Again, Encapsulated...

 ... modern geopolitics, warfare and COFM (Correlation of Forces and Means). Who is who--you decide;)) 

It is also this...
 

Fyodor Lukyanov Is Lost (Again)...

... in the forest consisting of four trees, or four geopolitical entities, if you wish, which are US, EU, Russia and China. In his latest in RT he continues to exhibit all traits of a discredited pseudo-academic field of political "science", in Russia aka politology, and its primary folly--lack of grasp of national power. The whole piece is a typical 4! (exclamation mark being factorial, that is 4 x 3 x 2 x 1= 24) ways, combinations, four things could be rearranged. This is a typical pol-sci approach and here is what especially stands out in Lukyanov's piece. 

Thus, when the Biden administration passes the Inflation Reduction Act, putting American citizens in a much better position than Europeans, it is perfectly in the interests of the US. So? Western Europe is caught in a trap and it’s unclear how it can escape. Absolute solidarity with the US on the Russian question implies subordination to a stronger partner. That said, the EU and UK are ready for this, but it means (for objective reasons): 1) that they must bear most of the costs, and 2) they should follow a common strategic position on the other issues of principle for their patron. And the main one here is China. Beijing will be Washington’s strategic rival for decades to come. However, it’s not a threat to Western Europe, and it’s not a challenge. Indeed, cooperation with it is advantageous. But why should the big brother allow his little sidekick to help someone who is at odds with him?

Lukyanov reads here from Washington's "strategic" script, which assumes, wrongly, that China's rivalry to Washington is somehow a preordained affair. I have news for Lukyanov--US IS NOT a strategic rival to Beijing, for all my rather stand-offish attitude towards China and being very far from Beijing's fanboy. The reason the US cannot be rival to China is in a simple fact of the US economy being dwarfed by that of China, even when considering some major structural issues of Chinese economy. The only venue the US can pursue, granted that the process of national degeneration can somehow be arrested, which is a huge question onto itself, is military-political, or, in other words, power politics which AUKUS is one manifestation of. Europe, meanwhile, was always on Washington's menu since 2014. But Washington has own serious digestive problems. Huge ones. 

I doubt that Lukyanov really has a grasp of these issues both economically, technologically, not to speak of operational part of them, and he, obviously, continues to reside in 1990s when speaking about modern US. But these are decisive factors which define the dynamics of modern world and power-struggle is NOT just between the US and China, economically the United States long ago lost this competition to Beijing, but between larger Eurasia and the US--the issue which cannot be resolved in the present state of the US military which lost the arms race not to Beijing, but to Russia. And these facts negate all factorial combinations of four entities, because each of them has its own dynamics and is decisively not static. And then comes this purely military issue which is beyond the grasp of graduates of philological faculty of Moscow State University (yes, that is Lukyanov's academic background) who try to comment on geopolitics which is driven by military might. 

Per the fate of Europe. Europe is being reduced to what it always was geographically--the appendix of a huge Eurasian continental mass and so will become its culture and economy, much of which, as is the case with the US, is nothing more than assets' inflation, service sector and expenditures which, somehow, are being counted as "product", when in reality detracting from it. But then again, the principle of Ellochka Schukina who was entranced by the gold plated tea strainer in Ilf and Petrov's immortal The Twelve Chairs, seems to be the main driving factor behind Moscow pseudo-intellectual Beau Monde saturated with journos, political "scientists", economists and similar types, thinking about modern West.

It doesn't take much to impress them with outwardly shiny manifestations of once West's glory and to blind them to these facts:

But then again, can you explain a toddler what factorial is? I thought so. 

Per Merkel. Bernhard penned a good piece on this issue:

I think that Merkel is obfuscating. Her original intent with Minsk II was not to buy time to arm Ukraine. Her intent was to prevent a further war and to make peace. The argument, that it gave time for Ukraine to arm, is only made now and only to save her political ass in the current political climate. The proof for that is in what she also brings up, Nord Stream 2, which has always had her full support. Its intent was to make Germany independent from the pipelines through Ukraine and Poland. But war came before the much delayed pipeline was ready. And any realistic alternative for Germany's current position was gone after the U.S. finally blew it up. Her answer with regards to Nord Stream 2 makes no sense if she, at the same time that Nord Stream 2 was build, had intentionally prepared Ukraine for war.

Read the whole piece. Bernhard makes some valid points. But they do not change the outcome of the whole PR snafu.  

In related news: huge congrats to Croatia for outstanding performance against Brazil.   

Moscow's (Pseudo)Intellectual Parnassus Gets A Clue.

I am on record, I do not hold much of the Moscow's "think-tankdom" in high regard, because as any "geopolitical" think-tanks anywhere they are staffed (and stuffed) with good ol' boys and girls whose only claim to any expertise is that of being from the "right" Moscow families and social circle, and their social agility when swimming in the murky waters of Moscow's "intellectual" Parnassus. Fyodor Lukyanov is one of them and he is a darling, together with a number of clueless humanities educated "experts", of RT. You can take a look at Lukyanov's bio and "credentials" here. Yes, yet another Kreakl who still didn't recognize that political science is not a science and that any discussion on contemporary geopolitics without a firm grasp of real economy and military power--two fields which require way more than a degree in philology--is nothing more than a demagoguery using big words. And here is the issue. 

Mr. Lukyanov, narrating beaten to death headlines, concludes:

Fyodor Lukyanov: Russia’s role in the global economic order has turned out to be more significant than the West believed 

It is one of those "Duh" or "No Shit" moments but I want to send you back a few years ago, namely 6 years ago, and remind you that I wrote and warned on the danger of Western, and Moscow's Parnassus, delusions about real economy for more than a decade. 

I write constantly about the parallel universe in which US main-stream media live when dealing with, well, just about anything and, especially so, Russia, but some of the brain farts produced by a bunch of hacks working for US media machine do deserve to be singled out. Here is a today's pearl from Boston Globe.  

The reason I warned and countered this delusion was and remains very pragmatic--US bullying's fundamental principle is "never get to fight a serious enemy". For decades pseudo-economic Voodoo about US (and West's) actual economy, the same as about that of Russia has created a false sense of both security and entitlement on the American part. The reality that US economy and its capability are vastly smaller than was declared, while Russia' economy and its capability are vastly larger than was declared by geopolitical "experts", never occurred to primarily humanities educated "masters of discourse" on the both sides of the Atlantic and that played a crucial role in the military-economic suicide of the United States which we observe right now. Recall, 8 years ago, and I will continue to repeat that ad nauseam:

I observed for decades now a consistent pattern of the wrong assessments, loony strategies and deliberate misrepresentation (lies?) of facts coming from the top of US establishment, which since 1991 lives in the make-believe world built by the triumphalists. It is difficult to explain to the average Joe that Baseball World Series, or Superbowl "World Champions" have no relation to the World and are purely internal American affairs. That there is a huge wide world outside  and that it lives and moves not in accordance to the American narrative. Explaining to American "elite" the fact that US didn't "win" the WW II, that "winning" the Cold War came about because Soviet people simply decided to end it, that Wall Street "economy" has no relation to real economy and that real wars produce misery and destruction on a scale which is incomprehensible for the "populace" of the Washington D.C. "strategists", it is not just difficult--it is next to impossible. So, the events must run the course. But it is already clear that by failing to achieve any sensible political objectives in Ukraine and in Russia, and, by this, starting a massive global re-alignment, the United States sustained a defeat. What will be the consequences of this defeat? I hate to speculate, I just know that they are already big and that the moment of facing the reality is coming.    

