Lavrov Picked Up The Phone.

As you may expect, in the US media and State Department, where meaning of class does not exist, a "proper" language describing Blinken's communications with Lavrov was used. You know, Tony "demanded", he "warned", he "threatened" etc. A typical attitude of a New York low-rung thug trying to talk to higher-ups to show his "toughness". Reality, however, is such that Tony Blinken is scared shitless and there are reasons for that. Russian Foreign Ministry, however, released the summary in a typical Russian pro-forma and proper decorum manner. 

On July 29, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, at the latter’s initiative. The ministers discussed current developments in Ukraine. Sergey Lavrov laid out Russia’s principled approaches in the context of the special military operation in the Donetsk People’s Republic, the Lugansk People’s Republic and Ukraine. He emphasised that its goals and tasks will be fully achieved. The Foreign Minister drew the Secretary of State’s attention to the fact that the continued arming of the armed forces of Ukraine and nationalist battalions with US and NATO weapons, which are being used against civilians on a large scale, is only prolonging the agony of the Kiev regime by dragging out the conflict and increasing the number of victims. Mr Lavrov stressed that the armed forces of Russia strictly observe the norms of international law and that Russia has engaged in consistent efforts to restore peaceful life on the territories that it is liberating.

And so on. Lavrov, however, noted that Blinken had to wait "only 24 hours" (wink, wink) and, after all, it was State Department which was bombarding Russian FM with requests to talk to them. While the issue of exchange of imprisoned citizens was, indeed, discussed, in reality, the whole thing was about the US desperately trying to gauge Moscow's mood against the background of events in Ukraine, which are developing pretty badly for Washington's SOBs in Kiev and, certainly, not in accordance to plans by Blinken, Sullivan, Nuland and other Washington "strategists" who wouldn't be able to plan properly the visit to grocery store, let alone fighting Russia in Ukraine. That is the reason I always smile when some Russian "analysts" calls Vicki Nuland an "experienced diplomat". It is difficult to explain to people that being a four wheel drive uncultured bitch who learned some basics of diplomatic decorum is not enough to be a real diplomat. Let alone great diplomat. 

Incomparable Michael Brenner notes:

Russia has blunted everything thrown at them – to the shock of Western planners. Every assumption underpinning their scorched-earth assault on the Russian economy has proven mistaken. A dismal record of analytical error even by C.I.A. and think tank standards. Off-the-charts forecasts on the country’s economy, and the global impact of sanctions, crippled Washington’s plan from the outset. Tactical initiatives of a military nature have proven equally futile; another 1,000 vintage Javelins with dead battery packs will not rescue the Ukrainian army in the Donbass. So, you are stuck with the albatross of a truncated, bankrupt Ukraine hung around your neck. There is nothing that you can do to cancel these givens — except a direct, perhaps suicidal test of force with Russia. Or, perhaps, a retaliatory challenge elsewhere. The latter is not readily available — for geographic reasons and because the West already has expended its arsenal of economic and political weaponry.

And Lavrov already told Blinken directly:

As for the potential prisoner swap between the countries, Mr Lavrov strongly advised a return to professional dialogue in the context of “quiet diplomacy” without any dubious media leaks.

We all know that media leaks will happen anyway because the US "diplomacy" is totally corrupt as is US media, but the message is clear: you want to talk to Russia now tone down your BS and follow the rules which has been set up in the international diplomacy before the United States even existed as a country. Russia will talk to the US, because it is still huge and powerful country--noblesse oblige--as per Europe. Well, they always hated Russia and Russians, they always will no matter who comes to power--the break is existential. 

Probing Limits.

I will not mince words here: Russia doesn't need meeting with Biden (or whoever is running this POTUS avatar), US establishment (large portion of it), on the other hand, needs this meeting badly. Both sides know it, but Russians, who learned to calculate the US actions (not that difficult, actually) several steps ahead are perfectly fine with playing such a role. Russia does not need the US for a number of reasons, few main of which are:

1. Russia is largely secure economically from the US. De facto allied relations with China and friendly relations with with Asia more than compensate for whatever Russia may lose (or already lost) in her trade with combined West;

2. Militarily, Russia has the edge over the United States even the Soviet Union couldn't have dreamed about;

3. Russians know damn well that US crisis (I write about it for years) is systemic and even under the worst global circumstances short of all out thermonuclear war, Russia has all the time she needs and may even not strain herself doing much observing this train-wreck of a combined West exiting global stage as a decisive force. 

