Why?

As news have it (in Russian) Trump wants to see Russia, India, Australia and South Korea at what used to be G-7 meeting some time in the future (in Russian). As you may have noticed already, one entity which is conspicuously absent from this is the largest, by far, economy in the world, which is China. This is not to mentio0n that the fact that Trump's desires mean absolutely nothing for Russia, who has a committed relations with China. Trump also has to understand that Russia was in decoupling mode with Europe for a few years no. Sure, selling Russian energy to Europe is important, so is important to sell finished and agricultural products, but here is a short view of what Russian-European trade relations look like today:

Russia is the EU's fifth largest trading partner and the EU is Russia's largest trading partner, with a two-way trade in goods value of €232 billion in 2019. In 2019 Russia was the origin of ca. 40% of EU imports of gas and 27% of EU imports of oil. Due to the large value these imports, EU’s trade deficit with Russia (€ 57 billion in 2019) is only second to EU’s trade deficit with China.

The issue here, of course, is the fact that this trade is represented for a whole Europe, 4 of the major nations of her, constitute a bulk of G-7. By far the most important dynamics here is this: 

EU-Russia bilateral trade in goods peaked in 2012, dropping by 43% between 2012 and 2016 from two-way €322 billion in 2012 to €183 billion in 2016. Since 2016, bilateral trade has partially recovered. However, Overall EU exports to Russia were in 2019 25% lower than in 2012, agri-food exports were 38% lower.

These are the effects of a non-stop trade war (sanctions) on Russia supported by all those Europeans and, quoting, Karen Shakhnazarov, "sanctions are good for Russia", because sanctions allow increasing decoupling from EU, including by means of import substitution, and the only way Europe can still retain interest for Russians is EU being a market, which will increasingly, due to a sheer stupidity of EU bureaucracy, will be destabilized due to confluence of macroeconomic and cultural factors. Russia is just fine dealing with Europeans on a bilateral level. But here is another dynamics to consider:

Look at this dynamics, which brought Russia-Chinese trade to $107 billion in 2019 and continues to grow, eventually projected to hit volume of $200 billion by 2024. Comparable to the volume of trade of Russia with Europe, which hates Russian guts and will behave as the US lap dog in the future. So, Russia's choice is quite obvious here. Especially when one considers a puny trade relations between the US and Russia and Russia having a full grasp of US enmity towards herself. Aw, just look at these numbers:

Russia ranked No. 28 in total trade value through March with a total of $6.61 billion. Exports totaled $1.18 billion and Imports totaled $5.43 billion, a deficit of $4.25 billion.

Pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? So, Trump wants to exclude China from "international community" by holding this gathering which decides nothing and is worthless in terms of any practical solutions to an unfolding catastrophe which is global economic crisis. So, anyone can explain what Russia is to gain, other than some photo-ops for Trump, from this meeting? Why should Vladimir Putin even be there? Moscow and New Delhi have a direct line and can solve their issues by talking directly, Europe, frankly, is economically suicidal, Australia is a non-entity for Russia, so why? I don't know, but Trump, evidently thinks that this is a good idea. I think it is a waste of time, because the settling of global issues must happen first between G-3: China, US and Russia. Until something is decided within this triangle no other meetings will produce any sensible world order which will reasonably satisfy everyone. The United States is not ready to deal with this issue yet, but US has only two options here: war and getting back to the reality. What will be this choice we don't know yet, hopefully the latter one.  

Why I Am Not Surprised-2.0.

You gotta love these headlines.

 Stocks up slightly amid dismal economic data

And why shouldn't they be? Greed has no relation to reality, economic or human, for that matter. All this Wall Street gobbledygook was never designed to give clear sharp definitions of real things or processes. Just take a load of this:

That rotation from high-growth tech to value names also came alongside states reopening their economies and helping catalyze an uptick in activity, bringing investors back into a broader basket of equities.

Oh, what a load of pretentious contrived shit which serves only to cover for this data and it is horrifying, because it affects lives of millions of people who are not "into a broader basket of equities". 

