A Bit Of Clarification.

I am glad that Moat brought this up. Thank you.

Almost everything is right in this statement by this Retired US Army Major Richard Ojeda except one thing. This one thing is that US Army could never provide "real training" to VSU because US Army "training" and Field Manuals are written for beating the shit out of almost defenseless enemies. He got it exactly upside down--it was the US "training" which VSU discarded as useless for real war. Here is NYT.

Ukrainian Troops Trained by the West Stumble in Battle. Ukraine’s army has for now set aside U.S. fighting methods and reverted to tactics it knows best.

No US servicemen from General to the last grunt ever experienced the real combined arms multi-domain war, period. Some Ukie brigade commander who survived through the last 20 months of SMO can lecture JCS or any professor in US Command and General Staff College in Leavenworth on how to fight a real war. And yes, Afghanistan is not and never was a combined arms war. And yes, NATO built the best proxy it ever had by far. VSU was actually a real army and on the February 24, 2022 it was the best NATO's army, except for the US Army. So, major was a bit sloppy with his parallel to Afghanistan. Other than that, he is correct. 

Take It With A Grain Of Salt.

But the report is interesting. Russia will help, if not already, with restoring Mi-17s helis which Pentagon was buying for Afghan government before it fell. There is also very little what Russia or China can find interesting in what was left by US forces, but the truth is--Russia is interested in stabilizing  Afghanistan before even considering recognizing Taliban. Russians naturally have questions to them regarding treatment of women. Russia still provides humanitarian aid anyway though. 

The region is extremely complex and screwed up, but it is a process.

Newspeak and Ing (I Mean) AmSoc.

How can one possibly start trying to extricate oneself from own pile of shit such as that created by the US Department of State in 404?  Tony Blinken--the strategists' strategist, the geopolitical thinker of the scale of Bismark... nah, I am screwing with you--some mediocrity with "soft degree" in some BS from Ivy League, but well versed in obfuscation, double meaning and gaslighting, in other words newspeak, tries. Here is his PBS interview:

• 
  

Judy Woodruff:

Well, as — what we're hearing from experts, though, at the same time, is, no matter how unfair or repugnant it may seem, that it is now appearing inevitable that Ukraine is going to have to make territorial concessions in the east. Is that what you see, that they are going to have to bow to Vladimir Putin and give him that territory that he says he wants?

Antony Blinken:

Judy, Ukraine's future is up to the Ukrainians. It's up to the Ukrainian people. And, ultimately, those decisions will be made by its democratically elected government, including President Zelenskyy. He will have to determine what's in the best interests of his country and his people. And we will support that. We're not going to be less Ukrainian than the Ukrainians. We're not going to be more Ukrainian than the Ukrainians. But it is fundamentally up to them. And that's ultimately what this is about. Vladimir Putin is trying to take away from Ukrainians the right to determine their own future. We strongly support that right. And we will look to the Ukrainians to decide what's in their best interest.

• 
  

Boy, they really do think that nobody remembers what was this all about? Those who matter in this world know what is this all about--it is all well documented and, as was predicted from the get go, is clearly understood for what it is--a rush to remove oneself from a whopper of geopolitical defeat which is unfolding before our eyes. No, it is not Afghanistan 2.0, not even close--Afghanistan is just a hiccup on the way to a convulsing end to Pax Americana, as was envisioned by the same "experts" in foreign affairs as Tony Blinken, Francis Fukuyama or Zbig. Now is the time to put a lipstick on the pig and try to look stately and smart. Like this, yet another Ph.D in "political science" from Pentagon.

The US is seeking to make the conflict in Ukraine more costly for Moscow than whatever Russian President Vladimir Putin hoped to achieve, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl said on Tuesday. Kahl insisted that Russia was making only “tactical” gains in Ukraine and would be unable to achieve its “grandiose objectives” of taking over the entire country, in part thanks to massive US military aid. “We’ll continue to provide Ukraine what they need for the fight,” Kahl said on Tuesday, opening a conference organized by the Center for New American Security (CNAS), a Democrat-linked think tank where he used to work. The Biden administration alone has provided Ukraine with over $5.3 billion in military assistance, of which $4.6 billion has come since February 24, Kahl pointed out. 

They don't teach combined arms operations' planning and attrition rates in real wars in think-tanks in D.C. They simply have no clue what it is and how real wars look like, but, as Larch correctly stated today, they are shell-shocked and try to emulate brain activity in feeble attempts to save the face, which they never had. Looks like Blinken already understood something, this Kahl guy is still in the Bargaining stage of Kubler-Ross, but he will get there where Blinken is today, eventually. He just has to learn some standard "democracy" tropes from the lexicon of amateurs and sociopaths who are not only wrecking havoc with Europe but are killing own (own??) country with ruthless efficiency only madmen are capable of. 

In related news today, Vladimir Putin approved in principle the urgent delivery of wheat to Afghanistan if the "necessity arises" per report of inter-agency commission from Russia which returned from Afghanistan recently (in Russian). In my latest duet on PolitWera with Colonel Trukhan we touched upon this remarkable fact of Chechen guys (Kadyrovtsy) fighting heroically shoulder to shoulder with their brothers from LDNR and Russia. The fact that Ramzan Kadyrov has become not only an excellent counter-propaganda force in dispelling Ukie and West's BS, but a focal point of so many in Islamic World who look upon Russia not only in sympathy but with hope--I cannot emphasize enough the importance of that. The implications are enormous. And strategic. Do Blinken or Kahl understand that? Don't hold your breath.  

In sad news, Larry's mom has died today. I already expressed my profound condolences privately, I want you, those who believe in God, keep Larry's mom in your prayers. On behalf of all us our condolences to Larry and his family, let his mom Rest in Peace.  

When BS Meter Goes Off The Scale.

But it is a good indicator of a desperation and a serious butt-hurt (a euphemism for being a sore loser) when such war "expert", who had his ass handed to him by inferior forces in Vietnam and then turkey shooting utterly incompetent Saddam's Army in the First Gulf War begins to talk about subject he has no clue about. I am talking about Lieutenant-General Kellog who, contrary to his statement about "everything he learned about war", never learned shit. 

