Suez Moment?

Pat Buchanan, for all my respect for him, shows tiredness and lack of imagination when writes today about this proverbial Suez Moment for the United States. Of course, he is entitled to it and I myself used this expression when writing of America's decline. Pat writes:

Three decades ago, historian Paul Kennedy used the term “imperial overstretch” to describe what happens to great powers when their global commitments become too extensive to sustain. This happened to the British at the end of World War II when, bled, broken and bankrupted by the six-year war with Germany, she began to shed her colonies. In the fall of 1956, Prime Minister Anthony Eden, Churchill’s foreign secretary, was ordered by President Eisenhower to get his troops out of Suez under an American threat to sink the British pound. The British Empire was finished.

That is all true and there is no better eyewitness and chronicler of British imperial demise than Corelli Barnett. But each overstretch, and each decline is different. Pat got one thing right about Soviet demise:

The USSR then disintegrated along ethnic and tribal lines into 15 nations. Its diversity tore the Soviet Union apart.

It wasn't Afghan War which doomed the Soviet Union. But Pat's "history" was always fuzzy, to put it mildly, and he demonstrates it again by presenting this rather bizarre interpretation of it.

Indeed, NATO was formed and its war guarantees were issued to Western Europe in 1949, seven decades ago. War guarantees to South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and Australia were all issued from 1950 to 1960. These commitments to go to war for other nations were issued when Stalin was in the Kremlin, a 400,000-man Red Army sat on the Elbe in Germany, and Mao and his madness had just come to power in Peking. How long must we sustain all these alliances and soldier on in the “forever wars” of the Middle East? Do we Americans still have the national unity, sense of purpose, and disposition to sacrifice for the cause of Western civilization we had in the early days of the Cold War?

Pat is a peculiar man and if very inaccurate with his numbers since in 1945 the number of Soviet troops facing West, in Germany alone, was 1.5 million, in 1949--the year of NATO's establishment--this number grew to 3 million. I wonder why did it grow, wink, wink. I guess Russians were a little bit queasy about this "democracy" thing. As per "sacrifices for the cause of Western Civilization", I am not sure Pat really lives in a real world anymore. If there were "sacrifices" they, certainly, come across as fully unnecessary and, in fact, grossly harmful when one observes today the current state of the Western world and principles on which it operates. Chimera of "democracy" and "human rights" was needed for the realities of the Cold War 1.0 and, at some point, many did believe in it, yours truly included. Once the Soviet Union was no more and the Sword of Damocles of "Soviet global conquest" disappeared, the mask started to come down. It cam down in full in 1999 with West's gang-rape of Serbia. 

Encore with attacking Iraq which had nothing to do with 911 fully demonstrated full hypocrisy and insanity of the empire and all that was accompanied with what seems then as a "positive" development of House Resolution 4444  China Trade Bill in May of 2000 and next, 2001, year China's ascendance to the World Trade Organization--all of it enthusiastically supported by GOP and Clinton Democrats. So, for the US which was dramatically more powerful than British Empire, at least on paper, the "Suez Moment" started around that time. This IS the start of disintegration of the United States and of the aggregate force of sins of the past, from Vietnam to segregation, starting to catch up with the US. Tragedy of 911 was an important symbol but it had primarily a psychological, if not psychiatric, effect. Economically and militarily the United States started to decline even before that. By the end of Obama's Administration the United States was thoroughly deindustrialized, militarily not-impressive and growing in leaps and bounds in terms of incompetence of her elites across the full spectrum of ideological preferences. So, in all, because of the America's size and importance globally, there was no single "Suez Moment"--it is a process of about two decades in making and warnings about America's decline have been heard from many quarters ranging from Orlov, The Saker, me, Patrick Armstrong, Daniel Davies among many others for many years. 

