Yawn. Not Again ...

 Yet another "hypersonic" report, this time by Atlantic Council. Yeah, it is when you cannot deny the truth anymore. 

The imperative for hypersonic strike weapons and counterhypersonic defenses

One can talk about "imperative" whatever one wants but unless those sinecure-abusing former D.C. bureaucrats answer how did this happen, they will not understand anything--they will continue to treat symptoms, not the illness which cannot be treated therapeutically anymore. And even surgery might be too little, too late. 

The United States, which for years had a lead in research related to hypersonic technologies, has been late in recognizing and embracing the military significance of hypersonic systems, which coupled with rapid advancements by US adversaries has created an asymmetry that is growing and that has the potential to jeopardize future US and allied deterrence and battlefield dominance. With an eye toward addressing that asymmetry, there has been good progress in the United States over the past seven years or so relative to developing a family of first-generation hypersonic strike systems for air, land, and sea launch. However, it is important to note that these systems are just now getting to the point of being ready for fielding. 

Hm, so can anyone explain how come that the US "for years had a lead in research related to hypersonic technologies", yet still ended up lagging not by years, by generation of hypersonic weapons behind China, let alone Russia? Answering this question may help to understand why the US is so behind and the gap is growing.

1. We have to start with the WW II and America's aversion to losses. The US cannot take losses, period. As a result, in the WW II the relative ease (when compared to a cataclysm of the Eastern Front) with which the US Army fought in Europe since 1944, and relatively (stress on relatively) light losses in personnel on the Pacific Theater, a lot was attributed to a operations of American air power as represented by what today is known USAF and naval aviation. While in the Pacific this was true to a large extent, Europe was a completely different affair, where while enormously important, the real role of combat aviation was in being a part of what today would be called Joint Force. That is why Red Air Force finished WW II being the largest tactical-operational air force in the world. It was honed for the support of the vast land armies with their massive armor and automotive components, because wars are won on the ground. 

Remarkably, a person who really grasped it earlier than any USAF airmen was legendary Chester Nimitz, a man representing the mightiest Navy in history, who at hearings in US Senate in 1946 stated what amounted to blasphemy for aviators--that "historically navies acted in support of actions on LAND." But American fascination with air power precluded American establishment from understanding ramifications of cruise missile technology, especially with the emergence of solid state electronics and signal processing. The US simply was late at the starting gun, especially with its view that one can still fly the aircraft into the enemy territory, win the dog fight and then bomb the objective. It looked good for WW II, by 1980 this looked preposterous. So, the United States is left today with obsolete subsonic anti-shipping UGM/RGM/AGM-84 Harpoon and obsolete subsonic BGM-109 TLAM. And, no, there is still no REAL hypersonic weapon in the pipe-line except alleged "weapon" of LRHW which is not even in IOC. 

2. The other issue, of course, is a perverted procurement policy by Pentagon and coterie of corrupt lawmakers who have no grasp of modern warfare and have zero experience with strategic planning as is done by General Staffs. The US doesn't have one, it has services, ready to eat each-other for their share of budget pie, it has JCS which is a strange structure which has no operational control over US Forces, whose command is delegated to Combat Commands who have a very faint understanding of what Joint Force is and how it fights. As the result, the US Armed Forces are stuck in the rut of services' delusions and as the result failed to recognize a tectonic shift both in warfare and in the Correlation Of Forces and Means (COFM) until it became too late. AND it is too late. 

So when Atlantic Council calls on this, as one of the "imperatives":

1. Create a munitions czar to oversee weapons development and procurement

Problem statement

The US military services are platform-centric, with weapon programs often having lower priority than development and procurement of current and next-generation platforms. These platforms are notoriously expensive, with delays measured in years and consistent cost overruns totaling billions of dollars. Services historically defund weapons programs to pay for these overruns, while also slow-rolling advanced weapons activities that might in any way compete politically with the advanced platform budget allocations.

Recommendation

The DOD should create a direct reporting program manager (DRPM) for weapons, a “weapons czar,” reporting directly to the deputy secretary of defense, and elevate the principal director for hypersonics to be a direct report to that DRPM, with responsibility and authority for defining the vision, strategy, and execution plans for all high-speed weapons programs, including defense against adversary high-speed weapons, in close coordination with the DRPM handling the proposed “Golden Dome” missile shield. The weapons czar should have authority over advanced weapon budget allocations and be held accountable for program execution.   

I have news for all those in the Atlantic Council--not gonna work, period. The reason it is not going to work is simple--the United States lost the ability to maneuver resources long time ago--the economic and political systems do not support any kind of a dramatic scientific and industrial breakthroughs. In the Wall Street driven Military-Industrial Complex the MAIN requirement for such a maneuver cannot be satisfied--state ownership of strategic industries. No, not money, one can print or issue whatever number of  dollars, it is not going to help. By far not all serious problems are solved by pouring money onto the problem. And I am not even talking about the OTHER thing where the US lost the race by a severe knockout--Air Defense. The US IS NOT competitor anymore. Unless, of course, one believes that mythical Golden Dome is capable to intercept M=13+ 3M22M (Zircon M) or M=27+ Avangard. 

