Generally speaking, the removal of odious Anatoly Chubais from the position of a biggest honcho in Rusnano is significant only in terms of symbolism--the author of a barbarian privatization in Russia in 1990s which lead to the economic catastrophe and de facto economic genocide of population deserves everything which may be coming to him. Some say that investigation is coming, if true--good. But by far most important conclusion is that pro-western so called "liberal" elites are in the process of final removal from Russia's governance. Chubais was a symbol of liberal bacchanalia and radical pro-western economic course, meaning, yes, privatization, a non-stop privatization and de-regulation, which, in the long-run was about fragmentation of Russia and radical weakening of it. Some say Chubais is an asset of Western intelligence services, he is certainly the member of the Bilderberg Club and is a representative of the Davos culture in Russia.
So, he was removed by Putin, who also refused to have a parting meeting with him--a first sign of some trouble coming his way--but let's not overestimate, as some pseudo-patriots do in Russia, Chubais' real significance for modern Russia. Liberal "block" in Russia's economy was on its way out even during Medvedev's tenure as Prime-Minister and coming of brilliant Mishustin and Belousov in their own was basically the finalization of the power transfer in Russia to statehoodniks and, actually, competent people. Chubais' removal is a mopping up operation and s symbolic middle finger to remnants of "liberal" bureaucracy which was contemplating a revenge for a while. But if was Crimea which signed the death sentence for them as a class and a brilliant operation of getting the main financial "distributor" of Russian liberda Michail Abyzov. So, only blind or fanatics wanted to deny the fact that Russia's "liberals" of Gaidar-Chubais mafia were being removed for years now. For people who are not well acquainted with the governance and the nature of political power--for these people nothing other than massive execution of everyone from liberal camp will be satisfactory. Yet, one should never forget that crooks, direct Western intelligence and influence assets, Russophobes have been planted into Russia's powerful bureaucracy since 1990s and instant removal of this cabal would mean a collapse of the system or even massive violence.
Today we know that the Russian state is strong enough to go for a jugular in corruption and treason and removal of a cancerous growth and new cadres, real Russian elite, begin to arrive to the stage.
MOSCOW, December 2. /TASS/. First Deputy Chairman of the Board of the Military-Industrial Commission Sergey Kulikov has welcomed the Russian President’s proposal appointing him as the head of the Rusnano company. Putin invited Kulikov to head the Rusnano company at a meeting on Wednesday. "This is an extremely important task, the dream of any technology investor, and of any manager. This is such a large-scale extraordinary task to create products and conditions for the implementation of our main national advantages at priority rates," Kulikov said, answering the question of the head of state about how he sees his tasks at the new position. Kulikov added that he considers it important to "learn how to turn ideas into products, sales into life cycle contracts with services, and experimental production into industrial ones."
When you read Kulikov's biography--you read Russia's history in effect, because it was always Russia's military-industrial-intelligence complex and its adjacent structures from where best people of Russia traditionally emerged. It is just the way it is. Russian leaders are either competent former officers or, in general, military leaders, or the country gets Gorbachev and Yeltsin and is thrown into the chaos. For Russia chaos is ending an one can find Kulikov's biography (in Russian) to appreciate what kind of cadres are getting to the top of Russia under the wings of brilliant military-industrial engineers such as Sergei Chemezov and Yuri Borisov. Not since the times of Stalin could you see such a concentration of industrial management and military-industrial talent in one place. This fact also testifies to massive industrial and scientific plans Russia has and it is also clear that Russia asserts herself as a separate geopolitical entity which moves completely on her own irrespective of the external pressures to which she now fully able to respond.
Which brings us to famous Ivan Krylov's fable "Quartet":
The United States decides that it needs to contain Russia's aggression in Atlantic.
The Navy's fleet structure is not set up to deal with today's challenges, the service's top civilian leader told lawmakers on Wednesday. Terrorism is no longer the biggest threat facing the U.S., Navy Secretary Kenneth Braithwaite said during a hearing on Navy and Marine Corps readiness. Threats from Russia and China are increasing, and the Navy must reorganize to address them. "To meet the unique maritime challenges of the Atlantic theater, we will rename Fleet Forces Command as the U.S. Atlantic Fleet," Braithwaite said. "We will refocus our naval forces in this important region on their original mission -- controlling the maritime approaches to the United States and to those of our allies."
Let me be very clear here--I do respect, in fact there is a lot of admiration for the US Navy, its history, its accomplishments, but this is not, in 2020, a navy whose problem is in the structure. It is not the structure which is "not set up"--it is the whole thing which, as Krylov's says--no matter your position--is not a force capable to fight XXI century naval war. US Navy simply has no tools to do so. Of course, the US Navy's submarine force is excellent, advanced but other than that, modern US Navy is the navy built around Sea Control as it was conceived in the middle of the XX century. Sure, one can "change structure" and build more aircraft carriers, as an example, but how can such a navy control approaches "to the United States and to those of our allies"? How can any navy do this today? Sure, one can build all kinds of bases, increase number of the Patrol/ASW aircraft, build more frigates and destroyers, which, granted US' economic situation is a whole other matter altogether. But how can US Navy "control maritime approach" to, say, Europe? Hm. Russia doesn't really need navy to rearrange stones in every NATO's European country, including sinking all their navies in their bases.
If those navies, in case of war, manage to get out of bases, it makes very little difference in terms of survivability of surface assets against modern strike weapons. I am constantly on record that four-five MiG-31Ks operating from Khmeimim base in Syria "close off" pretty much whole of Mediterranean for any type of naval force practically to the entrance of Gibraltar Strait, with the news of latest dedicated anti-shipping version of 3M54 Kalibr having the range of 1,500 kilometers or disclosure of updated 4,500 kilometer range 3M14's capable of hitting moving targets, I mean, come on. Let's be real. What is "control". In case of real war, God forbids, Russia simply will shut off the space around Europe and even Caspian Flotilla will have little problem targeting anything in Persian Gulf and I mean ships. Now, Russia, having permission to set up a base in Sudan, the treaty allows simultaneous basing of four ships, including with nuclear propulsion, has some plans. Just imagine newly modernized Admiral Nakhimov "parked" in the Red Sea. All those Zircons, Kalibrs and Onikses and who knows what else will be packed into the Red Sea. What a lovely place to control ALL of the Middle East. Times changed, so did warfare. If I would have told anyone in 2010 that two small missile ships of Buyan-class can launch 16 anti-shipping missiles (M=2.9 supersonic on terminal) from Caspian Sea and sink or damage dramatically a whole fleet, including aircraft carrier, in Persian Gulf--I would have been looked at as a madman, or laughed at. Nobody laughs in 2020. Simple as that. I warned about paradigm shift for years.
Post a Comment