... "shelved" is not the applicable term. More like removed into the deep recesses of archives of naval curiosities, never to be shown to public again in order to avoid embarrassment. I always stress--it is sometimes even painful for me seeing mighty US Navy, with its glorious heroic history, becoming a butt of jokes around the world, and not only because of the obsolete carrier-centric concept, but this:
Child-emperor loves expensive shiny toys and he doesn't care, nor can grasp modern warfare, naval or not.
This is the thing which many US generals (and Admirals) still cannot grasp--the opposite side has as good ISR as the US. ISR means targeting and firing solutions, after that--all bets are off. Salvo Model rules and real serious militaries plan and fight based on model, some of them being in the process of constant update and modifications, 24/7 literally. This is how Russian General Staff operates, its GOU--Main Operational Directorate. Same goes for Main Staff of the Russian Navy. And the author correctly states, when it comes to China and her PLAN--the US Navy has only one avenue to pursue--submarine forces which still (emphasis on "still") maintains a sizeable, generational, lead over PLAN's submarine force. In terms of surface fleet--US Navy's readiness is a huge question mark. But in the end, it is not just arithmetic of MK41 VLS, it is what is in those VLS which makes all the difference.
That's how VSU deal with their 300s (wounded) in order to not carry them.
Russian recon drone documented it. This is NOT one off--it is VSU tradition to do so and they have been doing this for as long as SMO lasts. Speaking of which--the US slowly disengaging from NATO command structures appointing to a number of posts ... British guys, LOL))
But here is interesting thing of which I write non-stop.
Admiral Caudle has some good ideas (or desires, if one wishes) but when he asks the question what modern US Navy "delivers" he omits, albeit implies, that modern US carrier-centric Navy delivers a lot of fat prestigious targets which are indefensible in REAL threat environment. What REAL stands for is the new (and even older) generation of anti-shipping missiles which are either supersonic or hypersonic and are matched by recon complex such as Liana and this types of weapons (with the exception of hypersonic ones) continue to propagate.
EU countries ARE supporters of Nazism, just in a slightly different form. Albeit they still found some humanity in them in condemning Israel's genocide of Palestinians, but when it comes to Russians--most of Europe wouldn't mind concentration camps for them. Here is example--Estonian designer with her latest products.
I am sure it will be a popular product not just in Estonia.
... when people with zero military and STEM background begin to bloviate on matters they have no gasp of whatsoever.
For starters, for Mr. Hanson--the US HAS 12 CVNs and 11 CSGs, on paper, but this is not how fleets operate because the US will not be able to deploy all 11 of them simultaneously. Here is a reminder to Mr. Hanson WHAT the US Navy currently "operates".
As "Prosperity Guardian" (Good Lord, who comes up with these titles?) operation has demonstrated--the old adage about Carrier Strike Groups is just that--old. Didn't work against Houthis, against the power operating supersonic anti-shipping missiles with ranges of not 60 miles but 600+, I have news for Mr. Hanson--it is going to be ugly, and here is a thingy.
This is the photo of one of the US CVNs in the South China Sea. It is taken from orbit by one of many recon and targeting sats with good optronic and radar channels. This means one thing--the targeting is received and the firing solution for a salvo of supersonic (or hypersonic, wink, wink) missiles is always ready. After that--Salvo Model in place and off we go. The probability of hitting said CVN is described by classic models for missile salvos.
But I am sure Mr. Hanson knows all of it--with his degree in classics and military "history", I am sure he can deduce all those parameters. I reiterate the issue--US Navy's CSGs are tracked constantly and they are not survivors in real war. What Hanson extolls as a virtue is, in fact, a huge vulnerability of the carrier-centric navy stuck in the WW II mindset. But what do I know?
