Saturday, November 27, 2021

Naryshkin Verbatim.

The head of Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) Sergei Naryshkin went on record yesterday:

ПЕТРОПАВЛОВСК-КАМЧАТСКИЙ, 27 ноя - РИА Новости. Никакого "российского вторжения" на Украину не будет, утверждения о нем - это злонамеренная пропагандистская акция госдепа США, заявил директор Службы внешней разведки России Сергей Нарышкин."Должен всех успокоить: ничего такого не будет", - сказал Нарышкин в интервью Сергею Брилеву в программе "Вести в субботу" на телеканале "Россия 1", отвечая на вопрос о заявлениях американской стороны про якобы готовящееся Россией вторжение на Украину. "Вообще все, что сейчас происходит вокруг этой темы, это, конечно, такая злонамеренная пропагандистская акция госдепа США... Госдеп накачивает этими фальшивками, этой ложью и своих союзников, и руководителей средств массовой информации, и руководителей политологических центров Соединённых Штатов Америки с тем, чтобы они эту ложь множили, множили и множили. И они вокруг этого раздули довольно большой пузырь"
Translation:  PETROPAVLOVSK-KAMCHATSKY, November 27 - RIA Novosti. There will be no "Russian invasion" of Ukraine, the allegations about it are a malicious propaganda action by the US State Department, said Sergei Naryshkin, director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service. "I must reassure everyone: nothing like this will happen," Naryshkin said in an interview with Sergei Brilev on the Vesti on Saturday program on the Russia 1 TV channel, answering a question about the statements of the American side about the alleged Russian invasion of Ukraine. "In general, everything that is happening now around this topic is, of course, such a malicious propaganda action by the US State Department ... The State Department is pumping these fakes, this lie to its allies, and the leaders of the media, and the leaders of political science centers of the United States of America. so that they multiplied and multiplied and multiplied this lie. And they inflated a rather big bubble around it ."
 
Well, we need to take into consideration this simple fact that lying and propaganda are the only tools in the toll-box of what passes in the US for "diplomacy". But we have been over it so many times by now, that it is not necessary to repeat it. In the same time US media outlets such as Bloomberg continue to publish all kinds of contrived "analysis" such as: 
After years of disillusion with the West, Putin has gradually sidelined voices in his inner circle who had called for limiting tensions and is increasingly isolated from other views by Covid-19 restrictions, according to people close to the leadership. Surrounded by hardliners, he sees Russia — and his two-decade rule — as under attack by the U.S. and its allies. Efforts at outreach and cooperation that he made when he first came to power have been replaced by showdowns, sanctions and threats. Putin now sees pushback as the only language the West understands. With both sides dispatching warships and planes to convey their seriousness and warning of a new arms race as treaties lapse, the hardened approach raises risks far beyond Russia’s neighborhood. Disputes with Europe over gas supplies have shaken markets, while a refugee crisis the European Union says was orchestrated by Putin’s closest ally in Belarus is pressuring the bloc and fears of conflict in Ukraine have battered the ruble.
But then again, these are US media and their minions in Russia who lie for paycheck. Remarkably, yet another "intellectual" from Valdai Forum appeared on RT with his view on the "events" around 404. His name is Ivan Timofeev--you can read his bio here. And while Timofeev agrees that Ukrainian Army will be obliterated very fast if Russia really decides to get involved big time and then, as in following the rigid Cost-Benefits analysis procedure, Timofeev demonstrates and proves my thesis that in terms of serious geopolitics involving power element only outstanding diplomats capable to have a good grasp of the military events "on the ground" should be allowed to state their opinions. Providing lip service to already well-established fact that VSU as a force wouldn't last past first salvos and pincer movements by Russian Army is not enough when speaking on such matters. Timofeev states: First, such a military conflict is unlikely to culminate in any intelligible agreement. A victory over the armed forces of Ukraine will not by itself lead to a fast peace. The option of “two Ukrainian states” would allow Russia to squeeze nationalists out by sending them West. Under a “one Ukraine” scenario, this would be impossible, given all the ensuing consequences. 
 
I don't know why "one Ukraine scenario" even enters considerations here? I have no rational explanation to why Timofeev even discusses that. In the end, leave it to Poland, Hungary and Romania to deal with Western Ukraine. That, BTW, may become what would put the final nail into NATO's coffin. But he continues:

Second, the conflict would inevitably lead to a sharp change in the Western approach toward providing Ukraine with modern weapons and military equipment. In the United States and in the West as a whole, the new situation would be considered as an emergency and they would not limit funds to support the armed forces of Ukraine. Moreover, in this case, all possible types of conventional weapons will be supplied. Large-scale military aid from the West would prolong the conflict. Russia would not be able to block such supplies. The United States and its allies will not enter open military confrontation with Moscow. However, the level of support for the Ukrainian army will grow significantly. 

1. Timofeev needs to get down from his Ivory Tower and look around, especially in terms of what Russia was doing for the last 7 years which was, hm, getting ready to "a sharp change" in every single respect. From economy to politics, to what have you and, the issue which immediately pops up here is...

2. Can Mr. Timofeev tell us HOW this "sharp change" in providing Ukraine with "modern weapons" and not limiting funds will manifest itself? 

I omit here the fact that the issue of Russia's national security doesn't fit into the traditional framework of cost-benefits analysis because military threats to nation is not the matter humanities-educated (even from MGIMO) diplomat can fully grasp. For starters: 

a) WHAT "modern weapons" Timofeev is talking about? What can possibly NATO provide 404 with that can qualitatively change the balance in region, without it being, even if such transfer will ever happen, annihilated on arrival? Ukraine is already supplied by NATO with small arms and weapons of Javelin variety, plus some basic battlefield equipment ranging from anti-battery radar to nigh-vision goggles and communications. It will continue no matter what. Does Mr. Timofeev expect the US (and NATO) to supply 404 with Patriot PAC3 air defense complexes or, maybe, THAAD or maybe F-35. Not that they would make much difference if Russia seriously gets involved. 

b) Even if to imagine that US Congress and POTUS give the green light to whatever weapons Mr. Timofeev have in mind, has it occurred to him that if Russia gets "all in" the first thing which will be done will be a naval blockade which will prevent any deliveries by sea of anything. 

c) Who will operate those weapons? NATO troops? 

