Pepe Escobar, Larison And the State of Contemporary American Oraclism.

Pepe wrote a superb piece on late Zbig and what comes down to an American vast field of geopolitical (on average fraudulent) forecasts at large. In a piece symptomatically titled The Art of Being a Spectacularly Misguided Oracle, Pepe notes:

Over the years, it was always amusing to follow the heights Dr. Zbig would reach with his Russophobia. But then, slowly but surely, he was forced to revise his great expectations. And finally he must have been truly horrified that his perennial Mackinder-style geopolitical fears came to pass – beyond the wildest nightmares. Not only Washington had prevented the emergence of a “peer competitor” in Eurasia, but the competitor is now configured as a strategic partnership between Russia and China.Dr. Zbig was not exactly versed in Chinese matters. His misreading of China may be found in his classic A Geostrategy for Eurasia published in – where else – Foreign Affairs in 1997.

There was nothing unexpected in Zbig's worst nightmares becoming a reality since Zbig was not well-versed not only in Chinese matters, but Russian ones too, not to mention the fact, of which I write non-stop for years, including the latest book, modern geopolitics, or rather what is perceived under this title, has as much in common with purely geography-driven Mackinder's pseudo-science he developed in his The Geographical Pivot of History and, later Democratic Ideals and Reality, as I have genetically with white whales or aliens from planet Zoltar. Here is the deal with all this "geopolitics"-- geography as a function of ranges (distances) and landscape nowadays, say starting circa 1960s, stopped playing a defining role yielding it, finally, to a industrial-technological development of countries which overwhelmingly defines modern "geopolitics".

In Soviet/Russian public schools this "geopolitics" is being taught as a course in Geography, both physical and economic. Here is an example of economic geography exam in Russian schools. This also qualifies to be the part of yet another constituent part of multiplication of pseudo-scientific essences such as Luttwak's introduction of "geoeconomics" being a separate study, as Luttwak insists, from "geopolitics".  So, what was touted in the West as some kind of a separate study and highly vaunted expertise is nothing more than an eclectic approach to primarily an economic geography, history and economics, or those legitimate disciplines' lobotomized bastard child of political "science". And why not? In the academe which counts Queer Studies as a viable academic discipline and Ph.Ds in Gender are bestowed on  people who can barely operate with basic logic, not to speak of vast arrays of complex information, it is absolutely not surprising and only natural, that people of Zbig's or Kissinger's backgrounds would be counted as Oracles, despite them, and many others from a vast cesspool of America's 'geopolitical and political science sinecures, being constantly wrong on pretty much any issue of modern geopolitics and global balance of power. 

Oh, come on, let's face it, the only thing these pseudo-oracles could ever sell was a "reasoning" based on a complete factual BS which was and is treated as a "scientific" fact, while in reality being a figment of imagination of a class of America's fraudulent oracles, whose main task is a development of explanations of why their predictions never become a reality. Ah, those sinecures and pseudo-intellectual magazines serving as Ilf and Petrov once defined as "life-giving springs of remuneration." So, if Zbig, Fukuyama, Kissinger, Huntington or Luttwak never saw their "predictions" to pan out--don't be surprised, I never saw a successful routine appendectomy performed by a local grocery store custodian or even the best electrician from the best local company. Unless, of course, they decided to exchange their 8 years of study and internship in mdeical school for salaries of said custodian or electrician, which under modern conditions may not seem as far fetched. Some good level electricians today make a killing reaching sometimes $90 per hour, and I thought myself about doing this, but then again--I am relatively young and if I need to commit suicide, I have much better alternatives and my body will be still intact, relatively, compared to my sorry ass being turned into the pile of ash, with the only benefit being a free on-sire cremation. But I digress. 

We all need to understand the name of the game--it is wrapping an acute ignorance into the veil of seemingly legitimate and respectable "scientific" verbiage. If predictions do not pan out, who cares. Well, in the United States of the last 30 years no "geopolitical" prediction, there were many of them, panned out precisely because of the American geopolitical Beau Monde being "not versed" in the the main constituent parts of good forecasting: modern real (industrial) economy and warfare. Both require a set of knowledge and skills which are beyond the scope of whatever passes today as "education" in geopolitics in the West. It is all fine and dandy to have an excellent background in economic geography, which is a legitimate field of study, but until one understands the impact of these two on US "foreign policy", one will continue to observe such arguments as Daniel Larison tries to make when addressing a complete neocon moron with Ph.D in "public policy" such as Robert Kagan:

U.S. hegemony was an artifact of a very peculiar period in world history that will never come again, and as we move out of that period we need to adapt our foreign policy strategy accordingly. Kagan and Rasmussen are products of that period and cling desperately to it because it is what they know. They are trying to preserve a U.S. role in the world that no longer makes any sense for the world as it is.

