Nima, Larry Johnson and Colonel Wilkerson.

Excellent discussion. 

Nima, Colonel Wilkerson And Yours Truly.

 Live in about three hours. 

I Totally Get It...

 ... almost a desperation from Larry Wilkerson. To see your own country humiliate yourself--I totally get it. 

 

Larry Wilkerson's Most Lucid...

 ... with our dear Nima (I should be talking to Nima on Monday). And he finally admits the real, very not impressive US military capability, despite putting too much faith in US Navy's carrier battle groups which today are more liability rather than asset against any opponent with serious cruise missile capability. But invoking his conversations with his military colleagues is important, as is important remembering Ike and his speech when leaving the White House in 1961. Remarkably, my good remote friend Tom Lipscomb and I spoke about this for years it seems. Finally Larry Wilkerson talks a good talk. 

Agree, this is the worst US I've ever seen.

I Like This...

 ... because Colonel Wilkerson parades himself as an ignoramus he thinks neocons are--there is no difference. That is why it takes so much effort to explain why Mearsheimer is so ignorant. OK, read my lips--US military "education" is no good. Here is his video (Blogspot, evidently, doesn't want those videos to be published), but here is the guy, who thinks he understands the modern warfare and Russia. You cannot fix this.

 

Never In the Ballpark.

I get it, alright, it is all done with the best of the intentions. Plus, The American Conservative, despite its gaping holes in knowledge of Russia, tries to position itself as a "realist" publication, and once in a while they do produce a sound idea or two, but in general they suffer from the same ailment characteristic to most modern "intellectual" publications--a complete inadequacy of experiences past and of understanding a modern world beyond the bounds of a few popular talking points such as West's moral decay and "economy" and "diplomacy". It is a feature now, even of those who position themselves as Anglo-American "realists", or, even, people who try to find some higher moral meaning in the chaos of a contemporary Western politics. 

Anatol Lieven is a fine example of a field which I personally do not even consider a viable realm of expertise or study on any issue pertaining what we all know today as geopolitics and one would expect Lieven, who has a Ph.D in precisely this fraudulent political "science" to have issues with adequately grasping the modern day reality. Lieven is extensively quoted in the article in the said TAC by Bradley Delvin who is extremely critical of this:

Over a dozen House Republicans recently signed a letter to President Joe Biden encouraging the president to take stronger military action to help Ukraine defend itself against the possibility of further Russian intervention. While the Biden administration has not gone as far as these House Republicans would like, which is essentially impossible given an election year is just around the corner, the foreign policy establishment continues to make miscalculations that could become more than costly in the event of further escalation with Russia.   

It is all fine and dandy, and I agree that those republicans are essentially neocons and that the US Congress is a collection of primarily bruised egos and war-mongers. We shouldn't be surprised with that--it is a well-established fact. What is fascinating that while speaking about "miscalculations" and, obviously, self-defeating policies, Delvin gives a wide berth to Lieven's "interpretations", which in many respects prove without a shadow of a doubt that "miscalculations", if not delusions are as wide-spread among the so called Anglo-American "realists" as they are among neocons. I'll start with Lieven's rather wrong assessment of the situation of NS2. This is not to say that Russia doesn't care, of course she does and wants NS2 to work--it goes without saying. But Lieven thinks that:

“The biggest deterrent by far is the threat of greatly intensified sanctions,” Lieven said. “Russia is anxious about its Nord Stream pipeline to Germany. Clearly in the event of a new war with Ukraine, that simply stops and goes out the window, and there are many, many more things that the U.S. or Europe could do that could harm Russia very badly in terms of its economic well-being.”

