... Frederick Kagan, another offspring of the politically fecund Kagan clan, which is a major contributor to the American neocon ideology, which is a euphemism for academic fraud and ignorance, penned a piece in Time magazine, which is an Exhibit A of the Kagans uncontrollable urges to spew BS any time they speak about Russia. Naturally, they know very little about Russia and American necocons are simply not good at warfare. In fact, they suck so badly that putting a lipstick on the pig of the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--brain children of the Robert Kagan and his neocon ilk from PNAC--cannot hide anymore an ugly record of strategic failure, lack of vision and, as a result, humiliating military and political defeats which culminated in the "escape from Afghanistan". Well, Frederick Kagan managed to teach military history in the USMA at West-Point. Boy, I wonder what this military "thinker" taught there. So, he concludes:
I know, Kagans hate Russian guts, it is natural for their extensive family which straddles a variety of corridors of power, academy and what passes in the US for diplomacy, having a lot of influence in D.C. But diplomats (like Vicky) or geopolitical thinkers (like Robert), or warfare professionals (like Kimberly), or military historians (like Frederick) they are not. Not even close.
The fact that Frederick is a fraud as "military historian" is this his risible conclusion:
The Russians have adapted to this grim reality by changing their tactics
to something reminiscent of the First World War or the “Methodical
Battle” doctrine of the French Army in 1940—artillery barrages destroy
everything in a given sector of the battlefield and then Russian troops
crawl forward through the ruins. But even this approach has its limits.
Russia’s supply of artillery pieces is not infinite. They have had to
concentrate artillery densely in the prioritized sectors, pulling it
away from other areas. They have drawn artillery (and tanks and other
equipment) out of ancient Soviet-era stores. And they’ve begun taking equipment out of Belarusian stocks as well—likely the last stockpiles of gear Putin can reliably get his hands on.
So, no wonder the US Army cannot win shit in the last 30 years. When you have such "professors" like Frederick, who, obviously doesn't know the subject--that is Russia's approach to modern war (and he doesn't, none of the Kagans does, including Kimberly who runs this sinecure for the retired US Army "Napoleons"--ISW), does the US really need enemies? Explaining to Frederick what modern combined arms warfare is, is an exercise in futility because he will not understand it because the person who writes such a hysterical drivel really needs to undergo his professional evaluation, because, obviously the only thing he is good at, same as most US neocons, including those from the US military, is lying and fantastical thinking. But applying "Methodical Battle" doctrine of the French Army which in 1940 successfully collapsed in 6 weeks and France was humiliated by Hitler in Compiegne, to modern Russian operation in 404. Somebody explain to this "military" historian what are modern stand-off precision weapons are and how operations are planned.
If Frederick, who is allegedly a "military historian" wants to find better examples in trying to portray Russia's war effort in 404 in the light which allows his fanatically Russophobic relatives not to have an aneurysm outright, he should have come up with better BS, or, maybe, just maybe, tried to study actual Russian military history and see for himself how Russian military thought developed from the times of Peter the Great to Brusilov (yes, yes--rolling artillery wall, his invention) in 1916, to Triandafilov, Svechin, in the end--to military leaders of the Great Patriotic War. That will spare him a lot of butt-hurt and emotional stress. Or will it? In the end, you may recall (both in my videos and here in blog) that I state constantly--if you decided to lie on matters of warfare, at least learn to lie professionally and that implies serious military knowledge, which none of the Kagans has.
In somewhat sad news, especially knowing that US Ambassador to Russia John J. Sullivan is an old school American diplomat and a reasonable man, he pleaded with Russia:
Sadly, Esteemed Ambassador Sullivan has to face the reality--Russian culture and history will be removed from the combined West and it is not Russia who will be doing it. Considering the fact, as described above, that such frauds and war criminals like Kagans and people like them--Blinken, NSA Sullivan et al--still play an important role in shaping what passes in the US for foreign policy, and understanding an existential character of the clash between Russia and the combined West which it is losing, we must recall Sergei Lavrov's characterization of modern Western elites--you cannot trust them.Difficult to disagree--there is nobody in the US to talk to.
