no ONE of any serious position of influence and, especially so within the power structures which formulate Russia's defense and foreign policies, have any freaking illusions on the nature of the West in general and US in particular. Hence Russia's rearmament and military reforms, which, of course, due to hubris and ignorance were misrepresented and misread in the US, the same goes for the massive shift in Russia's economic policies, which also were misrepresented and misread by all those American Russia "scholars". Russia is playing for both remilitarization of Germany (what and how is that is a separate issue altogether) and absolutely 100% for Poland becoming a forward basing and positioning for US mostly ABM and other components. 

But Bodner doesn't stop here and adds another "brilliant" insight:

The Kremlin has made confrontation with the West a cornerstone of its domestic legitimacy. Western politicians and pundits have honed in on Moscow with an intensity that makes their Russian counterparts nervous. And Trump cannot realistically deal with Russia in any way the Kremlin would like to see.    

Obviously, Bodner is lost completely in Russia's political, cultural and historic realities--a normal thing for American Russia "scholars", such as clown Michael McFaul, who still thinks that Russians are about to rise up since they want Pride-parades, multiculturalism, "democratic" reforms and other "values" which basically are killing the US--but last time I checked, May this year, and I know about Russia on several orders of magnitude more than Bodner will ever do, not to mention my background--yes I am talking about it--Russians in general were way more sophisticated and, I may say educated, than to be used as pawns in the "confrontation with West". I have some secrets to break to our Moscow "correspondent-political scientist":

1. Even Moscow's metro has free Wi-Fi and Russia and Russians are an extremely "plugged in" society and have, in actuality, better access to more competent and freer opinions than, say, Americans who simply are tuning out from hysterical and incompetent US media, who, as Mr. Bodner demonstrates, push same old tired Russia "narrative". Well that, plus Putin controlling everything in US and is being about to destroy US "democracy".

2. OK, here it comes, current Russian military and political analysis (and I don't mean Russian "liberals"--those are largely intellectually challenged and are badly educated) is on the order of magnitude better and and more competent. Why it is so? Well, because I know of very few Russian "political scientists" who actually comment much (again, with exception of Russian "liberals") on defense issues since this, for the most part, is reserved for people with actual military backgrounds and many of them (there are exceptions, of course) are either good or damn good. Example of a damn good political analyst without direct military background is Rostislav Ishenko who is not just some top notch political analyst but a historian with a good grasp of warfare and its evolution. That is what makes him so good. 

3. In general, with some minor exceptions, most what was or is being written on Russia's military, be that doctrinal, social or technological dimensions, is utter trash. Part of it is butt-hurt, part is hubris but most important part is that most political scientist in the US have no clue on the nature and application of the military power and, in general, will have issues with grasping even simplest technological, tactical and operational concepts reduced to a comic book and all mathematics removed.  

So it is difficult for me, in this case, to convey to Mr. Bodner how the necessary force (Naryad Sil) and its requirements are identified and calculated and how the levels of readiness are implemented especially in the country which has a military history which dwarfs anything the US ever experienced and which has ZERO illusions on NATO and is getting ready to face the worst possible scenario. But I am sure that Matthew Bodner will get to the bottom of it, after all, political science is such a great tool in getting force structure right or winning actual wars, right? Nah, I am being facetious--they can't handle the truth.     

UPDATE: Here is another "military expert" from a clownish organization known as STRATFOR. Omar Lamrani. Read attentively his CV.

Omar Lamrani focuses on air power, naval strategy, technology, logistics and military doctrine for a number of regions, including the Middle East and Asia. He studied international relations at Clark University and holds a master's degree from the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna, where his thesis centered on Chinese military doctrine and the balance of power in the Western Pacific. Mr. Lamrani previously worked as an intern with the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, where he was assigned to the Afghanistan desk. He was raised in Morocco and is a native speaker of Arabic and French. He has lived and worked in Europe, the United States and Thailand.

