This Is Not ...

 ... how I imagined the fight between PLAN and Philippines' Navy, but this is tense but still funny. 

But reality, of course, is much more serious and the US will continue its, however useless, buildup in the area and use its vassals, I mean "allies", to provoke China. I am not going into the legal aspect of all those waters and all those Spratlys and all that, but here is a delusion on part of "intellectual" (I elaborate on this in my video today) Kazianis who lives in 1965 or maybe, indeed, in his 1945 outlet and never heard of antishipping missiles. 

China Is Building Toward Nine Aircraft Carriers. America Has Eleven — and Can’t Replace Them Fast Enough.  

Why China builds them is clear--it is symbolic because China has a monstrous shipbuilding industry which dwarfs that of the US and China leverages it, but also because she still copies very many views on war, in this case naval one, from the US. What many people still cannot grasp--China doesn't have strike weapon systems which guarantee sufficient number of leakers to stop US CBGs. Anybody who continues with a delusion of Chinese "hypersonic" weapons--I have news, China doesn't have them. Calling ballistic missiles which enter atmosphere at hypersonic speed a "hypersonic weapon" is the same as calling Packard autos the same generation as 2026 Honda Accord. 

This is the reality which very many people who do admire (I do it too) Chinese achievements (not least through first Soviet aid and then the US transplanting here manufacturing to China) cannot accept--in terms of naval warfare China is not in the same league because for all of its huge issues, including WW II based fighting doctrine of the US surface navy, China is nowhere near in terms of submarine component of the US or Russian Navies. Plus, the issue which many want to ignore but which Iran learned the hard way--Chinese AD turned out to be not what was promised. Russia warned Iran, but China outbid Russia. Well ... That's the reality and it is much more nuanced than merely proclaiming existing capability which is a much more inferior copy of original. Just to demonstrate:

I forestall many China fanboys who will rush to defend China while having no clue about realities of technological dimension of modern warfare. I repeat again, Russia "helped" (euphemism for built) Chinese missile attack early warning system. Get a hint and a clue. 

PLAN and Russian Navy ...

 ... concluded joint exercises Naval Cooperation 2026.

Then went to conduct joint patrols in the Yellow Sea. From Russian Navy missile cruiser Varyag, missile corvette Rezkyi, SSK Ufa and rescue ship Igor Belousov took part. 

By now these are routine exercises and they are not your proforma joint maneuvering and search and rescue missions, they always involve an extensive "combat" part such as ASW, AD and, judging by the presence of Belousov and Ufa, likely also trained rescue operations of submarine in distress. 

Wrong Term ...

 ... "shelved" is not the applicable term. More like removed into the deep recesses of archives of naval curiosities, never to be shown to public again in order to avoid embarrassment. I always stress--it is sometimes even painful for me seeing mighty US Navy, with its glorious heroic history, becoming a butt of jokes around the world, and not only because of the obsolete carrier-centric concept, but this:

The US Navy’s Trump-class battleship will be 'quietly shelved'. Summary and Key Points: The proposed Trump-class “guided-missile battleship” (BBG(X)) is pitched as a revival of American sea power, but the concept clashes with how modern naval war is actually fought. The platform is missile-centric—more like a bloated destroyer than a true battleship—while remaining highly vulnerable to submarines, long-range missiles, and ISR-driven targeting. Exotic add-ons like railguns and shipborne lasers are power-hungry and still unreliable at sea, while bigger hulls simply create bigger, pricier targets. Worse, U.S. shipyards are already strained, meaning BBG(X) would likely crowd out submarines and logistics ships that matter more in a China fight.

Child-emperor loves expensive shiny toys and he doesn't care, nor can grasp modern warfare, naval or not.

This is the thing which many US generals (and Admirals) still cannot grasp--the opposite side has as good ISR as the US. ISR means targeting and firing solutions, after that--all bets are off. Salvo Model rules and real serious militaries plan and fight based on model, some of them being in the process of constant update and modifications, 24/7 literally. This is how Russian General Staff operates, its GOU--Main Operational Directorate. Same goes for Main Staff of the Russian Navy. And the author correctly states, when it comes to China and her PLAN--the US Navy has only one avenue to pursue--submarine forces which still (emphasis on "still") maintains a sizeable, generational, lead over PLAN's submarine force. In terms of surface fleet--US Navy's readiness is a huge question mark. But in the end, it is not just arithmetic of MK41 VLS, it is what is in those VLS which makes all the difference.   

When You Are A Cretin ...

 ... who still thinks that torpedoes are detected by ... radar (they never heard of sonar). Obviously, moron (or collection of morons) has no idea what modern ASW is, as well as what that is. 

R--being the range of detection and D--being the distance of avoidance and that the issue of Flaming Datum for MK48 today is just the matter of a few seconds for developing firing solution for such things as Otvet. And why the angle Alpha is arcsin of Vsub/Vship. The CO of a sub who attacks surface target from 5 nautical miles by torpedo commits the crime against his submarine and crew, because he just killed them. But not for these imbeciles who post this pseudo-military BS. 

Per JDAMs and QUICKSINK, seriously? The amount of this smut passing for "knowledge" about military is astonishing. Let me explain--the range of this QUICKSINK thingy is... drum roll ... 15 nautical miles (24 km). Modern shipborne air and surface radar will see air target and will develop firing solution for AD complex well in advance. But that is not even the point. If we take PLAN, the range of its Type 055 DDG's main striking anti-ship weapon YJ-18 (I avoid speculating here on all those YJ-21s) which is a version of Russian 3M54 Kalibr with the range of 540+ km with the speed at terminal reaching M=3. If we assume that the data on YJ-21 is correct--it is 1,500 km. Who's navy is useless then? Russians, meanwhile, shake in their boots ... from Homeric laughter while observing this "capability" from 1950s and are wondering, how much more BS will be produced by all those media and journalism degreed cretins before they have to face the reality of them being useless ignorant cucks who wouldn't even know what the Operational Sweep is. What can I say--cope harder. 

I Want To Remind You All ...

... that number. This was a moment of clarity from Hegseth--he didn't pull those numbers out of his ass, he had them discussed in his military environment. This is omega--mathematical expectation: 15 hypersonic weapons against 10 carriers. 

We are still waiting for photos from Yuzhmash--there is a reason they are not made public, while all kinds of people calculate energies of Oreshnik. The main question, however, is--what comes next, and it is coming. And it is going to be even more terrifying than 3M22 Zircon, or Kinzhal or even Oreshnik. So, Omega for a hypersonic weapon, the average number of missiles required to destroy US Navy's CVN is 15/10 = 1.5 missiles. Let's be prudent and round it to 2. That tells you everything you need to know about the global balance of power. 

