Paul Craig Roberts On All This.

 PCR may have finally gotten what he wanted to see.

The imbalance of force has been corrected, and since force is all that the West understands, Russia is using force to end the use of Ukraine as a pawn against Russia. In the past the stupid and arrogant West ignored Russia’s warnings. In his address this morning Putin gave another warning. If the dumbshit Western leaders do not hear this warning, the West will cease to exist: “I would now like to say something very important for those who may be tempted to interfere in these developments from the outside. No matter who tries to stand in our way or all the more so create threats for our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history. No matter how the events unfold, we are ready. All the necessary decisions in this regard have been taken. I hope that my words will be heard.”

We live in epic times. No doubt about it and I happen to agree with Dr. Roberts' conclusion on the fate of the West.

Desperation Sets In.

I am not the first one who noticed this, anyone with IQ higher than room temperature could have noticed that. Difficult to miss really: 

BEIJING/WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The United States on Thursday called on China to use its influence with Russia to urge a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis, but policy experts doubted Beijing would back Washington in the standoff. China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi spoke by phone with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Beijing said it wanted all sides to remain calm and "refrain from doing things that agitate tensions and hype up the crisis."Blinken stressed that tensions should be reduced and warned of the security and economic risks from any Russian aggression, the State Department said.U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland said U.S. messages to Beijing had been very clear. "We are calling on Beijing to use its influence with Moscow to urge diplomacy, because if there is a conflict in the Ukraine it is not going to be good for China either," Nuland said at a regular State Department news conference. "There will be a significant impact on the global economy. There will be a significant impact in the energy sphere."

Basically, this whole panopticon is akin to asking China to influence China's crucial military ally whom huge chunks of China's security depend on to act counter to Russia and China's national interests just because petulant and ignorant children in Foggy Bottom want so. This, folks, is the "level" of the US "diplomacy", which for the last 20+ years provided us with a panoply of amateurs who in normal country wouldn't be allowed to run a 7-11 convenience store or even mow the lawns in any self-respecting middle class Home Owners Association. Yet, here we are--the bunch of State Department chicken-hawks, war-mongers and neocons desperately try to repeat their failed "strategy" of 2014 hoping yet again that Russia will bait and will "go in" and will tie her resources in 404 which Russia doesn't want or need and thus will allow neocons' "plan" to deal with China without Russia to succeed. Good God, they ARE that stupid. 

Here is J.D. Vance:

Billions spent on the Kennedy school, grand strategies seminars, and the Georgetown school of foreign service has bought us an elite that’s about to blunder us into a Ukraine war. Our country is broken, especially in how it trains its leaders.

I have news for J.D. Vance--there is a whole issue with the US education starting from K-12. They do not teach there, as it is done in normal countries, the relation between cause and effect. That is why the US lost its all post-WW II wars, lost its economic race to China, arms race to Russia and effectively produced "elites" which constantly humiliate their own country by their ignorance, incompetence and bizarre behavior. Read an acerbic piece by Fred Reed about the art of governance. They don't teach real governance in the US. Fred has a point, in fact, many of them. 

A Faintly Curmudgeonly Analysis of the Sino-Dimbulbian Clash

Well, Paul Craig Roberts notes in his latest: 

It is over. Putin has won. Victoria Nuland, the neoconservative war monger appointed Undersecretary of State by the White House fool, announced Washington’s surrender when she called on China to use its influence with Russia to save Ukraine from invasion. She thus acknowledges what everyone had already concluded: the US and NATO lack the capability. Washington’s surrender followed the request of the Ukrainian president that Washington stop the “Russian invasion” propaganda as there were no signs of an invasion being prepared and Washington’s rhetoric was too provocative. Germany refused flyover permission to the UK for arms deliveries to Ukraine. Two NATO members announced that they would not send troops if NATO got involved in Ukraine. Washington saw the writing on the wall.