AREAS OF EXPERTISE: Military doctrine, Naval strategy and technology, Logistics, Asymmetric warfare,The Syrian Civil War

I would love (not really--I prefer not to waste my time with amateurs) to talk with this hack about this:

“Physically the Russians really can’t do anything to stop that strike,” said Lamrani. “If the U.S. comes in and launches cruise missiles,” as it has in past strikes, “the Russians have to be ideally positioned to defend against them, still won’t shoot down all of them, and will risk being seen as engaging the U.S.,” which might cause U.S. ships to attack them. Lamrani pointed out that in all previous U.S. strikes in Syria, the U.S. has taken pains to avoid killing Russian servicemen and escalating conflict between the U.S. and Syrians to conflict between the world’s two greatest nuclear powers. “Not because the U.S. cannot wipe out the flotilla of vessels if they want to,” said Lamrani, but because the US wouldn’t risk sparking World War III with Russia over Syria’s government gassing its civilians. “To be frank, the US has absolute dominance” in the Mediterranean, and Russia’s ships won’t matter, said Lamrani. “The U.S. would use its overwhelming airpower in the region and every single Russian vessel on the surface will turn into a hulk in a very short time,” if Russian ships engaged the U.S., said Lamrani.

This is a perfect case in point since all those "strategy" and "technology" scholars with useless degrees in International Relations do not understand what they are talking about. They do not teach such things as Combat Stability (Ustoichivost') and how it forms in Vienna Diplomatic Academy, nor Mr. Lamrani has any clue on the issues of "leakers" and how configuration of salvo changes probabilities dramatically, especially in EW dense environment, but again--this doesn't prevent glorious amateurs and sophomores from offering their utterly uninformed--I am not talking about higher issue of knowledge--rubbish as a valuable opinion on issues of which, no matter amount of the materials they may dig up in open press and comic books, they will never have even semi-professional grasp of. So, Omar Lamrani is as "military expert" as I am Chinese, but then again--no serious professional will bother oneself with working for such outfit as STRATFOR. Reputations are difficult to built and are easily lost.

Here is a review by real American military and intelligence professionals on this STRATFOR outfit.

Stratfor is a sleazy outfit. It was established as a money machine by George Friedman and a former Texas Congressman (now out of the picture) who served at one time on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. His being the co-founder along with the presence in the vicinity of numerous retired military people and civilian officials helps explain the selection of Austin as the company’s home.  They hustle; everything they do smacks of a hustle.  They exploit the student interns while playing on their desire to partake of the mysterious and the romantic.  Those they do hire for regular positions get the skimpiest of wages.  Expertise and languages are little valued.  Their hallmark tool is an electronic pair of scissors. One student had spent four years as an interrogator for the U.S. Army in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He served as an employee of a contract firm there. His first assignment as a junior member of the Stratfor team was to prowl around the Rio Grande Valley looking for stuff on the drug cartels; he never had been there before.

And this is how utter operational-strategic and technological rubbish is re-utilized and regurgitated in the American media.  

Some Fast Thoughts On 2nd Fleet.

In the news since last week is the revival of the US Navy's 2nd Fleet, as reported by Fox. 

NORFOLK, Va. –  The U.S. Navy formally re-established its 2nd Fleet on Friday, intensifying its focus on the North Atlantic Ocean where the Russian military is operating at a pace not seen since the end of the Cold War. The change is mostly organizational. It revives an Admiral-level command dedicated to overseeing American warships as they deploy between the U.S. East Coast and the Barents Sea, off of the coasts of Norway and Russia. The revived fleet also reflects a broader change in U.S. military strategy. The nation's primary concern is shifting from terrorism in the Middle East to America's growing competition with Russia and China.

Putting all this BS mambo-jumbo about "democracy" and values aside here we may all come together in admitting that in one assessment US Navy is absolutely correct--the era of a great power competition is back. Speaking in purely military, not ideological terms, the 2nd Fleet will have to, as was stated:

Having a 2nd Fleet allows the U.S. to work more closely and effectively with its NATO allies, retired U.S. Navy Admiral Gary Roughead said in an interview. And they will be better prepared to respond to potential Russian aggression.

So, what this "potential Russian aggression" is? Very simple, and hear me out, unlike US Army or USAF which are known to be "defending" the United States anywhere but near the United States, the US Navy IS an actual defender of the nation and North America. It doesn't mean that US Navy doesn't participate in good ol' American business of bombing weak nations into the stone age, but operationally and strategically US Navy is, indeed, the force which is tasked with defense of US proper, including from this hypothetical Russian aggression. 

The potential "Russian aggression" has a very specific name--Russia's submarine forces, ranging from upgraded project 949A (Oscar II-class SSGN) capable of carrying up to 72 Kalibr-family missiles, to the Project 885 (Yasen-class SSGN) capable of another 32 missile mix, including Oniks, which is also capable of TLAM function but with a shorter range than 3M14. 2nd Fleet will have a gigantic area of responsibility if it wants to counter Russian subs which, inevitably, will go into the areas suitable for launch at targets inside the US and, knowing those ranges, one can easily imagine where a line going parallel in roughly 2400 kilometers from the US East Coast will be. It is a very large area and it will require a rather impressive operational sweep to keep it under some control against very silent Russian subs. 