4. Last, but not least... Russians know that the US needs this summit. Russians even know why the US needs this summit and Russia is content with playing the role of a hard to get maiden, who wouldn't? Especially knowing that whatever may be negotiated and settled with the US at this possible summit will not be worth the paper it will be written on. It never is, because the US is non-agreement capable. 

But the US needs this summit to demonstrate own significance to  her European vassals and maybe, just maybe, introduce a degree of strain into Russian-Chinese relations. After all, US political top and media are packed with pathological liars and it wouldn't take them any effort to spread and spin all kinds of BS about this possible summit. To a detriment of Russian-Chinese relations, of course. In the end, Biden's appearance next to Putin (for the photo-op mostly) increases Biden's mojo, not Putin's, whose scale as a statesman is long ago secured in Russia and globally.  

So, today, in Iceland, about 35 years since the first meeting of Gorbachev and Reagan there, the dance starts:

Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned his Russian counterpart on Wednesday that the United States would respond to provocations from the Kremlin but that Washington seeks a “predictable” relationship with Moscow. Blinken met Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the sidelines of an Arctic Council meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland. The bilateral session is designed to set the stage for a potential summit between President Joe Biden and President Vladimir Putin in the coming weeks. The United States and Russia are at odds on multiple fronts, from the ongoing conflict in U.S.-backed Ukraine to concerns about Russian interference in American elections. Russia has denied any wrongdoing and accused the U.S. of hypocrisy and inappropriate interference in its domestic sphere.

The main question is, of course, what's in it for Russia? Putin is not going to attend possible summit for the photo-op only, which is absolutely the case for Biden. Putin's scale and position today is such that the only equal to him statesmanship-wise figure globally is Comrade Xi. Biden for Putin at this stage is a "marrying down" option. Not to mention the fact that Putin represents an ascending power, while Biden is an EPITOME and embodiment of the America's departure from largely self-proclaimed position of hegemon. Recall what I wrote four and a half years ago. I will remind you:

For some reason, many people in the US who offer this bizarre triangulation with using Russia as an ally for the US in her struggle against China, still reside in late 1980s-ealry 1990s thinking that Russia is simply still enamored with the US, her standard of living and culture. This simply has no bases in reality anymore. Russians, unlike it was in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, are simply not interested in US anymore. Other than Russian traditional fear (justified completely) that some nut-job in US will start a war with Russia, the appeals of US "democracy" and liberalism faded dramatically and overwhelming majority of Russians merely go about their daily business and live their lives. The US in Russia today are viewed mostly from the point of view of a threat--a dramatic departure from 25 years ago when United States were viewed as an ally and a friend, those sentiments disappeared pretty fast. Russians' "going about their daily business" involves a lot of bread and butter issues and here United States are not even in the first ten of Russia's main trading partners but, as you may have guessed it already, China, sure as hell, is. Thus the irresistible and highly warranted question arises: what's in it for Russia? What can possibly United States offer Russia economically, when economic dynamics in Eurasia offers Russia a host of incredible economic opportunities?  

Remember what was the title of that post? It was Does United States Have Enough Currency? To buy Russia, of course. The US didn't have it then, today--it is not even close. No matter how one tries to spin it, but even the Nord Stream 2 pipeline has for Russia primarily geopolitical, not economic significance. This pipe-line is a life-line for Germany. Deny Germany this life-line and, well:

The Biden administration has waived sanctions on a company building a controversial gas pipeline between Russia and Germany. The US also lifted sanctions on a Russian President Vladimir Putin ally who leads the firm behind the Nord Stream 2 project. The move came in a report on Russian sanctions delivered to Congress on Wednesday by the Department of State. Critics say the pipeline is a major geopolitical prize for the Kremlin.

