Russian "Talk Shows" Are Just That ...

 ... shows--as in any talk show in the West the main task is to create a shouting match between the guests and not to find the truth. Those hosts, from Solovyov, to Skabeeva with her hubby, to others are complete hacks who have been exposed by SMO as people who are not in complete agreement with their heads and also played a significant role in promoting a 404 fifth column (ask not why RT suddenly deleted 29 articles by officially designated extremist and terrorist Tatiana Montyan who they published often) in Russia, while in reality giving a vehicle to either outright or shadow assets of SBU and other intel orgs. Enough to mention a coward and self-promoter, militarily illiterate hack like Rybar (one of the main pushers of 404 propaganda), let alone outright 404 propagandist like Yuri Podolyaka. But that is a whole other story. 

But why did I mention these Russian "talk-BS-shows"? Well, our good friend Peter Hanseler from Switzerland explains, again, why Mr. Gilbert Doctorow is NOT Russia "expert" and never was and why he gets his "opinions" primarily from such "sources" as Solovyov, Skabeeva with Popov and other similar latent pro-Western "liberal" Russian talk-show media. You can access the piece by following the link to Larry's blog. 

Dr. Doctorow from Brussels is not just anyone. He describes himself as an expert on Russia, having spent almost his entire professional life in the Soviet Union. Everyone has their own experiences and opinions based on them. But when he went so far as to compare President Putin to Gorbachev and claim that the “elites”—nota bene, without describing them—were preparing to remove Putin from office, we intervened to set the record straight. This is what happened in our article “When an ‘expert’ loses his footing.”

So, as I repeat ad nauseam--to pass judgements on issues of strategy one must have a background and a grasp of issues. This applies fully and even more so to Russia. As Sir Bernard Pares wrote about Russia 90 years ago:

"And knowledge alone is not enough without understanding, which is much more hardly won. To no country does this apply more than to Russia....This gap has to be filled, or will it cost us dear."

So, Doctorow may pretend that he has the knowledge, but he doesn't and he certainly doesn't have it, let alone has understanding, when it comes to military-political proceedings in Moscow. For that, one must have a grasp of warfare fundamentals and Russia's strategic culture, which he does not have. And Peter Hanseler makes an astute observation, when speaking about such people as Scott Ritter and Larry Johnson:

One gets the impression that Gilbert Doctorow simply envies his colleagues and attacks them—unsavory.

That is what in the foundation of Doctorow's rage. But then again, trying to go toe to toe with heroic major of the USMC and intel officer or former CIA analyst and the US State Department anti-terrorism expert ... yeah, to do so you need a really serious pedigree in national security and defense fields, which Doctorow doesn't have. And here we are ... 

Doctorow "Doctrine" ...

 ... or rather lack thereof. Here is a piece penned by people I know and who are professionals in the field (both Russia and military) and who decided to address a long list of Gilbert Doctorow's "views" on subjects (particularly the process of decision-making by military-political top of Russia) he has no background  in whatsoever, and who, to my greatest regret, is being given a credible tribune on such shows as, say, Judge Nap. 

When an «Expert» Loses his Footing. Gilbert Doctorow—self-proclaimed Russia expert—is maneuvering himself into the sidelines with unsubstantiated and confused theories.

Read the whole thing by following the link to this excellent summary. In general, this forum is one of those signs of life by European (Swiss, German, Austrian, Russian et al) intellectuals countering the copious amount of BS procured by NATO propaganda machine and by the so called "experts" trying to manipulate facts.  

Oh, Goodness!

And I thought I was the only one who had to shovel through piles of media's verbal manure trying to distill from it some droplets of sense. Nope, evidently Andrei Raevsky (aka The Saker) has the same addiction to intellectual suffering as me, because in his today's excellent piece on his site, he introduced all of us to this:

This is not a question that figures in our Western commentary and analysis, since it is universally assumed that one man, Vladimir Putin, dominates Russian political life for a good reason: his unique ability to tame the contending factions at the center of power in Russia. He is the indispensable lynchpin. However, I insist that this assumption may have become threadbare, and that there may well be a power struggle going on in the Kremlin today which Vladimir Vladimirovich no longer controls. Indeed, it appears he is receiving his script now from the stronger of the contenders around him and is not comfortable with his lines.