My issue is not with this BS. Expected from Kagans' clan. My issue is with this: a star-studded Washington, DC think-tank. If, as RT claims, it is "star-studded" why don't we look at who those "stars" are. I am not going to discuss any military (lack) of expertise among Kagans (this pseudo-strategic scam is founded by Kimberley Kagan) but apart from being fanatical neocons, they not only qualify as war criminals (and we are yet discuss this issue), but have General Tommy Franks assessment of Douglas Feith as the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth(c) fully applied to Kagans in terms of warfare. So, who are those stars in this org? Let's see:
General Jack Keane (US Army, Retired), Chairman, Institute for the Study of War; President, GSI, LLC
Dr. Kimberly Kagan, Founder & President, Institute for the Study of War
The Honorable Kelly Craft, Former US Ambassador to UN and Canada
Dr. William Kristol, Director, Defending Democracy Together
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman, Senior Council, Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman, LLP
Kevin Mandia, Chief Executive Officer & Board Director, Mandiant
Jack D. McCarthy, Jr., Senior Managing Director & Founder, A&M Capital
Bruce Mosler, Chairman, Global Brokerage, Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.
General David H. Petraeus (US Army, Retired), Member, KKR & Chairman, KKR Global Institute
Dr. Warren Phillips, Lead Director, CACI International
Colonel William Roberti (US Army, Retired),Managing Director, Alvarez & Marsal
The only persons of any military background I can see here are General Petraeus, General Keane and Colonel William Roberti. I don't know who Roberti is, but there is another General on Staff of this ISW--General James Dubik. The rest of it, as is expected, a bunch of useless credentials (from Ivy League fraudulent humanities programs) loaded "scholars", many of them from Ukraine, take a gander, and people who wouldn't know the difference between LGBT and BTG. So, why don't we try to define military "stardom" in appropriate terms. Indeed, who is a real star, militarily-speaking, on what merit this "stardom" is bestowed on military people? I can tell you upfront: winning campaigns, wars. Napoleon may have been a complete ass-hole as a man, but there is no denial that he was a military genius and kicked so much ass in his life that no matter how one may not like him, there is no denial--he is a military star. Alexander Suvorov, who bears the title of generalissimo and even owns (to his name) a part of Switzerland, not to mention being a Count of Holy Roman Empire and Prince of Kingdom of Sardinia. He became a military star and got all these titles and awards not because he was a nice guy, but because he won of all his campaigns.
Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov was an overweight and one eye blind (he lost the eye in wars in Crimea) but he is world renown because this is the guy who defeated Napoleon Invasion of Russia in 1812. Is he is a star. You can bet your own ass on that, because in 1814 (he died by then) Alexander I and Russian Army triumphantly entered Paris. The spirit of Kutuzov was with Russian Army and Czar. How about Eisenhower? Well, guess who got Order of Victory from Stalin? Many complain that Ike was not this or that, but guess what--he ended up sharing a victory with likes of Zhukov, Konev, Rokossosvsky or Vasilvesky, giant military stars of truly historic proportions in their own right. And nobody can say that Ike didn't deserve it. Want to see a true military leader? Read Ike's letter before the D-Day written in case the landing fails--the man takes all personal responsibility for such a failure. This is a sign of a very big man and military leader of historic proportions. It also inspires an admiration for a man.
Is Monty a military star? Sure. So is, undeniably, Chester Nimitz. It was also ever diligent Omar Bradley who was behind many operations of the US Army in Europe in 1944-45. All this is understandable, you can even credit Erich Von Meinstein with brilliant military leadership and military art practitioner of a highest level. Even a devout Nazi Walter Model was a man of a major military talent (when at the top of his game) and has a record to back it up. I can continue to list many international military stars who left an indelible mark on military history, strategy, operational art and tactics. In their lives they were often very successful scoring major victories in campaigns or winning campaigns against the first rate peers.
Now let's take a look at ISW's "stars". We will start with General Jack Keane. The guy literally lives on FOX news as "analyst" of Russia.
