In other words, she is a product and an exhibit A of US military degree mills where "strategery" is taught by such specimen as Sarah Paine and the whole thing is built around confabulated military history and operational data which even Hans Christian Andersen wouldn't use in his fairy tales. Defense and Strategic Studies, whatever passes under this title in the US, for decades have produced people, including top military brass, who wouldn't be able to fight their way out of wet paper bag. So, what's left? Correct--BS. And that's what Heinrichs delivers with flair and panache. Ask this "doctor" about operations and how they are planned in modern technological paradigm. Per nuclear deterrence she "teaches"--LOL)) She will not be able to make a connection between serial production of S-500 and 550 and US nuclear credibility, but what do I know. Rephrasing Stalin--I do not have other strategists for you(c). A freak show, really.
It is not going to do you any good when you face this:
Now, it is not a secret--the "performance" of the NATO air defense systems in 404 is shocking (it is also shocking in Israel). It is shocking due to its manifest ineffectiveness and inadequacy for the modern battlefield. A lot (as Larry beautifully put it today), a big tube of lipstick is required. So, neocon central, against the background of the gap in kinetic stand-off weapons and AD systems between Russia and the US widening, decided to announce some "good news".
LOL, let me explain something here--we wouldn't expect from creeps from Newsweek rag to have an idea--but the amount of bovine excrement in Raytheon's own Jon Norman statement is through the roof.
1. United States DOES NOT have real simulator of hypersonic weapon. What is "sold" to the bunch of morons with journo degrees from Ivy League about "simulation" is a horseshit about classic ballistic somehow "emulating" hypersonic weapons merely on the fact that all Intercontinental, Intermediate or even most operational-tactical ballistic missiles reach speeds above M=5 on their boost phase. US has nothing, not even close, similar to Avangard, Kinzhal, let alone 3M22.
2. The US doesn't have and will not have any kinetic means to hit hypersonic weapon any time soon. Bringing up in the conversation lame Iron Dome, not to speak of ALL Raytheon's (and Boeing's) "Israeled" products which failed miserably in Israel, is a first sign of not only of BS being sold yet again, but a dead-end of development of real hypersonic weapons, not to speak about real anti-hypersonic interceptors.
3. And here is a give away: Regarding its hypersonic defense capability, Norman claimed that the upgraded radar can now detect what he called "very small targets" when a missile's booster separates from its warhead after launch. "We can hit it before it starts maneuvering," he told Breaking Defense. (c) This is a tacit admission of what I speak about ad nauseam--they cannot detect, track and develop firing solution for their arquebuses and can only "detect" separation of the booster. LOL.
In related news, all radar of Russia's AD systems such as S-400, S-500, S-300V4, S-550, all, without exception, are capable of detecting, tracking, developing firing solutions and HITTING hypersonic targets both in tests and, actually, a little engine that ... or rather little Tor-M2, a close zone AD (company, battalion) scored a shitload of hits on all kinds of 404 ballistic missiles, such as Tochka-U, which reaches the target with velocities slightly above M-5. The capability gap between Russia and the US is colossal and, likely, is not going to be closed. For that, the US can also thank its "imported" Wehrmacht and SS component which "worked" for TRADOC in the capacity of operations' specialists and who sold to NATO a shitload of fairy tales and outright BS about Eastern Front and then laid the foundation for discredited Air-Land Battle, which prevented Pentagon and a bunch of US "historians" and "thinkers" from studying real warfare and developing what ANY serious martial arts course starts with: development of defense, all kinds of blocks, before the student is even allowed to get to hits, kicks and strikes.
India will choose F-35, we all know that, but that's not the point. It is the copious amount of BS they continue to spread. Like this, in the same piece:
The Su-57’s top speed of Mach 2.0 is noticeably faster than the F-35, but it is not as stealthy.In a unique display, both the American-made F-35 Lightning II and Russian-made Su-57 were seen together during an air show in India earlier this month. In addition to the Chinese Chengdu J-20 and American F-22 Raptor, these fifth-generation platforms are considered to be the most capable in service today. The presence of both airframes at the Aero India 2025 is significant as tensions continue to ramp up across the globe.
The question which one must ask is--and what is so "unique" in this "display"? Both countries brought their planes to the show. OK, wow. Now, another matter is PLURAL in terms of platforms and considered by who? So, Russians brought combat proven 5th generation aircraft with unrivaled combat record, while the US brought ...
As the second U.S.-made fifth-generation fighter platform, the F-35 is widely considered to be the most formidable of its kind to fly the skies.