Kellog knows that the scale and scope, and intensity of Russia's operation in 404 is something he never encountered in his life and, hopefully, never will. He is also, obviously, totally out of his depth in terms of Russia's modern C4ISR not to speak of other capabilities which demonstrated total impotence of US (and NATO) battlefield weapon systems such as Javelins, NLAW, Stingers, NB2 Bayraktars,  and number of others, which, let's be very open about it, is an embarrassment for the US military-industrial complex and those who designed and procured them. I will omit here the issue of tactics, let alone operational and strategic level views exercised by such "experts" as Kellog, Keane or Petraeus who wouldn't know what hit them on the modern battlefield with near-peer, forget about peer.

But to refresh Kellog's memory about everything he "learned about war", he should merely revisit this:

THE AFGHANISTAN PAPERS is the groundbreaking investigative story of how three successive presidents and their military commanders deceived the public year after year about the longest war in American history by Washington Post reporter Craig Whitlock, a three-time Pulitzer Prize finalist.Unlike the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 had near-unanimous public support. At first, the goals were straightforward and clear: to defeat al-Qaeda and prevent a repeat of 9/11. Yet soon after the United States and its allies removed the Taliban from power, the mission veered off course and US officials lost sight of their original objectives.

And he has to deal with his complexes not by spewing obvious BS, but re-examining his "set of skills", which is primarily PR. The only skill Kellog learned about REAL war is how to lie, which he does with the straight face in this FOX segment thus exposing a profound complex of inferiority spurred by losing to inferior enemies, pretty much non-stop. 

So, he better resign himself to this US war record of the last 70 years and face the truth. While it may be too late for him due to his age, he still has the time (God bless his soul and I sincerely wish him long and healthy years) to update himself on how Russia fights real wars and why she managed to pacify Chechnya, demolish in 72 hours "NATO trained" and equipped Georgian Army, how Russia decisively defeated ISIS and saved Bashar Assad government in Syria and how she now annihilates VSU and Nazi forces in 404. All this just in the last 20 some years. I know, comparisons are not only warranted but they are irresistible and that hurts. I am not going to comment on his utter BS "interpretation" of Putin's speech. Evidently embarrassing themselves and parading themselves as buffoons is a new Modus Operandi of all those military "experts" in US MSM. Professional envy is a powerful drug. 

Larry Gives A Context...

Larry Johnson gives a very much needed context, which the US media and their loser "experts" try to avoid as if avoiding death. 

What kind of fighter would Vitali Klitschko, a professional boxer and Mayor of Kiev, be if he only fought amateur boxers from lower weight classes? He would be dominating in those fights. But what would happen if he had to fight a real pro like Tyson Fury? He might win but the outcome would be in doubt since he had never fought a fully trained professional (who just happens to be the current Heavy Weight champion). This analogy describes the current state of the U.S. military. The American people love to say how great and powerful the U.S. military is without pausing to consider the problems those forces had in quelling insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Here is the reality–the U.S. military has not been in a battle with a legitimate military force since the Vietnam War. All U.S. military operations since 1990 have been unleashed on third world armies with no effective air power, air defense, artillery or maritime capability. When U.S. troops got into trouble in Afghanistan or Iraq they could call on air strikes or cruise missiles that decimated the attackers. It is like Vitali Klitschko beating the life out of a 150 pound foe who had never taken a boxing lesson.

Larry gets into the much needed operational (and tactical) realities which already begin to emerge in the war in 404 and comparison already IS NOT in US favor. But I warned about it already. Also note, I added Larry's excellent blog A Son of the New American Revolution to my blog-roll on the right side of this blog of mine. Read Larry's thoughts--you'll find many excellent ones there.

Laurent Brought It Up...

 ...and still continues to worry about yet another NATO"s (read: Pentagon) "concept". I write about this non-stop, year after year. Here is one of the relatively recent ones, which explains that the ONLY danger of the combined West today is its weakness, not strength and that creates the possibility of miscalculation. We are talking about this:

Top defense chiefs from NATO member states have given a green light to a new grand strategy on how to beat Russia in any potential all-out conflict, as Moscow says the move proves the US-led bloc isn’t open to improving relations. On Thursday, ministers met in Brussels to sign off the scheme, named the “Concept for Deterrence and Defense in the Euro-Atlantic Area.”According to NATO’s General Secretary, Jens Stoltenberg, it is part of efforts to “continue to strengthen our alliance with better and modernized plans.”The bloc’s officials insist they don’t believe an attack is imminent, but that it is worthwhile being prepared in any case.As part of the plan, NATO troops would fight against Russia’s forces in both the Baltic Region and across the Black Sea.

This latest NATO's "master plan" is neither "master" nor "plan". It is just same ol' regurgitation of contingency planning which has its roots in the Cold War 1.0 and it is primarily a PR, same PR as yesterday announcement about "successful testing of components for a prototype" of some hyper-sonic weapon which we will see, most likely, not soon (politely speaking). Now to points:

1. NATO knows that it cannot fight Russia with or without master plan because Russia is not going to attack unless attacked first (a wet dream of Pentagon planners, who think that stupid Europeans should do the dying for the US benefit). 

2. If NATO attacks Russia first, for a warmup US Navy will feel the brunt, by losing a couple of large combatants, together with the US installations in Europe which implies that US will begin to sustain casualties. If that doesn't sober NATO, then, yes, US proper will feel the pinch and escalation will continue until the message is either received and Washington de-escalates, or we all are going to die, but the US and Europe will be wiped off the map. Those who will survive will envy those who died. Pentagon knows it. At least some of them do. It is both strategic and operational reality that when all your figures on the chessboard are pawns when your opponent commands a full set--you are going to lose no matter how you try to rearrange your pawns.

3. Now, most important: people continue to forget what NATO just experienced in the short time-span of a few years.

a) Iran has demonstrated what it feels to be on the receiving end of the delayed, with warning provided, strike by several intermediate range conventional missiles and we may never know the actual number of NATO soldiers who sustained severe concussions, but many people understood, like this US Army Major Johnson what was about to transpire:

There were some reports of other (non-US) NATO troops on the base crying and mind you--they had a lot of time to take cover. That was just Iran. 

b) NATO had its ass handed to it by Taliban and visuals from Kabul now  eclipsed famous shots from Saigon, by the order of magnitude. 

4. In other words, NATO is in its existential crisis. What are you going to do when you are humiliated time after time, after time? Right, in terms of combined West (and considering its ignorant political class)--you become combative verbally and in a petty physical way such as sending one of a few remaining operational Royal Navy ships to "impress" Russians. Or sending US Navy destroyer to "demonstrate" that they are there. They are. Everybody knows that and the targeting is provided without any interruption for Russia's forces. So, what else could be done? Ah, lets create a new "master plan" in which we will demonstrate publicly that we are not afraid of those Russians and are ready to fight them IF they come, which is, of course, out of the question if NATO doesn't attack Russia or doesn't cross red lines. Simple as that. It is all PR for the consumption of the primarily brainwashed Western public and it is a knee jerk reaction to Russia kicking those NATO "representatives" out of Moscow. 

