What a Coincidence.

As I repeat ad nauseam--the root of the mythology of modern combined West is in WW II, where it was effectively saved from itself by primarily Red Army, and this fact completely messes up this whole idea of the United States exceptional "liberation" of Europe from the evils of Nazism, a strictly European invention, by those Stalin's dirty Asiatic hordes. Like in 1814 with Russian Army triumphantly entering Paris, Red Flag over Reichstag in May of 1945 doesn't allow many in the West to sleep and face the reality of the XX century, in which the West decided to commit a suicide. Removal of those Soviet/Russian "hordes" and those who led them in liberation of the death camps and Europe from the history, or re-framing their role in this process of liberation, is a task which Western historiography and propaganda machine got engaged with immediately after the WW II. This revisionism is vital for the existence of  Pax Americana, because modern world of ours was born in the crucible of WW II in which America was a second, however important, fiddle in ridding world of Nazism. 

There are several ways of how Western revisionists--a euphemism for barely literate people with agenda (a defining characteristic of Russia Study field in the West)--do their job.

1. They completely exonerate Nazi Germany and Axis from its crimes (e.g. visit Unz Review and see one of a highest concentrations of crypto-nazis dominating discussion boards there), often it goes hand-in-hand with Holocaust issue and total ignoring of Axis being responsible for 27 million lives of Soviet citizens and millions upon millions of other lives. These are the most insane and illiterate people and they are incapable of tracing basic causalities. 

2. They equate the responsibility of Nazi Germany with that of the USSR for unleashing the WW II. This cohort, including "professional historians" has a lot in common with those mentioned in p. 1. They also are on the position of stressing that even if Nazis were guilty, Stalin's USSR was so horrible and so Mordor that "hell with them, they had it coming". These people also are not strong in history, nor do they have a military background which would allow them to grasp technical, operational, strategic and economic realities of WW II, and as in p.1 in circle they place guilt on Stalin and Soviet Union.

3. Russian "voices" such as Rezun, Solzhenitsyn, adjacent to them Western voices, such as "mass rape specialist" (a euphemism for falsifier) Antony Beavor, other "Russian" dissidents who have an army of followers in the West, despite their sophomoric writing and open falsification of the history and who go for the jugular and deny Soviet/Russian people any agency and ability to distinguish right from wrong, which is wholesale attributed to "communist" ideology and Stalin is singled out as a main culprit. 

4. Pursuers of "Jewish-centric" version of Russian history, in which Russian October 1917 Revolution was a Jewish conspiracy and because of that Russians, as in p.2 "had it coming" and too bad Nazis didn't wipe Russians out.

All this is a result of a combination of factors of both very low and constantly declining intellectual level of Western societies in general, and of ideological imperatives of a Cold War which disregards actual, still available but shrinking, scholarship in favor of pure propaganda. Plus, of course, a visceral hatred of Western "elites" of Russians as an obstacle to West's delusional dreams of domination. This is a very brief review of this phenomenon and I dedicated two thirds of my first book to this issue. 

But evidently, there are still some people out there who are bothered by a murky stream of a grotesque pseudo-history in the United States and who cannot keep silent anymore. Ian Dowbiggin makes a review of yet another pseudo-historical excrement which passes in the United States for scholarship.

Rewriting History for the New Cold War. A Bard College professor has produced a sweeping, revisionist history of the Second World War that places the blame at Russia's doorstep.

Read the whole article, and pay attention to Unz "team" immediately appearing there to defend the book being reviewed and Dowbiggin arrives to a conclusion which for my readers shouldn't be a secret for many years:

Stalin’s War fits comfortably into a world where it is now fashionable to hate Russia. Earlier this summer, Nick Carter, Britain’s top military commander, told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that Putin’s Russia was “an acute threat” to European peace. The CBC’s coverage of Carter’s comment was the latest in a series of media stories in recent years about Putin’s foreign policy, his clampdown on dissent in Russia, and his alleged “meddling” in the domestic affairs of other countries. Last March, President Joe Biden even called Putin a “killer.” The twist on anti-Russianism today is that, unlike during the anti-communist years of the 1950s, it’s now the Soros-backed progressive left that demonizes Moscow.