I suffered to the very end of Doctorow's piece on Kremlinology as a viable "science" and I was about to discount it as a typical effort to keep oneself noticeable  amidst this mega-hype of pandemic and economic crisis, until I took an interest in this line:

Mary Dejevsky, a shrewd and experienced journalist who served as foreign correspondent in Moscow of The Guardian, the next day posted the following in her Comment on my article: “Agree. especially on putin’s decline in authority – I thought his actual demeanour during nationwide broadcast looked less ‘in command’ than usual.”

So, I did my due diligence on this "shrewd and experienced journalist" and voila'--I was in awe who passes for "Russia's specialists" nowadays in Anglospehere. No, no, I know, I write about it non-stop for years that I do not even view journalism as a viable profession or education, but Mary Dejevsky who writes (or wrote) for both Independent and The Guardian was already a huge red flag and not for the lack of any serious expertise--she "reported" from USSR/Russia from 1988 to 1992, about the same time period which made Steele pass in the US as Intelligence professional with "connections" in Russia, enough to concoct the so called "Steele Dossier". But it was this piece, apart from other ones by her, which illuminates really well the mindset of Dejevsky (as well as of Doctorow, who wrote for openly Russophobic Moscow Times).

Russia's democracy activists are surely anunimpeachable cause, deserving all the moral and financial support they can get. They face all manner of obstacles. 

Just read this piece in which Dejevsky openly writes about "regime" and still suggests...ahem  direct interference n Russia's elections while praising a type of public in Russia, which, if not for the "regime" and Putin personally, long ago would have been hanging from the lamp posts in all major Russian cities (those "activists" prefer to live in a comfort of large urban agglomerations). So, Doctorow ran his "impressions" by this "journalists" and then, not suffering from excessive humbleness, concluded that: 

In light of these troubles around him, is it any wonder that the body language of Vladimir Putin during his speech on the 25^th indicated to the Russian speaking analysts among us that he did not like the script he had been given to read and was possibly losing his grip.

That was on March, 26. On April 4 this happened. 

I tried to convince myself that he looked like the man who is "losing his grip", but then I remembered that I am also a "Russian speaking analyst" and once I got a hold of myself I came to the conclusion that I would rather stick to my opinion on the matter, and this opinion is that when Putin announced what amounts to stating conditions to the United States (forget Saudis) on oil he looked surprisingly sure about his grip. I don't know what is Doctorow's agenda in this case, but something tells me that it is a cohort of "analysts" like that who really need to get a grip. Albeit, for people who continue to write for The Guardian (or Independent) I see no hope of getting it--those are utterly globalist Russophobic rags. But, at least I am happy that I am not alone suffering through non-stop rubbish in the last month or so and Saker also had to dive into the dark depths of Western ignorance and malice. I can only subscribe to every word in his conclusion:

Of course, the anti-Russian propaganda machine has an explanation. For example, it claims that the Russians are lying about everything.  There is even a psyop going on with western agents of influence impersonating Russian MDs claiming that there are thousands of hidden deaths, that Russia has no equipment and that the Russians are clueless. One previously sober-minded analyst now even claims that “Putin is loosing control“. To be totally honest, I have never in my life seen such a tsunami of nonsense, false information, unfounded rumors, and, last but certainly not least, shameless clickbaiting. For some, this crisis is clearly a chance to regain some visibility. It is shameful, really, a total disgrace: just a new form of profiteering from a crisis.

Couldn't have said better myself . 

Ahh, This Crooked Russian Genetics Again.

I always knew that I, as a Russian, was genetically inferior to inhabitants of gated communities of NYC or D.C. After all, such an authority on genetics as Mr.Clapper stated that Russians are genetically not exactly the first rate material. Now the New York Times continues a glorious American tradition of guarding own bodily fluids with yet another specialist in genetics offering his views on Russian untermensch. 

Corruption is in Russia’s DNA, as it is in Mr. Putin’s.