Again, considered by who? What are the criteria of "formidability"? Some BS propaganda about the platform which became a global butt of jokes and is absolutely not fit for real war? F-35 flew a rather boring routine at Aero India 2025 which is a pity, considering the fact that Su-57 stole the show, but that's just that--the show. I am sure when fresh (February 2025) facts on combat readiness are presented:
This excruciating for military analysis professionals BS may stop, because in the end, shows are for ... well, shows for hoi polloi, while in particular case of India all those behind closed doors "negotiations" may last forever and will be decided by the scale of bribes, not combat capability of which F-35 has none in real war.
In the US politics. Trump is doing what he does best--BS.
Putin could never have said anything like this because he knows who Trump is and he has no intention whatsoever to "stop" the war in "24 hours". This is a pathological narcissism which breaks all limits of propriety and allows the guy to lie and sincerely believe his own lies. Obviously, Russians have no illusions about the US intentions whatsoever. Russians are also very good at math and they know US manufacturing capabilities of critical weapon systems as well as the starting levels of resources.
Remarkably, Trump, in some ironic sense, continues to reap what he and his admin, of which he had no control whatsoever, have sown--arming and training Kiev regime in earnest. Russians have a very good memory. Meanwhile--US tax dollars at work or rather not working.
Translation:MOSCOW, December 22 — RIA Novosti.During a special operation in Ukraine, the Russian Armed Forces destroyed at least 30 launchers of the U.S.-made Patriot anti-aircraft missile system, according to RIA Novosti’s calculations based on official data from the Defense Ministry.One of the most recent and most effective strikes is mentioned in the December 15 report: four launchers were destroyed, as well as a combat control vehicle and an AN/MPQ-65 radar station.
And that's just Patriots--around $30 billion gone--there are many other types from NASAMS to Iris-T to what have you which have been destroyed. Make no mistake, Russian AD also loses some AD systems here and there, but nowhere near (two orders of magnitude fewer) what 404 and its NATO "friends" lost in what is now the largest SEAD operation in the last half-a-century and which makes all previous anti-AD operations look like a backwater. NATO AD is designed for wars with inferior forces and is NOT capable to fight modern delivery systems from tactical level up. The gap between Russian and NATO AD systems continues to widen and it cannot be closed any time soon, if ever.
... no surprise here. Now it is same ol', same ol' PR rotine--"the shit was taken out of the context", "this is not what I meant" and other verbal diarrhea to cover up what amounts to blackmailing and threatening the high political official of an independent country.
“Varhelyi said in a statement he wanted to tell Kobakhidze not to
inflame passions and the assassination attempt in Slovaka “was made as
an example and as a reference to where such high level of polarization
can lead in a society even in Europe”.
Needless to say--normal people do not work for EC, especially near war criminal and US puppet von der Leyen. But, as Russian proverb goes: the word is not a sparrow, if it flies out you are not going to catch it. Even if you are a lawyer and sold your soul for verbal equilibristics and BS. Damage control all the way, but it is too late.
Now, about "concerned citizens" who appear on this blog each time VSU sustains horrendous losses and loses badly, which is a normal occurrence. Immediately new accounts pop up on Disqus and begin to push all kinds of BS from telegram channels, many of which are of TSIPSO and GUR origin and begin to recycle all kinds of BS, including fake photos and videos about Russian losses. I want to stress it again, and I would have pinned this post to the top of the blog, but Blogspot doesn't have this function anymore. So:
1. Russians do sustain losses too, in blood and materiel. Those losses have minimal if any effect on operations and strategy.
Those who do not understand these numbers--they need to attend elementary school and take basic classes on multiplication and division. It is a slaughter on industrial scale which NO NATO acting officer, let alone grunt has any concept of. They simply have no experience with that. Russian losses are a tiny fraction of all that, PLUS--you can easily multiply this number of Russian MoD by two and that will give you a close number of total daily casualties, with original number--1630 give and take--being the number of KIAs ONLY. Hence, all kinds of "concerned citizens" materialize.
2. Now about Western legacy media--99% of those people who work or report for them are human and professional garbage, many of who should be behind bars as war criminals. Here is example:
Immediately: Reuters DOES NOT have any sources in "Putin's entourage" other than some lowly figure in some shitty Russian media outlet such as Kommersant who tells cretins from Reuters that he(she) has access to "Putin's entourage". Plus, UK "journalism" and lying are two sides of the same coin. So, these creeps invent shit. Well guess what, as usual, their BS is short lived, as are "numbers" by VSU about five Russian divisions they annihilate every day, and State Department and Pentagon believe(d) them due to professional incompetence.