... in writing all kinds of pseudo-military BS. I stress, again--you cannot explain to average journo anywhere in the wolrd what this thing is. They simply will have difficulties grasping it. Let's start with "nodes" (or nexuses):
PI/L and PH/I are those probabilities (nexuses) where the whole thing collapses on itself even in the "single shot", especially when you consider what highlighted in yellow "engaged in the fire control solution" means. It literally means that your AD complex received this "firing solution" and is capable to perform intercept of anti-shipping cruise missile (ASCM). That is in the fairy tales, of course, and is useless against genuine hypersonic missiles such as 3M22 Zircon or Kinzhal. In this case your kill chain begins to dissolve already at PH--Susceptibility segment.
So, what then is this news about from the neocon central?
It is impossible to explain to any US media maroon that AN/SPY-6(V)4 is just a better, more sensitive radar of the venerable Spy-1D line into AESA variant, whose task is not "to defend" (radar cannot "defend"--it is merely a part of a complex which actually defends) but provide all it can BEFORE the Engagement phase (see the picture of Kill Chain above) before the actual engagement happens which IS the launch of AD missiles which will be now guided before their Active Radar Seeker captures the anti-shipping missile by means of these guys which "pulse" until the AD missile seeker captures the target and now is in shoot-and-forget mode:
And here they are: AN/SPG-62 fire control radar. I will omit here discussing Chinese hypersonic missiles such as (for now only claims) YJ-21. If the data about this missile is correct and it does reach terminal while maneuvering at M=10, the US Navy simply has no KINETIC means, yes those AD missiles, to do anything about it, period. Whether the US Navy has SPY 6, or 10, or hell knows what--the Air Defense contour of ANY US Navy's Arleigh Burke-class DDG is simply a weapon complex for XX century threats, it is not designed to engage a single, forget a 2-4-6 etc. salvo of hypersonic weapons, and survive. SM-6, SM-3--these are all weapons conceived and designed in 1990s against the "enemy" which fits into the description of decrepit and backward "opponents" like Iraq or Libya. The US Navy ran into the brick wall of Houthis recently, we all know the result.
Remember the guy?
He ripped a new ass-hole to all those "strategists" at the Millennium Challenge 2002. Read it, read it--there is a lesson there, Van Riper used salvos of slow subsonic "Iranian" missiles similar to US Harpoons against the "best fighting force in history". They couldn't handle it. They never could, and we saw the "quality" of the US-made air defense systems in SMO. If you think that adding new radar, however capable, without having kinetic means to defend oneself is awesome--I have a bridge to sell you. Prepayment, I'll give the account number in private. Any takers?
But sheer idiocy of the US "experts" doesn't stop there. Neocons' propaganda machine is hurting. Good, this filth must be removed from positions of power and influence if the US is to survive.
Yes, one of a very few times the Institute for Sinecures for War Amateurs such as Keane or Petraeus landed anything reminiscent of the truth is this. Russia can continue with SMO as long as she wants to and convulsions of EU regimes are of no concern to Russians. Why Russia needs to talk to the US I explained so many times that it becomes ridiculous repeating it ad nauseam. Europe is over, the US? Will see.
Remarkably, gave interview to Dmitri Simes this morning exactly in re: US Navy. Now my friend, Robinson F. Casal (Brazilian Navy) sent me this and I am on the floor!!!
She managed to command a destroyer before moving to shore duties and... here we are. Good luck to the US Navy. It will need it. Especially "right capabilities", Good God!
One may ask, and the proper answer will be: people--first, and then--ships. Both are crucial but here is a funny thing, which many still cannot wrap their brains around. Especially true for West's media "experts" whose tactical-operational and technological horizon is limited to iPhones and Clanciesque meaningless cliches. Here is an example from CNN:
The tone of the piece reeks of desperation and of... a complete detachment from the realities of naval warfare of 2020s. The US is impressed by PLAN's, indeed impressive, Type 055 DDG.