Those warnings were issued not because we wanted Empire to survive, but precisely because of a grave danger Empire posed for the American nation which was being dismantled from within since wrongly perceiving itself a "victor" in the Cold War 1.0. So, as of 2018-2020, especially after international disgrace of America's election process, the United States does not exist as such. It ceased to exist and the country which we have today here is some geographic location in which what used to be known as the United States of America existed. Andrei Raevsky today was to the point when wrote a piece titled: 

The Deep State wins the 2020 Presidential election: USA RIP

But then again, we all warned that the death wasn't coming--it was already here. And what we have today is a  corpse. Yet, recall the last four years and ask yourself a question--the nation which for 4 years was being fed an utter BS of Russiagate and no one even faced a single charge of perjury, lying and treason, speaks volumes about "health" of such a nation, doesn't it? 20 years in historic terms is a very short period of time. The United States self-destructed in a matter of an hour, if not a minute, when compared to the time-scale of human civilization. So, there you go--another one bites the dust. The Saker, however, is still semi-optimistic, or philosophical, when concludes that:

Things will only begin to really change when a new generation of US leaders will begin look at themselves and at their own responsibility for the catastrophe which has now happened.

I can only add that one must learn lessons but present crop of America's "top people" is not capable of doing so. They lack in every department required for true leadership. New generation must emerge, but we all know that "thingy": bad times give rise to good people, good people give rise to good times... and on, and on, and on. So, if you ask me about America's Suez Moment, here it is: 1999-2020. This "moment" also saw a meteoric decline of the American "elites" into psychosis and dumbfuckery not seen in many generations.

In related news, as Laurent pointed out in the other thread, Russian MoD ordered 6 corvettes for Pacific Fleet with only 2 of them being pr. 20380, while 4 being pr.20385--Oniks and Zircon carriers. There is a lot of news coming out of Russia nowadays re: Russia's technological development. This report by NTV is in Russian but it gives an excellent view of Zvezda shipyard and Catherine the Great (Ekaterina Velikaya) newest ice-breaking supply multipurpose vessel being floated, including her impressive Russian-made azipods, not to mention the fact that Zvezda's portfolio for today is 50+ vessels, all of them ranging from major size vessels to super-tankers and LNG carriers. 

Here is a not very fresh video from Zvezda with English subtitles. Dry dock is already finished, as an example.

And in conclusion--a bit of the Netcentric Warfare porn, Russian S1 Pantsirs networking with Podlyot-K1 radar system (means literally air approach) designed to "land" everything including drones. 

So, as you can see Russia continues on her downward spiral of decline and is about to collapse. Any day now, wink, wink.

Roman Empire? Again?

I disagree with Pat Buchanan on his "history". It is not really a history but a rather tedious narrative of the American exceptionalist who knows many facts and still cannot properly juxtaposition them to establish this crucial casualty which is, allegedly, the focus of a serious historical study. Even when Buchanan makes sound observations, he often, as do most American pundits, ends up with this: 

How great a burden can even an unrivaled superpower carry before it buckles and breaks? We may be about to find out. Rome was the superpower of its time, ruling for centuries almost the entirety of what was then called the civilized world. Great Britain was a superpower of its day, but she bled, bankrupted and broke herself in the Thirty Years War of the West from 1914-1945.

I totally understand natural human desire to draw parallels with history's important events and subjects but this becomes, by now, simply nauseating. Roman Empire and the United States have zero commonalities in their histories and modus operandi. Bar some superficial political symmetries such as being a "Republic" and, in the end, being run and populated by humans, any appeals to the fate of the Roman Empire in relation to the fate of the United States is not only a-historical, it is down right risible.  

I already addressed this point before. While one may continue drawing wrong parallels and, as a consequence, conclusions on the fate of empires, I can only paraphrase Valery Gerasimov's dictum on war:

“Each war represents an isolated case, requiring an understanding of its own particular logic, its own unique character.”