It Is Not Just Chinese Navy (PLAN)...

 ... these are general principles of Search Theory and ASW. One minor correction though--MAD (Magnetic Anomaly Detector) still remains largely a corroborative (not pin-point) means of detection. Main "cavalry" are sonobuoys for developing a contact and tracking a submerged sub. But the video is still decent and I decided to post it here for general educational purposes. 

Always remember--the worst enemy for a sub is a Patrol/ASW aircraft. Once it sees you in real combat, chances are you are not coming back to your home base.

What Makes A Navy?

One may ask, and the proper answer will be: people--first, and then--ships. Both are crucial but here is a funny thing, which many still cannot wrap their brains around. Especially true for West's media "experts" whose tactical-operational and technological horizon is limited to iPhones and Clanciesque meaningless cliches. Here is an example from CNN:

It’s a growing problem that has United States naval commanders scratching their heads: How to keep up with China’s ever-expanding fleet of warships. Not only is China’s navy already the world’s largest, its numerical lead over the US is getting wider, with the head of the US Navy warning recently that American shipyards simply can’t keep up. Some experts estimate China can build three warships in the time it takes the US to build one. It is just one of the concerns, alongside Beijing’s increasing aggression in the South China Sea and around Taiwan, that’s likely to be weighing on the mind of US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin as he joins top military figures from across the region at this weekend’s Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. The chance of a breakthrough on any of those issues this weekend appears slim, not least because China has pointedly rejected a US proposal for Austin to meet his Chinese counterpart Li Shangfu at the forum. But experts who spoke to CNN before the summit say a potential solution to one of them – the Chinese fleet’s numerical advantage – is within reach, if the US is prepared to think outside the box. Washington, they say, has something Beijing doesn’t: Allies in South Korea and Japan who are building some of the highest spec – and affordable – naval hardware on the oceans. Buying ships from these countries, or even building US-designed vessels in their shipyards, could be a cost-effective way of closing the gap with China, they say. Their warships are “certainly a match for their (Chinese) counterparts,” says Blake Herzinger, a research fellow at the United States Studies Center in Australia, while Japan’s warship designers “are among the world’s best,” says Carl Schuster, a former director of operations at the US Pacific Command’s Joint Intelligence Center in Hawaii. 

The tone of the piece reeks of desperation and of... a complete detachment from the realities of naval warfare of 2020s. The US is impressed by PLAN's, indeed impressive, Type 055 DDG.  

These are elegant warships which pack a massive punch in terms of land-attack salvo or... anti-shipping missiles. With 13,000 ton full displacement these are really cruisers rather than destroyers, albeit today this distinction is notional. They carry a whopping 112 VLS cells and are equipped with HHQ-9 AD system which is a navalized fusion of Russia's S-300 and Western technology. Plus, and here is an important distinction, it carries YJ-18 anti-shipping missile (a Chinese knockoff of Russia's 3M54 Kalibr) and, allegedly, hypersonic ballistic anti-shipping missiles YJ-21. We will omit here discussing YJ-21 issue because there is precious little about its actual capabilities, if one discounts some short video of its test. 

But in any case, these ships DO carry a shitload of anti-shipping missiles and that is what matters in the end. And here is the point. CNN appeals to... South Korean "match" called Sejong the Great:

But some Western analysts say the Type 055 may have a peer in South Korea’s Sejong the Great-class destroyers. At 10,000 to 12,000 tons displacement, the Sejongs are slightly smaller than China’s Type 055s, but they have more firepower, with 128 VLS cells and weapons that include surface-to-air, anti-submarine and cruise missiles. The three Sejongs, which cost about $925 million each, are the pride of the South Korean fleet. “With this one ship, (the South Korean Navy) can cope with multiple simultaneous situations – anti-aircraft, anti-ship, anti-submarine, anti-surface – and defend from ballistic missiles,” the country’s Defense Media Agency says. Retired South Korean Adm. Duk-ki Kim, the first person to captain a Sejong, says it’s more than a match for China’s Type 055. “China is focusing on quantity and price competitiveness rather than the quality of its vessels,” Kim, now vice president of the Korea Association of Military Studies, told CNN. 

Didn't we hear this before (highlighted in yellow)? Let's take a look at Sejong the Great. Oh, boy!

Then we take a look at this "match" to PLAN's Type 055 specs and lo and behold! It is the same as it looks because it is yet another iteration of nearing obsolescence venerable (all flights) US Navy's Arleigh Burke-class DDGs. Same good ol' Aegis, same good ol' AN/SPY-1D and same... 16 subsonic anti-shipping missiles SSM-700K which are iterations of subsonic anti-shipping Harpoons and other analogues in NATO which are outpaced and outranged by any modern anti-shipping missile in Russian or Chinese arsenals. 

While naval warfare is a very complex matter and involves much more than SuWa (Surface Warfare) it is precisely in this crucial field where Sejong the Great is not just NOT the "match" to PLAN's Type 055, but not even in the same league because same as vaunted  Patriot PAC3 which performed dismally in 404, Aegis ships can only perform defense against slow flying (subsonic) targets and maybe, just maybe, against easy tactical-operational ballistic one. Against salvos of supersonic anti-shipping missiles, not to speak of hypersonic ones--they are useless. In this case of a missile exchange between Type 055 and Sejong the Great, the latter wouldn't even know what hit it, because Type 055 enjoys here an overwhelming advantage, especially with good over-the-horizon targeting. 

Some admirals in the West (and Asia) are easily impressed by platforms--big, imposing, nice looking. Nothing wrong with the aesthetic part of it, I am the same way myself--I love beautiful ships. But the term "platform" should be engraved into the minds of real warriors--platforms are called such because, in the end of the day, for all other supremely important issues, such as propulsion, signal processing, ECM et al, the reason platforms exist is to carry weapons. And in terms of strike weapons South Korean "match" is not even in the same league as Type 055. As is the whole Western naval weapons' arsenal, with NATO and its Asian allies falling behind in modern strike weapons behind Russia and China not by years, but generations. 

In the end, even this corvette packs so much striking power that it is even not necessary to compare. 

It is four times smaller than Sejong the Great, yet it still has better air defense than Aegis and it can launch 8 Zircons in a salvo. So, when speaking about "matches" it is only natural for claimants to offer serious counter-arguments and not some amateurish BS and platform-centric military porn. Or, as they say among serious people: either put up or shut up.

OK, Let's Cut The Crap...