These are elegant warships which pack a massive punch in terms of land-attack salvo or... anti-shipping missiles. With 13,000 ton full displacement these are really cruisers rather than destroyers, albeit today this distinction is notional. They carry a whopping 112 VLS cells and are equipped with HHQ-9 AD system which is a navalized fusion of Russia's S-300 and Western technology. Plus, and here is an important distinction, it carries YJ-18 anti-shipping missile (a Chinese knockoff of Russia's 3M54 Kalibr) and, allegedly, hypersonic ballistic anti-shipping missiles YJ-21. We will omit here discussing YJ-21 issue because there is precious little about its actual capabilities, if one discounts some short video of its test.
But in any case, these ships DO carry a shitload of anti-shipping missiles and that is what matters in the end. And here is the point. CNN appeals to... South Korean "match" called Sejong the Great:
But some Western analysts say the Type 055 may have a peer in South Korea’s Sejong the Great-class destroyers. At 10,000 to 12,000 tons displacement, the Sejongs are slightly
smaller than China’s Type 055s, but they have more firepower, with 128
VLS cells and weapons that include surface-to-air, anti-submarine and
cruise missiles. The three Sejongs, which cost about $925 million each, are the pride of the South Korean fleet. “With this one ship, (the South Korean Navy) can cope with
multiple simultaneous situations – anti-aircraft, anti-ship,
anti-submarine, anti-surface – and defend from ballistic missiles,” the
country’s Defense Media Agency says. Retired South Korean Adm. Duk-ki Kim, the first person to captain a
Sejong, says it’s more than a match for China’s Type 055. “China is focusing on quantity and price competitiveness rather
than the quality of its vessels,” Kim, now vice president of the Korea
Association of Military Studies, told CNN.
Didn't we hear this before (highlighted in yellow)? Let's take a look at Sejong the Great. Oh, boy!
Then we take a look at this "match" to PLAN's Type 055 specs and lo and behold! It is the same as it looks because it is yet another iteration of nearing obsolescence venerable (all flights) US Navy's Arleigh Burke-class DDGs. Same good ol' Aegis, same good ol' AN/SPY-1D and same... 16 subsonic anti-shipping missiles SSM-700K which are iterations of subsonic anti-shipping Harpoons and other analogues in NATO which are outpaced and outranged by any modern anti-shipping missile in Russian or Chinese arsenals.
While naval warfare is a very complex matter and involves much more than SuWa (Surface Warfare) it is precisely in this crucial field where Sejong the Great is not just NOT the "match" to PLAN's Type 055, but not even in the same league because same as vaunted Patriot PAC3 which performed dismally in 404, Aegis ships can only perform defense against slow flying (subsonic) targets and maybe, just maybe, against easy tactical-operational ballistic one. Against salvos of supersonic anti-shipping missiles, not to speak of hypersonic ones--they are useless. In this case of a missile exchange between Type 055 and Sejong the Great, the latter wouldn't even know what hit it, because Type 055 enjoys here an overwhelming advantage, especially with good over-the-horizon targeting.
Some admirals in the West (and Asia) are easily impressed by platforms--big, imposing, nice looking. Nothing wrong with the aesthetic part of it, I am the same way myself--I love beautiful ships. But the term "platform" should be engraved into the minds of real warriors--platforms are called such because, in the end of the day, for all other supremely important issues, such as propulsion, signal processing, ECM et al, the reason platforms exist is to carry weapons. And in terms of strike weapons South Korean "match" is not even in the same league as Type 055. As is the whole Western naval weapons' arsenal, with NATO and its Asian allies falling behind in modern strike weapons behind Russia and China not by years, but generations.
In the end, even this corvette packs so much striking power that it is even not necessary to compare.
It is four times smaller than Sejong the Great, yet it still has better air defense than Aegis and it can launch 8 Zircons in a salvo. So, when speaking about "matches" it is only natural for claimants to offer serious counter-arguments and not some amateurish BS and platform-centric military porn. Or, as they say among serious people: either put up or shut up.
And I support this quest by the extraordinary Canadian author of a number of very influential military books, such as his, now legendary and prescient:
I'm a research fellow at Dalhousie University, an acclaimed former
NDHQ researcher, an author, a Star Trek professor and a record-breaking
part-time freelance writer seeking full-time freelance writing
projects.