And on, and on, and on--we all can be in this "peeling off layers" mode for a long time. But Timofeev fails to mention the main issue here which many of us, ranging from Andrei Raevsky to Dmitri Orlov, to Patrick Armstrong, to Alexander Mercouris to you name it write for years (I mean Anglo-sphere)--Russia DOES NOT want Ukraine no matter if 404 already formed some political nation, which it did, I write in this blog about it for years, or not--this is not the main reason, the main reason is that apart from security pain in the ass, 404 is nothing but the drain of Russia's resources, which otherwise could be directed towards Russia and Russians' needs. Even if to imagine that Russia indeed "gets in", Russia's main concern will be not West's position--no one exercises any illusions on this position in Kremlin, and that is what only matters in the end--but the fact that Russia will have to deal with largely hostile, humiliated (even more--military defeats are extremely painful) and effectively destitute population of what--20-25 million? Who needs that? As they say on Russian streets today--one has to deserve Russian occupation. 

If, however, things will get really bad for Russia's security, the decision on Russian side will be based not on "Cost-Benefit analysis" but on Russia's national security imperatives, West's objections, sanctions and other threats notwithstanding. In other words, Russia will do it in the time and place of her choosing. In the end, Timofeev forgets the main reason for this hysteria in the West--increasingly obvious economic, social and military demise. This is the key factor in all this media activity. Finally, he should admit, as I do all the time, that Russia's Military-Political leadership knows more, much more, than any of us does and we have all reasons to believe that they know what they are doing.

This week I gave interview to Mike Welch of Global Research News. We discussed my latest book and you can listen to my Runglish by following this link. 

The Collapse of America part 2: Distant Early Warning Signs of Uncle Sam’s Demise. 

I don't say anything particularly new there, most of my readers heard and read it before, but as Pet Goat succinctly responded to one guest who was irritated by pessimistic comments about the fate of the combined West:

We are not rooting for Western collapse. We are warning about it. Even our so-called enemies do not want a collapse, but the leaders of this kakistocracy are hell bent on bringing about the collapse.

I couldn't have said it better myself. In the end, many people see it today, many more will see it tomorrow. But modern combined West and modern Russia are incompatible in principle and that is the problem for the West, because it is existential. But that requires a separate discussion which present Western "elites" try to avoid by all means. In doing so they doom themselves to what many of us see is coming. In fact, it is already here. 

Friday, November 26, 2021

But What If...Or, Here We Go Again.

Russia does not need 404, in fact, Russians overwhelmingly do not want those people in their lives, they don't want to pay for them, and they want them to stay away from Russia in every conceivable way, bar pure geography which cannot be changed. And that's the problem for Russia, because in the end Russia will have to deal with this shithole, which like a cyst placed itself at Russia's South-Western borders and continues to deteriorate towards cancerous tumor with increasing speed. The United States, realistically, doesn't need 404 either, because while the US still exercises the idea of using 404 as a anti-Russia ram both in geopolitical and economic senses, and sleeps and dreams about Russia "invading" this territory, the US is facing one serious challenge here: what IF US desires come true and Russia DOES indeed decide to end this drama and finish off Nazi regime in Kiev? 

The US will rejoice initially, because it splits in many economic respects Europe from Russia, plus Poland gets her desire (not entirely unjustified) to get Lvov (Lemberg) back and for a few moments the US would seem to have accomplished what it set out to do. Except! And here is this exception. Enter Karen Donfried of the US State Department, who, as is traditional for the contingent which passes in the US for "diplomats" to speak about what they have no clue about, waxes military. Note, Donfried is a classic, typical product of the US degenerating "humanities" field and has all boxes allowing her to swim upstream of D.C. bureaucracy checked. As most of US "diplomats" she has no idea what is she talking about when:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - All options are on the table in how to respond to Russia's "large and unusual" troop buildup near Ukraine's border, and the NATO alliance will decide on the next move following consultations next week, the State Department's top U.S. diplomat for European affairs said on Friday. "As you can appreciate, all options are on the table and there's a toolkit that includes a whole range of options," Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Karen Donfried told reporters in a telephone briefing. U.S. President Joe Biden said he was concerned about the situation in Ukraine, repeated Washington's support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and added that he will "in all probability" speak with his Ukrainian and Russian counterparts Volodymyr Zelenskiy and Vladimir Putin. The comments came as U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is heading to Latvia and Sweden next week to attend meetings of NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Donfried said Moscow's "large and unusual" troop buildup would top the agenda at the NATO summit.

I have news for Donfried--there are no "all options on the table for the US" because if Russia does indeed decide to end it once and for all, the United States has neither forces nor resources to do anything about it, unless the United States wants to unleash a whole European War, but because Donfried spent most of her life in a make-believe world of "policy-making" she cannot grasp that Europe will not be the only theater of operations for Russia and the US proper will fast become another target. Unlike Vietnam or Iraq, Russia can wipe the US off the map and that will be it. One may ask if they are they that stupid in State Department. Yes, many are but those who are not are forced to toe the party line of primarily empty and militant rhetoric and empty threats. Yes, this is how serious it could get, but what neither Donfried nor most US policy-"makers" can wrap their brains around is the fact that operationally (militarily, that is) Russia has options in 404 because she has escalation dominance, in fact, she has escalation preponderance in 404, especially in the East of 404 where the issue will be settled, since Russia doesn't' care what is going to happen to the West of Kiev. 

This preponderance manifests itself in several key fields:

1. Russia's fire-power in stand-off weapons. In other words, Russia's long reach capable to paralyze 404's command and control structure, and, not least--government control. 

2. Russia does not need to really "invade" 404, at least not at the onset since she can "crush" the front from own territory. Not that it will matter anyway, since hysteria in Western media is already at near highest pitch. 

3. The only thing the US will be able to do is to rush, yet again, some sort of a surface task force in hopes to gain whatever SIGINT it can get, it will be especially interested in frequencies of Russia AD systems in combat mode and will, again, start sending strategic bombers near Russia's air space. Russia can do the same or she can simply place X-101s (range of more than 4,500 kilometers) strategic aviation carriers on steady patrols and NORAD will take a note. 

4. If, on the other hand, the US will decide to exercise "all options on the table", meaning inserting itself militarily into this whole thing--it will end badly for the US under any circumstances, because, as I already stated above--the war will fast spill out of Europe and no matter what path of escalation it takes, the US loses outright. 