The S&P 500 has crossed the 3,000 level again and investors are clearly riding high on hope for a second half economic recovery post the worst of COVID-19. But that doesn’t mean the market is immune to a pullback this summer primarily because the economic data will likely continue to be horrible. Remember bulls, the U.S. economy has been kicked in the face by the pandemic, and a rebound won’t happen overnight simply because states are reopening. Corporate sales and profits remain under severe strain, sending many off to explore bankruptcy or cut thousands of workers even with quarantines being lifted. “We think that the reported unemployment rate may be around as high as 20% in May,” Barclays chief U.S. economist Michael Gapen warned on Yahoo Finance’s The First Trade. The unemployment rate in April increased by 10.3 percentage points to 14.7%. Gapen believes the U.S. economy may contract a whopping 40% annualized in the second quarter, then surprisingly grow by 25% in the third quarter and 8% in the fourth quarter.

Yes, yes, it will "surprisingly" grow, never mind unsurprising 20% unemployment rate. And let's not talk, like absolutely not, about what was going on before the seasonal flu...I mean COVID-19 struck its blow at impressionable universe of social networks' slaves. The question is not about if the recovery is in cards--it is, at some point of time, at least--but about what will the country do once the full (real--I underscore it, real) scale of unemployment hits home. If there ever was a better way to demonstrate how a huge chunk of "white collar" jobs is not only useless but a burden on real economy, the COVID-19 was it.  

A new video, few days ago, caught my attention. Remember this?

I knew from the get go that this whole thing was nothing more than a "sell" for a bunch of uncultured nouveau riche class which spawned on the ponzi scheme of easy virtual money. "Respectable" people with real money usually reside in their castles and mansions in Europe, closer to actual, however degenerate today, culture and landscapes.  Middle Eastern shitholes covered with the glitz of oil money are for plebes, even if with money, virtual ones, that is. This is one of the suites on the "middle" floor of Burj Khalifa--a symbol of human post-modernist imbecility and ambition--during the storm, which are frequent guests in the region. 

Anyone who thinks that this "experience"of satisfying own ego in this building is so great--let them. No normal person, that is the person who has own two feet on the ground and values real things in life, be them emotionally, aesthetically or materially, would ever want to spend a day (or night) in this pretentious tower looking out at the desert, sea and ugly concrete jungles of Dubai, or any other location in the area. If I need to experience a desert (but it is just me), I know how to get to Nevada (driving through some of the most wonderful landscapes in the world), check into decent Holiday Inn or (all right, all right) Bellagio, and still be within easy driving distance to everything I really value in life--wonderful nature's sights, few hours of drive away lake Tahoe, being among (mostly) people of the same culture and good ol' Black Bear Diner or IHOP, for that matter. Excellent experiences and they cost order of magnitude less than any "vacations" in Dubai or whatever other radically un-touristy locations in backward Middle East. But, as I said, it is just me, many still think that if they could (not anymore, evidently) afford some, never materialized, mansion on one of the Dubai's "islands" that would set them apart, I agree. One has to be a complete moron to "invest" into the "real estate" in the place which goes (not will, but IS going) kaboom in the new economic reality where things of real value only matter.

What is this real "value"? Very simple, our families, our loved ones, friends, colleagues, our real skills in building, repairing, growing, harvesting things, maintaining the safety of our communities, leading truly healthy, in every sense of this word, lifestyles (not you, vegans and pot-smokers), reading, listening to good music, contemplating, creating, being human--these are real values. This is the way to contentment, in being satisfied with smaller but important things. Of course jobs matter, of course our houses matter, but normal person doesn't need Bentley or $4,000 a night suite, or $3 million mansion at the sandy isles in the midst of stinky water, in the area which goes bust, as was predicted, to be happy. As I say all the time, the economy is a consumer pattern. Yes, we all got screwed over by moneyed and subservient political class, nothing new here, it happened before (and was predicted), it is happening now and may happen yet again in the future--such is the nature of capital. But while being condescending (justifiably) towards this class' consumerism, much of it drowning in consumption of useless, wealth-signalling, luxuries, which is always a sign of a lack of true culture and real refinment, there is nothing wrong with us taking a look in the mirror at our own selves and asking the question if continuous consumer pattern is sustainable? I don't think so. But what is the normal pattern? How can it be defined, in what material and moral terms? We all will have to answer this question at some point of time. I, personally, do not need Bentley to be content, as long as my air conditioner and stereo in the car work, as long as it is clean and tidy, I should be fine, in material sense. I also can live without single cask Scotch $500 a bottle. 