I don't know what Lieven's qualifications are for this type of conclusions, but he obviously contradicts a number of Russian experts, not least of them Rostislav Ischenko, a former employee of Ukraine's Government and a man who is situationally aware on the issues of Ukraine and NS2 order of magnitude better than Lieven will ever be, who in unison (I am one of those) repeat the point for years, that since roughly 2016-17 and on, the sabotage of the NS2, if it succeeds, means merely a discomfort for Russia which will be overcome, while for Germany and  Europe it will be a catastrophe. I wrote so much about it for years, just type Nord Stream 2 in search bar in this blog. Moreover, I don't know how Lieven missed an obvious major shift of Russia's hydrocarbons' extraction and processing industry away from western borders towards the Far East. Everybody sees it, evidently not Lieven.

But that is not the main issue, in the end, if Europe wants to commit suicide it is not for Russia to prevent it. But Lieven decides to wax all strategic and military and says this:

“If America was planning to seriously prepare for a ground war with Russia, it would have to re-deploy tens or hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops to Europe with full air cover, and station them in European countries, which might very well not be willing to receive them,” Lieven told TAC. “In addition, this would mean either preparing to fight a war of two fronts simultaneously with China and Russia, because if the United States goes to war with Russia, there can be no doubt whatsoever that China would move to take Taiwan the next day, and the U.S. would have to either fight on two fronts, give up on one front, or lose on both fronts.”

I deliberately highlight and underline what Liven states on the size of the force the United States will need to fight a "ground war" with Russia.  It is not a detail which could be attributed to my nit-picking. It is not, it is very serious when a person who is viewed by many as an "expert" makes such a gaffe. Of course, I don't know WHY the United States will fight a "ground war" with Russia, I presume in Ukraine, but Lieven better ask Andrew Bacevich, his boss in Quincy Institute, and a former cadre officer (Colonel) of the US Army with combat experience. Maybe, I am not saying it will happen with 100% probability, he explains to Lieven what force will be needed to "fight" Russia near Russia's borders. 

Of course, a lot depends on HOW the victory will be defined by the US, but judging by Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan (among many others) it could be defined anywhere between total and partial defeats inflicted by enemies on the US. Russia, however, is a bit different case here, EVEN if we assume that the US will not escalate to a nuclear threshold after a week or two of fighting this "ground war". Even if we assume that both sides do not use nukes, be them tactical or strategic, the purely conventional "ground war" against Russia in Ukraine will require at least one million of combat troops on the American side, granted Russia will even allow those to be shipped to Europe. I am, however, not 100% positive on the "cut off" number of the US troops (it could be 200,000 or somewhere near 400,000) concentrating in Europe before Russia will blow to smithereens most of the ports capable to receive US transports and then simply destroy airfields with whatever will be there. 

I wrote about those wet dreams by US a few years ago. There, Ochmanek, evidently, was pulling numbers, pardon my French, out of his ass, still being enamored by a turkey shoot of a backward Iraqi Army. But exactly two years later he dramatically, to his credit, changed his tune and admitted:

We lose a lot of people. We lose a lot of equipment. We usually fail to achieve our objective of preventing aggression by the adversary,” RAND analyst David Ochmanek told a security conference on Thursday. “In our games, when we fight Russia and China, blue gets its ass handed to it.”

Unsurprisingly, those admissions came on the heels of Vladimir Putin's address to Federal Assembly on 1March 2018 whose historic significance many people still cannot grasp. So, yes, million(s) of US (NATO) combat troops if NATO decides to commit suicide conventionally and see Washington and European Capitals' government quarters in ruins. There is no worse than some Ivy League or Oxford Ph.D in political "science" beginning to wax military and "miscalculating" by order of magnitude on the scale of force and, hence, slaughterhouse which will unfold if the US decides to fight a ground war with a "peer" and not some illiterate Arab soldier or Taliban. This is not a "miscalculation, it is a tour de force of military ignorance which defines modern Western politicum be they from "realist" wing or the neocon one. They better listen to this, again, between 7:00 and 16:00 minutes and see reactions of his political "science" interlocutors. 