And so, the Conclusion to this "report":

Potential adversaries, particularly China and Russia, are creating an increasingly contested environment that severely challenges US battlefield dominance. A central element of this challenge is their fielding of a variety of high-speed and hypersonic strike systems designed to attack US and allied forces at long range and with overwhelming speed.

To ensure US battlefield preeminence, the Pentagon must develop and field capabilities to enable execution of an integrated comprehensive layered defeat strategy that leverages kinetic and nonkinetic means to defeat adversary capabilities. As part of this strategy, it is imperative for the United States to develop and field its own hypersonic strike weapons in substantial numbers to enable US forces to operate effectively and survive on the modern battlefield by defeating adversary high-end capabilities in a battlefield timescale of relevance. 

Sounds (reads) so familiar: blah-blah, blah-blah, blah-blah. And yes, The US is not even in the first generation of hypersonic weapons, Russia is in second one and we can only imagine what comes next, including maybe something like ... S-600, or 700? Who knows. In conclusion--Admiral Nakhimov's weapons suite. 

Those green thingies are UKSK 3C14 VLS all 100 of which could be loaded with hypersonic weapons which performed brilliantly in actual combat. 

No Shit, Pardon My French.

But even here while correctly noticing the phenomenon Euroidiots cannot come to grips with the reality. NGO Global Initiative correctly concludes in its latest report Crime and Peace, The Future of Organized Crime Beyond Russo-Ukrainian War:

As the conflict in Ukraine approaches a possible turning point, ‘Crime and peace: The future of organized crime beyond the Russo-Ukrainian war’ explores the post-conflict risks and transformations that may shape the criminal underworld in Ukraine, Russia and beyond.

Key findings show that:

• Veterans, IDPs, refugees and those in economic hardship are vulnerable to recruitment into illicit economies, from drug and sex trafficking to ICT-enabled fraud and recruitment into organized crime.
• The end of martial law in Ukraine may reduce state control and allow criminal networks to expand. Once the fighting stops, there is a risk of a reunification of the Russian and Ukrainian underworlds under new leadership structures.
• War-generated expertise, including drones and special operations skills, could revolutionize the methods and scope of organized crime.
• Surplus military hardware risks fueling global arms trafficking, potentially feeding conflicts in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.
• Reconstruction funding, if poorly managed and monitored, couldtrigger a surge in corruption, labour exploitation, and racketeering. Criminals may also look to launder illicit funds into the construction and real estate sector.

May? Are you serious? MAY!? Pals, I have news for you--the REAL risk is not hypothetical, it is very real and the main thrust of already powerful 404 organized crime is going to be into Europe, namely EU. Yes, with provision of weapons (already happening), para-military training (already happening), drug trafficking (old story) and contract killings (Mr. Starmer, how's your real estate doing after Ukie arsonist's visits). EU police and counter-terrorist orgs are amateurs comparing to driven by hatred and mental instability of VSU "veterans". Unlike FSB which is today the best counter-intel and counter-terrorist org in the world, EU's capabilities in facing anything between platoon size armed and organized group to well planned insurgency in any given locality are pathetic when faced with well trained desperados and downright insane killers. In related news, 404 organized crime IS already UNIFYING with Euro organized crime and Europe ain't seen nothing yet.

In related news. Mr. Trump completely confirmed himself a sore loser and a leech:

US President Donald Trump has announced he will have a phone call on Monday with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. It will focus on “stopping the ‘bloodbath’” between Moscow and Kiev and trade issues, he said in a post on Truth Social on Saturday. Following the call with Putin, Trump also plans to speak to Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and “various members of NATO,” he said. The US president also expressed hope that Monday will be a “productive day” and “a ceasefire will take place.” It is not clear if he expects a truce to be agreed upon on Monday or at a later date. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed to TASS that Moscow is making preparations for the phone call between Trump and Putin. He did not provide any further details. 

Donnie, it is your fucking war and you, together with Biden Admin, bear responsibility for this. Your statesman tool kit is that of a loser and a cheap showman and hot air balloon.  

“The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

We arrived at this point in 2000s. And our heart's desire has been reached. 

What IS "Ukraine Model"?

Thanks to Brian Fruman, who pointed me towards initially piece by well known clown and amateur military porn masturbator David Axe who in his piece in Forbes informed us about this:

The U.S. Navy Submarine Force Could Sink The Chinese Fleet And Save Taiwan, But At The Cost Of A Quarter Of Its Boats

But these were not his ideas--I doubt he understands the difference between the Operational Sweep in ASW and Swiffer for the floors, although both are related. No, he described to the best of his very limited abilities by far more interesting paper from real military professionals from CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies) which is called The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan. You can download the paper (PDF) and read summary here:

CSIS developed a wargame for a Chinese amphibious invasion of Taiwan and ran it 24 times. In most scenarios, the United States/Taiwan/Japan defeated a conventional amphibious invasion by China and maintained an autonomous Taiwan. However, this defense came at high cost. The United States and its allies lost dozens of ships, hundreds of aircraft, and tens of thousands of servicemembers. Taiwan saw its economy devastated. Further, the high losses damaged the U.S. global position for many years. China also lost heavily, and failure to occupy Taiwan might destabilize Chinese Communist Party rule. Victory is therefore not enough. The United States needs to strengthen deterrence immediately.