In fact, even today, when looking at consumer patterns of modern "elites", one cannot fail to notice how much those "luxuries" are kitsch and tasteless in their attempt to emulate glorious antiquity and royal opulence of Renaissance while in reality most of those in the possession of that opulence have nothing more than a psyche of the small shop keepers. They may yet, many of them, experience a rude awakening. In the end, how can we balance out the need and the want, how does this proverbial "enough" in material sense look like? It is a known fact that Marx considered the United States to be the first country where socialist revolution will succeed. Marx may yet turn out to be correct but what we all, without exception, need to prevent is revolution in a sense of an outright physical conflict, however difficult this may seem now. But it is in everyone's interest to see evolution towards maybe, just maybe, more sane economically and, as a consequence, morally future. For everything else there is a new generation of weapons to help keep this all under control for now.

Yet Another Victory... Not.

News pour in and people begin to feel nervous. How else can one describe this:

Russia became the top crude oil supplier to China last month, overtaking Saudi Arabia with an average of 1.75 million bpd versus 1.26 million bpd for Saudi Arabia, Reuters has reported, citing customs data. In fact, last month Saudi Arabia fell to the third spot among Chinese oil suppliers, with Iraq taking number-two.

As Karen Shakhnazarov proposed yesterday (in Russian)--the whole oil war couldn't have been started by Saudis without US blessing, if not planning. I agree. As much as US depends on Saudis for a number of things, Saudis are what amounts to an American vassal. I don't think they planned it well, to start with--not surprising, once one notices a very weak grasp by planners in D.C. of causality and their inability to calculate consequences, which became a feature of US strategies in the last 20 or so years.  Russia, meanwhile, is what supports China in China's rear through the growing network of oil and gas pipelines and this strategy, if you will, is what matters above all for China which is beginning to be pulled into the war with the United States. So much so, that ideas like this are taking over discussion in the public (media) space.

Mid-2020 saw the world at war, actual strategic war as far as the Forbidden Palace in Beijing was concerned. This was almost disbelievingly acknowledged by some in Washington, DC, London, Canberra, Ottawa, New Delhi, and Tokyo. It was a war that was viewed tentatively and with incredulity in much of the West because it was a war of a very new type. And it was a war in which the West — for the first time in a century or more — did not write the rules of engagement.

For me personally it would have been an extremely interesting undertaking to discuss those ROE (rules of engagement) and how they are "written", especially against the background of the United States going out of its way to sabotage, as an example, Nord Stream-2, by means of putting Germany in her place as the US the doormat, but as the the author discusses and questions "kinetic" options, he arrives to this "conclusion": 

So where and how would kinetic operations begin? It seems clear that Beijing is reluctant to initiate military action, but is ready to engage once it has begun. Both the PRC and the US see advantages and disadvantages in delaying decisive tactical or theater action. The path to escalation to nuclear engagement is also far less clear — and deterrence far less sure — than during the NATO Warsaw Pact “mutually assured destruction” era. There seems a greater willingness by the PLA to engage in nuclear capabilities (ie: against military targets). Military action in the near-term could well consolidate the PRC position in its “near abroad”. It could even achieve de facto or de jure control of Taiwan, a critical legitimizing goal for the CPC, if the US did not rush in tripwire assets and support to show a preemptive tripwire to deter PRC escalation. But what after that?