I didn't write it because I wanted to exercise my abilities or, rather, lack there of, in global "forecasting" but because I simply know about real economy and technological realities of the modern world just a teeny-weeny more than all those "experts" in Russia who continue to abuse their "intellectual" sinecures and wouldn't know the difference between sine and cosine, let alone between the icebreaker and the ice maker. Today, when some of them begin to wake up to the reality that Russia's economy is not just larger, but much larger than same of Germany--I warned about this fact for years--and that, for example, the United States cannot even develop, let alone produce a completely new Main Battle Tank (MBT) and they recognize that Russia commands an immense share of critical strategic resources, people like Lukyanov begin to write trivial pieces, when the main position and task of all this Moscow "expert community" for the last 10 years should have been a firm delivery to the combined West the facts about the true state and correlations of Russia and the US CINCs (Combined Index of National Capability) and the insistence on framing the academic discussion within those proverbial Barnett's 14 points. They failed miserably, being led on the primrose path by the Wall Street virtual economy and technological "expertise" limited by the knowledge of the brands of luxury cars and iPhones. Well, I am being unjust here: they, probably, have a good expertise in good booze too. 

But then again, can you imagine explaining to those people from Moscow's "geopolitical" Parnassus that the guidance and targeting systems of cruise missiles such as 3M14 or X-101, or satellite constellations of GLONASS and Liana, among many other things, the same as economy which creates them, are the main drivers of modern geopolitics and it is them on which the whole of modern Russian diplomacy and foreign relations are based upon, not some BS pseudo-intellectual constructs about geopolitics whose discussion without real solid expertise in manufacturing, including extraction, technology and weapons is the exercise in futility and demagoguery. And here we are today, the Captain Obvious discovered for himself that Russia's "economic role" in the "global" economy is more significant. I, of course, omit here the issue of military power of Russia which rests on a massive manufacturing, including dual purpose technologies. Enough to take a look at Russia's commercial aviation and the development of even SSJ-100 New. 

But, of course, these are new iPhones which really matter, right? I am sure UK citizens will have no issues with food and heat since they will have new iPhones, assembled in Asia. It is sarcasm, of course, but when I see such "experts" as Lukyanov making discoveries of what is obvious to anyone with a good mind and serious life and industry experiences, I have nothing but contempt and sadness that those "experts" never got their academic priorities straight. But then again, I wrote three books on this issue. Recall the title of the last one.

Geopolitis In The Nutshell.

 LOL))) 

This is absolutely... perfect.

Salvo Warfare-I.

People who think that I am on some sort of a crusade against the political "science" or what passes today for "history", or rather what it becomes once some "historian" begins to offer "the range of interpretations"... they are absolutely right. These two fields of human "academic" activity--and this is not my definition, many other people used and continue to use it way before me--are the fields in which credentials are bestowed upon primarily interpretations and personal (however "justified" with sources) opinions. But in history, at least, there is some inherent knowable truth which could be found, once layer upon layer of "interpretations" will be peeled off, especially when it is done by professionals who know the subject which constitutes this layer. This is not the case with political "science" which for the last decades produced a dearth of BS and failed to predict just about anything. 

It is not surprising. Just take a look at the political "science" courses, say in Columbia University, and you will find there a hodgepodge collection of mostly "current events" theoretical BS which anyone with IQ higher than room temperature can get from media. Here is one "unit" which has some relevance to real world: DATA ANALYSIS & STATS-POL RES.

This course examines the basic methods data analysis and statistics that political scientists use in quantitative research that attempts to make causal inferences about how the political world works. The same methods apply to other kinds of problems about cause and effect relationships more generally. The course will provide students with extensive experience in analyzing data and in writing (and thus reading) research papers about testable theories and hypotheses. It will cover basic data analysis and statistical methods, from univariate and bivariate descriptive and inferential statistics through multivariate regression analysis. Computer applications will be emphasized. The course will focus largely on observational data used in cross-sectional statistical analysis, but it will consider issues of research design more broadly as well. It will assume that students have no mathematical background beyond high school algebra and no experience using computers for data analysis. 

As you can see yourself--they give them a very basic math, which later finds its other incidence, buried in the pile of purely story-telling topics such as "ISRAELI NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY, POLICY AND DECISION MAKING", such as, and you have guessed it--Game Theory. Among all this disjoint collection of "stories" about politics the most remarkable is this: THEORIES OF WAR AND PEACE.

In this course we undertake a comprehensive review of the literature on the causes of war and the conditions of peace, with a primary focus on interstate war. We focus primarily on theory and empirical research in political science but give some attention to work in other disciplines. We examine the leading theories, their key concepts and causal variables, the causal paths leading to war or to peace, and the conditions under which various outcomes are most likely to occur. We also give some attention to the degree of empirical support for various theories and hypotheses, and we look at some of the major empirical research programs on the origins and expansion of war. Our survey includes research utilizing qualitative methods, large-N quantitative methods, formal modeling, and experimental approaches. We also give considerable attention to methodological questions relating to epistemology and research design. Our primary focus, however, is on the logical coherence and analytic limitations of the theories and the kinds of research designs that might be useful in testing them. This course is designed primarily for graduate students who want to understand and contribute to the theoretical and empirical literature in political science on war, peace, and security. Students with different interests and students from other departments can also benefit from the seminar and are also welcome. Ideally, members of the seminar will have some familiarity with basic issues in international relations theory, philosophy of science, research design, and statistical methods.

Wow! So, as you can see yourself it is a feeble attempt to provide some degree of legitimacy for political "science" graduates' opinions on war, by skipping every single subject which constitutes the foundation of modern war and, as I am on record ad nauseam here, it is higher math, physics and fundamental engineering and military courses ranging from radio-electronics to weapon systems integration, to combat applications, tactics, operational art and research and many other things of which political "scientists" never heard about, not to mention have no clue that such subjects do even exist. How about the theory of survivability of the ship or structure of combat communication networks? Don't hold your breath. Those graduates get a glimpse of Theory of Operations through some statistical methods and basic probabilities course, and then move on to study what anyone with a half-brain can read up on internet in several hours. 