Same applies to empires--all different, all unique and all go through rise and fall. So does sun and waves at sea. In fact, the difference between Roman Empire and the US couldn't be starker in the most profound way for a simple reason that, unlike Roman Empire, the United States can consistently be obliterated by "rivals" and, frankly, has a dismal record of military interventions and conquests. What could hit closer to home is, of course, relation of the United States to British Empire on which sun never sets, but did anyway. But explanation to the the collapse of British Power, which is much-much closer to us in historic terms than Roman Empire was given already and this one DOES apply. And I repeated this Barnett's brilliant insight in this blog and elsewhere numerous times, because it is spot on:

"… swift decline in British vigor at home and the failure to exploit the empire were not owing to some inevitable senescent process of history....That cause was a political doctrine....The doctrine was liberalism, which criticized and finally demolished the traditional conception of the nation-state as a collective organism, a community, and asserted instead the primacy of individual. According to liberal thinking a nation was no more than so many human atoms who happened to live under the same set of laws....It was Adam Smith who formulated the doctrine of Free Trade, the keystone of liberalism, which was to exercise a long-live and baneful effect on British power....Adam Smith attacked the traditional "mercantilist” belief that a nation should be generally self-supporting…"  

This has to be internalized by any political and intellectual elite of any great nation in the world, if one wants to continue to live as a legitimate geopolitical entity. The United States cannot continue to live and, in fact, it doesn't want to live as a viable geopolitical entity because they do not teach how to US "elites" and, in fact, feed them a steady diet of self-medicating narratives which are as related to reality as I am being a Chinese. 

While Buchanan narrates America's ills and states that:  

The Old Republic is facing a stress test unlike any it has known since the Union was threatened with dissolution in the Civil War. 

He fails to understand that balance sheet is so not in US favor that any comparisons and parallels to Civil War are also a bunk. The US is utterly bankrupt today and she cannot do a thing about it other than continue printing money and exporting hyperinflation outwards. Big geopolitical player who really matter--they know that US IOUs will never be paid, at the agenda today for the United States is the last chance to prove that she is worth something is to unleash a Cold War 2.0 against the enemy whose economy dwarfs that of the United States and it has a preeminent military power of Russia backing China and the US simply has no resources to "buy" Russia out. Nobody needs funny green papers from people who have a reputation for breaking every single promise they give. 

As if trying to prove the immense scale of the American imperial farce and demonstrate utter impotence. Pompeo called for alliance against China in his speech:

Mike Pompeo, the US secretary of state, called China a "Frankenstein" country and appealed to America's allies to join the struggle against a "new tyranny”. In rhetoric that echoed the Cold War, Mr Pompeo compared China to the Soviet Union and declared decades of US engagement with it a dismal failure. He said Nato, the United Nations, the G7, and "freedom-loving nations" must use "more creative and assertive ways” to pressure the Chinese Communist Party to change. It was time for a "a new grouping of like-minded nations - a new alliance of democracies" to oppose China.

For starters one has to define who those "freedom-loving nations" Pompeo calls on are. Secondly, one has to explain to Pompeo, after all he is a graduate of the West-Point and former CIA Director, how power balance is formed globally nowadays. I know, could be futile but still. Sharp-tongue Zaharova already expressed (in Russian) Russia's attitude towards Pompeo's grandiose statement--no cigar, Russia backs China an it is Russia and China who are, in effect, guarantors of the global peace and stability. Come to think about it, yep, very much so. Kremlin also had a similar reaction and underscored that "Russia doesn't develop friendships against someone."  

Truth to be told, I can understand US desire to de-couple from China and from the strategic point of view, in the long run, it makes some sense. The problem in this whole process, though, is a grotesque manner in which Washington tries to accomplish it. Trump may talk to Putin whatever he wants, as he did yesterday, but he needs to take into account that Russians, as in overwhelming majority of Russians, do not want to deal with Washington at all. Putin knows that and no, Russia is not going to be discussing arms treaties with the US until the United States shows any signs of being trustworthy. So, this may take generations and a removal of a completely corrupted US elite top-bottom, from Congress to media and having competent people getting to power. US literally has nothing to offer to Russia--zero. It is astonishing that we are witnessing such weakness and impotence of the empire, which still thinks it is so great--delusion is a hard ailment to beat. I would suggest for the US to continue with sanctions on Russia and simply call Moscow when Washington gets its act together, internally, at least. 

