Oh, No! LOL))

Surprise, surprise. Outrage in Ukraine as the government attacks anti-corruption watchdogs. President Zelensky tightens his control 

Few deputies could remember a law of such importance being rushed so quickly through parliament. The passage of Bill 12414, which subordinates Ukraine’s two main independent anti-corruption bodies to the presidentially appointed prosecutor-general during wartime, had the feel of something done in panic. Unveiled at a hastily convened committee session on July 22nd at 8am, neither the committee head nor the majority of members were present. By the afternoon, the bill had been rushed over to the president for signature. Volodymyr Zelensky’s men had been able to find the numbers to comfortably pass the bill

Well, he is your SOB, so deal with it. You sang him praises, but then again, Time magazine also posted this guy ... in 1938.

And, following the tradition in 2024:

I wonder who will be next? Western media have this strange attraction to war criminals and other scam of the Earth. Maybe they look for their own kind. I wonder when The Economist and Time will start reporting on wholesale pedophilia, crimes against humanity and degeneracy of West's "elites"? Ah, wait, The Economist and Time are a part of it, never mind. Naive me. 

Time To Save One's Own Ass.

 ... or, rather, asses. LOL. I warned, remember? Now suddenly The Economist admits:

Russia’s double-punch back against Ukraine’s shock raid. It is bombing Ukrainians in Kursk and advancing in Pokrovsk

It is behind the paywall, but I can tell you what this globalist establishment tabloid proposes in this newly restarted game of blame. They say that it was hapless general Syrsky who hid his plans from the West to attack Kursk Oblast. Which implies, that should he have told that he about to attack Kursk Oblast (a euphemism for what Syrsky does best--kill his best troops), all those moral and military competent people (I am screwing with you) in Washington and London would have certainly prevented it. But poor poor dears have been in a complete darkness and didn't know about those plans, LOL)) 

Of course, this whole thing is nothing but a heap of bovine manure in a feeble attempt to start deflecting and spreading blame around, after VSU best equipped (practically all of it fresh NATO hardware) and motivated troops, and NATO generals who planned this catastrophe for them, covered part (about 11-12 kilometers) of what is called forefiled (or security zone), which was not prepared (why, we will know in a due time--administration of Kurks Oblast has a lot to answer for) and... drum roll... still drumming... still rolling... ran into the first line of defense of the Russian Army, which, as you may have guessed it by now was in about 11-12 kilometers from the border and... And The Economist still is required to keep abreast of the events along the whole front. Pokrovsk axis is just one of them, where Russians advance very dramatically. How about this? 

Drive to Kupyansk and those lovely narrows of Oskol River where its width is reduced to 25-30 meters. You get my drift, right? And then, of course, there are events at Maryinka-Ugledar chord. So, a lot is unfolding as I type this, but, in the end, it is about sheer military and political stupidity of the NATO planners who needed some "success" and "transfer" of Russian reserves from the front. Boy, they really need to learn what COFM is and get basic math skills going for them. The result was predictable: lines of communications (supply lines) have been cut, the whole force was dispersed and instead of Troops Operation, Counter-Terror Operation was introduced and that means there is NO statute of limitations for terrorism, meaning for anyone involved in this "incursion", including those who planned it. I stress this for the last several days--this is hugely important. And yes, that means NATO planners. 

Meanwhile, the removal of trash continues:

Anyone thought otherwise? Also, instructive, how losers from London stage Russian "POWs", in reality Ukie "actors", laying on the ground (that even WaPo cannot confirm it), while this is how real POWs identification happens through real military professionals of the Russian Army:

Heads-up, self-identification: full name (FIO, in Russian) and military unit. Many POWs from VSU, many... courts will decide who will be accepted as POW and who will face terrorism charges. 

P.S. Dmitry Kosyrev writes today in RIA (in Russian) about Idiocracy capturing the US. Read it, it is instructive.

The Economist...

... British trash about SBU thugs. 

Yeah, sure--"clear strategy" in assassinating people. Nalivaichenko, former SBU chief and CIA asset, speaks about it with pride. Surprise, surprise, not. UK political class, a collection of pedophiles, satanists and other perverts, lives out its genocidal anti-Russian dreams vicariously through the piles of corpses of VSU and ejaculating from assassinating many civilians. In the absence of honor and military-industrial capability it is "quiet desperation is the English way"(c).

Now another collection of clowns from London who pass there for military "experts" parades itself, yet again, as an Exhibit A of NATO's operational-strategic impotence. 

