I understand how difficult it is for decent people inside the US military to accept the fact that they are not the best, they are involved directly in terrorism and war crimes and that most of what they know about themselves is primarily from internal propaganda. So, what's left? Well, let's kill some civilians. The desire to "kill some Russians" is deeply ingrained in the US military-political top because of complex of inferiority, being not in the same league and recognition of what I speak about non stop for more than a decade--the US lost the arms race, it is all about spite and racism. But then again, US military for all intents and purposes is an Israeli military and has no a single serviceman, top-bottom, who would be able to coherently state when did the US military actually defend the US and her actual national interests.
These are all hallmarks of a decomposing empire. Here are some results of the activity of the "finest fighting force in history".
The "most moral" military force of IDF looks at their apprentices from Pentagon with approval.
It is both rot and rut and it cannot be changed. I am not talking about literal inability to most of the US military operating with scales--most of them cannot wrap their brains around actual, not fake, production numbers of weapons by Russia--but also with technological development. As Army Times reports:
This is rather remarkable--doubling down on systems which in reality deliver NO new capability. THAAD? Seriously? A legacy system with an excellent (and defenseless) radar and shitty interceptors designed to "catch" SCUDs. Golden Fleet--a collection of fat prestigious targets in real war? Precision Strike Missile? A better guidance iteration of ATACMs--what war this military is getting ready for? We all know which one--money laundering. The plan for continuous obsolescence with some buzz words--Collaborative Combat Aircraft or autonomous drone platforms--sprinkled for better effect in Knesset 2.0. Mindboggling. This all is a result of sheer military incompetence and corruption. Germany also issued her "strategy" till 2039. Russian military sustained heavy casualties (hernias due to Homeric laughter) after reading it. I speak about it in my latest video.
Does he even understand what those costs could be?
He still lives in the la-la land of the Desert Storm, where the US operated essentially unopposed in its assembly areas, but even in Vietnam, the US Army never experienced a fire impact (maybe Khe Sanh) which would compare to daily "deliveries" Iran can provide against any troops. These will not be some artillery and mortar impacts, that will be stand-off weapons, some of them with warheads measuring in hundreds of kilograms. This is a different game, and then there are recon and targeting ... but I said it before--the US doesn't have relevant experience with this.
So, what COULD be the "costs" if the US decides to do "ground operation"? Depending on the scope (the US doesn't have required resources for large scale op, McCaffrey should know this) it will range anywhere between 10,000 + KIAs within limited scope op to hundreds of thousands KIAs if the US bogs down (which it will) in case of the "full scale" invasion of Iran in the first couple-three years. Vietnam War will look damn good compared to this.
Not surprising, considering the system of beliefs of a large strata of the American Christians.
“We started getting calls in the wee hours of Saturday morning from people saying their commanders were just jubilant about this and trying to tell people, ‘Don’t worry, it’s all part of God’s plan,’” Weinstein said. Weinstein said the “metric promised” in the Bible’s Book of Revelation is horrifying and should worry everyone. “They are promised a 200-mile-long river that is four-and-a-half feet deep filled with nothing but the blood that their weaponized version of Jesus will spill at the Battle of Armageddon,” Weinstein said. “That’s a lot of blood.”
This also demonstrates a rather limited understanding of what REAL Armageddon can look like by very many in US military's evangelical fundamentalists and Zionists (Judaists), because for all media effect of events around Iran, the real Armageddon could be witnessed in 404, because it is there where the events which the US military is afraid of--taking severe casualties day in-day out--are happening.
Like in Konstantinovka.
Those US officers who want to see rivers of blood are welcome to "enlist" with VSU and experience first hand how it feels. I doubt they will share with their experience because most will be drowned in those "rivers of blood".
But, of course, reality is a bitch and it bites very hard. There are all indications of a massive hysteria and coping gripping both political- military and media classes in the West in general, and the US in particular. It manifests itself in different ways. Since there was an air combat slant in my today's video, here is one such demonstration:
Really, "perfect rival"? No F-15 saw any real air-to-air combat, not to speak of operating in serious threat environment. Not to mention the fact that SU-34 has a much larger (10,400 kg of F-15 vs 14, 000 kg for SU-34) combat payload and carries munitions US Air Force never heard about, like hypersonic Kinzhal or supersonic P-800 Onyx missiles, not to mention a truck load of SMART munitions with ranges, such as UMPK glide bombs with 200 kilometer range, that F-15 in any of its iterations could ever conceive--it is a plane, however good, from 1990s. But most importantly, SU-34 has an unrivaled combat record from Syria to SMO going head-to-head with the best air defense NATO could throw at it and coming on top. F-15 doesn't even register here. But in the end, SU-34 IS NOT a "fighter" aircraft, it is fighter-bomber which still carries a very nasty R-77 AAM with the range of up to 200 kilometers (outranges AIM-120 AMRAAM still).