 

Yet, guess from three times who dominates in the modern West (especially in the US) the "discussion" on crucial issues of war and peace, military strategies and geopolitics? You bet, political "scientists" who, as I often use this expression, will not know the difference between LGBT and BTG, which is Battalion (or Brigade) Tactical Group. These are the people who continue to not only spread mostly incompetent sophomoric BS on warfare, they are the MAIN force behind shaping a discussion in the US on geopolitics and strategy, having zero competencies in what defines humanity's main tool of group-against-group survival which is groups' power (capability) and warfare. You can bet your ass also on the fact that this contingent of institutionalized ignoramuses, together with lawyers, constitute the main body of the US legislature and government officials. Recall utter embarrassing failure of all those "scientists" in 2016. How did your political "science" and "statistics" work out, eh?  

 

And here is the main point--modern warfare is complex. Extremely complex. By modern I mean already highly motorized warfare of WW II, with massive mechanized armies, supported by the vast combat aviation fleets, massive naval armadas equipped with radar and sonar clashing on different theaters of operations and producing not only catastrophic destruction and human loses but gigantic volumes of combat data and correlates which not only contributed immensely to a development of tactical and operational models but accelerated technological development of war and its deadly instruments to a breakneck speed. In 1942 a graduate of the Soviet high school or lower college could get into the accelerated artillery officer program, complete it in a few months and be sent to the front line to face Wehrmacht and its panzers. In 1985 the study of missile-artillery officer in academy (officer school) would take full 5 years (6 academic years) with graduate degree in engineering and under-graduate in military science and would involve the study of weapons systems of immense complexity. Same was and is true for naval and air force officers.

 

Today, the same is done based on immensely complex and state-of-the-art academic facilities which unify in themselves latest in weapon systems of an immense power even with conventional explosives, and warfare today is defined by extremely complex combat networks, computers, some really mind-boggling sensors, instant propagation of information, neural networks, robotics, materials which even 20 years ago seemed inconceivable. Ranges of even what would be considered tactical weapons 40 years ago grew into thousands of kilometers, decision making is assisted by AI elements and battle management systems provide not only sensor fusion but probabilistic analysis of operations. How do you fight such a war. By studying the politics of Japan and basic Game Theory with Statistics? Of course not. Political "science" is simply outclassed by several orders of magnitude by warfare and its instruments, as well as applying "the lessons" from history to modern war and geopolitics is a fool's errand because at the Battle of Lepanto they didn't have to resolve the issue of uncertainties when developing firing solution by long-range supersonic missile salvo against Carrier Battle Group at 500 kilometers. 

 

So, tactics and operations take the front seats and this is what constitutes the most important element of modern day geopolitics as we observe it through the lens of actions by nations-states or their alliances and is manifested in statements by leaders of the states, their ministers of foreign affairs, parliaments and, 99% full of shit, media. It all rests on military-economic power, period. The rest is merely an addition or iteration of what is known as Composite Index of National Capability and if I can build a better weapon and kill you with less damage to myself--this is exactly what constitutes the real national power and, as Den Xiaoping used to play with Clausewitz' famous dictum: "Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means."  You either have a weapon or you become an object (not a subject) of history and your only hope is that you don't become a meal for a hungry aggressive superpower. 

 

Late legendary Captain Wayne Hughes understood it clearly and developed an incredible sense for both strategy and evolution of weapons. Not surprisingly, Hughes was a graduate of the US Naval Academy in 1952 in the times of naval titans the scale of  Chester Nimitz, Arleigh Burke and, inevitably, later Elmo Zumwalt, who recognized, unlike many of his contemporaries, the changing nature of the (naval) warfare and was a keen observer of Admiral Gorshkov who built the Soviet Navy around missile weapon systems and that changed everything. Hughes wrote extensively about it and applied his very own Salvo Model to a new paradigm of the naval, and not only, warfare which he presented to a wider public in his famous treatise. 

Salvo Equations', unlike Osipov-Lanchester model, deal with discrete values. That is the things which you can actually count in exchange, they are not continuous, such as, for example an infantry battalion under the artillery barrage where it is possible but extremely difficult to model losses because not only the barrage could be continuous (for an hour with unknown number of shells) but depend dramatically on the design of defensive positions capable to take some degree of damage and thus save lives. In the end, even awareness and running skills of soldiers could be a factor in such an ordeal, which makes it extremely difficult to predict. Here is how Lanchester's model looks like for combat:
          

This is not a nice looking set of differential equations where coefficients a and e define the rate of NON-combat losses, b and f define the rate of losses due to fire impact on areas, c and g define the rate of losses at the front line (immediate contact) and d and h are the numbers of arriving or withdrawing reserves. You see, a hot mess. And then, of course, you cannot shoot down every single artillery shell. Not so with missiles, which you can shoot down and which are discrete by their very nature, as are ships. If you have 5 ships in your task group--that is it. This is 5 ships and that is what gives Salvo Model an elegant and easily understood form. Not in embellished form, I underscore. Embellished Salvo Equations are a bit different animal and require a serious understanding of weapons, but I will touch upon those later. Here is basic Salvo Model for two hostile forces (fleets) A and B. 

The beauty of this model is in the fact that it is not necessarily just a naval one. Missile exchange exists not only at the sea and between fleets. One can apply this model to exchange between defended base and combat air component attacking it. It is a classic missile exchange between discrete forces. We also will look into that, but for now it is clear that at this level of basic Salvo Equations one can easily "play" with them based on some assumptions and get a feel of how they work. Mathematically it is very simple and I did present some examples before elsewhere but let's play a bit. But to cool down your enthusiasm a little bit because of a seemingly simple math in this model, the math behind it is actually quite complex and salvo model is basically a tip of the iceberg and its application requires a serious tactical and operational (and engineering) knowledge which, of course, is beyond the grasp of political "scientists". 

 

Here is a simple illustration of the damage analysis for a ship. In any naval academy the course on Theory of Ship Design (Construction) and Survivability is a two full years course, which involves not only a truckload of math and naval architecture but such earthly and prole things like closing damn holes in the hull being under the attack of incoming and roaring water, or extinguishing fires while shit around you explodes and burns--believe me, this is not fun. It looks good only in the movies.

Here is a general solution for a salvo by a submarine:
 

Or here is maneuvering on board for taking salvo position:

So, this is just a minuscule part of what is needed to fully grasp what is this all about in Salvo Model, not to speak of Embellished Salvo Equations. So, don't get cocky just yet. You will have the chance to get cocky once you will follow my blog and, of course, support (those well-off among you) me on Patreon.  