Repeat after me: those imbeciles in both Brussels and D.C. still think that they are absolutely irresistible to anyone in the world because they are both attractive and powerful--neither is true. Most of them will shit their pants once they learn that X-101s (God forbids, X-102s) and Kalibrs are in the air but it will be too late to come to their senses. Plus, those losers are offended by the fact that they are being called for what they are. They know that everything is falling out of their hands, some of them even know the scale of catastrophe which unfolds this very moment and they know that it is Russia which stands in their way to unleash a global hot war, which, they thought before, they could survive while resetting moribund economic system. They can not. Those who will decide to unleash this war will be annihilated immediately (striking decision-making centers), those who will survive will be hunted down and brought to face war crimes tribunal.  Simple as that and that is why so much noise. They are cornered and the main task today is to avoid serious military confrontation by controlling West's panic, knee-jerk reactions and combative attitudes combined with narcissism--all traits of a mental disorder. I am sure the next thing they will do--they will present a master-plan on how to invade Mars and make those goddamn democracy-hating martian sons of bitches pay for what they have done to the West.  

Greanville Post decided to re-post my more than three years old piece about Russia. Here it is, I suggest you read it again:

Russia As a Cat. Moscow shows that nerves of steel and prudence may eventually win the day.

This is the only way or, as Teddy Roosevelt used to say: to speak softly and carry a big stick. That is why this blog exists--to explain how big is Russia's "stick". Believe me--it is big, big enough to prevent the all out war, so, give British a credit where credit is due. 

Good advice.

No Shit, Or The End Of Irony.

Sometimes one has to simply avoid commenting. 

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has said that Moscow and Beijing should be included in the global effort to stop terrorist groups from using the Taliban-run Afghanistan as ground to stage attacks abroad.“I strongly agree that the whole international community, including Russia and China, needs to work to prevent Afghanistan being a place where terrorist groups can operate freely and prepare, organize, plan, finance attacks against our own countries,” Stoltenberg told the Telegraph.The NATO chief echoed the words of UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, who said last month that countries like Russia and China would have to be brought in to help check the situation in Afghanistan after power there was seized by the Taliban.

Sergei Viktorovich, help! 

Or, just to remind everyone Boris Gromov and Dmitry Rogozin 11 years ago (again). Stoltenberg, this is for you: 

In fact, we were the first to defend Western civilization against the attacks of Muslim fanatics. No one thanked us. On the contrary, everyone was impeding our actions: The United States, NATO, Iran, Pakistan, even China. After the withdrawal of the Soviet Army, the Najibullah government that we left behind in Kabul remained in power for another three years.

No more defending from Russia. Western Civilization doesn't deserve it anymore. Meanwhile, Taliban states that: 

ТЕГЕРАН, 5 сентября. /Корр. ТАСС Никита Смагин/. Движение "Талибан" (запрещено в РФ) заинтересовано в налаживании отношений с Россией, Ираном и Пакистаном. Об этом заявил в воскресенье в интервью ТАСС глава Высшего совета спасения Афганистана, бывший полевой командир "Талибана" Мохаммад Акбар Ага. "Россия является нашим соседом. Мы должны выстраивать широкие отношения с Москвой, поскольку это в интересах и талибов, и РФ, - сказал он. - Иран и Пакистан - также страны, с которыми нужно налаживать отношения. Мы нужны им, и они нужны нам".

Translation:  TEHERAN, September 5. / Corr. TASS Nikita Smagin /. The Taliban movement (banned in the Russian Federation) is interested in improving relations with Russia, Iran and Pakistan. This was announced on Sunday in an interview with TASS by the head of the Supreme Council for the Rescue of Afghanistan, the former field commander of the Taliban, Mohammad Akbar Agha. “Russia is our neighbor. We must build broad relations with Moscow, since this is in the interests of both the Taliban and the Russian Federation,” he said. “Iran and Pakistan are also countries with which we need to establish relations. They need us, and we need them. "

Will see. 

Here is some treat, a bit of innards of Karakurts and a meeting with my good ol' M-504 (they powered ships I served on) now modernized and expanded to M-507 engines. In Russian. 

Mosquito fleet is here to stay and it is not going anywhere. In fact, its strike potential will only grow.

For Those Who Care.

About a clusterfuck in Afghanistan, Bernhard of Moon of Alabama posted an excellent piece by Michael Brenner, who sums it up pretty nicely in the piece symptomatically titled: The Foreign Policy Borg And The Retreat From Afghanistan. I liked this introduction:

There are few things in this kaleidoscopic world of ours that we can count on – for predictability, for fixity of outlook, for unswerving resistance to the vicissitudes of life. The American foreign policy community is one of them. They reliably react to stunning events in the world with reiteration of what they have been saying for years and decades They do so in unison. They never admit error of analysis or of policy, they preserve a righteous tone, and they retain a permanent inventory of persons to scapegoat – and, equally important, those who are always exempt from blame. The Afghan debacle demonstrates, once again, how deeply entrenched this behavioral pattern is. It is self-evident, it is glaring, and it is a reason for both shame and for doubting the United States’ ability to conduct its external relations in a sober, reasonable manner.

Read the whole thing at MoA, it is worth your attention. I just want to add that a sober foreign policy by the US is impossible in principle within the existing framework of American statecraft, which doesn't understand war for what it is. It can't. But I didn't say anything here what I didn't say before. It is a cultural thing. 

Ah, Yes! The Issue of "Expertise".

Bryan MacDonald--a man who invented a brilliant term Russophrenia--writes (courtesy of Patrick Armstrong and his Russia SitReps) in his twitter.

One thing that never ceases to amaze is how so many Western ‘Russia experts’ can’t seem to understand the simplicity of contemporary Russian foreign policy.Moscow wants good relations with those who want good relations with it. It’s not interested in ideology.