Putting aside all those traditional tropes about China and BS about "international relations", whose real study doesn't functionally exist in the US anymore--died out together with always substandard US "diplomacy"--there are reasons to view paper with interest and it is absolutely normal to game possible wars and everybody does it. So, in this respect this paper is interesting. 

I am not going to review all of it, but apart from interesting admissions such as these:

1. Shift to smaller, more survivable ships and develop rescue mechanisms to deal with crippled ships and multiple sinkings. Surface ships are extremely vulnerable, with the United States typically losing two carriers and 10 to 20 large surface combatants in game iterations.

2. Prioritize submarines and other undersea platforms. Submarines were able to enter the Chinese defensive zone and wreak havoc with the Chinese fleet, but numbers were inadequate.

or this:

3. Continue development and fielding of hypersonic weapons but recognize that they are niche weapons. Their high cost limits inventories, so they lack the volume needed to counter the immense numbers of Chinese air and naval platforms.

among many others, the paper continues to emphasize this: 

 There is no “Ukraine model” for Taiwan.

One may ask what is this "Ukraine Model"? If the authors and CSIS gamers (this time it is a respectful term) mean that the US will have to physically become a full blown party to the "defense of Taiwan", well, they have a point. But other than that, what is perceived as a "Ukraine Model" didn't complete forming itself. Far from it, albeit I do personally view a direct US participation in SMO as unlikely. But, but, that is the other issue altogether--even authors of paper admit some extremely serious military-industrial limitations of the United States, especially in terms of stand-off weapons, and mind you--the US has zero supersonic anti-shipping missiles, forget about hypersonic ones. And not only that, when discussing possible involvement of the United States in Taiwan's war, one has to seriously consider a strategic ambiguity in Europe, as IN WESTERN Europe, due to SMO and it, seemingly, growing scale. 

Yes, the United States has a very good, top notch submarine force--I write about it for years--but what will be the effect of the US losing completely in 404, and then in Europe? And that is not just in Kremlin's plans, it is being done as I type this. What are those "black swans", what are those random variables thrown into the mix, considering a historic strategic miscalculation the US committed when getting involved in perversion of 404 and NATO? There are many interesting points to discuss in this paper and, unlike David Axe's sophomoric writing, this paper certainly deserves to be discussed. So, the link is there, download and enjoy, if you will. I already briefly browsed it, many interesting admissions. And yes, "Ukraine Model" needs to be discussed too. 

In the end, look at the dynamics of rebuilding of Russia's Pacific Fleet, especially subs and surface carriers of 3M22 Zircons, and expansion of both strike combat aviation and delivery of Novella-equipped IL-38N ASW and patrol aircraft. Russia is anticipating some events and if Russia backs China up in this conflict, which is very likely, boy, we may see some spectacle for the ages. But, I am also on record, that PLAN nuclear submarine force is no contest to the state-of-the-art US Navy's subs and well trained crews and the issue of ASW against such a force is of a strategic importance to China, as is of Air Defense. China has very little time to get ready.  I am sure Xi and Putin discuss this often.   

If You Ever Needed Any Proof...

A whorehouse filled with former spooks, Amnesty International, suddenly, after four months noticed:

Amnesty International has accused Ukraine of war crimes during its ongoing military conflict with invading Russian forces. The humanitarian organization said in a release on Wednesday that the Ukrainian military's tactics "violate international humanitarian law and endanger civilians" by operating weapons out of bases established in residential areas while civilians are present.

Oh, please.  You can read the whole report here. The hypocrisy of this is so obvious that one really has to question main reasons behind this "discovery" by enablers of West's war crimes. The main reasons, however, are very easy to spot. The stream of documents confirming almost compete demolition of regular VSU continues to gain strength, and it is also coming from... Ukraine itself.

We may only extrapolate the losses of VSU but even brief acquaintance with the reports tells us that we are looking at around 300,000 KIAs and MIAs. It is a catastrophe for Ukraine, while the bulk of fighting on Russian side is done by LDNR militias. Another proof of that is absolutely ridiculous behavior of Mr. Ze.

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky said on Thursday he would like to speak “directly” with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, as he urged Beijing to use its economic and political leverage to stop the conflict in his country. In an exclusive interview with the South China Morning Post, Zelensky noted that he had not spoken to the Chinese leader since the start of Russia’s military offensive in Ukraine. “I would like to talk directly. I had one conversation with [President] Xi Jinping that was a year ago,” he said. “Since the beginning of the large-scale aggression on February 24, we have asked officially for a conversation, but we (haven’t had) any conversation with China even though I believe that would be helpful.” According to Zelensky, Xi is one of a handful of world leaders who have been to Ukraine “at least once,” adding that the Chinese president warmly recalled his ties with Kiev during a call between the two leaders last year. Zelensky stressed that he wants to see China redefine its stance on Russia, but understands why Beijing is seeking a “balanced” approach.

In related news, I want to directly talk to God and I demand it immediately, while reading famous fairy tale of Fisherman and Gold Fish. Speaking of which, I mean China. 

Upon my video on situation with Taiwan, as was expected, I was bombarded by accusations of "demeaning" China, of "underestimating" her and other sins of this nature. I want to respond to all "critics"--I don't DO pleasantries, I am into business of sober assessment of geopolitical (a euphemism for military-industrial capability) balance. All of those "accusers" miss completely my every praise of China's achievements, but immediately go bananas when I point out things which do define this very geopolitical balance. 