While there is a lot of talk about Sea Control, the funny thing here is that in this particular case 2nd Fleet will be more in a Sea Denial, rather than Sea Control, mode. One of the reasons for that being the fact that famous GIUK Gap, a proverbial choke point of the Cold War 1.0 and of late Tom Clancy's wet dreams, loses all of its appeal for a number of key reasons most important of them being:

1. Russia is not fighting this "Fourth Battle of Atlantic" as some top brass in US Navy declared. It is a load of propagandist contrived crap. As the crow flies, the distance from Murmansk to the East Coast of Iceland is about 1,200 miles. 1,200 x 1.6=1920 kilometers. Do you get my drift? Now ask yourself a question why suddenly Norway came into focus. 

2. This means NO serious surface NATO component (in case of, God forbids, things going "hot") will survive the "breaking through" salvo of Kinzhals, X-32s and, well--you get the picture...

3. That means a much freer passage of Russian subs into the Atlantic Ocean than it was the case during the Cold War 1.0 when massive NATO ASW and other surface and submarine forces were operating in this Gap. 

4. Russia is not really fighting this war because Gorshkov Soviet Navy's Flank Strategy (Med in the South and Baltic and Atlantic  in the North) is not necessary anymore--Russia is not intent on "invading" Europe nor support her "socialist" (nowadays all NATO members) flanks by means of interdicting Atlantic SLOCs, considered crucial for Western Europe to resist those nasty Russkies about to invade (from 1945 through 1989) Western Europe. 

Russian subs are needed in Atlantic to keep a revolver to the temple in case of not hypothetical but a very real aggression from the US. Obviously all kinds of combinations are possible here, including (who knows--I just speculate, don't take it too seriously) a possibility of Avangard being deployed on some of Russian Navy's strategic missile subs, together with a growing fleet of strategic bombers capable of carrying a very long range missiles. So, from this point of view US Navy does face an actual strategic task to hunt down those Russkies to prevent, at least from the ocean, a very probable retaliatory salvo if someone in Washington will go completely mad. Russia is not going to attack unless attacked first. That means a lot of ASW and a lot of other operational and, most importantly, psychological adjustments for US Navy, which in this case finds itself in a very unusual role--facing real no-go exclusion zones and a range of missile threats inconceivable even 10 years ago. Will 2nd Fleet be up to the task? I guess we'll see. I hope good movies will come out of it, if we all survive...

"Another Mindless Crime"(c)

This line from Queen's Show Must Go On pretty much summarizes what is about to transpire and in order for me not to regurgitate same points any person with brain can understand, I give here a link to Colonel Lang's excellent analysis. 

The White Helmets are saddling up for another ride

And to his superb comment on what is going on and who Trump is in all that. 

IMO he is probably like a mushroom on this. Kept in the dark and fed horseshit.

In the comments to my latest piece on Grand Strategy at Unz Review I reiterated my old point:

I specifically pointed out that I am talking about current situation. Russian governance axiom for the last 100 years? Never again should some civilian cabal “rule” Russia. Only people with military-intelligence background, only with a very strong industrial-engineering, military or, generally, what is known in the West as “national security studies”, educational foundation should be in charge of Russia. Today, many from Russian elite are taught some crucial courses in Military Academy of General Staff–a timely and wise decision.

US elites, including at the very top are good only at PR and getting "elected"--remove Mattis, and the only people you have left in top echelon in the US are headless warmongering chickens who are utterly unqualified even for running a "public sanitation in the prison"(c). DJT, evidently, is not that great of a "master of a deal" when surrounding himself with a bunch of ambitious careerists who will sell him out for nothing, such as his Cohen guy did and John Bolton inevitably will. But then again--this is the ONLY human and professional material Washington produces anymore. In fact, Bolton is already at it and Trump has no clue. One has to, at this point, contemplate tongue in cheek Verhoeven's masterpiece at least semi-seriously. 

Why Putin Goes To Austria...Opus To Europe

Normal people having fun for 35+ years....

 

America I Love.

It is Friday and let me wax a bit poetic and personal. From the rubble of the empire in 1990s, where everything is lost, being transferred to peace and calm could be a life-changing experience, and it was. It also endears one to a place and people, especially when your previous place is lost with everything in it--I will, at some point, write about it. Russia is a very beautiful country, in fact--it could be stunning. I know. But even magnificent rocky mountains of Altai are 5 hours... of flight from ocean. Kamchatka volcanoes are stunning, I know--we played Pink Floyd's Time at the edge of Avachinsky's caldera in 1978 on portable reel-to-reel tape recorder. It boggles your mind. But 16 years later you are a changed man without a country. 

