Friday, August 4, 2023

This And That.

1. Attack on Novorossiysk. The amphibious landing ship--it is clear that a couple of water-tight compartments have been damaged and she was towed to dock, while listing to port, where she will be repaired. The rest of drones have been destroyed. Not the first time, not the last time. The repairs, meanwhile, shouldn't take too long. I think visits from Mr. Kalibr and Mr. Geranium are in store. I am also sure that CO of the landing ship will be asked about organization of the outside watch and where the nigh vision, a standard issue on ships, equipment was. It is a failure on the account of ship's command. 

2. Russian MoD gave the number of VSU losses (without foreign mercenaries and "advisers") and, WITHOUT VSU losses in the rear (get it?), since the start of "counteroffensive"--43,000 (in Russian). Here is the point I make constantly--MoD's data is extremely conservative and ONLY about what MoD can visually confirm. Many thousands of VSU personnel annihilated in the rear, such as bases, depots, barracks, command posts et al are not even counted in MoD losses reports. Now recall those hundreds of rear positions hit by Russian Army and you will get the idea on the scale of losses of VSU. 

Here is one out of very many examples from 6th July this year--the destruction of VSU academy in Lvov (in Russian). 8 3M14 Kalibrs visited the facility which could house up to 800 personnel and parked some tanks. Those inevitable losses are NOT counted until they are confirmed (corroborated). There could have been 100 KIAs, could have been 400 KIAs. Everyone in Lvov reported huge number of ambulances. In related example--how many personnel was KIA during obliteration of Patriots? Exactly. So, this explains the count. Russia reports only what she can reasonably count and confirm and that means immediate frontline with visual identification of corpses. Plus, we don't know how many actually die in the rear after evacuation. Reports suggest a huge number and with 404 medical facilities being overwhelmed. Make your own conclusions. 

3. Irina Alksnis penned a decent piece in Ria (in Russian) about Washington getting ready to throw 404 under the bus due to shifting focus in financing for Taiwan. I would say--reasonable assumption:

Китай — действительно для американцев противник номер один. То, что Штаты оказались втянуты в украинский кризис гораздо сильнее, нежели планировали, только осложняет для них ситуацию, но никак не меняет существо дела. И полноценно переключаться на азиатское направление им придется, потому что сил и ресурсов на участие в двух масштабных конфликтах у них просто физически нет. При этом Вашингтон оказался в ловушке собственной политики. Государственные системы, тем более столь гигантские, обладают колоссальной инерцией. Они очень медлительны и неповоротливы, когда встает вопрос о кардинальной смене стратегии и направления движения. Их первоначальные планы в отношении России предусматривали стремительное обрушение нашей страны, причем относительно небольшими усилиями и затратами. Вместо этого за полтора года они постепенно погрузились в конфликт куда глубже, нежели планировали и хотели.
Translation: China is indeed the number one enemy for the Americans. The fact that the United States was drawn into the Ukrainian crisis much more than planned only complicates the situation for them, but does not change the essence of the matter. And they will have to fully switch to the Asian direction, because they simply do not physically have the strength and resources to participate in two large-scale conflicts. At the same time, Washington found itself trapped in its own policy. State systems, especially such gigantic ones, have colossal inertia. They are very slow and clumsy when the question arises of a radical change in strategy and direction. Their initial plans for Russia called for the rapid collapse of our country, and with relatively little effort and expense. Instead, over a year and a half, they gradually plunged into the conflict much deeper than they planned and wanted.
Yes, just buttresses my long standing, and now hardened, point: there is no strategic assessment and planning in the US as such. Those who can do this--they are not allowed in the policy shaping and decision making circles. Unsurprising, seeing a cabal of Ivy League pseudo-academic frauds with soft degrees running the circus. So, here is your primer for Friday.

No comments:

Post a Comment