The reality is catching up with Washington. West will have to pay for a mess which it created in 404 in 2014. Russia is NOT taking this freak of a country on her balance and it was the West which precipitated Russia's ultimatum and the issue today is way bigger than just the Ukraine. It is about Russia breaking off with the West on Russia's terms. Those in the West who would have second thoughts--they are welcome to Moscow if they have something to say of substance. If not, too fvcking bad, it's West's problem and they should go back. As Saker noted, Russians are "snow niggers" for the West and Russians, overwhelming majority of them, are just fine with that. This is the fact the combined West should internalize. Russians don't give a damn.  Except when they do, but for that Russia has Defense Ministry and damn good Armed Forces. 

Speaking of which, some details have been revealed about modernization of good ol' Udaloys (pr. 1155) and, as you might expect, all of them will get 3M22 Zircons in addition to other weapon systems and full update of electronic suites (in Russian). 

There is an interesting "slip of the tongue" in this video that Admiral Nakhimov will actually get a navalized version of S-400, albeit media state that Nakhimov will retain Fort-M (S-300FM), but then again, it is not long now for Nakhimov to get to trials.

Paul Craig Roberts' Broadside.

And this is a broadside I entirely agree with. In his latest PCR writes: 

As an old cold warrior as a member of the anti-Soviet Committee on the Present Danger and as a member of a secret presidential committee that helped Reagan end the Cold War, I can tell you that I am astonished that Washington has not heard what the Russians have, in all frankness, told them. If the Committee on the Present Danger had heard the Russians say this in the 1980s, we would have told President Reagan to acknowledge their concern and reduce the tension. Today the situation is so different that to an experienced cold warrior such as myself it is extremely scary. But the idiots in Washington, who face a far more powerful Russia armed with weapons that Washington can only dream about, have no fear. Washington, the collection of the most stupid and arrogant people in the world, is exposing human life to untold risk on the sole basis of Washington’s belief in its own omnipotence.

As many people, me included, are on record--the danger is not America's strength but its weakness which many in D.C. refuse to acknowledge due to hubris and sheer incompetence. As if echoing PCR's sentiment, yesterday Vladimir Solovyov spoke to State Duma's Chair of Committee on Defense, colonel-general Andrey Kartopolov, his biography speaks for itself.  Sadly, this important conversation is only in Russian. It is about possible war between Russia and NATO. 

Kartapolov is of extremely low opinion on European NATO members' military capabilities and is of somewhat better one on the US Armed Forces, but you can easily recognize that he tries to hide his real attitude behind the wall of a politeness. He also speaks in conclusion about the meaning of 3M22 Zircon and what it brings to the table. If anyone can translate or CC this conversation that would be greatly appreciated. This is not some "political" general speaking--the guy commanded Russia's ground forces in Syria at the height of combat operations there. I thought it was important to let you know about this conversation too.

Dmitry Orlov's Take.

Which is very much in agreement with my and others' (Pepe Escobar, The Saker among others) takes on this whole "summit" business and the geopolitical dynamics of the last few years. Here is an excellent excerpt from Dmitry's piece which you can read in full by visiting his blog:

These arrangements are likely to be enforced by China and Russia working in tandem. China is insular by nature and can in general either trade with other cultures or absorb them. The one exception in Russia, to which China now clings like a needy girlfriend. The symbiosis is a natural one: unlike China, Russia is the opposite of insular and can digest and appropriate entire foreign civilizations....Unlike China, whose military is huge but untested in battle and uninterested in power projection, the Russians are a warrior culture that prides itself on its invincibility and that has made coercion to peace its specialty. Russia excels at building and operating huge energy, transportation and materials production systems which China needs and has the vast natural resources to continue operating them for centuries. Its fossil fuels will hold up for another half a century; after that, if all goes according to plan, it will switch to burning depleted uranium using its closed nuclear cycle technology, and there are a few thousand years' worth of it already stockpiled. Faced with such major difficulties, the technosphere has not given up. Without filing a change of address form, it has quietly relocated and is now busy telecommuting between Moscow and Beijing.