 ... from the start--China got humiliated. There is no other way about it. Let me turn on here the famous Russian Вы не понимаете, Это Другое (You don't understand, This is Different) mode, usually used by Russia's pro-western liberda when trying to whitewash West's crimes and idiocy. Here it is:

As Ramzan Kadyrov correctly responded to this PR affair in his TG:

Ну и зачем было столько нагонять жутей, пугать людей, шум поднимать, когда можно было так спокойно дать прилететь бедной старушке в Тайвань?
😂😂😂😂
Можно же было тихо и молча всё завершить, так нет, бедную бабусю несколько часов пугали истребителями, ПВО, эсминцами и громкими заявлениями.

Translation:  Why did they engage in fear-mongering, scaring people, creating the noise, when one could have allowed poor grandma to calmly fly to Taiwan. Everything could have been arranged calmly, silently, but no, poor grandma was being frightened with fighters, Air Defense, destroyers and loud statements.  

I understand clearly the disappointment of many anti-globalists and China's sympathizers when observing this. I agree with Ramzan, though, as in a good fight--if you show your weapon, you better use it when time comes, otherwise keep it to yourself. But why this "This is Different" meme? Let me explain. As famous re-imagining of Nixon's Vietnam War "Peace with Honor" phrase goes: those who settle for peace with honor, get neither peace nor honor. The US can tell a lot about this issue, since we saw it on full display in Afghanistan last year. It took Russia several beatings of the US lap-dogs into bloody pulp starting in 2008 with Georgia, then in Syria and now in Ukraine, until Washington returned to its natural state of being a bellicose bully but scared shitless of engaging directly with Russia. 

This all, despite the fact that the United States IS involved directly, as an example, in command-controlling and providing ISR to their Kiev SOBs. As the representative of Ukies' military intelligence (GUR) Vadim Skibitsky boasted to Telegraph (in Russian), including admitting the fact that the US is directly involved even in choosing targets for HIMARS. Primarily against civilians. But the US knows that it will be annihilated when it tries to "probe" a direct war with Russia even in fully conventional framework. It will be the US which will be forced towards nuclear threshold the moment it will begin to sustain losses it never encountered in its history. But this is not the case with China!

The obvious "this is different" issue behind Pelosi's PR escapades is the fact about which I write for years ad nauseam, such as here, among many other posts: the United States doesn't know how and cannot fight a serious enemy on the ground, but there is absolutely no doubt about the United States being a naval power, which DOES think and, in fact, HAS the means to impose some solution on China as long as the naval forces are involved directly. It is the only field in which the United States has an upper hand over China. I already presented on a number of occasions the comparison between he US Navy's and PLAN's submarine forces. Taiwan is an island, and unlike Georgia, let alone Syria and most of Ukraine, which Russia never declared as its territories, Taiwan for China is a huge, existential issue. Taiwan officially is considered by international community as part of mainland China, which has its semi-official status "temporarily". But because it is the island, and because the United States Navy can bring a massive firepower near it, the US has the escalation dominance here. And China knows it and she blinked. 

Moreover, main China's mistake was this, however justified, bellicose rhetoric preceding walking mummy's visit to Taiwan and now the precedent had been created and IT IS already being spun by media. Of course, there is a school of thought which promotes the view that China prevented a nuclear war. I don't know, what I know for sure is this:

China begins military drills near Taiwan – reports

Should have been ongoing well before Pelosi's plane took off from the US and the scale of those drills, including at least the deployment of the Chinese Air Force, should have been massive, presenting a real threat in the area for any unauthorized flight. But now we may have on our hands, actually, a bigger problem--with China being forced to respond in such a way that she is not perceived as a "paper tiger" and that may (I underscore it--may, it is not preordained) lead to an attempt on Taiwan and that may involve the US Navy, especially its submarine force, which theoretically CAN score some significant military points, which are desperately needed for demoralized and economically strained United States in general and Biden Administration in particular. This is the price of the moment of weakness and indecisiveness and there is no way to spin it in any positive direction. But that only reinforces my long-standing position that in Russia-China relations, it is Russia who leads, exhibiting both great resolve, mastery of a major military conflicts and the ability to withstand any kind of pressure. And that is what we know at this moment with full clarity. Let's keep watching... 

Better To See Once...

.... than hear and read about it. Zvezda  elaborated on Russian-Chinese naval exercise taking place now in the Sea of Japan and yes--this is not your regular exercise, which, indeed, attracted USS Chafee. In Russian, starting from 5:30 through 9:00. 

Nope, these are not your traditional "international naval exercise" with maneuvering and saving distressed people in the water. The scope of tasks Russian and Chinese fleets fulfill: 

1. Formation of the joint Ships Search-Strike Group (KPUG);

2. Joint ASW activity including KPUG's search and destroy of "enemy" submarine;

3. Setting up and engaging joint Air-Defense of the group, including target and targeting data distribution within group (Netcentricity, hello!);

4. Joint launching (electronic) of anti-shipping missiles by the group;

5. Other combat tasks such as counter-mine and gunnery.

This is how military ALLIES train. This is how they integrate their forces and, boy, we can only speculate now at what stage of integration those forces are. I am sure it is in advanced stage. 

In related news, Russians, with sarcastic laughter, noticed (in Russian) that Hadley Gamble didn't listen to many Putin's answers during recent moderating of Russia's Energy Week and was merely trying to look good while asking questions. No shit! The whole core idea of US media and politicos is how to turn anything being about precious me, me, me. It is narcissism taken to eleven. LOL. Apart from the obvious fact that many of them are simply dumb and badly educated to grasp even simplest of the responses.  Can you imagine trying to explain how Operational Sweep in Northern Atlantic against heterogeneous forces of Russian Navy has a direct influence on geopolitics to Hadley Gamble or... ahem, David Axe. Good luck with that.  Same wish of good luck goes to Turkey (another LOL) who tries now to return her $1.4 billion of down-payment for F-35s, while Washington offers Erdogan (his words)...F-16. You literally cannot make this shit up. 

"There is the payment of $1.4 billion we have made for the F-35s and the US had such a proposal in return for these payments," Erdogan said. "We have said we'll take whatever step is needed to meet our country's defense needs," the Turkish leader added.  The Turkish government's purchase of S-400 defense systems from Russia caused diplomatic tensions between the US and Turkey, who are both members of the trans-Atlantic NATO alliance. The US has sanctioned employees of Turkey's Defense Industry Directorate and warned Ankara against purchasing further equipment from Russia. Erdogan said last month Turkey is planning to purchase more S-400 systems from Moscow. "In the future, nobody will be able to interfere in terms of what defense systems we acquire, from which country at what level," Erdogan told US media outlet CBS News. 