He even goes as far as to refer readers to a peculiar document titled:

Providing for the Common Defense The Assessment and Recommendations of the National Defense Strategy Commission  

It is a "fun" paper (yet another one among many produced within "intellectual" kitchen of the Beltway thinktankdom stuffed with former military top brass and government bureaucrats), which through repeating  same ol' "we are about to die", a euphemism for "we need more money", provides for a full spectrum of all those good ol' cliches about "atrophy" of skills and, using Pentagonese, calls on:

To meet those intensifying military challenges, DOD will require rapid, substantial improvements to its capabilities built on a foundation of compelling, relevant operational concepts.

It is a dazzling, in its emptiness, linguistic miasma, which still doesn't answer the main question of what are "relevant operational concepts". OK, I get it, Gary Roughhead--one of the authors--is a an Admiral and he was in the position of CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) in 2000s for 4 years, so he must have a profound understanding of the subject matter and he should be able to answer the question on how he is intent to do this:

Protecting U.S. interests from China and Russia will require additional investment in the submarine fleet; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets; air defense; long-range strike plat-forms; and long-range ground-based fires. Deterring and, if necessary, defeating North Korea will demand additional air defense assets, as well as a sustained ground presence with the ability to quickly flow additional armored brigade combat teams (ABCTs), fires and combat engineer assets, and other capabilities into theater.  

In the end, what is "operational concept"? Operations (or operation) is defined by Russians (and they know a thing or two about subject matter) as such (in Russian):

A set of coordinated and interconnected in goals, objectives, place and time of combat engagements, battles, strikes and maneuvers of troops (forces), conducted simultaneously or sequentially according to a unified conception and plan for carrying out tasks at a theater (theaters) of military operations, strategic (operational) direction or in a certain vast district (zone) in a specified period of time;  form of military (combat) engagements: Operations are  distinguished by scale, type, and class of military engagements, time and sequence of carrying out. On the scale: Operations can be: strategic, that is operations by whole armed forces and a grouping of forces on a theater of operations; operational-strategic: army groups, fleets (flotillas) etc. 

In other words, the whole thing rests with one's ability, putting it in layman's lingo, to accumulate enough forces and materiel and engage them in such a way against the enemy that the enemy is crushed and all military and political objectives on the theater (of operations) are met. I, so far, know only one operational concept the United States provided in terms of modern warfare--it is throwing more money at the Military-Industrial Complex without any regard to economic and military-technological reality, which, inevitably, resulted in a dramatic, generational, lag in modern weapons and in de facto losing economic competition to China. Sure, the United States still can produce some magnificent things, such as microchips and some (cough-cough) commercial aircraft, but China's production of the main industrial "predictors" ranging from steel, iron, concrete to many machines dwarfs that of the United States. And I mean dwarfs. Just take a look at this picture:

I guess no comments are necessary here. And we all understand that such production of steel translates into such highly finished goods as ships, combat and commercial, structures, power plant, machines and... and weapons. As you may have guessed it already, US being outproduced in this field by China (and Russia) by almost twelve fold, has very little chance to win this kind of the competition. Of course, other crucial strategic metrics do not look that good either:

Of course, after Covid-19 demonstrated to the world US dependency on China even in such a crucial field as pharmaceuticals: 

China, the newsletter reported Tuesday, “accounted for 95% of U.S. imports of ibuprofen, 91% of U.S. imports of hydrocortisone, 70% of U.S. imports of acetaminophen, 40% to 45% of U.S. imports of penicillin and 40% of U.S. imports of heparin, according to Commerce Department data. In all, 80% of the US supply of antibiotics are made” in China.

