Exactly One Year Ago ...

 ... the Director of SVR (Foreign Intelligence Service) Sergei Naryshkin gave interview to National Defense (Natsional'naya Oborona) Magazine. First, the title of this interview speaks volumes: Sergei Naryshkin: "The formation of the Eurasian security architecture is the most sensible way out of the impasse of nuclear war, to which the Euro-Atlantic elites are pushing the world".

Here is an excerpt (machine translated). 

- One gets the impression that in the West the quality of political elites and their professional qualifications are declining, intellectual degeneration is underway, and blatant inadequacy is being demonstrated. Do these processes affect Western intelligence services? 

- The confusion in the mind, which you rightly point out, is not observed, strictly speaking, among the elite. We see the professional degradation of the bureaucratic stratum, which for many years has been successfully passing itself off as the ruling class in the West. This is especially true of the leading countries of Europe, where a string of presidents, prime ministers and chancellors of all stripes invariably ensures the interests of globalist capital. These interests, as can be seen, over the years are increasingly at variance with the state welfare and the needs of the population. For example, it is necessary to explain to the average European voter every now and then that there is no greater happiness for him than to live in poverty to save the environment, to give up his job to a migrant in the name of tolerance, and to die in Donbass for Ukraine. Only ignoramuses or scoundrels are capable of participating in such a cynical political spectacle. As for the Western special services, I can assure you that the ignorant are denied access to them due to strict qualification requirements.

Naryshkin, of course, as it is proper for a man of his statue, maintains a degree of decorum, including towards his "counter-parts", but his words speak volumes. But it is the title which speaks volumes. 

A-ha Moment!

Naryshkin, Director of SVR never says anything "just because". 

МОСКВА, 11 мая — РИА Новости. Глава Службы внешней разведки России Сергей Нарышкин не исключил контакты с директором ЦРУ в ближайшее время. "Исключать нельзя", — сказал он, отвечая на соответствующий вопрос для программы "Москва. Кремль. Путин", фрагмент которой опубликовал в своем Telegram-канале Павел Зарубин. Нарышкин и директор ЦРУ Уильям Бернс проводили личные переговоры в Анкаре в ноябре 2022 года. В январе в интервью РИА Новости глава СВР отметил пользу от контактов между спецслужбами. Он объяснил, что такой диалог способен предотвратить опасные события в условиях, когда обстановка в мире может подойти к очень рискованной черте. При этом Нарышкин подчеркивал, что они с Бернсом достигли взаимной договоренности не допускать утечек о переговорах между ними.

Translation: MOSCOW, May 11 – RIA Novosti. The head of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, Sergei Naryshkin, did not rule out contacts with the CIA director in the near future. “It cannot be ruled out,” he said, answering a corresponding question for the program “Moscow. Kremlin. Putin,” a fragment of which was published by Pavel Zarubin on his Telegram channel. Naryshkin and CIA Director William Burns held personal talks in Ankara in November 2022. In January, in an interview with RIA Novosti, the head of the SVR noted the benefits of contacts between the intelligence services. He explained that such dialogue can prevent dangerous events in conditions where the situation in the world may reach a very risky point. At the same time, Naryshkin emphasized that he and Burns had reached a mutual agreement not to allow leaks about the negotiations between them.

As I repeat ad nauseam--Russia will talk only with the US. EU is irrelevant here. The contacts, in this case, will be initially through intelligence orgs of Russia and the US. US desperately needs some sort of arrangements which may give it a sort of off-ramp, albeit even this is too late. But against the background of action on Kharkov axis, which is most likely one of several offensives along the whole frontline, the US finally figured out that it doesn't matter what she or her euro-chihuahuas do, the outcome is going to be the same--merely resign to reality and listen to conditions Russia will impose. VSU is currently on the run in Kharkov area, but most likely the objective is to move frontline further South-West. Nobody is going to be taking Kharkov--it will fall itself as a ripe fruit falls from the tree. Keep an eye on the South, towards Odessa. 