Good luck, Turkey, getting your money back. Turkey may expect down the road offers to buy M-4 Sherman tanks and P-51 Mustangs, and why not? F-16 is an excellent combat plane for... the war against countries with no viable air forces in 1990s. It is 2021 today. But even more stunning was this, three days ago--I posted it on the discussion but give it a minute to take in what is being said: 

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman and Under Secretary for Economic Affairs Jose Fernandez met today with Russian Deputy Prime Minister Aleksey Overchuk to reinforce the United States’ commitment to a stable and predictable bilateral relationship.  Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John F. Kerry separately met with Deputy Prime Minister Overchuk today and repeated his call for Russia to take more robust action on climate. Deputy Secretary Sherman called on Russia to do more to ensure European energy security while also echoing Secretary Kerry’s call for it to submit a strengthened nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement by the time COP 26 meets on October 31.  Deputy Secretary Sherman and Under Secretary Fernandez urged Russia to ensure fair treatment for U.S. companies in its marketplace and to resolve U.S. concerns about Russia’s trade and investment climate.  Deputy Secretary Sherman also underscored continued U.S. commitment to freedom of expression online.

Just think about it. This is not some BS think-tank in D.C. These are people with actual power and policy-setting positions. Polish press went apoplectic on this:

Cynizm czy odrealnienie? Podsekretarz stanu USA poprosiła Rosję o... zapewnienie Europie bezpieczeństwa energetycznego

Translation:  Cynicism or unreality? The US Undersecretary of State asked Russia to ... ensure energy security for Europe. 

I have news for Polish politicos and media personalities. Read my lips--second or third tier powers, such as Poland (for all my love for Polish culture), trying to interject themselves into the big guys game always ends up bad for such powers as Poland. Recall 1939? It is a cold hard fact of life. The US needed Poland as a front window for Western "capitalism" in the wake of the Soviet collapse and then as a pro-American spoiler in messy European affairs, including as a saboteur for Russia's energy projects, to be thrown out as used condom later. Now, this time has come for a simple reason, the United States tries to coral all her, by far not infinite, in fact very limited, resources to meet Chinese and Russian "challenges" and Poland, despite her active and fairly influential US diaspora, is not that important in the larger scheme of things. 

The times when Poland had a respectable industry from extraction to massive shipbuilding and even consumer electronics capacity are long gone, and Poland today is primarily a FIRE economy--EU made sure that Poland will be primarily a consumer, not a supplier. So did the US. After all, Germany and France (or Netherlands)--they have their own working class to feed and to do so they have to have high value added physical economy staying home. So, there you are. The United States is too busy making a killing at the hotter than hot Asian energy market and Polish LNG facilities can wait. Come on, guys, nothing personal, just business and the business is good for the United States in Asia.  And that is just one factor, there are many more. Big powers always think about themselves first--it is an axiom. It is about time Polish political class recognized it. Words are worthless, especially when they involve such terms as "common values", "democracy", "human rights", "freedom of speech" etc.  Russians, meanwhile, are still trying to figure out who among US elites (groups, clans, mafias etc.) has at least some capability to govern and with whom one can have a meaningful dialogue. This is a tall order. 

It Is Only Natural.

Let's throw away emotions and feelings and recall what I stated in my video and in discussion several days ago: 

Repeating Russian (Soviet)-India model of lease of nukes, about which I speak in my video. US Navy will have Block I Virginias reaching their 20-years service life equator by 2025 and do not forget that there are still plenty of Los Angeles-class which reached their 30 years service life. Plenty of goodies to go around.

Thanks to Bernhard of Moon of Alabama who does, as usual, an excellent job of monitoring media and analyzing facts, I personally became aware of this by the way of MoA from The Guardian:

The short-term leasing of nuclear-powered submarines from the UK or the US is being considered by the Morrison government but the Coalition insists nuclear weapons won’t be based in Australia.  

Let's take a look on what is at stake here.

1. This is an intensity of a marine traffic in the region around China.

 

As you can see, any kind of nukes (SSNs) based in Australia have an excellent and fast access to SLOCs both in Indian Ocean and into the deep areas of South China Sea. Operations on SLOCs are as old as navies themselves. China, obviously, depends on SLOCs and even 2-3 additional (Australian) SSNs with Harpoons and torpedoes on permanent patrol in the areas of interest can wreck a havoc on the flow of resources for China. They will also attract serious Chinese resources in terms of ASW. I am not going to discuss now purely tactical and operational issues, but in the minds of US planners this all makes sense.

2. Now, to the mechanics of all that. This is Chakra of Indian Navy. 

USSR/Russia and India have been at this "lease" thing since 1980s, with the first SSGN of project 670 officially joining the Indian Navy in 1988. So, nothing new, really, in leasing out state-of-the-art nukes to someone. If Russia and India can do that, US and Australia, who ARE brethren nations, certainly can. So, not really surprising in learning that the US will lease subs to Australia. In fact, emotions aside, it is the only natural way to increase the submarine force against China in such a way that it strains Chinese and PLAN's resources and, in case of war, helps to shut down SLOC's which are still crucial for China. Pure navalism, folks. 

3. Let's take a look at what is available in a short term. Granted, the Australian crews are getting ready or are already in training for running US nukes. I can tell you immediately--do not forget good ol' Los Angeles-class SSNs. Many of them are either in conservation, reserve or are about to be moved there. There are currently, if to believe WiKi 28 active Los Angeles class SSNs and 1 expecting decommissioning. SSNs 768 through 773 are reaching their 30 year old age but are still active and who knows what their fate will be with at least 8 Virginia-class SSNs being either under construction or announced. Those Los Angeles subs will need to go somewhere and this time it might not be to the scrap yard. Couple of early Los Angeles class subs SSN 719 and 723 are also planned for recycle in 2022. 