This whole "operational concept" thingy begins to stink to heavens once one begins to look at and into tangibles, trying to assess how the United States is going to go to "war", especially a kinetic one since, after all is said and done, what is left are weapons and people which are in the foundation "operational concept" and weapons need to be produced, as in manufactured. Here the United States runs into problems immediately. Make no mistake, I will always bet on US Navy's submarine force against China, especially in the operations on Shipping Lanes of Communications--I am consistently on record regarding this fact--US submarine force, for all degradation of the US military, remains its crown jewel and it is, putting it bluntly, better equipped and trained than PLAN's submarine forces. It is simple as that, but I can now predict what any "future" relevant "operational concept" for the United States will look like when considering those kinetic options against China--it will be same ol' AirSea Battle, aka Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons (JAM-GC), and it is a euphemism for the same ol' stand-off weapons being hurled at whatever the targets will be identified in mainland China and in her littoral from every platform the United States will be able to assemble away from zones of reliable detection and target acquisition by Chinese anti-ship missiles and combat aviation and that doesn't look good for the United States, to put it mildly, especially considering very serious difficulties of US air defense dealing with a number of the missile threats, especially, if to believe Chinese, their maneuvering ballistic missiles capable to hit US aircraft carriers. What is absolutely positive, is the fact of the Chinese missiles being able to hit Guam. 

The question, thus, is not about if the United States will be able to "update" itself for a real war with China--I doubt this will happen, but that's just me, I could be wrong--but the scale of losses, including extremely sensitive politically, the United States will be willing to take. It is one thing to start getting coffins arriving daily in large numbers (anyone really thinks the US is capable to fight China in China proper in a large protracted combined arms war?), totally another--starting losing ships, capital ones, as a result of such a kinetic option. Especially when the US will run out of stand-off weapons. Mind you, China is the size of US lower 48 and, unlike some "mighty" Arab militaries, actually has a fairly good Air Defense system which will be able to do a decent job in protecting those energy streams from Russia, while unleashing North Korea at South with a single purpose of making US forces there miserable. And then there is Russia... Russia, Russia, Russia. You can bet you ass on Russia not allowing China to collapse and Russia does have tools to do so. After all, Russians are royally pissed off at the United States and may (and most likely will) decide at some point that Noblesse Oblige doesn't apply anymore and, apart from making sure China has all necessary energy to sustain the fight against the US, she may exhibit a "strategic flexibility" and provide China not only with a world class intelligence and reliable targeting, but actually, recall Korea and Vietnam. In the end, China is an enormous and lucrative market not only for Russian energy but advanced technology too. Markets must be protected and Russian-Chinese trade is order of magnitude larger than Russian-American one. 

But speaking broadly,  the American political class' insanity, which resulted from losing US status as premier global industrial powerhouse and self-proclaimed "finest fighting force in history" is a first sign of the dawning if not of the realization then of the sense of a final departure which there are no peaceful and sensible solutions left to stop it, only desperate "kinetic" options which will result in US military defeat and collapse of the dollar-based international financial system. Or rather dramatic acceleration thereof. In this case no amount of strategizing and conceptualizing will help, because in the end it is the ability to produce tangibles, from steel and food with medicine, not credit ratings (fraudulent as they are) or virtual worthless money, which win those kinetic options and that ship for the United States sailed long ago. Remarkably, the sailing of this ship was hailed as yet another American "victory", which it was not.      

Being Bombastic.

This is what Donald Trump is known for and, in fact, it is his defining feature. Recall his, now famous, "very smart missiles", or him touting his economic "achievements" non-stop. Exiting crucial arms limitation treaties is also a part of Trump's MO, such as ditching Open Skies Treaty and now promising to resume testing of nuclear weapons:

US authorities considered whether to carry out a "rapid" nuclear test – the first for almost three decades – to use as a bargaining chip in dealing with Russia and China, according to media reports.The proposal to cause a controlled nuclear explosion is "very much an ongoing conversation," a high-ranked official within the administration of Donald Trump told the Washington Post on Saturday. It was assumed that a "rapid test" could prove useful in making Moscow and Beijing negotiate a nuclear-weapons-related trilateral deal with Washington, the paper's sources said.