Russians are keenly aware of that and here is a coincidence. Sergei Lavrov, speaking to veterans of Great Patriotic War in Volgograd (Stalingrad) today stated:

ВОЛГОГРАД, 30 августа. /ТАСС/. Попытки выставить Иосифа Сталина главным злодеем его эпохи являются частью атаки на отечественное прошлое, на итоги Второй мировой войны. Об этом заявил в понедельник министр иностранных дел России Сергей Лавров на встрече с ветеранами Великой Отечественной войны в Волгограде. Он подчеркнул, что осуществляемые извне нападки на историческое прошлое России нацелены не только на то, чтобы переписать историю, но и политически ослабить РФ. "[Вы упомянули] Иосифа Сталина, который <...> всеми процессами должен был руководить. Я абсолютно согласен с тем, что историю нельзя трогать. Кстати, нападки на Сталина как на главного злодея, сваливание в одну кучу всего, что он сделал в довоенное время, во время, после войны - это ведь тоже часть той самой атаки на наше прошлое, на итоги Второй мировой войны", - сказал министр.

Translation: VOLGOGRAD, August 30. / TASS /. Attempts to portray Joseph Stalin as the main villain of his era are part of an attack on our country's past, on the results of World War II. This was stated on Monday by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at a meeting with veterans of the Great Patriotic War in Volgograd. He stressed that outside attacks on Russia's historical past are aimed not only at rewriting history, but also politically weakening the Russian Federation. "[You mentioned] Joseph Stalin, who <...> was supposed to lead all the processes. I absolutely agree that history should not be touched. By the way, attacks on Stalin as the main villain, lumping together everything he did in the pre-war period, during, after the war - this is also part of that very attack on our past, on the results of World War II, "the minister said.

Lavrov's statement is not going to change anything in the West, least of all in the United States which as a society has no concept of a war as such nor is capable to think outside America-centric world, including its elites and most of "scholarship". This gap is unbridgeable and it will continue to grow. I guess the West needs new Solzhenitsyn, which is not easy to find in times of internet and social networks. Lavrov's statement is for Russians primarily, new generation, that is, which increasingly wants and demands to see the history of their country as a continuous process in which Soviet period, with all of its failures and achievements, is just another step in Russia achieving her greatness. Plus, can we cut the crap? Few westerners have any idea what Soviet period was and how it played out in the past and plays out in present day Russia. They just don't get it. They will not get it. But even registered foreign agent Levada Center and a cloaca of The Moscow Times cannot hide the fact:

A record 70 percent of Russians approve of Soviet leader Josef Stalin’s role in Russian history, according to a poll published by the independent Levada Center pollster on Tuesday. Stalin’s image has been gradually rehabilitated in the 2000s from that of a bloody autocrat to an “outstanding leader.” President Vladimir Putin has revived the Soviet anthem, Soviet-style military parades and a Soviet-era medal for labor during his presidency.

Why this happens is beyond the grasp of people described above in this post (pp. 1-4), as per "Western history", I am on record--the whole clusterfuck which modern West is today is a direct result of a complete lack of self-awareness and of operational knowledge of the outside world across the whole spectrum of activity from economics, warfare, politics, culture and history. With "historians" like Sean McMeekien West as we know it doesn't have much time left anyway.

The Beauty Is In The Eye Of The Beholder (Soft Power 4)? Some Fast Thoughts.

It is a very sensitive topic, especially in the era of the "body positivity" and erasing of the standard of feminine beauty and of femininity (these two are not always the same), and sexuality, by deranged third wave feminists and their allies from LGBT in the West. Of course women are different and of course many of them are not stunning beauties, but still, often the lack of physical "beauty" is compensated by women being truly feminine and, sometimes enormously, attractive in human sense through intellect, humor and kindness, which compensate dramatically for the alleged lack of "physical beauty". Having said all that, we, however, still have to put forth a fundamental principle of human civilization and its main goal--procreation--that women and men seek each-other, initially, primarily, not exclusively, on the physical appearance. Based on those recognizable physical attraction "traits". Everything else follows after that. We all, men and women, are initially attracted to each-other because we think that we look good for each-other. I approached my wife of 36 years initially because I found her attractive in physical sense and she started talking to me precisely because I was "cute" and was a naval cadet which added, when combined with uniform and aura of military masculinity and officer's future, to me being attractive for her. 

Children, family for more than three decades, going through hell of a life sticking together, started to unfold later, which eventually grew from a young love to something more than that--a complete kinship. As legendary Italian pop-singer and movie actor Adriano Celentano stated jokingly, when responding to the question if he ever wanted to divorce his only wife of 57 years, Claudia Mori: "Kill? Yes. Divorce? No." So, for each--its own. But, let's face it--90% of people of Earth can easily recognize a true physical beauty because it is in us genetically. Here is a peculiar fact from Spain in 2006. 