 

Now to basic play. Let's assume that two forces  A and B have equal number of ships, say 5. Thus: A=5 and B=5. Let's continue with other coefficients. Say force A's$\mathrm{<span><span>\; </span><i>\alpha =3\; </i>(that<i>\; </i>is\; the\; number\; of\; well-aimed\; missiles\; fired\; by\; each\; ship\; from\; A),\; while\; the\; same\; for\; B\; will\; be </span>}$$\mathrm{\beta =4.}$$\mathrm{Now,\; the\; following:}$ a1 and b1 are what is generally known as omega($\mathrm{<i>\varpi </i>)\; which\; is\; mathematical\; expectation,\; or,\; as\; is\; stated\; in\; model,\; a\; number\; (usually\; weighted\; average)\; of\; missiles }$

$\mathrm{needed\; to\; take\; a\; ship\; out\; of\; action.\; Let\text{'}s\; say }$a1=2 and b1=1 (I use deliberately whole numbers to simplify the task) and now to $$a3 which is, basically, effectiveness of A's air defense, which is the number of missiles fired by B destroyed by A's air defense. So, say a3=2 and for B we say same effectiveness: b3=2. Now we are ready to calculate. Let's start with A's losses:

$\mathrm{ \; \Delta }A=\frac{\mathrm{(4}\times 5-2\times \mathrm{5)/}}{2}=\frac{\mathrm{(20}-\mathrm{10)/}}{2}=\frac{10}{2}=5$

$\mathrm{As\; you\; can\; see\; yourself\; A\; doesn\text{'}t\; fare\; that\; well--it\; gets\; completely\; destroyed,\; and\; loses\; all\; 5\; ships.\; But\; what\; about\; B.}$$\mathrm{Plug\; in\; your\; numbers. }A$s you can see, B didn't fare much better and got its ass handed to it by A. So, two task groups basically sunk each-other. Of course, this is a completely unrealistic scenario but it showed that B having much less "resistance" to being taken out by enemy missiles (only one per each B ship) couldn't capitalize on its advantage in a number of missiles it had over A. Force A ships simply could absorb more battle damage. If only B had better air defense or could absorb more damage. Should  $$a1=2 and b1=2, that is being the same, force B could have won this exchange over A and would have retained 2.5 ships afloat. We round it and it is 3 ships--this is victory, a bloody one, but victory nonetheless. So, here we are, with some example of how simple this basic model is. But, of course, as you may have guessed it already, the devil is in those pesky details which define modern missile combat and that is a hell of a topic, which I intent on discussing...

$$P.S. If anyone notices some stupid mistakes in calculations, please inform--it is evening and even two monitors is not enough for navigating this mambo-jumbo. Do not forget to support me on Patreon.  

$$To Be Continued... 

Primakov Doctrine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My, My, My...

The Wall Street Journal worries. To such a degree that it felt the need to write about Russia's "Checkmate" (presently also known as SU-75) and quote Rostec's big Honcho Sergey Chemezov. 

At Russia’s premier expo for military aircraft in July, Russian President Vladimir Putin inspected a prototype jet that is designed to take on more than enemy fighters. The lightweight stealth plane also is meant to cause geopolitical headaches for the U.S. The LTS Checkmate would be the world’s second single-engine fighter plane to incorporate the most sophisticated radar-evasion and command systems. The only other plane in this category, the F-35, manufactured by Lockheed Martin Corp. , is the most advanced plane in the U.S. arsenal. 

Chemezov flatly denies any geopolitical aspect to Checkmate, but he is just being polite--of course there is. While WSJ tries to put a positive spin on F-35 by making risible statements such as this:

The F-35 is in demand internationally, providing Washington a viable defense export that also helps advance U.S. security and diplomatic aims. Israel and Japan are among the 15 countries that have received the F-35 or reached agreements to buy it.

The 800-pound gorilla in the room cannot be ignored: F-35 which is a $100 million a pop combat failure loses outright on three (among very many) points:

1. It cannot fly properly, let alone supersonic, while you can bet your ass on Russian-made combat aircraft of any generation being able to fly, especially on the Izd. 30 engine with thrust vectoring. Do we need to go into discussing how Russian planes fly?

2. The issue of price. This is not even fair to compare. 

3. Let's drop this "Stealth" BS. Low or very low observability doesn't cloak you into "invisibility" bubble, especially against modern fused sensor suite on any modern combat aircraft, let alone modern AD systems. Turks can testify to it. 

So, yes, this Checkmate thing is designed to win market while providing a much better combat performance for a fraction of F-35 price. It is GEOPOLITICAL by default because it makes US clientele think twice about what they are buying from the US for their defense needs. Ask Germans, they acted geopolitically: 

Germany Doesn't Want the F-35 Stealth Fighter. The Bundestag made the announcement last week and comes as good news for the European multinational Airbus, which had affected by the coronavirus pandemic.

Germans wanted to keep manufacturing on the Continent. Plus, Germans made it patently clear in 2019 that rumors of F-35 "stealth" were grossly exaggerated. 

Stealthy no more? A German radar vendor says it tracked the F-35 jet in 2018 — from a pony farm. In the illustrious history of the F-35 fighter jet, add a pony farm outside Berlin as the place where one company claims the plane’s stealth cover was blown, writes Sebastian Sprenger for C4ISR.com.

While there are huge question regarding Europe's ability to compete across the whole spectrum of requirements for the modern warfare with the United States nominally, what one cannot deny is the fact that Europe's problems lie outside the classic nation-state (or military-political block) warfare and they are systemic in nature. Russia is not going to blow Europe to smithereens where she sells her hydrocarbons and even without it--what is Europe's value for Russia? Russians have their own problems with migration, albeit nowhere near as acute as in Europe, so, for now, at least, Europe will stick to her guns, so to speak, and will continue with her own Typhoon program. Those who will not, like Netherlands or Italy, they will have their hands twisted into buying F-35. 

But in the end, F-35 is itself a pure geopolitical tool, and always was, when one considers the US "credit history" with competition on international weapons markets. Turkey's precedent with purchasing of S-400 was a massive blow to American confidence and now India is under unstoppable pressure from the US to reverse her decision and, incidentally, a $5 billion contract with Russia for S-400s. In general, S-400, same as any updated S-300 series and other Russian air defense systems and F-35 are not "compatible" because they expose F-35 for what it is, a failure, and this is verboten in American "book". This is where it all crosses into the pure geopolitics and cash, a lot of it. This is not unique for the United States to "condition" the use of own weapons. Let me remind you: 

This all is in the open. It always was. Now, when former Soviet and Russian submariners also begin to talk, things get really complicated with the reputation of the America's weapon systems and enablers. If there is a field in which the United States really dropped the ball--it is a field of combat aviation. F-35 is a living proof of it and even massive America's spin machine and perception management "technology" cannot hide the fact of the United States losing a competition where it always claimed a leadership. In this case the appearance of a fighter which merely works for a fraction of the price of F-35, let alone being a very good combat aircraft, which, knowing Russia's propensity for producing good planes consistently, is highly probable, becomes a major geopolitical concern for the United States, because a shitload of money and prestige is at stake here. 

And the United States, certainly, doesn't know how to lose gracefully. Can you imagine a media circus when SU-57 will be offered for export, and it will be. 

P.S. For WSJ--learn the meaning of the word "advanced" when applied to warfare. Over-engineering and useless features do not apply to what makes things advanced. Combat effectiveness  does.

Wrong Framework.