1. Many continue to forget that China still remains a very "good boy" for the US when it comes to sanctions against Russia. Yes, China buys Russia's energy, but so does USA, who exempted it, together with other strategic resources, from sanctions. Should I ignore this fact for the sake of Russian-Chinese friendship? Ask yourself a question why Russia grows her indigenous microelectronics industry with lighting speed? Well, because China is in no hurry to provide Russia with it. I can sit here and write this list for 24 hours. 

2. Many still do not understand that militarily and technologically China lags behind both US and Russia. It is a hard cold fact which many prefer to ignore. Yet, the list of crucial military and dual-use technologies where China lags, not to speak of operational and strategic experience, is vast. It takes a lot of effort to explain to people what it takes to build and operate effectively such huge military organizations as advanced submarine force, carrier task groups or air force, among many others. Sorry to break it for you, China lags here, and this is not just my opinion, it is opinion of Russian military professionals who were directly involved militarily with Chinese. China still has a long way to go here. 

And that is why it explains this today, as was predicted:

ПНОМПЕНЬ, 5 авг - РИА Новости. Китайские власти готовы укреплять стратегическое сотрудничество с Россией на фоне все более усиливающейся напряженности в Тайваньском проливе, заявил в пятницу министр иностранных дел КНР Ван И на встрече с российским коллегой Сергеем Лавровым."Россия неизменно придерживается принципа "одного Китая", выступая против любых посягательств на суверенитет нашей страны", - подчеркнул он на встрече с Лавровым в Пномпене."В свою очередь Пекин готов усилить стратегическое взаимодействие с РФ, чтобы сообща мы могли еще более эффективно отстаивать международную систему, в которой ключевую роль играет ООН, а также порядок, опирающийся на нормы общепринятого международного права", - добавил Ван И.

Translation: PHNOMPEN, August 5 - RIA Novosti. Chinese authorities are ready to strengthen strategic cooperation with Russia amid growing tensions in the Taiwan Strait, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Friday at a meeting with Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov. "Russia invariably adheres to the One China principle, opposing any encroachment on the sovereignty of our country," he stressed at a meeting with Lavrov in Phnom Penh. "In turn, Beijing is ready to strengthen strategic cooperation with the Russian Federation so that together we can more effectively defend the international system in which the UN plays a key role, as well as the order based on the norms of generally accepted international law," Wang Yi added.

 

It took obvious humiliation, largely self-inflicted by Chinese, of this bimbo Pelosi visit to Taiwan for China to start recognizing that maybe there should be more than just buying of energy and some mil.tech from Russia and verbal support in a strategic partnership. Time for CPC to start cleaning its decision-making circles from people from Chinese Komsomol, a precise contingent, which keeps its vast fortunes, families and real estate in the United States and Canada and continues to exercise this illusion that China can substitute the United States as global hegemon and become... the US 2.0. Hopefully this humiliation gives Comrade Xi a necessary tool for removing these people who believed that fantasy. The reaction from China in regards to Russia is really instant, but still, let's wait and see how it will translate into practical actions. Russia fully supports China and will continue her support but it is about time China also undertook very substantive steps, not just declarations, towards real alliance and adjustment of China's economic aspirations to the realities of the Eurasian integration, whose strategic security rests with Russia. Ah yes, Chinese recognition of Crimea as part of Russia would have been nice, but...you know.

Now They Finally Admitted It.

Take a gander at that. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) suddenly admitted that, how to put it politely, the United States is indefensible against serious enemy. Like, you know, Russia. And even if the United States invests into the extremely costly CMD (Cruise Missile Defense) things are not exactly working out for the US. 

Limitations of the CMD Architectures That CBO Examined: The illustrative architectures that CBO examined would be subject to several important operational limitations.• The defenses would have limited capacity—eight LR-SAMs and two fighters at a particular time and location. A raid consisting of many LACMs could overwhelm them. For example, a Yasen-class guided missile submarine in the Russian Navy can reportedly carry up to 32 LACMs (3M-14 Kalibr) in its eight vertical launchers.

You can get acquainted with the whole thing by just following the link above. CBO also provides a map, a very useful one, which in this blog and in my books was discussed non-stop and is at the heart of the matter. Here it is:

It is all fine and dandy until one notices this phrase by Vice-CJCS who says that:

The best way to defend the United States from a cruise missile attack may be to focus on where adversaries are keeping the ships and aircraft that could fire such a weapon and not take a broader approach to counter any possibility. 

Now look at the map above, again. Now recall what I wrote two years ago:

Well, what can I say: 3.14 x 1000^2=3.14 million square kilometers of potential search area for a single submarine carrying Zircons. For comparison, 3+ million square kilometers is the area of India. Good luck coming up with the location probability density mapping for this one. Putin went further and simply confirmed that any carrier of Kalibr family missiles is capable of carrying Zircons. OK, the picture of a modernized (that is Kalibrized) pr. 949A (Oscar II-class) SSGN carrying  somewhere between 20 to 50 Zircons is kinda the stuff of nightmares for any surface combatants, but it is what it is. 