Per Mishustin's Cabinet--practically same team. Per Defense, Foreign, Internal, Justice and Emercom  Ministers and Director of FSB--these positions are prerogative of the President and he appoints those after consultations with Federation Council which will start on 13th. Now, poor Lavrov, he is like, Vladimir Vladimirovich, please, pretty pretty please, I am 74 and want to retire because I cannot stand those imbeciles from EU. We'll see about that. Lavrov is indispensable--a towering figure in world's diplomacy. Albeit Nebenzya or Ryabkov can fit the bill. 

Larry On Bakhmut (Artemovsk)...

Yesterday a good sitrep from Larry with, finally, proper map with the scale. 

Larry asks the question:

Is Russia Closing the Cauldron Around Bakhmut?

This morning we have the answer--yes. Morning reports tell already about tactical, not just operational, envelopment of Bakhmut and trapping there by unreliable 404 sources of 2,500 VSU (primarily from Western Ukraine (in Russian)), by other, much more reliable sources (I know them personally), of about at least 3-4 times this number. Also, officially is reported that the number of bodies of VSU littering the battlefields around Bakhmut is simply appalling and Wagner Group formed special teams for removing those corpses in order to prevent further decomposition and smell with the risk of infections. 

But by far more important news is this bit of CIA Director Burns complaining that:

Burns said on CBS that the meeting with Naryshkin was “pretty dispiriting,” describing the Russian as “defiant” and displaying “cockiness.” “There was a very defiant attitude on the part of Mr. Naryshkin,” Burns said. “A sense of cockiness and hubris, in sense reflecting Putin’s own view … that he can make time work for him, that he believes he can grind down Ukrainians, that he can wear down our European allies, that political fatigue will eventually set in.”

Somebody has to explain to Burns that he should be grateful that Naryshkin agreed to meet him at all, especially on the BS occasion of the US "warning" Russia against the use of... nuclear weapons. Naryshkin's attitude is indicative not just of Putin but of the fact that Russian military-political elite views, absolutely correctly, present US Administration as a collection of amateurs, ideologues and fanatics. Burns, who is a classic modern US "diplomat", meaning ignorant, uncultured and a political appointee, as a current Director of CIA should learn things other than how to conduct PR BS and study Russian military doctrine and, surprise-surprise, the actual state of the affairs in the United States. 

But then again, anyone who agreed to serve in Biden's Admin should be automatically disqualified as professional and a person with integrity. Burns' tenure as US Ambassador to Russia didn't contribute to his education in the matter. Per military part--most people within the Beltway are clueless in such matters and Burns is an Exhibit A of this. In other words, Naryshkin, when speaking to Burns, was talking to an amateur who wouldn't know shit from shineola and there is no other way anymore to talk to Biden Admin's people. In related news, another train in the US has derailed today. Is anyone in Biden's cabinet minding the country which literally tears at the seams?

Naryshkin Verbatim.

The head of Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) Sergei Naryshkin went on record yesterday:

ПЕТРОПАВЛОВСК-КАМЧАТСКИЙ, 27 ноя - РИА Новости. Никакого "российского вторжения" на Украину не будет, утверждения о нем - это злонамеренная пропагандистская акция госдепа США, заявил директор Службы внешней разведки России Сергей Нарышкин."Должен всех успокоить: ничего такого не будет", - сказал Нарышкин в интервью Сергею Брилеву в программе "Вести в субботу" на телеканале "Россия 1", отвечая на вопрос о заявлениях американской стороны про якобы готовящееся Россией вторжение на Украину. "Вообще все, что сейчас происходит вокруг этой темы, это, конечно, такая злонамеренная пропагандистская акция госдепа США... Госдеп накачивает этими фальшивками, этой ложью и своих союзников, и руководителей средств массовой информации, и руководителей политологических центров Соединённых Штатов Америки с тем, чтобы они эту ложь множили, множили и множили. И они вокруг этого раздули довольно большой пузырь"