Well, it is clear to Bryan, to me, and others, but not to D.C. or Brussels, because as has been repeated ad nauseam--they are incompetent there. Obviously most Russia "experts" in D.C. are not acquainted with Russian dramaturgy (they prefer mediocrity like Solzhenitsyn or Pasternak's subpar prose), but if they were, they would certainly pay attention to a famous 1868 play by Alexander Ostrovsky "Enough stupidity in Every Wise Man" (На всякого мудреца довольно простоты) in New York the play was performed under the title "The Diary of a Scoundrel". The play could have been as well written and staged today in and around D.C., especially in relation to the cadres of "Russia experts" there--double-dealing manipulators with Brussels and Washington's swamp vanities. A perfect environment for perpetuating utter non-sense and outright lies, which lead to a stupidity of, mostly self-proclaimed, wise-man taking over. It is also perfect for failing to grasp very simple things, like Russia's foreign policy.

Henry Bernard Levy is a Jewish-French neocon, pseudo-academic and, generally, not a very smart man (good demagogue, though), he is also very aggressive, as is often the case with activist people with zero military background but solid globalist pedigree, and now he tries to push for the son of late Ahmad Shah Massoud to take the place of his murdered father and make Panjshir the center of resistance to Taliban. Sure: 

Ahmad Massoud, who is now in his early 30s, raised his father’s torch in late 2019, trying to rally supporters and prepare them for a possible Taliban onslaught in the wake of the upcoming NATO pullout. As of May, Western intelligence services were reportedly refraining from formally cooperating with him but did keep in touch. In addition to the loyalty that his name evokes, he has the benefit of the military and political education he received at various prestigious schools in the UK. He also has a vocal ally in French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy, who was a personal friend of the Lion of Panjshir. In fact, the call for arms in The Washington Post begins with an anecdote of how Levy told Shah Massoud: “When you fight for your freedom, you fight also for our freedom.”

Of course, the main problem here is the fact that war-mongers like Levy, who, at some point of time, need to face International War Crimes Court, are not that good with planning, especially strategic and operational ones. Sergey Lavrov is on record today (in Russian) that Russia is for dialogue of all forces in Afghanistan and formation of government representative of all factions. But in the end, Levy plus other West's wise-men should understand that there is no fighting Taliban (if it comes to it) without Russia supplying weapons and other resources (Northern Alliance, rings the bell?) to said Massoud Jr. As Pepe Escobar writes in his excellent piece:

I met Masoud father – an icon. Afghan insider info on Masoud son is not exactly flattering. Yet he’s already a darling of woke Europeans, complete with a glamour pose for AFP, an impromptu visit in the Panjshir by professional philosopher swindler Bernard-Henri Levy, and the release of a manifesto of sorts published in several European newspapers, exhibiting all the catchphrases: “tyranny”, “slavery”, “vendetta”, “martyred nation”, “Kabul screams”, “nation in chains”, etc. The whole set up smells like a “son of Shah” [of Iran] gambit. Masoud son and his mini-militia are completely surrounded in the Panjshir mountains and can’t be de facto effective even when it comes to regimenting the under 25s, two-thirds of the Afghan population, whose main worry is to find real jobs in a nascent real economy. Woke NATOstan “analyses” of Taliban Afghanistan don’t even qualify as irrelevant, insisting that Afghanistan is not strategic and even lost its tactical importance for NATO. It’s a sorry spectacle illustrating how Europe is hopelessly behind the curve, drenched in trademark neo-colonialism of the White Man’s Burden variety as it dismisses a land dominated by clans and tribes.

So, guess who we all should be betting on to succeed in Afghanistan? Forces "promoted" by wise-men with acute case of stupidity or on Russia and China putting out fires of the war by what they do best, better than anybody--diplomacy supported by military and economic power, traits combined West, especially impotent EU, do not have anymore. But even Stars and Stripes did publish Isachenkov's piece which contains this: 

Kabulov, the Kremlin envoy, emphasized that Moscow's recognition of the Taliban will hinge on "whether they will govern the country in a responsible way in the near future, and proceeding from that, the Russian leadership will make the necessary conclusions." He added that Russia would only take the Taliban off its list of terrorist organizations after the U.N. Security Council decides to remove it from its terror list. Russian diplomats argued that the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan helped change Afghan perceptions of the Soviet invasion and made many local leaders willing to accept Moscow's mediation. 

The last sentence about Soviet invasion is especially true. "If we knew what would follow after Soviet withdrawal, we wouldn't have resisted." Do you know who said that? Yes, late Ahmad Shah Massoud. Make your own conclusion. 

P.S. Check out Andrei Raevsky's (The Saker) Interview with rock-legend Roger Waters of Pink Floyd, totally worth it. Congratulations to Andrei with such a legendary guest. 

                    Interview with Roger Waters

Having Roger as a guest is a highlight in any journalist's career.

A Minute of (Geopolitical) Humor.

Granted, a surreal one, but humor nonetheless. A major geopolitical player, a power of the powers, a strategists' strategist...the European Parliament delivers in its press-release a much needed comic relief:

The EU, together with other partners, needs to tackle urgently the humanitarian crisis in the country and the region, caused by conflict, displacement, food insecurity, droughts and the COVID-19 pandemic. It is in our own interest to prevent another migration crisis. The EU needs to develop a new Strategy for Afghanistan and the region taking into account the new circumstances, considering that Russia and China will quickly try to fill the political vacuum. In particular, Pakistan, Iran and India should be urged to play a constructive role in Afghanistan.”

Of course, how could  EU fail to "develop a new Strategy for Afghanistan"? Especially after its "strategy"  worked so well in Ukraine. Maybe Vicki Nuland did have a point? "Fuck the EU" sounds reasonable to me. Especially in regards to Afghanistan. If there ever was organization which is most useless and irrelevant to any serious statecraft, applied geopolitics and situations of the scale which we observe for the last few days that will be European Parliament. Even Rocky Mountain Llama and Alpaca Association has a bigger impact on Afghanistan than European Parliament. How this collection of losers (I am talking about European Parliament) can develop anything other than suicidal and, by definition, homicidal policies is beyond me. But their comic relief couldn't have come at a better time, we all needed it. There is nothing funnier than chihuahua trying to assert itself in the company of grizzly bears and buffaloes. Or very large dogs, at least. 

There is a reason there are so many memes about that. But I am sure strategery will help. 

Making a "No Shit" Headline Permanent...For a While.

Somebody begins to suspect something. WaPo reports. 

The footage of rifle-toting Taliban fighters occupying the presidential palace and rolling up the Afghan national flag stood as a defining image of a failed U.S. effort to transform Afghan society at the cost of a trillion dollars and thousands of lives lost. “Decades from now, these images will be invoked as a vivid example of the limits of U.S. power, and of its inability to fight modern wars effectively or to end them on favorable terms,” said Michael Kugelman, an Afghanistan scholar at the Wilson Center.