When most American militarists think of allies like Belgium, if they
ever do, beyond the fact that NATO has its HQ in Brussels, they
probably think of it as a supposedly weak European welfare state, with
little to no military capability, and dependent on US protection. At the
same time, when they think of the US Navy’s supercarriers, they most
likely talk like Tom Clancy, who said in 1999, “Naval forces generally
provide presence. Carrier groups, though, dominate an area for hundreds
of miles/ kilometers in every direction, including near-earth space.
While a frigate or destroyer impresses everyone who sees it, a carrier
group can change the balance of military and political power of an
entire region.” (Kindle Locations 283-285).
I am here to tell you neither is really true, and the reason I know this is because I just read the 2017 book F-4 Phantom: A Pilot’s Story
by former RAF pilot Robert Prest. Early in the book, Prest describes an
exercise in the early 1970s involving the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy.
He was providing protection for the carrier in his Phantom and was
contacted by the ship to investigate an incoming contact that might be a
threat. He put it like this: “‘Four-three … er … we have a contact … er
… bearing 060, eighty miles, suspected faker, request you ident,
over’.” He acknowledged, and the story continued “The voice comes from
deep in the bowels of United States carrier John F. Kennedy,
flagship of the task force that is making its way south down the English
Channel to rendezvous with another convoy of warships before the final
battle. It is a big juicy target for any marauding Bear pilot and his
Kangaroo missile. That is why I am here; to guard and protect. Our
squadron will maintain a twenty-four-hour CAP for the three days it
takes the fleet to transit our Air Defence territory. This is part and
parcel of our main role, maritime air defence. Now those few words from
the controller in the bowels of the JFK, that little green blip on his
smokey radar tube, spells trouble approaching for the ships.” (p. 16)
Upon investigation and identification, a flight of Belgian Air Force
F-104 Starfighters were headed directly for the carrier. He contacted
the Kennedy and reported: “‘Hey, we’ve got ten … no, twelve of
them heading straight for you!’ The controller wasted no time. ‘Okay,
hold them off, we’ll send you everything we’ve got! All Buzzard aircraft
vector 070 and buster, bogeys twelve-strong heading inbound …’ I only
half hear this because I am busy fighting for my life. I have loosed off
two Sparrows at two 104s that drifted into my gunsight before a
startled squawk from the rear seat sends me into a 5-G break. These guys
are no fools. They have stationed two of their number in three-mile
trail and well spread to cater for just such an attack, and now these
two are homing in fast and smoking.” (p. 19)
In moments, the defenders tried to deal with the attacking aircraft
from Belgium, but were not successful. “So now Phantoms wearing the
colours of RAF, US Marines, US Navy, are all joined as one in hot
pursuit of the enemy, all with ‘burners blazing as we weave and duck,
zoom and dive back down. We penetrate the carrier’s Missile Engagement
Zone and the controller is frantically calling on his fighters to haul
off or suffer at the hands of his trigger-happy gun and missile crews,
but this is peace-time, a war game, and so we ignore him. The Belgians
(for that is who they are) are bent on laying their bombs on the carrier
and we are bent on harassing them as long as possible to upset their
aim, and so in one great gaggle we burn towards the carrier standing out
fortress-like in the sea. We are at deck height, easing up slightly to
avoid the parked aircraft and weaving madly either side of the aerial
studded island. The last impression as we race over is of a huge deck
littered with aircraft equipment and at sea of upturned faces gazing up
at this aerial madness of a battle rushing past a few feet above their
heads, deafening, thrilling. On the other side, the enemy, their attack
completed, all turn port and arc skywards in a left-handed zoom for the
sanctuary of the clouds now at 10,000 feet above the carrier.” (pp.