So, SU-34 is NOT a rival to anything, it is in the league of its own and if it could be characterized, it would be something like this--it is a combination of SU-24 and F-111 on a horse-size doze of steroids, taken to the extreme of tactical strike aircraft capable of delivering a strategic effect strikes. Mind you--Kinzhal and P-800 Onyx can carry a nuclear warhead at 2,500 and 1,000 kilometer ranges respectively, while still being able to produce a strategic effect in a conventional configuration. It is also tough--many remember it taking a hit by Patriot missile and still making it back. SU-34 is a reflection of a new air-to-air and air-to-ground paradigm but as I state non-stop--Pentagon will learn nothing being captured by fairy tales they call "operations" they teach in war colleges.
... a man of honor and rich military experience, now of advanced age, speaks here about IDF's "reputational soap bubble" which has been burst (in Russian).
Most who read this blog knew it for a long time. But now "military record" of IDF has this:
Mind you, IDF is held in very high regard among many in the US military. I guess, genocide is a skill IDF and Israel will be known for at this history's segment. Crime against humanity--that's the name of it. The United States supported it. No further comments are necessary...
The issue is not just aid, of course, or lack of capacity of the combined West. This all is just one of many factors which contributed mightily to this clusterfuck of a war. The main factor is lack of any serious strategic intelligence (author of this piece should know--he is former CIA military analyst) and forecasting in Washington--always very weak, now--absent altogether, and, of course, lack of any experience in building effective military machine from the top--General Staff--down to the basic tactical sub-units. The US simply has no structure for that, nor does it have experience. One can pontificate on "the finest fighting force in history" whatever one wants, but...
Read my lips--the REAL combined arms war which propelled the United States in 1945 to the position of superpower happened on the Eastern Front, period. You either show the winning record or you don't. Want to try to change things? How about starting from studying the real history of WW II with proper relation of scales, scope and contributions. That's gonna be a good start--to study the history of two real finest fighting forces in history duking it out between themselves from 1941 through 1944 until it was over. That's what is called "showing the money". It also means learning REAL lessons on what it takes to fight a real war, which the US has about zero experience of fighting. Now these people lament:
It is now clear Ukraine cannot reclaim all of its occupied territory
via military force. It lacks both the manpower and hardware necessary to
generate new combat power or achieve an advantage in fires that will
lead to sufficient offensive capacity. Russia is getting better at
blunting the impact of Western weapons, and Ukraine’s poor tactics can’t
simply be ignored forever. Because more aid alone is unable to rectify these problems, both
Washington and Kyiv must now consider other avenues to end the war. Ukraine’s deputy chief of military intelligence recently stated there is no pathway for Ukraine to win on the battlefield.
If the best Kyiv can do—as Biden administration officials are now
admitting—is to hold what it has, then Washington should press Kyiv to
begin talks before Ukraine loses more territory.But even a shift to a defensive strategy aimed at demonstrating
enough resilience to Moscow to force talks will be difficult to execute.
The hope that Putin begrudgingly accepts that the frontlines are
unlikely to move, thereby increasing Moscow’s willingness to negotiate,
seems farfetched. As long as Russia has a 5:1 latent manpower advantage,
it has time on its side.
I have news for these guys: it was clear from the first day of SMO not "now". The only issue was how Russia will approach escalation and the gradual involvement of NATO until it becomes clear that it is between combined West and Russia. Well, let me give you the date--April 12, 2022. Here is from my latest book.
This date can be marked as the official start of the slip of the combined West, headed by the U.S., from its 500-year long supremacy toward a long descent into global obscurity. As with any large landslide, it starts initially with tremors and a few rocks rolling down the steep slope, but eventually the number of rocks increases dramatically, and it becomes a deafening stream of rocks, trees and dust until the whole slope yields and rushes down where once a peaceful and undisturbed foothill lay.
This was the date when clown Boris Johnson, on behalf of Biden Admin, sabotaged Istanbul talks and the REAL SMO has started. I know for a fact that General Staff fully anticipated NATO's involvement from the start and contingency planning has been done accordingly. Now, the combined West pays for its arrogance and delusions. And don't get me started on technological dimension of this all. Short of the transfer of nuclear weapons to 404 the US arsenal is nothing more than a collection of pieces not suited for the real war of the XXI century. As per talks--Russia's conditions are known, if Washington wants to talk it better rush, because this offer expires soon and the next one will be even more humiliating. Meanwhile Abrams tanks continue to be annihilated, this time it is GLONASS and laser-guided Krasnopol--a nasty-nasty SMART munition.
