Let Me Remind You...

 ... a passage from my second book:

This is especially true in the field where the United States self-proclaimed to be the most advanced and powerful force in the world: aerospace. All that was done by dismissing the economic, technological and geopolitical reality which formed in front of the very eyes of the American political class, which simply lacked the required orientation and tools to properly assess an unfolding real revolution in military affairs that the United States was neither ready nor willing to acknowledge—the increasing gap between indigenous, grossly propaganda-inflated exceptionalist military capabilities and the military-technological revolution the U.S. “peers” were undergoing. Russia, in the words of Lt. Colonel Watts, indeed adapted to changing conditions better than the adversary. 

This was written five years ago. And then suddenly after 24 months of SMO this:

Considering the fact that Russia is doing it with about 10-15 percent of her available forces and demonstrated an incredible surge capacity of her industry, yes--Russia is doing really well. So, keep in mind Russian MoD's latest update on VSU losses which have been estimated at 444,000. These numbers will grow dramatically the more Russian troops advance into the former 404 territory even without killing more VSU troops, due to uncovering remains of many more KIAs who are often are not evacuated from battlefield, same goes for wounded who are left to die and can only hope for Russians to get to them before it is too late. Ukrainian POWs, many of them surrendering voluntarily, not only report appalling losses, but ask not to include them into lists for POWs exchange. Also, huge number of 404 women now on the front-lines. BTW, VSU "cut" Volga frequencies to prevent VSU from surrender.

Of Note.

So, Mr. Shoigu said these key words: 

During a Russian Defense Ministry meeting on Wednesday, Shoigu proposed a number of measures to strengthen the security of the Russian Federation, including creating a special grouping of troops on the country’s northwestern border and expanding Russia’s armed forces to amount to 1.5 million servicemen in total, with some 695,000 of them being contract soldiers. ... Shoigu went on to suggest creating a number of new military groupings, including five new artillery divisions, eight bomber aviation regiments, and one fighter regiment, as well as six army aviation brigades. 

How about  5 (Five) new naval infantry divisions (!!! holy-molly), three motor-rifle divisions, two air-assault division, a number of brigades will be transformed into divisions, among other measures. This is NOT about VSU, which is primarily a spent force right now and Russia slowly, in economical way, annihilates the remnants of Ukraine's mobilization "potential". No, this is about NATO and where it will be moved back. Recall December 2021 Ultimatum? This is about NATO and finishing off US "hegemony", which is being finished as I type it. 

Here is something to consider:

China’s imports of oil, pipeline gas, LNG, and coal from Russia have hit a total of $68 billion since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, up from $41 billion for the same period last year, as Western buyers shun or have banned imports of many Russian energy products, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.  

You also heard about India, right? 

For India, the reorientation of Russian economic diplomacy toward the Asian region presents huge business opportunities. Who would have thought nine months ago that Russia was going to be the largest supplier of oil to India, leapfrogging Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the US? According to Reuters, India purchased about 40% of all export volumes of Russian Urals grade oil transported by sea in November, when European countries accounted for 25%, Turkey 15% and China 5%. The figures speak for themselves: in November, while Russia supplied 909,000.4 barrels of crude oil to India per day, the corresponding figures were for Iraq (861,000.4), Saudi Arabia (570,000.9), and the US (405,000.5) Suffice it to say that when Modi upfront listed energy as his talking point with Putin, it reconfirms that India is giving a wide berth to the G7’s hare-brained scheme to impose a price cap on Russian oil exports.

And Eurasian dynamics is such that even with consuming EU's, grossly inadequate, resources, the US is no competition to an emerging military and economic giant of BRICS and associated members. But grasping at the last straw is what makes Washington MO and Russia is fully ready. 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration announced Wednesday that it will provide $1.85 billion in military aid to Ukraine, rolling out funding for a Patriot missile battery as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrived in Washington for his first known trip out of his country since Russia invaded in February. The White House announcement came just hours before Zelenskyy landed at Joint Base Andrews, just outside the capital. The package includes $1 billion in weapons and equipment from Pentagon stocks, including the Patriot battery for the first time, and $850 million in funding through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. Part of the USAI will be used to fund a satellite communications system, which likely will include the crucial SpaceX Starlink satellite network system owned by Elon Musk.