19-20)
The Belgians had flown in at low altitude, 300 feet, and they caused
a genuine panic and probably would have sunk the carrier had they been
at war. Luckily this was a peace-time exercise, but it demonstrates that
Clancy was wrong, that carriers are vulnerable, and that the Belgian
Air Force should be respected. Goliaths should respect the capabilities
of the Davids in the world and not let hubris and the belief that they
are superior to others cloud their judgment because, sometimes, the
little guy wins.
NOTES
Tom Clancy. Carrier: A Guided Tour of an Aircraft Carrier. Berkley Books. Kindle Edition.
Robert Prest. F-4 Phantom: A Pilot's Story. Silvertail Books. Kindle Edition.
Remarkably, this piece by Roger very well fits with what I say in my latest video today on Victory Day. War IS NOT Hollywood, nor is it an amateurish belletristic writing hellbent on masturbating on military technology. No, war is a horrifying and deadly business as latest events demonstrated so well. That is why Russian military professionals laughed when reading late Clancy's fantasies completely detached from understanding operational and strategic matters. I will post my video later today, but for now enjoy Roger Thompson's excellent writing.
... is not a routine event. In some sense it is extraordinary since Assad went "full Monty", asked for "more cowbell", went out of his way by... insisting that if Russia has military bases in Syria it is only natural to have there all latest toys, especially hypersonic missiles. He also insisted on permanent presence of Russia in Syria and called Ze a clown (in Russian). Syria knows that she is on the brink of a breakthrough internationally--with Saudis and Iran restoring diplomatic relations, with Turkey softening her position on Syria and steadily moving away from the West, all signs for Syria are here, including, of course, the issue of much needed investment and restoration after the war.
Meanwhile the Global Troll in Chief, discusses the issue of turnips for Europeans:
Translation:According to the head of state, things have reached the point where foreign leaders offer their citizens to switch to turnips instead of lettuce and tomatoes.Putin stressed that turnips are a good product, but you will most likely have to go to Russia to get them.The President noted that the level of harvest here significantly exceeds the indicators of European countries.At the same time, he stressed that the yield is mainly affected by weather conditions, but these states will have a hard time without Russian fertilizers.
Hey, I am just a messenger here.)) But jokes aside, as I wrote for years, appearance of MiG-31Ks with Kinzhals at Khmeimim on a permanent deployment changes the balance of power in Mediterranean completely. Thank you again to our own Evald for illustrating it:
Just a reminder to all those Carrier Battle Groups that those are hostile waters. Just in case. Which brings us to Captain Hendrix piece in Atlantic:
You can read full piece at this link. You can see some signs of sobering, but still--American exceptionalists have a long way to go before completely clearing their minds and trying to integrate the United States into the community of equals. This is your Thursday primer.
Thanks to Brian Fruman, who pointed me towards initially piece by well known clown and amateur military porn masturbator David Axe who in his piece in Forbes informed us about this:
But these were not his ideas--I doubt he understands the difference between the Operational Sweep in ASW and Swiffer for the floors, although both are related. No, he described to the best of his very limited abilities by far more interesting paper from real military professionals from CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies) which is called The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan. You can download the paper (PDF) and read summary here:
Putting aside all those traditional tropes about China and BS about "international relations", whose real study doesn't functionally exist in the US anymore--died out together with always substandard US "diplomacy"--there are reasons to view paper with interest and it is absolutely normal to game possible wars and everybody does it. So, in this respect this paper is interesting.
I am not going to review all of it, but apart from interesting admissions such as these:
1. Shift to smaller, more survivable ships and develop rescue mechanisms to deal with crippledships and multiple sinkings.Surface ships are extremely vulnerable, with the United Statestypically losing two carriers and 10 to 20 large surface combatants in game iterations.
2. Prioritize submarines and other undersea platforms.Submarines were able to enter theChinese defensive zone and wreak havoc with the Chinese fleet, but numbers were inadequate.
or this:
3. Continue development and fielding of hypersonic weapons but recognize that they are nicheweapons.Their high cost limits inventories, so they lack the volume needed to counter theimmense numbers of Chinese air and naval platforms.
among many others, the paper continues to emphasize this:
There is no “Ukraine model” for Taiwan.