RUSI, which describes itself as the world’s oldest security think tank, warned that training Ukrainian officers based on NATO norms would be futile, because those tactics are not widely grasped by Kiev’s troops. “We could get that horribly wrong,” the institute’s senior research fellow Jack Watling told the Telegraph.“We could do it whereby we’re like, ‘We’re going to teach you how to be a NATO staff officer. We have courses and we have a book that tells us what that means.’ But the problem is that if you take that person who has learned all these NATO procedures and you put them back in Ukraine, where they have different tools and where none of their colleagues understand any of the NATO terminology, then they will revert to what their colleagues understand.”

I have news for RUSI and Sandhurst Faculty--everything you know about modern war is a collection of fairy tales. The saddest, for you, part--none of you have tools to get it right. Quoting my good friend, a senior staff officer:"We don't even sweat about European part of NATO." 

No Shit, Pardon My French.

Ignorant BSers from The Economist report:

UKRAINIANS WATCHED with glee as Russia flirted with civil war on June 24th. They had hoped that Yevgeny Prigozhin’s march on Moscow would tie up Russian troops and destabilise Vladimir Putin’s regime. Alas, the insurrection proved short-lived. In recent days, Ukraine’s army has made modest advances in the east. But a counter-offensive that began on June 4th shows little sign of breaking through Russian lines in force any time soon, making some Western officials nervous.

And as now Ria quotes The Economist (in Russian) the 404 GUR complains that "partners" tell VSU to "go ahead and fight with fury".  Oh boy, do I recognize neocons' signature move--make others die while they sit in their comfortable upscale restaurants and clubs and pretend to be military thinkers and strategists. None of them are and most would shit their pants just from the thought of being anywhere near operational zone. 

Now about Mearsheimer, or, rather, why I do not read or listen to him, or why in general I am not interested in what he has to say. People brought again his platitudes up, and "analysis" at a discussion board today re: his, yet another, set of platitudes:

Second, which side is likely to win the war? Russia will ultimately win the war, although it will not decisively defeat Ukraine. In other words, it is not going to conquer all of Ukraine, which is necessary to achieve three of Moscow’s goals: overthrowing the regime, demilitarizing the country, and severing Kyiv’s security ties with the West. But it will end up annexing a large swath of Ukrainian territory, while turning Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state. In other words, Russia will win an ugly victory.

Before I directly address these issues, three preliminary points are in order. For starters, I am attempting to predict the future, which is not easy to do, given that we live in an uncertain world. Thus, I am not arguing that I have the truth; in fact, some of my claims may be proved wrong. Furthermore, I am not saying what I would like to see happen. I am not rooting for one side or the other. I am simply telling you what I think will happen as the war moves forward. Finally, I am not justifying Russian behavior or the actions of any of the states involved in the conflict. I am just explaining their actions.

This paragraph alone demonstrates for anyone with serious military background (Mearsheimer is a graduate of USMA at West Point) a complete confusion which befell Mearsheimer, who passes in the US for "realist":

1. Defeat of the enemy and Victory are synonyms, and in REAL war, they are identical and mean "achieving POLITICAL goals of a war". If Mearsheimer, who is of a respectable age, still doesn't know it, he can start with Svechin's Strategy in order to avoid embarrassment...

2. ...when trying to predict the future having absolutely no tool kit when it comes to Russia and XXI century warfare. Mearsheimer doesn't have it and is the same product of American cultural and pseudo-academic milieu, whose views on warfare grew primarily based on entertainment industry and American exceptionalism. E.g. he has no grasp of the real size of Russian economy and, especially, of technological and production capability of Russian military-industrial complex. Neither have most US political "scientists" from Mearsheimer's environment.

3. He remains still THE American exceptionalist and is not well versed in the history of the XX century and, especially, its military history. It shines through his speaking and writing. Hence he always resorts to platitudes, which, once in a while make sense. But, as we all know, even the broken clock... 

This is why I don't give Mearsheimer any respect as a scholar. In matters of the combined West against Russia in the XXI century he is an amateur with a lot of AMERICAN "academic" credentials which automatically disqualify those people from passing any judgement on issues of XXI century geopolitics.  In the end, political "science" is a fraudulent academic field designed to give credence to opinions of people who, otherwise, are incapable of productive and meaningful intellectual labor. In general, as, sadly, the example of respected by me Colonel Macgregor shows, even the best and the brightest in the US have huge issues with learning the real history of WW II and America's path to greatness, however short-lived in historical terms, especially so of the Eastern Front which contributed decisively to America's post-WW II resurgence.

