Friday, November 18, 2022

NYT, Again.

But before I continue with NYT, something about execution of 10 Russian POWs by Nazis. Don't get too emotional, by now one has to develop a degree of the thick skin and understand that the use of the term Nazi is not some kind of propaganda hyperbole. Kiev regime is Nazi regime as are people in the West who support it. So, executing civilians, POWs, torturing them, raping etc. is a normal operational procedure for them, especially for a significant strata of military-political-media top in Washington and London. Many of them are sadists and psychopaths and many of them sincerely want many Russians, preferably all of them, dead. They tacitly applaud any kind of atrocity committed against Russians and want even more. There are many people like this in intel community and in Pentagon. This is a hard cold fact of life. I will omit here elaboration on psychological reasons for that in the West (a lot of it has to do with West's decline, especially militarily), as per Kiev--this is what they do, war crimes and crimes against humanity. 

Accidentally, now a part of this reason and growing West's desperation which is a result of sheer ignorance. 

The New York Times on Friday offered four possible explanations as to how Russia was able to launch a massive missile salvo against Ukraine this week, after the government in Kiev, the Pentagon and the British intelligence have spent months insisting Moscow’s stockpiles were running low. Ukraine claimed last month that Russia had used up 70% of its prewar missile reserves, the Times noted, while the British Defense Ministry said the October 10 strike against Ukrainian infrastructure was “likely to constrain their ability to strike the volume of targets they desire in future.” Tuesday’s strike, which the Times described as the “biggest aerial attack” of the conflict so far, featuring 96 missiles, “raises questions about how much Russia’s arsenal may be depleted and whether Moscow will endure by finding alternative sources of weapons.” One explanation comes from the Pentagon, which had claimed that Russia was running out of missiles as early as May. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said on Wednesday that Russia was “reaching out” to Iran and North Korea to replenish its ammunition stocks, though the Pentagon itself has publicly said otherwise. Moscow, Tehran and Pyongyang have all denied this, however. Meanwhile, the US has reportedly been trying to buy artillery ammunition for Kiev from South Korea.

As I already stated many times--the last one being yesterday--average US "journo" from establishment media in the US is semi-literate moron. Some of those morons have Ph.Ds in "journalism" and "communications", others--in political pseudo-science. In other words, using Dunning-Kruger model--it is impossible to explain to most people who graduated all kinds of such "programs", and those who teach those, from the average Western university, that they are ignorant because they are ignorant. They do not know real history, especially of the 20th century, neither do most professors who teach it, they do not understand real economy and how it operates, they have zero clue about real warfare. As the result, despite my, and others, warning since 2013-14 about the US not understanding what it is getting itself into with Ukraine, most military-political-media and business top brass in the US wanted... to kill Russians and destroy Russia. 

Now, as I am also on record--no American servicemen ever fought real large, including modern combined arms, war against very serious, sometimes superior, enemy in defense of his (her) home, period. Russians do it for 1000+ years. Because of that, even when you are well-educated and experienced American soldier, it is still very difficult, not impossible, though, to grasp the intricacies of real war economy, especially when you have been taught "economics" as is taught in the West. Get any top RAND honcho (probably former general) talk to Russian counterpart and you can easily observe how this RAND guy will melt away when faced with substantive issues of arsenals for serious war. Emphasis on "serious". And this is just one example. In other words, American military experiences do not apply to Russia in general. Hence, even when having proper information, many in the US analytical orgs, let alone such toilet paper as NYT fail to grasp basic facts. They do not have skills.

Just a demonstration. In the open, across the whole world. March 2018. 

Начальник Генштаба Валерий Герасимов заявил, что опыт операции в Сирии дал новый импульс совершенствованию системы комплексного поражения противника. МОСКВА, 24 марта. /ТАСС/. Группировки носителей крылатых ракет большой дальности воздушного и морского базирования созданы в РФ на всех стратегических направлениях. Об этом сообщил глава Генштаба ВС - первый замминистра обороны России Валерий Герасимов.

Translation: Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov said that the experience of the operation in Syria gave a new impetus to the improvement of the system of complex destruction of the enemy MOSCOW, 24 March. /TASS/. Groups of carriers of long-range air and sea-based cruise missiles have been created in the Russian Federation in all strategic directions. This was announced by the head of the General Staff of the Armed Forces - First Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia Valery Gerasimov.  