So, there are options. It doesn't make France's life easier, for sure, but purely on the military merit, from the shores of Potomac it makes perfect sense. I have to admit, all things considered, it does make at least some sense. Of course, such an approach does not guarantee a success for a number of reasons, but keep in mind that anything based in Perth, as an example, becomes impervious to Chinese medium-range ballistic missiles because neither DF-21 nor DF-17 fly at 5,800 kilometers even when launched from China's south-most point. So, this is another key to this decision. The main issue, however, is this--does the United States think that it can control possible conventional conflict with China that it does not accelerate to a nuclear threshold? That is a huge question to ponder. And yes, China's nuclear subs are not as good as American ones, it is a hard cold fact. What will China do? Ask this question: what will Russia do?  Believe me, it is no less important, if not more. Recall few years back my reaction:

And here is the news, PLAN, for now, doesn't have submarine force which is even remotely competitive both in numbers and quality with the US Navy's submarine force. All bravado on both sides apart, US submarines in the Pacific are overwhelmingly superior to PLAN's nuclear subs (SSKs are a separate issue). Currently the US Navy operates 32 Los Angeles-class + 3 Sea Wolf-class + 15 Virginia-class SSNs = 50 SSNs ALL of whom, including older L.A. class SSNs are superior to anything PLAN can deploy in terms of nukes, which is roughly 9 nuclear subs, only 6 of which could be considered relatively modern (Type 093). Period. Yes, PLAN does deploy a substantial number of conventional SSKs, but again, this fleet of subs is good only for a relatively short distance deployments in defense of own littoral. We are talking here about overwhelming advantage US Navy enjoys over any PLAN's surface or nuclear power submarine force beyond the First Island Chain. I am not even talking here about remote segments of SLOCs. Yes, Chinese are improving, yes, they are gaining both capability (such as destroying US aircraft carriers) and some operational experience, but it takes much more than that to command the seas. I will also avoid describing some info (very reliable one), I just mention it, that testifies against Chinese tactical and operational maturity, for now--I underscore that, for now. But namely for now PLAN, for all US Navy's huge institutional problems, is not a real competitor in one domain, which today defines command of the seas--underwater. US submarine force is simply better, much better and that's the reality, which Admiral Lou should have considered and James Holmes remembered when trying to respond to Chinese naval officer.

And don't tell me that I didn't warn you;)) I sure did, wink, wink. It was only natural for the United States to start leveraging its one of a few remaining and significant advantages in combat technology, submarines, and I am sure people in Beijing and Moscow expected it. I am sure Moscow did. 

72 Hours, No Less.

Incoming (pun is intended) Biden Admin, same as Germans, has a knack for appointing unqualified people (the fact that they are women is secondary here) to most important government posts. Enter Michele Flournoy a new Sec.Def. Let's open the biography of this "remarkable" woman. We start with "education":

Flournoy attended Beverly Hills High School in Beverly Hills, California. She was an exchange student in Belgium for one year, where she learned French. She studied at Harvard College where she received a bachelor of arts degree. She received an M.Litt. in international relations in 1983 from Oxford University, where she was a Newton-Tatum scholar at Balliol College. From 1989 until 1993 she was at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, where she was a research fellow in its International Security Program.

As you can see yourself--Flournoy has an educational background which forms, always, professional outlook in any person with IQ higher than room temperature, from the git go, in humanities. Flournoy's "foundation" is that in the literature, or, speaking broadly, degree in glorified English. In this case, how the Harvard's JFK's School of Government can help run a DoD remains a complete mystery to me, because studying "government" and "researching" it is really easy for anyone with a half-brain in the their heads, especially the way it is being done in the US, while, as an example, studying Theory of Operations or principles of weapons' design and integration is hard. Really really hard, because to even approach these studies one needs to be really good in math, physics and other natural sciences in mid to high school, then carry this "goodness" over to educational institution which trains one in STEM expansion to the robust university level and only then, one may start talking about even approaching the level of "foundation" which is imperative for understanding military, any military, but especially one on the level of the US military. 

Recall Russia's Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin's truism. 

I know a large number of absolutely wonderful financiers, economists who used to be not very good engineers, but I don't know a single, even not a very good one, engineer who used to be good financier or economist.  

Mind you, Mishustin graduated Russia's (much deeper and much harder programs than Western Bachelor of Science) famous STANKIN and completed his post-graduate studies there with specialization in Systems Engineering. So, the guy knows what he is talking about. And this is what precisely applies to Flournoy whose accomplishments under Clinton and Obama, when she was involved, include:

1. While serving under the Clinton administration as a deputy assistant secretary of defense, Flournoy assisted in drafting the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review, which argued that "determined U.S. forces must be capable of fighting and winning two major theater wars nearly simultaneously." I know, I know, keep your smirks to yourself, I do;

2. While serving in the Obama administration, Flournoy crafted the administration's policy of counter-insurgency in Afghanistan. She supported the surge of troops in Afghanistan and helped to design the administration's policy in that regard. In 2009, as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, she also supported a US "civilian surge" in Afghanistan, coupling increased economic aid with at least 400 new counter-insurgency experts, and doubling the US military presence to 68,000 troops by the end of the year.

As you can see, Flournoy's list of "accomplishments" (LOL) includes some really fascinating things which Arkady Averchenko long ago described in his immortal "The Specialist In Military Affairs". I elaborate on the "quality" or, rather lack thereof, of America's "elites" who are utterly uneducated and unqualified to run the country in depth in all my books. Those who read them know how many examples I present in them--many, very many. Flournoy fits the bill of America's military incompetence really well. So, Flournoy's recent stratagem is a fucking wowser!

The next Pentagon chief could cement the US’ already hard defence line on China, with one contender suggesting that American forces could bolster deterrence with the ability to “sink all” Chinese vessels “within 72 hours” in the South China Sea

Let me be very clear here, before I comment on this absolute fucking stupidity which can only be used as an Exhibit A of human arrogance and lack of any culture--the United States Navy is much better than PLAN. Even if to consider the US Navy's rough shape today. It is better not only because the US Navy has submarine forces which make China's submarines look like a bunch of obsolete jalopies, or because the US Navy has more aircraft carriers. No, within First Island Chain even this advantage drops precipitously because the US Navy simply has no viable weapon systems which are adequate to deal with modern Air Defense which China has, ranging from Chinese "versions" of S-300s to Russian-made S-400. No, the US Navy's advantage is in its operational history and still (for how long, I don't know, probably another 10-15 years) very high level of professionalism of the officer corps and still very impressive esprit de corps' which rests on the foundation of a magnificent history in the Pacific Theater in WW II. China simply has nothing comparable and, in the open ocean, such as Indian Ocean SLOCs, the US Navy would tear a new one to PLAN, especially if it deploy there couple-three CBGs if, God forbids, shit hits the fan in biblical amounts. 