Larry About "Counter-Offensive" And Other Items.

Larry wrote an excellent piece about never-ending promises of VSU's "counter-offensive". 

Even If Ukraine is able to scrounge up troops and vehicles that surpass anything the Russians have in place on the front-lines in the Donbass (a dubious assumption), it still lacks the artillery, air support, logistics and ammunition to sustain such an attack. How do I know? Very simple. Just look at how Ukraine currently is performing in Bakhmut, Ugledar, and Avdevka. In every case, Ukrainian forces are retreating, albeit slowly, rather than blunting the Russian offensive. The following image (taken from liveuamap.com, a pro-Ukrainian site) shows the harrowing situation the Ukrainian troops confront.

Exactly. This proverbial "Required Force" (Наряд Сил) which is counted not as mere quantities, however important, but as forces acting against other forces through not just numbers, but combat effectiveness. As I pointed out many times before--even at the start of SMO one could see what modern army can do in mobile defense while being outnumbered several fold. This too is being studied by serious military and intel professionals and Russian Army taught a serious lesson in this matter to anyone who were watching. 

Now, the situation is reversed and Russia, after annihilating several iterations of VSU, is simply waiting for the remainder of NATO run forces to impale themselves and then... we'll see. Which brings us to these two French Nazis who executed Russian POWs. These two cowards have been apprehended in France upon their return but on unrelated charges connected with arms deals--they face up to 15 months in prison. France doesn't care about executed Russian POWs. Russians, however, do and Investigative Committee is on it and at first legal ways will be tried. Paris, as always, will decline and will expose itself, yet again, as a poodle of globalists, and then Plan B may go into effect. Meanwhile Nazi sympathizers in WaPo sing praises to Azov and other Nazi formations in 404. So, you get the idea. 

In related news, though, is a video totally in Russian (but you don't need a translation), which shows the work at Ulyanovsk Aerocomposit. Text in itself can be distilled into this: everything you see in the video is Russian-made, from carbon fiber, resins, paints, instruments, even tape-laying machines--all of it Russian-made. 

They show current work on four kits for serial MC-21 composite wings (I assume wing-to-body assembly is also done there) and this is just one of many plants Russia built literally from Ground Zero starting from 2016-2017. And this is just one example of import substitution in a full swing among numerous ones. This is happening across the whole spectrum of productive industries and it is difficult to describe the whole scale of it because how massive it is. 

Meanwhile, "strategirists" from London's own The Economist still wet dreaming on how to defeat those nasty Russkies and they found a new wunderwaffe in Swedish Gripen. 

Ukraine’s top guns need new jets to win the war. There is a dogfight between Swedish Gripens and American F-16s.

This kindergarten level delirium from globalist sewer is expected because you cannot explain to any graduate of Oxford with degree in journalism and economics what modern integrated aerospace force is--they don't have the tool kit for that. Not to mention the fact that modern RAF is rather pathetic third rate force barely able to keep anything flying at all, not to mention being dependent on bankrupt American air war doctrine and procurement policy built around stuffing "Allies" with lame duck weapon systems such as F-35 and, while still relevant, but not survivable modern battlefield, F-16. But in the end, the question persists--where did those meaningless words' jugglers see Ukraine's "top guns"? I have news for them--Ukraine has none, all of them have been shot down and what Ukie AF has today as pilots are dead men walking because their "top gunning" is usually limited to a half mission. The half being the take off, landing being substituted with receiving R-33, R-37 or 40N6E into the empennage and then bailing out in case they survive.  

But behind those wet dreams of European midgets such as France or UK, hides not only a desperation from evaporating self-awareness as once, long time ago, great powers, which none European country is anymore, but a sheer, astounding illiteracy of their elites who literally have no clue, even when allowed for spewing propaganda. But even in this they fail because they are so UNeducated--a death sentence for the most "elite producing" machines in the combined West. This is the tragedy which is not into your face unlike histrionics of once PM BoJo or childish unsure posture of the French boy Macron, not to mention a pathetic spectacle of senior citizen abuse in Washington. No, the tragedy is in West's "elite" educational institutions producing consistently ignorant and illiterate people who are utterly unqualified to be engaged in any serious professional activity. That is why they continue to delude themselves thinking that 30-40 Gripens will make any difference in 404. But you cannot educate them, so let them dream.

Niall Ferguson Has No Idea.