And suddenly you settle in deceptive peace and calm which seemed impossible and what you had dreams about suddenly comes alive. 

American West, its landscapes and people, suddenly get into you, wrap you up, until you understand that you cannot escape and you surrender, because you want to. 

America is a breath-taking beautiful country (as is Canada), and even deep in the Rockies you still feel the breathing of an ocean and you gravitate to it--I was born and lived all my life on the shores of the seas and oceans. I need to see every morning mountain peaks covered in snow and feel a giant water. I don't like American cities, I love one-story America--with its diners, people, chit-chats and rumor-mills. I guess that is why I love both The Groundhog Day (yeah, yeah--Pennsylvania) and The Postman. I recognize places and people, who I love. I feel the peace coming to an end but I don't want to wake up. Sorry for the pathos...it is Friday, after all. 

Remember this?

But, of course, Russian version was still better;) 

Enjoy, the awe and beauty of this country...I still have to get to Southern Chicken Fried Steak.

Bolton Speaks.

OK, John Bolton gave Russia, namely her National Security Council head, Nikolai Patrushev, the last Chinese warning against meddling in US elections--we now know that Russia already has evil plans to "meddle" in these elections by means of investing another 97 cents or, maybe whole 97 dollars, in trying to subvert American democracy and promote communism. We know that because US media, known for their integrity and honesty, talk about this all the time. So Bolton was very stern while warning evil Russkies against that.   

Then Bolton added that:

Patrushev had not sought Russian waivers on sanctions during their talks, he added.  

I can hear a surprising, and desperate in some quarters, "Wha-a-a-a-t?" from most (not all) American Russia "scholars" and "journalists" who still reside in their make-believe universe and are still waiting for Russia to crawl back to their feet begging for mercy. Yes, any minute now. But jokes aside, Bolton was not meeting Patrushev for this BS. Bolton might be an aggressive neocon of sorts but he is not completely stupid and is at least aware of the real score. Here what is at stake:

Bolton, a critic of the New START treaty agreed during Democratic President Barack Obama’s administration, said the two sides did not set a date for deciding what to do about the treaty due to expire in 2021.“We are very very early in the process of considering what we are going to do with New START or the INF treaty,” he said, referring to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces pact. 

That is warmer, much warmer. The United States wants to discuss START only, what a surprise, on American conditions. US thinks it can negotiate from this position, but, of course it cannot since it is not in such position anymore. Not for quite some time. These conditions could be expressed (it is not mine) in this simple phrase: You, Russia, reduce weapons which you have in exchange for us, America, reducing weapons which we don't have. This is not going to fly, obviously. So, because the United States realistically cannot close the gap in, at least openly disclosed, weaponry any time soon, it will try the last, it thinks trump (sorry), card it has--economic warfare on a big scale. That, plus deploying whatever it has all around Russia waiting for the next Gorby or drunkard like Boris emerge from the deep recesses of Russia's political cellar. Russians do not really give a damn as long as somebody doesn't do a really stupid thing and tries going "hot". After watching performance by Mr. Mudd and, considering his very high post in national security hierarchy, I have to allow for a non-zero probability of some spoiled brats on the top pushing, out of noble indignation with those nasty evil Russkies, for a military solution. 

So, what's left? Well, Patrushev is an immensely powerful figure in Russia and is more than authorized to explain to Bolton how real situation looks like. Of course, as always there will be a lot of PR on the US side and Russia will continue to seek compromises when necessary but, I am sure, Bolton was presented with the case in this first meeting that either it is quid-pro-quo or nothing at all. Choice is America's. I think the bargaining started but it is not about Grand Deal--time for that is long gone. How to call this process? Feel free to try your imagination. 

UPDATE: Ah, speak of the devil, or as Russians say--the grand piano in the bushes (Royal' V Kustakh). I don't hold Leonid Bershidsky in any serious regard in terms of serious global and economic policies--one can not expect any competence from liberal Russian bankster and journo by (Western) education, but even he has to admit:

As the U.S. begins to consider an all-out economic war, the two strategic questions it needs to answer are: what it is willing to pay to extract any concessions from the Putin government at all, and how long it is prepared to wait. Macroeconomically, Russia, with unemployment at a record low, modest inflation and $400 billion of international reserves, is unlikely to collapse before the U.S. unleashes a global energy or debt crisis that could prompt its allies to desert it. If less than maximum pain is applied, Russia could manage for years with relatively low growth. That is the basis for Putin’s calculations. It bodes badly for the current direction of U.S. policy. If Washington inflicts as much pain as it can — and nothing changes — it will be a painful failure for the superpower.