Spain Bans Overly Skinny Models from Fashion Shows

It was a first West's official admission  that a standard which was and is being pushed on the world by "fashion industry", dominated by gay "designers", was anything but beautiful or attractive. Looking at today's "trends" in modelling, one cannot fail to notice how the perception of the "beauty" is being deformed in the West away from universally accepted standard. Enough to take a look at models such as Molly Bair who herself states that she feels so beautiful, to understand that something is very wrong in the West with the perception of a beauty. Not to speak of a definite trend towards the childish look of models--a nod towards expanding pedophilia. 

Yet, one cannot cheat human nature, because this nature resists, and will continue to resist, because any normal man would rather look (and some fantasize) about a stunner Paige Spiranac, who is not just a decent professional golfer but one of the last lines of defense in the West for beauty, femininity and sexuality, than deal with ugly visions by feminists. 

It is clear to any normal human that the world where Paige Spiranac  is considered a true, stunning at that, woman is a much better place to live than in the world where Molly Bair is considered beautiful, as she is by many. It is only natural, is it? No, say Western third-wave feminists and purveyors of modern "cancel culture". Here are two sisters, yes, both are beautiful and smart, Sellner discussing the loss of femininity by Western women. Unsurprisingly, both girls are considered, in the Western system of ideological coordinates, to be conservative.

And here is the point--the West, during the Cold War 1.0, held a monopoly on female and male beauty, attractiveness, and sexuality, primarily through cinematography. This is not to say that USSR didn't have beautiful women. Far from it, many absolutely stunning women lived in USSR and some were noted in the West through cinematography. But it was West's dominance of the femininity and beauty standards, in the times of Sophia Loren, Brigitte Bardot, Elizabeth Taylor or Raquel Welch which ruled the imagery. Western woman simply won the war of perceptions in the Cold War 1.0 by bringing not just undeniable beauty and glamour to the big screens in USSR but sexuality which sorely lacked in the Soviet Union being constrained by actual conservative, if not puritan, outlook on life in which the main emphasis was on female human qualities with physical beauty being portrayed mostly in modest settings. A gigantic screen success of One Million Years B.C. in USSR was driven by Raquel Welch's outfit in the movie and, boy, was it some outfit. 

Men "objectify" women, normal women "objectify" men--this is in human nature. Both genders seek true physical beauty, which in modern West should become an exclusive "product" for upper classes, as should become meat, electricity and real art, while the masses of deplorables are being primed for this type of "beauty".

And why not? In post-modernist society nothing has standards, not even beauty or femininity. As was foreseen by Twilight Zone 60 years ago. 

Here is the part where modern Russia comes in. While West is busy eradicating any beauty today, Russian women made a comeback and they did it with a vengeance. In the times of Youtube and Instagram something is afoot. While Western view of Russian women, dating sites apart, varies, including in defining what is beautiful, many in the West agree:

People from all over the world consider Russian women beautiful or at the very least… extremely beautiful. This means that Russian women appeal to people of very different nations and ethnicities.

Some go for stupid ratings like this, others note that:

Intellectual ability is generally accepted as one of the key factors of human attractiveness that we casually call “beauty”. In this respect, Russia is among the world’s leaders. Russia was among the first countries in history to introduce women’s education. The Smolny Institute for Noble Maidens was founded in 1764, and a year later, it opened a division for maidens belonging to burgher families. Throughout the 1850–1870s, Russia was among the first countries to introduce higher education for women. 

Yes, it is not enough to be attractive, you need to have brains and project... class. Anyone can drop their clothes and parade whatever assets one has. This is not it. Here is one such example. The girl became famous, together with her team of amazingly talented voice actors, just recently when their Youtube video of making voices in taxi cab, including famous voices of GLONASS and GPS announcers went viral in Russia. Dasha Blokhina has a M.S. in Psychology but because of her very high empathy factor she eventually quit and concentrated on voice acting. You don't need to know Russian (or Japanese) to appreciate who Dasha is and, yes, her upper leap is natural and a tattoo is merely a sticker (washable) related to Japan and Anime. 