This is not a charity move on Biden's side. Not at all, nor is it along the lines of reduction of tensions between the US and Russia Biden's people so love to talk about as of lately. Much of this decision is driven by Germany's sudden allocation of at least rudimentary spine and making sure that the US gets the message that it is risking a lot if it succeeds in sabotaging NS2 and that, as you may have guessed it already, plays into the Russian hands yet again because of major political repercussions in Germany even if the Bundestag gets to be much "greener", because at stake is an issue of  Germany remaining the first world nation and EU's largest economy. Even utterly corrupt and stupid globalist shills such as German Greens are not ready to play with this. Not yet, anyway. Zugzwang, ladies and gentlemen. No matter what you do--you lose. And those damn Russians win one way or another. Don't tell me that I didn't warn you. 

 

In related news:

MOSCOW, May 18. /TASS/. The SWIFT international payment system has confirmed to the Central Bank that it will work in Russia as usual and there is no risk that the country will be disconnected from the system, First Deputy Chairman of the Central Bank Olga Skorobogatova, speaking in the State Duma, the lower house of the parliament."We are in constant and direct contact with SWIFT, both with the headquarters and the Moscow office. They confirmed it to us that SWIFT will work as usual, without any problems, and we do not see any risks at the moment," she said. Skorobogatova noted that even if Russia is disconnected from SWIFT, interbank transfers can be transferred to the Russian counterpart - the Financial Message Transfer System (FMS).

I know, I know, it is so fvcking frustrating to be an American diplomat nowadays, because you come to meet Russians and those SOBs stare at you with their smug faces (wink, wink) and already know what and how you will be saying and doing not only now but later. It is infuriating for American exceptionalists and neocons because they literally are impotent to do anything about it. Not only US "diplomats" are not real diplomats--they are merely conduits for Washington's diktat--and are outclassed by Russia's and China's real diplomats, but they don't have on their side what they thought they always had, when talking to third world shitholes and confused and weakened Russia of 1990s, who was suffering from a self-inflicted wound--a real military and economic power.  

In some bizarre way, I think, the United States performed a great service to Russia and her people when, being driven by incompetence, myopia and thirst for instant gratification, unleashed a mayhem in Ukraine in 2014. They awoken in Russians this ever-present but unseen by strangers what Tolstoy described as a "warm light of patriotism" and that was it. Ukraine's bloody coup finally opened eyes of Russians on their own fate and attitudes to life and former "brotherly nations" and freed them from any illusions on this account. It also pushed long overdue economic transition into the overdrive and we see the results of that every day. As a Russian I say this with a great pride and a sense of achievement. As an American citizen I cannot deny also a sadness from seeing what has been done to the United States in the last 25 years and how Russian-American relations have been practically destroyed, being slaughtered as a sacrificial lamb at the altar of America's hubris, self-delusion  and exceptionalism. Today the United States reached its absolute limits in power and influence and it is probing them, only to recognize that those limits are one massive concrete wall which cannot be breached, no matter the scale of an effort. This is the reality and it seems that someone in D.C. begins to recognize it. 

In related news:

The Russian armed forces have recently accepted into service the Yenisei radar detector, which has exceptional tactical and technical capabilities and can be used as part of both the S-400 and S-500 air-defense missile systems. According to a high-ranking source in the Russian military-industrial service, the new radar was put into service in late April.

Here is S-500 getting on-line. This thing is, obviously, some very bad news for many. But about this later. 

What A Shock... Not Really.

The shock is not that Biden appointed Vicki Nuland to the position of the Undersecretary for Political Affairs, it is this: 

Biden also announced his plan to name the former head of policy planning at the State Department, Jon Finer, as deputy national security adviser. These are, by the low standards set by the Biden transition, sensible appointments. The same, however, cannot be said for Biden’s nominee for Sherman’s old job, that of undersecretary for political affairs, Victoria Nuland.

It is absolutely shocking to learn that some standards, however low, actually do exist anywhere in the US political top. No way, this cannot be true. And it is not true, the only "standard" which exists at the American political top is ideological purity, professional qualities be damned. Especially in the American so called "diplomacy" which does not exist as such anymore. But even more shocking is this:

As Biden’s undersecretary of political affairs, Nuland will have immense influence over policy and personnel. Progressives in Congress and their partners in the media, think tank world, and among grassroots activists should join forces with the growing caucus of anti-interventionist Republicans on the Hill and vigorously oppose her nomination.

