Ah, Yes.

This CIA dude decided to push the envelope. Naturally in the Foreign Policy publication--naturally, because it publishes primarily sore losers and nincompoops with minimal serious military-strategic background. This is, BTW, one of the main reasons why I am not subscribed to this rug, while maintaining subscription to NYT and WaPo tabloids. They love to wet dream and push Overton Window there in FP. 

Would the U.S. Consider Assassinating Putin? When and why intelligence agencies target foreign leaders—and how it often backfires.

Even the title is a provocation and it is expected from the guy who went so clandestine, that he lost the touch with the reality and with the grasp of influence of modern technological advancements where shrinkage of CEP (Circular Error Probable) and peculiarities of modern targeting can deliver a considerable amount of high explosives with accuracy better than Amazon Prime delivery truck. But that's how it all degenerates nowadays in the West. In some sense--this is wet dreaming and self-mediation and, for the lack of better word, lack of class which is a feature of most people who teach incompetents in degree mills for the US "elites". So, I can imagine if tomorrow Russian publication comes out with similar headline, but this time "considering" assassination of de facto already barely alive POTUS--the shitstorm in D.C. will exceed all commonly accepted metrics. But here we are--the guy pushes Overton and that's the only thing which is left for them to do. In the end, these were these guys who wanted war in Ukraine--as always, their intelligence was crap and they need to self-medicate desperately. But I have to give the credit where the credit is due--the headline certainly attracted the attention, I am sure, of FSO and FSB. And possibly SVR and GU, just in case.

What Is The Tune?

Dancing to Russia's Tune--is the title of the latest "analysis" from Foreign Policy magazine which pretends to be an expert publication on foreign policy subject and this "analysis" is nothing more than lament. As any recent laments from US media and "analysts", this piece is an exhibit A of most of American "elites" lack of any grasp of the nature of military power and of its appropriate application. It is not surprising for the environment which still continues to sincerely believe that the United States defeated Hitler in WW II and that, as some propose, was very successful in Iraq and Afghanistan. I derived (it was easy) long ago an obverse of classic Clausewitz's dictum that diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means. For people who really care about causality, that is about relation between cause and effect, it is not difficult to understand military-political dynamics in Syria. One doesn't have to be a military professional  to understand a simple fact that, apart from Syria's and Iranian efforts, it was Russia's entrance in the conflict in Syria which completely changed the balance of power there and defeated a terrorist international there. Of course, Russians were diplomatically active on Syrian "front" even before entering the conflict. But no matter how one extols, deservedly so, diplomatic abilities of Sergei Lavrov, even his virtuoso diplomacy means nothing without military force. As Russian strategic dictum goes: if you don't want to speak to Lavrov, you will speak to Shoigu. Here, what is stated by FP pundit:

Moscow’s growing diplomatic clout in the Syrian endgame has been made possible, in part, by Washington’s passivity. The Donald Trump administration has focused more on fighting the Islamic State and fending off Iran than on shaping the political future of the war-ravaged country. “Syria is an example of how U.S. diplomacy is not front and center,” one U.N. Security Council diplomat said. “The U.S. has lost ground to Russia on that issue.”

Even if the United States wanted to play a bigger role in postwar Syria, its disengagement has weakened its ability to do so, said retired Marine Gen. John Allen, the former U.S. envoy for the anti-Islamic State coalition. “In many respects, the political trajectory has been decided by the Russians,” Allen said last month. “And sadly, the United States has little capacity now to exert leadership in this process or to participate.”

The "growing Moscow's diplomatic clout" in Syria has nothing to do with "Washington's passivity". In fact, Washington was extremely active in Syria supporting and arming a variety of anti-Assad forces (including Al-Qaeda affiliates) and was not "focused" on fighting Islamic State. The "focus" description is a hilarious statement. Washington was busy with wrecking Syrian State under, what's new, completely false "assumptions". In reality, of course, the main driver behind Washington's effort was and remains mostly Israeli and Saudi interests in the region, which can not tolerate any kind of secular Arab government. US didn't lose ground diplomatically--diplomacy as such, as a civilized, peaceful negotiated firm promotion of national interests does not exist in Washington anymore. FP author, obviously, is not well-versed, despite being some "diplomatic correspondent", in the art of diplomacy, which is also a euphemism for a compromise. American so called "diplomacy" today has nothing to do with diplomacy-proper. Most American "diplomats" are trained in only one thing--to give ultimatums and blackmail. They are utterly unqualified to conduct foreign policy in civilized and sensible manner. In fact, most of them are not diplomats at all, as James Bruno described Obama's State Department in 2014:

Three-quarters of the top policy and management positions at the State Department currently are occupied by non-diplomats, mainly Democratic Party activists or liberal think tankers. “Most are competent, but must pass an ideological test to be appointed,” a former senior official who worked with Obama’s appointees at State told me. “These positions,” she added, “are handed out based on party connections and loyalty.” In the hands of these decision-makers, all major foreign policy issues are viewed through an “ideological prism as opposed to an eye toward the long-term interests of the United States.”