Translation:MINSK, May 24 – RIA Novosti.Vladimir Putin spoke about his readiness for negotiations on Ukraine, but they are possible in order to achieve the goals of the special operation, presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov said, commenting on the Reuters publication.According to the agency, citing sources, the Russian leader is allegedly ready for a dialogue with Kiev on a ceasefire if the Ukrainian authorities recognize the current front lines as borders.“No, this is not so. The President has repeatedly said that he is ready for negotiations. But these are negotiations in order to achieve the goals that we are now achieving through a special military operation,” Peskov noted.As the Kremlin representative clarified, Putin meant that the complex documents drawn up earlier could be the foundation for discussions, but nothing more.
For those with the short memory--this is the same Russia's position since... 2022. It never changed. Losers from London and Washington now desperately need some kind of "good news" and because the BS is the only thing they can do--they pull "news" out of their asses.
3. Finally, for those who still don't understand--I do not read or communicate with all those internet "military analysts" with the exception of military-intelligence professionals I PERSONALLY recognize as people of competence, professional and human integrity, be that in the US or in Russia. So far, my ass sensitivity on this matter didn't fail me strategically. So, whenever I hear such terms as "Russian sources" or some nobody uses this or that--I always go for the jugular and ask about their backgrounds. People are free to follow whatever they want and believe whatever they want, but military reality is always much more complex than media reports, let alone BS which infested info-space of SMO from day one. Operation "Ghost of Kiev" never stops, as numbers of Ukie babushkas shooting down Kinzhal hypersonic missiles with the can of pickles grow every day.
Translation:The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) will reduce its staff by 60%, said the head of the Main Directorate of Defense Planning of the General Staff, Yevgeny Ostryansky, reports TSN.“Due to the released personnel, it is planned to replenish the command and control bodies at the operational and tactical levels, as well as combat units.This, in turn, will allow for the rotation of units that carry out long-term combat missions in the combat zone,” he said and added that during combat operations “those structures that directly control groupings of troops should be strengthened.”
Victory for 404 has never been so close. Should I comment on that?
No surprise here, Western media establishment produces primarily professional BSers with zero real life applicable skills, while purging real journalists who do report facts. Very much same applies to many sectors of academia, especially so in the humanities field, but not exclusively.
What many do not recognize, is the fact that constant BSing inevitably leads to the atrophy of remaining actual skills in any field. One of my patrons today shared with me an outstanding piece by former Airbus Chief Scientist on why the West most likely will not get any hypersonic weapons any time soon--he blames education, or, rather, lack thereof in the modern West (In French).
Lt.Colonel Daniel Davies asks the reasonable question, while still repeating all those Ukie propaganda tropes about Russia being "bloodied" in SMO and about Holy HIMARS, the title of his piece does raise this issue:Why Do We Keep Listening to the ‘TV’ Generals on Ukraine? He writes:
The answer to this is very simple: incompetence and professional jealousy. SMO and Ukraine, same as Georgia in 2008, and same as Syria, and same as Ukraine now demonstrated a demolition of not only America's best proxies at given periods of time, but uncovered a fantastical thinking by US military about modern war. Most, with some notable exceptions, Western military professionals exhibited a gaping lack of understanding of not only Russia--that is expected from many--but of even basic grasp of economic mobilization scales, operational and strategic realities. 99% of US military officers of any note forecasts and explanations, be that on TV or in writing, not only were and are wrong, they raise the question of professional adequacy.
Davies lists all, oh so familiar, names of Petraeus, Keane, Hodges, Hertling who continue to embarrass themselves as military amateurs in their view of SMO. But they are just the tip of the iceberg, enough to take a look an Andrew Bacevich's personal views and military "analysis" the so called Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft (in reality Cohen and Soros' funded org) he heads--one cannot shake the impression that far from being a former cadre officer of the US Army, Bacevich is simply stuck in the realities of America's endless and humiliating military debacles and lacks a solid military education which IS NOT a collection of tactical minutiae but must rest on a solid foundation of the military science. Davies still doesn't provide the definition of "bloodied", but have anyone told US military professionals that any serious operational level document contains what in Russian is called normatives (normativity) which describe ranges in losses in personnel and equipment depending on types of operations ranging from capturing the village, town or city to a head on division size battle with different types of opponent. Evidently American officers never heard of those, despite those being a common knowledge. So what "bloodied" is, then? And what is a definition of "significant"? Davies doesn't answer this question.
The Russians are no doubt bloodied and have suffered significant
equipment loss, but there is no evidence on the battlefield that they
are anywhere near “exhausted.” Most of the artillery promised by the West has already been delivered
and it has not, to date, resulted in even slowing Russia’s advance
through the Donbas, much less stopped it. The HIMARS launchers have enabled Ukraine to strike deep
behind Russian lines, and they have caused severe harm in their enemy’s
rear areas. Nonetheless, even that has not resulted in any observable
reduction in the still-heavy daily barrage of artillery on Ukrainian
positions.