In  many respects, Dasha is an archetype of Russian beauty, hence her meteoric rise to media fame--people recognize a true beauty. This is also the type of Russia femininity which naturally emerges at the points of clashes in Russian-Western civilizational conflict. Maria Zakharova may not be the most beautiful Russian woman but she projects what many real Russian woman crave--femininity and true class, derivative of outstanding intellect. Maria's famous clarification on the question of a reporter (at around 4:45 in this video) with whom it easier to deal in diplomacy, men or women, with Maria answering: "with professionals", gives a very different perspective on Western women, who crave just power and many of who are really into the attacks on masculinity and men in general, including through the destroying a beauty and femininity.

 

In the last 15-20 years, the Western woman, once exposed through the modern media, lost her appeal as a woman. She also became tightly associated with an insane cultural agenda of Western LGBT movement and third-wave feminism's war on men. This is not to say that Russia doesn't have her own contingent of four-wheel drive feminist insane bitches, she sure does. But for a Westerner who ever gets on the streets of Russian cities it could be a cultural shock to recognize that streets are full with women of all ages who have no tattoos, are dressed well and feminine, and many of them are beautiful and many are interested in real men. Such women definitely exist in America too, but they already lost their fight and their type will be completely removed from the popular art and cinematography. Russians suddenly recognized that Russian women are not only "competitive" with Western women, they long ago recognized what treasure do they have, and many in the West recognized this too. This is a soft power in action. But then again, who said this was not coming? 

American woman, said get away
American woman, listen what I say
Don't come a-hangin' around my door
Don't wanna see your face no more
I don't need your war machines
I don't need your ghetto scenes
Coloured lights can hypnotize
Sparkle someone else's eyes
Now woman, get away from me
               American woman, mama, let me be     

The International Women's Day of March 8 is coming. In USSR/Russia it long ago lost its communist feminist meaning and long ago became a day when Russian men congratulate Russian women--girlfriends, wives, mothers, sisters--on them being women and celebrate and praise their femininity and their crucial role as...women. It is a national holiday in Russia and there will be flowers for women, everywhere. As for Galina Belyaeva whose beauty is known to Russians since 1970s. Yeah, I know it is not for simpletons, as one of the personages says in one excellent Soviet movie. 

The Russian Peace Threat by Ron Ridenour.

The Russian Peace Threat (by Ron Ridenour). 

I am not good at writing reviews for anything, unless it is some kind of military or geopolitics related matter, but Ron Ridenour’s book The Russian Peace Threat: Pentagon On Alert is one of those cases when a review must be written. A very positive review at that. Ridenour book’s title is not sarcastic, it is a reflection of a reality of the nature of the Cold War 1.0 slowly transitioning to the Cold War 2.0 as was and is seen not only from within the Soviet Union, but was seen by many people around the globe who remembered horrors of WW II and were aware of the price Soviet people paid in ridding world of Nazi scourge.

Ridenour’s book to a large extent is about it. Not surprisingly, when writing about Yuri Gagarin he stresses the horror of war Gagarin and his family, as millions upon millions of Russian families, went through. He is also not surprised with the cynicism of modern Western mass-media which on the 50^th Anniversary of Gagarin’s historic first, tried to, entirely expectedly, to downplay or ridicule achievement reducing it to merely propaganda coup. It is a well-established pattern today of US military-intelligence-media complex which goes out of its way to obfuscate or completely eliminate political, military, industrial and scientific realities of the world outside the borders of the United States and its vassals in Europe. 

Ridenour goes in depth when tying together a significance, and not just scientific but humanistic too, of Gagarin’s space flight and Revolution in Cuba which was precipitated by conditions which forced Castro revolutionaries define Cuba as “the brothel of the Western hemisphere.” One, of course, can find himself debating this point but even radically anti-communist commentators, such as National Review’s own Andrew Stuttaford had to admit that “There was, to be sure, a great deal that was wrong—badly wrong—with Cuba before Castro’s revolution.” This is an important point, once one reads through Ridenour’s excellent summary of the American activity against Cuba under the pretexts so well known by now: American exceptionalism, also recognized around the world as American imperialism. At the time of Gagarin’s flight and Cuban Revolution American Imperialism “fought” grossly exaggerated threat of Communism. 

In the end, Cuban Missile Crisis didn’t just happen as a result of the US’ anti-Cuban activity, it was precipitated by the chain of events, which today, bar some important technological difference, repeat themselves almost exactly—the United States thinking that it has the right to deploy its nuclear weapons anywhere without considering opinion of anyone. As the United States abrogating, first, ABM Treaty, then, recently, INF Treaty and now, in the words of national Security Adviser John Bolton, warning that the United States will not extend START, the pattern of recklessness remains unchanged throughout decades. Ridenour’s narrative of the events around Cuba more than 56 years ago gives an excellent insight into this self-replicating mechanism of terror and nuclear war threat. 