Just read the whole thing--it is a great read typical of Orlov's excellent writing and it adds yet another facet to the picture of Western decline which seems now irreversible. As Paul Craig Roberts wrote recently: The Western World Has Repudiated Itself. Difficult to disagree. I heard there is a fierce sausage fight between UK and France at G7 gathering and Biden, obviously, is a bit slow geography-wise. It is a fucking circus.

It Is So Good Not To Feel Alone.

 I am not the only one who loses my cool when writing about Western (American especially) Russia "expertdom". This "expertise", or rather inability of those "Russia experts" to find their own ass with both hands in a brightly lit room, evidently got to Patrick Armstrong too and he wrote, traditionally incisive, rebuttal.

One of the favourite delusions of the people Scott Ritter calls the “Putin whisperers” is that Russia or Putin – to them the two are synonymous – are always on the point of collapse and one more push will bring them down. To the sane, observing the development of Russia from 1991 to 2021, this conviction is crazy: Russia has endured and prospered. But, as I have said elsewhere, these people fit Einstein’s definition of insanity and forever repeat their failures: Ritter calls them “intellectually lazy”. They’re not Russia experts, they’re wrongness experts and constant practice has made them quite good at being wrong.

I also do not share Scott Ritter's optimism about "Putin Whisperers" getting ready to leave the stage and I can only support Armstrong's conclusion that:

I hope he’s right but I suspect that there is still more to come: they’ve made an easy living at this grift and they can’t change now. And it’s depressingly unlikely that they will be replaced by people who can see reality.

Couldn't have said better myself. But then again, intellectual corruption is what defines the field of geopolitical expertise in the United States today. The financial one, is not far behind.  Paul Craig Roberts, meanwhile, wrote a superb piece on feminization of the Western man--the problem which now reaches a truly catastrophic scale. PCR writes:

For a number of years I have noticed that unless I am among older men I often only hear males with women’s voices, speaking like girls, the same intonation and the same words, “like,”  “really.”  I hear males who sound like Valley Girls. When you look at them you don’t see male strength, and neither does Camille Paglia who says androgyny is historically a sign of cultural collapse. 

So is an obsession with macho culture and sports, especially in the US where American Football is more than just the sports-event but long ago became a revivalist ritual for a feminized men, who sublimate their lack of real masculinity and tawdry sex-appeal through the images of new age gladiators throwing a ball in the breaks between the commercials. Let me put it this way, this is, certainly, not an ice-hockey where physical loads and fights are very damn real and very manly in a good sense. These are real fights and they are not for wussies. 

But then again, who would want to fight for this: 

But then...again, what do I know.

Paul Craig Roberts Asks A Question Of Sorts.

In his latest, Dr. Roberts makes a valid point: 

Martyanov believes that Washington’s guarantee to Ukraine is a temptest in a teacup as Washington will not really risk confronting Russia militarily.  https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com I wonder if Martyanov is giving Washington too much credit for awareness.  If Washington were reading the situation correctly, would the US Secretary of Defense have given Ukraine a guarantee against Russian intervention if Ukraine, now better armed by Washington, renews its assault on Donbass?  Washington wants conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and the purpose of giving the guarantee is to produce conflict.  Martyanov might be correct that Ukraine is too wary to trust the guarantee, and that Washington would not stand behind it.  But escalation can have momentum of its own. The publicized guarantee could result in extreme elements pushing the Ukrainian president into foolhardy action.  Neocons and liberal interventionists could insist Washington’s word and reputation are at stake and demand that Biden go to Ukraine’s aid.  I agree with Martyanov that it would be a war based on stupid nonsense, but these things do happen. I only raise questions. Saker and Martyanov are better informed on these matters than I. Nevertheless, I think the risk is high that the American people are going to be very regretful that they permitted the military/security complex to use the dumbshit Democrats to prevent President Trump from normalizing relations with Russia.