Russians discuss today a piece Niall Ferguson of Hoover Institute penned for The Economist (red flag immediately) and many scratch their heads in disbelief. Whole piece was translated and is posted at a famous Russian resource InoSMI (Foreign Media), and even respectable RIA gives a summary of this "historic insight" (in Russian) under the title A Big War Was Promised to the World Because of the Crash of American Empire. To understand who Mr. Ferguson is, I posted a link to his bio above, one has to immediately recognize that he is the man who never held any viable job in his life and is a product of humanities departments of Anglo-Saxon educational institutions which gave us BoJo, W, Obama, neocons etc. You get my drift. The original of Ferguson's piece could be found at The Economist site for those who have a disposal income they feel no compunction in wasting on all kinds of pseudo-scholastic psychobabble The Economist is known for, but here it is:

Niall Ferguson on why the end of America’s empire won’t be peaceful. As it leaves Afghanistan in chaos, America’s decline mirrors Britain’s a century ago. It may also invite wider conflict, warns a historian

Before I get to this Ferguson's piece, I have to mention the other glorious (and not without a talent or significance) British mind, late Sir Roger Scruton, who being a nominal British, or Anglo-Saxon in general, "conservative" left after himself some rather strange (pseudo)historic constructs on matters of global balance of power, such as his conclusion that, and I quote:

John O'Sullivan has forcefully argued that the simultaneous presence in the highest offices of Reagan, Thatcher and Pope John Paul Second was the cause of the Soviet Collapse. And my own experience confirms this. 

Well, it is natural for former editor of a neocon rag National Review to be fully a-historical and ignorant because that is what Anglo-Saxon-Jewish "conservatism" is--it is a narrative which fails in three major aspects, which Ferguson's piece demonstrates perfectly. Albeit, it has to be noted that when faced with complexities of a modern world most historians everywhere begin to make one huge mistake--they start to draw parallels to cover up own incompetence in practically any mechanism which drives modern world. As a result, they produce a distorted picture at best, at worst--they falsify, both willingly and not, the whole history. I am on record about my extreme caution regarding drawing any historical parallels, and when I do draw them, I do it with major caveats. This failure with "historical parallels" I usually tie to a second failure of Anglo-Saxondom "history"--it is its utter incompetence in modern warfare and global power balance and Ferguson's piece is an Exhibit A of a beaten to death, trite and ignorant historical narrative. 

American decline DOES NOT mirror Britain's decline in any way since at the height of her power British Empire could subdue aborigines with the power of her 16-inch guns, carried around the globe by the squadrons of battleships of the Royal Navy and London could manipulate global politics to a degree being an island, a locality insulated from travails of a continental warfare with all its horrors that is, and if Ferguson does not understand the difference between nuclear superpower which can destroy the whole world several times over and tries to draw parallels with a senescent Empire which by 1939 was a hollow force militarily and could not out of own means stand against Nazi Germany and her allies, Ferguson needs to refresh his "history" by reading a true brilliant British mind:

Great Britain went out as a lesser of the Big Three both as a result of economic weakness and inability to develop a sound strategy for WW II, an event which was rewritten by Anglo-Saxon historians to such a degree, that both in London and D.C. it long ago stopped being connected to the reality of events of the XX Century completely. But I am sure Ferguson understands those intricacies of the WW II events and a default nature of the America's superpowerdom in 1945. Right? Today, when Great Britain is a tertiary military power whose military potential is dwarfed by that of the United States and Russia, and China and whose economy is primarily FIRE, that is largely non-productive one, we come to the third failure of Anglo-Saxon "historians" and "intellectuals"--they have no clue about how real economy works. Enough to read the rag in which Ferguson published his piece--The Economist. 

Few publications are as delusional and are detached from the world's economic reality as London's own The Economist (and the group which owns it). In many respects The Economist could be viewed today as a log of the decline of the global Anglo-Saxondom and of Britain's desperate desire to feel herself relevant in the world which ignores The Economist's analysis and virtues and moves on based on military and economic power which dwarfs anything Great Britain even had. And here is the main point, there are NO parallels between British decline which was protracted and...only relatively insignificant against the background of the colossal events of the WW II and of the Eastern Front which played a crucial role in both British decline and America's emergence as the post-WW II superpower. This history is yet to be fully written and it surely cannot be written by likes of Ferguson. Not only there are no parallels between Britain's and American decline, but we are in a completely new paradigm and stage in world history, where, indeed, the fate of the whole world is at stake--a scale of consequences no British monarch, statesman or intellectual, least of all Churchill, could ever imagine. 