No, Mr. Larison, despite validity of your many points, Kagan, Rassmusen et al, are not just "products of that period". This is not it, I know a truckload of people who are "products of this period", me being one of them. The reason they cling to a myth of America's hegemony is because this is THE ONLY thing which dominates America's geopolitical Parnassus infested with people who are utterly uneducated and cannot possibly grasp a scale of the technological, industrial, scientific and military advances in the last 20 years. Kagan has degree in "public policy" and his loyalties are to Israel, Rassmussen has degree in social studies and was a Prime-Minister of the country, which is smaller than the couple of southern boroughs of Moscow, or St. Petersburg. Even if to imagine that they wanted to move on, which they don't, neoconservative-liberal interventionism is now in a stage four in the United States, they can't. They do not have intellectual wherewithal to do so. Can you imagine this fat ass Kagan studying real Operational Theory or how advanced weapons are designed and produced? Come on, let's be real. Look at the modern Europe today, at its degenerate political and media class, same goes for the United States. 

We literally have "humanities-educated" class running things into the ground. As I state non-stop, I am all eyes and ears, rubbing my hands in anticipation, waiting for America's geopolitical Parnassus to produce a viable argument in favor of "learning historic lessons" from Peloponnese Wars as applied to operations of modern militaries, say in dense ECM-ECCM environment. I bet, this thing has way more profound impact on modern geopolitics, than late Zbig or Fukuyama, or Kissinger ever wrote on anything. As I say non-stop, I am not against humanities studies, they are part and parcel of classic education which we all sorely miss today among Western "elites" who are grotesquely uncultured, despite having access to an expensive Scotch and the best golf-clubs in the world. I am terrified of some "human rights" lawyer or Ph.D in "public policy" getting to the levers of a political power and trying to apply that precious little of value which was taught to him to the world which is so complex that it cannot afford anymore the class of "experts" who cannot predict their next own bowel movement, let alone the global transfiguration unfolding in a front of our own eyes. What we have today in the US is a class of people who, as Pepe correctly states, are spectacularly misguided oracles, who haven't got anything right in decades but who continue to push their own opinions and forecasts which are irredeemable both from academic-scientific and human points of view. Ignorance is not an extenuating circumstance in case of American "geopolitics", which in the last 30 years produced one failure after another thus justifying, directly or by proxy, a massive war crime a rotten Empire has committed trying to extend its self-proclaimed hegemonic life by means of robbery and violence. The accounts will be settled one way or another. But even a broken clock is right twice a day, not American geopolitical "academe".  

Stephen Cohen Makes A Slight Mistake.

When Dr. Stephen Cohen speaks, I listen. So, I read his latest piece on pathological neocon war-mongers (most of them draft-dodgers or humanities "professors" thousands miles away from theaters of operation) in RT. It is a good piece:

Anyone who has lived through or studied the preceding forty-year Cold War will recognize the ominous echoes of its most dangerous periods, when actual war was on the horizon or a policy option. Here are only a few random but representative examples: In a March 8 Washington Post opinion article, two American professors, neither with any apparent substantive knowledge of Russia or Cold War history, warned that the Kremlin is trying “to undermine our trust in the institutions that sustain a strong nation and a strong democracy. The media, science, academia and the electoral process are all regular targets.” Decades ago, J. Edgar Hoover, the policeman of that Cold War, said the same, indeed made it an operational doctrine.

But then Doctor Cohen makes a slight mistake when states that:

But the preceding Cold War was driven by an intense ideological conflict between Soviet Communism and Western capitalism.

Here, we have to be very clear that on the West's (primarily Anglo-Saxon West) side this war was against historic Russia, not "communism" (grossly misunderstood and deliberately misinterpreted) and Russians. Hans Morgenthau was explicit in 1957, as were explicit American ideological doctrines that emphasized:

   "I would say, and I have said many times before, that if the czars still reigned in Russia, that if Lenin had died of the measles at an early age, that if Stalin had never been heard of, but the power of the Soviet Union were exactly what it is today, the problem of Russia would be for us by and large what it is today. If the Russian armies stood exactly where they stand today, and if Russian technological development were what it is today, we would be by and large confronted with the same problems which confront us today."