Then recall, that already now Russian Navy takes deliveries of a new Kalibr 3M14M with a range of 4,500+ kilometers, which means 2,800+ miles, and this range is not even on CBO's map. Rightly so, because such strikes can be carried out without leaving defended zones for carriers of such missiles, ranging from surface combatants to submarines, to strategic bombers. That was the whole idea behind creation of new missiles by Russia--to force the enemy to deal with them only at the terminal, thus leaving precious little time for detection, tracking and shooting them down. This, mind you, applies only to subsonic land-attack missiles of Kalibr family, everything else in Russian arsenal flies either high-supersonic or hypersonic which is not interceptable in principle by modern means at US disposal. In this case the probability of the leaker is defined merely by probability of normal functioning of the cruise missile. 

Surely, the  geographic peculiarity of the United States is such that frontal defense against the ocean's "background" is a natural choice:

But the ranges of modern cruise missiles are such that, as CBO's report generally admits, this all is good primarily for non-state actors and regional powers trying to attack US territory. In case of Russia and her land-attack cruise missiles, the salvo could be delivered not only by a direct path from a launch point in the ocean but also by means of bypassing future CMDs over land be that Mexico or Canada. In this case, the detection of missiles becomes a daunting task due to:

1. Submarines with missiles being still within the area of the ocean which requires a very large patrol force to conduct an exhaustive ASW search even in case of a reliable datum, e.g. it may take duty Patrol/ASW aircraft 3-4 hours to get to datum to start with, which leaves ample time for submarine to break off; 

2. Detection of terrain hugging stealthy missiles of 3M14(M) variety over the ground is an extremely difficult task because of the ground clutter and other interference. 

3. Launch from a new iterations of "bastions" making any attempts to counter launch itself impractical. 

Here is a demonstration of a salvo of a combined surface-submarine force of Russia's Pacific Fleet at the state of Washington, without leaving a well defended position near Kamchatka Peninsula. 

So, basically, what CBO and JCS are arguing here for is... a lower end, when compared to Russia, limited national air-defense which could be, and most likely already is, too little too late, once one considers a trajectory of evolution (if not revolution) of modern missile technology which already sees ranges of 10,000 kilometers within reach. While 9M730 Burevestnik (Petrel) has basically unlimited range and hypersonic terminal speed. So, in this case the proposal for such a CMD in the United States is more about feeling good because doing something in this field and, of course, good work program for Pentagon's contractors. But CBO's readily admits:

Although CBO’s illustrative Architectures 1 through 4 would provide CMD coverage of the contiguous United States, they would have limitations. First, some of CBO’s calculations of system performance are based on best-case assumptions. For example, radar detection ranges might be less than the distance to the horizon if the architectures’ radars had difficulty distinguishing low-altitude or stealthy LACMs from ground clutter (radar reflections from the surface). Second, imperfect tracking information would decrease the effective reach of SAMs and fighters because they would not fly the shortest route to their target. The range of results for each architecture should account somewhat for such uncertainties. Finally, other factors, including limited shooter capacity, the need for positive identification of targets, and measures that adversaries could take that would decrease the effectiveness of the system—such as programming LACMs to fly indirect routes, launching LACMs close to the border or coast, or using faster LACMs—are worthy of consideration by policy-makers weighing the merits of fielding a national CMD system. Addressing those limitations would increase costs.

In other words, the scenario is built primarily around some "rogue" power (state or group) getting its hands on container type Kalibrs (3M14s) which could be carried by all kinds of commercial vessels and while it is certainly something in terms of defense, in case of serious conflict and if built, this CMD will be of a very limited use against peer, but then again, if, God forbids, this comes to Russia striking the United States proper conventionally, it wouldn't matter because the most likely final state will be a nightmarish scenario of nuclear exchange between Russia, US and, likely, China. This, must be avoided by all means. But the most instructive about this CBO Report is admission of what I wrote about for the last 7 years, in fact, much longer than that--new, radical military technologies are already here and it is them, which forced the United States to face a bankruptcy of its views on warfare and its self-proclaimed primacy in the military-technological sphere. Don't tell me that I didn't warn about it, I, sure as hell, did. Do I have a smile on my smug face right now? You can bet your ass--I do. I love "I told you so" moments. Well, I am a mere mortal sinner;))

They Begin To Suspect Something. Like...Again.

Like now. 

Took them merely a few decades to figure that out. Congressional Research Service prepared the overview of economic sanctions in January this year for 117 Congress and, boy, they finally figured Russia's game out, LOL.

The economic impact of a sanction also depends on the extent to which the target is able to circumvent or adapt to the sanction. The Maduro government of Venezuela, for example,has sought closer economic ties with China and Russia in the face of U.S. sanctions, and the Russian government used its sizeable foreign exchange reserve holdings to support sanctioned firms and focused on creating domestic industries.It is more difficult for the target to find alternative markets when sanctions are imposed multilaterally than when sanctions are imposed unilaterally.

The report is hilarious in a "no shit" or "the hell you say" sense and if Russia's "secret" game (which is in the open since who knows when) was finally "revealed", conclusions like that should give those geniuses in Congress a pause.