I cannot remain impartial to Ridenour’s book, large part of which is dedicated to a man I had a privilege to know personally, however fleetingly under existing conditions of strict military regimen, and study under his leadership and command as Superintendent of my Naval Academy in Baku, Vice-Admiral Vasily Alexandrovich Arkhipov. At the time of Cuban Missile Crisis Arkhipov was Captain 2^nd Rank, Chief of Staff of 69^th Brigade of the Submarines of the Northern Fleet and he was not known to the world at all, unlike it is today, him being credited and not just by Ron Ridenour, with saving the world then, in 1962, through his professionalism and cool head under the extreme of conditions, from nuclear holocaust. Pages dedicated to Arkhipov bore an immense personal significance for me. 

Ridenour’s documenting evolution of American Imperialism of 1960s, to its newer, much less competent and thus more dangerous modern-day version, from US unleashing the bloody war in Syria to a blatant neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine is excellent. It shows a continuity of American exceptionalist views, based, to a large degree on a complete ignorance of Russian history, culture and intentions. As one of the fathers of American “realist” (supposedly “better” than neoconservative) school of thought, Hans Morgenthau stated in 1957:     

I would say, and I have said many times before, that if the czars still reigned in Russia, that if Lenin had died of the measles at an early age, that if Stalin had never been heard of, but the power of the Soviet Union were exactly what it is today, the problem of Russia would be for us by and large what it is today. If the Russian armies stood exactly where they stand today, and if Russian technological development were what it is today, we would be by and large confronted with the same problems which confront us today.

Ridenour does an excellent job showing that a whole post WW II period for the United States was not about Marxism, Communism or any other “ism” which could and often was misconstrued as a threat—it was about unrestricted Imperialism. It was also keeping people inside and outside the US completely oblivious to the facts “on the ground” which for the last 70+ years were about the effort of the Soviet Union and now Russia to maintain peace against all odds, and that is why Russia is clear and present danger to American military-political-industrial establishment. 

Ridenour’s book is an excellent contribution to the field of real, only now maturing in the West, field of Cold War history, as well as an important contribution to the field of Russian studies and geopolitics. I highly recommend it. Get it at Amazon or at Punto Press.

Stephen Cohen Makes A Slight Mistake.

When Dr. Stephen Cohen speaks, I listen. So, I read his latest piece on pathological neocon war-mongers (most of them draft-dodgers or humanities "professors" thousands miles away from theaters of operation) in RT. It is a good piece:

Anyone who has lived through or studied the preceding forty-year Cold War will recognize the ominous echoes of its most dangerous periods, when actual war was on the horizon or a policy option. Here are only a few random but representative examples: In a March 8 Washington Post opinion article, two American professors, neither with any apparent substantive knowledge of Russia or Cold War history, warned that the Kremlin is trying “to undermine our trust in the institutions that sustain a strong nation and a strong democracy. The media, science, academia and the electoral process are all regular targets.” Decades ago, J. Edgar Hoover, the policeman of that Cold War, said the same, indeed made it an operational doctrine.

But then Doctor Cohen makes a slight mistake when states that:

But the preceding Cold War was driven by an intense ideological conflict between Soviet Communism and Western capitalism.

Here, we have to be very clear that on the West's (primarily Anglo-Saxon West) side this war was against historic Russia, not "communism" (grossly misunderstood and deliberately misinterpreted) and Russians. Hans Morgenthau was explicit in 1957, as were explicit American ideological doctrines that emphasized:

   "I would say, and I have said many times before, that if the czars still reigned in Russia, that if Lenin had died of the measles at an early age, that if Stalin had never been heard of, but the power of the Soviet Union were exactly what it is today, the problem of Russia would be for us by and large what it is today. If the Russian armies stood exactly where they stand today, and if Russian technological development were what it is today, we would be by and large confronted with the same problems which confront us today."