Sophia Yan, evidently, is a very gifted person. She is classically trained pianist, a journalist for the Daily Telegraph, she writes on all kinds of topics and, I am sure, she is also a part-time astronaut and is working on finishing her thesis on the influence of chromatic scale on a development of the modern combat networks. Well, last two are, of course, a complete made-up crap, but then again--if a professionally trained pianist has opinions on modern geopolitics, I sure as hell, have opinion on pianists writing on modern geopolitics. But between me and Yan there is this profound ethical difference--I am not writing articles on music theory, which I don't know, nor am I trying to book my piano performances even in the local bars because I know that I suck even as the intro level 7 year old student of piano. Yan, however, thinks that she can pass her opinions on modern geopolitics easily, because she is Chinese piano player, or, to be precise a Taiwanese one. Using modern Russian political lingo she is a Kreakl--a humiliating title Russians give people from primarily artistic-journo environment who also happened to be fanatical liberals. Yan qualifies easily. 

I never made a secret out of my attitude towards China--I am NO Sinophile, plus, having very limited understanding of China I rely on opinions of professional Sinologists who also have, usually, good background in economics, history and try to stay objective. Yan is not the kind. Her piece on Friday has all the hallmarks of a paid Sinophobic "expert", an equivalent of Russian "dissidents" who are used in the West as useful idiots. Yan, in her piece titled The days of China ‘hiding and biding’ its might are officially over opens with a broadside:

The days of China ‘hiding and biding’ on the world stage are clearly now over. That maxim, espoused by Deng Xiaoping, China's leader from 1978 to 1989, advocated concealing the nation's might from the world and going about its business quietly. Today the reverse is true. Beijing’s sanctions against the UK and EU - targeting MPs, academics, even legal groups - show the regime of Xi Jinping will not tolerate dissent from anyone, anywhere. The signs of a fresh approach to critics of China, both at home and abroad, have been piling up. There was the imposition of the national security law on Hong Kong, criminalising dissent within the territory but also - ominously - said to apply globally.

Hearing about "criminalizing dissent" from a writer for an Airstrip One rag and who lives in a country where political purges and repressions are finally getting into the full swing is down right risible, but Western journalism, for the most part, was never self-aware and had taste, but this is not what attracted my attention in this boilerplate collection of anti-Chinese tropes. This is what really struck me funny in Yan's train of thought. 

The regime's tit-for-tat sanctions show China's leaders now consider themselves powerful enough to fight back against the old powers of the West – the underlying message being, ‘anything you can do, we can do too.’... So China is flexing its muscles to challenge a rules-based world order set by the West in a campaign to be treated as an equal. It plays well at home.

This is what happens when a piano player begins to wax geopolitical and instead parades own sheer ignorance and detachment from the reality "on the ground". Yan would be well advised to learn that ANY "old power of the West", be that France or Germany, or Yan's current employer in UK, economically and militarily is dwarfed by China. And I mean dwarfed like "it is not even fair". The United States, which is not "old power" but a newcomer is also much-much smaller economically than China and if not for coming to an end ability to print money and cook books it is also dwarfed by China economically, albeit not as dramatically as what is known today as Western Europe, which in terms of a combined military "might" is a second rate power in the process of a precipitous decline across all metrics which define advanced and prospering societies (or civilizations). 

Then Yan concludes:

But even if Beijing becomes increasingly isolated, its leaders might not mind - China has never set too much store in having allies and now seems to see them as a burden leading the West into decline.

I have some news for Yan, it is not only China who looks at the West as a burden and sees it declining--ask Russians. They see the West for what it is. As for China not setting too much store in having allies, Yan should study the dynamics of Russian-Chinese relations especially since Comrade Xi coming to power. Boy, there are so many things in those relations to shake Yan's universe to its very foundation that I am not sure she needs to learn them. After all, a cultural shock may affect the quality of her piano playing profoundly and not for the better. In related news, she should also learn that the a rules-based world order set by the West is over and the framework has changed so dramatically, that it takes much more than virtuoso piano playing and being a "journalist" to grasp a historic tectonic scale of changes in the world where the West, those remnants which could still be identified as the West, is yet to earn its place at the negotiating table where a real rules-based world order will be set. They may even invite Yan to play piano to entertain luminaries there, after all, I heard she is good.

P.S. For those who followed this blog you may recall this:

Also recall what I wrote 5 years ago. Now Rostislav Ischenko pens this piece few days ago--Russia of the White Man. Google Translate should help you. I write for years that Russia is also an Arc, for all Russia's problems.

Pepe Escobar, Larison And the State of Contemporary American Oraclism.

Pepe wrote a superb piece on late Zbig and what comes down to an American vast field of geopolitical (on average fraudulent) forecasts at large. In a piece symptomatically titled The Art of Being a Spectacularly Misguided Oracle, Pepe notes:

Over the years, it was always amusing to follow the heights Dr. Zbig would reach with his Russophobia. But then, slowly but surely, he was forced to revise his great expectations. And finally he must have been truly horrified that his perennial Mackinder-style geopolitical fears came to pass – beyond the wildest nightmares. Not only Washington had prevented the emergence of a “peer competitor” in Eurasia, but the competitor is now configured as a strategic partnership between Russia and China.Dr. Zbig was not exactly versed in Chinese matters. His misreading of China may be found in his classic A Geostrategy for Eurasia published in – where else – Foreign Affairs in 1997.

There was nothing unexpected in Zbig's worst nightmares becoming a reality since Zbig was not well-versed not only in Chinese matters, but Russian ones too, not to mention the fact, of which I write non-stop for years, including the latest book, modern geopolitics, or rather what is perceived under this title, has as much in common with purely geography-driven Mackinder's pseudo-science he developed in his The Geographical Pivot of History and, later Democratic Ideals and Reality, as I have genetically with white whales or aliens from planet Zoltar. Here is the deal with all this "geopolitics"-- geography as a function of ranges (distances) and landscape nowadays, say starting circa 1960s, stopped playing a defining role yielding it, finally, to a industrial-technological development of countries which overwhelmingly defines modern "geopolitics".

In Soviet/Russian public schools this "geopolitics" is being taught as a course in Geography, both physical and economic. Here is an example of economic geography exam in Russian schools. This also qualifies to be the part of yet another constituent part of multiplication of pseudo-scientific essences such as Luttwak's introduction of "geoeconomics" being a separate study, as Luttwak insists, from "geopolitics".  So, what was touted in the West as some kind of a separate study and highly vaunted expertise is nothing more than an eclectic approach to primarily an economic geography, history and economics, or those legitimate disciplines' lobotomized bastard child of political "science". And why not? In the academe which counts Queer Studies as a viable academic discipline and Ph.Ds in Gender are bestowed on  people who can barely operate with basic logic, not to speak of vast arrays of complex information, it is absolutely not surprising and only natural, that people of Zbig's or Kissinger's backgrounds would be counted as Oracles, despite them, and many others from a vast cesspool of America's 'geopolitical and political science sinecures, being constantly wrong on pretty much any issue of modern geopolitics and global balance of power. 