In related news, USAF "buzzed" Iranian commercial flight from Tehran to Beirut. What's next? Empire getting "victories" by bombing peaceful weddings (oh, wait...), destroying barber shops with stand-off munitions, shooting down commercial aircraft and blowing up nursing homes? As Larison notes:

Centcom confirmed that U.S. jets were involved, and claimed that they were conducting a routine patrol in connection with the al-Tanf base in southeastern Syria. This latest incident is another reminder that the U.S. military presence in Syria is unauthorized and illegal. U.S. jets have no business operating in Syrian airspace, and U.S. troops have no business being on Syrian territory. The jets were operating illegally to safeguard an illegal base, and in the process they nearly caused a terrible accident. U.S. jets shouldn’t be interfering with civilian flights over Syria. They shouldn’t be there at all. Just imagine how the U.S. would respond if the positions were reversed and a U.S. passenger plane were harassed in a similar fashion by fighters from a hostile government in another country’s airspace. This incident is bound to increase tensions between Iran and the U.S., which were already quite high following the acts of war that been carried out inside Iran in recent weeks. Since the jets were there to protect the al-Tanf base, it is worth remembering how useless the al-Tanf base is as a military outpost. It is supposedly there to block the so-called “land bridge,” but Iran can still send men and supplies into Syria by air. Even if the mission served some U.S. interest, this base can’t achieve it. The base serves no purpose except to occupy Syrian territory on a mission that Congress has never authorized. All U.S. forces in Syria should be withdrawn as soon as possible before something worse happens.

So, if anyone thinks that people who matter today want to negotiate anything with the US, they better start thinking hard. The Empire disintegrates in a front of our very own eyes and, unlike in the Civil War, the driver behind a chaos descending all over America has a very different origin than mere fight of US "elites" for the power--this one is of total insanity. 

In related news, Russia put afloat (in Russian) yet another Karakurt-class missile corvette (Cyclone) and is getting ready to take in yet another Project 636 SSK for Pacific Fleet. The Navy Day is coming and Russian Navy, certainly, has very many reasons to celebrate. 

 Ah, yes, Cyclone was built in Kerch in Crimea, same Zaliv Wharf where few days ago two newest Russian LHDs have been laid down. Yes, this image seems to be an official one and these are really handsome ships. 

There is a lot to discuss regarding Russia's armament programs and I will try to get to that soon.  

A Thought Of Note.

Some interesting piece from The American Conservative, albeit I have to disagree with opening phrase--OAC has very little to do with real politics let alone knows about what "socialism" other than the welfare state, which has nothing to do with socialism, is. But it is good and healthy that TAC brought up this issue. It couldn't be better framed than with Tucker's, and Pat's, brilliant quotes:

“Market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster,” Carlson said. “Any economic system that weakens and destroys families isn’t worth having.” Does this observation make Tucker a socialist? Hardly. As is often the case, TAC founding editor Patrick J. Buchanan was more than a decade ahead of the curve. “To me, the country comes before the economy; and the economy exists for the people,” Buchanan said in a 1998 speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. “I believe in free markets, but I do not worship them. In the proper hierarchy of things, it is the market that must be harnessed to work for man—and not the other way around.”

Good, very good, that such a message comes from, however debatable, important source of remaining American sanity. It is symptomatic that they used this:

There is more of a willingness to contest the idea that what’s good for General Motors is good for conservatives—or America.

Finally, the heart of the issue. If America remains a corporate state--she dies, possibly with catastrophic consequences for everyone. If she, in the end, finds own definition as a nation--she has a chance. For that to happen new elites must emerge. Is there a time for those to grow and enter politics? I don't know, but Trump, who betrayed his main pool of supporters--mostly white (there are few Black and Latino voters too) working and middle class people, without who there is no United States of America, is not representative anymore (he never was, Stephen Miller, however is) of those people. I would start with American universities and colleges--which are primarily hot seats of both radical "leftism" or religious exceptionalism, depending on particular school--and this could be done. There is no other, namely relatively peaceful way, than evolution, but it has to be stated that American so called "conservatism" as it was framed by late Buckely and headless war hawks is not about neo-liberal economics, war-mongering and jingoism--it is, in the end, about nation and what's good for it. And it is to the credit of TAC that they close off with this:

The periodic electoral successes conservatives have enjoyed since the 1980s have caused us to lose sight of an important question: what is it that we are trying to conserve? The search for answers is finally ready for primetime. 