US problem was not with "communism", which was merely a propaganda cliche, it was with Russia and Russians as  such, as a nation.  It still is. It was and is the issue of precious bodily fluids from the get go, especially today between neocons and so called interventionist "elites". I totally get where Cohen comes from, I addressed this issue myself not for once--US "strategists" (let alone utterly corrupt media) are for the most part unqualified and not that well educated people, as last 20 years, or so, so manifestly demonstrated. The danger of these people such as Kagans, Petraeuses, or this mindless bimbo AOC is that these people are utterly unqualified for a statesmanship and, maybe with some caveat for such military "leader" as Petraeus, have no a faintest idea what real war is. So, I also have issues with calling such a pseudo-"thinker" as Robert Kagan, or coward John Bolton or anyone from this pool of ignoramuses running US foreign policy and military disasters, "warriors"--none of those people have any idea what being real warrior is and that too is a problem. As I stated not for once, I feel slightly more secure when I know that Dunford and Gerasimov talk to each-other--talking to Bolton or Pompeo is a waste of time. 

Today, observing an American wasteland of military and geopolitical thought which follows in step with complete political and ideological degeneration of the American state, one is forced to prepare for war which, in a current American case, could be unleashed by people who have no clue. 

P.S. I don't think that Dr. Cohen serves his noble cause well when references the name of Solzhenitsyn who played his, however small, role in helping to topple one of the versions of the historic Russia and maybe Dr. Cohen has to ask himself a question why the monument to this self-proclaimed "consciousness of Russia" in Moscow is under specifically setup 24/7 video surveillance. But that is a separate topic of Russian history and here I and Dr. Cohen may have different views altogether.     

Not Really The News, Actually.

Just the confirmation of what everyone with a half-brain knew all along: 

The Saudi-funded spread of Wahhabism began as a result of Western countries asking Riyadh to help counter the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told the Washington Post.Speaking to the paper, bin Salman said that Saudi Arabia's Western allies urged the country to invest in mosques and madrassas overseas during the Cold War, in an effort to prevent encroachment in Muslim countries by the Soviet Union.

Well, duh. What this "encroachment" really was no one knows but sure, let's call it that. Islamic radicalization of Fergana Valley and spread of Islamic militancy all along Soviet Middle Asian borders outside and inside in 1970s, obviously, do not count. Now, let Europe and, ahem, Minnesota (among few other places in US) enjoy the rich fruits of their activity in promoting Wahhabism and all those wonderful offsprings such as Al Qaeda, ISIS and Al Nusra, just to name a few. I think it is a healthy and long overdue process in reevaluating Soviet War in Afghanistan once one takes a look at the results of West's promoting the most radical, militant versions of Islamic religion knowing damn well that Islam, in the words of late Sam Huntington, "has bloody borders". Russia sure as hell knows this first hand.

We Have Been Through This Before, Haven't We?

Last time, the US got lucky that Soviet Union had a person at its helm who was hell bent on destroying the country and, as a consequence, shut down any serious expertise in the issue of what came to be known as SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative), aka Star Wars. Serious experts in USSR (military and scientists) desperately tried to inform Gorbachev that this SDI thing was mostly bluff and cartoons. They were ignored, Gorbachev needed an excuse, as Yakov Kedmi termed it, for meeting American "partners" in a doggy-style manner. We all know what happened next and, as usual, the United States learned all the wrong lessons from this. 

American idea of keeping a homeland completely defended from any kind of attack is understandable, it is also utterly utopian. Yet, acting both on wrong geopolitical (and historic, I may add) assumptions and out of interests of powerful military-industrial complex lobby and totally corrupt political system, US tries to repeat what she perceives her greatest triumph in the Cold War 1.0, facts and real history be damned.  So, the United States decided to: 

President Donald Trump ripped yet another page from Cold War strategy books Thursday by directing the Pentagon to look into developing a constellation of space-based sensors and interceptors that could stop missiles before they reach the United States. “We will de­stroy every type of mis­sile at­tack against any Amer­i­can tar­get, whether before or af­ter launch,” he told a crowd assembled inside the Pentagon auditorium. “When it comes to de­fend­ing Amer­ica, we will not take any chances. We will only take ac­tion.” The need for new technologies, the President said, was necessary to deal with the growing size and sophistication of missile arsenals belonging to hostile states, such as Iran, North Korea, Russia and China. In addition, he out­lined plans to install 20 additional ground-based inter­cep­tor mis­siles at Fort Greely, Alaska, a decision that was previously announced.

As they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same. While some are afraid of the arms race between the US and Russia (and China), truth is--this race never stopped. American political and intellectual top has become so sterile in terms of its, well, intellect, that the only thing it is capable of is to remain an old dog incapable of learning new tricks. This, plus a desperate desire to bury INF Treaty, which comes down to "intercepting" Iranian (LOL) missiles at Russian borders. But Deja Vu doesn't stop here. As ever confused German diplomacy starts its so familiar from 1980s, in slightly more modern arrangements, tune:

Moscow (AFP) - German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas on Friday called on Russia to destroy a controversial missile system Washington says breaches a key arms control treaty. "We believe Russia can save this treaty," Maas said after talks with Russia's top diplomat Sergei Lavrov, referring to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty (INF). "It affects our security interests in a fundamental way."