Seriously? There are "anti-interventionist Republicans" in existence? You mean in the party which sold America to the left and to the right and still pretends that it is a viable political entity? Oh, please. Let's admit that the United States of America is run by neocons-liberal-interventionists and that is the only political party the United States has. Republican Party is dead, it was dead for some time, but now its decomposing neoliberal and neocon corpse begins to poison already putrid atmosphere of the American political discourse. GOP is done--it is the party of treason and this is not a political construct America needs to survive. The US needs a true conservative party with a clear national(ist) ideology which cannot be conceived by the America's modern "conservative thought", which is a simulacrum of "conservatism" and has no intellectual staying power nor courage to stand up to a sanctimonious woke neoliberalism of the so called "left". For starters, "conservatives" cannot formulate what American nation is or they simply don't have courage to do so, nor are they capable to overcome rigid ideological and bankrupt economic views, since corruption is at the heart of the American political discourse. Everyone is for sale, it is just the matter of price. Plus, "conservatives" do not know history. Yes, there is this thing in America with the history. I don't know, something in the water, maybe, but there are issues with historical awareness of the US "conservatives",  the issues with cause and effect, let's put it this way. Hence cartoonish and garrulous "exceptionalism".

Note, I again do not discuss the democrats--I am on record who they are and what a deadly danger their policies represent for the United States--this goes without saying. But let's face it, GOP's face is not some "caucus" of anti-interventionist Republicans, but that of Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnel, late John McCain, and Ted Cruz. I don't think that "return" to paleo-conservatism of Pat Buchanan is the answer either. Pat's ideas about history and those very same important historic causalities are, putting it politely, a very shaky ground for development of a viable political ideology, which can unify forces who do care about what happens to the United States. Such an effort requires a serious thinking, or, rather, rethinking, and while "conservatives" have a lot of people with Ph.Ds in history and political "science" in their ranks, those people are still blood and flesh of the system which produced an astonishing number of neocons, interventionists, exceptionalists and shallow doctrine-mongers who dominate America's governing and so called "intellectual" class. So, who will formulate something, instead of bankrupt tired talking points for GOP, something which may resonate with people on the fundamental level, including those who Trump betrayed? Anybody? If not, then expect radicals and fanatics taking the lead and, please, spare me those "historic" parallels, say with Germany of 1933--Hitler, actually, was a genuinely courageous man, who went through WW I with distinction and finished it decorated with some notable orders usually not bestowed on servicemen of his lower rank. Expecting some Ivy League humanities graduate, whose only difficulty in life was in deciding what type of dormitory to choose, being able to formulate an ideology which can save the country. Right. And I am about to get at Yamaha I have at home and compose something which will make Tchaikovsky's music sound amateurish in comparison. What do you say? Ah, I cannot play and do not know notes--yes, true. But that is just a minor detail. After all who said standards? What standards? Let's compose... 

In related news, the only remaining pr. 941 Akula (NATO: Typhoon) SSBN Dmitry Donskoi (news in Russian), the largest sub ever constructed, will remain in service for another at least 5 years. I think such an engineering marvel deserves to be preserved as a museum once this monster retires. I am sure there will be no shortage of visitors wanting to experience an awe from a probably deadliest weapon humanity ever constructed. The scale of these ships is simply mind-boggling. They are also very graceful-looking subs. 

Here is Dmitry Donskoi in person. I am sure Russia can afford such a museum. I would put it in St. Petersburg. In fact, once retired, I am positive Donskoi will be able to provide a sizeable cash-flow for its own maintenance as a museum. Who wouldn't pay an equivalent of $10 to get onboard. I would.    

Why Things Do Not Work.

OK, I get it, the United States loves lawyers. I have nothing against lawyers per se, it is a necessary profession and will remain so for a very long time, while human civilization goes through its legal and cultural motions. But this is what attracted my attention this morning. 

The envoy leading President Donald Trump's hardline push on Iran quit on Thursday, months before an election that could reorient US policy. Brian Hook, a stalwart Republican considered one of the most powerful figures at the State Department, decided to return to the private sector, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said. Hook "has achieved historic results countering the Iranian regime," Pompeo said in a statement.

Obviously if this comedy hasn't been funny enough, what follows Hook's departure is even funnier. 

Hook will be replaced by Elliott Abrams, an intellectual architect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq who has been leading Trump's unsuccessful campaign to oust Venezuela's leftist president, Nicolas Maduro. Abrams, known in the 1980s for his staunch defense of right-wing strongmen in Latin America, will handle both Iran and Venezuela, Pompeo said.