The point I am trying to make for years now is not just that US and its political and so called "intellectual" classes are absolutely unaware of real Russia--that is not really the news--US Russian "studies" field is pathetic. The point is that they are unaware about American real standing, military and economic, globally. That's the problem. The problem also with the Western geopolitical calculus--it simply doesn't work. As per "macroeconomic"--each time when I hear (read) this economic psychobabble, I cringe. 

"You Can't Handle The Truth"(c).

Yvonne Lorenzo sent me link to this and I decided to put it here too. First, Paris Dennard is an absolutely top class act in this instance--intelligent, eloquent and cultured. Secondly, the behavior of this Philip Mudd "top intelligence" dude of CIA-FBI fame, which can only be described in psychiatric terms--ranging from open hysteria to teenage desperation--is very indicative of the overall state of the American "elites". The off-the scale amount of pathos of this counter-terrorism "specialist" is an immediate indicator of a huge inferiority, human and professional, complex he has. The guy "can't handle the truth" and CNN sure as hell knows how to "choose" its "national (in)security" contributors.   

Now, get this: obviously Deep State operatives such as former CIA big honcho in lie Brennan or this Mudd guy may not necessarily reflect on all, especially middle level, people working in national security complex--I am sure there are many top notch professionals and decent people in this bureaucratic behemoth--but they sure as hell reflect on a pathetic state of American political class, which, should it have been less homicidal, would have been a complete laughing stock. Wait, it is. Now to a more profound thing: this Philip Mudd guy has a graduate degree in... English Literature. Oh, I am sure he was taught in all kinds of "spy" schools along the way, but one is forced to ask the question--does anyone in their freaking mind still believe that you can grow and hone a top notch intelligence, forget real military, professional who in his formative years was a student of literature and didn't serve a freaking single day in uniform? Good luck with that, but don't be surprised with increasingly pathetic outcomes in terms of personnel. It is a sad exhibition on CNN but entirely not unexpected one. As many stated not for once--these people are not agreement-capable, precisely for the reasons of them not being able to handle the truth. Well, that, and being pompous ass-holes. 

Excellent Piece By Phil Giraldi.

Who I respect profoundly despite not always agreeing with him. But here is his piece from Strategic Culture Foundation which is very much worth reading and gets many things right, except one. This is where I disagree with him. 

One has to conclude that the United States has now become the ultimate angry imperial power, lashing out with the only thing that seems to work – its ability to interfere in and control financial markets – to punish nations that do not play by its rules. Given Washington’s diminishing clout worldwide, it is a situation that is unsustainable and which will ultimately only really punish the American people as the United States becomes more isolated and its imperial overreach bankrupts the nation. As America weakens, Russia, Turkey, Iran and all the other countries that have been steamrolled by Washington will likely seek revenge. To avoid that, a dramatic course correction by the US is needed, but, unfortunately, is unlikely to take place. 

Russia will not seek revenge on Americans, absolutely not. Not being vengeful is one of the features of Russians as people. Unless, of course, one seriously takes Anthony Beavor's Solzhenitsyn-scale, in terms of BS, claims of millions of German women raped by the Red Army. This British so called "historian" never heard of a brutal punishment including executions (IIRC, 800 soldier and officers were executed, around 4000 were court martialed for rape and sent to "GULAG") of Red Army personnel who did actually rape German women in 1945, one has to remember, paradoxically, Stalin's famous: Hitlers come and go but Germany and German people remain. Russian people have no beef with Americans (guess who were the largest contingent of tourists at the WC 2018 in Russia), they also do not hate the United States, but Russian nation DOES have issue with what today passes as an American power "elite" which is both dangerous and treasonous primarily to own people. 

But the end of US "power" is near, in fact we are in the initial stages of collapse of the edifice of what became known as Pax Americana. It is only accelerating and, I am sure, there are number of people in the whatever you want to call it--"establishment", Borg, Deep State, etc.--who may begin to fill a slight pinch from the unfolding situation. Somebody has to answer for the rise and support of ISIS, somebody has to answer for war crimes against too many nations to be listed here. After all, people like this:

have to understand that old Soviet/Russian post-Great Patriotic War slogan Nobody Is Forgotten, Nothing Is Forgotten, is not just about those fallen who fought for the motherland, but also about atrocities and those who committed them. Somebody, somewhere always keeps the score and somebody always has to answer. 