But now to the most important conclusion: even if the US does not engage militarily, a suicidal scenario as I pointed out, all tactical gains from semi or outright open Russia's involvement in settling 404 issue bears a catastrophic strategic reputational loss for the US, which will demonstrate a complete lack of power and influence of a decrepit empire. We may only speculate on the ramifications of such an outcome, not to mention the fact that at this stage Russia CAN afford, if pressed by circumstances, to finish off this artificial construct of 404 and sever its ties to the West, EU cannot. To demonstrate how far apart modern West and Russia are--Russian press looks on in awe at European idiocy and even Russian senators comment today at Germany ban of Tchaikovsky's Christmas classics The Nutcracker ballet because it is "racists" (in Russian). It was also called racist by Scotland's Ballet Company, while London changed some scenes because they "remind of harem". You cannot reason with these people, they are not normal human beings and the only thing they understand is the language of threat and if it comes to it--it is about time Russia erected a new Iron Curtain between herself and totalitarian, delusional West. For everything else--there is Master Card (c). 

Maybe it is a time to grant the so called post-modernist West its wish? But as the saying goes think twice what you wish for... you know the rest.    

P.S. Latest reports about the state of VSU (404's armed so called forces) paint the picture of utter incompetence and demoralization. 

Thursday, November 25, 2021

Happy Thanksgiving!

Let's drop for today all this politics and let's enjoy some turkey, fine sour mash and good music. Valery Stepanov knows how to make me happy for sure. 

There is nothing better than great fusion (aka sound delight).

Tuesday, November 23, 2021

Tough Talk, As Usual.

US State Department declares that it will counteract Russia's "military activity" near Ukraine (in Russian) and we all know that it cannot but there are other ways. 

The U.S. imposed sanctions on a ship involved in the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline as the Biden administration looks to exert more pressure on Russia without antagonizing Germany.

In related news, I have in mind a list of janitors and drivers from Gazprom who could be sanctioned by the US. Hey, that will show them, damn Russkies. And, of course, how can one live without Ted Cruz performing a simulation of productive activity. 

The move is unlikely to mollify critics of the Biden administration in Congress. Lawmakers from both parties want the U.S. to take a tougher stand against a project they say undermines European security by giving Russia more leverage over the continent. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas has held up most of President Joe Biden’s State Department nominees over the issue.

That's modern America for you. Having said all that, I want to reiterate--NATO doesn't have forces not only to "counter-act" anything Russia does but even if it wanted to it still has no means to fight a war with Russia. Meddling in 404? Absolutely! Throw in some advisors, some Javelins, some ammo and some boats. Of course, it changes absolutely nothing, but CJCS General Milley and Valery Gerasimov had a conversation today over the phone.

Amid growing tensions in Europe, Russia's most senior military general, Valery Gerasimov, has discussed “pressing issues of international security” with his direct American counterpart Mark Milley, during a phone call on Tuesday. The Pentagon confirmed that the two “military leaders discussed several security-related issues of concern.” The phone call was part of efforts aimed at ensuring “risk reduction and operational de-confliction,” its statement added.Neither the Pentagon, nor the Russian Defense Ministry have revealed any additional details of the call in their respective statements. It came as Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said American nuclear-capable bombers had made dozens of sorties across Eastern Europe in recent weeks.The drills involved the bombers practicing “their ability to use nuclear weapons against Russia,” Shoigu said after meeting with Chinese defense minister, Wei Fenghe, in Moscow on Tuesday.
It is good that they talk, because the rest of a discussion in the US public policy sphere, including the US State Department, is a show for US media. Here is an example, General Keane providing zero content of any value on those hyper-sonic technologies (and Ukraine, of course). 
I respect General Keane's career and all, but he really should update himself on "what the US learned" about Soviet Union and deterrence. I'll give him a hint--US learned nothing. At this stage I doubt that General Keane who is retired and is 78, I believe, even despite his, I am sure, serious connections in Pentagon fully grasps what has already transpired. For starters the United States never could defend itself from the launch of Soviet cruise missiles and that is why were so anxious to sign the INF treaty which would make this missile removed from Soviet subs.Obviously we are talking about RK-55 Granat (SS-N-21) "Sampson" cruise missile. But never allow facts to get in a way of a good narrative, including this BS about Russia "invading" 404. 
 
But Keane struck me absolutely with his lack of understanding what it means to "intercept" hyper-sonic missile. Apart from the fact that US recon satellites and X-37 are already made obsolete, especially with S-550 and A-235 already deployed or about to be deployed in the nearest future, especially as mobile complexes, the main question is this: even if you see the hyper-sonic weapon's launch, what are you going to do about it? Moreover, you can "observe" gliders, what are you going to do when you "observe" launches by 3M22 Zircon or Kinzhal from MiG-31K or TU-22M3M, how does it change the situation for the targets. I have the answer--changes absolutely nothing because you cannot shoot down those. There is nothing in the US arsenal now and in the foreseeable future which can intercept Mach=9-10+, let alone M=20-27, targets. That's the issue. Same analytical method applies to a situation in 404. The only thing US (NATO) can hope for is to somehow provoke Russia into the invasion of this shithole of a country and then get ball SIGINT it can once Russia's C4ISR gets into full combat mode. 
 
Only military "experts" from the US media still believe that:

Russia still has a military edge over Ukraine, but Ukraine has plans to make a future war more costly for Moscow.

They have no clue how this war, if it comes to it, will look like, including if NATO, headed by the US, decides to somehow "intervene". Here is a question to General Keane--what are you going to do if this happens and provocation succeeds? Keane was in Vietnam, so he knows how it looks and feels like when things go not as planned. I am not counting all those "experiences" in Iraq and Kosovo as serious campaigns. I already gave a ball park number of a required NATO force to fight Russia in Ukraine--it has to be around a million of combat personnel to have any chance to accomplish anything, forget having some sort of "victory", whatever it will be called such by NATO. Good luck assembling it in a month (while Russia can mobilize 2 million in approximately the same time), or even in 3 months and then trying to conduct combined arms operations in 404. The United States cannot conduct serious combined arms war in Europe even if it wants to--she simply has no resources for that and time doesn't stand still. With each passing moment the myth of the "finest fighting force in history" evaporates and without this myth the scaffolding of the American Empire continues to collapse with the increasing speed. The time is running out fast, really fast.