I think, US media are moving in the right direction by ejaculating their hatred of Russia and Russians into well-known territory (symptomatically the piece is written by German dude) of racial, genetic and other relevant inferiority issues which usually end...well we all know where and how. But never mind, I, honestly, long ago resigned myself to the idea that I am inferior in every single respect to any psychopath (many with serious mental and sexual deviations) who populate mostly US main stream media and other elites, so I don't mind. But this latest from NYT is a good opportunity to address by far more important issue than Russian genetic inferiority and this is what Gilbert Doctorow unloaded on unsuspecting us in his piece which Paul Craig Roberts utilized in his article on Vladimir Putin's...class. Doctorow starts with a wowser:

From his first days in power, Putin hoped to integrate Russia in NATO and, more generally, in the Western world. Putin was the first head of state to phone George W. Bush after the attack on the World Trade Center and generously offered substantial help, opening up Russia’s back yard in Central Asia to American forces to provide logistical support of the operation the USA would launch against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

I have huge reservations about this line of reasoning, its main weakness (well, let's leave it like this--weakness) is in the fact that it is simply not true. I would have accepted this reasoning 10-12 years ago with reservations. It doesn't work like this and, probably, in fact, most likely, wasn't working like this from the inception. After all, it is not 1999, 2001 or 2003....wait a minute, it is 2019 and Putin is on record about his paradigm shifting experience after NATO aggression against Yugoslavia. In fact, Putin's appearance in Kremlin is a direct result of that--this was in 1999. We had 20 years to adjust our views but it seems that many simply refuse to face the facts. In the end, it was Putin's Munich Speech in 2007 which started what we can observe all today and everything else after that (in reality much earlier--with anemic Russian Armed Forces starting to receive much needed cash flow in 2003-04 already, does  Doctorow know this?) is contrary to this statement that Putin "wanted to integrate into NATO". 

Counter-positioning Putin, an extremely educated man and much higher in intelligence services food chain professional than it was known previously, to a peasant crude simpleton Khrushchev is altogether mind-boggling. Yes, unlike Khrushchev, Putin is too cultured, too intelligent and too situationally aware to lower himself, and Russia who he represents, to a level of a boastful hollow political and media mediocrities from the West just because Doctorow wants, get this:

That, my friends, is the reason I say Vladimir Putin has done his and our people a disservice by not engaging in public diplomacy with the American and European peoples, by not scaring us properly so that we can come to our wits and compel our politicians and media to do likewise. 

It is mind-boggling that Putin owes it to Western peoples, according to Doctorow, a debt of scaring the shit out of them for them to mobilize. Really? How about own responsibility to do the right thing? Putin engages people of the West constantly by being an incredibly open public persona and projecting exactly what Doctorow views as a disservice: universally admired intelligence, integrity and projection of Russia's true power. Just to conclude with Doctorow recent strange string of articles, he now, in his latest, concludes:

Throughout the past 25 years a more agile and determined Russia has bested the United States and had its way in each and every energy corridor which the United States tried with might and main and dirty tricks to block.   It remains to be seen whether the same agility and skills will bring Russia victory in the coming new arms race, or whether the bludgeon of American economic strength win out.

I have news for Doctorow and I am damn sure I am correct on that: America doesn't have a bludgeon of "economic strength", especially in a military field, where even vast sums of printed money do not produce adequate capability anymore. But what do I really know about military, and Russia. 

On the Ukrainian SU-27 Crash.

But before I proceed with this sad occasion, I want to direct attention to the latest from Gilbert Doctorow who passes in US as Russia "expert" and who in his latest piece Propaganda and Posturing From All Sides... tries to pretend that he is somehow "objective" (quotation marks are intentional). In his piece we find this interesting statement:

Over the past couple of years, Russian state television has daily disseminated the view that Ukraine is one step away from economic and political collapse. This is patently untrue.

As I stated not for once and I will continue to press my point in the next book--any talk about "economy" outside the military power geopolitical framework is an exercise in pseudo-intellectual masturbation and unicorn doctrine-mongering, and that is precisely what most economists have degree in. As this patently false Doctorow's statement so vividly demonstrates. Now, to the main course.

Here is a photo of Lt. Col. Seth “Jethro” Nehring, a fighter pilot with the California Air National Guard’s 194th Fighter Squadron who was killed in Ukrainian SU-27UB crash on October 16th while flying with Ukrainian officer under the auspices of "Clear Skies" exercises. 