I totally agree that confrontation can turn into the full out war very quickly, especially considering an appalling lack of competence and excessive supply of arrogance and stupidity of current administration. But Washington was misreading and misjudging Russia for the last 20+ years at least, in reality--much longer.  But that is the whole point, both Lavrov and Putin are on record when warning about "Ukrainian statehood" in case Ukraine decides to go all the way, especially under the pressure from Washington which needs war in which Russia will be involved. Washington DOES NOT have military resources to do anything with Russia in Ukraine. In general US troops in Europe, in whatever configuration, are merely targets for Russia, let alone if Washington does commit its feeble military resources "in support" of Ukraine. Yes, this could turn ugly very fast and this will create a danger of of an escalation towards nuclear threshold because the United States cannot win conventionally. 

But then again, I am on record for years that the US is increasingly desperate and feels its marginalization, both economically and militarily, in Eurasia. It is ready to do even unthinkable, once one considers the mental state of the US "elites", to hold on to whatever is left of the American Empire. In this case, what is left to mitigate this insanity is Russia's calm but firm posture and I can guarantee that Russians conveyed to the American side what it may expect if it continues on this path. Russia DOES posses escalation dominance and people in Washington know that Ukraine armed forces will be obliterated but think that it gives Washington a pretext to isolating Russia from Europe. What can I say, Russia completed her reorientation towards Asia, so, it is up to Europe to decide what it wants to do. But Russia WILL resolve the issue of Ukraine now and if the United States will stand in the way, well, God help us all. In conclusion: I disagree that Trump really wanted to improve relations with Russia. In his view, it was merely a tactical maneuver, an obverse Nixon's China policy of sorts. Russians didn't buy it. Russia and the United States today are in irreconcilable positions and no dialogue is possible with current US "elites" for a variety of geopolitical, economic, historic and, importantly, moral-ethical reasons.     

Patrick Armstrong Explains...

Why they continue to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. We know the definition--insanity. 

Einstein is said to have observed that insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, and expecting a different result. What a perfect description for U.S. foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Two decades in Iraq and Afghanistan is not enough: keep doing it. Sanctions on Russia haven’t made any difference, keep doing them. Beijing is not the least deterred by “freedom of navigation” cruises, keep doing them. Iran won’t bend to Washington’s will, keep doing the same thing.

One trick ponies, arrogant, uncultured, badly educated--we know that. We knew this for a long time now. But here is an excellent example how the words of real professional--and Colonel Douglas MacGregor is a real deal--can shake and leave searching for words even such an indomitable figure as Tucker when the professional insight is presented. Watch to the end. 

What MacGregor says is nothing new. Many people, me included, spoke about this for many years. It is impossible to explain to some think-tankdom sinecure abusing political "scientist" or lawyer who constantly prod incompetent US political elite towards wars of aggression that reality, economic, military, geopolitical, you name it, is such that the main danger for the United States and the world is not in the US' strength but its weakness. It is this weakness, which cannot be cured under present conditions, and delusions of grandeur which carry with them a grave danger when ignorant adventurists at the American political top may decide to "go all in" and be shaken into the realization that the world operates, and always operated, not in accordance to their fantasies but reality. 

As I always say: what is going to happen in case of real war when the United States military loses after the first salvo several thousand people and possibly an aircraft carrier in one day? What will be a decision process after that in Washington D.C.? Will lowlife journos from the New York Times and CNN provide a sound advice? I am sure Don Lemon has a lot to say about combined arms warfare. Or will it be Thomas Friedman? The loss of competence in the United States today is appalling, it comes hand-in-hand with a complete detachment from human reality and the necessity for players like Russia to seek an alternative communications, such as Shoigu stressed a couple days ago, when speaking about the contacts with the US military. It is not just that the United States is non-agreement capable--that is an old story. One literally cannot talk to anyone in D.C. since it is a complete mental ward. To speak to WHO? And I don't mean mentally and physically declining Joe.  