Translation:  PETROPAVLOVSK-KAMCHATSKY, November 27 - RIA Novosti. There will be no "Russian invasion" of Ukraine, the allegations about it are a malicious propaganda action by the US State Department, said Sergei Naryshkin, director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service. "I must reassure everyone: nothing like this will happen," Naryshkin said in an interview with Sergei Brilev on the Vesti on Saturday program on the Russia 1 TV channel, answering a question about the statements of the American side about the alleged Russian invasion of Ukraine. "In general, everything that is happening now around this topic is, of course, such a malicious propaganda action by the US State Department ... The State Department is pumping these fakes, this lie to its allies, and the leaders of the media, and the leaders of political science centers of the United States of America. so that they multiplied and multiplied and multiplied this lie. And they inflated a rather big bubble around it ."

 

Well, we need to take into consideration this simple fact that lying and propaganda are the only tools in the toll-box of what passes in the US for "diplomacy". But we have been over it so many times by now, that it is not necessary to repeat it. In the same time US media outlets such as Bloomberg continue to publish all kinds of contrived "analysis" such as: 

After years of disillusion with the West, Putin has gradually sidelined voices in his inner circle who had called for limiting tensions and is increasingly isolated from other views by Covid-19 restrictions, according to people close to the leadership. Surrounded by hardliners, he sees Russia — and his two-decade rule — as under attack by the U.S. and its allies. Efforts at outreach and cooperation that he made when he first came to power have been replaced by showdowns, sanctions and threats. Putin now sees pushback as the only language the West understands. With both sides dispatching warships and planes to convey their seriousness and warning of a new arms race as treaties lapse, the hardened approach raises risks far beyond Russia’s neighborhood. Disputes with Europe over gas supplies have shaken markets, while a refugee crisis the European Union says was orchestrated by Putin’s closest ally in Belarus is pressuring the bloc and fears of conflict in Ukraine have battered the ruble.

But then again, these are US media and their minions in Russia who lie for paycheck. Remarkably, yet another "intellectual" from Valdai Forum appeared on RT with his view on the "events" around 404. His name is Ivan Timofeev--you can read his bio here. And while Timofeev agrees that Ukrainian Army will be obliterated very fast if Russia really decides to get involved big time and then, as in following the rigid Cost-Benefits analysis procedure, Timofeev demonstrates and proves my thesis that in terms of serious geopolitics involving power element only outstanding diplomats capable to have a good grasp of the military events "on the ground" should be allowed to state their opinions. Providing lip service to already well-established fact that VSU as a force wouldn't last past first salvos and pincer movements by Russian Army is not enough when speaking on such matters. Timofeev states: First, such a military conflict is unlikely to culminate in any intelligible agreement. A victory over the armed forces of Ukraine will not by itself lead to a fast peace. The option of “two Ukrainian states” would allow Russia to squeeze nationalists out by sending them West. Under a “one Ukraine” scenario, this would be impossible, given all the ensuing consequences. 

 

I don't know why "one Ukraine scenario" even enters considerations here? I have no rational explanation to why Timofeev even discusses that. In the end, leave it to Poland, Hungary and Romania to deal with Western Ukraine. That, BTW, may become what would put the final nail into NATO's coffin. But he continues:

Second, the conflict would inevitably lead to a sharp change in the Western approach toward providing Ukraine with modern weapons and military equipment. In the United States and in the West as a whole, the new situation would be considered as an emergency and they would not limit funds to support the armed forces of Ukraine. Moreover, in this case, all possible types of conventional weapons will be supplied. Large-scale military aid from the West would prolong the conflict. Russia would not be able to block such supplies. The United States and its allies will not enter open military confrontation with Moscow. However, the level of support for the Ukrainian army will grow significantly. 