One may ask what is this "Ukraine Model"? If the authors and CSIS gamers (this time it is a respectful term) mean that the US will have to physically become a full blown party to the "defense of Taiwan", well, they have a point. But other than that, what is perceived as a "Ukraine Model" didn't complete forming itself. Far from it, albeit I do personally view a direct US participation in SMO as unlikely. But, but, that is the other issue altogether--even authors of paper admit some extremely serious military-industrial limitations of the United States, especially in terms of stand-off weapons, and mind you--the US has zero supersonic anti-shipping missiles, forget about hypersonic ones. And not only that, when discussing possible involvement of the United States in Taiwan's war, one has to seriously consider a strategic ambiguity in Europe, as IN WESTERN Europe, due to SMO and it, seemingly, growing scale.
Yes, the United States has a very good, top notch submarine force--I write about it for years--but what will be the effect of the US losing completely in 404, and then in Europe? And that is not just in Kremlin's plans, it is being done as I type this. What are those "black swans", what are those random variables thrown into the mix, considering a historic strategic miscalculation the US committed when getting involved in perversion of 404 and NATO? There are many interesting points to discuss in this paper and, unlike David Axe's sophomoric writing, this paper certainly deserves to be discussed. So, the link is there, download and enjoy, if you will. I already briefly browsed it, many interesting admissions. And yes, "Ukraine Model" needs to be discussed too.
In the end, look at the dynamics of rebuilding of Russia's Pacific Fleet, especially subs and surface carriers of 3M22 Zircons, and expansion of both strike combat aviation and delivery of Novella-equipped IL-38N ASW and patrol aircraft. Russia is anticipating some events and if Russia backs China up in this conflict, which is very likely, boy, we may see some spectacle for the ages. But, I am also on record, that PLAN nuclear submarine force is no contest to the state-of-the-art US Navy's subs and well trained crews and the issue of ASW against such a force is of a strategic importance to China, as is of Air Defense. China has very little time to get ready. I am sure Xi and Putin discuss this often.
Now, that the hysteria with "losing" Balakleya and Izyum (quotation marks are deliberate) due to this famous VSU "offensive" has subsided, and once the issue of the Kherson catastrophe for VSU is considered, we may confidently state that the whole thing was very deliberate on Russian side. Fast backward to the start of SMO--this is for those who already forgot--and recall what was the main issue then? Right, if you recall--it was the question of how Russian Army will be "taking" urban centers, such as Kiev or Kharkov. This was also the issue of both Pentagon planners and Western propaganda which was build prior to SMO on the assumptions (wrong ones) that Russians will go for jugular and start taking down regime by means of taking its main cities. Naive (and incompetent) people, what can one say. They thought that prodding Russia to get into the cities where they prepared (for Pentagon and British General Staff it means hiding behind civilians) "defenses" Russians would bleed and provide a copious amount of propaganda fodder.
There was one issue with that--Neither US nor UK ever fought real defensive battles on a strategic level, Russians wrote a book on them. They didn't read this book in D.C. and in London. Apart from inevitable peeling off VSU "defenses" in Donbass, with all those towns and hamlets turned into one huge fortified area (укрепрайон) where VSU could and did hide behind the backs of civilians, Russian Army never went INTO any large urban center as Western planners hoped for using a primitive cliche thinking that if Russians took Grozny, Russians and SAA took Aleppo, Russians took Crimea, then they surely would take Kharkov, Kiev etc. So, for Pentagon "thinkers" who do think in cliches, the fact that every Soviet and Russian officer was and is taught to apply historic military lessons CREATIVELY (творчески применять уроки военной истории к современной войне) to the modern war, was and is unknown. After all, the image of Russian automatons with arithmometers who cannot think beyond the framework of instructions...