Oh, come on, let's face it, the only thing these pseudo-oracles could ever sell was a "reasoning" based on a complete factual BS which was and is treated as a "scientific" fact, while in reality being a figment of imagination of a class of America's fraudulent oracles, whose main task is a development of explanations of why their predictions never become a reality. Ah, those sinecures and pseudo-intellectual magazines serving as Ilf and Petrov once defined as "life-giving springs of remuneration." So, if Zbig, Fukuyama, Kissinger, Huntington or Luttwak never saw their "predictions" to pan out--don't be surprised, I never saw a successful routine appendectomy performed by a local grocery store custodian or even the best electrician from the best local company. Unless, of course, they decided to exchange their 8 years of study and internship in mdeical school for salaries of said custodian or electrician, which under modern conditions may not seem as far fetched. Some good level electricians today make a killing reaching sometimes $90 per hour, and I thought myself about doing this, but then again--I am relatively young and if I need to commit suicide, I have much better alternatives and my body will be still intact, relatively, compared to my sorry ass being turned into the pile of ash, with the only benefit being a free on-sire cremation. But I digress. 

We all need to understand the name of the game--it is wrapping an acute ignorance into the veil of seemingly legitimate and respectable "scientific" verbiage. If predictions do not pan out, who cares. Well, in the United States of the last 30 years no "geopolitical" prediction, there were many of them, panned out precisely because of the American geopolitical Beau Monde being "not versed" in the the main constituent parts of good forecasting: modern real (industrial) economy and warfare. Both require a set of knowledge and skills which are beyond the scope of whatever passes today as "education" in geopolitics in the West. It is all fine and dandy to have an excellent background in economic geography, which is a legitimate field of study, but until one understands the impact of these two on US "foreign policy", one will continue to observe such arguments as Daniel Larison tries to make when addressing a complete neocon moron with Ph.D in "public policy" such as Robert Kagan:

U.S. hegemony was an artifact of a very peculiar period in world history that will never come again, and as we move out of that period we need to adapt our foreign policy strategy accordingly. Kagan and Rasmussen are products of that period and cling desperately to it because it is what they know. They are trying to preserve a U.S. role in the world that no longer makes any sense for the world as it is.

No, Mr. Larison, despite validity of your many points, Kagan, Rassmusen et al, are not just "products of that period". This is not it, I know a truckload of people who are "products of this period", me being one of them. The reason they cling to a myth of America's hegemony is because this is THE ONLY thing which dominates America's geopolitical Parnassus infested with people who are utterly uneducated and cannot possibly grasp a scale of the technological, industrial, scientific and military advances in the last 20 years. Kagan has degree in "public policy" and his loyalties are to Israel, Rassmussen has degree in social studies and was a Prime-Minister of the country, which is smaller than the couple of southern boroughs of Moscow, or St. Petersburg. Even if to imagine that they wanted to move on, which they don't, neoconservative-liberal interventionism is now in a stage four in the United States, they can't. They do not have intellectual wherewithal to do so. Can you imagine this fat ass Kagan studying real Operational Theory or how advanced weapons are designed and produced? Come on, let's be real. Look at the modern Europe today, at its degenerate political and media class, same goes for the United States. 

We literally have "humanities-educated" class running things into the ground. As I state non-stop, I am all eyes and ears, rubbing my hands in anticipation, waiting for America's geopolitical Parnassus to produce a viable argument in favor of "learning historic lessons" from Peloponnese Wars as applied to operations of modern militaries, say in dense ECM-ECCM environment. I bet, this thing has way more profound impact on modern geopolitics, than late Zbig or Fukuyama, or Kissinger ever wrote on anything. As I say non-stop, I am not against humanities studies, they are part and parcel of classic education which we all sorely miss today among Western "elites" who are grotesquely uncultured, despite having access to an expensive Scotch and the best golf-clubs in the world. I am terrified of some "human rights" lawyer or Ph.D in "public policy" getting to the levers of a political power and trying to apply that precious little of value which was taught to him to the world which is so complex that it cannot afford anymore the class of "experts" who cannot predict their next own bowel movement, let alone the global transfiguration unfolding in a front of our own eyes. What we have today in the US is a class of people who, as Pepe correctly states, are spectacularly misguided oracles, who haven't got anything right in decades but who continue to push their own opinions and forecasts which are irredeemable both from academic-scientific and human points of view. Ignorance is not an extenuating circumstance in case of American "geopolitics", which in the last 30 years produced one failure after another thus justifying, directly or by proxy, a massive war crime a rotten Empire has committed trying to extend its self-proclaimed hegemonic life by means of robbery and violence. The accounts will be settled one way or another. But even a broken clock is right twice a day, not American geopolitical "academe".  

It Really Becomes Annoying As Hell.

I will not stop repeating it until I am dead--Russia owes nothing to anyone, period. Want something from Russia? Take a number and be nice at the window once your number is called. I also will repeat it ad nauseam--constant attempts to "analyze" anything in contemporary international relations from the position of some diplomatic chimeras of the days past should stop and as Doctor Lecter used to say Quid Pro Quo, Clarice. Or, rather, Emmanuel. This, plus overwhelming cutting edge military power--these are the only two things which matter today. No good will, no emotions, just Quid Pro Quo and recognition that behind this offer is a deadly big stick capable to ensure that if this Quo is not good enough negotiations are over and no new Quid is coming. Out of the cellar of geopolitical well-wishing come Macron's new ideas:

Russia and France have different objectives, yet both recognize the need to push back against Turkey’s expansionism, the intrusive influence of the US, and the zero-sum security architecture in Europe, which threatens stability. Emmanuel Macron has called on the European Union to reconsider policies towards Russia and improve relations. The French President's move deserves a favourable response as rapprochement is sadly now a politically bold move in the Euro-Atlantic community.France has also requested a role in establishing lasting peace in Nagorno-Karabakh. Paris approved of Turkey’s collaboration with radical militant groups in Syria, although now objects as Ankara exports the same fighters to Libya and the South Caucasus. Paris has traditionally depicted all anti-Russian Chechens as freedom fighters, albeit it now calls for greater anti-terrorism cooperation with Moscow.

The immediate question, granted there is some sort of Turkey's expansionism, is--and how does France see herself "pushing back" against everything bad for everything good in this geopolitical "combination"? Russia, as was pointed out not for once, is not going to "repatriate" those "anti-Russian Chechens", they are France's responsibility and let France deal with them. Moreover, what is France's real value in "pushing against intrusive influence of the US and zero-sum security architecture in Europe"? Can you make bees hate honey? No, really? The next stratagem, the "vision" is down right hilarious:

Macron seeks French leadership in a sovereign and strengthened EU, which does not entail including Russia in a shared European security architecture. Meanwhile, Russia has also abandoned former illusions about a Greater Europe and is now pursuing a strategic partnership with China to develop a Greater Eurasia. Keeping in mind these realities, a Russian-French partnership would be limited to mitigating and managing the dividing lines in Europe.    