1. Timofeev needs to get down from his Ivory Tower and look around, especially in terms of what Russia was doing for the last 7 years which was, hm, getting ready to "a sharp change" in every single respect. From economy to politics, to what have you and, the issue which immediately pops up here is...

2. Can Mr. Timofeev tell us HOW this "sharp change" in providing Ukraine with "modern weapons" and not limiting funds will manifest itself? 

I omit here the fact that the issue of Russia's national security doesn't fit into the traditional framework of cost-benefits analysis because military threats to nation is not the matter humanities-educated (even from MGIMO) diplomat can fully grasp. For starters: 

a) WHAT "modern weapons" Timofeev is talking about? What can possibly NATO provide 404 with that can qualitatively change the balance in region, without it being, even if such transfer will ever happen, annihilated on arrival? Ukraine is already supplied by NATO with small arms and weapons of Javelin variety, plus some basic battlefield equipment ranging from anti-battery radar to nigh-vision goggles and communications. It will continue no matter what. Does Mr. Timofeev expect the US (and NATO) to supply 404 with Patriot PAC3 air defense complexes or, maybe, THAAD or maybe F-35. Not that they would make much difference if Russia seriously gets involved. 

b) Even if to imagine that US Congress and POTUS give the green light to whatever weapons Mr. Timofeev have in mind, has it occurred to him that if Russia gets "all in" the first thing which will be done will be a naval blockade which will prevent any deliveries by sea of anything. 

c) Who will operate those weapons? NATO troops? 

And on, and on, and on--we all can be in this "peeling off layers" mode for a long time. But Timofeev fails to mention the main issue here which many of us, ranging from Andrei Raevsky to Dmitri Orlov, to Patrick Armstrong, to Alexander Mercouris to you name it write for years (I mean Anglo-sphere)--Russia DOES NOT want Ukraine no matter if 404 already formed some political nation, which it did, I write in this blog about it for years, or not--this is not the main reason, the main reason is that apart from security pain in the ass, 404 is nothing but the drain of Russia's resources, which otherwise could be directed towards Russia and Russians' needs. Even if to imagine that Russia indeed "gets in", Russia's main concern will be not West's position--no one exercises any illusions on this position in Kremlin, and that is what only matters in the end--but the fact that Russia will have to deal with largely hostile, humiliated (even more--military defeats are extremely painful) and effectively destitute population of what--20-25 million? Who needs that? As they say on Russian streets today--one has to deserve Russian occupation. 

If, however, things will get really bad for Russia's security, the decision on Russian side will be based not on "Cost-Benefit analysis" but on Russia's national security imperatives, West's objections, sanctions and other threats notwithstanding. In other words, Russia will do it in the time and place of her choosing. In the end, Timofeev forgets the main reason for this hysteria in the West--increasingly obvious economic, social and military demise. This is the key factor in all this media activity. Finally, he should admit, as I do all the time, that Russia's Military-Political leadership knows more, much more, than any of us does and we have all reasons to believe that they know what they are doing.

This week I gave interview to Mike Welch of Global Research News. We discussed my latest book and you can listen to my Runglish by following this link. 

The Collapse of America part 2: Distant Early Warning Signs of Uncle Sam’s Demise. 

I don't say anything particularly new there, most of my readers heard and read it before, but as Pet Goat succinctly responded to one guest who was irritated by pessimistic comments about the fate of the combined West:

We are not rooting for Western collapse. We are warning about it. Even our so-called enemies do not want a collapse, but the leaders of this kakistocracy are hell bent on bringing about the collapse.

I couldn't have said it better myself. In the end, many people see it today, many more will see it tomorrow. But modern combined West and modern Russia are incompatible in principle and that is the problem for the West, because it is existential. But that requires a separate discussion which present Western "elites" try to avoid by all means. In doing so they doom themselves to what many of us see is coming. In fact, it is already here. 

Sergei Naryshkin's Speech.