Paul Craig Roberts recently wrote a nostalgic and very relatable piece titled I Have Outlived My Country. He writes:

I grew up in halcyon days. In those days a person did not have to be brilliant or have ruling class connections in order to succeed. This fact separated America from the rest of the world in popular opinion. Americans lived in a land of opportunity. And it was true, not make believe. In Atlanta, Georgia, 5-year olds could walk alone or with neighborhood classmates a mile to school and a mile to home without being molested or kidnapped. Boys could have fights on the playground without being arrested. Parents together with teachers dealt with problems, which were few. Teachers were outstanding. There was no such thing as education degrees. Teachers had degrees in English or other languages, mathematics, chemistry, physics, history. They were people who loved their subjects and conveyed that to students. Misbehavior, which was rare, was dealt with a note home that had to be signed by a parent and returned the next day. The last thing any of us wanted was a note home. There was no CPS we could call to complain of being punished for our misdeeds.

It is highly relatable when speaking about Soviet Union of 1960s and 1970s, funny how things go in parallel more often than we suspect. Sadly, highlighted in yellow is not true anymore in the US and the country is run by a cabal of Ph.Ds in pseudo-"sciences", which completely eradicated any semblance of a critical thinking and ability of dealing with facts in most people. When Joe Biden is removed from the office--no, there is no "if", just when--due to his inability to be POTUS, Kamala Harris, a lawyer by education and a woman who has zero understanding of the world outside, forget about complex issues of foreign policy and military, she will be controlled by a neocon lobby which will sell its ignorance and arrogance as a foreign policy and warfare "expertise", which was never there. Make your bets, ladies and gentlemen, on how the process of implosion will accelerate for the United States once it will get into the conundrum from which there will be no good exit. Not that it exists now. It doesn't. 

Paul Craig Roberts Reacts To My New Book.

He wrote the review (as well as corrected some minor style and content issues) and here it is. 

The United States isn’t a nation any longer. It is a collection of peoples without a country.  A nation requires a unifying spirit of the people, and the United States has no such unifying spirit.  Martyanov observes that there is nothing in common between a white WASP farm worker from Iowa, a Jewish lawyer from Manhattan, and a black rapper from the Bronx. They view the world, America and their place in it differently, and those visions are irreconcilable.  Martyanov writes that “today, the United States is not a nation, certainly not in the traditional sense of having a dominant ethnic nationality, while the foundational American meme and myth of a ‘Melting Pot’ has turned out to be exactly that—a myth. America’s many ethnicities have not been assimilated to form a single nation, but rather are more aptly regarded as a salad bowl” of divergent interests. America is a tower of Babel standing on the shaky ground of Identity Politics. Such a multicultural diverse country does not have a national interest because unity is absent.  A house divided cannot stand.

You can read the whole thing if you follow the link. One of the main questions which I must answer here, being myself a Russian. Do I experience even if fleeting sense of schadenfreude, granted people who run America fully deserve it? My answer is no for several reasons:

1. I remember a different America which was still free, in a sense we perceive liberty;

2. It is my home, for crying out loud, how can I enjoy seeing my home being demolished and turned into the psychiatric ward? 

But does America deserve a historic lesson? Absolutely! History is blind and ruthless and, eventually, arrogance and lies get punished one way or another and this is precisely what is happening to the modern United States. The tragic feature of this process is the fact that American "elites" are incapable of learning. So, the writing is on the wall, I merely read the signs. 

When Everything Points To...

What Senator Kennedy stated yesterday. 

You know, I am on record that for all my revulsion towards GOP, I consider Democratic Party to be clear and present danger to what's left of the Republic. And yes, I agree with Kennedy that the United States was founded by geniuses and now is run by a bunch of idiots. I am not alone in that, albeit I wrote two books on this issue and write for years about sheer incompetence of US "elites". 

Now Stephen Walt provides this:

A third pillar, however, is broad confidence in U.S. competence. When other countries recognize the United States’ strength, support its aims and believe U.S. officials know what they are doing, they are more likely to follow the United States’ lead. If they doubt its power, its wisdom, or its ability to act effectively, U.S. global influence inevitably erodes. This reaction is entirely understandable: If the United States’ leaders reveal themselves to be incompetent bunglers, why should foreign powers listen to their advice? Having a reputation for competence, in short, can be a critical force multiplier.