This is what drives D.C. insane, especially humiliated Pentagon, which still has enough policy "advisors" (mostly civilian political scientists warmongers) who think that the US can fight Russia in Ukraine. As Bernhard of Moon of Alabama suggests:

The White House Needs An Off-ramp From War In Ukraine

For an institution which didn't win a single war in the last 70 years with the exception of a turkey shoot against utterly backward Iraqi force and never faced equal of superior enemy (no surprise for an institution venerating a military mediocrity such as Patton as a "great" general) the desire to wash off, let's speak without undue restrain here, the shame of Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea that they can fight Russia is down right preposterous. As are, for the most part, most of the military power metrics used till recently by the US policy-makers as a proof of the US military superiority such as... the size of military budget and visuals of, indeed, impressive US Navy carriers. As Bernhard concludes:

I don't think that a deal would actually help Biden in the polls. The hawks would scream about it. They want a war in the Ukraine and the U.S. involved in it. However the U.S. public is still unlikely to support a war against Russia which would likely soon escalate. But a Ukrainian Russian war that the Ukraine is sure to lose and in which the White House does not intervene will lead to huge loss of face. That prospect then may indeed motivate Biden to give Russia the guarantees it wants.

Now, Andrei Raevsky gives a good write-up on Russia's forces and their distribution at what one would call "threatening directions (axis)". Andrei concludes:
And so, yes, of course, NATO commanders are frightened by what they see, this is true, and quite understandable.  What is not understandable is why these delusional idiots created the condition which left Russia no other choice than to be ready to fight a full scale war in Europe, including a nuclear one.
And that is why Milley and Gerasimov spoke to each-other. Russia's and America's war experiences can not be compared, Russian one dwarfs that of the United States both in scale, scope and in quality of enemies Russians fought in defense of their country. With the exception of the magnificent US victory in the Pacific in WW II, most of US military experience is that of an expeditionary force designed to fight utterly inferior opponent, and even here the American record is not impressive. But, as I am on record non-stop, the US is ungovernable and is immersed in the internal life-and-death struggle between several oligarchic clans which do not give a rat's ass about the well-being of the majority of Americans, most of who are just decent folks who want to live their lives, and about once beautiful country which was the envy of the world. 

Monday, November 22, 2021

I Thought Black Friday Was 5 Days Away.

But then again, remind myself: make a note--do not visit San Francisco and area. Not that I find this shithole attractive in any way. Make no mistake, by Black Friday I don't mean a tongue in cheek reference to black people, far from it--San Jose is primarily Hispanic and video shows a number of fair skin criminals. 

You need to understand, California is a Democrat La La land. Most of democrats' "intellectual elite" are people who have zero education and human experiences in anything. 

American political class in general is incapable of governance in any form, political party lines notwithstanding--what, do you think this wuss weasel  Ted Cruz knows how to run a public restroom at a gas station, come on--but any democrat-run locality becomes a certified crime-ridden shithole really fast. But if you thought you saw it all, grab a chair and firmly place you ass on it:

President Joe Biden, who just turned 79, intends to run for re-election in 2024. The White House confirmed the persistent rumors, discounting the recent polling showing the Democrat president at record lows. Speaking to reporters on board Air Force One on Monday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki confirmed Biden’s desire to run for re-election. The president and the first lady were en route to Fort Bragg, North Carolina for a “Friendsgiving” event with US troops based there.
You could hear this coming from Moscow and Beijing, I assume. 
I guess we need to apply for Canadian passports, at least we can always hide our shame, while visiting Russia, behind general Canadian desperation from not winning the Stanley Cup in ages as a respectable explanation for being dumb--Russians get it. America is becoming a laughing stock. This is beyond ridiculous. What's next--awarding Joe Biden a fourth star of the Hero of The Soviet Union, or Congressional Medal of Honor for being dumb? Come on, give Brezhnev a credit--at least he was a bona fide combat veteran who sustained a serious concussion from enemy fire. Biden family, on the other hand....

Really?

Oh boy, I sense another memorial erected by Democrats and their media for a "victim" of "white supremacy". 

WAUKESHA, Wis. (AP) — The SUV driver who plowed into a Christmas parade in suburban Milwaukee, killing at least five people and injuring 48, was leaving the scene of a domestic dispute that had taken place just minutes earlier, Waukesha’s police chief said Monday. Police Chief Dan Thompson said that there was no evidence the bloodshed Sunday was a terrorist attack or that the suspect, Darrell Brooks Jr., knew anyone in the parade. Brooks acted alone, the chief said. Brooks, 39, of Milwaukee, had left the site of the domestic disturbance before officers arrived, and was not being chased by police at the time of the crash, according to the chief, who gave no further details on the dispute. Police said they were drawing up five charges of intentional homicide against Brooks. He has been charged with crimes 16 times since 1999 and had two outstanding cases against him at the time of the parade disaster — including one in which he was accused of deliberately running down a woman with his vehicle.

CNN and MSNBC (of course, we should never discount efforts by Al Sharpton, a euphemism for a race-bating ass-hole) should get very busy mobilizing their audience for marches against those damn "white supremacists", especially children, who threw themselves at the hood of this completely "innocent" guy's truck and killed themselves to make this dude look bad. It becomes increasingly clear that Democrats' run localities are ungovernable and if the judge posts a whole $1000 bail for a guy who has already shown a tendency for a vehicular homicide, this judge has to be looked at. In general, take a look at Seattle and Portland and make your own conclusions--anything Democrats touch turns to shit and this is from the guy (me) who cannot stand these creeps from GOP.  Remarkably, for some reason this party of loonies and moral freaks is called "left". Wow. They are not "left", they are perverts, as are their European counterparts.

Sunday, November 21, 2021

Salvo Warfare-I.

People who think that I am on some sort of a crusade against the political "science" or what passes today for "history", or rather what it becomes once some "historian" begins to offer "the range of interpretations"... they are absolutely right. These two fields of human "academic" activity--and this is not my definition, many other people used and continue to use it way before me--are the fields in which credentials are bestowed upon primarily interpretations and personal (however "justified" with sources) opinions. But in history, at least, there is some inherent knowable truth which could be found, once layer upon layer of "interpretations" will be peeled off, especially when it is done by professionals who know the subject which constitutes this layer. This is not the case with political "science" which for the last decades produced a dearth of BS and failed to predict just about anything. 

It is not surprising. Just take a look at the political "science" courses, say in Columbia University, and you will find there a hodgepodge collection of mostly "current events" theoretical BS which anyone with IQ higher than room temperature can get from media. Here is one "unit" which has some relevance to real world: DATA ANALYSIS & STATS-POL RES.