As you may observe, US, for some unknown reason, greatly appreciates convicted felons and losers to serve as conduits for whatever passes as a foreign policy in D.C. And frankly, by now, let's point out to the white elephant (or 800-pound gorilla) in the room--US Department of State is a fascinating collection of ignoramuses, incompetents, miscreants and random people who, in normal country, wouldn't be allowed to sort trash at the city dumpster, yet, they consistently end up in the positions of some power. That brings us back to Mr. Hook, the so called "envoy". Take a look at Hooks' background:

Hook received a bachelor's degree in marketing from the University of St. Thomas in 1990, a master's degree in philosophy from Boston College, and a law degree from the University of Iowa College of Law.

He also worked for Mitt Romney's campaign, naturally as a "foreign policy adviser", and, in general, is a classic colorless, badly educated political bacteria populating the colony of his likes in the petri dish of Washington's bureaucracy. This is the only "elite" the United States can produce today--the guy with degree in law, the experience of being busy with useless activity, and with a single trick in his arsenal of applicable skills--that's the level of "qualifications" one gets nowadays in D.C. I am sure Hook's expertise in Iran, Farsi language, knowledge of Iranian culture and Iran's military should be top notch, right? After all he was a special envoy for Iran. Nah, I am screwing with you--the level of expertise on Iran is D.C. is defined by terrorist organizations such as MEK, conveniently removed from the list of terrorist organizations when the US decided that it needed it, and by homegrown Iranian versions of Ahmed Chalabi, same type of "experts" as a bunch of clowns populating Russia Studies field in the US. 

And so it is, US foreign policy establishment continues to recycle itself through ignorance and delusion of its cadres. What did Pompeo mean by "historic results countering the Iranian regime" remains a mystery. The only historic result achieved in US foreign policy in the last 30 years is a historic in its sheer vastness ignorance of what passes in the US for diplomacy. But then again, looking at US higher education and cadres it produces one shouldn't be surprised with the results.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's foreign ministry on Friday expressed indifference to the change in the Trump administration’s top envoy for Iran, alleging that the new U.S. official in the post would be no different from his predecessor.

By now, the rest of the world knows perfectly what to expect from the US and her "diplomats", and that is why the wolrd gets on with with its life, keeping a cautious eye on a country which long ago lost any self-respect, never mind respecting anything else.    

Who Said So To Start With?

Daniel Larison asks a question, a good one: about Kissinger's mythology. He asks the question based on Thomas Meany's (oh, he is so meany to good ol' Henry, couldn't contain myself;)) piece in New Yorker titled The Myth Of Henry Kissinger. Larison posits: 

The contrast between the worldviews and careers of Kennan and Kissinger is instructive, and it helps to explain why the Washington foreign policy consensus has gotten so many things wrong over the decades. Meaney mentions that as early as 1965 Kissinger was privately admitting that the war in Vietnam was unwinnable, but publicly he supported it and went on to preside over its continuation and escalation for many years. During the same period, Kennan spoke out against the war, and urged full withdrawal.  

My main point is this: hey, guys, aren't you a bit too late to the party? I, personally, heard enough about Washington consensus, but apart from praises heaped on Kissinger by Washington and some in squarely pro-American camp elsewhere, I, as an example, since childhood, which fell on Vietnam War, heard nothing positive about the guy, which could have been explained by USSR support for Vietnam. Later, however, I came to appreciate all hollowness of his reputation as a "geopolitical thinker" or "maitre of global diplomacy" when started delving a bit deeper into the history of the American geopolitical mindset--there was nothing to admire not just on humanitarian grounds, but on academic ones too, about Kissinger. In fact, bar some things which qualify as war crimes, Kissinger's views are down right numbingly boring in their mediocrity and predictability. The history of the US "diplomacy" and geopolitical thinking in the last  30 years is one of a shoddy scholarship, perpetual delusion and demagoguery rooted deeply in the platitudes and cliches which by now became memes and a butt of jokes around the globe. Kissinger was the one who helped to forge this pitiful state of the US "foreign (lack of) policy" and present, with the assistance of many willing helpers, self-evident truths as insights worthy of a true statesmen. Insights they were not and America's obvious decline and geopolitical retreat, denied by some against the body of overwhelming empirical evidence, was in many ways predetermined by Kissinger's views of the world, which were and are, politely speaking, are those of a slick top government bureaucrat, pretending to be a scholar and a real statesman, while not being genuine article at all. We all know what this "scholarship" is. Enough to recall Kissinger's recent meandering pathos-ridden pseudo-historical piece in the Wall Street Journal where he waxes "geopolitical" and confirms the lack of proper intellectual rigor in modern US political class, obvious to everybody but the US political class itself.  