Yes, yes, this very Sergei Naryshkin, the Director of SVR (Service of Foreign Intelligence) of Russia. His speech (in Russian) at Moscow International Security Conference on April 25, 2019 is rather remarkable. Here is the piece which speaks volumes:

Россия, пережившая за последние сто лет три опустошительные войны, не устает призывать других участников международного сообщества к совместному поиску решений накопившихся проблем. К сожалению, даже в тех сферах, где подобные переговоры ведутся, таких как борьба с терроризмом или информационная безопасность, западные партнеры продолжают держать в кармане зажатую фигу. Это не означает, конечно, что нам надо прервать всякие контакты, уйти в самоизоляцию или изолировать их. Диалог необходимо продолжать, хотя бы для того, чтобы не допустить окончательного распада действующей международной системы, которая все же обеспечивает стратегическую стабильность. В нынешней напряженной ситуации нужно идти по пути не разрушения, а укрепления глобальных и региональных форматов, попутно совершенствуя и трансформируя их в интересах мира и безопасности на всей планете. Если Западу во главе с США не хватает зрелости и мужества для того, чтобы двигаться в указанном направлении, остальным центрам силы придется проектировать глобальное будущее без него. На смену изжившему себя либеральному универсализму должен прийти новый миропорядок - справедливый и устойчивый. Его необходимо создавать на тех условиях и в тех формах, которые обеспечат совместное существование государств и региональных объединений с сохране¬нием за каждым из них права на самобытное развитие. Уверен, к этому процессу будут все активнее подтягиваться и те здравые силы в западных странах, которые осознают стоящие перед мировым сообществом риски и элементарно заинтересованы в самосохранении. Контуры грядущей миросистемы все еще покрыты туманом неопределенности. Будет ли она обеспечивать подлинное единство в многообразии или снова станет прикрытием для власти узкого клуба избранных, во многом зависит от нашей с вами работы.

Translation:  Russia, who survived three devastating wars in the last 100 years, tirelessly keeps calling on other members of international community for cooperative search for the solutions to accumulated problems. Sadly, even in those spheres where such negotiations are being conducted, such as fight against terrorism or informational security, the Western partners continue to keep their fingers crossed behind backs (in Russian--keeping fig in pocket). This, of course, doesn't mean that we should interrupt all contacts and isolate either them or ourselves. Dialog needs to be continued, even if to prevent a final disintegration of the present international system, which still provides for some strategic stability. In the present, tensions filled, situation one should follow the path not of destruction but of strengthening of global and regional formats, along the way perfecting and transforming those to the benefit of the world and security on the whole planet. If the West, headed by the United States, lacks maturity and courage for moving in this direction, other centers of power will have to design such global future without them. Instead of outdated liberal universalism, new world order--just and stable--should come. This order must be created under such conditions and in such formats, which will allow coexistence of states and regional formations, each of them having the right for own unique development. I am positive that healthy forces in the West interested in elementary self-preservation will gravitate towards this process, with those forces understanding risks which arise for the international community. Will this (new) system provide genuine unity in diversity or will again become merely a cover for the power of the club for few selected, to a large degree depends on yours and our work.  

It is a very interesting speech, which, considering who Naryshkin really is, his real weight, tells something of note. I would say decisions which made Russia turn on "Turbo" regime. It is especially remarkable when one considers that immediately after talking to Putin on the phone four days ago, Trump decided to raise tariffs on Chinese products. This attempt fizzled out--China remained unimpressed--and this means that there is a consensus between Russia and China on what to do both with the US and the West in general. It also means that the conditions for surrender are also mostly worked out--that is what Naryshkin articulated in his speech. But even more so was a direct informing of the combined West that Russia really doesn't need it anymore as she doesn't liberal model. I can already hear squealing of the pigs in Russia's liberal pigsty. As Meatloaf sang:

 Can't you hear the choir now?
Listen to the animals sing!
Can't you hear the slaughterhouse bells?
In the land of the pigs the butcher is king!
       In the land of the pigs the butcher is king!