This was four and a half years ago. Now, get an average dumb-ass from NYT, WaPo, Politico or MSNBC, among many others, or some Patton-worshiping West-Point graduate,  and try to explain to him-her-they-those-it-this what it means when Gerasimov makes such statements. Well, you will need to start from demolishing two founding myths of 20th century America, namely that:

1. While America's contribution to the victory in WW II against Hitler (not Japan--here the US did really well, but it was a different kind of war) was significant, many will have to live the fact that despite importance of the Lend-Lease, USSR produced most of its weapons on its own. While doing so, it annihilated 80% of Axis (in reality combined Europe's) forces, creme de la' creme, on its own. In other words, Soviet industrial capacity was immense even in the war time. In general, the US doesn't know real Russian 20th century history.

2. Modern Russia's economy is not only NOT the size of the economy, whatever that means, of Netherlands, but it is much larger than industrial economy of Germany, let alone France, let alone UK. And then one has to explain that Russia practically is 100% independent in her weapons manufacturing, not to mention producing en masse weapons systems of which Pentagon can only dream about.


If you succeed making these two points, there are many more, you may also explain that as early as 2015 and 2016 the number, however speculative, because most of it is secret, of Russia's production of the stand-off weapons, namely 3M14 Kalibr and X-101 cruise missiles family was running something on the order of, depending on the source anywhere from 30 a month to 60 per quarter. Even if we assume the more modest number of 60 per quarter, even WITHOUT well documented and publicized dramatic increase of manufacturing as early as 2016, we still get this number: 4 quarters per year x 7 years x 60 missiles per quarter = 28 x 60 = 1,680 missiles of Kalibr and X-101 family at a minimum. But we also know that production was dramatically increased with practically all massive Russia's military-industrial complex plant working three shifts every day since January at least. 


My personal estimate of 3M14 and X-101 number alone--I do not count other types such as widely used P-800 Onyx, let alone Iskander--is about at least 2,500 and Russia still maintains most of it untouched, in case she has to face off with NATO proper. When you begin to add here all kinds of other stand off weapons, including very useful X-55s and X-22 and X-32. Oh boy, you are looking at massive arsenal of stand off weapons alone. I know, for NYT it comes as a surprise, but then again, they probably still think that NYC is not a shithole but a great city. You cannot address the provincialism of American "creative" class. And here we are, with these people unable to do a simple arithmetic. That is why they couldn't wrap their brains around the Russian rationale behind letting go of INF Treaty, of which I wrote non-stop in 2018-2019. Russians tacitly applauded the removal of all constrains on emerging dramatic superiority in quality and quantity of Russian stand off missile systems--the fact the US obviously failed to grasp. 


Notice? I didn't even count here already used to an astonishing effect hypersonic Kinzhal, nor this teeny-weeny fact of Russian MoD signing a week ago the additional contract for 3M22 Zircon, which is several dozens of additional missiles (in Russian), with this additional contract to be completed in 2023. Now count yourself how many were in the original 2021 contract--100, 120, 150? I wrote three books on military-economic and operational issues. Obviously nobody in NYT or WaPo reads those, albeit I am very pleased that a serious political quarterly American Affairs DID take a note:

But this is not Martyanov’s core critique, which is that the American military is simply not tailored to the needs of today’s world. It is structured for incursions against much weaker opponents—such as Iraq in 1991 and 2003. But it is not in a position of strength when faced with a peer that can compete in terms of troop deployment and firepower. Critical in this respect is America’s continued reliance on aircraft carriers to project power across the globe. “The American super-carrier died as a viable weapon system designed for modern war with the arrival of the long-range supersonic anti-shipping missile,” Martyanov writes. This renders “the 100,000-ton displacement mastodons of the US Navy obsolete and very expensive sacrificial lambs in any real war. Modern Russian hypersonic missiles such as the Mach-9 capable aero-ballistic Kinzhal have a range of 2000 kilometres and are not interceptable by existing US anti-missile systems.” In fact, if an advanced enemy decided to sink a U.S. carrier battle group, it could do so with the push of a few buttons. These missiles cost a few million dollars to make in countries, like Russia, with low labor costs. A carrier battle group, by contrast, costs about $30 billion and has around 6,700 hands on deck. Martyanov seems genuinely concerned that the Pentagon does not recognize the scale of this problem and could deploy a carrier battle group against a competitive peer in the near future. The enormous, immediate losses that would result might force the United States to use nuclear weapons in response.

Yes, my main concern is not some Russian rah-rah to counter American one, albeit it may come across like this sometimes. My main concern always was and is that our new adopted home would commit, again, a cardinal sin of getting involved with the country--Russia--whose real economic, military and other massive capacities across the board remain completely hidden by non-stop propaganda from illiterate, war-mongering and uncultured "top", such as completely discredited, incompetent and malicious US establishment media, who are culpable in the murder of millions of people around the world by the US because they long ago lost any semblance of even basic morality. The latest from NYT proves it again. You neither can teach nor reason with them. In the end, you don't have to. You just keep the score.

No comments:

Post a Comment