Larison, however, while counter positioning (to Kissinger) praising George F. Kennan for his views regarding War in Vietnam, forgets that, be as it might, thinkers and scholars are not always defined by their careers. After all, Kissinger had a brilliant career when defined within the beltway framework where competence, principles and integrity play second, if not the third, fiddle to self-promotion and exposure in the media. Especially so in the modern US where self-aggrandizing is a pastime on the same level as baseball. Kennan might have been right on Vietnam, and later he lamented his famous Long Telegram but still, in his wonderful memoirs offered some prescriptions for the world which he would have never offered should he be alive today. For starters, Kennan, being a diplomat and, surprise-surprise, Russian speaker failed to grasp (later, in 1980s he will fail it again) the impact warfare had and continues to have on Russia. 

At bottom of Kremlin's neurotic view of world affairs is traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity. Originally, this was insecurity of a peaceful agricultural people trying to live on vast exposed plain in neighborhood of fierce nomadic peoples. To this was added, as Russia came into contact with economically advanced West, fear of more competent, more powerful, more highly organized societies in that area. But this latter type of insecurity was one which afflicted rather Russian rulers than Russian people; for Russian rulers have invariably sensed that their rule was relatively archaic in form fragile and artificial in its psychological foundation, unable to stand comparison or contact with political systems of Western countries. For this reason they have always feared foreign penetration, feared direct contact between Western world and their own, feared what would happen if Russians learned truth about world without or if foreigners learned truth about world within. And they have learned to seek security only in patient but deadly struggle for total destruction of rival power, never in compacts and compromises with it.   

Mind you, this was written in February 1946, 9 months after the end of war in Europe and 5 months after the end of WW II as a whole. The phrase about "learning the truth" reads especially comical today when Russia is on order of magnitude freer country than any one in Europe and we live with the consequences of a destruction of American political institutions which used to be commonly known as democracy, not to mention chaos, destruction and murder unleashed by NATO and its main sponsor, USA, on the world. This was written after yet another historic Russia's "direct contact" with the West, which, as was the case with yet another "contact" in 1854-56,  1812, and before that in 1618, and prior to this in 1242, among many others, resulted not only with the West "contacting" Russia, for some reason, again, on her territory, but in a genocide of Slavic and other people of Russia on a historic scale, resulting in 27 million people killed and most of the historic Russia literally wiped off the face of the earth. By any metric being a bit "neurotic" not only in Kremlin but on the level of the whole population of the historic Russia was more than reasonable. As history demonstrated so vividly up to this present moment--Russia's "sense of insecurity" was and is not only inevitable but highly warranted. Sadly, Kennan, being a man of, primarily, letters and law and having a rather idealistic, and in many respects "aristocratic", that is highly misguided, view of primarily pre-revolutionary Russia, couldn't grasp then the true scale of the events of the WWII and how it related not only to Russia, but to the Western world in general, and the US in particular. 

Later, in his memoirs, while giving a recognition to the WW II, he would still stick to the narrative of a grotesqueness of a Stalin's "regime" and some alleged impact it had on Russians (that is why he is voted the most important Russia's statesman, I guess), implying, indeed, grotesque, Solzhenitsified figures of political repressions, debunked today by competent and honest historians both in Russia and in the West, not to mention by opening of the archives and by Russian people themselves. Yet, as idealistic and in many respects a well-wishing (prekrasnodushnyi) man Kennan was, he left one important realist legacy, which despite his role, even if unwitting, in unleashing a Cold War on false premises, he stated this, and that was a statement by a man of principles:

What did the greatest damage was not our military preparations themselves, some of which (not all) were prudent and justifiable. It was rather the unnecessarily belligerent and threatening tone in which many of them were publicly carried forward. For this, both Democrats and Republicans have a share of the blame. Nobody -- no country, no party, no person -- "won" the cold war. It was a long and costly political rivalry, fueled on both sides by unreal and exaggerated estimates of the intentions and strength of the other party. It greatly overstrained the economic resources of both countries, leaving both, by the end of the 1980's, confronted with heavy financial, social and, in the case of the Russians, political problems that neither had anticipated and for which neither was fully prepared.

