Why "Potential"?

NATO in general and the US in particular established itself as an aggressor and is known to not shy away from atrocity when it suites it. 

Does General Randy Manner want to tell us that Kellogs, Keanes and likes, who are plenty to go around, are exceptions? Boy, he should wait for Ukraine War Crimes Tribunal going public once SMO is over. I can remind the general about this guy: 

Iraqi detainees in Gen H.R. McMaster's custody were treated in an inhuman fashion bordering on torture in 2005, according to a U.S. Military Police officer.

Exception? Again? When was the last time USMC fought in defense of Motherland, yes American Motherland?

It is an expeditionary force designed to put aboriginals in far away places under the US control. So, now that the danger of real physical annihilation on service of Israel gets real for any force which ventures in Iran's vicinity we get more admissions. Iran is a real deal, and it just declared mobilization of one million men for the armed forces. 

Meanwhile, here is the demonstration what the US doesn't have in principle--effective AD. Here is Buk M3 shoots down yet another HIMARS rocket. Expenditure--1 AD missile. 

And yes, the US is still providing recon and targeting to 404 terrorists, while hiding behind their backs. Russia is now doing her own "hiding". 

Yes, It Is Time ...

... to start talking about American generals. They simply lie, all the time--is this a combination of malice, corruption, cowardice and ignorance. Likely, and this is a diagnosis. It is especially potent when it comes from US officers of courage, honor and integrity like Larry Johnson and Daniel Davis. 

I also address American generals' delusions about war and peace in my today's video. 

Larry On US Generals.

I laughed when Stephen Gardner said that David Petraeus is "a good general". 

Excellent summary by Larry.

Academics? Really?

I will soon begin to stutter from repeating a diagnosis--Western "leaders" and their "academe" are capable only of PR, period. They do not have real skills, knowledge or foresight. Now these "academics" are discovering what was told by many people with just common sense, forget about those, like Mr. Novak, who have serious experience and academic background in real things. 

Russia raked in significantly more money from its crude oil sales than previously thought, a group of academics have said. Russia took in more money in the weeks that followed the oil price cap implemented on December 5 last year, calculations from academics at the Institute of International Finance, Columbia University, and the University of California show. The calculations show that Russia sold its crude oil for about $74 per barrel on average, according to the paper “Assessing the Impact of International Sanctions on Russian Oil Exports” published on the Social Science Research Network.

For people whose skills do not reach beyond the realm of financial speculation at the Wall Street such a development may come as a surprise. A nasty one at that. You can download this paper here. 

Assessing the Impact of International Sanctions on Russian Oil Exports

It is a peculiar paper with the set of "recommendations" of what Larry calls "more cowbell". Same ol', same ol'--more sanctions, more restrictions and even lower cap. They DO grow them dumb in "academic" economics realm in the West. Suffice it to say that 99% of Western economics "oracles" predictions about Russia turned out to be utterly delusional. You cannot fix stupid. 

Daniel Davies, meanwhile, warns.

While it’s no secret that since 2013 I’ve argued – many times (including last month in these pages) – we place too much trust on our generals and turn too blind of an eye when they are proven disastrously wrong. With statements and claims made by a number of retired general officers leading up to Friday’s one-year mark in Russia’s war with Ukraine, however, it is more urgent than ever that the American public take what they say with more than a little skepticism. If our policymakers take the advice of these former high-ranking officers, America may find itself at war with Russia, shocked by a Ukrainian loss – or worst of all: sucked into a nuclear exchange with Russia.

Most American retired generals have been proven disastrously wrong most of the time because they do not know what modern war is and, also, because they never won shit in their lives. Come on, when you apply for credit card, let alone for mortgage, the first thing one checks is your credit history, and this is the right thing to do. What IS credit history of America's top brass since Vietnam? Larry summarized it very well in his latest: 

America’s Delusional Military Fantasy

Somebody needs to explain to Petraeus and Keane and the whole cabal of other political generals from US think tanks that military "history" they studied is not exactly a real one. But then again, with such an "academe" who would blame them for having learned nothing about real war. Or real economy, for that matter.

Colonel Lang Nails It.

I already wrote about all these talking heads US generals who pose as experts on Russia (they are not) and Vladimir Putin's "intentions".  Now Colonel Lang asks the right question:

After watching the vacillating performance of talking head generals on TeeVee over the Ukraine matter, the question arises as to whether or not they are being “pumped up” by the Pentagon on a regular basis. In the Rumsfeld era this was routinely done. Some people were briefed in private, but others were invited to meetings with 20 or 30 others. These were presided over by Rumsfeld himself backed up by a couple of advisers. I was invited to one of these. I asked a couple of awkward questions to which Rumsfeld replied that he did not know the answers. I was not invited again, but that was all right as a number of those briefed talked to me regularly. Kellogg, Keane, Clapper, Petraeus, etc. IMO these people are probably on the briefing list.

As I am on record--independent military analysis is hard, especially in the midst of current US narrative about crisis in Ukraine, which is "packaged" into a wrap of mythological benign intentions by the US to see "the spread of democracy". So, all those generals and colonels with some very minor exception continue to propagate a narrative, not real analysis, especially against the background of their utter ignorance of Russia and how things work there. 

I commented on some issues related to LDNR yesterday:

As for the forecast, VSU is doing what it does always--"digs in" by means of positioning its assets in civilian sectors, up to moving some equipment literally into the houses of civilian population in occupied by VSU Donbass. But the reliable word is out and there is a serious demoralization on the VSU part because they recognize now the gravity of the situation for them. Will they attack LDNR now? Not impossible, the regime in Kiev understands now that the process of Ukraine's crumbling has started in earnest with OR without Russian "invasion". At this stage the only use for VSU is their slaughter by LDNR militias and Russian Army in case they attack (they continue to shell civilians) and delivering TV "picture" to the West. This is the extent of the West's military "capability" against Russia. It is really not about Ukraine.