This course examines the basic methods data analysis and statistics that political scientists use in quantitative research that attempts to make causal inferences about how the political world works. The same methods apply to other kinds of problems about cause and effect relationships more generally. The course will provide students with extensive experience in analyzing data and in writing (and thus reading) research papers about testable theories and hypotheses. It will cover basic data analysis and statistical methods, from univariate and bivariate descriptive and inferential statistics through multivariate regression analysis. Computer applications will be emphasized. The course will focus largely on observational data used in cross-sectional statistical analysis, but it will consider issues of research design more broadly as well. It will assume that students have no mathematical background beyond high school algebra and no experience using computers for data analysis. 

As you can see yourself--they give them a very basic math, which later finds its other incidence, buried in the pile of purely story-telling topics such as "ISRAELI NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY, POLICY AND DECISION MAKING", such as, and you have guessed it--Game Theory. Among all this disjoint collection of "stories" about politics the most remarkable is this: THEORIES OF WAR AND PEACE.

In this course we undertake a comprehensive review of the literature on the causes of war and the conditions of peace, with a primary focus on interstate war. We focus primarily on theory and empirical research in political science but give some attention to work in other disciplines. We examine the leading theories, their key concepts and causal variables, the causal paths leading to war or to peace, and the conditions under which various outcomes are most likely to occur. We also give some attention to the degree of empirical support for various theories and hypotheses, and we look at some of the major empirical research programs on the origins and expansion of war. Our survey includes research utilizing qualitative methods, large-N quantitative methods, formal modeling, and experimental approaches. We also give considerable attention to methodological questions relating to epistemology and research design. Our primary focus, however, is on the logical coherence and analytic limitations of the theories and the kinds of research designs that might be useful in testing them. This course is designed primarily for graduate students who want to understand and contribute to the theoretical and empirical literature in political science on war, peace, and security. Students with different interests and students from other departments can also benefit from the seminar and are also welcome. Ideally, members of the seminar will have some familiarity with basic issues in international relations theory, philosophy of science, research design, and statistical methods.
Wow! So, as you can see yourself it is a feeble attempt to provide some degree of legitimacy for political "science" graduates' opinions on war, by skipping every single subject which constitutes the foundation of modern war and, as I am on record ad nauseam here, it is higher math, physics and fundamental engineering and military courses ranging from radio-electronics to weapon systems integration, to combat applications, tactics, operational art and research and many other things of which political "scientists" never heard about, not to mention have no clue that such subjects do even exist. How about the theory of survivability of the ship or structure of combat communication networks? Don't hold your breath. Those graduates get a glimpse of Theory of Operations through some statistical methods and basic probabilities course, and then move on to study what anyone with a half-brain can read up on internet in several hours. 
 
Yet, guess from three times who dominates in the modern West (especially in the US) the "discussion" on crucial issues of war and peace, military strategies and geopolitics? You bet, political "scientists" who, as I often use this expression, will not know the difference between LGBT and BTG, which is Battalion (or Brigade) Tactical Group. These are the people who continue to not only spread mostly incompetent sophomoric BS on warfare, they are the MAIN force behind shaping a discussion in the US on geopolitics and strategy, having zero competencies in what defines humanity's main tool of group-against-group survival which is groups' power (capability) and warfare. You can bet your ass also on the fact that this contingent of institutionalized ignoramuses, together with lawyers, constitute the main body of the US legislature and government officials. Recall utter embarrassing failure of all those "scientists" in 2016. How did your political "science" and "statistics" work out, eh?  
 
And here is the main point--modern warfare is complex. Extremely complex. By modern I mean already highly motorized warfare of WW II, with massive mechanized armies, supported by the vast combat aviation fleets, massive naval armadas equipped with radar and sonar clashing on different theaters of operations and producing not only catastrophic destruction and human loses but gigantic volumes of combat data and correlates which not only contributed immensely to a development of tactical and operational models but accelerated technological development of war and its deadly instruments to a breakneck speed. In 1942 a graduate of the Soviet high school or lower college could get into the accelerated artillery officer program, complete it in a few months and be sent to the front line to face Wehrmacht and its panzers. In 1985 the study of missile-artillery officer in academy (officer school) would take full 5 years (6 academic years) with graduate degree in engineering and under-graduate in military science and would involve the study of weapons systems of immense complexity. Same was and is true for naval and air force officers.
 
Today, the same is done based on immensely complex and state-of-the-art academic facilities which unify in themselves latest in weapon systems of an immense power even with conventional explosives, and warfare today is defined by extremely complex combat networks, computers, some really mind-boggling sensors, instant propagation of information, neural networks, robotics, materials which even 20 years ago seemed inconceivable. Ranges of even what would be considered tactical weapons 40 years ago grew into thousands of kilometers, decision making is assisted by AI elements and battle management systems provide not only sensor fusion but probabilistic analysis of operations. How do you fight such a war. By studying the politics of Japan and basic Game Theory with Statistics? Of course not. Political "science" is simply outclassed by several orders of magnitude by warfare and its instruments, as well as applying "the lessons" from history to modern war and geopolitics is a fool's errand because at the Battle of Lepanto they didn't have to resolve the issue of uncertainties when developing firing solution by long-range supersonic missile salvo against Carrier Battle Group at 500 kilometers. 
 
So, tactics and operations take the front seats and this is what constitutes the most important element of modern day geopolitics as we observe it through the lens of actions by nations-states or their alliances and is manifested in statements by leaders of the states, their ministers of foreign affairs, parliaments and, 99% full of shit, media. It all rests on military-economic power, period. The rest is merely an addition or iteration of what is known as Composite Index of National Capability and if I can build a better weapon and kill you with less damage to myself--this is exactly what constitutes the real national power and, as Den Xiaoping used to play with Clausewitz' famous dictum: "Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means."  You either have a weapon or you become an object (not a subject) of history and your only hope is that you don't become a meal for a hungry aggressive superpower. 
 
