On A LIghter Note))

I think this report is now in wide circulation in Washington;)) 

On a more serious note: Russians openly state now (Alexei Leonkov) that this whole "counter-offensive" clusterfuck was specifically Mark Milley's concept and he supervised it. Mind you, this was Chairman of JCS--this is everything you need to know about the professional level of the US top brass. Pass the blank sheets of butt-hurt report around to be filled. That explains why Milley turned out to be a sanctimonious fool who dreamed about "cutting throats" of those Russians. Any Russian officer stating that he wants "to cut throats" of American servicemen would be NSSed (Inadequacy to Service State--the last warning before being dishonorably discharged). I guess you cannot buy class for sore losers.

Define Win.

 LOL, didn't we hear this before, with Bill Clinton. 

On if Ukraine can win 

“That depends on what you mean by the word ‘win.’” 

I have news for Milley--"win" is achieving political objectives of the war. This is the ONLY definition. Key political objective of SMO for Russia is annihilation of 404 as NATO stooge and a removal of the Kiev regime and its sponsors. This is tantamount to annihilation of 404 as such and Russia is "brutally proficient" (quoting NYT, I believe) in achieving these objectives which imply annihilation of VSU. So, no amount of semantics can hide a clusterfuck at the top of military and political levels in the US. Only moron could believe Ukie "success" at Kharkov last year and only a graduate of Ivy League humanities program believes that territory as such means much in modern war. Accidentally, Russians simply withdrew from around Kharkov in 2022 because saw no military sense in expending resources on it. 

Now, Milley follows the path of many other US JCSs and military leaders who managed to lose every single war they ever fought, because they never, quoting Vladimir Lenin, "studied warfare in the most realistic way". And don't tell me that I didn't warn about it--I did. And here we are with this infamous Bill's request: "define what word "is" is." I, meanwhile, off to eating shawarma. Should be at Patriot Park on Tuesday. 

"Joint Vision", LOL))

Mark Milley, leaving his post (and because of that) suddenly recognizes the fact of which I wrote for years--JCS is not really up for such a complex task as planning and fighting a REAL war. Milley went for a jugular and went for offering de facto... Russian model of "harmonization of services" and that created an outcry from grifters from Pentagon. 

Milley’s case for inter-service harmonization is, more specifically, a case for a wholly joint approach to doctrinal, technological and strategic development. It rests not upon new technology, but on technology that came into being during the Cold War. Milley’s point of departure is AirLand Battle, the doctrine that assisted the flowering of operational theory in U.S. military practice. Milley’s criticism of AirLand Battle is that it was insufficiently joint — it never included a naval role, nor did it delineate properly between aerial and ground responsibility for long-range fires. This criticism is telling in that Milley’s argument does not actually rest upon the new technologies he mentions. Rather, it rests on the assumption that the greatest change in modern warfare in the last century is the development of jointness itself, embodied in an empowered chairman and the centralization of force design and doctrinal development in the Joint Staff.  

Oh boy, Seth Cropsey who "served" as a middle level bureaucrat in several administrations as a conduit for incompetent neocon "way of war" is really hurt by the de facto admission by Milley that this whole "Air Land Battle" and JCS structure is designed to "fight" 5 year old kids in the sand box. SMO exposed completely this "flowering operational theory" (LOL, I am still laughing))) as nothing more than PR BS not designed for fighting any serious enemy. Especially the one which actually has world-class air defense, air force and a dramatic advantage in high precision and stand-off weaponry supported by advanced ISR. 

But the fact that Milley essentially calls for the US equivalent of General Staff butt-hurt Cropsey really badly. To the point of this:

Centralizing force design through a “future jointness czar” is not strategic wisdom — it is hubristic, bureaucratic policymaking. The danger is that the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the next Secretary of Defense, are too blinded by their conviction in the arc of technological change that they commit the U.S. military to the wrong transformational program. Jointness is useful in creating a military force whose cooperation in training multiplies effectiveness in combat. But as the author of force design and doctrine for all the military services, it would be a disaster to trade experience for “harmonization.” 

I have news for Cropsey--America's war "experience" within existing structure and what passes in the US for "doctrine" and "joint vision" is one of a sequence of losses of wars and I do not even talk about US Armed Forces losing not just wars but the technological arms race--the fact Cropsey cannot wrap his brain around. But Cropsey shouldn't worry--IF this transition even takes place it will not succeed, because the US has no experience of the warfare of such scope and scale as SMO, not to speak of hundreds of years of the evolution of the General Staff which Russia has. Pentagon exists as a branch of the US military-industrial-media complex and is not designed to fight real wars. 

But then again, I am on record: strategic planning is what Russian General Staff does and it has an incredibly good intel collection and strategic analytical structures (GRU) of its own, not to mention dedicated own Academy of the General Staff, which allow it to occupy the role of a true "harmonizer" for all services of Russian Armed Forces and having a very serious influence on the decision making process of Russian political top. It is a very different organism which grew out of a very different historic, cultural and military experience than that of the US. But I applaud Cropsey's audacity when calling a dismal record of US lost wars a "flowering of operational theory", LOL. But then again, we may admit that when looked at as a theory of how NOT TO FIGHT real war, we may allow for this term of "flowering".

