... between styling oneself and being one. Even Politico notices this:
The problem with Macron is that he is a bank teller, Napoleon was an artillery officer. And he would do just fine if he would stay away from Russia, but no-o-o, he wanted it all and as a result Russians entered Paris in 1814. Russians do not want to enter Paris--there is nothing much to do there--St.Petersburg will do just fine, but if Macron wants the war with Russia, Russians may oblige. With France's 30 operational tanks and who knows how many... tens of Rafales flying--they will get a very warm reception. Melenchon also better learn about strategic ABM and why French nuclear deterrent which is operationally valid only through 4 SSBNs of Triomhant class may not be even that "deterring". I omit here 54 ASMP air-to-ground missiles with the range of 300 kilometers. Ah, this COFM (Correlation Of Forces and Means)--Russians love to calculate it.
So, the result is--French chihuahua barked and everyone laughed. But French are determined, LOL.
For Jeanbart, Macron’s statement was more about “sending a message to diplomatic partners” after facing criticism for “his proximity” to Russia’s Vladimir Putin at the start of the war.
Absolutely, it is all about "message" against the backdrop of military impotence of the US and NATO. But no worries, as one of my patrons sent me today, ask David Axe about Russian military tactics, LOL.
You may have already guessed it--David Axe. Great tactician and strategist from Forbes, who knows it all--he draws comic books about "war". Never in history did the country, the United States, destroy own military mythology with such a blazing speed through its media personalities who paraded themselves from losers such as Axe to four star generals as utter amateurs and sore losers. David Axe is one of the "brightest" of them all.
Here is an interesting bit. Russians long ago identified NATO "advisers" in 404. Most of them cadre military--from pilots to operators of air-defense complex--but what is interesting: on the ground they are used primarily as the barrier troops shooting into the backs of retreating Ukies. They are identified by good training and... very low staying power, buckling under sustained pressure (in Russian). Now, consider yourself how "well" NATO regulars will do under sustained fires--no NATO serviceman experienced anything like this, except for the unlucky SOBs who sit in the tactical rear and force 404 cannon fodder into the meat grinder. That's everything you need to know about NATO armies. And, NO, they will learn very little, because wars are lost and won on operational and strategic level and that is beyond the grasp of NATO militaries because they do not have access to reliable data sets and the way Russians plan the war.
They try, though, TRADOC released a voluminous publication ATP 7-100.1 Titled Russian Tactics, in which it states:
Boy, those TRADOC guys, who lost all their wars, still cannot grasp a simple fact--Russia was great power before the United States existed as a country. No wonder they call Russia the enemy--her military history and achievements simply dwarf America's military record. It is an acute professional envy which drives these types of statements, especially against the background of learning a few details here and there and not seeing the whole picture.
No comments:
Post a Comment