As per American state and government themselves--it is American people's task to save them and make them work, because, among those really important things about Russia's attitudes towards the United States one thing remains constant--Russia is keenly interested in the United States as peaceful, stable and prosperous nation. Why so--is a separate huge issue. Can the US become such? Some people think that the nature of current US political and economic systems completely precludes that, and these people may have a point, but at least today I personally still have to give some benefit of a doubt regarding Phil Giraldi's "unlikely" verdict, which automatically implies at least non-zero probability of positive outcome, since some healthy forces in the US do exist. If they lose (and I don't mean DJT) then, yes, the United States will be done not only as a locomotive of global "liberalism" but as a nation. There will be no coming back from the catastrophic implosion of a system. And here is my point: as I stated not for once in the last 4-5 years--Russia is not interested, neither is China, in America's catastrophic collapse, so instead of "revenge", most likely some arrangements are already being made for some sort of a "soft landing". Russia is run by the adults who are extremely well informed and aware of the world outside and they are too busy to be engaged into any kind of revenge on the US--they have a bigger fish to fry. As per this: 

Though Russian President Vladimir Putin has responded with restraint, avoiding a tit-for-tat, he is reported to be angry about the new move by the US government and now believes it to be an unreliable negotiating partner. Considering the friendly recent exchanges between Putin and Trump, the punishment of Russia has to be viewed as something of a surprise, suggesting that the president of the United States may not be in control of his own foreign policy.

I can only reiterate: current American political class is not treaty worthy, or non-agreement-capable, party and that is why this class is already doomed by the history.

Lavrov, Help!!

Patients are now completely in charge of the asylum. For now I give Russian source (and Russians are very diligent when reporting from the US), but here it is (for now, in Russian).

Senator from Montana John Tester stated that Putin is busy "promoting communism and annihilating democracy" in the US.

I don't know, guys, but how can one comment on THIS? OK, I can understand this, now tired, lunacy with Russians controlling the United States and Putin being omnipotent, but "promoting communism"? Even in 1970s in USSR the shortest anecdote on the streets was, well, "communism". How the hell can Russia promote "communism", by what means? Sending sleep-inducing Gennady Zyuganov on a speaking tour over the United States? Well, Zyuganov is as "communist" as I am Chinese. Modern Communist Party of Russian Federation (KPRF), no, not the classic rock station from Texas, is nothing more than "pink" parliamentary European social-democratic party with about 15% of loyal electorate and no perspectives of ever becoming a party of power. Other than that, who else from Russia can promote communism in the US? Well, what can I say? Help!

It Is Official Now.

Read this attentively: 

KUBINKA /Moscow Region/, August 21. /TASS/. Russia is developing a prototype of a completely new vertical take-off plane on the instruction of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov said on Tuesday. "This work has, indeed, been included in the state armament program and is being conducted on the instruction of the supreme commander-in-chief. Now work is underway to develop conceptual models and prototypes," the vice-premier said.

I will comment in depth on this later but one thing which is absolutely clear--STOVL concept in Russian Navy will lead, inevitably, to some sort of a hybrid carrier akin to US Navy's LHA-6 America-class amphibious assault ships but, in Russian case, most likely with greater emphasis on the air-wing and self-defense—even most likely making it closer to HMS Queen Elizabeth carrier of the Royal Navy conceptually. I can already hear sobbing and cries of desperation from all kinds of Russian navalists still enamored with the concept of Alfa-strikes and glory of the flying decks of CATOBAR carriers. I used to be a navalists myself but with the appearance of 4^th generation submarines and weapons such as P-800 Onyx, I got cured and transferred from the shining light and inherent goodness of the Battle of Midway romanticism to a dark side of bookkeeping, cynical pragmatism and stand-off weapons. And I mean STAND-OFF weapons and we all know what they are.

The main question now thus is this: is co-existence of CATOBAR and STOVL carriers possible in Russian Navy? My answer is: why not. MiG-29K is a mature program and this excellent aircraft will eventually substitute venerable SU-33s on a fully upgraded Kuznetsov, which undergoes a major refit as I type this. As per new STOVL aircraft—let's wait and see. When Yak-141 first appeared in late 1980s it was a revolutionary STOVL aircraft; who said that new one will not be.