Expect a lot of trite self-evident BS like this occupying the first pages of the West's media in coming weeks, with "scholars" expressing their opinions which are worthless in any practical sense. In related news, the sky is blue, water is wet etc. For Kugelman personally--learn about real war, in spare time, you know. The problem, of course, is deeper, much deeper than obvious humiliation of the United States. French globalist rag Le Figaro concludes (in an obvious attempt at numbing a profound butt-hurt) that even America's traditional competitors or enemies such as Russia, China or Iran are not joyful from America's failure. At this stage I need to make "No Shit" headline permanent. No, Russia is not "enjoying" America's humiliation, because real geopolitics and national interests do not work like this. By the "do not work like this" I mean a two-bit sublimation by Western "academe" of own complexes into pseudo-scientific dick-measuring contests in matters in which they have no even minimal competencies--a defining feature of modern West's (pseudo) "intellectual" class. Real great powers care about order and predictability, not some clusterfuck which is left by the United States anywhere it goes to "promote democracy".

Phil Giraldi wrote an excellent piece on this matter, namely American ambassadorship using a pseudo-"scholar" and certified clown Michael McFaul as an example, and stated:

Whenever one gets into discussions about the decline of America’s ability to positively influence developments around the world a number of issues tend to surface. First is the hubristic claim by successive presidents that the United States is somehow “exceptional” as a polity while also serving as the world’s only superpower and also the anointed Leader of the Free World, whatever that is supposed to mean. Some critics of the status quo also have been willing to look a bit deeper, recognizing that it is the policies being pursued by the White House and Congress that are out of sync with what is actually happening in Asia, Africa and Latin America, being more driven by establishing acceptable narratives than by genuine interests.     

Not only the United States doesn't have a diplomacy, as a tool of a statecraft, in any operational sense, it fails in something which is even more important--intelligence. As the events in Afghanistan have shown, US "intelligence" estimate on Kabul being able to hold on for "around 90 days" was not just bad, which is always the case in the last few decades, but it was obviously a figment of imagination, and not a good one at that. Recall Patrick Armstrong's: 

NO, YOUR INTELLIGENCE IS ACTUALLY BAD. VERY BAD.

Or Margarita Simonyan's famous address to the US:

I’ve been telling you for a long time to find normal advisers on Russia. Sack all those parasites.

They will not, and they will continue to believe own BS, because if they will stop deluding themselves, they will have to live with unbearable facts of their responsibility for what they have done around the world and to own country which is...well, read my latest book. Russia is not "enjoying" because she will have to deal with Taliban on a state level as Afghanistan's legitimate government, but Taliban's first actions, including immediately providing good security for Russian diplomats in Kabul, is a promising sign (in Russian). Obviously some arrangements need to be made, including regarding the fate of ISIS cells (courtesy of the US and British "corridor" for them from Syria) in Afghanistan who need to be eradicated, plus there are issues with Al Qaeda. Russia is in waiting. If Taliban puts Afghanistan under full control and will provide law (well, Sharia is THE law) and order, including, as they already conveyed to Moscow, observing human rights, Russia will remove the title of "terrorist organization" from Taliban, which will open some interesting perspectives for Kabul. Taliban DOES know this--emerging Eurasian market is extremely promising for all participants. 

As current Russian meme states:       

"We will not allow to turn Afghanistan into Ukraine--this is how Taliban explained main motive for their Blitzkrieg". 

Remarkably, there is a lot of truth in it. As Douglas Macgregor bitterly states:

All that can be said with certainty is that between 2001 and 2021, none of the senior officers expressed opposition to the policies of intervention and occupation strongly enough to warrant their removal. None felt compelled to leave the service and take their opposing views to the public forum. When it became clear that the collective strategies and tactics in Afghanistan and Iraq were failing, not only General David Petraeus, but most of America’s senior military leaders chose to prevaricate and distort facts in public to show progress when there was none. How many American lives might have been saved had someone only told the truth will never be known. There is no getting around it. America’s senior civilian and military leaders (together with their supporting service bureaucracies) are fundamentally incapable of developing or implementing effective military strategy.

They can't tell the truth, because:

And that was the case for a long time in America and that is a true "No Shit" moment. They will learn nothing. 

 

UPDATE: for those who are interested--the interview of Boris Gromov to Vzglyad (In Russian). Use Google Translate--it is worth it. 

 

Irina Alksnis Beat Me To It.

When, two days ago, I was writing my post on obvious failure of the combined West in Afghanistan I stressed the point of this war having a serious religious, that is civilizational, aspect which people in D.C. and Europe are incapable of grasping. I also wrote a number of times about Noblesse Oblige between superpowers, which, in effect, should keep interactions, including a conflict, within superpowerdom elite "framework", because delegating own victories to proxies is a very bad business when Islam is involved. Well, Irina Alksnis expanded on this idea in today's piece in Ria. 

Безусловно, тут играет свою роль понимание того, кто приходит на место американцев, и страшных последствий, что связаны с этим. Несмотря на обещание талибов не проводить репрессии в отношении тех, кто служил прежним властям, и их заявление по смягчению позиции о месте женщин в обществе, без сомнения, впереди Афганистан ждут расправы и казни. А судьбе афганских женщин по-прежнему не позавидуешь.Архаика победила современную цивилизацию — и как бы ни относился к Западу, радоваться данному факту невозможно.Впрочем, дело не только в суровых и кровавых афганских реалиях и не в сочувствии к гражданам несчастной страны, возвращающейся в глухое средневековье.События воскресенья оказались столь ошеломляющими еще и потому, что они дали миру очень наглядное представление о том, каким может быть — и каким, скорее всего, будет — окончательный крах глобальной гегемонии США.

Translation: Of course, understanding who comes to the place of the Americans and the dire consequences that are associated with this plays a role here. Despite the promise of the Taliban not to repress those who served the previous government, and their statement to soften the position on the place of women in society, there is no doubt that Afghanistan will face reprisals and executions. And the fate of Afghan women is still not to be envied. The archaic defeated modern civilization - and no matter how you relate to the West, it is impossible to rejoice at this fact. However, the point is not only in the harsh and bloody Afghan realities and not in sympathy for the citizens of the unfortunate country returning to the remote Middle Ages. Sunday's events were also so overwhelming because they gave the world a very clear idea of ​​what the ultimate collapse of US global hegemony could be - and is likely to be.