Maas sings here from the American music sheet and it is totally expected from Germany. As I wrote some time ago, it is all about a generational lag in weapon systems between US and Russia. People in Pentagon are not idiots, at least some of them, they can calculate probabilities, required forces (missiles), math expectations etc. So, they know the score:

1. No system, unless it is based on a dramatically radical new technology, based on some bizarre physical principles (no, not lasers) can intercept any of Russia's newest weapons. This is decades away. Putting something ABM in Alaska against the background of RS-28 Sarmat or Avangard which can attack from any direction (how about through Mexico), is akin to treating 4th stage aggressive cancer with aspirin. But:

2. Pouring money into some systems, which are immensely expensive, will be good for US military-industrial complex which will greatly improve employment statistics and the fountain of desirable fat bonuses and new sinecures for retiring Pentagon people will erupt with a renewed force. 

Probably, the first indication that 1980s SDI trick will not work as desired is Russian rather nonchalant reaction to all this. Obviously, Lavrov expressed regret that INF Treaty is all but over (Russians know that START will follow) and all that chit-chat, but Russian military solution is already in place and what is left is to observe in amusement how the United States will continue to bankrupt itself by "investing" into something totally useless. There is another hypothesis here too: those people in the US who, actually, tried to study Russia, they couldn't fail to notice that Russia's recent (since mid-2000s) economic breakthrough was achieved by means of revitalizing Russian military-industrial complex (MIC), which was used as locomotive of hi-tech development. This will not work in US since Russian and American MICs are genetically different and have different effect on respective economies. For starters, incidents of Russian MIC producing enormously expensive dubious systems are dramatically lower than is the case in the US. 

As per actual weapons--the reason this whole thing is utopian and wasteful is because Russia (and reportedly China) is far ahead in developing anti-satellite weapons, which will act as interceptors for any space-based weapon systems thus degrading greatly any possible response. Here is 2017 report of the Director of National Intelligence Daniel R. Coates to Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

Some new Russian and Chinese ASAT weapons, including destructive systems, will probably complete development in the next several years. Russian military strategists likely view counterspace weapons as an integral part of broader aerospace defense rearmament and are very likely pursuing a diverse suite of capabilities to affect satellites in all orbital regimes. Russian lawmakers have promoted military pursuit of ASAT missiles to strike low-Earth orbiting satellites, and Russia is testing such a weapon for eventual deployment. A Russian official also acknowledged development of an aircraft launched missile capable of destroying satellites in low-Earth orbit.

We need to be very clear on what is going on, especially after March 1, 2018 public arrival of a new paradigm in warfare--the US was put in a position which she thought she would never be in--a necessity to respond and to catch up. Destruction of Arms Control regime and attempts to replay Cold War 1.0 are such responses. Many observers, me included, noted already in 2014 that the United States was put into zugzwang, when each next move deteriorates position. Why it is so, my next book looks into these issues. In the end, nobody forced the United States to unilaterally abandon ABM Treaty in 2002, she did it completely on own volition and, may I add, wrong assumptions. And that was worse than a crime, it was a blunder. 

The Independent Is Shocked, So Is Israel. So...? (Conclusion)

So, we already identified couple of crucial facts of Russia's military development which combined "West" simply refuses to acknowledge. But even when it does, it is incapable to INTERNALIZE them--that is make them a real factor in its considerations. The reason for that is hubris, an immense one, which clouds judgement in the best case scenario. In the worst--well, it becomes the run of decapitated chicken who still thinks it's alive. In this case, in conclusion to this review of the Independent's article, we may simply state that, in the end, it is West's hubris which is the major factor in its continuous "shocks" regarding Russia's military. After all, it is "West", especially its Anglo-sphere which continuously self-proclaims itself the victor and a driving force behind everything there is in war. Enter Israel. 