As I am on record--Patriot's, including PAC3 version, record is dismal, as is of all other types of NATO weapon systems availed to Kiev regime, and the only way NATO can avoid of a single battery of Patriot PAC3 to be annihilated immediately is to deploy it in the midst of civilian infrastructure--a MO of VSU--such as apartment blocks, kindergartens and other buildings of such a nature. As is reported:

The decision to send the Patriot battery comes despite threats from Russia’s Foreign Ministry that the delivery of the advanced surface-to-air missile system would be considered a provocative step and that the Patriot and any crews accompanying it would be a legitimate target for Moscow’s military. But the White House is pushing back against the notion that delivery of the Patriot amounts to an escalation of U.S. involvement on behalf of Ukraine. A senior administration official, who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity, said that Biden has been clear that his administration would “lean forward” in supporting Ukraine but it is “not seeking to engage in direct war with Russia.”

As I am also on record--the only war the US can fight against Russia is a nuclear one, but we all know what it means, so the semantics game and usual media spin form Washington are already unfolding. Russia, however, has no illusions about West's intentions. So, in a larger scheme of things all this is not significant in relation to the overall situation at the front in former Ukraine or to the economic collapse in progress in the EU and, to a certain degree, in the US. 

Here Brian Berletic gives a good explanation on how Western media obfuscate, a euphemism for outright lying, a dire situation for VSU in Bakhmut. 

I am telling you--one can literally develop a cottage industry of debunking shit of Western media and make a living just on that alone. But, we need to constantly keep our eyes on a bigger prize. Could the biggest of them be a destruction of NATO as such, not just rolling it back to the borders of 1997? Possible. Some European clowns begin to get the idea. 

French President Emmanuel Macron has reiterated his belief that the conflict in Ukraine will inevitably be resolved at the negotiating table, and that the West and NATO in particular will have to come up with security guarantees not only for Kiev, but Moscow as well, to secure a lasting peace. “The day of peace will involve discussions. First and foremost for guarantees to Ukraine, for its territorial integrity, its long-term security. But also for Russia, as a party that it will be to an armistice and peace treaty,” Macron said in an interview with the TF1 and LCI channels broadcast on Tuesday.

But the term "negotiations" as perceived by Russia now has a much more menacing for the combined West connotation--a dictation of the terms of surrender. Even this event tells the story.

Croatian President Zoran Milanovic said on Tuesday that Ukraine “is not an ally” of his country and warned against bringing “war” to the Balkans. “Ukraine is not an ally. It’s being forcibly made into one. It was cynically granted the status of an EU candidate. That’s what the EU is today: squalor, zero.” Talking to reporters, he also hit out against Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic for his proposal to have Ukrainian troops trained in Croatia. Milanovic said such a move would “bring war” to the country. “You keep pushing moral blackmail,” he addressed Plenkovic, “but you have no morals yourself. Go to Ukraine and fight.”

You know, as they say, the writing is on the wall. Can they read in Washington? We'll see. As I always stress--in historic terms 10 years is nothing, a second really. I can only imagine what we will be talking about in a couple of years time. If humanity survives the death of the West.

When Amateurs Discuss Tactics....

Professionals discuss logistics. You all know this saying which is ultimately true. Russian Armed Forces today celebrate a Day of Rear Services (and Logistics). It is a huge universe of crucial supply services, from ammo and fuel to food and pay, which also has its own War College--Academy of Material-Technical Supply named after Army General Khrulyov. No armed forces in the world can fight without rear services, which also, as was the case in WW II ended up being not so in rear and very often in the very center of heavy fighting. So, here it is--a good army (and navy) are only as good as the provisions delivered to them by logistics. 

 

Ah, Interesting;-)

French Agora Vox portal yesterday came up with, rather judicious, review of Russian Armed Forces. But these were accents in this piece which caught my attention. Especially the economic part and I was trying desperately to recall where did I read this before (wink, wink). Well, Google Translate will help in finding out. 

La réussite militaire russe

Economic and R&D parts of this piece are, indeed, very interesting and timely. It is about time that this fundamental idea of military power as a main pillar, however regrettable this is, of the present global order found its way into the thinking of all those humanities "educated" policy makers in the US and NATO. This, plus a superb definition of it by USMC Captain Joshua Waddle, which must be emblazoned on every freaking wall in Ivy League (and not only) political "science" and other national security "studies" departments:

Judging military capability by the metric of defense expenditures is a false equivalency. All that matters are raw, quantifiable capabilities and measures of effectiveness. For example: a multi-billion dollar aircraft carrier that can be bested by a few million dollars in the form of a swarming missile barrage or a small unmanned aircraft system (UAS) capable of rendering its flight deck unusable does not retain its dollar value in real terms. Neither does the M1A1 tank, which is defeated by $20 worth of household items and scrap metal rendered into an explosively-formed projectile. The Joint Improvised Threat Defeat Organization has a library full of examples like these, and that is without touching the weaponized return on investment in terms of industrial output and capability development currently being employed by our conventional adversaries.