It seems that most of
those US military professionals when talking about REAL combined arms
operations lack even basic understanding of the role of modern air defense, especially of such quality as Russian troop (voiskovaya) AD, which deploys a variety of high end AD systems ranging from manpads to Tor M2, Buk M3, and S-300V4 which already performed extremely well in defending Russian forces preposition and rear areas, including from this very same much touted, and grossly overrated, HIMARS (in Russian). All of those are standard targets for Russian Air Defense, but it seems many US officers still cannot grasp this fact, which is unsurprising, considering the fact that the US Army never fought in modern era under the steady fire impact to the operational depth and simply has no systems which are designed for such classes of targets. Davies continues and admits:
The most important fundamentals of war, the basics of combat
operations, almost all reside on the Russian side. Since the G7, G20,
and NATO Summits, there have been no additional large-scale
contributions of modern weaponry promised to Ukraine. The amount of
equipment to date has been a couple of hundred artillery tubes, about
250 Soviet-era tanks, and a few hundred Vietnam-era personnel carriers.
Cumulatively, all of this gear – including the HIMARS – are not a
fraction of the type of kit Ukraine would need to launch a counteroffensive. The idea, then, that Ukraine could stop Russia’s current
offensive and then transition to a counter-offensive to drive Putin’s
troops back – as Hodges said he believed would happen before the end of
this year – have no valid basis on the ground in Ukraine. But such
optimistic, rosy proclamations that are disconnected from battlefield
realities are not new for America’s active and retired generals for the
past two decades. Take these examples from Operation Iraqi Freedom.
What can I say. The issue here is not What Ukraine needs, but what US and its NATO lapdogs can provide and we already know what happened with the US stocks of much touted, and, naturally, grossly overrated, Stingers, Javelins and M-777. It is a good business for defense contractors in the US who will need to replenish grossly diminished reserves of such weapons, but, for the love of God, can we stop this BS with "take these examples from Operation Iraqi Freedom". I can only repeat what most US officers never heard about, Russian/Soviet strategist Alexander Svechin, who present Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov quotes once in a while:"Each war represents an isolated case, requiring an understanding of its own particular logic, its own unique character". The tiresome comparison of what amounted to turkey shoot of backward, under-equipped, under-trained, under-supplied, illiterate in many instances and incompetently led Saddam's Army, which didn't have even operational air force and air defense, to Russia fighting the best ever US proxy, which for 8 years was supplied, trained and now C2-ed by US and UK officers, is simply risible. But Davies agrees somewhat:
The danger in these types of statements is that they give false hope to
the people of Ukraine, give an inaccurate picture to the American people
of what’s possible, and encourages Congress to continue funding a
strategy that almost certainly will fail. At the very least, it is time
to start viewing routinely optimistic claims by some of our active and
retired generals with more skepticism.
Oh, I think the danger of these statements is grossly understated, because, judging by the stream of incompetent and militarily illiterate baloney US military professionals deliver from each and every media channel nowadays, one is irresistibly moved to the conclusion that maybe those generals and senior officers are not that good to start with? If they do understand, which I begin to doubt now, what is going on and spew their claptrap for propaganda purposes, that totally disqualifies them as honorable professionals, but if they believe their own absurdity and pseudo-operational and pseudo-strategic psychobabble, then we have a problem--they may, at some point of time, try to come into direct contact with Russian Armed Forces and will sustain catastrophic defeat, which, inevitably, will push the United States, which doesn't have modern historic experience with real war, to escalate towards nuclear threshold.
I remain on record: US Armed Forces never fought in defense of own country. The only type of warfare the US military knows is a naval one, where the US Navy maintained both quantitative and qualitative superiority over nearest rivals for a while, in terms of ground war it was always expeditionary warfare, and achievements of the US ground forces have been more than underwhelming. Desert Storm played a cruel joke on the US military and its fighting doctrine and procurement policies, which resulted in a failure in Iraq and then humiliation of Afghanistan. Modern US Army cannot fight and win conventional war with modern "peer" without sustaining losses on the order of 1,000-1,500 KIAs a day and massive loss of equipment, including a very high PR "value" such as combat aircraft or ships. Neither American public nor US political class will be able to deal with it, which will result in a political upheaval and calls for nuclear strikes, which will mean a death sentence to the US as a country .