Late legendary Captain Wayne Hughes understood it clearly and developed an incredible sense for both strategy and evolution of weapons. Not surprisingly, Hughes was a graduate of the US Naval Academy in 1952 in the times of naval titans the scale of  Chester Nimitz, Arleigh Burke and, inevitably, later Elmo Zumwalt, who recognized, unlike many of his contemporaries, the changing nature of the (naval) warfare and was a keen observer of Admiral Gorshkov who built the Soviet Navy around missile weapon systems and that changed everything. Hughes wrote extensively about it and applied his very own Salvo Model to a new paradigm of the naval, and not only, warfare which he presented to a wider public in his famous treatise. 
Salvo Equations', unlike Osipov-Lanchester model, deal with discrete values. That is the things which you can actually count in exchange, they are not continuous, such as, for example an infantry battalion under the artillery barrage where it is possible but extremely difficult to model losses because not only the barrage could be continuous (for an hour with unknown number of shells) but depend dramatically on the design of defensive positions capable to take some degree of damage and thus save lives. In the end, even awareness and running skills of soldiers could be a factor in such an ordeal, which makes it extremely difficult to predict. Here is how Lanchester's model looks like for combat:
          
This is not a nice looking set of differential equations where coefficients a and e define the rate of NON-combat losses, b and f define the rate of losses due to fire impact on areas, c and g define the rate of losses at the front line (immediate contact) and d and h are the numbers of arriving or withdrawing reserves. You see, a hot mess. And then, of course, you cannot shoot down every single artillery shell. Not so with missiles, which you can shoot down and which are discrete by their very nature, as are ships. If you have 5 ships in your task group--that is it. This is 5 ships and that is what gives Salvo Model an elegant and easily understood form. Not in embellished form, I underscore. Embellished Salvo Equations are a bit different animal and require a serious understanding of weapons, but I will touch upon those later. Here is basic Salvo Model for two hostile forces (fleets) A and B. 
The beauty of this model is in the fact that it is not necessarily just a naval one. Missile exchange exists not only at the sea and between fleets. One can apply this model to exchange between defended base and combat air component attacking it. It is a classic missile exchange between discrete forces. We also will look into that, but for now it is clear that at this level of basic Salvo Equations one can easily "play" with them based on some assumptions and get a feel of how they work. Mathematically it is very simple and I did present some examples before elsewhere but let's play a bit. But to cool down your enthusiasm a little bit because of a seemingly simple math in this model, the math behind it is actually quite complex and salvo model is basically a tip of the iceberg and its application requires a serious tactical and operational (and engineering) knowledge which, of course, is beyond the grasp of political "scientists". 
 
Here is a simple illustration of the damage analysis for a ship. In any naval academy the course on Theory of Ship Design (Construction) and Survivability is a two full years course, which involves not only a truckload of math and naval architecture but such earthly and prole things like closing damn holes in the hull being under the attack of incoming and roaring water, or extinguishing fires while shit around you explodes and burns--believe me, this is not fun. It looks good only in the movies.
Here is a general solution for a salvo by a submarine:
 

Or here is maneuvering on board for taking salvo position:
So, this is just a minuscule part of what is needed to fully grasp what is this all about in Salvo Model, not to speak of Embellished Salvo Equations. So, don't get cocky just yet. You will have the chance to get cocky once you will follow my blog and, of course, support (those well-off among you) me on Patreon.  
 
Now to basic play. Let's assume that two forces  A and B have equal number of ships, say 5. Thus: A=5 and B=5. Let's continue with other coefficients. Say force A's α=3 (that is the number of well-aimed missiles fired by each ship from A), while the same for B will be β=4. Now, the following: a1 and b1 are what is generally known as omega(ϖ) which is mathematical expectation, or, as is stated in model, a number (usually weighted average) of missiles 
needed to take a ship out of action. Let's say  a1=2 and b1=1 (I use deliberately whole numbers to simplify the task) and now to a3 which is, basically, effectiveness of A's air defense, which is the number of missiles fired by B destroyed by A's air defense. So, say a3=2 and for B we say same effectiveness: b3=2. Now we are ready to calculate. Let's start with A's losses:

                  ΔA=4×5-2×52=20-102=102=5

As you can see yourself A doesn't fare that well--it gets completely destroyed, and loses all 5 ships. But what about B. Plug in your numbers.  As you can see, B didn't fare much better and got its ass handed to it by A. So, two task groups basically sunk each-other. Of course, this is a completely unrealistic scenario but it showed that B having much less "resistance" to being taken out by enemy missiles (only one per each B ship) couldn't capitalize on its advantage in a number of missiles it had over A. Force A ships simply could absorb more battle damage. If only B had better air defense or could absorb more damage. Should  a1=2 and b1=2, that is being the same, force B could have won this exchange over A and would have retained 2.5 ships afloat. We round it and it is 3 ships--this is victory, a bloody one, but victory nonetheless. So, here we are, with some example of how simple this basic model is. But, of course, as you may have guessed it already, the devil is in those pesky details which define modern missile combat and that is a hell of a topic, which I intent on discussing...

P.S. If anyone notices some stupid mistakes in calculations, please inform--it is evening and even two monitors is not enough for navigating this mambo-jumbo. Do not forget to support me on Patreon.  

To Be Continued... 

Saturday, November 20, 2021

Political "Scientists" On The Rampage.

Here is yet another one "the war is coming" piece, now by Glenn Diesen on RT. It is symptomatically titled: Russia-NATO war over Ukraine is becoming increasingly unavoidable. In it, Diesen does what all political "scientists" do--speaks about the subject of which he has a very vague understanding--war. Make no mistake, taxonomy is provided by Diesen. 

Sure, there is one problem--it is this first C which political "scientists" have huge problems with understanding. I start with this:

NATO and Russia certainly now appear to be heading towards war in Ukraine. Every meeting, phone call, and summit result in a commitment to the statement that there is “no alternative to the Minsk Agreement.” The Minsk Agreement identifies two conflicting parties, Kiev and Donbass, and the first action to be taken was identified as immediately establishing a dialogue between them to work out the constitutional changes that would grant autonomy to Donbass. Yet Kiev has stated in no uncertain terms that it will not talk to Donbass and thus not implement the agreement, and the NATO powers have demonstrated that they do not intend to push it into abiding by it. If the agreement is rejected and no alternative is established, then war becomes the only possible outcome.

Diesenl fails to understand that Moscow created Minsk  Agreement for it not to be implemented. It was created to precisely freeze the conflict and allow Russia to complete relatively calmly the process which is the title of my first book: Losing Military Supremacy. The Myopia of American Strategic Planning. From the get go Russia knew that there was nothing to talk about with both West, let alone 404. Russia needed to rearm and to mobilize, which she did to a large degree due to:

1. Not "liberating" the rest of the 404;

2. Being able to contain the West, not least through steady reintegration (a fully unexpected variable in operation of a return of Crimea in 2014) of LDNR's forces and now economies with Russia's. 