But South China Sea? Did Flournoy even bother to look at the map? Does she even have a concept of how naval forces deploy, how they interact with heterogeneous forces such as Air Force, Air Defense forces, how targeting is developed, what is required.... But wait a minute, even these guys understand some, hm, "minor" issue with South China Sea, because the Island of Hainan is located so strategically into the South China Sea that:

Two data points, including a Notice to Airmen that cordoned off a patch of airspace southeast of Hainan Island and a maritime exclusion zone announced recently by the Hainan Maritime Safety Administration, paint a picture of a ballistic missile test. (See this helpful map from Henri Kenhmann at East Pendulum.)...In fact, Sunday’s ASBM test may have inaugurated the PLARF’s new base on Hainan Island, which is China’s southernmost province, adjacent to the South China sea. As analysts noted last year, a new PLARF base has been established some 10 kilometers west of Danzhou city on Hainan. The base’s location makes it an excellent candidate site for a possible ASBM launch that would have flown through the NOTAM zone and splashed down in the maritime exclusion zone. The range from the Danzhou PLARF base to the maritime exclusion zone suggests that missile in question may have been the 1,500 kilometer-range DF-21D.

I understand, they do not teach those things in Literature programs in universities or in JFK School of Government, but if they would, they would have provided a serious review of China's military capabilities in this precise area and how China's system out-ranges anything the United States has in its arsenal to attack China's naval assets there. Flournoy, obviously, doesn't understand the concept of a salvo(s) and deployment of forces for launching it(them). She obviously doesn't understand how criteria of effectiveness (usually P(s)--probability of success, predicated on the probabilities P(k) of hitting and killing targets) are calculated not how required forces are calculated also. I am sure she read some books on war while writing her Literature thesis--you know Lord of the Rings or Star Wars books--but evidently this lady has about the same grasp of the modern war as I have of the Chinese choreography. She really should look at the map, for a warmup, and using compass try to draw circumferences which stand for the ranges of Chinese (and Russian-made) missiles and combat aircraft of PLAAF which could be brought to bear in the South China Sea if the United States decides to commit a suicide by "sinking in 72 hours" whatever the PLAN has there. Good luck doing this, especially once Chinese Air Force (PLAAF) deploys there part of its fairly impressive combat aviation--a thing US carrier aviation never encountered in ages, in fact since the Vietnam War. Add here Russians providing real time situational awareness and targeting to Chinese... so, you get the idea. If ever new Russian 3M54 appear there, the survival rate of the US Navy surface assets will drop precipitously, but then again, who knows what Chinese already have from Russia. I know redeployment of Chinese SU-35s and SU-30s alone to the theater may pretty much close the issue of US CBGs in the area, not that they are not going to be fat prestigious targets. 

I can go on, and on, and on on this issue but... behold, this is America's (most likely) new Sec.Def--a person with degree in arts and in how to "run" the US, which is ungovernable at this stage in principle. Scary, eh? Well, welcome to the brand new world where your gender, or skin color, are the main criteria for being hired. This is not to speak of womanisation of the Western governance in general, when women with at best questionable backgrounds are being assigned top positions only because they are women, not because they are competent--there are many competent women out there, who are no political appointees but top notch professionals. They will never make the list. So, and you though Trump's national "security" team was bad. LOL. Get the load of that--that could be fun. Boy, you should read a biography of incoming Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, I don't know how Russia's professionals are going to communicate with her--excusing themselves to leave the room to go out and laugh hysterically, before returning back to the negotiating table. The farce of the American governance can not be hidden anymore, what is transpiring has only one name--full disintegration of institutions of power and that is already having very serious ramifications but don't try to explain it to incoming Administration--they will not be able to even grasp it, they are that unqualified across the board. I am sure they will be hard at work planning defeat of Russia and entering Kremlin in five days after the start of the war. Hey, and why not? I am sure Michele Flournoy can even write a book on that, after all--she has a graduate degree in literature. I am sure she can write this book in 72 hours, or 12 parsecs, or whatever...

The Fools Are On Display.

Have you heard the news? Well, a bunch of losers from "Republican" Administrations of both Bushes wrote a letter. Why losers? Because those people in normal governments wouldn't be allowed to run housekeeping in the mental ward, and yet they are expressing their "opinions" on Trump. Let's get this out of the way--I don't like Trump, he is full of shit narcissist but in comparison to utter lunatics from Democratic Party, such as Harris-Biden ticket, I would (I will) vote for Trump, because he is less dangerous to the world. As for the United States--they all are clear present danger. So, here it is, a bunch of "Republicans" calling on everyone to vote for... Biden. 

We are former national security officials who served during the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and/or Donald Trump, or as Republican Members of Congress. We are profoundly concerned about the course of our nation under the leadership of Donald Trump. Through his actions and his rhetoric, Trump has demonstrated that he lacks the character and competence to lead this nation and has engaged in corrupt behavior that renders him unfit to serve as President. For the following reasons, we have concluded that Donald Trump has failed our country and that Vice President Joe Biden should be elected the next President of the United States.

Signatories are basically "who is who" on how not to govern, let alone run "national security", not to mention fight wars which no one, including military figures, in this list of signatories knows how to do. Those are losers who allowed 911, who lost wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and who are nothing more than representatives of the so called swamp. They have good skills in navigating D.C. bureaucracy and that is about the extent of their skills--excellent military leaders, outstanding diplomats, good scale geopolitical thinkers they are not and they ARE an embodiment of the American "elites", a euphemism for ignorance and incompetence.  You may read those 10 points those losers concocted but the summary of those points stands out: 

While we – like all Americans – had hoped that Donald Trump would govern wisely, he has disappointed millions of voters who put their faith in him and has demonstrated that he is dangerously unfit to serve another term. In contrast, we believe Joe Biden has the character, experience, and temperament to lead this nation. We believe he will restore the dignity of the presidency, bring Americans together, reassert America’s role as a global leader, and inspire our nation to live up to its ideals. While some of us hold policy positions that differ from those of Joe Biden and his party, the time to debate those policy differences will come later. For now, it is imperative that we stop Trump’s assault on our nation’s values and institutions and reinstate the moral foundations of our democracy.

Here is the point which needs separate elaboration. Biden's (not really his) national "security" team is a collection of dumb fanatical liberal interventionists, or, if one wishes, yet another issue of the neocons, whose defining characteristic is a complete ignorance on the issue of war. Enough to look at Kamala Harris who has zero qualifications in foreign, let alone military policies but who is an uber-hawk precisely because she has no idea. Same goes for mentally fading Biden, but he will be removed from the task of governing, let alone formulating any policies for the United States one way or another. But to give you a more focused insight into the "Biden's" foreign policy people, let's take a look at a possible Defense Secretary in Biden's Administration (should he win) and her name is Michelle Flournoy. 