Little did Kennan know, that from the vantage point of 2020, his views of Russia and Russians, free to "directly contact" the West any time they want, could be a subject of scorn by overwhelming majority of these very same Russians who, justifiably, view the United States as a military aggressor doing over and over again what Kennan stood against in 1960s--the war. Thus, any references today to Western "democracies", while setting Kennan as a person on a much higher level than Kissinger, hardly make a better case for him being properly qualified to pass a judgement. In the end, as I repeat like a parrot--the problem is systemic and endemic in the American post-WW II exceptionalism exercised even by those who refer to themselves as realists (however meaningless this term is) and who still are trying to find a political and moral rationale where there never was any but greed, lust for power and gross overestimation of own power and significance. American modern elites are simply not good, no matter which opposites they praise in their pursuit of a chimera.

Jon Huntsman As A Symptom .

Jon Huntsman, a current US Ambassador to Russia still didn't get the message that it is good to learn the history of the country in which you are given the post and that degree in "International Relations" and being an Eagle Scout at a tender age in school are not exactly the set of skills when one talks about war. Yet, as it is the case with the so called US "diplomacy", Huntsman never gained even rudimentary awareness of the country he is currently in and decided to generally forego the craft of diplomacy.

The US ambassador to Russia, Jon Huntsman, says there is little need for his craft as “200,000 tons of diplomacy” are prowling the waters of the Mediterranean, unabashedly endorsing military show-offs as a political tool.“Each of the carriers operating in the Mediterranean at this time represent 100,000 tons of international diplomacy,” Huntsman said in a statement to the US Navy’s 6th Fleet.

I agree with Huntsman in one sense, two CBGs in Mediterranean is a fine tradition of US Navy's 6th Fleet which operates in Med for decades now but somebody has to tell esteemed Ambassador that Power Projection tools such as CBGs are good only for providing "100, 000 tons of diplomacy" for third world shitholes which have no operational air defense, navies or air forces. Once CBGs encounter a competent military force 100, 000 tons become a liability for both carrier and its air-wing. But, of course, Huntsman doesn't know this. Turkey, however does. And this is precisely the reason it contemplates finalization of her contract for S-400. 

Of course, we cannot see all hidden from public eye back-and-forth between the US and Turkey on this issue, but there is very little doubt that a lot of hand-twisting by US is going on behind the curtain. So, delivery of S-400s to Turkey is by no means a done deal and Turkey may yet fold. But  who, indeed, US needs those hundreds thousands tons of "diplomacy" against? You guessed it right. 

Judging by the degree with which Trump stuffed his admin with war-mongering psychopaths and the way he himself turned out to be leaning away from his Presbyterian roots towards Christian Zionism and towards Rupture psychobabble, one has to seriously start questioning rationality of US political, so called, "elite". Add complete military incompetence in the mix and you get, as Ambassador Huntsman so manifestly exhibits, a collection of lunatics and fanatics who may, indeed, think that they are working for the End Times moment. Well, I am cautiously avoiding speaking of Huntsman's system of beliefs. While at it, somebody has to explain Mr. Ambassador that the country of his current station has one gigantic and unsinkable, unlike it is the case with US Navy's 6th Fleet CBGs, aircraft carrier--it is called Crimean Peninsula and it allows to control the whole Black Sea and East Mediterranean Area. 

War-mongering rhetoric from the US only grows in intensity and those are unmistakable signs of a desperation of an Empire to, quoting Russia's metal stalwarts Aria, "break the clock to extend own life". So, we may see soon some demonstrations by Russia of some of the actual capabilities in order to try to shut down the choir of the US war-mongers who still think that they have the power. Can we be nearing a Cuban Missile Crisis moment? I can only say that this is not out of realm of possibilities. As per US "diplomacy", as I continue to state it for years now--it doesn't exist as such for a long time.