History Lessons.

While doing my morning news due diligence, I stumbled upon The Duran's discussion on dismantling of Yugoslavia and the role the Bidens, the Clintons, Amanpour, CNN, Blair and the rest of this cabal played in shaping the world we exist in today. Actually, both Alex Cristoforou and Alexander Mercouris do a very good job conveying in simple words the essence of the conflict around Yugoslavia and that it was about globalization and about demolition of Russia. Just watch it, it is 16 minutes of your time well spent. 

We all know today that appearance of Vladimir Putin as, first, Russia's Prime Minister and then him becoming Russia's President with degenerate Yeltsin "abdicating" (or, rather, being forced out) is directly related to the gang rape of Yugoslavia by NATO and to one of the most shameful pages in Russia's history--betrayal of Serbs for a IMF (in essence, American) loans. 

What both Alex and Alexander, while speaking about a deadly role this cabal of neo-liberals and crooks played in developing their globalization "strategies", forgot to mention was the fact that as any products of the American "governing" class, without exception, those people have a minuscule,  if any, grasp of the power component of any strategy, be that on the level of a city, a country or globally. No power component, no strategy, period. Guys at The Duran used the term "neo-liberal war machine" and this is exactly what captured my attention because this "neo-liberal war machine", once looked at a closer range, even in 1990s, was not looking that great and was good primarily at avoiding near-peer, let alone peer direct conflict and "won" its most victories through blackmail, "financialization" of its "partners" and in media. In fact, if not for betrayal by Russia, who, through her crooked PM Chernomyrdin, played an active role in convincing Serbia to surrender, the United States and its NATO vassals were at breaking point after 78 days of incessant bombing of Serbia. Not only they were running out of stand-off munitions, they were facing the worst US (and NATO) nightmare--a fight in mountainous and forest rich terrain against the Army of the nation with a magnificent history of organized massive guerilla warfare against, forget US Army, Nazis. 

I already mentioned public admissions 5 years ago by General Ivashov and former Deputy Defense Minister Andrei Kokoshin, you can find it at 2 hours 47 minutes, that NATO (and the US) peed its pants at the prospect of facing this kind of the army on the ground:

As 21 years after this criminal aggression proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, ANY "strategy" is worth anything ONLY when it has serious, credible military (I underscore it, military as a first derivative of advanced economy) backing. US couldn't provide it, other than beating the shit out of weak, disorganized, badly trained Arab military. You want to impose your economic (institutionalized robbery that is) "vision" on the world--you better represent itself a shining example of prosperity and liberty and have enough military wherewithal to support it. Through its "globalization" the United States became neither. This could have happened already in Serbia in 1999, albeit the bluff was already partially called there. Yet, as in the months leading to WW II, when Yugoslav resistance delayed Barbarossa, Serb sacrifice in 1999 allowed for Russia to wake up. We all know what happened next: 080808, Crimea, Syria and here we are today--do they have a "strategy", other than their BS and propaganda in lap dog media, to do anything other than impose more and more sanction which, in Russia's case, are a very positive economic factor. American elites do not know how to govern, let alone how to fight a real war with real enemy, and if 21 years ago Yugoslavia's tragedy served as a warning, which was heeded, today the only concern with these same ol' incompetent (other than how to swindle everyone) cretins is similar to a feeling one experiences while looking at a monkey with a grenade. They are NO GOOD in anything, all of them from civilians to military, and it took a little bit of time (20 years in historic time is an instant) to understand that. In fact, global fragmentation happens as I type it and combined West and its globalist "elites" have to be surrounded by the cultural cordon sanitaire, maybe even a physical one, as it is done to burning dumpsters.   

In related news, which also explains somewhat why Russia is in no rush to build very large surface combatants. This piece of news:

The Navy on Thursday awarded a much-anticipated $795 million contract to a Wisconsin-based shipbuilder to begin production on the first of the service's next-generation small-surface combatants. Fincantieri Marinette Marine won the contract to design and build the first of the new guided-missile frigates. The contract also includes plans for up to nine more ships from the firm -- a deal that's ultimately worth more than $5.5 billion. "The frigate will be an agile multi-mission warship," James Geurts, the assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, told reporters after the announcement. "They'll operate in all environments and will be more lethal, survivable and have increased self-defense and local-area defense capability and capacity over previous small-surface combatants."

In the end, it came down to European (Italian) concept (FREMM) of frigates. The main question, however, remains--what will those frigates carry as anti-shipping weapons if they want to really fight. Naval Strike Missile, LRASM? As long as the US Navy's anti-shipping weapons remain subsonic they present very little real threat to modern navies armed with capable AD complexes and long range high supersonic, not to speak of hypersonic, anti-shipping weapons. But yes, all that looks good for "investors".