Flournoy's career reads as an exemplary fanatical neocon's advancement along the path to the highest political offices in D.C. , not forgetting, of course, getting rich while taking a break after HRC's 2016 loss. Flournoys' qualifications for SecDef within American political setup seems to be enough--she graduated some "foreign relations" and "government" programs which in Anglo-Saxon world primarily prepare illiterate ideologues and military ignoramuses--and she knows how to use big words and speak Pentagonese. Here is where this lady has some peculiar ideas on war.  Even lunatic never-Trump Huffington Post had to point out to this:

Biden’s foreign policy circle also points to a potentially more hawkish approach. Michèle Flournoy, widely expected to be tapped by Biden as defense secretary, recently wrote that while conflict would not serve the interests of either the U.S. or China, the American military and its partners should consider developing capabilities to, for instance, sink the entire Chinese Navy within 72 hours to deter Beijing. Flournoy argued that China was becoming more confident because it perceives Washington as weak.

You may read the Flournoy's original here, in Foreign Affairs, if you want to read yet another empty collection of consonants and vowels from a person who obviously has no idea of what it would take to develop such a capability "to sink entire Chinese Navy in 72 hours" be my guest and enjoy syllables, words and sentences in English which carry no meaning. Such ignorance and idiocy IS EXPECTED from Anglo-American humanities (un)educated elites who have no idea, including on the policy-setting level, including on the level of even uniformed top bureaucracies, of what it takes to develop such a capability. I have news for them, while I am, unlike many others, do not view PLAN as a real ocean-going navy, because PLAN for now is not a competitor to US Navy, say, in the Indian Ocean, I can certainly see how China's armed forces can respond to attempts to "sink Chinese Navy in 72 hours" within First Island Chain.

1. US cannot develop such a capability because it lags dramatically behind China and, especially so, Russia in development of the main strike weapon of the modern naval war--anti-ship cruise missiles. China has an impressive arsenal of ASMs which is far more advanced than anything the US has. The US Navy, meanwhile, has no viable defense against salvo of modern high super-sonic ASMs launched from three domains and China, allegedly, has hype-sonic weapons;

2. Unlike Iraq or Yugoslavia, China has an impressive Air-Force and air-deference capable to mitigate attacks on her naval bases by the United States and respond, as the US learned the hard way with Iran, with variety of strikes on US Navy's bases in the region. US WILL NOT be able to intercept meaningful number of modern intermediate-range Chinese ballistic missiles. Simple as that;

3. Will Russia provide Chinese ASBMs with targeting and recon if push comes to shove? I am sure Russia will do more than that within the framework of what is already emerging as a serious military Russian-Chines alliance. Vietnam cough, cough.... But situation here is even more serious, the fact that Russia aids China in building Chinese own Missile Attack Early Warning System (SPRN) speaks volumes. If Russia does this, who said that China may not "suddenly" obtain the access to such things as S-500 or some other weapon systems (or Russia's domestic, not export, variety)? I don't see why this cannot be arranged. In fact, this is highly likely. After all Russians and Chinese now train in fully unified battle-space mode as single combat units. And those funny shipping containers with 3M54s and P-800s are coming. 3M22s?    


4. In the end, the United States simply has no resources to develop such a capability. China's shipbuilding capacity is monstrous and it dwarfs that of the United States and Chinese surely can "redistribute" resources, if need be, to produce more platforms. 

These are just some, very few, points Michelle Flournoy must consider and reflect on when she bloviates on the issues of which she, certainly, has zero understanding. Did Flournoy contemplate a possibility, in fact high probability, of a destruction of even single US Navy's CBG? Does she even have a clue on what can of worms this will open for mostly cowardly US politicians, who would rather bring the world to the edge of nuclear exchange, rather than have a courage to stop madness and admit a defeat. Yes, it takes sometime courage to do so. US didn't win a single war in its history against peer, if one discounts US WW II Pacific War.  But that is not what defines modern American "elites" who traditionally display themselves as delusional, ignorant and utterly dysfunctional and unprofessional. Flournoy is an embodiment of these "fine" qualities of modern American establishment and that should give us all a pause in a front of this display of America's utter failure to produce courageous and responsible statesman in many decades, only fools.  

SSKs In... US Navy?

I stumbled on that through Yahoo News yesterday. As you may know I do not read The National Interest--it is a tabloid dumpster for fanboys and its military sections are 99% a masturbation to shiny military toys by people who have no clue. The OTHER 1%, however, is represented by such people of scale as Colonels Daniel Davies, Douglas Macgregor or Professor James Holmes. So, I saw James Holmes' name at Yahoo and I went for it.  Holmes opened with a broadside:

For the past five years or so these pixels have been arguing—nay, clamoring—for the U.S. Navy to build or buy a contingent of diesel attack submarines (SSKs) to fill out its undersea inventory. If anything the logic for going conventional is more compelling now than ever. It offers a way to add new hulls with dispatch, at manageable cost, and without imposing extra burdens on the few shipbuilders that specialize in naval nuclear propulsion. Best of all, a diesel contingent is an ideal implement for executing U.S. strategy in what the Pentagon terms its “priority theater,” bar none: the Indo-Pacific.

I never, obviously, served in US Navy and I know of its internal kitchen from open sources only, such as memoirs and other texts. But I always remember Elmo Zumwalt quoting Rickover that:"The United States Navy got used to traveling first class."(c) In Rick's words "first class" meant large and very large surface combatants and nuclear propulsion. That's the institutional culture--US Navy likes only nuclear-driven subs. And it kinda makes sense once one considers the fact that the United States is an imperial power and she likes to sail anywhere, everywhere to "project" herself. Nuclear powered subs are perfectly suited for this strategic and operational posture since they provide for long-duration, thus translating into very long distances, clandestine operations against enemies, which all, as we know, dream of denying America her freedoms. Yet, James Holmes calls for SSKs. Hm. Holmes speaks in the broadside yet again and pronounces this "M" word, which many in the US are reluctant to say when speaking about actual war (Holmes wants to fight both China and Russia):

...the nuclear mafia within the silent service—the dominant faction among submariners, it must be said—will produce statistics beyond counting to prove that nuclear-powered craft are superior to their conventional brethren. And they will be right—by every measure except what matters. Namely, winning. The SSK is the right tool for the job provided it’s deployed at the right place on the map in the right manner to achieve maximum effect. 