US problem was not with "communism", which was merely a propaganda cliche, it was with Russia and Russians as  such, as a nation.  It still is. It was and is the issue of precious bodily fluids from the get go, especially today between neocons and so called interventionist "elites". I totally get where Cohen comes from, I addressed this issue myself not for once--US "strategists" (let alone utterly corrupt media) are for the most part unqualified and not that well educated people, as last 20 years, or so, so manifestly demonstrated. The danger of these people such as Kagans, Petraeuses, or this mindless bimbo AOC is that these people are utterly unqualified for a statesmanship and, maybe with some caveat for such military "leader" as Petraeus, have no a faintest idea what real war is. So, I also have issues with calling such a pseudo-"thinker" as Robert Kagan, or coward John Bolton or anyone from this pool of ignoramuses running US foreign policy and military disasters, "warriors"--none of those people have any idea what being real warrior is and that too is a problem. As I stated not for once, I feel slightly more secure when I know that Dunford and Gerasimov talk to each-other--talking to Bolton or Pompeo is a waste of time. 

Today, observing an American wasteland of military and geopolitical thought which follows in step with complete political and ideological degeneration of the American state, one is forced to prepare for war which, in a current American case, could be unleashed by people who have no clue. 

P.S. I don't think that Dr. Cohen serves his noble cause well when references the name of Solzhenitsyn who played his, however small, role in helping to topple one of the versions of the historic Russia and maybe Dr. Cohen has to ask himself a question why the monument to this self-proclaimed "consciousness of Russia" in Moscow is under specifically setup 24/7 video surveillance. But that is a separate topic of Russian history and here I and Dr. Cohen may have different views altogether.     

Another One.

This time it is about Robert Kagan who passes, for some unknown reason, as a "scholar" in the US and here is what stuns me from article in The American Conservative: 

As a writer and public intellectual, Kagan has skillfully crafted historical narratives and strategic assessments supporting his overarching neoconservative vision for U.S. foreign policy.

In a single phrase there are two major symptoms of America's intellectual collapse. 

1. Long ago, the term intellectual in the West turned into a description of somebody who is proficient with manipulating data, facts, knowledge etc. In other words, intellectual has to be "sophisticated" even when he(she) is wrong--a dominant characteristic of present American intellectual field. You see, skillfully crafted narratives suddenly matter more than the truth which is knowable. But look at me, I am skillfully crafting narrative that Robert Kagan is dumb as a stump (as, for the most part, are neoconservatives in general) and I can prove it, that is present it as truth, the thing Kagan, on the other hand, will not be able to do to counter....

2. Because he is dumb and has degree in history "as taught in US universities" he cannot craft strategic assessments since he is neither qualified for doing so, nor has any clue on any basic model of power balance since they contain things of which he never heard about.  

So, basically, he is a person who "can't handle the truth" because the truth starts beyond the limits of Robert Kagan's competencies and this truth is based upon military power as a function of a nation-state, that is its economy and international real weight. Even non-neoconservative American strategic assessments suffer dramatically from ignorance and, as a consequence, exaggerations, in Kagan's case, most what he preaches for is built around a complete delusion of a pretentious mediocre writer who is utterly out of his depth whenever he tries to pretend that he has something of substance to say on the issue of global power shift--he doesn't. People who create narratives usually do not have time for a serious business of geopolitical analysis, Kagan doesn't have this time. In the end, the author of the article about Kagan's latest book states himself:

Instead of a careful consideration of American interests and a tight and specific argument about how certain means meet those ends given today’s threat environment, we get general arguments about the need to be tough, to pay costs to uphold milieu goals, and ominous imagery about a jungle overcoming our nice but unnatural garden.

I think people like the author of the piece, William Ruger, himself a former US naval officer, should learn by now--the price for American folie de grandeur must be paid by anybody but Kagan's cabal of demagogues who concoct their pseudo-academic ideas in the comfort of their offices and restaurants in D.C., far away from battlefields and all misery and suffering American spreading of "democracy" and "liberal order" brings to people.