I am sure Russians sacrificed so many washing machines and dishwashers to get chips for all that. So, will the US military get a General Staff? Nope, profit margins for Raytheon are more important and to thrive it needs conflicts, there is one problem--this time they chose a wrong enemy... But then again, when was the last time the US fought the "right" one? Or as Cuba Gooding says--show me the money. In the end talking about strategy and practicing it successfully are two completely different sets of skills.
... to 404 and already have been thinking about boasting how they led the offensive which would defeat those backward Russkies. Well, the problem, of course, was that they still thought that US Army Manuals apply for 404 as well as they did in Gulf War. Boy, did they miscalculate. Some interesting points from Marat on Chasov Yar, which only confirm the point I make that no US general can command anything larger than regiment in SMO. They simply have neither knowledge nor experience.
Translation:By the fall of last year, Khortitsa, which at the end of the 2022 was considered the largest military formation among the 4 main formations of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (240-260 thousand people), lost 150 thousand in just one year.As a result, all the main units, I emphasize, the best that remain at Khortytsya now, concentrated for the defense of Chasov Yar - one at a time, and the majority have already been completely reorganized twice.That is, they were completely destroyed once or twice.But let's take a closer look at them, as this in itself is very interesting.In first place is the supporting and most combat-ready 93rd brigade “Kholodny Yar”.Almost a division in numbers.In two years it was destroyed twice.It is interesting that the “Kholodnye” were considered the most combat-ready, because they fought mainly with the best captured Russian equipment.These are primarily T-72, T-80 and even a few T-90 tanks.And also the best thing the Ukrops had - the T-64 Bulat.The “Kholodnye” were the favorites of the Americans, and, for example, during the autumn-summer campaign of 22, some units were directly led by American officers.True, when the Artyomovskaya meat grinder began, they quickly fled.In second place is the 46th airmobile (airborne) brigade, trained by the British in England, which, by the way, is the most unshabby - it was only reformed once.Next is the 92nd Air Assault Brigade (twice destroyed).These are generally suicide troops.Like the 110th brigade of the Ukrainian Armed Forces near Avdeevka.They distinguished themselves by carrying out a massacre of our prisoners together with the Kraken battalion in the village of Novoselovskoye near Svatovo in the fall of the 22nd.Then 16 fighters of the Lugansk militia (now the same 4th brigade) died as martyrs.They put bags over their heads and suffocated them.Oh, what will happen when the Luhansk people reach 92nd.
Oh, we know what's gonna happen and it better be done without any phones around. Sadism towards POWs was "trained" by NATO instructors and this is the only thing they are good at. Recall how US media have been ejaculating in mid 2010s from describing H.R. McMaster who became, for a short while, the National Security Adviser to Trump. What many forgot that at some point there was a description of how McMaster's regiment treated Iraqi Army POWs--inhumanely. Remarkably, the piece was in one of the major US outlets--either New Yorker or NYT, one of those. Now I cannot find it. I tried, maybe you can. But this is the type of the "training", which is based on killing a third rate force which cannot shoot back and is demolished by the way of total air superiority. But McMaster's "story" and PR around his exploits in Iraq are totally inapplicable to the realities of modern war with "peer" or "better than peer", and that is what those American unit commanders learned really fast. Hence, they fled--very little glory in being evaporated by Tornado's salvo or being blown to smithereens by 152-mm shell or 3M14 Kalibr.
Remember a pathetic piece by WSJ in 2017 titled...
So, yes, they compared (Nemesis, LOL) Chief of the General Staff of Russian Armed Forces to a guy who commanded a... regiment in Iraq. I reacted already then:
It was a grotesque level of arrogance, ignorance and military illiteracy by the whole US military-propaganda establishment. And then they fled--no glory, I guess. But with such "thinkers" as McMaster, we may see yet another glorious US operational "planning" which will kill even more Ukrainians, who US military views merely as a cannon fodder of untermenschen. Hm, where did I see this before? You gotta love internet, it saves so much...