Sanctions also impose economic costs for the United States, because they restrict economic transactions in which U.S. individuals and firms would otherwise engage. U.S. business groups have at various points raised concerns that sanctions harm American manufacturers, jeopardize American jobs, and, when sanctions are implemented unilaterally, cede business opportunities to firms from other countries. U.S. sanctions also risk retaliatory measures by the target. For example, the Alaskan seafood industry and Washington State apple and pear producers were negatively affected by Russia’s retaliatory ban on agricultural imports from countries imposing sanctions. Policymakers have expressed longer-term concerns that extensive use of U.S. sanctions that restrict access to the U.S. financial system could erode the status of the U.S. dollar in the global economy. Since World War II, the U.S. dollar has been widely used in international economic transactions, and the United States incurs economic benefits from its widespread use (including lower borrowing rates). The United States has increasingly leveraged the role of the U.S. dollar for foreign policy goals, including restricting access to the U.S. dollar and financial markets for Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. Many foreign governments targeted by U.S. financial sanctions and their economic partners are increasingly exploring and creating ways to reduce their reliance on the U.S. dollar. If countries pivot from the U.S. dollar to alternative currencies, the United States could face higher borrowing costs, among other economic effects. 

Serious countries do pivot away from US Dollar and the dedolarization continues to accelerate even as I type this. Even this fresh graph doesn't tell the whole story, albeit it gives a good hint. 

In related news--shooting oneself in the foot hurts like hell. Committing a suicide also has an adverse effect on one's health etc. Make no mistake, all kinds of BS ratings "proving" that the US Dollar is a coolest most widely-used currency will continue to be concocted in the currency-speculation alternative economic universe in the US, but facts are irresistible things, no matter how one tries to spin them:

The US dollar has lost to the euro as the number one currency for global transactions for the first time in nearly eight years, said the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT). According to Bloomberg citing monthly SWIFT data, the last time the euro was in the number one spot was February 2013. 

Moreover, alternatives to SWIFT, let alone mutual trade in respective currencies, are already in place and this cannot be changed other than by the means of a global war. Does the 117th Congress want to try it and see what happens? Russia cannot be contained in any way: economically, financially, let alone militarily. China? Well, the window of opportunities to do so militarily--economically China dwarfs the United States--is closing really fast and if actual military alliance between Russia and China is formed, the United States will simply be pushed to the periphery of global economic activity, most of which is already concentrated in Eurasia. EU, in this sense, is a secondary matter--it will either disintegrate, with some countries choosing economic monster in the East, or it will continue to sink in its own cesspool of shrinking manufacturing and bizarre totalitarian cults ranging from alternative energy to alternative gender (and mental) composition. Simple as that. If they sink, they can go to hell, as Lavrov so explicitly told Borrell on his recent visit to Russia for EU to go fuck itself. Now, those butt-hurt Europeans contemplate how could this barbaric and backward Russia tell EU to go fuck itself. 

The European Union's foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, has said that Russia does not want a dialogue with Europe and has refused to rule out further sanctions on Moscow over the treatment of opposition leader Alexei Navalny. In a statement on Twitter, Borrell said that his visit to Russia "highlighted that Russia does not want to seize the opportunity to have a more constructive dialogue with the EU. This is regrettable and we will have to draw the consequences," he said.

Yes, Russia and EU are "drifting apart" because  Russia doesn't want to deal with a sanctimonious freak-show which Europe has become. If EU will impose new sanctions on Russia, so be it. They were told this on many occasions. Russia will simply counter-sanction EU and will throw more EU businesses out of Russia. Simple as that. I have been a proponent of a new Iron Curtain now for many years--culturally Europe is done and has no future whatsoever and the rotten corpse of once proud Western Civilization poisons the atmosphere. Russia is not into business of saving those who do not want to be saved. Minimal economic activity should be maintained, possibly some bi-lateral exchange, but the rest--Europe is a moral and economic leprosy-afflicted space which has to be isolated and contained. In fact, the events of the last few weeks give a good indication that the process of containment is ongoing. Boy, I wish I knew Chinese (Mandarin) to be able to read Chinese media about what Wang Yi and Lavrov discussed a few days ago, granted it is available for Chinese press. I begin to suspect something... wink, wink.

American Politcs Today.

There is a good ol' Russian (Soviet, really) anecdote: two cowboys, Bill and John, ride their horses in prairie. While riding there, Bill sees a pile of horse shit and because he has 100 dollars it occurs to him--why wouldn't I dare John to eat this pile of horse shit for a hundred dollars. So, he dares John to do just that. John thinks: hm, of course, eating horse shit is really humiliating and disgusting but 100 bucks, damn, too serious of a money to pass on such an opportunity. So, he agrees and eats this pile of shit and Bill gives him his 100 bucks. They continue to ride side-by-side after that. While riding both think. 

Bill: well, it is all cool that John ate a pile of horse shit but, man, 100 bucks is too great sum of a money to pay even for such an atrocious challenge. I wish I never dared Bill and kept my 100.

John: well, it is really cool to have 100 bucks, but, man, I ate a pile of horse shit for that and now Bill will taunt and humiliate me for this. I wish I never agreed to accept his challenge. 

While thinking like that they pass another pile of horse shit and John dares Bill to eat this pile of shit for 100 bucks. Bill agrees and does just that, John gives him 100 bucks. After that both cowboys continue to ride side-by-side in full silence. After few minutes of riding in silence John breaks it: 

"Hey, Bill, you know what? Don't you think that we both just ate a load of horse shit for free?" 