I recall reading Alexander Prokhanov's interview of some major Israeli Rabbi to Prokhanov's newspaper Zavtra (Tomorrow) late 1990s--very early 2000s. It was a horrendous time in Russia. In that interview this rabbi, in full seriousness, talked about Israel helping Russia to get into the hi-tech, including military, realm. He, if my memory doesn't fail me, also mentioned something to the effect that Israeli submariners can "teach" Russian ones a thing or two. You can find this interview, I am sure, in Zavtra's archives and if the piece on submariners is not there, I still did encounter it, probably, in some other source. If it will become that crucial for discussion--I'll find it. Now, this is not to say that Israel doesn't have anything to share. On the contrary, Israel played a big role, as an example, in helping Russia in drone technology, by selling some of its drones. But there was something really bizarre in the audacity with which this rabbi was assuming that Israel's, undeniably respectable, "hi-tech" could contribute much to Russia's military and economy in general. Mind you, that this was the time (very late 1990s--early 2000s) when what is seen today by the world as "newly" resurgent Russia's military might was already in the process of either trials or transition from pure R&D into the IOC status. Just to give an example, it was then that arguably best combat helicopter in the world, Ka-50, combat tested itself to a great effect in the Second Chechen War. International Air Power Review later gave rave reviews to this helicopter. 

Advanced submarine development, albeit retarded by Yeltsin's criminal regime, still proceeded with creating new submarines and weapons--today they are afloat. Just to name a few. Even then, barely alive Russia was still capable to compete on the international arms trade market with her superb weapons ranging from advanced fighters to air defense complexes. Appearances of Russian combat jets at Farnborough or any other aircraft shows elsewhere was always a show stopper. Yet, the condescension continued unabated. And here is why I introduced this rabbi.   

I do respect Israel's military history and Israel's military successes are definitely deserved. They are worthy of studying and lessons learned of applying but, with the help of primarily US media, Israeli's military experience was advanced into the position of military absolute, forgetting completely, what was the framework of Israel's military victories. Not until Colonel Norwell De Atkine's famous article "Why Arabs Lose Wars", was  any serious attempt made in US to actually put Israel's victories in perspective. And perspective was peculiar. Israel won its victories against supremely incompetent opponents not conditioned in the least to fight modern combined arms warfare. Below is Atkine's article and it is very instructive in regards to Arab militaries, while is full of BS in assessment of the Soviet Armed Forces.

Why Arabs Lose Wars


Atkine's sentiment is echoed by Colonel Sergievsky, a former Soviet military adviser to Syrian Army in 1973, in his essay with telling title "One Must Not Fight Like This". The article was published in mid-2000s in The Digest Of Air Defense (Vestnik PVO) but, sadly, the issue since disappeared from internet. I do, however, have the PDF of the original. How Israeli's military experience started to dominate US is, of course, a whole other matter, which is from the political and ideological field, dominated for decades now by neocons, but nobody ever announced the end of the pecking order in military affairs. Let's speak in broadsides. For Israel, who does not produce own advanced combat jets, submarines, neither SSK (provided by Germany) let alone nukes, doesn't have own space program, doesn't have a lot, including a real ability to produce all of that simultaneously, it seems really bizarre to be "shocked" by anything from the nation (Russia) whose military history and accomplishments dwarf that of Israel. It especially rings true against Israel's demographics, where former Soviet/Russian citizens constitute about a quarter of Israel's population. Surely, Israel must have good understanding of Russia, but does it? Judging by the latest "shock" it has no clue. Either that or Israel really thinks it is such a big shot in military affairs. 

I remember talking to one of my American acquaintances about 7-8 years ago, the guy had M.S. in nuclear engineering and worked at the naval shipyard. I told him, Russians probably will continue to suck at producing microwave ovens and good cars (turned out I was a bit off), but, I told him, they will never stop producing world-class weapons, even under the most severe of the circumstances. IDF experienced those weapons, even in the hands of badly trained people, several times, including Wadi Saluki Battle where Hezbollah units, armed with Kornet ATGMs created very serious problems for Israel's much touted Merkava tanks, which turned out to be no match to Kornets. Kornet ATGMs went into the production in mid-1990s, precisely the time when West wrote Russia off. It will continue to do so and that what we all should expect. The reason for that is simple, and I wrote about it many times--West simply does not get Russia, period. Any voices of reason and competence in the field  will continue to be ignored or suppressed. The image of Russian primitive barbarian must be preserved at all costs, even when it builds space stations, leads the world in advanced weapon systems' design, dominates the global market of advanced nuclear power generating, even when this barbarian produces world class literature and music--all this doesn't matter to some large strata of West's in general, and Anglosphere's in particular, "elites" whose ignorance, incompetence and visceral hatred of anything Russian define them. This is not going to change soon, if ever. So prepare for more "shocks".
           

................................................