Maybe Waddle's maxim and the study of real economy will explain the conclusion French journalists make:

En se réarmant, la Russie a pris le bon virage et elle fait désormais partie des grandes puissances du monde.

Plus, will help to avoid a global military catastrophe. Surely, a worthy objective to pursue. 

What Is Strategy? No, Really, What Is It.

For those who read my blog consistently for the last 1.5 years this shouldn't present any difficulty--it is a system of measures for attaining political objectives of a war, campaign (both military and, why not, advertising) or even a test. I like Daniel Larison, to whose blog I have a direct link, but he doesn't like me since I constantly point out to the fact that if one wants to make a difference in US disastrous foreign policy one should start to point out WHO runs it or...speak in broadsides. That involves appropriating a famous neocon "method" of ad hominem but with one very serious addition--use of an actual serious academic argumentation. For example, if I say that Marco Rubio is mama's boy who compensates for...being mama's boy (plus, of course, being on the payroll of Israeli-first Adelson)--it could be easily proven that his, or, as an example, Speaker Paul Ryan's, views on foreign policy are nothing more than wet dreams of lawyers or political "scientists" who didn't spent a day in the armed forces nor have any clue of outside world. Easy. The only thing which drives them is a necessity to look tough and cool--like Speaker Ryan who simply lied about his sports' achievements.  You see, being macho is really big deal in Congress where very few ever served in armed forces, let alone saw combat or serious operations, which were dangerous to their lives. 

Now, Daniel Larison writes another excellent piece in The American Conservative and this piece, yet again, makes an argument within the confines of American perception of the outside world and war, but this cannot be changed since, as I write throughout this whole blog for the last 18 months--it can not be changed until all those Ivy League boys feel an intensive heat from explosions, feel what kinetic means first hand and, in general, experience the fear, sweat, exhaustion, smell and desperation of the serious military service. Nothing is going to change until those people get a very clear idea that their decisions may have a very serious consequences for their very own dears like being....blown to smithereens. Especially so against the background of US political "elites" literally living in La-La Land insofar as military power goes. The closest those people ever have been to real military is, probably, when given rides on some military technology and watching movies and reading late Clancy's BS. Now, mentally, fly into Kremlin and ask yourself a question: do Russians know that most of US "elites" sincerely, truly believe that US is militarily exceptional? Not only Russians are aware of that, their awareness is a part of their geopolitical and military calculus. 

Much of US foreign policy arrogance (and failures) is based on the fact of decision-makers being completely oblivious to real issues of war. In current American political world where appearances are more important than substance, the image of modern Russian Armed Forces may create such hysterical reactions:

  

You see, just mere purposeful and to a good end (killing ISIS and US supported "moderate terrorists") use of Russia's Armed Forces creates a near aneurysm reaction. Fact is, Russia has no intention to humiliate anyone, let alone US military to which Russian Armed Forces have professional respect. But Russians know that every performance of Russian Armed Forces (which were presented always as hordes of primitive barbarians in the "West"), be it on the Red Square during Victory Day parade or delivering precision guided munitions against ISIS animals, inevitably creates among those who set current US foreign policy against Russia a sense of, how to put it politely, insecurity. Reason? I mentioned it not for once--a sacred belief that US and NATO can conventionally defeat Russia in her vicinity based on Hollywood. Well, it can not. So, does demonstration of Russian conventional military prowess become a part (an element) of strategy to deter war? Absolutely, if it wasn't the case, both Putin and Russian General Staff (which knows a thing or two about war) should have been fired. As Sun Tzu, or Clausewitz, or Delbruck, or whoever (maybe even George Friedman of STRATFOR;-)) said it: the best way to win the war is not to fight it, especially against the opponent whose political command has barely any idea what they are dealing with. This is also a great strategy, that is a system of measures to attain political objectives of the war, and I may add, without fighting it. Today's decision on "deployment" of the whole....4 NATO battalions in Poland and Baltic States against Russian "aggression" surely testifies to the fact that the message was delivered and understood. The rest--let PR and media people deal with that. As long as the appearances are good and Russians feel intimidated;-)