Ah, that's warmer. And should I have been American exceptionalist, which, of course, I am not, I would have taken this Holmes' argument to heart, especially since Holmes, almost verbatim, repeats Stansfield  Turner's operational truism brilliantly formulated by him in 1976 in his interview to Christian Science Monitor, titled Who has The Best Navy. I will help you to recall that:

Pay attention to Turner's succinct observation about the number of keels. He delivers it in the clearest way possible: It is the capacity to do what might be decisive in some particular situation. And the first issue with that, if to imagine some scenario of the battle, say, for Senkakus in which hypothetical American-built (or bought) SSKs will take part is this: what kind of weapons will they carry? Holmes describes his scenario in next terms:

Combining submarines with marine geography amplifies their efficacy at sea denial. Array diesel boats along, say, Asia’s first island chain in concert with unmanned combat vehicles, sea mines, surface patrol craft, warplanes, and missile-armed ground troops and you’ve erected a formidable barrier to passage between the China seas and Western Pacific. That’s a barrier that Beijing will think twice about flouting. You don’t need an SSN to stand picket duty, and in fact using it thus amounts to overkill. Nuclear attack boats have sea-control missions to perform on the open ocean. Used imaginatively, inexpensive diesel subs can reinforce conventional deterrence and free up precious SSNs for more important things, all without busting the shipbuilding budget. That’s the reciprocal of producing über-pricey SSBNs to reinforce nuclear deterrence. How’s that for cosmic balance? 

Well, it is all fine and dandy (on the paper), but even the brief look at the map (First Island Chain) reveals something significant:

You know what it is? Right--ranges, aka distances. First Island Chain is entirely within the range of a variety of Chinese deadly anti-shipping weapon systems which, in case of real war, God forbids, have a complete capability to shut down approaches to this very Island Chain and deny hypothetical US Navy SSKs what they would need desperately--forces supporting their operations. You may have guessed it already, such forces are US Navy's Carrier Battle Groups and their airwings. No support from them, any SSK operating at those ranges becomes a prey for ASW patrol aviation and surface groups which follow. This is, of course, not to mention the tempo of China buying those pesky S-400s and SU-35s from Russia. 

What are, then, the probabilities of hypothetical salvos of subsonic anti-shipping missiles launched from hypothetical US SSKs against PLAN's surface groups to provide a number of leakers is for a separate discussion but I doubt those to be effective against modern naval AD systems. While I totally understand where James Holmes is coming from and I know his bad feelings towards PLAN and namely Admiral Lou, I, honestly, do not see, from what little I know about US Navy, how the habit of "traveling first class" could be kicked, especially in the times of massive stock buybacks and strict bottom lines for CEOs and shareholders. After all, I think, Congress is also on it. But I repeat myself.       

Some Insight Into The Minds of Russiagate Movers And Shakers.

Yvonne Lorenzo sent me the link to The Nation article about this whole Russiagate debacle. I wrote many times that West has larger issue with Russia than merely difference of policies. It is racial at the political top. So, here is summary, of sorts, of the "ideas" about Russia and Russians many exercise in the US. 

Key US officials behind the Russia investigation have made no secret of their animus towards Russia. “I do always hate the Russians,” Lisa Page, a senior FBI lawyer on the Russia probe, testified to Congress in July 2018. “It is my opinion that with respect to Western ideals and who it is and what it is west and for as Americans, Russia poses the most dangerous threat to that way of life.” As he opened the FBI’s probe of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russians in July 2016, FBI agent Peter Strzok texted Page: “fuck the cheating motherfucking Russians… Bastards. I hate them… I think they’re probably the worst. Fucking conniving cheating savages.” Speaking to NBC News in May 2017, former director of national intelligence James Clapper explained why US officials saw interactions between the Trump camp and Russian nationals as a cause for alarm: “The Russians,” Clapper said, “almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were concerned.” In a May interview with Lawfare,former FBI general counsel Jim Baker, who helped oversee the Russia probe, explained the origins of the investigation as follows: “It was about Russia, period, full stop.… When the [George] Papadopoulos information comes across our radar screen, it’s coming across in the sense that we were always looking at Russia.… we’ve been thinking about Russia as a threat actor for decades and decades.”  

It is always funny to read about "values" and "ideals"--if that "way of life" continues, the end-result will be precisely total elimination of everything of true value combined West ever produced with the US Constitution being shredded to pieces. Ah, wait, I forgot--these are the thoughts of people who are directly involved in criminal coup attempt, which by definition is anti-constitutional and violates this very same "way of life" these people allegedly try to protect. One has to have, of course, appreciation of their fever-pitch hatred of Russians and, what matters here, this is not a private, an exception that is, attitude. It is not a secret that very large strata of US policy-makers is afflicted by Russophobia. A large part of this Russophobia, apart from being racial--you know, dirty Slavs and all that jazz--is very much a suppressed complex of inferiority. Throughout all 20th and 21st century not only Russia presented itself as an inconvenient impediment to America-the-savior-of-humanity narrative, but Russia remains the only nation which can remove the United States from the map and can conventionally defeat any combination of forces the United States can assemble. This simple fact makes many in US "elite", which is largely ignorant on the issues of real war, very uncomfortable. 

As Graham Allison, a political "scientist" (that is to say a man who has no real scientific education), the author of stupid in its triviality "concept" of Thucydides Gap,  formulated it:

Technology, in effect, made Russia America’s insufferable but inescapable Siamese twin. The strategic reality is even more horrific. However demonic, however destructive, however devious, however deserving of being strangled Russia is, the brute fact is that we cannot kill this bastard without committing suicide.

There is, of course, a very funny point in this Allison's lament, which really makes his bloviation on this Thucydides Gap nothing more than incomprehensible and self-contradictory demagoguery, so characteristic of current American "intellectual" class. But it merely adds to a spectrum of high class, cultured and incisive thoughts on Russia produced in the deep recesses of American political "science" parallel universe. Nah, I am being facetious--most of this class doesn't have the mastery of the subjects involved: be that Russia, warfare, power or history. Speaking of which--Russia celebrates today Navy Day. "Cheating savages" rolled out some hardware which already packs a very good salvo of high-supersonic missiles and, in the nearest future, will be carrying 3M22 Zircons, which basically add to the flame of Russia hatred among exceptionalist crowd in D.C. 

Nowadays, participation of PLANs, Indian or Vietnamese Navy's ships in Russian Naval parades has become a routine and a good demonstration of increasing consolidation of Eurasian security architecture. Like this latest joint air patrol by Russia and China, with China buying yet another batch of S-400s  and, rumor has it, another batch of SU-35s (this one--SU-35--is yet to be confirmed). Obviously, Turkey willing to take part in commercial aircraft programs of Russia (in Russian) will only add to the Russia-related anxiety of the American "elites". So, to ease this anxiety Russia kicked Atlantic Council out of Russia--a long overdue decision. Those creeps do not operate in reality anyway and are good only for collection of information (aka spying) from Russia's "dissidents" (a euphemism for Russophobes) and for writing stupid amateurish narratives, none of which is ever based in...well...reality.