I wrote about it long time ago (more than 3 years ago) in the article titled: Russia as a Cat. And now about the definition of the "War". Diesen, evidently, cannot define clearly what war NATO and Russia are going to fight "over Ukraine". So, I'll try to answer.

1. NATO's war against Russia IN Ukraine with full blown mobilization of forces on the level of military districts and services, forming of Fronts in 404, Baltics etc. OK. Just two days ago I elaborated on this contingency in the piece symptomatically titled Never in the Ballpark. There is nothing scarier than Ph.D in political economy or science waxing military-strategic. To avoid elaborating yet again on this issue I will quote (yet again) a former senior officer of Russia's General Staff Colonel Vladimir Trukhan: "We don't even sweat about NATO". I'll give Diesen a hint--it has everything to do with the first and the most important C. I have a whole second book describing what this C is. I am writing another one on that too. NATO big honchos are not completely suicidal yet. They may become such, but for now this scenario is not likely.

2. NATO pushing 404 into war by means of attacking LDNR and providing it with a "military aid" (by means of supplying some old military junk and some ammo) in a desperate attempt to lure bear out of his lair. Sure! If Diesen means this war, well--even in this war NATO has zero resources and negative escalation dominance unlike Russia who may open Voentorg again and once the North Wind will begin to blow who is to say that it will not stop in Kiev? Not that this shithole is of any use for Russia. But if Diesen writes about this war, then sure. But that will not be the war between NATO and Russia, it will be the war between LDNR and 404 supported by NATO by such means like sending (ooh, scary)  600 SAS people or providing targeting and recon for 404. Absolutely, this all goes without saying. 

NATO will sanction Russia war in LDNR notwithstanding and the split between Russia and combined West is a fait accompli. But because Diesen doesn't understand the nature of this first C, he continues to completely mislead his readers and provides not an analysis but a crude propaganda pamphlet. Nobody wants the war--a real one--because if the war between NATO and Russia starts, number of the Western nations will cease to exist as operational states, and Brussels and D.C., especially Pentagon, are keenly aware of that. And yes, NATO cannot assemble a required force to fight Russia no matter how desperately it will try and that is what I wanted to explain in my next post on Salvo Model and force size but had to respond to this ridiculous piece about war and Capability--a thing which is taught in military academies and requires a set of skills and knowledge which are beyond the grasp of political "scientists". Meanwhile, the probability of 404 attack on LDNR remains high but we knew this from the inception.

Friday, November 19, 2021

Some Really Peculiar News.

Apart from great news of Kyle's acquittal, which is a victory for law and order and which also demonstrated that US MSM (euphemism for Democratic media machine) is a clear and present danger to remaining islands of American freedom and law, not to mention the fact that MSM is a collection of human trash, there is something which is really peculiar. Recall, few days ago I said that Russia would supply the US if necessity arises as it was the case with ice bound Nome in Alaska in 2012 with whatever will be needed in a heart beat again. Guess what. 

Anyone who thinks that this is some sort of "charity" on Russia's part, think again. First, it's good for business, second--you do not allow people to freeze, period. That is why Russia filled European gas reservoirs recently, and now gets fuel which is needed to cap the insane gas prices at the East Coast, which automatically translate into all kinds of disruptions of energy for heating. US establishment may well be packed with hostile ass-holes, but Russians never viewed regular American folks like that. 

Vortexa analysts highlighted that Russian producers have been ramping up production of a diesel that is dependent on a feedstock extracted from costly natural gas. Flows from the Russian Baltic port of Primorsk are reportedly expected to reach their highest level since at least 2016. “Russia is better positioned to supply diesel than other refiners in Europe because of its access to cheap natural gas,” Clay Seigle, a managing director for Vortexa in Houston told the agency. “It’s very rare we’d see volumes this large coming to the East Coast,” the expert added. Retail prices for diesel in the US East Coast have soared to being the costliest in seven years, with distillate inventories in the region down by nearly a third from levels recorded earlier this year. Demand for the fuel is expected to further grow as logistics companies are intensively working to catch up on backlogs that built up due to the coronavirus pandemic.

In the end, Russia is NOT interested in any kinds of economic disruptions which lead to political instability. The United States is already nearing the state of economic stasis due to mindless economic policies of the last 20+ years, suicidal cultural practices and "anthropological climate change" fraud. Russia doesn't like it; to see a nuclear superpower, however diminishing with each passing day, nearing chaos and upheaval is not in Russia's plans. And, of course, you will hardly find this news in the US MSM and if they will make it there you can bet your ass on the fact that it will be presented as Russia's nefarious plans and desire to influence the US. 

In the same time, the US Congress is busy with "working for American people" and are getting busy with this:

This is the level of the US political "elites". Let US Congress adopt this resolution and see what happens.  As you may have guessed it, two clowns who introduced this resolution are both lawyers and are, effectively, yet another iterations of Eddie Barzoon of Devil's Advocate fame. Classic law-electoral political animals who never worked a day in their life in a productive capacity. So, there you go. 

In other related news. I may not condone US foreign policy and wars, in fact I am openly opposed to them--but this is fvcking disgrace. Utter shame, this is how America treats her soldiers she sends to die for egos of US politicians and quarterly financial reports to shareholders of the US Military-Industrial-Political-Media Complex.

As US Troops and Families Go Hungry, They Don’t Trust the Pentagon for Help. 

What can I say, as long as shareholders are happy...

Feeding America says there isn’t one cause of hunger among military families, with low salaries for enlisted members, high rates of unemployment for military spouses, and high costs of child care contributing to the broader problem. For many families, causes stack up, weaving a web of hardship that is difficult to escape. But the cost of housing plays an outsized role, Vince Hall, Feeding America’s head of government relations, told Military.com in a phone interview. “It's shocking to see military families lining up for food assistance because they are often stationed in some of the nation's most expensive housing markets but lack the compensation necessary to live in those markets,” Hall said.

I have a solution, but freeloaders in Congress will not like it--after all this song has no expiration date. 

Wars change, fat cats continue to get richer and more self-righteous.

Thursday, November 18, 2021

Never In the Ballpark.