Those people in the US military who do understand that, they do not have their voices heard, and, instead, we all are treated to nothing more than jingoistic propaganda, outright Russophobia and simple lies by people who by all measurements are not ready to face the realities of the warfare which, quoting Colonel Douglas MacGregor, looks like this:
It is a well-known fact, that today Pentagon has many US officers manning US weapon systems in Ukraine and they do more than that--they collect all possible data on the operations by Russian forces. It is not going to help, because America's problem is much deeper than even fighting doctrine or national strategy, however always flawed and unworkable. It is metaphysical--it is difficult to replicate or respond to Russia's technological and cultural responses to war. You cannot buy this historic experience and warfare culture. It will always be beyond reach. That is why I smile when same people who produced Afghanistan debacle, assure American public that they already learn and apply "lessons" from SMO. They mislead the public because the US doesn't fight like Russia and never did. It never will and it cannot be helped, because in the end it is history itself which is the greatest teacher for those who want to learn. The US military-political class not only doesn't want to learn, it is incapable of learning and the wall of BS surrounding SMO in the US, about which Davies writes, is the best proof of that. Not to mention the fact of best and brightest being removed from the US military for decades.
In related news. Give Americans a credit where the credit is due:
No, I am not a Fox "fan", despite the fact that I watch Tucker once in a while. I just use a snippet, the admission. Yes, US MSM is shit as are people who run them. They do harm people and the country, and the wolrd. They are very "effective" in that.
is not a "drone specialists", because he never operated a drone in dense EW and Air Defense environment in his life and his expertise in drone "operations" is distilled into blowing the shit with impunity from some third world shitholes' inhabitants. Nor he is a real "intelligence specialist" who has proper tools to assess anything Russia related because he, for all his combat exploits against people with AK-47s and sandals in Afghanistan and Iraq, never saw a real war in which even EMCON and even secure directed communications are not a guarantee against enemy's forces from receiving targeting, resolving uncertainty and then doing a nasty to drone operations outlet. Like blowing it to smithereens. He should ask his Ukie "sources", those who survived.
Velicovich also, for all his "intelligence analyst" title in Delta Force has zero qualifications to estimate, underestimate or overestimate, for that matter, what Putin wants and how Russian Armed Forces fight. He simply has zero background and knowledge for that, after all, his main degree is in Business Administration from Duke and they don't teach Operational Art, Operational Research, Weapon Systems' Integration, Resolution of Uncertainties and Developing of Firing Solutions (half of those disciplines requiring graduate level STEM, degree in military science and clearance to boot) there. Nor do they in intel schools, especially with narrow tactical and operational focus, such as drone operations. So, he is basically more "credentialized" FOX News' version of MSNBC's very own Malcolm Nance.
Yet, he is pretending to know what REAL combined arms operations are (he doesn't) and, basically, parades himself as clueless blabbermouth, who wouldn't be able to hold any meaningful operational (or strategic) level "conversation" on issues of theater-wide operations by "peer" competitor, but that doesn't prevent him from abusing his "contributor" sinecure at Fox. I can totally assume that some of the US Generals who parade themselves as amateurs in the US media may actually know the real score. Some certainly do. They just have to follow the script for the sake of their own personal gravy train, but I doubt Velicovich knows anything, other than rumors here and there from 404 and backstage conversations somewhere in D.C., and hardly understands issues pertaining to war correlates and how they manifest themselves on tactical, operational and strategic levels.
So when "expert" like him begins to wax all "strategic" my advice is always the same--how about getting your facts straight for starters and not trying to sell yourself bigger than you really are. Albeit, I have to admit, it is the only way in the US establishment, media, political and military, to achieve anything--self-promotion. But then again, what do I know, right? I never was in Iraq flying drones and hunting terrorists.
Never got rid off the idiosyncrasies of a New York real estate shyster and TV reality show host. This is exactly how he ran his administration which resulted in him being one of the most BSing and one of the least effective POTUSes in the US history. At least Biden, or rather group of people who have their collective hand up his ass for the sake of the muppet show, known as the US "democracy", is more effective in pushing his (theirs) agenda, however evil and disastrous this agenda is. You can give them that. Now, Trump, in a classic "democratic" tradition, is doing the only thing US political class can do--he jumps on obvious and expected failures of Biden's policies, including a chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and leaving there, allegedly, $85 billion of the US equipment. Trump, in his classic manner, came up with yet another BS.
During an Iowa rally on Saturday night, former US President Donald
Trump suggested that Moscow and Beijing were taking apart and
"re-engineering" Apache helicopters.
Stating that a large number of military hardware were never
disabled, Trump stressed that the equipment finally ended up on the
black market.
< ..