As Daniel Larison goes on to observe:

The U.S. has had the luxury of being able to bungle things for decades at relatively low cost to ourselves, but that time is coming to an end. Ever since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has been able to make some staggering blunders without significantly compromising its position in the world, but over time all of these blunders have had the cumulative effect of proving that U.S. “leadership” is neither stabilizing nor wise. 

Well, I am really pleased that someone reads my books, but, as was pointed out non-stop--a main formative geopolitical factor which creates crucial conditions for growing of competent national elites, Continental Warfare on a major scale, a conditioning by war that is, is an unknown entity for the United States. Sure, there was a Civil War which devastated primarily South but as I wrote:

Scales and proportions always mattered, still matter and will continue to matter a great deal, especially once warranted comparisons are made. One of the pivotal moments of the American Civil War was Sherman’s burning of Atlanta, which at the time had a population of barely 9,500 inhabitants, that is more than 27 times smaller than Moscow of 1812.  Even Smolensk with its 1812 population of around 13,000, which saw a ferocious battle around it and was set on fire by French artillery, was still considerably larger. In the end, Russia’s population in 1812, which was around 35 million, matched roughly the American population of 1860 which was 31.5 million. Yet, the difference couldn’t be starker—Napoleon attacked Russia with what then was the largest military force in history, which represented much of Western and Eastern Europe. Napoleon’s Grande Armee, which numbered 685,000 troops, had under its banners French, Saxons, Poles, Prussians, Italians, or what Tolstoy called a “force of a dozen European languages or nations.”     

Until things are put into proper context and scale, one will not stop failing in explaining why the United States finds itself today in the state of being de facto ungovernable and with its "elites" which increasingly become the laughing stock around the globe. Larison arrives to this conclusion:

Because the U.S. has been able to get away with making such major blunders, there have not been enough demands for accountability for the policymakers who led the country into one failure after another. There has been no real penalty for costly incompetence, and so many of the same people that led us down the wrong path before are still in positions of influence and authority now. Trump’s election just accelerated the process by putting grossly unqualified yes-men into top positions in government to serve an even more unqualified president. For most of the last twenty years, the U.S. has been poorly led. For at least twelve of those years, we have had presidents who knew nothing and didn’t care to learn more. Administrations that promote ideologues and disparage expertise are bound to be tripped up by obstacles that they fail to see, and they will drive the country into a ditch over and over again while congratulating themselves on their fine steering. 

Here, Larison describes the effect not the main cause--the main cause, and Larison, having a Ph.D in History, should know this is in the fact that US political elite as a whole was never shaped by the realities of Continental Warfare, unlike it is true for the rest of the word. North American Continent, due to it being a "World's Island" was simply spared the scale of a violence which shaped the modern world, including modern West, which carried the seeds of self-destruction inside itself the moment economic and ideological realities of post-WW II Europe became evident. It was, to a very large degree, a reaction, both intellectual and cultural to a life-changing wound sustained in WWII. United States didn't get wounded in WW II--it emerged as the only nation standing in the midst of the global ruin and profited greatly from that. What's not to like? Studs Terkel was correct--it was "The Good War" for America. And, inevitably, wrong lessons have been learned. This is what in the foundation of the American incompetence--wrong lessons, all around. The collapse of the Soviet Union reinforced already grossly distorted American view on history and on its own "liberal model". 

We thought the Cold War vindicated our political system. Instead it only began an age of illusions.

The reinforcement, due to a delusional view of the world and of itself, of American exceptionalism is in the foundation of the modern American incompetence. What Larison describes, including the lack of accountability for non-stop failures, is just the the method of further idiotization of the American "elites" (or government, or political class, what have you) and this process is unstoppable within existing American political, economic, educational, intellectual and cultural paradigm. It is a cold hard fact of life. It is also a fact of practical geopolitics and of the systemic crisis of liberalism. Covid-19? Just an excuse for the economic collapse which started long before the world even heard about this virus and forecasts of the American decline were made based on a much larger number of contributing factors than economy, or what passes for it at the Wall Street, alone.  