As I stated not for once, the United States was to a large degree an accidental superpower. Superpower by default, which never understood a complex relation between domestic and foreign policies, nor, overwhelmingly, developed any coherent view on military power and its application. Today it all came to a head. I am not talking about the defeat of the combined West--that it was in a precipitous decline was clear since mid-2000s. I am talking about the West and its leader the United States being incapable to maintain a civilization as, in the words of late Huntington (he quotes also somebody else), "a culture writ large". While today's headlines are filled with this: 

The world took notice and the United States handed the victory to Islamic fanatics and thus emboldened them, the same way the United States fanned the flames of Political Islam in 1980s and helped to form the force which is radically anti-civilizational in its essence. This IS the main failure of the combined West and it will be, yet again, up to someone else to clean this fucking mess after the US, whose political and military "elites" not only did not learn shit from anything but are incapable of learning. In that, when combined with a myriad of other economic, scientific, cultural and moral failures, modern West, headed by the United States, declared itself a failure. Events in Kabul today demonstrate perfectly and are the epitome of the modern West. I write about this for many years, but I am not enjoying my "I told you so" moment. Neither does Irina Alksnis. 

 

Against this background of yet another America's lost war, this news should be taken into account:

The Tehran Times reported on Wednesday that Moscow has conveyed to Tehran that the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) has reached a consensus on Iran’s admission as a full member of the grouping. The Secretary of Russia’s Security Council Nikolai Patrushev conveyed this momentous news in a call with his Iranian counterpart, Admiral Ali Shamkhani. Later, Shamkhani tweeted that he and Patrushev also discussed Afghanistan, Syria and the Persian Gulf. The SCO is finally decoupling Iran’s membership from the nuclear talks and the US sanctions. Significantly, Patrushev’s phone call also marks the first high-level strategic communication between Moscow and Tehran after Ebrahim Raisi was sworn in as Iran’s new president. Patrushev is a very senior figure in the Kremlin ‘Politburo’. The SCO consensus — quintessentially a Sino-Russian move — speeds up Iran’s admission, notwithstanding the uncertainties appearing on the Biden administration’s political will to press ahead with the nuclear deal in the face of robust ‘bipartisan’ opposition on the Hill and from other interest groups.

There are no uncertainties here, I may add, combined West failed as a civilization and is spiraling into the military and, by definition, geopolitical second league if not irrelevance with an astonishing speed. Unlike with post-Vietnam syndrome, however, US loss in Afghanistan is not to capable and supported by other superpower fairly advanced Vietnamese military and Vietnamese people, the United States lost to a primitive force driven by the most retrograde ideology which stands against everything most of the world recognizes as essential for its existence. Meanwhile American idiots, a euphemism for US "journos" and media still discuss percentages and a political psychobabble which in the US, for some reason, is called "strategy". 

Morons, in order to make a brothel profitable, try to change not beds, but whores. See what happens. But don't hold your breath, and those who feel like it--mark today's date as the official end of US self-proclaimed hegemony. We will discuss consequences of this clusterfuck later. I am not celebrating because I know what is coming. 

OK, I Might As Well Say It.

After reading the discussion in the other thread and learning that Taliban now is in half-an-hour drive from Kabul, and we are observing America's defeat in a real time, I might as well tell what is this all about. I'll explain. During US 1990s "high" from self-proclaimed "victory" in the Cold War 1.0 to a turkey shoot of a third-rate Arab army of Iraq, there were many TV shows about Soviet war in Afghanistan, including on what used to be then the "Wings Channel" and in one of the shows about Soviet Air Force in Afghanistan this dude, brigadier general Rahmatullah Safi, you can see him in this video about Stingers:

Was waxing all "strategic" and "general staffish" and spoke about how Russians didn't care about losses and gave an example of...Stalingrad. It has to be considered that the dude was a brigadier general in Afghan Royal Army (yes, that thing existed, alright) and his whatever military "education" wasn't necessarily that of a officer with broad enough view to assess ratios of losses of the Axis and the Red Army in combined arms operations which dwarf anything in world's military, not to speak of Afghan Royal Army, history. 

The United States, fresh from 1980s-1990s successes, didn't hesitate to write and narrate an alternative military history regarding the Soviet Union, including the Soviet war in Afghanistan. The United States was content with the narrative that some Quran carrying, sandals wearing, Stinger shooting mujaheddin "defeated" the superpower. Of course, reality was vastly different but the United States didn't grasp then what Russians grasped from the git go and talked about it non-stop. Recall this 11 years ago: 

In fact, we were the first to defend Western civilization against the attacks of Muslim fanatics. No one thanked us. On the contrary, everyone was impeding our actions: The United States, NATO, Iran, Pakistan, even China. After the withdrawal of the Soviet Army, the Najibullah government that we left behind in Kabul remained in power for another three years. It is true that Soviet troops committed serious errors in Afghanistan. We had no teachers.How long would the Afghan government endure today if it were left alone to face the Taliban? A rapid slide into chaos awaits Afghanistan and its neighbors if NATO pulls out, pretending to have achieved its goals. A pullout would give a tremendous boost to Islamic militants, destabilize the Central Asian republics and set off flows of refugees, including many thousands to Europe and Russia.

Do you need me to repeat it? OK, in bold:

In fact, we were the first to defend Western civilization against the attacks of Muslim fanatics.

OK, one more time:

to defend Western civilization against the attacks of Muslim fanatics. 

How about learning this simple fact, that everything what was happening since 1979 was about stopping Islamization and from the get go the war had a distinct religious flavor. Try to explain this to some D.C. political general who would shit his pants when forced to speak in operational and strategic broadsides and call things their own name. It was the United States which set the precedent, even if the virtual one, in convincing the Islamic world, especially US Gulfie satrapies, that these medieval backward regimes could challenge real superpowers militarily and, in fact, have a political Islam as a viable instrument on the way to blowing up World Trade Center, to committing atrocity in Chechnya, culminating in a bestiality worthy of Nazi death camps in Beslan. All that with cheering and support from the combined West which couldn't see that bestowing some "victory" on Jihadists allegedly against the Soviet Union--a complete propaganda BS--the combined West was writing a scenario for own real humiliation. 