No, really, ha-ha, Macron doesn't seek "leadership", what he seeks is an age old arrangement in case Germans really get all pissed off with continuous national suicide and France, as usual, will be in the way, this is when Russia comes in. Nope, this ship sailed. In fact, neither Germany nor, especially, modern France are the players of a scale which can REALLY interest Moscow in anything but markets and, in case of France, some sort of support in UNSC. "Sovereign EU" sounds like a meme, especially when having a leader such as Macron--this is down right hilarious. The next para is more than just hilarious, it is clinical, as in a psychiatric case clinical that is.

Macron is deeply critical of Russia, yet he cautioned that “pushing Russia away from Europe is a deep strategic error because we are pushing Russia either to isolation which increases the tensions, or to ally with other great powers like China”. Macron seemingly attempts to play the role of a new Kissinger that reaches out to Moscow to prevent Russia from cosying up to China.

Russians have a meme, it is really not in any way deliberately offensive, it is just a meme, about Estonians, like in being slow in recognizing a reality. Well, on the Estonian scale of being slow Macron and France, obviously, are off it and are finally discovering that not only Russia has been "pushed away" long time ago, but what is most remarkable--overwhelming majority of Russians view Europe as a hostile and creepy place and do not want to have anything in common with it. They are pretty happy with being "pushed away". I am not even talking about this BS comparison with Kissinger who not only was "sold" to the world by propaganda as a shrewd diplomat but in reality being, as is a tradition in US political life, nothing more than a second-rate thinker who was mostly in self-promotion and constructing of own myth. He was a first-rate media figure and a second-rate diplomat who is now observing some juicy fruits of American school of "diplomacy" biting whole US establishments in the ass. Basically, Kissinger is to diplomacy, what Patton is to armored warfare. If Macron sees himself as Kissinger, good luck, but geostrategic reality is such that France is not a subject in the process of shaping the global power balance. 

 

Both Paris and Berlin have been "politely" told by Moscow to go fuck themselves in regards to Nagorny Karabakh and this is the only way it is, and should be, from now on. You have power and you have goods? Make an offer, otherwise--bug off. And even in Russian-Chinese relations, as I am writing non-stop, not everything as it seems in the West. But I will touch upon it later. But there is  a reason Russia supports European conservative movements because Macron's Europe is doomed. The scale of West-Russia split is evidently still not grasped by very many in the West. They still think that it is all fun and games. It is not, and Russia's Asian vector is just the part of the puzzle--I am constantly on record: don't overestimate the role of China in Russia's geopolitical realignment. China is extremely important but she is not the only factor in Russia's geopolitical considerations. I usually agree with Patrick Armstrong on many of his conclusions but not with this one:

So is Moscow about to say it’s had enough? If so, it has somewhat of a problem. At the moment and for the foreseeable future, depending on how serious the civil disorder is after its election, the United States is the principal power in the world if for no other reason that it has far more destructive power than anyone else. Moscow must tread carefully here; cutting relations with Washington would cost more than it’s worth. London is probably lost to Moscow but Berlin, Paris and Rome are not necessarily lost. And, as they go, many other Europeans will follow. Therefore Moscow can hope that, in the reasonable near term, more normal relations with some of the principal European powers may be possible. Thus it would be a bad move to cut relations with them. 

For starters, Moscow is not impressed with American, grossly exaggerated to start with, destructive power, which is not that destructive in a conventional peer-to-peer conflict. Secondly, as I say above in this post, Russia is open for a decent offer. But, if Europe has anything to offer--let it take a number and wait for the number to be called. As for Russian-American relations, Vladimir Putin was explicit today when stating (in Russian) that: it is impossible to spoil Russian-American relations, because they are already spoiled. Can not get any clearer than that, I see no problem with "cutting relations" with Washington once one considers this simple fact that there is NOBODY to talk to at the highest political level in the United States. US is a dysfunctional state which is utterly non-agreement capable, plus, come on, let's face it--Russians know damn well both economic situation in the United States, Europe and China. Russia, of course, will maintain diplomatic and trade relations with Europeans on bilateral basis, but, honestly--the cultural shift of unprecedented historic scale in Russia have occurred. Opinions of some Moscow pseudo-intellectuals and doctrine-mongers trying to imitate intellectual activity in foreign policy field are mostly worthless, it is better to listen and watch what Putin, Lavrov, Mishustin, Belousov and Shoigu say and do in the last couple of months. 

H.G. Wells, in his book Russia in the Shadows, after visiting Russia and interviewing Lenin, described Lenin in 1920 as a "Dreamer in the Kremlin". In 1920 Russia was utterly destroyed by WW I and Civil War. By 1939 historic Russia was a premier industrial power in Europe. In 1945 Red Army hoisted the Red Banner over Reichstag. In 1957 USSR launched Sputnik, in 1961 Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space and the Soviet Union became the most educated nation in the world, especially after the devastation of WW II. For all his faults, Lenin turned out to be not just a dreamer. Macron is not in the same league, not even close, albeit I propose to apply to him the term Elysee Palace Dreamer as a term describing a person who is absolutely out of his depth and has no grasp of the reality. Memorize: Quid Pro Quo and hypersonic weapons, Quid Pro Quo and hypersonic weapons, Quid Pro Quo... 

Geopolitcal Dreams.

I am in the open for years with my position on the American geopolitical "school of thought" as being extremely weak, if not outright delusional in the last 20 years or so. It is not surprising, once one considers what kind of "scholars" from Kissinger to Fukuyama, to late Brzezinski shaped it in the last decades. US geopolitical "scholars" suffer from serious ailment which remains treatment-resistant since Vietnam and has two major traits:

1. A severe lack of awareness of own country, United States that is, its dynamics, real state of its power and its economy;

2. Chronic inability to account for military power element in shaping geopolitical reality;

Now, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) issued, yet another, grand strategy vision on how the United States needs to deal with China and, in this document, provides 22 "prescriptions" of sorts on how to handle China's rise. Ironically (I deliberately start with Conclusion) in document's Conclusion author(s) of this vision admit(s):

Some of these suggested policy proposals are familiar and have been debated in recent public discourse. Thus, prescriptive familiarity is increasingly not the problem with respect to U.S. policies toward China and Asia writ large. Rather, it is that most such efforts have seen too little connection to U.S. grand strategy, too little conceptual integration, too little policy intensity, and too little policy follow-through. As Leonardo da Vinci supposedly stressed, “I have been impressed with the urgency of doing. Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Being willing is not enough; we must do.”

Hey, how about putting this not into the Conclusion but in the Preface section. This immediately brought back Admiral Sergei Gorshkov's sardonic quote:"The main problem with Americans is that they do not follow their own doctrines." It applies fully here. Before any usage of terms such as "diplomacy", "agreements" or "policy" among many others it has to be admitted that US has no competent diplomacy as such, any agreement with United States is not worth the paper it is printed on and policy, as in sane and implementable, is not something current US "elites" are capable of developing, no matter number of allegedly serious "academic" papers on any of these issues. But since CFR IS a part of the so called "Deep State" and passes in the US as a main brain behind US so called foreign policy, it is worth the effort of looking into the "prescriptions" CFR offers to place in the foundation of the US "grand strategy" towards China. 