In related news, Trump is slowly learning (is he?) that global economy and geopolitics require a better set of skills than that of NYC real estate hustler.  

WASHINGTON/BEIJING (Reuters) - U.S. negotiators have tempered demands that China curb industrial subsidies as a condition for a trade deal after strong resistance from Beijing, according to two sources briefed on discussions, marking a retreat on a core U.S. objective for the trade talks.   

Trump is really running US into the ground, but then again, having teenage (most likely Mossad asset) husband of his rather not too smart daughter as main advisers, or the cabal of aggressive neocon morons in national (in)security apparatus, is not conducive to required American transition to a normal country. Well...

 

Is The American Century Over For Good?

This is the title of Pat Buchanan's latest in TAC and Unz. I respect Pat in his attempts to ask hard and important questions but I always was somewhat taken aback by Pat's sense of world history, especially the history of the 20th century. In conclusion to his piece Pat asks the question:

Today, a watching world is asking: If you Americans are at war with yourselves over race, religion, morality, culture and politics, if you cannot unite yourselves, how can you unite the world? And around what? Maybe the American Century is really over.

Apart from inevitable question of who said that 20th century was an American Century, the main question Pat has to answer is what is the moment when the 20th century allegedly became an American one? Is the United States a great nation? Undeniably so! Is it a superpower? Sure! Did she have a long periods of economic expansion and high standard of living? Absolutely. It is all true but Pat has to understand that American ascendance to the top of the world started to happen after the WW II. While in 1945 world lay in ruins, the United States emerged from the war with pockets jammed with cash and full employment in the booming economy. Six years before that, however, in 1939, as none other than historians of Federal Reserve testify, the United States for all intents and purposes was an economic basket case still not capable to recover from the recession of 1937-38. 

People forget how it looked then, I may remind them. Here is Seattle (with Smith Tower in the distance)--slums by desperate unemployed people, in the area where there are two giant sports arenas located today--Safeco Field and Century Link Field.  

WW II literally lifted the United States out of misery. The War was a "Good War" for the United States. But nothing lasts forever and Pat, who served as a speech-writer to Ronald Reagan, really has to take a look where the tentative American Century, in reality half-a-century, even less, actually, started to go down the drain. I have a hint--look at the 1980s and two parallel processes of that time: debt accumulation and shedding of manufacturing capacity in favor of FIRE economy.  Look at this:

Isn't it peculiar that accumulation of trade deficit started precisely during Holy Reagan's economic policies with the US beginning to "sell" the most viable commodity then--access to the US market. Short "comeback" in 1990, most likely due to kicking Saddam's ass, didn't last--the slide down continued with some short breaks and even attempts to reverse a horrible trend but nothing could have been done with it and today the United States is the largest importer of goods in history, accounting for almost $2.2 trillion, which, when projected against US actual manufacturing capacity MAY reach somewhere upward of roughly 35-40% of American actual real economy. This is a disaster. And then, of course, there is this little thingy of $22 trillion debt servicing of which becomes increasingly problematic, while defaulting will mean a complete implosion of US economy and situation which may bring back pictures of Great Depression Seattle on a massive scale. 