OK, it is a Saigon Moment, alright. Iraq is going not much better and in Russia it is a payback time, because Russians didn't run from Afghanistan, combined West is running. Lester Grau was prophetic, as was anyone with proper military background, where they teach you about political objectives and tactical and operational levels of war. I will repeat it again:

"There is a literature and a common perception that the Soviets were defeated and driven from Afghanistan. This is not true. When the Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989, they did so in a coordinated, deliberate, professional manner, leaving behind a functioning government, an improved military and an advisory and economic effort insuring the continued viability of the government. The withdrawal was based on a coordinated diplomatic, economic and military plan permitting Soviet forces to withdraw in good order and the Afghan government to survive. The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA)managed to hold on despite the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Only then, with the loss of Soviet support and the increased efforts by the Mujahideen (holy warriors) and Pakistan, did the DRA slide toward defeat in April 1992. The Soviet effort to withdraw in good order was well executed and can serve as a model for other disengagements from similar nations."

But the United States out of "exceptionalist" expediency was ready to listen to fairy tales of its mujaheddin clientele rather than to Russians whose experience with real wars is immense, Russians DID offer advice on Afghanistan and, in a dramatic contrast with American actions in 1980s, helped. All in vain. Now, the United States needs and is undergoing a military-political humiliation, which unlike Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, does bear all hallmarks of fleeing a battlefield, leaving after itself one gigantic clusterfuck, which Russians (and Chinese) would need to clean up and put it under some sort of a control. And here is the morale of that all, that good ol' Noblese Oblige between superpowers I was talking about--you do not rush to diminish and insult other superpowers in such affairs, when at stake is not some loss of battle or a campaign, but the effort to stop a Jihadist Internationale from forming, not least based on the American-produced myth that some head-choppers can defeat a superpower. But then again, the United States just proved that they can. As I always say, Karma is a bitch, and as one of the greats once said--if you spit into history, it may respond with a cannons' salvo. It seems like it did... In the end, present West is not even worth saving.

Simply Came To Mind...

These two events are connected directly, despite the fact that USSR and the United States fought two very different wars in Afghanistan. Not to mention the fact that of all post-WW II American wars, war in Afghanistan was the only one I supported until I didn't, when it became clear closer to mid-2000s that it had nothing to do with the tragedy of 9/11. So, here we are today:

Also today (in Russian) Sergei Shoigu is in China at SIBU 2021 exercises, after inspecting joint exercises of Russian, Tajik and Uzbek troops at Afghanistan border. 

But strangely, this song still plays in my mind non-stop, as if it is still 1989 and the country is still intact and the West is not yet in full lie and propaganda mode, celebrating the defeat which never occurred, and many Russians today listen to this and have a strange feelings and associations. 

This stunning song by Kaskad (a band of combat veterans) contains in its piercing lyrics such lines:

Прощайте, горы, вам видней,
Какую цену здесь платили,
Врага какого не добили,
Каких оставили друзей.

Farewell mountains, you know better 

What price we were paying here  

What kind of enemy we didn't finish off

What kind of friends we left here.

I knew and know very many Soviet Afghan veterans, some were my friends, others I met in hospitals, from enlisted to officers, and while opinions differed, there was a general understanding that insidious islamization will continue if not stopped into the then Soviet Middle Asia and further. The USSR simply could not run from Afghanistan and it didn't, if not for Yeltsin's betrayal of Najibullah the history of Afghanistan may have been different. But it isn't. Guys from Kaskad sang "farewell" and had these lines:

Биографии наши в полдюжины строк
Социологи втиснут, сейчас они в моде.
Только разве подвластен науке восток?
Мы уходим с востока, уходим, уходим. 

Our biographies, a half a dozen lines,

Sociologists, they are fashionable today, will fit in

But is Orient subordinate to science

We are leaving Orient, we are leaving, we are leaving.

Well, evidently Russia is not leaving--she simply doesn't have a choice. Uzbekistan and Tajikistan  suddenly "GOT IT".

Truth is, Russia was getting ready for this for the last decade. Now, observing the accelerating collapse and yet another Saigon Moment for the United States, it becomes clear, that it falls on Russia to handle the border with Afghanistan without going in, and clean this mess. Right? Right? Well, Chinese also have some designs for this place and as long as Taliban doesn't cross the border, let them live.   

Primakov Doctrine.

Our own Peter Williams posted few days ago this video in which yet another YouTube resource tries to sound geopolitical and, in this particular case, describe what is known today as Primakov Doctrine. 

Feel free to listen to this 24 minute video and it is very good in terms of providing a refresher for a timeline of Russia's intervention in Syria but that is as far as it goes, because, as you all know--the devil is in details. I will not beat around the bush here and will go for the jugular. This is a good video as a primer for anyone who has zero background in geopolitics, warfare, diplomacy, international relations, Russia and Middle East. But for people who have a clue of who read my blog (or my books) periodically the failure of this analysis is several fold:

1. Creators of this video have a very vague idea how the resources of nations are measured and what, in general, those are and what is involved in those resources' applications;

2. They still reside in alternative universe in which the United States enjoys a uni-polar moment, while in reality we all live in a multi-polar world and the multi-polarity is a fait accompli. In fact, it has been since 2008 when Syria wasn't even in the plans;

3. Primakov Doctrine, while formulated by this outstanding man, is in reality just another reiteration of realities of Russia's central Eurasian position (heartland, if one wishes to use purely geopolitical terms) and of a complete rejection of any uni-polarity in principle. 

This by no means takes away anything from Primakov's brilliant mind and it gives me a great pleasure to mention that Primakov entered and studied for a couple of semesters in my naval academy before dropping out, as he himself stated, due to "sea service being not my thing" (in Russian). 

But these are just general points. And I also give authors the credit where the credit is due when they talk about chimera of "Gerasimov Doctrine", courtesy of a "great" military mind of Mr. Galeotti, but, as I already mentioned above, they fail at looking at number of key factors defining present situation in which, despite undeniable success in Syria, Russia's existential achievement was Crimea and declaration of Russia's return as a sovereign state on the international arena. The second one was a radical economic and military overhaul, which resulted first in a de facto destruction of the US shale oil industry, decoupling form many Western political and economic institutions, which make Russia's Middle Eastern strategies important, but largely fringe in a colossal struggle with the United States for formation of a new international reality.

As today's events in Afghanistan show, and what was predicted by many, yours truly included, the United States was never a power it claimed to be to start with: it was always much weaker across the board--economically, militarily, ideologically and intellectually. The fact that the United States imposes non-ending sanctions on Russia and Russia's weapons is not a sign of strength but of what I am on record ad nauseam for years--the US lost the arms race. Authors of the video are, evidently, not aware of this reality and if Syria was a good showcasing for some of Russia's weapon systems and strategic-operational prowess, these were recent events in Ukraine, with Russia concentrating two armies in a matter of a week or two at Ukrainian border, which convinced the combined West in Russia's ability to defeat NATO or any other forces in any locality which matters for Russia. That is a hint about multi-polarity, BTW. But authors of the video, sadly, still didn't get it.