The prevention of the possible (predicted by Ferguson) war of American collapse cannot be based on anything Churchill or most other British minds with a claim to fame could ever conceive, being traumatized by British decline and still residing in a delusion of British, long gone, grandeur to which they accommodate the history by means of rewriting it, instead of learning about the outside world. They simply have no mental instruments to grasp a profound difference between the tools of a state in 1939 and in 2021. American decline is based not on the "exhaustion from the empire", especially with the US Dollar being world's reserve currency and the United States being able to export inflation around the world since 1971, but on inability to win any war, especially on cheap, which, when combined with a catastrophic deliberate deindustrialization, doomed the United States--a set of circumstances Great Britain never encountered, not to mention the fact of the United States failing to form a core nation. Superficial similarities between any empires are just that, superficial similarities. All empires fall. There is very little in common between Roman, Russian, British or American empires. In fact, most of what is different between them dominates the balance and drawing any parallels between them is a fool's errand. 

Appearance of the British Fleet within 50 kilometers of Jutland Peninsula meant that this fleet must be met with same of Germany, resulting in a bloodbath in 1916. Bismark engaged HMS Hood at 26, 500 yards with final third salvo at around 14,100 yards, in 1941. Neither 1916 or 1941 military and geopolitical realities correspond to the present realities. Today whole of Royal Navy or US Navy's CBG can be destroyed in bases with salvos from 4,500 kilometers away or in the ocean from ranges of 1,500 kilometers. The seat of the British, or any other, for that matter, Government could be destroyed with the accuracy and precision unmatched by anything in the history of human civilization and all this could be done without the use of nuclear weapons. Or with them, if it comes down to it. This is what keeps today the world in balance and at peace--inability of the combined West to match those capabilities. These are the realities of modern world which many in Anglo-Saxon world with graduate and post-graduate humanities degrees refuse or fail to acknowledge and continue to pretend that some past glories may somehow compensate for the lack of serious technical, military, geopolitical and economic knowledge. But that is the issue I write about non-stop--they just cannot learn, because they cannot handle the truth(c). Ferguson's meandering piece in The Economist is a perfect example and illustration of the causes for a general decline of Anglo-Saxondom in the XX century. Or speaking in layman's lingo--Ferguson, go and goddamn learn your historical facts.

The Economist Steps Into The Sh.. Puddle, Again.

The Economist rag, which for some unknown reason passes as some kind of competent publication still cannot wrap its feeble brains around this fact: 

THE only thing more improbable than the Russian national team’s performance on the pitch has been the buoyant atmosphere around this year’s World Cup. Fans from around the world have poured into the country despite political tensions—though the poisoning of two more people with the nerve agent Novichok in Britain cast a pall over the next round (see Britain section). At home, Russian security services have turned a blind eye toward minor infractions, allowing city centres to become non-stop parties. When Russia defeated Spain on July 1st cars blocked Moscow streets and started impromptu street discos. Thousands of dancing revellers snaked past the Bolshoi Theatre, where ballerinas had also been watching the match backstage, and up to the doorsteps of Lubyanka, the headquarters of the FSB, the successor to the KGB.

Then they double down with, of course, some liberal Russian dimwit who is Vedomosti's chief editor and Kennan's Institute Russia "expert": 

Such permissiveness has made for a more convivial tournament than many expected. “Marches that don’t need to be approved a month in advance, open-air celebrations that don’t lead to prosecutions, backslapping with police officers—the World Cup in Russia has turned into a festival of freedom,” observed Maxim Trudolyubov 

I have some news for The Economist tabloid--Russia is on the order of magnitude freer than UK ever will be. Now pathetic English media which are nothing more than propaganda outlets who do not know meaning of words freedom and professional integrity, have to live with their major FUBAR when they convinced English fans to stay at home and not visit Russia. We all know that the first thing English fans get when arriving to Russia--they are immediately subjected to Novichok and then, those who survive are sent to GULAG. 

English media have no honor, integrity or professionalism. With some minor exceptions it is a Minitrue designed for promotion of the most damaging, suicidal political, economic and cultural agenda and, frankly, nobody gives a shit anymore about what some pompous English ass-hole from BBC, The Economist or any other English toilet-worthy tabloid thinks about anything. They shot themselves in the foot yet again. Meanwhile English team made in to quarters and English lads were received in Russia with open arms. But don't believe what you see, those English fans were blackmailed, obviously...

Meanwhile for this Russian "expert" from Vedomosti--of course he lies because this is spontaneous celebration in 2008, with Russia win over Holland at Euro 2008. You can almost sense how GULAGish all that is, no freedom...