A Bit of a Broadside and a Misnomer.

RT continues the stream of its misnomers as of lately and now it produced yet another one while reporting this. 

Russia may attack Ukraine on Saturday, starting with a “decapitating” strike against the government in Kiev before a full-scale invasion, warned the Institute for the Study of War, a star-studded Washington, DC think-tank. “The attack would likely begin with an air and missile campaign targeting much of Ukraine to decapitate the government and degrade the Ukrainian military as well as the ability of Ukrainian citizens to prepare to resist a subsequent Russian invasion,” ISW’s Fred Kagan and Mason Clark claimed in an urgent bulletin on Friday evening. As the main reason they believed Saturday would be an “optimal” date for the attack, Kagan and Clark cited Ukrainian President Volodymir Zelensky’s planned trip to the Munich Security Conference, where he is scheduled to speak on Saturday afternoon.

My issue? My issue is not with this neocon sewer ISW which produced this:

Russia-Ukraine Warning Update: New Indicators of Imminent Russian Attack

By Fredrick W. Kagan and Mason Clark

February 18, 2022, 2:00 pm ET

Russia may launch an attack on Ukraine on Saturday, February 19, 2022. The attack would likely begin with an air and missile campaign targeting much of Ukraine to decapitate the government and degrade the Ukrainian military as well as the ability of Ukrainian citizens to prepare to resist a subsequent Russian invasion. US and allied governments have been warning of such an attack for some days, pointing to the size of the Russian forces concentrated on Ukraine’s borders. Western officials have additionally said that Russian troops have moved to jumping-off positions for an invasion over the past 24 hours. The following additional conditions and indicators point to February 19 as an optimal date for a Russian attack:

My issue is not with this BS. Expected from Kagans' clan. My issue is with this: a star-studded Washington, DC think-tank. If, as RT claims, it is "star-studded" why don't we look at who those "stars" are. I am not going to discuss any military (lack) of expertise among Kagans (this pseudo-strategic scam is founded by Kimberley Kagan) but apart from being fanatical neocons, they not only qualify as war criminals (and we are yet discuss this issue), but have General Tommy Franks assessment of Douglas Feith as the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth(c) fully applied to Kagans in terms of warfare. So, who are those stars in this org? Let's see:

General Jack Keane (US Army, Retired), Chairman, Institute for the Study of War; President, GSI, LLC

Dr. Kimberly Kagan, Founder & President, Institute for the Study of War

The Honorable Kelly Craft, Former US Ambassador to UN and Canada

Dr. William Kristol, Director, Defending Democracy Together

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman, Senior Council, Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman, LLP

Kevin Mandia, Chief Executive Officer & Board Director, Mandiant

Jack D. McCarthy, Jr., Senior Managing Director & Founder, A&M Capital

Bruce Mosler, Chairman, Global Brokerage, Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.

General David H. Petraeus (US Army, Retired), Member, KKR & Chairman, KKR Global Institute

Dr. Warren Phillips, Lead Director, CACI International

Colonel William Roberti (US Army, Retired), Managing Director, Alvarez & Marsal

The only persons of any military background I can see here are General Petraeus, General Keane and Colonel William Roberti. I don't know who Roberti is, but there is another General on Staff of this ISW--General James Dubik. The rest of it, as is expected, a bunch of useless credentials (from Ivy League fraudulent humanities programs) loaded "scholars", many of them from Ukraine, take a gander, and people who wouldn't know the difference between LGBT and BTG. So, why don't we try to define military "stardom" in appropriate terms. Indeed, who is a real star, militarily-speaking, on what merit this "stardom" is bestowed on military people? I can tell you upfront: winning campaigns, wars. Napoleon may have been a complete ass-hole as a man, but there is no denial that he was a military genius and kicked so much ass in his life that no matter how one may not like him, there is no denial--he is a military star. Alexander Suvorov, who bears the title of generalissimo and even owns (to his name) a part of Switzerland, not to mention being a Count of Holy Roman Empire and Prince of Kingdom of Sardinia. He became a military star and got all these titles and awards not because he was a nice guy, but because he won of all his campaigns. 

Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov was an overweight and one eye blind (he lost the eye in wars in Crimea) but he is world renown because this is the guy who defeated Napoleon Invasion of Russia in 1812. Is he is a star. You can bet your own ass on that, because in 1814 (he  died by then) Alexander I and Russian Army triumphantly entered Paris. The spirit of Kutuzov was with Russian Army and Czar. How about Eisenhower? Well, guess who got Order of Victory from Stalin? Many complain that Ike was not this or that, but guess what--he ended up sharing a victory with likes of Zhukov, Konev, Rokossosvsky or Vasilvesky, giant military stars of truly historic proportions in their own right. And nobody can say that Ike didn't deserve it. Want to see a true military leader? Read Ike's letter before the D-Day written in case the landing fails--the man takes all personal responsibility for such a failure. This is a sign of a very big man and military leader of historic proportions. It also inspires an admiration for a man. 

Is Monty a military star? Sure. So is, undeniably, Chester Nimitz. It was also ever diligent Omar Bradley who was behind many operations of the US Army in Europe in 1944-45. All this is understandable, you can even credit Erich Von Meinstein with brilliant military leadership and military art practitioner of a highest level. Even a devout Nazi Walter Model was a man of a major military talent (when at the top of his game) and has a record to back it up. I can continue to list many international military stars who left an indelible mark on military history, strategy, operational art and tactics. In their lives they were often very successful scoring major victories in campaigns or winning campaigns against the first rate peers. 

Now let's take a look at ISW's "stars". We will start with General Jack Keane. The guy literally lives on FOX news as "analyst" of Russia. 

General Jack Keane (U.S. Army, Retired) is a foreign policy and national security expert who provides nationwide commentary in speeches, articles, congressional testimony and through several hundred television and radio interviews annually. He is the President of GSI Consulting and serves as Chairman of the Institute for the Study of War and the Knollwood Foundation, is Executive Chairman of AM General and a Director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and the Smith Richardson Foundation. General Keane is a member of the Secretary of Defense Policy Board under Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin; he also served on that board during the Bush and Obama administrations. He was a member of the Commission on National Defense Strategy selected by the late Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman, Senator John McCain. General Keane is also a Trustee Fellow of Fordham University and an advisor to the George C. Marshall Foundation. General Keane, a four-star general, completed 37 years of public service in December 2003, culminating in his appointment as acting Chief of Staff and Vice Chief of Staff of the US Army. As the chief operating officer of the Army for over 4 years, he directed 1.5 million soldiers and civilians in 120 countries, with an annual operating budget of 110 billion dollars. General Keane was in the Pentagon on 9/11 and provided oversight and support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Since 2004, General Keane conducted frequent trips to Iraq and Afghanistan for senior defense officials with multiple visits during the surge period in both countries. General Keane is a career infantry paratrooper and a decorated combat veteran of Vietnam who spent much of his military life in operational commands, including the famed 101^st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and the legendary 18th Airborne Corps, the Army’s largest war fighting organization.

The first question which pops up is this? Since when this general has become a "star".  Many generals commanded many soldiers in their lives but that doesn't make them a star. It is HOW you command and what is your record which matter. And here is the point which I made above--and it is universally agreed upon--what are the campaigns which Keane won? What are his merits as battlefield leader and strategic and operational commander? Very many people in armed forces all around the world serve 37 years and even longer. I can give an example, Vice-Admiral Oleg Golubev, a graduate class of a year later than mine from our naval academy, is already 41 years in service. He is deputy commander of Northern Fleet and, most likely, its future commander. He has under his command a firepower which can wipe the United States off the map in a single salvo. Like this:

Many people serve long terms in Armed Forces all around the world. Also, very many people go through hot spots, military campaigns, operational and combat zones. But last time I checked, Vietnam, where General Keane started his career was not exactly a success. After beating the shit from a third-rate utterly incompetent and outgunned Saddam's "fourth largest in the world" Army, the US got bogged down in Iraq, destroyed shitload of real estate there and after that concluded Afghanistan War with... well, we know what.  I look at General Keane's bio and still cannot find a single entry with won wars, campaigns or, at least, notable battles. Keane is, certainly, a TV star, he certainly provides a lot of talking about Russia and her Armed Forces but I doubt General Keane understands how Russian State operates and how Russian Armed Forces are integrated in it on a doctrinal level. No US General has any experience with that because no US military man, none, zilch, nada ever fought in defense of his or her homeland. It is simply a different culture which most people in the US, including current top bras, cannot grasp. 

Then we begin to look at another "star", General Petraeus. I, honestly, cannot remember Petraeus for any military accomplishments other than a fucking mess in Iraq and a "brilliant" command in Afghanistan debacle. Of course, he was appointed the head of CIA but is primarily remembered for screwing Paula Broadwell. Just to give some perspective, Marshal Rokossovsky (that is one of the brightest military stars in history) was rumored (mostly false) to have a romantic extramarital affair with a famous Soviet movie actress Valentina Serova. 

And while those were primarily rumors, when Stalin got a report about Rokossovsky's alleged affair and was asked (and this is not a legend, it is a fact) what are we going to do about it, Comrade Stalin? After all, people's favorite, one of the greatest military leaders etc. Not a good example, et al. Stalin, after a second of contemplation responded: "What are we going to do, what are we going to do? We are all going to envy Comrade Rokossovsky." 

You may say what I am getting at? Very simple--modern United States doesn't have military stars in the top brass, because it lost all of its modern wars (with the exception of Grenada) while providing not only shameful propaganda of own accomplishments, where there were none, but covering up one humiliation after another, including utter strategic and operational ineptness of US "military stars" who lied constantly to public about losing yet another America's ill-conceived military adventure in the lands which pose zero threat to the United States.  When even CIA outlet such as WaPo cannot take it anymore of this military stars' BS and has to publish this:

The Afghanistan Papers  

One has to ask the question, are these people like Keane, Petraeus and likes any good other than self-promotion and spreading BS for the sake of MIC profits? We all know the answer, not everybody just wants to say loud--no, they are not. Not only they are not good military leaders, they are ignorant ones and when I see them bloviating on Russia and Russian Armed Forces I cringe. They parade themselves as political clowns good only for lobbying of anyone's interests as long as the pay is good. Where are you campaigns and wars won? None exist.

One user posted a link to a lecture by Dr. Philip Karber to West Point Cadets in 2018 about Russia's capabilities. 

Even today, four years hence this video is dated but also gives some insight in how mislead and how speculative "experts" in the US are even in a relative non-publicity of the West Point's confines. I can repeat what I repeated many times (Patrick Armstrong also says it all the time): your intel is not good, in fact, you all don't know shit about the subject you are talking about. The last excrement from ISW (what wars do they "study" there?) is a decisive proof of a complete loss of not only any situational awareness which was always shaky but a complete confused state when it comes to Russia. It is really cringe-worthy to read and watch these "stars" from the fraudulent BS narrative mongering "think-tank" who parade own ignorance, if not malice, publicly covering their real war-mongering goals with sophomoric pseudo-military psychobabble. Face the facts--you are not that good, and the US military history is dwarfed by the scale and tradition of Russia's military accomplishments which are rooted in defense of Russians' motherland and the only thing left for Keane or Petraeus is to watch and as Stalin stated: "You are all going to envy." And that's the secret to your impotent anger. That's what losers do. If RT thinks that this ISW is "star-studded", they better ask Margo Simonyan to visit Russia's Academy of General Staff--they will explain to her what real military stardom is.