As is observed by many, often being bombastic is a cover for the lack of strength and substance. We have exactly this case here exacerbated with a very low level of understanding of modern geopolitics and international relations by US "authorities". They, those "authorities" want to abandon a 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty CTBT), evidently, based on this clause:

Each State Party has the right to withdraw from the CTBT if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of the Treaty have jeopardized the State Party's supreme national interests.    

One may ask, then, upon discounting totally delusional assumption of those "authorities" that Russia will tremble in horror and will offer an unconditional surrender upon US exploding some device, and what those "supreme national interests" might be? The answer, apart from Trump's propensity to do a lot of chest thumping, is simple enough:

1. Nuclear weapons are not war-fighting weapons but are primarily deterrents to avoid a war;

2. Nuclear weapons are considered the last resort weapons and by all metrics, as is a terrorism, are weapons of a weaker side. 

Recall what I wrote two years ago when speaking about China:

China is (relatively) weak militarily NOT because she doesn't have enough nuclear weapons—this could relatively fast, with Chinese financial wherewithal, be addressed. Chinese relative military weakness comes from a huge technological, cultural and organizational issues of her conventional capability, which, despite its polished outward appearance,is nowhere near with that of the United States or Russia. It is technology—always was, always will be. It is also an operational experience and the way conventional forces are deployed, which matters great deal—China has no real operational experience here. There are reasons to believe that some technological gaps will never be closed—China continues to struggle mightily in aviation, submarine, space technology and other key technological and operational concepts. 

This applies fully to the United States today who lost a conventional arms race finding herself a generation or two behind Russia in technologies which are in foundation of the Real Revolution In Military Affairs. It is preposterous to even contemplate the fate of US (NATO) forces in Europe, let alone in the immediate geographic vicinity of Russia, in case some "authorities" in the US decide to commit a suicide and attack Russia. NATO forces and their decision centers will be dramatically degraded and ultimately defeated without the use by Russia of any nuclear weapons. That is not me talking, even RAND's big honchos admit that. In this case abandoning CTBT is merely another manifestation of Trump Admin's bombastic style, designed to cover up for the fact of a loss of the conventional arms race. Luckily, not all "authorities" in D.C. are bat shit crazy and some real professionals made their voices heard:

“There are still some professionals in the room who told them this is a terrible idea, thank God,” an unnamed congressional aide told the Guardian.

But, the truth to be told, it doesn't matter. Already in late 1970s Soviet military thinkers considered Stand-off High Precision weapons approaching levels of operational and strategic impact close to nuclear weapons. Today, in the age of hypersonic missiles, combat networks, advanced electronic countermeasures and instant propagation of tactical, operational and strategic information, and instant decision-making, we are looking at the warfare of unprecedented precision and violence. In the end, who is to say that Poseidon is only for delivering a nuclear payload? With the internal volume capable to accommodate a monstrous payload of the conventional explosives, this system will have little trouble reaching and positioning itself underneath a keel of the aircraft carrier and literally blowing her out of the water without any nukes. So, resumption of nuclear testing may only create a sense of amusement in Moscow, whose nuclear and, especially, conventional war-making potential keeps the US from unleashing conflicts all over the globe. As per being bombastic--old news.

P.S. In related news:

The New and Improved Tomahawk Missile Now Runs on Corn

That, sure as hell, should make those nasty Russkie Ivans and Chinks tremble in horror. Did they try to build a new missile? No? Well, there you go....

Something From 1978. Friday.

I was there in 1978. A separate story of how SRV (no, not Socialist Republic of Vietnam), but the largest shipyard in Kamchatka (Sudoremontnaya Verf), where all our parents and us (on Summer vacations) worked went on this epic hike to Avachinsky Volcano. I will not describe all details of that ascend and the night which preceded it (wink, wink) but once we got to the crater, see it here from 7 years ago:

We had our Elektronika cassette player with us and that is what we turned on--it was the first experience of youth with eternity and state of absolute awe. We always loved Pink Floyd, but at that moment we knew that we experienced more than just music...