I may add--most of those people have not a clue about the role military power plays in international relations--such obliviousness is expected from people most of whom always were and are completely detached from any realities of the warfare and its effects. In this sense it really makes no difference what party affiliation those people have--the cancer of exceptionalism and illiteracy in war metastasized by now into most American government and media institutions. Foreign Policy magazine, once one considers a tripe it publishes regularly, or gives a tribune to such insane neocons as Max Boot, is one such institution. So, it shouldn't surprise anyone that instead of looking deep into the real reasons for, as they formulate: 

But with the United States taking a back seat in Syria, a parallel diplomatic push seems to be exactly what is taking place.

They continue to provide platitudes dressed in some media lingo reminiscent of speeches at the Communist Party Congresses without naming a single real reason for why the US foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster both for the outside world and the US itself.  The United States took a back seat because it's effort to destroy Syrian State was defeated militarily. It was defeated by doggedness and, often, heroism, of the Syrian Arab Army,which bled white for years but still offered some resistance to Jihadist armies on service of the US and its "allies" in the region. It was defeated by support of Iran and Hezbollah to Syrian government. In the end, it was decisively routed when Russia stepped in militarily and ensured that enough amount of high explosives was delivered with precision to the jihadist to reduce their numbers and capabilities in such a way that no amount of foreign "aid" will change the outcome. Judging by the latest news from the fronts--the process of removal is ongoing and is very successful.  Moreover, refusal of Saudi Arabia to support those "rebels" pretty much closes off any legitimization of Jihad in Syria. In this sense, especially after Vladimir Putin's talk on the phone with Saudi King on 21 December 2017, the endgame does indeed plays out to a  "Russian Tune". But it should be understood that this tune is not a sound of Lavrov's voice, however important, but of the Russian munitions hitting terrorist targets. The distinction is crucial precisely for the reasons of letting diplomacy not war decide the issue. In the end, if you don't want to speak to Lavrov, you will speak to Shoigu. 

 

Hysteria And Delusion

The signs of this hysteria and delusion among today's US "elites" are all over the country. Nowhere it is more apparent than in US media, including the so called "scholarly" and "professional" magazines dealing with foreign affairs and geopolitics. Late Samuel Huntington was one of the founders of the Foreign Policy magazine, which for years demonstrated a complete lack of expertise on pretty much any serious Russia-related issue but after Crimea's return back home, to Russia, in 2014 this magazine has become a panopticon of BS-pushers, hack-produced "opinion" pieces and, in general, became an openly Russophobic rag which continues to defend indefensible.

It is my long standing contention, which I can back up with facts, that US "diplomacy" today is nothing more than a collection of badly educated and uncultured people who are brainwashed with American "exceptionalism" and most of whom are not really diplomats but have degrees in political "science"--that is have no systematic knowledge of the world around them. As the review of the book by real US diplomat, James Bruno, states:

Our foreign policy is in the hands of the clueless, the self-serving and the politically corrupt. Read this book first. Then fill out papers to emigrate. The author provides a first-hand view from inside the belly of the beast of the U.S. foreign policy establishment. His insights are so spot-on that government censors have blocked out whole sections of text. The Foreign Circus will have you alternatively laughing and shaking your head. And when you read tomorrow's headlines, you'll have a better appreciation why Washington screws up.

Enter the latest opus in Foreign Policy (and Hudson Institute) by yet another hysterical and delusional hack, Peter Rough. His piece has a very promising title: The Best Way to Defeat the Islamic State and Succeed in Syria? Push Back on Putin. The whole piece is a testimony to the depth of the both, yes, hysteria and delusion of American "exceptionalists" when forced to face the reality. I will allow the readers of my blog to make their own conclusions but... But who is Peter Rough? Here is what his biography tells us:

Peter Rough is a Fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., where he researches a wide range of national security issues. Currently, he is co-leading two in-depth studies: one that examines Iran’s challenge to the American-led regional order in the Middle East and another that investigates U.S. extended deterrence in the second nuclear age. Until recently, he helped edit Hudson's journal, Current Trends in Islamist Ideology. Prior to joining Hudson, Rough collaborated with Leila Fawaz on a social history of World War I in the Middle East, A Land of Aching Hearts, published by Harvard University Press in fall 2014. A former Associate Director in the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives, he also served as Director of Research in the Office of George W. Bush, assisting the former president with his memoir, Decision Points. Rough has completed stints as a Policy Analyst at the U.S. Agency for International Development, where he served also as staff briefer to Administrator Henrietta Fore, and as an advisor to U.S. Army Special Operations Command, where he analyzed Unconventional Warfare doctrine for the Commanding General’s Strategic Initiatives Group. In 2012, he was responsible for U.S.-Russia bilateral relations as a member of the Romney for President Russia Working Group. In 2016, he served as a member of the Rubio for President Middle East Working Group. Rough began his career at the Republican National Committee specializing in political research. A proud native of Des Moines, Iowa, he holds a Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude, from The George Washington University and a Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, where he was a Cabot Corporation Scholar.
He is a native German speaker.


Isn't it a biography of a classic US humanities "educated" hack who knows everything a little bit and nothing at all? Here it is--a perfect embodiment, a portrait, of a current US faux-intellectual "elite" who not only fvcked the surrounding world up to the point of bringing it to the brink of the WW III, but screwed own country, that is US, so badly and have a stunning track record of utter failures in anything they apply their pathetic "skills" to, that the only thing which is left for them is to try to create a make-belief world where their supposed "expertise" is in demand. Evidently Rough (and his publishers), who are totally oblivious to the facts on the ground in Syria, missed the point at which they, accidentally, dropped their mask of "expertise" and "objectivity" and are openly suggesting support for Al Qaeda (and ISIS). This, of course, is apart from open lies which are in the foundation of current (and past) US Administrations' such as this:

If the president is rejecting Kerry’s counsel, the secretary of state should resign. Assad now ranks as perhaps the worst killer since Pol Pot brutalized Cambodia in the 1970s while Putin has revealed himself as an insatiable revisionist intent on exploiting American weakness. Far better for Kerry to exit the stage in a burst of honor than vainly travel the world like a modern-day Falstaff perpetually humiliated by Putin. It is past time for the U.S to end the diplomatic track and impose meaningful costs on Russia, Iran, and Assad. The future of the region and the defeat of the Islamic State depend on it.
 Come to think about it, if I were Peter Rough (or Foreign Policy editor) I would "exit the stage in a burst of honor", but sadly, meanings of such words as honor, integrity and academic honesty are unknown to likes of Rough and these "experts" will continue for now to poison the air with their hysteria, delusions and lies until are smashed by the inevitable march of history or not prosecuted at the war crimes tribunal where many of them truly belong. Unless, of course, they follow the example of their ideological father, Dr. Goebbels, and commit a suicide. Or start facing reality as, once respected by me (not anymore), Nicholas Gvozdev tries to do.

Last year, the calculation of Saudi Arabia—and by extension of the United States—was that Russia could not sustain its more assertive position in the Middle East (and other parts of the world) in light of declining energy prices, and that unsheathing the oil weapon would curb Kremlin ambitions. This was wrong. Today, it is Saudi Arabia that has begun to search for ways to firm up oil prices while Rosneft—Russia’s state oil company—declares that it has no need for capping production. Syria has not proven to be the quagmire that President Obama said it would be for Moscow. The Russia-Turkey partnership now seems to be back on track while Ankara’s ties with Washington worsen. While the Trans-Pacific Partnership, America’s signature economic initiative for Asia, is on political life support, Chinese president Xi Jinping will travel to the BRICS summit in Goa later this week to unveil ambitious proposals for free trade arrangements that bypass the West.

And while I may agree with this "Strategy" professor from Naval War College in this, his closing remarks still have me questioning his degree of the touch with the reality.

As an observer of U.S. policy, I can’t say for certain where the United States might be prepared to compromise and where it would stand firm. But U.S. leaders have to make these calls based on their assessment of U.S. values and interests combined with costs America is willing to pay. But U.S. policy will be on a firming footing once there is a salutary realization that, when it comes to the Kremlin, there are no risk-free options.
 
US policy cannot be on a "firming footing" anymore because the utter bankruptcy of US foreign policy institutions (and concepts) coupled with militant incompetency of its "think-tankdom" and so called "expert communities" is a fait accompli and what US needs is not "firming footing" for yet another military and political disaster and defeat, but a complete renewal of its political and academic elites--not complicit in creation of global chaos and bloodshed. This painful but necessary and long overdue, for national survival, process of beating addiction to perceived hegemony may start with electing Donald Trump to Oval Office. There is no guarantee that he will pursue policies which do serve real American national interests but there is a chance. The alternative to Trump leaves no chance at all and will see delusional people like Peter Rough setting US on the final approach to national suicide and with it, possibly, to a global one too. We still have a choice.

NOTE: I am still struggling with the formatting of this text, I will update links later.