Peddling the BS and fantasies is a defining feature of the US political class and the only reason I voted for Trump last elections was because I anticipated most of what is taking place under Democratic "leadership" today, which is running the US into the ground with acceleration. The responsibility for this catastrophe is partially on Trump and 4 years of him pretending that his running a tawdry TV reality show and building no less tawdry Trump casinos is somehow a good resume entry for running such country as the United States. But I digress, so here we are, not only Trump continues to lie, that Russians even have to counter his BS, but the main question is: WHY should Russia "re-engineer" Apache helos when she has two types of advanced (serial-production, no less) Mi-28 and Ka-52 which are as good as any Apache but also proved their capabilities in several wars, and continue their exemplary performance in Syria. Alongside with good ol' Crocodiles (aka Hinds) Mi-24 and Mi-35.
I omit here altogether the issue of weapons those Russian helos carry, including something that the US helos do not have and, I doubt, will have any time soon--long-range, stand-off Mach=4+ weapon such as Germes and air-to-air missiles capable to shoot down other helicopters and even combat aircraft. And no, I am not talking about shitty subsonic Stinger Apache is capable to carry, I am talking about modern (upgraded) high supersonic (M=2.5+) R-73M Archer with the range of 40+ kilometers, compared to Stinger's barely 5 kilometers (4.8 km) range.
This is standard Ka-52 cockpit and you can bet your ass on the fact that Russians are pretty good at writing soft for those advanced avionics (also Russian-produced) which are in no way inferior (in fact the opposite is often true) to anything Apache had or will have. So, WHY would Russians "re-engineer" good but inferior American helicopter when weapon systems Russians procure and deploy already proved themselves not only as excellent combat platforms, but their weapon suites make anything United States has look rather...unimpressive.
Here are Mi-28s in Syria few years back.
Since then massive upgrades and additions have been incorporated into all helo platforms, including serial production and deployment of Germes, among other things. So, obviously, Trump will not be able to explain WHY Russians need to re-engineer Apache while having superior platforms such as Mi-28 and Ka-52 (50)? Well, he, in this particular case, wouldn't know the difference anyway, so he does what he always does--he boasts, which is a euphemism for lying, and he does mislead the crowds of his supporters who are duped into believing that this empty suit can "Make America Great Again". He can't as can't anyone in US political class, because they do not understand reality around them and when those few who do get it--nothing could be done about it. I am on record, the United States lost the arms race and for the first time widely and officially a variety of Russian professional military experts (I underscore it) can and do declare (in Russian) what I was writing about for many years, even before this blog--the naval warfare as we know it is over. With it, the US concept of navy is over.
But at this stage all this Trump's BS has become so annoying that I had to comment on this in this manner. In related news--people asked me about USS Connecticut "hitting something" is South China Sea. This type of events is what I call a pile of warm shit which attracts all those flies who portray themselves as "experts". My answer is very simple: I don't know. This could have been collision with one of the Chinese SSBNs which deploy into the SCS for deterrence patrols, with some newly erected oil platform's submerged structure, or with something else altogether. One dude even stated that he knows that Connecticut was operating "near sea floor". OK, if the US submarine doesn't have a simple depth finder and doesn't have good reliable navigational charts with detailed depths, I don't know, maybe they should look at basic training for watch and navigation officers? So, just leave it be--shit happens and collisions happen even between subs, including dramatic ones. Just ask USS Baton Rouge and B-276 Kostroma. Thank God nobody got killed. Baton Rouge, though, got scrapped, while Kostroma continues to serve.
...as are not most US talking heads, they are BSers and ideologues, the equivalent of the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee's ideological department, with fake credentials in "humanities". Well, I already posted on deranged enthusiast of anti-Trump movement, Rachel Maddow before, now, it looks like, Devin Nunes had it.
Practically any talking head from the US MSM can be taken to court, because ethics and integrity are the terms which are not applicable to main stream media in combined West in principle. It goes both liberal and "conservative" (quotation marks are on purpose) ways, but the majority of the blame for turning the United States into an Exhibit A of a severe psychotic episode goes to DNC establishment media, despite the fact that Donald Trump was an incompetent POTUS. In the end, "lefty" MSM produced even more incompetent, and suffering from a fairly advanced stage of dementia, POTUS, who obviously operates on a cocktail of drugs for people in his condition.
This is the only way to deal with lowlifes who populate (and own) US establishment media and I am still puzzled why nobody yet took James Clapper to court for his racist anti-Russian statements. But then again, such people as Clapper or Maddow, due to their genetic composition (???) are not worthy of being considered professionals in what they do. After all, even court established the fact that Maddow is not dealing with news, or, for that matter, facts--but with own "opinion". This opinion being that of an emotionally unstable person with a host of mental issues. But at this stage that what establishment political MSM are--a collection of psychopaths. Normal people wouldn't make it there in 90% of the cases. But suing those ass-holes could and should become a cottage industry. Or maybe a full blown one.