It is Friday, ticking away the moments that make up a dull day....

P.S.  It stinks there, bad, with "rotten eggs", sulfur that is, and yet... 

That Is Nice, Really. I Mean It.

This is on Russian news today. 

Of course, as much as I cannot stand GOP, Democrats outdo themselves immediately:

Top House Democrats objected Friday to White House plans to send hundreds of ventilators to Russia at a taxpayer cost of $5.6 million, saying the “gift to President Putin” is unjustified given the ongoing pandemic and needs at home. “We are deeply concerned with recent reports that you are providing critical, life-saving ventilators to Russia when they are urgently needed here in the United States to combat the coronavirus crisis and save American lives,” House Oversight Committee Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot E. Engel wrote.

Pathetic, really. Russians, of course, are deeply grateful and invocation of WW II was appropriate. It was recognized in Russia on highest political level and among people--that is the only thing that matters.

And Why I Am Not Surprised?

No really, comes as no surprise to me at all, in fact I am almost nonchalant about it, I almost surprise myself.  

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo regularly held taxpayer-funded, 500-guest formal dinners — and President Trump reportedly knew nothing about them. Until the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Pompeo often invited hundreds of guests to the U.S. State Department for his "Madison Dinners," referring to how former President James Madison often met with foreign diplomats over a meal. But unlike Madison, Pompeo invited more than just diplomats to his dinners, and sent the bill for food, entertainment, and goody bags to the U.S. government, NBC News reports. Pompeo held about two dozen Madison dinners since he took office in 2018, and they were scheduled through October until the coronavirus hit, NBC News reports via dinner guest lists and State Department calendars. About 30 percent of invitees worked in politics, another 29 percent came from corporate backgrounds, a quarter were in media and entertainment, and just 14 percent were actually involved in foreign policy. Some of those less diplomatic invitees included Reba McEntire, Dale Earnhardt Jr., and Fox News host Brian Kilmeade, and they all enjoyed harp music and embossed Madison Dinner pens and journals to take home.

You gotta love this. Reba, for all my love for her art (I consider Fancy to be one of the greatest songs ever written, in any genre), I am not sure what she, or, for that matter, Dale can really contribute to a discussion of the US foreign policy, especially in a Madisonian sense of a discussion. Not that the United States States needs a recognition as an independent nation, right? James Madison, while writing (under Publius moniker) Federalist #10 and being fourth POTUS, exhibited a political and intellectual finesse of a highest order. But then again, I have to agree with Senator Kennedy that: US was founded by geniuses and is being run now by a bunch of idiots. Here is Kennedy verbatim:

So, putting names of James Madison and Mike Pompeo in the same sentence, is an affront to America's founding, same as it would be bringing a beautiful thoroughbred to the stable for jackasses. You see, the lipstick on the pig trope did not appear out of nowhere, same as expression that you can take a girl out of the village, but you cannot take village out of the girl. Pompeo, of course, may try, for the next Madison Dinner to add, to harp, a harpsichord with French horn, to increase the sense of enlightenment of his guests, or even ask them to dress in 18th Century clothes for further refinement of the occasion. The only thing what I would have done, in the goody bags distributed to those guests I would put US Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Federalist Papers, for attendees to refer to after enjoying a fancy meal. Otherwise this:

State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus called the dinners "a world-class opportunity to discuss the mission of the State Department and the complex foreign policy matters facing our exceptional nation," saying each guest "has a stake in America and its leadership in the world."

May come across as an exhibit A of a kitsch, lowbrow, tasteless attempt to substitute real intellect and ethics in foreign policy with shiny objects and dim people like Pompeo. But then again, what do I understand about "a world-class". In a world where country-music star, race driver and Mike Pompeo discuss "complex foreign policy matters facing an exceptional nation", one has to conclude, that, apart from stinking ethically to heaven, those Pompeo Dinners exhibit an exceptional idiocy and lack of class persisting among America's "elites" who still think that they are running Rome at the height of her might, not noticing that their imagined Rome is turning, fast at that, into Carthage at the end of the Third Punic War. I will abstain from commenting here on "leadership", because that requires a whole PhD. thesis to describe a level of delusion.