Stephen Walt may write whatever he wants on the American future:

Americans will need to rethink a political system that recruits and rewards those who are most adept at selling themselves to the highest bidder. And there has to be something seriously wrong with a political system that has devoted many months and spent billions of dollars preparing for the 2020 election and ends up giving the country a choice between three old white guys. For that matter, Americans ought to rethink whether spending a full year electing someone to a four year term makes any sense at all. No other advanced democracy does it this way. And while we’re at it, let’s scrap the absurd Electoral College, an indefensible relic that systematically disempowers voters in most of the country.

And I don't see anything wrong with "white guys", them being truly old, that is another thing. It is not about the race, it is about competence. Obama was a first black two-term POTUS and it will take some time before competent historians will write a work on a catastrophic impact on the United States Obama Administration had. But here is the problem, the well of the American statesmanship is dry, it was for some time now, because mechanism which produces real leaders is broken and it cannot be fixed without massive, fundamental changes to America's "way of life"--a change America is not ready to implement... yet. The operation is very serious and dangerous and may result in patient dying but without it, the patient is dead anyway.   

UPDATE: Just stumbled upon excellent piece by Paul Craig Roberts. Totally relevant to what is being discussed. 

The only solution for the economy is debt forgiveness for the ordinary people and nationalization for the companies. Trump indicated that aid might be given in the form of an equity stake, and later sell the government’s stake for a profit in a privatization when things return to normal. This would be a partial nationalization. Much better to go whole hog as it allows a cure for concentration and deregulation. The pandemic has made it clear that a society of self-seeking individuals is not a society. A society is a social system. A successful social system is one that can support its members. Once a self-sustaining social system exists, then there is a basis for people to branch out on their own. But without a sustainable social system, there can be nothing. 

I Am Not Surprised At All.

I already tuned myself to more damning things coming out of Boeing. I do not work at Boeing, so I am not in the position to judge company's current atmosphere and mood, but this caught my eye.  

Boeing has had issues with several models of its jets over the last year. The 737 Max has been grounded since March, the 787 and 777X have engine problems and the KC-46 tanker is restricted from carrying passengers and cargo.AirInsight, an aerospace research, data and analysis firm created in 2009, says it has never before called for any aerospace industry CEO to be replaced.

And then they explain WHY Boeing's CEO Dennis Muilenburg must be replaced. Here is explanation:

"While reducing costs and being competitive is laudable, it can, and has, gone too far at Boeing," Arvai wrote. "Safety appears to be the victim of rushing and cost reduction pressures, guided by a corporate culture that starts at the top." Muilenburg's strategy appears aimed at maximizing the Boeing Company's share price and his executives rather than investing more in new products to better rival Airbus, Arvai argued. The result is Boeing’s market share is falling and the jet maker's failures have caused the company to lose its long-standing reputation for quality and safety, Arvai said.

Ah, isn't it "wonderful" when "financialization" hits the fan and bottom line becomes the only guiding principle behind what is tantamount today to killing Boeing's long time accumulated reputation for quality. I sure as hell recall really well when magnificent B-777 took to the air and it was barely 20 years ago. Today, saying (as it is printed on Boeing's mugs and other merchandising) If It is not Boeing I am Not Going (If ain't Boeing, I am not going) seems like a bad joke. But I wouldn't go as far as this:

"We’ve been looking for good news about Boeing, but simply can’t find any. The 737 Max will end up years from now as a Harvard Business School case study in mismanagement, and the buck stops with the CEO," Arvai wrote. 

And what is so significant in Harvard or any other Business School in America, most of which preach a complete monetarist voodoo BS as an "economy study", when Boeing is just a private case of a much larger complete dysfunction of American political system, much of which is infested with the products of Harvard and other Ivy League degree mills in nothing practical or scientific. Boeing and its current worrisome fate (and I always liked Boeing's aircraft) is just a manifestation of the profound crisis of American statehood. Take a look at Democratic Party--those guys are a complete mental basket case and, as Paul Craig Roberts (correctly I may add) states:

If you are such an insouciant, dumbshit, totally stupid American that you cannot see that there is in front of your eyes, assuming you have any eyes open, an attempt based entirely in the constant repeat of lies by the presstitute media to destroy the political stability of the United States, you should be lined up against the wall and shot for your unimaginable stupidity. That is the message I am getting from many readers. The reason is that it now turns out that the “whistleblower,” an orchestration, first spoke to the piece of dog excrement “Shifty Schiff,” who helped him to write his false complaint before leaking it. The totally false story hyped by the whores who comprise the US media was contradicted in whole by the released unredacted official transcript of the alleged impeachable telephone call.

