Monday, September 26, 2022

And Why I Am Not Surprised.

In the middle of an amateurish pseudo-operational BS from Michael Koffman of CNA (so called Center for Naval Analysis) or some other Colonel from the US Army to New York Times--normal competent people do not consult this rag which lives out the remnants of its once solid reputation--we find, in a long and meandering BS piece about SMO, this admission:

I am not sure that be that Michael Koffman or whatever the name of the other Colonel is, who "shared" their military wisdom with NYT, are capable to grasp the way Russian Air Defense operates, they simply do not have any experience with that, not to mention the fact that the only thing US military does well is PR. It is impossible to explain to Koffman or any other political "scientist" abusing sinecures in the US "think-tanks" in and around D.C. how real integrated battlefield AD operates and why for it such targets as HIMARS projectiles are typical targets which are no different than, accidentally, genuinely hyper-sonic (M=5.3) Tochka U.  

I get it, Koffman and people in NYT have bills to pay and are "proud" in the most wrong way, can we call it an American "garrulous patriotism" as de Tocqueville defined in in his classic work, but Russian Air Defense operators are not impressed with HIMARS. What Koffman and others should worry about, of course, is the fact that always superior to the West in the combat use of her Air Defense complex, today Russia obtained an incredible combat experience which in terms of AD and ABM systems will only accelerate the widening of already very wide lead over anything West ever produced. In fact, as data (not from Ukrainian "sources") confirms, including videos, even TOR-M2s are now capable of shooting down such targets as Tochka-U. 

But then, of course, another American shitty rag which squandered the remnants of a reputation in the last few years, Time, when taking interview with VSU's Commander General Zaluzhny, quotes this from him:

Well, he merely confirms what I am writing about for years, corollary to Zaluzhny's statement, the US is, certainly, not well versed in the science of war, especially modern one, but what do I know. Zaluzhny's interview is not accidental--the Russians, who according to US military "experts" suffer huge losses, "lost initiative" and, in general, are about to surrender Moscow, in three days will add more than 100,000 square kilometers and more than 5.5 million people to Russia. I guess, if this is how the "loss of initiative" looks like, then we may only imagine how possession of thereof will look like. But there is a possible, more sinister, reason for this interview--Zelensky's useful life has expired and, in a view of increasingly active operations of Russian Army, the West will try to preserve whatever it can from its project in 404 not least in a feeble attempt to save own face. Zaluzhny can be this figure which could be moved to premier position in 404. I doubt it will make any difference, but desperate times--desperate measures, or... grasping for the last straw.

At this stage and with the results of referendum already pretty much known, UK Defense Ministry as represented by the Chief of General Staff Admiral Sir Tony Radakin met Russian Military Attache in London, Maxim Elovik, to "improve communications channels between British and Russian militaries to mitigate risks and escalation" (in Russian). Sure, considering who current British Prime Minister is--good idea. I am on record, I feel much safer when I know that Gerasimov and Milley are talking, than when Blinken tries to avoid Lavrov by all means possible. So, all in all, I am not surprised.

No comments:

Post a Comment