They Are Sometimes Useful.

I mean intelligence agencies which conduct actual intelligence gathering and analysis. RT published this piece today: 

US military intelligence has admitted Iran has no plans to “actively oppose” the peace process in Afghanistan, directly contradicting one of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s many allegations about the Islamic Republic.The report by the lead inspector general on the state of the ongoing war in Afghanistan poured cold water on Pompeo’s speculation that Iran is seeking to upend the strained peace process between the US and the Taliban, confirming the Defense Intelligence Agency has no reason to believe Tehran will “actively oppose” the negotiations that are supposed to end with the US withdrawing troops.While acknowledging the Iranian Foreign Ministry’s March statement that Washington “has no legal standing to sign a peace agreement or to determine the future of Afghanistan,” the DIA pointed out that the statement fell significantly short of an intention to meddle in the peace process – especially because Iran was fully on board with the departure of US forces from the region.

Indeed, how could this be (/s) that Iran which knows what real war is doesn't want a war? We all know that Pompeo is good at telling fairy tales, especially to the benefit of his Old Testament buddies from Israel, but actual report by three Inspectors General from DoD, Department of State and USAID, could be found on line and it has a funny name of:

                OPERATION FREEDOM’S SENTINEL

I may never grasp the significance of the usage (in reality shameless abuse) of the term "freedom" when naming military operations which are designed to kill on a massive scale, but it is just me and after Freedom Fries, I don't think I have a strong case. But here is the phrase which should be paid attention to:

According to the DoS, the United States and Russia released a joint statement welcoming the signing of the U.S.-Taliban agreement as an important step to end the war in Afghanistan. Russia also offered to discuss sending military assistance to a future interim government. China maintained contact with the Taliban and the Afghan government throughout the peace process, and stood by its offer to mediate between the two sides, according to press reporting. 

What is highlighted in yellow is highly significant and reflects not only Russia's concern, understandable, with the matter at hand, namely Talibanization of Afghanistan, and Taliban is officially declared in Russia a terrorist organization, but it also has a lot to do with... ISIS. Russia believes (not without justification) that the United States is supporting ISIS through a number of her proxies in Syria and transported, on a number of occasions throughout the years, some big ISIS honchos to Afghanistan away from Russia's smart munitions and SSOs in Syria. This is a serious matter, knowing America's history with being in cahoots with the most despicable elements among jihadists, not least with those "moral equivalents of America's founding fathers" in Afghanistan which was destabilized (what's new) under the supervision of late Zbig in 1970s. Same pattern is repeated in Syria, plus knowing that there is a lot of butt-hurt and many sore losers among US "elites", destabilizing Eurasian subcontinent, not far from Russia and China, seems like a logical conclusion for them. If it takes most vicious terrorists, why not?

Russia once, in 2000, provided a serious military assistance to Northern Alliance, so, for Russia it is only natural to help out to whatever least bat shit crazy interim government may emerge in Afghanistan (hope dies last, you know), because, unlike with the United States, the principle of "better to fight them there, than here" applies fully. Such is the fate of continental powers which have a world view different from such power, a world island, as the United States. So, expect a flow of weapons and advisers once ISIS will raise its ugly head in Afghanistan and everything points out to this development, despite all those upbeat points about ANDSF which WILL disintegrate the moment the United States leaves Afghanistan. In other words, there is a lot of excrement ready to hit the fan in Afghanistan and around, plus, who can forget a required massive effort domestically in turning humiliating defeat into some sort of a "victory" for America against those, you know, bearded dudes in sandals with old Kalashnikovs and RPGs roaming Hindu-Kush mountains. Boy, are we in for a show, granted the whole damn thing doesn't collapse completely, which is probable, and the US will need to simply leave, deal or no deal.