Nor Soviet and American experiences in Afghanistan are as closely related as many want to believe, despite irresistible desire to draw parallels. I and others wrote so much on that issue (just read Pepe Escobar's superb sitreps) that it doesn't make sense to repeat in detail but: Russia helped the US in Afghanistan, the United States obstructed USSR there and, incidentally, with the effort of Zbig, fanned the flames of Political Islam. I know, Karma is a bitch. So, what is Primakov Doctrine, really? I can tell you--it is his 180 degrees turn in his airplane over Atlantic on the way to the United States, the moment he learned about the start of barbaric NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. It was this gesture of a real statesman which announced for Russians that enough is enough with the West. It was 180 degree turn which will stay as a historic event in Russia and which in its powerful symbolism declared the new era for Russians--that was an act of a real man and a patriot. You all know what followed. There is still a discussion in Russia today--who saved Russia, Putin or Primakov, but everyone, without exception understand that it was Primakov who said in 2009 at the celebration of his 80th, when proposed the toast:

Хочу предложить выпить за Владимира Путина. Но не потому, что он только что сказал обо мне высокие слова. А потому, что я видел, как этот человек спас Россию. Я всегда буду предан Владимиру Путину. Потому что я предан России.

Translation: I want to propose a toast for Vladimir Putin. But not only because he just now said many high words about me. But because I saw how this man saved Russia, I will always be loyal to Vladimir Putin, because I am devoted to Russia. 

You do remember, of course, that Primakov was a professional intelligence operative and he headed SVR (foreign intelligence service) for 5 years and you know who served in SVR? Yes, many people you see today in Russia's top echelon from Vladimir Putin to other KGB people like Nikolai Patrushev, Sergey Chemezov (counter-intel), Sergei Ivanov (SVR) and others. Primakov's hand helped to guide Russia out of a catastrophe of 1990s and in this sense, Primakov's significance for Russia's and world history exceeds by far the doctrine of his name. Primakov was a Jew who was more Russian than many nominal Russians.

I recall late Lawrence Eagleburger many years ago calling Primakov a "pip squeak". Late Larry was really agitated at CNN (I believe it was CNN) while doing so. Primakov certainly got under his skin. Keep the enemy off balance--the first rule of warfare. Primakov knew how to do it.  In terms of video "rating", I would say--people who only begin to dabble into geopolitics: 7 out of 10 (good primer), for experienced people: 5 out of 10. 

Few Words In Defense of the West.

You all know how critical I am of the modern combined West in general and the United States in particular. Being a United States citizen I am absolutely appalled by the direction America took in mid-1990s and where is she heading both in foreign and domestic policies. My political creed is that of the real Realist which could be summarized by a desire to see a moderate and cooperative foreign policy and in domestic economic policies I am somewhere in between of proper state regulatory functions and free enterprise, culturally, however, I am not only Russian but I am a man who recognizes not only West's crimes and failures but also an enormous contribution to human civilization, some of which is simply without parallels in the history of humanity. I am talking about the finest art, incredible scientific achievements and humanism before it was reduced to a complete absurd by Western "elites". In this sense I am a Western man too. And here is the deal: some idiot started to apply an old cliche' about Afghanistan as a "graveyard of the empires" to modernity. 

One guy tries to explain why Afghanistan has this title attached to it. I get that, but the reality of this "graveyard" in a modern era is not supported by facts in the least. This propaganda BS was overused in the West during and after the Soviet War in Afghanistan, wrongly and deliberately attributing the collapse of the Soviet Union to that war. Reality is, Afghan War has been a minor factor in the collapse of the USSR and the Soviet Union exited Afghanistan not as a "defeated" side. I am not the only one who writes about it. Soviet collapse was due to a completely different set of reasons but the combined West needed a credit for this collapse in fields in which no credit could have been given. It is the same BS myth as US-made Stingers "winning" the war for mujahedin against Soviet Air Force, which actually adapted well to a new threat and found a counter, largely neutralizing it. Nor, as the history tells us, were British necessarily unsuccessful in their Afghanistan adventure and the collapse of British Power had nothing to do with British wars there, because Great Britain lost the Empire de facto on the battlefields of the WW II and that was long after British adventures in the mountains of Hindu-Kush.

Now comes the United States, which actually wraps her Afghanistan adventure on a very minor note, to put it politely, but the truth is--never in the modern times (starting from the times of Dr. Watson wounded in Afghanistan and before him getting together with Sherlock Holmes, wink, wink) did Afghans, in their wild ethnic variety, from Pushtu to Tajik, realistically best Western soldier in non-guerilla warfare, they simply can't. They surely had their share of tactical successes, everybody does once in a while, but they simply never caused any modern Empire to collapse or in any way have proven that Afghanistan is a "graveyard of (modern) empires" by influencing such a collapse in a significant way. America's loss in Afghanistan is primarily a PR and financial disaster, which is very bad as it is, but even if the United States were to collapse tomorrow, this collapse would have had very little to do with Afghanistan and would be a consequence of a sum of the America's failed military commitments and downright insane foreign and domestic policies and, to be sure, the graveyard for Pax Americana (a euphemism for American Empire) is NOT in Afghanistan. Not even close. 

But the risible cliche endures and is very detrimental, in fact, to a sober military-political analysis which is badly needed in our media-driven sensationalist (and grossly incompetent and ignorant) times. Western Cold War propagandists and politicos, such as Zbig, didn't have enough intellect and foresight to grasp a simple fact that they were doing a disservice primarily to themselves by spreading an utterly false but gratifying, in a short run, cliche about "the graveyard of empires". Nor did they have an idea what they were doing fanning the flames of Islamic terrorism, which ultimately resulted in the tragedy of 9/11 and de facto attack on the Bill of Rights, America's most important and valuable treasure. All three: British Empire, Russian/Soviet Empire and modern American one have collapsed largely because of the problems of their own making and primarily domestically and they surely haven't been buried in Afghanistan. In the end, even the best of the bestest Pushtu warrior needs a night vision scope and googles and good radio if he wants to survive on the modern guerilla battlefield and last time I checked, those are not produced in Afghanistan, if you know what I mean.