No amount of propaganda can anymore hide the fact that the US is "departing". The question is where to? Obviously, the idea of a debt "reset" by means of war is attractive to American powers that be, but here is a conundrum--a good scale war which will allow to softly default is impossible without the United States being destroyed in it. After all, it is not 1940. Ideas? Present American elite--utterly corrupt, uneducated and bound to interests of other states, be that Israel, Saudi Arabia or any other power with cash sufficient to buy anyone at the Capitol Hill--are not capable to develop a real plan of how to save the country without killing it. So, what could be done then? How much time do we have before excrement starts hitting the fan in industrial quantities? I don't know, but it is clear that addressing these colossal issues facing the United States, be that economic, internal, foreign policy and security will require a completely new and critical and factual look at world's and American history--only from there some ideas then could appear. Otherwise we may get a REAL American century with the United States going supernova and scorching everything around herself in the process. 

Looking at who populate the American decision-making echelon today we are not 100% guaranteed from some desperate and delusional person reaching in the final moments of the American collapse for the red button. As "for good" qualifier in Pat's article? If we all avoid a war, I have to go with Dmitry Orlov's estimate--America still retains many talented and hard-working people, so she will recover at some point of time and will become the great power among other great powers and will finally be cured from her mental disease called neoliberal economics and exceptionalism. After all, to utilize wars one must be able to win them, once in a while, not the case here. 

Timely Pat Buchanan's Question.

Just yesterday Pat Buchanan posted his article Are We Nearing Civil War? at Unz Review. The question in the title of his piece couldn't have come at a more appropriate time. Today, American "left" (which is, in reality, not so much real left as neo-liberal cabal), constantly whipped into anti-Trump frenzy by US low life media (in reality propaganda machine--US doesn't have real main stream media anymore, just some few individual journalists with integrity) gave an answer. Today we all got the result of this anti-Trump insanity: the assault on Republican Congressman House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and his aides at the most profoundly peaceful and American event--baseball practice. The contrasts couldn't have been starker, a deranged "lefty", James Hodgkinson unleashed a 50-round salvo on unsuspecting unarmed people who were playing baseball. 

Now even uber-liberal lefty Yahoo News are forced to disclose this terrorist's (there is no other term for that) state of mind:

A glance at the activity on the Facebook page, which has not been verified, reveals that Hodgkinson was adamantly anti-Republican and detested Trump.The Facebook page contains a steady steam of anti-Trump posts. He said Trump should go to prison for treason and called him the “biggest a—hole we have ever had in the Oval Office.”

Hodgkinson was also a fervent supporter of former Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders, who swiftly condemned the violence on Twitter.

I am not surprised in the least with this, luckily less tragic (most people shot seem to be OK in the long run), outcome. I, not for once, pointed out to the fact of the US being completely divided as a nation, the anti-Trump hysteria unleashed in media is altogether something unprecedented in US modern history. Anti-Russian frenzy, based on ridiculous leaks and platitudes without a tiny shred of any evidence is something straight from pre-war Nazi Germany. Now this. Only irresponsible fanatics (which is a first requirement for people working at CNN, NYT, WaPo, NBC etc.) would deny the obvious connection between not so veiled calls for violence against President Trump and his supporters--be it tasteless, a gutter really, supposedly comic shows such as that of ugly and talentless Kathy Griffin or Shakespeare In The Park where Trump look alike and his family are brutally assassinated on the stage of this, supposedly, play--all that is the toxic, pre-war atmosphere American so called "left", which is a euphemism for HRC's supporters, have created. They now have a very real blood on their hands and a necessity to deal with possible escalation. 

They, US so called "liberal media" bear a direct responsibility for atrocious act in Virginia today. All those Colberts, Maddows, Mahers, Griffins,  turned into a complete tasteless sewer, once great, SNL, HRC's "supporters", most of whom would shit their pants once faced with REAL serious violence they are trying to unleash, all of them are guilty and are complicit in undermining what's left of American Republic. Unlike those wussies I know first hand how it all starts and I don't like what I see in the least. Consequences could be devastating. They still have the choice to stop now or we are looking at the very real perspective of this nation fracturing completely and then, God help us all. I would rather not see such a reality--I know how it may look. I hope that we are not pass the point of no return, at least in terms of bloodshed. As per ideological differences? US is long ago not one, or even two, nations--it is a combination of several of them and for that one may "thank" US Democrats.