I neither have time nor, frankly, desire to go over all 22 of those prescriptions, so I choose only ones which are notable. Before I start, however, I need to congratulate the US "grand strategy" of 1970s through 2010s which succeeded in the largest technology and industry transfer from one country (USA) to another (PRC) in history. So, the United States has only itself to blame for building China's industrial might, while destroying own one, and turning China into global manufacturing superpower. Now, let's go. 

1. The United States should mobilize all instruments of its national power to skillfully manage its economy; modernize its basic infra-structure; reform its immigration system; reduce its entitlement spending; rehabilitate the structure and quality of its education system; and address the serious political, economic, and societal divisions within the country. The U.S. contest with China over Implementing Grand Strategy Toward China international power and influence is likely to be decades long; a prosperous and well-functioning United States is the first requirement to ensure that Washington is well positioned not to lose that competition. Nevertheless, there is no need for strategic defeatism. The United States certainly has the resources to seriously deal with its domestic weaknesses, if it has the political and societal will.

My Comment. First, I do not only not believe, I know for a fact that US public education, especially on a public school level, is done. It cannot be "reformed" because it is primarily an indoctrination tool for increasingly dysfunctional American culture with STEM education being in a state of a permanent disaster. These are not just my ideas, no. This is clearly stated here:

Some of the most challenging aspects in the manufacturing sector are recruitment and retention. In a recent manufacturing skills gap study conducted by the Manufacturing Institute and Deloitte, only one third of respondents indicated they would encourage their children to pursue a career in manufacturing.Gen Y (ages 19-33 years) respondents ranked manufacturing as their least preferred career destination. Yet once a candidate is hired, the struggle continues. 79% of executives surveyed stated it is moderate to extremely challenging to find candidates to pass screening and/or the probationary period, leaving them with employees unable to perform the work for which they were hired.While the total number of bachelor’s degrees in the U.S. has increased steadily in the last two decades, the number of STEM degrees conferred in the U.S. still pales compared to China.123In addition, the U.S. has seen an increase in students on temporary visas, many of whom would be unable to gain the security clearances needed to work in the defense ecosystem. Growth in advanced science and engineering degrees shows the U.S. graduating the largest number of doctorate recipients of any individual country, but 37% were earned by temporary visa holders125with as many 25% of STEM graduates in the U.S. being Chinese nationals      

We discussed this before. STEM is hard, drama, poetry and hi-school football are fun and easy. As I repeat ad nauseam, it is not just some basic PISA rankings which matter (US is last there among most developed nations), it is a volume and complexity of knowledge in school which student receives, which matters. And here is what Forbes writes:

How bad is the shortage of American students? According to the non-partisan National Foundation for American Policy, in 2017 foreign nationals accounted for 81% of electrical engineering majors and grad students in this country. Foreign students make up three quarters of the majors and grad students in industrial engineering; 62% in mechanical engineering; 55%, or more than half, of those studying materials and metallurgic engineering. As for computer science, the vital crucible for America’s future in areas such as cyber and AI, American students make up barely 21% of the student body.

The United States either fixes its schools, which by now is almost impossible without tearing the whole system down, or, well--no amount of money can save a system which is wound up to produce politically correct mediocrities who will find jobs only in non-productive sectors, unless they go into some trade or do try (fewer and fewer of them) to get themselves into STEM programs in the colleges and universities. I simply cannot see this happening, especially in the nation increasingly legalizing pot. Education catastrophe alone, even without considering a catastrophic de-industrialization of the United States, is serious enough argument for doubting such a wishful thinking having any base in the reality. Once REAL economies of the United States and China are compared, one gets a good feel of the abyss which separates two nations, with China's real economy dwarfing that of the United States. 

2. The United States should protect the integrity of its democratic institutions, both for the good of the nation and to offer a powerful alternative model to China’s authoritarian archetype.

My Comment. This one is easy to comment on and it shows CFR's people complete lack of contact with the reality, a global one. Should they have been decent analysts who study the world, they would have noticed by now, that using term "democratic institutions" and the United States in the same sentence is akin to using "moral" while describing a pedophile or a serial murderer. Funny, but I can see many in China still exercising some illusions on the issue of "democratic institutions", but in very many other nations of the world the United States is viewed mostly as a rogue nation and a corrupt oligarchy in the process of tearing itself apart in public. US political elites are corrupted to the core and the world at large can see proofs of that everyday in the news. I am sorry to break the news, but the United States cannot provide any "alternative model" at all. I guess if "impeachment spectacle" and elites which produce specimens such as Adam Schiff or Mike Pompeo are capable of offering "alternative models", these are not the models which will sell. 

3. The United States, in coordination with allies, should attempt to initiate an extended conversation with Vladimir Putin and the Russian government on world order and the security of Europe and Asia. Zbigniew Brzezinski, in analyzing threats to the United States, warned that “the most dangerous scenario [would be] a grand coalition of China and Russia . . . united not by ideology but by complementary grievances.” In particular, Russia would surely consider moving further into Ukraine in the event of a full-blown U.S.-China confrontation over Taiwan.

My Comment. LOL! No, really, LOL. They do not even understand that their problem IS Brzezinski and his ideas, but let's be specific here. The United States has NO geopolitical currency or resources for "extended conversation" with Vladimir Putin because Russians have an extraordinarily good idea about US actual, very limited, real power and resources, and militarily Russia is not really in the mood to discuss anything unless the United States is ready to give back what Russia wants. The US is not ready and, in fact, it is non-agreement capable. Moreover, if people from CFR didn't notice yet, Russia not only doesn't need Ukraine, Russia doesn't want it--who needs millions of freeloaders may of who, in addition, hate you? Ukraine was EU-US "operation", so let them deal and pay for this bloody mess. I know, all those US "plans" to get Russia involved directly and make Russia spend valuable strategic resources on a shithole of a country, such as Ukraine, I can only imagine when the reality started to dawn on the students of Brzezinski that all those plans were, as always, wishful thinking detached from the reality. Ukraine is a toxic asset and Russia is not going to pay for it. Plus, Russians have a good memory and Gorbachev who sought, by means of betraying historic Russia national interests, integration into West is universally hated and despised person in Russia. As they say: take a hint. Donbas, that is a separate matter.

The rest of the document is same ol', same ol' wishful thinking par excellence but also a good indicator of a profound crisis of ideas and knowledge US foreign "policy" elite finds itself in, because of arrogance, ignorance and inability to learn. In this respect, though, the fact that they try to formulate something not overtly militarily aggressive is already some progress. But, in the end, all this "grand strategy" is a classic example of too little, too late for the world in which the United States is not anymore an unquestionable (self-proclaimed) hegemon but just another great power (for now) which will have to find its peaceful place in the new world order or face further decline and fading into irrelevance. For finding itself in this position, the United States has only itself and its geopolitical dreams to blame.