It Is Becoming A Nauseaiting Repetitive Tune.

As of lately. First, Time magazine throws in such a headline: 

Ukraine Won't Get Key Weapons From Biden's Latest $1 Billion Aid Package For Months

The immediate question which arises is this: what are those "key weapons"? The answer seems to be in the Time's piece:

Ukrainian forces will, for the first time, receive two vehicle-mounted Harpoon anti-ship missiles, which Kyiv hopes will help push away an estimated 20 Russian warships currently blockading their Black Sea ports. The land-based weapon could enable Ukraine, one of the largest grain providers in the world, to resume its supply of food to parts of the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Despite Ukraine’s urgent need, however, the Harpoons won’t reach the battlefield for several months, U.S. officials told reporters at the Pentagon Wednesday. In order for Ukrainian forces to use the weapon, the Pentagon will first have to procure Harpoon launchers, while European allies will prepare to send missiles and other equipment. After that, Ukrainian troops will go through a weeks-long training course outside of Ukraine at other European military bases on how to operate the systems—just as they do with other high-end, American-made arms.

Evidently, they have issues with naval combat and modern technology in Pentagon if they declare a rather morally obsolete Harpoon a "key weapon". Especially if we are talking about two launchers (4 missiles each) and especially which 404 "won't reach the battlefield for several months". Will Ukraine exist then? Not to speak, of course, of NATO's manufacturing, pardon my French, capacity which needs "several months" to procure two trucks and eight missiles. I think the trick here is two fold:

1. Western weapons performed dismally in 404 and the United States doesn't need more embarrassment for its weapon systems, which, BTW, also get blown up by Russian high-precision stand-off weapons routinely. 

2. While Harpoon is by no means a trivial threat, this weapon NEVER encountered modern air-defense and serious ECM. But even if to assume that some of Harpoons hits any Russian ship, consequences for providers of such weapons could be deadly, up to retaliation on NATO naval assets. 

But then, of course, there are admissions today by both Mark Milley and Kiev regime about the "math" of this SMO. 

The fighting in the Donbas had reached a decisive stage, with Russia on the brink of seizing the key city of Severodonetsk. Ukraine has implored the West for more weapons to help it push back the Russian offensive, underscoring that it's outgunned and seeing up to 1,000 casualties per day.    

Cretins from BI should really keep themselves updated on the situation in Severodonietsk, but then again, I begin to doubt now even the adequacy in the US of those who at least nominally are considered professionals. Even when one considers a totally PR circus-oriented political discourse in the US.  

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley at a press conference in Brussels on Wednesday said "the numbers clearly favor the Russians" in Ukraine as the two countries remain embroiled in war. "I would say the numbers clearly favor the Russians, in terms of artillery," Milley said, adding that the Russians "outnumber, outgun, and outrange" Ukrainian forces. "The Ukrainians are fighting them street by street, house by house," Milley said, stating that the fighting in the Donbas was "almost World War I-like." But he also emphasized that the battle is "not a done deal" and said a Russian victory isn't an "inevitability." "There are no inevitabilities in war," Milley said. "War takes many, many turns."

I, actually, feel for Milley. I think he is competent enough man but is forced to repeat this trope about "inevitabilities in war", because we all know well how well it works out for those who fight Russia in Europe, but the American public (and DNC) will feel really bad when observing how America's greatest proxy has its ass handed to it and no "key weapons" can change anything in the outcome. Now, speaking to  Marshal Foundation today, David Arakhmia (a big honcho from Ze's party) uplifted Washington's mood with the news that now VSU loses KIAs only between 200 and 500 daily (in Russian). Now Bernhard worries that Ukraine issue is being put by US media on the back-burner. I totally get it where he is coming from and I share to a degree his desire to see utter geopolitical humiliation of the United States in Europe being very public. But, as Russian say, it is not evening yet.  

Now per "mobilization" BS being spread by all kinds of fanboys, even if "pro-Russian" resources on the UTube and elsewhere. 

1. Being "pro-Russian" absolutely does not equate to being militarily competent, let alone being mobilization specialist--it is the level of decisions made at the highest military-political level, which brings us to the next point...

2. And why exactly should Russia mobilize, when forces involved in SMO achieve their objectives, especially against the background of favorite Ukie (and UK) "tactics" of using civilians as human shield? The "argument" about alleged China landing in Taiwan is altogether risible. 

Those "analytical" resources which grow like mushrooms after the rain on all kinds of platforms in 99 cases out of 100 are fanboys and military porn masturbators trying to promote their "operational" fantasies as facts. Including by spreading outlandish rumors and "concepts". 

Here is real professional talking. And I mean REAL. 

The US Armed Forces have NO experience fighting like that. Period, no grey zone. Especially American politicos who never faced real war.