I will elaborate on the required force when speaking on the Salvo Model and why even million plus troops even within purely conventional scenario in Ukraine will not prevent NATO from sustaining catastrophic defeat accompanied by catastrophic losses in people and in materiel. I am not even going to discuss mobilization policies and measures of Russia, of which Lieven has very little, if any, understanding. But even Wilkerson fails to grasp what real modern conventional war is--he can't, US never fought a peer since 1945 on the ground successfully without several overwhelming advantages in technology. Well... even speaking in generalities has to have a well defined and competent point, which at least provides a ballpark accuracy to a point one wants to get across with whatever intentions.   

P.S. Wilkerson spoke about "ultimately winning", he really needs to refresh his memory on American wars of the 20th century. 

Ohh, Goody...

Ok, delusional--I get it. But this guy who did two tours in Afghanistan and Iraq evidently learned zero there, I mean real war--not "triumphant" COIN in those countries. The guy is a lawyer by education and a darling of a "patriotic" media in US. He has issues with real operations and strategy (it is expected from people with "degree" in Law and Government) and assessing, at least, the size of force required to actually win, that is to say occupy Iran. Hence:

US Republican Senator Tom Cotton is facing severe criticism from the public after bombastically claiming that the US would win a war against Iran in just “two strikes.”While speaking to Margaret Hoover for the aptly named show ‘Firing Line,’ the Arkansas senator said a war with Iran would not drag on for decades like the failed war with its neighbor, Iraq. Instead, he claimed it would end after the “first strike and last strike.”

Judging by the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran war will be a "cakewalk", yes, yes--I would love to see Mr.Cotton, who accidentally is a US GOP Senator, "lead" some formation (will he plan operation?) against "defeated" Iran forces say in Mazandaran or Talysh Mountains. While planning for it, Cotton may take a look at Google maps and review Iran's terrain, you know--to get an impression on how he, Cotton, will fight in a country with 80 million population and fairly competent armed forces, not to mention, I am sure, a partizan (COIN) war which will be unleashed in Iran against the invaders, which would make Afghanistan a relaxed stroll in the park in comparison. Of course, there is always the Air War, that is bombing Iran from the air but this too will create such a global shitstorm that I do not even want to contemplate it now. 

Now, back to this possible land war in Iran. I hear all the time--but what about Russia. Well, Russia will not allow the United States to enter Russia's Caspian underbelly, unless Russia is ready to provide for the United States a Vietnam 2.0 (probably worse) and she is ready to do so if push comes to shove. People somehow miss this obvious fact that getting the United States into the death trap of Iran's ground war, with Russia having all necessary lines of communications opened through Azerbaijan and Caspian Sea to resupply Iranian resistance if the United States decides to sign a death sentence to herself, will be able to make such a war a nightmare. This, of course, if such a war is unleashed. Bolton, certainly, dreams about it. Here is Colonel Wilkerson explaining who people in current Administration are, especially Bolton:

    

Cotton is made of the same human material as Bolton or Pompeo, and that means he is incompetent. In the end, Russia will, as always, exercise and exhaust all diplomatic options first to diffuse situation and to prevent the war. If, however, the war starts, and it may, considering already not very healthy state of the American economy and society, throw the United States into a massive turmoil, Russia will make sure that Iran has instruments for defending its sovereignty. After all, it is in Russia's own interests too. In this case, Russia will engage. And then, of course, there is an issue of Azerbaijan and a large Azeri population of Iran--three times larger than that of Azerbaijan proper. 

In general, Mr. Cotton, speaks about the area he has no clue about in any political, geographic, military or cultural senses but that is what American "elite" today is--a collection of militant ignoramuses. As Larry Wilkerson describes his conflict with Bolton, as mustached coward told Wilkerson: "I do policy, you do war." How the draft dodger and lawyer can do military policy is a mystery behind seven locks, but my suggestion to Cotton (I am sure it is within his power)--to stop talking on subjects he has no clue about, forget about whatever he remembers from Iraq and Afghanistan, and try to enroll into some REAL military history courses in US Army War College and maybe attend Leavenworth, US Army Command and General Staff College--to pick up few professional facts about possible combined arms operations in Iran. I know, I know--a very long shot--but hope springs eternal.