Pope. Rebekah Koffler has an "impressive" (for DC) resume and she is "from the former USSR" and she is an embodiment of why the United States finds itself where it finds itself today vis-a-vis Russia and pretty much the rest of the world. There is very little about this Koffler lady on the internet, say how old is she and where in the USSR was she born precisely (she states she was born in Kazakhstan), but there is very little doubt in that she read too much of Solzhenitsyn and, judging by her appearance, she does look like my peer and that is why she is full o' shit. No, I am not talking about her book and "Russian hacking", I am talking about her urban myths and BS about the USSR she spews on the air at Fox (and elsewhere) and here is the latest this "Russia expert" delivers three days ago.
I am not claiming that the USSR was a "free" country in Western understanding but it is clear that I and millions of my peers and Rebekah lived in a different USSR and that this intelligence "professional" is milking her "Soviet" biography for some kind of gain, most likely monetary, and tells fairy tales about USSR popular among former Soviet (primarily Jewish, but not exclusively) Brighton Beach populace. For starters, why she lies: criticism and anecdotes about Soviet government and Communist Party were not just common, but they were spoken openly from smoking rooms to diners to even barracks in Soviet military (and she certainly has no experience with that) and nobody were persecuted let alone "expelled from schools", because the only reason to be expelled from any Soviet school was two fold--discipline and academic failure. Period. Hundreds of my peers, who entered naval academy with me in 1980, same as before that, or after, were political anecdotes and jokes telling, American jeans wearing, rock-music listening and long-haired dudes, have been checked by KGB (namely counter-intelligence) before even allowed to apply, well...
Never in my life have I heard of any kid "expelled" from the school on the bases she proposes and I met and studied with very many peers who were border-line asocial and anti-Soviet. One of my academy classmates made it into the KGB organization NEVER being in Komsomol, let alone being a member of Communist Party and... had no problems in advancing along the career path. Koffler, obviously, when she left USSR at a young age, had only Soviet dissident narrative, much of it hearsay and outright BS, and urban myths to sell in the US, which was eager to listen to any contrived BS as long as it was instrumental in drawing a caricature of a country, they had no real understanding of. It is not surprising then, when having such "analysts" and "experts" as Koffler, who sounds like a keynote speaker at the regional Communist Party gathering and who deliberately oversells this "totalitarian thingy" for own benefit, that the US "intelligence community" has become a butt of a jokes around the world, especially in anything related to Russia.
She claims that she was an analyst of "Russian strategy and cyber warfare", well, strategy is a very broad term, but Koffler's feeble attempts to sell her Soviet high school experiences as a valuable contribution to the intelligence field while having zero experience and education with Soviet institutes of state power and security, be that military or security services are telling, as are her misguided and incompetent attempts to draw parallels between the USSR and modern USA. She is no big thinker. She is also utterly militarily incompetent. Here is a proof from her book:
This is the "level" of "experts" who consulted and continue to consult on Russia inside the US and who think that two technological catastrophes such as F-35 and LCS are "capabilities" for the United States, then there is no surprise with the outcomes we all observe. You can extrapolate the rest of the skill-set for such "analysts". I am not gonna buy her book because I don't have time to review yet another pseudo-intelligence drivel (Koffler states that Steele Dossier was a Russian operation, face-palm) about Russia from a person who has zero background in both USSR and Russia and has only her past security clearance to wave around and use big words and catch phrases. I will just remind you of a superb piece by our esteemed guest Mark Hackard about another dissident BSer Yuri Bezmenov, who was selling exactly what Koffler sells--a hot air. Here is Mark's succinct conclusion about Bezmenov, which applies fully to Koffler:
This also explains why those "analysts" cannot find their own ass with both hands in a brightly lit room. They call it "intelligence."
I am still puzzled with the role Koffler ascribes to "advanced" Littoral Combat Ships in the "war with Russia". Unless she means to build so many of them that Russians exhaust completely their stock of anti-shipping missiles sinking them and then surrender? Then several thousand of LCS should be built. I am sure it was Russian clandestine operation too, to convince Pentagon to invest innumerable billions into shitty technologies, such as F-35 and LCS. It has got to be Russian operation. How else can you explain this clusterfuck. I am sure Koffler will write a book on that too. Nah, I am screwing with you.