...is what has been imprinted in the American military mind for ages by, ironically, right... Germans. Namely former Wehrmacht and SS military leaders who were forced by the US military to write their memoirs on how they won... pardon... lost to Russians in WW II. And don't you dare to think that Red Army defeated the best of Europe in 1941-45. Ah yes, those studies. They did warn, though:
But who heeds those warnings? The idol of the US armored force, General George S. Patton was considered by Germans themselves to be the most "German" American general, not to speak, of course, about Patton's attitude towards Russians as untermensch. So, no matter how one plays it, the US Army was mightily influenced by Germans not only in a shape of the US Army helmets which look very much as good ol' Stahl Helmets of Wehrmacht but, most importantly, what was UNDER those helmets and those are brains. Obviously the truism of learning from the best does not apply to modern US ground forces and, as the result, the whole plan for Ukraine went belly up first when Russian allied forces managed to wipe out the initial army of several hundred thousands of VSU and their Nazi formations, and are now in the phase of annihilating the second iteration of VSU, which, finally, was lured out into the open first at around Kherson starting from August 27, and now with this "famed" VSU "offensive" drowned in blood and largely extinguished around Kharkov--all in the OPEN terrain, mind you. They were lured out of their safe havens behind civilians in urban centers.
Now, elaborations start on if those suicidal offensives were done for the internal PR purposes in the US, for the benefit of the DNC, or was it a perfectly timed bait by Russians? Here is something to consider. Larry notes today:
After that he proceeds to demolish the whole "establishment" narrative (a euphemism for BS) and he starts with a phrase because of which I had to wipe my monitors after me spewing my coffee.
Turns out that General Dave experienced premature military orgasm.
LOL. But apart from obvious slavery to narrative, can we state that most of those retired and serving US generals who "consulted", a euphemism for Command and Control, VSU on those offensives got caught or, rather, bought the strategic "picture" constructed by Russians hook, line and sinker? I say, all signs in favor of this conclusion are there. I reiterate: the US doesn't have real operational experience with strategic, theater wide, defensive operations at all. Mind you, the length of the front in Ukraine is around 1,200 kilometers. After that, ask yourself a question why Russians are content with physical annihilation of the different iterations of VSU and scores of foreign "mercenaries", many of who are merely cadre NATO personnel with a shallow undercover "legend" of a volunteer.
They are learning about real war with the peer on the job, those who survive. But, as I already stated, the US simply has NO experience since 1950 of developing a national strategy which is fully integrated with political, economic and military aims of the state (nation) globally. And here is the reason: not only we can observe a dramatic decline in competence and expertise of the America's top brass, but US political system prevents this in the most radical way by both sacrificing everything at the altar of partizan politics and sheer incompetence and corruption of America's political "elites" who are in the pockets of different interest groups. Moreover, no American military leader ever fought a peer, who, incidentally, if someone decides to do the unthinkable, can psychically annihilate a combination of enemies by wiping their countries off the map. Nor, as empirical evidence shows, did the United States produce a serious geopolitical and military thinker in ages, resorting to promoting sophomoric geopolitical and military BS as some serious scholarly achievement in "strategy". Laughable, who are those "strategists"? Fukuyama? Brzezinski? Kissinger? Petraeus? Ben Hodges? Seriously? What, did they ever win anything?
As the events of the last three + weeks demonstrated so well, US military exists primarily for laundering huge budgets and in the state of a perpetual self-praise against the background of its best ever peer which is not only ran by NATO but now also is manned with NATO personnel, being obliterated on the scale which NO NATO military can take without disintegrating. It is the issue of REAL operations and of REAL strategy as executed militarily for the benefit of a national strategy as defined by political top which is working for the benefit of the nation, the notion which is unknown for the United States in the last 60 years, because in the end the United States failed to coalesce into the real nation and I wrote three books on that. Everything starts from there. But then again, what do I know?
I am telling you, there are still a few competent and realist people in the US and if one would expect the place where they are, that surely has to be the US Navy and nobody questions its pedigree, for all its problems. So, this is your primer for late Monday. My root canal went really easy, especially comparing to one a few months ago.