The first question which pops up is this? Since when this general has become a "star". Many generals commanded many soldiers in their lives but that doesn't make them a star. It is HOW you command and what is your record which matter. And here is the point which I made above--and it is universally agreed upon--what are the campaigns which Keane won? What are his merits as battlefield leader and strategic and operational commander? Very many people in armed forces all around the world serve 37 years and even longer. I can give an example, Vice-Admiral Oleg Golubev, a graduate class of a year later than mine from our naval academy, is already 41 years in service. He is deputy commander of Northern Fleet and, most likely, its future commander. He has under his command a firepower which can wipe the United States off the map in a single salvo. Like this:
Many people serve long terms in Armed Forces all around the world. Also, very many people go through hot spots, military campaigns, operational and combat zones. But last time I checked, Vietnam, where General Keane started his career was not exactly a success. After beating the shit from a third-rate utterly incompetent and outgunned Saddam's "fourth largest in the world" Army, the US got bogged down in Iraq, destroyed shitload of real estate there and after that concluded Afghanistan War with... well, we know what. I look at General Keane's bio and still cannot find a single entry with won wars, campaigns or, at least, notable battles. Keane is, certainly, a TV star, he certainly provides a lot of talking about Russia and her Armed Forces but I doubt General Keane understands how Russian State operates and how Russian Armed Forces are integrated in it on a doctrinal level. No US General has any experience with that because no US military man, none, zilch, nada ever fought in defense of his or her homeland. It is simply a different culture which most people in the US, including current top bras, cannot grasp.
Then we begin to look at another "star", General Petraeus. I, honestly, cannot remember Petraeus for any military accomplishments other than a fucking mess in Iraq and a "brilliant" command in Afghanistan debacle. Of course, he was appointed the head of CIA but is primarily remembered for screwing Paula Broadwell. Just to give some perspective, Marshal Rokossovsky (that is one of the brightest military stars in history) was rumored (mostly false) to have a romantic extramarital affair with a famous Soviet movie actress Valentina Serova.
And while those were primarily rumors, when Stalin got a report about Rokossovsky's alleged affair and was asked (and this is not a legend, it is a fact) what are we going to do about it, Comrade Stalin? After all, people's favorite, one of the greatest military leaders etc. Not a good example, et al. Stalin, after a second of contemplation responded: "What are we going to do, what are we going to do? We are all going to envy Comrade Rokossovsky."
You may say what I am getting at? Very simple--modern United States doesn't have military stars in the top brass, because it lost all of its modern wars (with the exception of Grenada) while providing not only shameful propaganda of own accomplishments, where there were none, but covering up one humiliation after another, including utter strategic and operational ineptness of US "military stars" who lied constantly to public about losing yet another America's ill-conceived military adventure in the lands which pose zero threat to the United States. When even CIA outlet such as WaPo cannot take it anymore of this military stars' BS and has to publish this:
One has to ask the question, are these people like Keane, Petraeus and likes any good other than self-promotion and spreading BS for the sake of MIC profits? We all know the answer, not everybody just wants to say loud--no, they are not. Not only they are not good military leaders, they are ignorant ones and when I see them bloviating on Russia and Russian Armed Forces I cringe. They parade themselves as political clowns good only for lobbying of anyone's interests as long as the pay is good. Where are you campaigns and wars won? None exist.
One user posted a link to a lecture by Dr. Philip Karber to West Point Cadets in 2018 about Russia's capabilities.
Even today, four years hence this video is dated but also gives some insight in how mislead and how speculative "experts" in the US are even in a relative non-publicity of the West Point's confines. I can repeat what I repeated many times (Patrick Armstrong also says it all the time): your intel is not good, in fact, you all don't know shit about the subject you are talking about. The last excrement from ISW (what wars do they "study" there?) is a decisive proof of a complete loss of not only any situational awareness which was always shaky but a complete confused state when it comes to Russia. It is really cringe-worthy to read and watch these "stars" from the fraudulent BS narrative mongering "think-tank" who parade own ignorance, if not malice, publicly covering their real war-mongering goals with sophomoric pseudo-military psychobabble. Face the facts--you are not that good, and the US military history is dwarfed by the scale and tradition of Russia's military accomplishments which are rooted in defense of Russians' motherland and the only thing left for Keane or Petraeus is to watch and as Stalin stated: "You are all going to envy." And that's the secret to your impotent anger. That's what losers do. If RT thinks that this ISW is "star-studded", they better ask Margo Simonyan to visit Russia's Academy of General Staff--they will explain to her what real military stardom is.