It is always sad to see young life (only 44 years old) gone, even when one considers that these "exercises" had zero military value but were only to demonstrate NATO "support" for Ukraine in her existential struggle with Russia, which, as we all know, loses in Ukraine a division or two every single day. But let us continue. Here is a photo of an Ukrainian pilot with whom Lt.Colonel Nehring flew that day.

This is Ukrainian Colonel Ivan Petrenko (known for bombing civilians in Donbass before LDNR, well, Russia grounded Ukrainian Air Force completely). As you can see from his face, not touched by intellect, this "pilot" was morbidly obese--a first no-no for anyone getting into the cockpit of the fighter jet. But let's move even further, the SU-27UB these two pilots were flying that day. Well, here is the data: board number 963104240 SU-27 UB was built in 1991 and since then this aircraft, which was in and out conservation a few times, get this--NEVER undergone any repairs. The only thing which was done to this 27 year old aircraft--it was repainted. Do I need to go any further in explaining what was going on? Apart from inevitable issue of US still not understanding what they got herself into in Ukraine. Another interesting note: as one of the former Ukrainian Rada MP's (Kilinkarov) stated, the US was not really trying to fly "Russian" technology against ancient Ukrainian S-300P, albeit this too was secondary objective. The main one was to study psychology of Russian pilots since Ukrainian military, in American mind, is very close psychologically to Russian one. 

I have some news for those "bright" minds in US who came to this idiotic conclusion. Putting obvious serious national psychological differences between Russians and what today passes as Ukrainian nation apart, thinking that there is a viable technological, tactical and operational similarity between Russia's state-of-the-art Air Force and esprit de corps which exists there, as Major Filipov's act of unprecedented heroism has demonstrated, and a junkyard, demoralized, utterly corrupt Ukrainian military, have to be done by absolute cretins. And here we come to Doctorow's "insight". Well, apart from the fact that leading Russian specialist in Ukraine Rostislav Ishenko would destroy Doctorow's statement in under ten minutes, and Ishenko knows Ukraine on several orders of magnitude more than Doctorow ever will, apart from objective factors of economic decay across the board in Ukraine, not to mention internal political dynamics, I have to point Mr. Doctorow's attention to the fact that Ukrainian military was capable to "exercise" with the representative of worshiped in Kiev US military in 27 year old un-repaired junk of an aircraft piloted by the guy who is obviously not fit to be a pilot both physically and, most likely, mentally is a first indicator of a pathetic state Ukrainian military is in and that is the first indicator of the actual state of Ukrainian economy and State of Ukraine as a whole. I will quote myself yet again:

Military power in humanity’s conflict-ridden history mattered, matters and will continue to matter as one of the main, if not the main, pillars on which national power rests. It remains the case that, in the modern world, first rate military power is a function of a first rate nation-state which possesses the wherewithal to have such military power. Great military power by definition is a continuation of a greatly developed, economically strong nation-state.    

I don't think Mr. Doctorow understands this crucial determinant but then again, trying to convey these things to humanities "educated" products of liberal economics is virtually impossible--it is simply beyond their grasp that the nation whose armed forces are in the state of implosion, including from desertion, drugs, alcoholism; are armed with mostly obsolete or altogether ancient weapon systems and themselves know damn well that the only strategic operation they will mount will mean their utter destruction--all this reflects quite well on the state of Ukraine than any, traditionally cooked, "statistics". So, Mr. Doctorow, Russians know the state of Ukrainian economy better than you on several order of magnitude more, especially since the catastrophic dynamics of depopulation of Ukraine was admitted by Ukraine's very own government and Russia is dealing still with masses of refuges from Ukraine, EU does this too. It is the nation whose only representation is (was) this old unmaintained Soviet-built jet fighter and fat pilot who inevitably crashed it, taking with him the life of an American pilot.  

Important Addition (10/19/18):       

The moment  I mentioned Rostislav Ishenko in this post yesterday, he published his latest precisely on Ukraine. As always, succinct and precise. It is in Russian, but I suggest using Google--it is worth reading.  
                          How Civilizations Die.