... from the start--China got humiliated. There is no other way about it. Let me turn on here the famous Russian Вы не понимаете, Это Другое (You don't understand, This is Different) mode, usually used by Russia's pro-western liberda when trying to whitewash West's crimes and idiocy. Here it is:
As Ramzan Kadyrov correctly responded to this PR affair in his TG:
Translation: Why did they engage in fear-mongering, scaring people, creating the noise, when one could have allowed poor grandma to calmly fly to Taiwan. Everything could have been arranged calmly, silently, but no, poor grandma was being frightened with fighters, Air Defense, destroyers and loud statements.
I understand clearly the disappointment of many anti-globalists and China's sympathizers when observing this. I agree with Ramzan, though, as in a good fight--if you show your weapon, you better use it when time comes, otherwise keep it to yourself. But why this "This is Different" meme? Let me explain. As famous re-imagining of Nixon's Vietnam War "Peace with Honor" phrase goes: those who settle for peace with honor, get neither peace nor honor. The US can tell a lot about this issue, since we saw it on full display in Afghanistan last year. It took Russia several beatings of the US lap-dogs into bloody pulp starting in 2008 with Georgia, then in Syria and now in Ukraine, until Washington returned to its natural state of being a bellicose bully but scared shitless of engaging directly with Russia.
This all, despite the fact that the United States IS involved directly, as an example, in command-controlling and providing ISR to their Kiev SOBs. As the representative of Ukies' military intelligence (GUR) Vadim Skibitsky boasted to Telegraph (in Russian), including admitting the fact that the US is directly involved even in choosing targets for HIMARS. Primarily against civilians. But the US knows that it will be annihilated when it tries to "probe" a direct war with Russia even in fully conventional framework. It will be the US which will be forced towards nuclear threshold the moment it will begin to sustain losses it never encountered in its history. But this is not the case with China!
The obvious "this is different" issue behind Pelosi's PR escapades is the fact about which I write for years ad nauseam, such as here, among many other posts: the United States doesn't know how and cannot fight a serious enemy on the ground, but there is absolutely no doubt about the United States being a naval power, which DOES think and, in fact, HAS the means to impose some solution on China as long as the naval forces are involved directly. It is the only field in which the United States has an upper hand over China. I already presented on a number of occasions the comparison between he US Navy's and PLAN's submarine forces. Taiwan is an island, and unlike Georgia, let alone Syria and most of Ukraine, which Russia never declared as its territories, Taiwan for China is a huge, existential issue. Taiwan officially is considered by international community as part of mainland China, which has its semi-official status "temporarily". But because it is the island, and because the United States Navy can bring a massive firepower near it, the US has the escalation dominance here. And China knows it and she blinked.
Moreover, main China's mistake was this, however justified, bellicose rhetoric preceding walking mummy's visit to Taiwan and now the precedent had been created and IT IS already being spun by media. Of course, there is a school of thought which promotes the view that China prevented a nuclear war. I don't know, what I know for sure is this:
Should have been ongoing well before Pelosi's plane took off from the US and the scale of those drills, including at least the deployment of the Chinese Air Force, should have been massive, presenting a real threat in the area for any unauthorized flight. But now we may have on our hands, actually, a bigger problem--with China being forced to respond in such a way that she is not perceived as a "paper tiger" and that may (I underscore it--may, it is not preordained) lead to an attempt on Taiwan and that may involve the US Navy, especially its submarine force, which theoretically CAN score some significant military points, which are desperately needed for demoralized and economically strained United States in general and Biden Administration in particular. This is the price of the moment of weakness and indecisiveness and there is no way to spin it in any positive direction. But that only reinforces my long-standing position that in Russia-China relations, it is Russia who leads, exhibiting both great resolve, mastery of a major military conflicts and the ability to withstand any kind of pressure. And that is what we know at this moment with full clarity. Let's keep watching...
_20210427.jpg)
_broadside_view.jpg)