So, what is the Boeing's case against the background of slow, insidious coup and high treason being committed by primarily democratic establishment against the country? Both are related to what I repeat ad nauseam--they, the so called "elites", do not give a rat's ass about what remains of the nation. Money and power rule, in Boeing's case it is greed of the fat cats, in case of DNC--it is all consuming hunger for power based on delusional and dangerous ideologies. The loss of competence is beginning to reach catastrophic proportions. They simply resorted to making shit up--be it safety of aircraft or basic functions of the state. Does Putin (and Xi) know something we don't? Yes they do. We are left, however, with only one thing--to make sense of the pattern and, if need be, buckle up.

Paul Craig Roberts About My New Book.

PCR wrote a review on my latest book and I give here some excerpts from it: 

Martyanov’s book is, in a way, two books.  One is about the revolution in military affairs that has left the United States behind.  The other is about the self-medicating and propagandistic version of reality that Americans mistake for reality.  Martyanov convinced me that the Pentagon’s war planners need to upgrade their understanding of war and how to conduct one, but I found more interesting the fake reality supported by controlled explanations from which Americans seem unable to escape that is described in the other part of his book.  It turns out that it is not only the insouciant general population but also the ruling elites themselves who are locked in The Matrix.

But one phrase which PCR used (I really wish I could have come up with it;)) is really succinct and beautiful:

                     Slogans masquerade as ideas

Damn, this is good. It also captures the essence of the contemporary political discourse in the United States. Indeed, where are the real ideas instead of nauseating in their repeatability talking points delivered often by people who absolutely have no business in what should have been the "marketplace" of the real thoughts? Bar some large scale thinkers, such as PCR himself, who constitute a constantly shrinking field of people with actual expertise crucial for saving the United States, all we have today is infotainment. But then again: what constitutes this "saving". What are its basic parameters and metrics? Economy? Absolutely! You cannot to anything without economy, healthy, working economy that is. Military power? Sure! But what are the extents of this power, what it should be and how should it be used? Crucial issue? Absolutely! But, in the end--it all comes down to people who constitute this entity which should be saved. 

As classic of Marxism, Lenin that is, stated once (correctly) that idea becomes a real force when it take possession of the masses. Today, there are no ideas, only slogans and they cannot substitute ideas which are badly needed. World became too complex and it requires new mechanism, instead of utterly corrupt and often incompetent think tanks, for generating ideas which really matter. In the end, those are not just about the fate of the United States, but about humanity as a whole and it is this humanity, a global community, which increasingly doesn't see the future in what came to be known as liberalism, which increasingly comes across as totalitarianism in foreign and domestic policies. And this mutation is being countered as I type this. I finished one of the chapters in my new book with this:

Soviet poet Alexandr Trvardovsky left a Great Patriotic War literary masterpiece for the Soviet people—the epic Vasily Tyorkin, large and written in many self-contained parts, because many Red Army soldiers could never expect to read the entirety because of the possibility of being killed at the front. It was a poem about life and the combat of a simple Russian soldier, Vasily Tyorkin, which later transcended its literary origin and lived on in Russian folklore and culture. One of the most powerful episodes in Tvardovsky’s master­piece about River-Crossing under enemy’s fire, encapsulates the meaning of the titanic struggle against Nazi evil:

Бой идет святой и правый.

Смертный бой не ради славы,

Ради жизни на земле.

The battle goes on, holy and righteous

A deadly battle not for glory

                       For life on Earth

This is what at the stake for humanity today. No less than that. Maybe, more.