Glaziev And Colonel Wilkerson About The Same.

Famous Russian economist and one of the advisers to President Putin Sergei Glaziev gave today a large interview to a famous Russian portal Vzglyad . 

Russia For The United States Is Another Link In The Chain Of Chaos.  

While interview is in Russian, capabilities of Google Translate will be enough to give a good grasp of what Glaziev is saying.  I will limit myself only to one of his several theses:

  

Объективно Америка Китаю проигрывает конкуренцию. Я бы сказал, что экономическая схватка за лидерство уже состоялась. Китай уже победил в смысле формирования нового глобального центра экономического развития. Вместе с Индией, Индокитаем и, возможно, с Японией, которая тоже к этому ядру примкнет, новый центр уже сформирован.

Американцы проиграли войну экономическую, но не хотят смириться с тем, что мир изменился, их модель либеральной глобализации исчерпала себя. Мир заинтересован в модели сотрудничества с безусловным доминированием международного права и взаимных обязательств.

Translation: Objectively, America is losing competition to China. I would say that economic clash for leadership has happened already. China won in a sense of formation of a new global center of economic development. Together with India, Indochina and, possibly, Japan which will join this new core, the new center is already formed. Americans lost economic war but do not want to come to terms with the fact that the world has changed, American model of liberal globalization completely exhausted itself. The world is interested in the cooperation model with unconditional domination of the international law and mutual obligations.   

Glaziev is unequivocal in stating that missile attack on Syria was a message to Russia. I do agree with Glaziev. Now comes this very interesting interview of Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson on April 7th:

   

In which he makes a number of very interesting and well-informed statements, among which his statement (starting at 13:50) about the danger of McMaster and Mattis and his desire for "going out more slowly than precipitously" echo very much what Glaziev says. In the end, Wilkerson, being a smart and principled, and well-connected, man understands the trend very well. United  States is fading and here is a conundrum:

1. If United States fades "slowly" and in an organized fashion she will not lose the status of superpower and will remain an extremely influential actor of the real (not neocon contrived) new world order, just one among other superpowers;

2. Precipitous, as Colonel Wilkerson characterizes it, that is "power" scenario of "fading" may result:

a) In the worst case scenario: US unleashing a thermonuclear           war with all horrendous consequences globally and for the US herself.    

b) Conventional conflict, which, as Publius Tacitus observes at Colonel Lang's famous blog:

If Russia decides to call our bluff and escalate things Trump will likely preside over a public humiliation that will explode America's military delusions of grandeur.

The good news here, however, is the fact that Russia's MO is unchanged--Russia will always try to avoid war, that is until the war becomes inevitable. Russia will call bluff only when it warrants it. This position is also a position of strength but also of vulnerability, since the good ol' boys (and girls) from D.C. are not bound, as latest events show, by knowledge, understanding of the warfare, in the end, by simple human decency. I do not want to speculate now on the mindset of people such as McMaster or Mattis (I can, and fact is, I can back some of my conclusions with facts) but it is becoming exceedingly clear that Washington's obsession with power expressed through military means is a constant sublimation of internal weakness. This is apart from US being de facto an Israel's army.

I am intent on buying McMaster's "Dereliction Of Duty" just to get a "feel" of his mind (I am long past the point when Vietnam War interests me) but based on the totality of facts of the last several months it is absolutely clear that US does think that she can clear Russia away, including  from the path towards some form of confrontation with China. If McMaster, who seems now emerging as a big wig in terms of decisions on applications of  military power, thinks that he is ready to face a world drastically different from what he ever encountered, I think he will have to get ready at  some point of time write "Dereliction Of Duty-II"--a favorite "stab in the back" military cliche'. Meanwhile, Russia apparently continues on clearing jihadists from Syria and the last I heard "stick and carrots" doctrine of foreign policy so loved in D.C. is not only obsolete, it is dead. As for Trump himself, well, no better description is possible than in Greg Johnson's superb piece at Unz Review, to which yours truly was invited to contribute by Ron Unz.