Monday, October 9, 2023

Why I Am Ready To Explode...

 ... each time I read some "analysis" from some pol.sci-journo "expert" in nothing who knows nothing but platitudes passed as "expertise". I spoke about this in my latest video, but I need to elaborate:

Andrey Sushentsov: War will be a constant in the 21st century, but only a few countries can mount a truly major conflict. Until the global balance of power is properly reset, dreams of world peace will have to wait 

Immediately, for Sushentsov and RT's information--war was ALWAYS a constant in human history. It is an omnipresent reality and the "dreams of world peace" among real military-intel professionals, unlike Sushentsov and this cabal from Valdai, is merely measured by intensity of the conflicts--relatively high, relatively low. But there is always a WAR. A conflict. But what do you expect from such "expert":

Andrey Sushentsov is an EASI-Hurford Next Generation fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace focused on Russian policy toward Ukraine and the future of Russian-Ukrainian interdependence. Sushentsov is also a political analyst and international relations scholar at Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) and a managing partner with the Moscow-based consulting agency Foreign Policy Analysis Group. His publications include books on U.S. politics and the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, “America’s Small Wars” and “Essays on U.S. Politics and Regional Conflicts,” both published in Russian in 2014, as well as articles and reports on U.S.-Russian and Russian-Georgian relations. In his field-based research, Sushentsov pays special attention to collision of U.S. and Russian interests in Ukraine and the South Caucasus. In 2015, he edited a volume of Russian perspectives on international security issues looking ahead to 2020. Sushentsov was a visiting researcher at Georgetown University’s Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies in 2007 and at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in 2008. He was a visiting professor at Rome LUISS University in 2013 and at Armenian State University of Economics in 2014. He is participating in a Working Group on the Future of U.S.-Russia Relations established by Higher School of Economics (Moscow) and Harvard University

RT continues to provide tribune to illiterate pseudo-academics with serious Western background, which is a euphemism for being trained within fraudulent US academia as related to modern history, Russia and warfare. How the guy who has zero STEM military-intel background (a defining feature of all those Valdai guys) and who spent all his adult life within the confines of utterly corrupt American think-tankdom can pass any judgement on war is beyond belief. 

So, the guy continues:

The military crisis raging in Eastern Europe has dispelled the illusion that the era of large armies is a thing of the past. Military thinking among leading powers is beginning to move away from the 2000s maxim that the goal of war is to dazzle and stun the enemy to lower its technological level and prevent it from waging 21st century warfare, knocking out its high-precision, mobile, deep-coverage capabilities. Looking at these trends, can we say that warfare in the 21st century will be highly mobile, highly technological, and fought with small numbers? Or, alternatively, are we seeing a return to the historical norm of large armies? The risk of great power wars is increasing, and small and mobile forces have no significant advantages over large ones based on population mobilization. Indeed, it seems that the characteristics of a major military conflict between comparable powers will be exactly the same as they have been throughout history.

Seriously, dude? How about talking to senior officers, especially with operational and strategic level experience--I mean talking, if they will talk, not collecting rumors--why very few of them appreciated Mr. Serdyukov's reforms, especially with brigade-based structure. How about recalling that late Mr. Shlykov altogether called for abolition of General Staff and copying... US C2 structure. It was exactly your environment of pro-Western liberals (naturally ignorant and badly educated) which called for decades for disposing of the Soviet military science experiences and research. But then again, what can you expect from an academic shyster who barely knows the difference between ballistic and cruise, and that is why his conclusion is infuriating:

War is once again a constant, but a very narrow circle of countries will be capable of mounting a truly major conflict.

ONCE AGAIN? Once Again? Mr. Sushentsov, pray tell, when was the last time that war was not a constant? Do you mean Korea, Vietnam, two Afghanistans, one in 20th, the other in 21st centuries. Or do you mean the breakup of Yugoslavia throughout 1990s, resulting in the gang rape of Serbia by NATO in 1999. How about both Chechnyas? Or maybe Africa was a calm place? Gulf Wars? 

It is down right risible when some boys from MGIMO begin to wax warfareish having ZERO, zilch, nada tool kit for grasping the nature of the conflict which comes through understanding the tools of the conflict, and those things are not taught in their educational institutions. But then it is clear why that none of them produced any serious strategic thought in ages, actually never, merely retelling news headlines and parasitising on other people's ideas whose depth none of them can grasp. In the end, it has to be stated that all greatest modern strategic works of humanity, all, without exception, be that Clausewitz, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Fuller, Svechin, Gorshkov, Moltke to name a few, all, without exception have been created by cadre military officers. And even not so great works of strategy, such as air forces fantasy by Douhet or Jeune Ecole by Aube, still have been written by professional military people.  

Among the class of political "scientists", however, we have only risible geopolitical fantasies written by amateurs such as Huntington, Fukuyama, Brzezinski and platitude abuser Kissinger, to name a few, whose ideas have been discredited the moment those ideas have been put in print. Yet, here we are again, some semi-literate hacks continue to provide Karaganovesque pseudo-military BS and, of course, these "experts" are given again the tribune at RT. How about RT calls on real military professionals in Russia to express their opinions? I am sure there are plenty of those in Russia who would make RT's military "experts" look like a middle-schoolers who failed math test, who most of them, essentially, are. For Sushentsov, however, while it is not too late--how about he tries some military educational facility. Hey, I am sure they will make an exception for him in, say, Combined Arms Order of Zhukov Academy? He will need to freshen up his physics, higher math, mechanics, statistics... Ah, wait, what am I talking about--the kid will need to get his Form 1A clearance for starters. Forget it.     

Disclaimer: For those who do not follow me on this issue from the get go. I am officially done with RT, do not want to do anything with them other than news aggregator. RT's last remaining REAL military expert is Scott Ritter. Only he has a background for talking about modern war.

No comments:

Post a Comment