This is a description of modern American politics which is an exercise in eating an excrement. In related news, US MSM is officially dead and its rotting corpse poisons atmosphere, and US political house is a house of organized crime, this is what Mueller Report confirmed today. 

The short version? Mueller is done. His report unambiguously states there was no collusion or obstruction. He was allowed to follow every lead unfettered in an investigation of breathtaking depth. It cannot be clearer. The report summary states, “The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 US Presidential Election…the report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public.” Robert Mueller did not charge any Americans with collusion, coordination, or criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. The special counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated,” a much lower standard defined as an “agreement, tacit or express,” with Russian election interference activities. They did not. Everything—everything—else we have been told since the summer of 2016 falls, depending on your conscience and view of humanity, into the realm of lies, falsehoods, propaganda, exaggerations, political manipulation, stupid reporting, fake news, bad judgment, simple bull, or, in the best light, hasty conclusions.

The only way United States will be able to recover at least some self-respect (forget it on the international arena) is if those people, including in both Clinton and Obama clans, who came up with this whole coup attempt and unprecedented attack on Constitution and Due Process will see real justice and prison terms. If not, and it will continue to be business as usual, then it is really over. As per sanctity of Office of POTUS, since Bill Clinton times all efforts were put in discrediting this important office, including by its present occupant.    

It Is The Devil You Know-III

A very interesting report on MC-21 by AirInsight. Analysis, however, presents MC-21's performance with Pratt and Whitney engines (even with those it is broadly superior), not with PD-14, which should improve performance even more. As analysis states:

The MC-21 will be a strong performer, and our independent economic analysis confirms that this aircraft will have compelling economics if the aircraft meets its projected performance.  With flight tests underway and confirming fuel burn and other performance factors, we expect the MC-21 to be the most competitive civil aircraft ever produced in Russia, with compelling economics and low capital costs.  If the aircraft performs reliably and can be readily maintained, we expect it to be a market success, projecting more than 1,000 deliveries over the next 20 years.  

The Report itself is expensive ($ 500) but they still provide the table:

Plus, makes this important conclusion: 

The MC-21 is the first of the next generation of narrow-body aircraft, competing primarily with re-engined models of aircraft that first entered service 51 and 29 years ago. 

It is a crucial distinction since MC-21 is the only fully new and thoroughly contemporary mid-range aircraft on the market, including its latest state-of-the-art composite wing and systems. This adds additional "angle" on the issue of Russian sanctions--nobody likes strong competitors. It is very clear where the arms market goes with Russia "coming out" with a whole new cluster of weapon systems. Now, commercial aviation? There are many unhappy campers out there. This market segment is the juiciest one.   

RAND's Wet Dreams.

For those who are interested in what makes RAND "click" nowadays in terms of its delusions and doctrinal and operational gibberish they "research", one may try the latest from Mr. Ochmanek and Co. in terms of what they present as:

U.S. Military Capabilities and Forces for a Dangerous World,  Rethinking the U.S. Approach to Force Planning

You can easily download PDF with their tedious report and if you have the time you may indulge yourself in about 153+ pages of an operational and strategic delusion which RAND's big brains present as a scientific research. I will not elaborate here on some overtly preposterous claims and false assumptions such as this one, among many:

To defeat ISIS, the United States has supported two major elements of the anti-Assad rebellion in Syria.

LOL, yes, by supporting and training these very same ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Or this strategic pearl unique in its hilarity:

During spring 2016, the Russian aerial campaign had some success in helping the Syrian armed forces to defeat a variety of rebel groups in and around Aleppo, Syria’s second-largest city. The Russian aerial intervention has complicated U.S. and allied use of air power and SOF units to inflict damage on ISIS.

Not to mention, of course, this, expected by now, statement:

More to the point, for the United States, having the finest force in the world does not, in and of itself, guarantee that those forces will be able to meet all of the demands being placed on them. Since the United States’ entry into World War II, this nation has espoused and largely practiced a uniquely ambitious national security strategy.

Obviously, causalities of WW II, as well as proportions and scales of it are not known to authors but how the "finest force" managed not to win since 1945 any conflict with any more or less determined (forget peer) adversary remains a complete mystery shrouded in the fog of RANDeanese or Pentagonese lingo and in the obfuscation of the most crucial operational, strategic, cultural and social factors of wars the United States fought since WW II. Well, WW II history in the US is altogether  a peculiar subject. But never mind, folks. Obviously, the authors of this "research" come up with pretty generic conclusions. You know, something like that: 

Addressing the challenges posed by the most-capable adversaries generally calls not for a larger U.S. force but rather for a force equipped with appropriate modern weapons and support assets that is also postured for responsive and resilient operations in theaters of potential conflict.