Here is the biography of the author, who is praised in The American Conservative for his new book Last Stands: Why Men Fight When All is Lost. Here it is:
In other words, he is a man who knows about military and warfare primarily from the books and movies. Fine. There is a cultural aspect to the warfare and last stands when everything is lost often are connected to the sense of brotherhood in arms with buddies in the unit and of the esprit de corps, and of simple masculine doggedness, which often manifests itself in extreme circumstances such as war, where defiance in a face of death is well documented. But that is all well-known and books on the warfare and acts of defiance and heroism are plentiful. But Walsh decides to concentrate on such acts, in the words of the reviewer, for:
Here is where the whole thing goes haywire immediately, while Bradley Anderson who wrote the review continues:
The qualities of which Walsh writes are real, and they are every bit as
vital to a civilization as he says. They are, however, virtues that can
be cynically exploited by those who have little interest in the defense
of the United States against the kinds of existential threats that would
inspire American men to take up arms and go willingly to their deaths
if need be.
Wait a minute, what? There is no doubt that US Armed Forces have enough courageous men many of who did perform acts of an incredible heroism, be that men of 2nd and 99th Divisions in Ardennes in December 1944, or the crew of immortal USS Samuel B. Roberts DE 413, just to name a few acts of American heroism in WW II. But we are talking about different times and different circumstances. The truth is, that what Walsh tries to explain in his book, all those last stands, were driven by more than just masculinity-based cohesion of the unit and courage. This is not the whole story and it never was whole behind what Tolstoy--yes, this unremarkable artillery officer, who wrote few unremarkable books, nobody knows about, in which he specifically pointed out to:
Yep, this thingy, which usually comes from primarily sense of duty and love for the nation, country, when they are in the grave danger. And here is a thingy, of which I speak ad nauseam--the United States lacks this "thingy", since no American soldier ever fought under the circumstances (not since 1814) of the United States proper being under any danger which comes with enemy's victory and him occupying the country. This distinction is crucial in psychological terms and it was and is being demonstrated since Korean War, because unlike most occasions which Walsh chose to describe, the United States remains impervious to any invasion and a nightmare which follows and can afford to lose interest in wars, which in the American case are all, without exception in the XX Century, were wars of aggression and conquest.
But then again, Walsh is a... music critic by occupation and expecting prudent and precise view on the history of wars and human condition in them from such a "historian" is an exercise in futility, and Walsh aptly proves it. He decides to review a famous Pavlov's House defense during the Battle of Stalingrad, whose description is drowned in ideological noise, and then Walsh blows in a spectacular manner:
He uses grossly inaccurate, politely speaking, Hollywood BS of a movie as a historic reference point. The myth of Red Army soldiers having one rifle for two conscripts is a purely Western propaganda creation which was debunked so decisively that it is inconceivable that the man, a music critic by occupation no less, who decided to write anything on Stalingrad, doesn't know it. But Walsh, certainly, doesn't. Obviously, Western military "historians" never could understand that the only complain General Vasily Chuikov had in his memoirs was about shortage of fully automatic weapons, which were better for the fight in the rabble of Stalingrad, in famous Rodimtsev Division. But the Red Army fighters all had their rifles and enough munition to fight off the onslaught of the Paulus' 6th Army and its allies. This, so called, "black myth" (in Russian) is yet another demonstration of a deliberate distortion used by the Western "historians" to portray Soviet Union's decisive contribution to the victory in the WW II as merely through piles of dead bodies and rivers of blood. Using Hollywood's grossly inaccurate propaganda as a source for conclusions on a matter of a serious military history arouses immediate question--why music critic by education decided that he can pass any sound judgement on matters which require a serious knowledge and experience within military? I don't know, but that is what general American view on war is--a Hollywood picture.
Moreover, last stands while having not just your buddies, but your home, your families, you loved ones, your culture is what drives men to perform acts of self-sacrifice in those proverbial last stands when everything seems to be lost. This is not the experience the United States military can relate to, despite having its own share of heroism and sacrifice, but in the end, as, I believe, Chesterton stated--the soldier must not so much hate what is in a front of him, as love what is behind his back. This is precisely why the United States couldn't win in Korea, lost in Vietnam, lost Iraq and lost in Afghanistan, because as this insignificant combat officer noted:
"But all
the general and soldiers of [Napoleon’s] army…experienced a similar feeling of
terror before an enemy who, after losing half his men, stood as threateningly
at the end as at the beginning of the battle. The moral force of the attacking
French army was exhausted. Not that sort of victory which is defined by the
capture of pieces of material fastened to sticks, called standards, and of the
ground on which the troops had stood and were standing, but a moral
victory that convinces the enemy of the moral superiority of his opponent and
of his own impotence was gained by the Russians at Borodino…The direct
consequence of the battle of Borodino was Napoleon’s senseless flight from
Moscow… and the downfall of Napoleonic France, on which at Borodino for
the first time the hand of an opponent of stronger spirit had been laid"
But what does he really know, this loser Tolstoy, he didn't have Hollywood to refer to, because we all know, Hollywood can always "vividly illustrate" just about any bullshit it wants to. That's the entertainment.