I get it, alright, it is all done with the best of the intentions. Plus, The American Conservative, despite its gaping holes in knowledge of Russia, tries to position itself as a "realist" publication, and once in a while they do produce a sound idea or two, but in general they suffer from the same ailment characteristic to most modern "intellectual" publications--a complete inadequacy of experiences past and of understanding a modern world beyond the bounds of a few popular talking points such as West's moral decay and "economy" and "diplomacy". It is a feature now, even of those who position themselves as Anglo-American "realists", or, even, people who try to find some higher moral meaning in the chaos of a contemporary Western politics. 

Anatol Lieven is a fine example of a field which I personally do not even consider a viable realm of expertise or study on any issue pertaining what we all know today as geopolitics and one would expect Lieven, who has a Ph.D in precisely this fraudulent political "science" to have issues with adequately grasping the modern day reality. Lieven is extensively quoted in the article in the said TAC by Bradley Delvin who is extremely critical of this:

It is all fine and dandy, and I agree that those republicans are essentially neocons and that the US Congress is a collection of primarily bruised egos and war-mongers. We shouldn't be surprised with that--it is a well-established fact. What is fascinating that while speaking about "miscalculations" and, obviously, self-defeating policies, Delvin gives a wide berth to Lieven's "interpretations", which in many respects prove without a shadow of a doubt that "miscalculations", if not delusions are as wide-spread among the so called Anglo-American "realists" as they are among neocons. I'll start with Lieven's rather wrong assessment of the situation of NS2. This is not to say that Russia doesn't care, of course she does and wants NS2 to work--it goes without saying. But Lieven thinks that:

“The biggest deterrent by far is the threat of greatly intensified sanctions,” Lieven said. “Russia is anxious about its Nord Stream pipeline to Germany. Clearly in the event of a new war with Ukraine, that simply stops and goes out the window, and there are many, many more things that the U.S. or Europe could do that could harm Russia very badly in terms of its economic well-being.”

I don't know what Lieven's qualifications are for this type of conclusions, but he obviously contradicts a number of Russian experts, not least of them Rostislav Ischenko, a former employee of Ukraine's Government and a man who is situationally aware on the issues of Ukraine and NS2 order of magnitude better than Lieven will ever be, who in unison (I am one of those) repeat the point for years, that since roughly 2016-17 and on, the sabotage of the NS2, if it succeeds, means merely a discomfort for Russia which will be overcome, while for Germany and  Europe it will be a catastrophe. I wrote so much about it for years, just type Nord Stream 2 in search bar in this blog. Moreover, I don't know how Lieven missed an obvious major shift of Russia's hydrocarbons' extraction and processing industry away from western borders towards the Far East. Everybody sees it, evidently not Lieven.

But that is not the main issue, in the end, if Europe wants to commit suicide it is not for Russia to prevent it. But Lieven decides to wax all strategic and military and says this:

“If America was planning to seriously prepare for a ground war with Russia, it would have to re-deploy tens or hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops to Europe with full air cover, and station them in European countries, which might very well not be willing to receive them,” Lieven told TAC. “In addition, this would mean either preparing to fight a war of two fronts simultaneously with China and Russia, because if the United States goes to war with Russia, there can be no doubt whatsoever that China would move to take Taiwan the next day, and the U.S. would have to either fight on two fronts, give up on one front, or lose on both fronts.”

I deliberately highlight and underline what Liven states on the size of the force the United States will need to fight a "ground war" with Russia.  It is not a detail which could be attributed to my nit-picking. It is not, it is very serious when a person who is viewed by many as an "expert" makes such a gaffe. Of course, I don't know WHY the United States will fight a "ground war" with Russia, I presume in Ukraine, but Lieven better ask Andrew Bacevich, his boss in Quincy Institute, and a former cadre officer (Colonel) of the US Army with combat experience. Maybe, I am not saying it will happen with 100% probability, he explains to Lieven what force will be needed to "fight" Russia near Russia's borders. 

Of course, a lot depends on HOW the victory will be defined by the US, but judging by Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan (among many others) it could be defined anywhere between total and partial defeats inflicted by enemies on the US. Russia, however, is a bit different case here, EVEN if we assume that the US will not escalate to a nuclear threshold after a week or two of fighting this "ground war". Even if we assume that both sides do not use nukes, be them tactical or strategic, the purely conventional "ground war" against Russia in Ukraine will require at least one million of combat troops on the American side, granted Russia will even allow those to be shipped to Europe. I am, however, not 100% positive on the "cut off" number of the US troops (it could be 200,000 or somewhere near 400,000) concentrating in Europe before Russia will blow to smithereens most of the ports capable to receive US transports and then simply destroy airfields with whatever will be there. 

I wrote about those wet dreams by US a few years ago. There, Ochmanek, evidently, was pulling numbers, pardon my French, out of his ass, still being enamored by a turkey shoot of a backward Iraqi Army. But exactly two years later he dramatically, to his credit, changed his tune and admitted:

Unsurprisingly, those admissions came on the heels of Vladimir Putin's address to Federal Assembly on 1March 2018 whose historic significance many people still cannot grasp. So, yes, million(s) of US (NATO) combat troops if NATO decides to commit suicide conventionally and see Washington and European Capitals' government quarters in ruins. There is no worse than some Ivy League or Oxford Ph.D in political "science" beginning to wax military and "miscalculating" by order of magnitude on the scale of force and, hence, slaughterhouse which will unfold if the US decides to fight a ground war with a "peer" and not some illiterate Arab soldier or Taliban. This is not a "miscalculation, it is a tour de force of military ignorance which defines modern Western politicum be they from "realist" wing or the neocon one. They better listen to this, again, between 7:00 and 16:00 minutes and see reactions of his political "science" interlocutors. 

I will elaborate on the required force when speaking on the Salvo Model and why even million plus troops even within purely conventional scenario in Ukraine will not prevent NATO from sustaining catastrophic defeat accompanied by catastrophic losses in people and in materiel. I am not even going to discuss mobilization policies and measures of Russia, of which Lieven has very little, if any, understanding. But even Wilkerson fails to grasp what real modern conventional war is--he can't, US never fought a peer since 1945 on the ground successfully without several overwhelming advantages in technology. Well... even speaking in generalities has to have a well defined and competent point, which at least provides a ballpark accuracy to a point one wants to get across with whatever intentions.   

P.S. Wilkerson spoke about "ultimately winning", he really needs to refresh his memory on American wars of the 20th century.