Yes, gimme, gimme, gimme, more, more, more of the same. That means more pork in producing weapon systems which do not work. And here comes this thing in this report--Russia, being named a main adversary of the United States (China, obviously, is second--but that is not really a contingency. Why, is a separate matter)--what kind of war with Russia. Forget now highly anti-scientific and anti-military propaganda BS of a "hybrid war" simulacra--by now the use of it is a first sign of military incompetence of people who express their opinions on the warfare. Authors, after repeating all tired and false cliches about US military, review the force required to fight a so called major war with Russia. They even tabulate it. Here is this table:

Granted Mr. Ochmanek's background in Air Power, one is literally forced, however, to ask him where did this number of 28 fighter squadrons and 7 bomber squadrons required to fight those pesky Russian Forces which are about to overtake free and democratic Europe come from? It is a number which can be expanded to a number of single aircraft using maximum parameter of 24 aircraft per squadron, that is 28 x 24 = 672 fighter aircraft and 7 x 12 = 84 bomber aircraft, plus all kinds of other transport and AWACS etc. So, altogether we are talking about 756 combat aircraft by 2020 "major conflict" with Russia. That is, of course, if Russia would want for some unknown reason "invade" those magnificent Baltic States. Obviously, to sound scientific Ochmanek and his group employ all kinds of platitudes and pre-conditions  such as:

We exhort the reader not to place too much store in the numbers in the table. They are based on the authors’ estimates using internal analyses and unclassified sources. The numbers that DoD would use are undoubtedly somewhat different. Our purpose in presenting them is not to attempt to provide definitive estimates of need, but rather to show a concrete example of how our recommended approach could be applied and to provide a basis for first-order comparisons of the size and cost of the resulting forces.

Well, this is all fine and dandy and I, actually, agree with authors here on this particular issue--it is advisable to give at least SOME numbers which illustrate methods; but immediately here comes the question--WHAT methods are behind those estimates? This, if one discards this fluffy rhetoric about "finest force" and all this "stealth", "platforms" and other BS lingo. One must ask next questions and answer them:

Q. When was the last time the USAF fought in highly dense EW environment with AD systems whose capabilities already today cover ALL challenges which are presented by the latest in US technology? 

A. Never. In fact, the USAF may not even internalize yet that it will (not may) fight blind with its C3 either seriously challenged or completely disrupted. 

Q. When was the last time the USAF fought world-class adversary AF which can approach or match USAF on the theater both in quality of its pilots and aircraft, and in quantity? 

A. Never, since Korea. 

Q. When was the last time the USAF deployed to the front-line, or even rear, airbases which were subjected to major attacks by adversary's both AF and salvos of cruise and tactical operational high precision stand-off weapons, which led to a severe disruption of air operations, massive casualties of personnel and significant loss of aircraft? 

A. Never. After observing a rather unimpressive performance (OK, failure) of the Patriot anti-missile systems against obsolete 1970s Yemeni Scud knock-offs recently, one is forced to ask what will this AD do against state-of-the-art, stealthy, AI-driven and EW resistant missiles' salvo, say of 40 or 60 missiles? How about several such salvos?

Q. Does Mr. Ochmanek understand that the myth of Stealth has been completely dispelled and modern AD complexes and advanced radar systems of modern aircraft such as SU-30SM, SU-35C or MiG-31BM see, track and can shoot down any "Stealth" target? 

A. Maybe, but his Politburo tells him to produce this pseudo-scientific trash otherwise he will lose his sinecure. 

Q. Does this RAND group calculate own attrition (or FERs, Fractional Exchange Rates) in such conflict correctly? 

A. No. Anyone who thinks that the force of 762 good but fairly conventional (or really bad) combat aircraft can go against Russian Air-Space Forces in Russia's vicinity and win is either delusional or incompetent. USAF will not be able to suppress Russia's AD system to start with, the opposite most likely will be true. 

I am not even going to ground forces here--any military realist can see what is coming by 2020. So, the more one begins to ask this kind of questions, the more one begins to see a complete lunacy of this kind of "planning", "research" and "advice", which, in case of RAND, is delivered to US policy-makers as a distilled wisdom.  It is obvious that this "wisdom", as I already stated, is more about money--funding for Military-Industrial Complex. As DIA's Russian Military Power reports:

Russia also has a deep and abiding distrust of U.S. efforts to promote democracy around the world and what it perceives as a U.S. campaign to impose a single set of global values.

Here is the issue, Russia doesn't "perceive" anything about the US anymore. US' "stellar" record of unleashing conflicts all over the world, supporting terrorist groups and all kinds of illegal overthrows of governments is out there for everyone to see. So, if that is called "promotion of democracy" then I kinda get it why huge number of people around the globe try to arm themselves. But the 800 pound gorilla in those calculations is still in the room and it is inescapable not to notice it: when was the last time the US won anything militarily? I can only state obvious--bar some turkey shoot in Gulf in 1991--nothing. One of the reasons for failing time after time to win a classic military conflict, that is "compel the enemy to do our will" is, as I continue to state non-stop for years now, a complete delusion of American military planners who long ago bought their own carefully-crafted mythology about superiority of own weapons, which are not superior, or about superiority of an American soldier (American soldier is a good soldier but not "superior"--it depends), or of American "planning" which fails time after time the test of military reality, in which "superior" and false numerical coefficients are being plugged into the combat models to produce politically correct outcomes. As this RAND "research" testifies to--the lessons haven't been learned and they cannot be learned--they are difficult to learn until one sees what real war does to his own family, property, country, in the end--to himself. Those things are unknown and beyond the grasp of the "best of the best" US military planners, since none of them ever fought defending their home. Russians did it for millennium. No amount of falsification, stolen valor or propaganda can hide this simple military fact. Certainly not this RAND's pseudo-scientific report.