Lt.Colonel Daniel Davies asks the reasonable question, while still repeating all those Ukie propaganda tropes about Russia being "bloodied" in SMO and about Holy HIMARS, the title of his piece does raise this issue:Why Do We Keep Listening to the ‘TV’ Generals on Ukraine? He writes:
The answer to this is very simple: incompetence and professional jealousy. SMO and Ukraine, same as Georgia in 2008, and same as Syria, and same as Ukraine now demonstrated a demolition of not only America's best proxies at given periods of time, but uncovered a fantastical thinking by US military about modern war. Most, with some notable exceptions, Western military professionals exhibited a gaping lack of understanding of not only Russia--that is expected from many--but of even basic grasp of economic mobilization scales, operational and strategic realities. 99% of US military officers of any note forecasts and explanations, be that on TV or in writing, not only were and are wrong, they raise the question of professional adequacy.
Davies lists all, oh so familiar, names of Petraeus, Keane, Hodges, Hertling who continue to embarrass themselves as military amateurs in their view of SMO. But they are just the tip of the iceberg, enough to take a look an Andrew Bacevich's personal views and military "analysis" the so called Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft (in reality Cohen and Soros' funded org) he heads--one cannot shake the impression that far from being a former cadre officer of the US Army, Bacevich is simply stuck in the realities of America's endless and humiliating military debacles and lacks a solid military education which IS NOT a collection of tactical minutiae but must rest on a solid foundation of the military science. Davies still doesn't provide the definition of "bloodied", but have anyone told US military professionals that any serious operational level document contains what in Russian is called normatives (normativity) which describe ranges in losses in personnel and equipment depending on types of operations ranging from capturing the village, town or city to a head on division size battle with different types of opponent. Evidently American officers never heard of those, despite those being a common knowledge. So what "bloodied" is, then? And what is a definition of "significant"? Davies doesn't answer this question.
The Russians are no doubt bloodied and have suffered significant
equipment loss, but there is no evidence on the battlefield that they
are anywhere near “exhausted.” Most of the artillery promised by the West has already been delivered
and it has not, to date, resulted in even slowing Russia’s advance
through the Donbas, much less stopped it. The HIMARS launchers have enabled Ukraine to strike deep
behind Russian lines, and they have caused severe harm in their enemy’s
rear areas. Nonetheless, even that has not resulted in any observable
reduction in the still-heavy daily barrage of artillery on Ukrainian
positions.
It seems that most of
those US military professionals when talking about REAL combined arms
operations lack even basic understanding of the role of modern air defense, especially of such quality as Russian troop (voiskovaya) AD, which deploys a variety of high end AD systems ranging from manpads to Tor M2, Buk M3, and S-300V4 which already performed extremely well in defending Russian forces preposition and rear areas, including from this very same much touted, and grossly overrated, HIMARS (in Russian). All of those are standard targets for Russian Air Defense, but it seems many US officers still cannot grasp this fact, which is unsurprising, considering the fact that the US Army never fought in modern era under the steady fire impact to the operational depth and simply has no systems which are designed for such classes of targets. Davies continues and admits:
The most important fundamentals of war, the basics of combat
operations, almost all reside on the Russian side. Since the G7, G20,
and NATO Summits, there have been no additional large-scale
contributions of modern weaponry promised to Ukraine. The amount of
equipment to date has been a couple of hundred artillery tubes, about
250 Soviet-era tanks, and a few hundred Vietnam-era personnel carriers.
Cumulatively, all of this gear – including the HIMARS – are not a
fraction of the type of kit Ukraine would need to launch a counteroffensive. The idea, then, that Ukraine could stop Russia’s current
offensive and then transition to a counter-offensive to drive Putin’s
troops back – as Hodges said he believed would happen before the end of
this year – have no valid basis on the ground in Ukraine. But such
optimistic, rosy proclamations that are disconnected from battlefield
realities are not new for America’s active and retired generals for the
past two decades. Take these examples from Operation Iraqi Freedom.
What can I say. The issue here is not What Ukraine needs, but what US and its NATO lapdogs can provide and we already know what happened with the US stocks of much touted, and, naturally, grossly overrated, Stingers, Javelins and M-777. It is a good business for defense contractors in the US who will need to replenish grossly diminished reserves of such weapons, but, for the love of God, can we stop this BS with "take these examples from Operation Iraqi Freedom". I can only repeat what most US officers never heard about, Russian/Soviet strategist Alexander Svechin, who present Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov quotes once in a while:"Each war represents an isolated case, requiring an understanding of its own particular logic, its own unique character". The tiresome comparison of what amounted to turkey shoot of backward, under-equipped, under-trained, under-supplied, illiterate in many instances and incompetently led Saddam's Army, which didn't have even operational air force and air defense, to Russia fighting the best ever US proxy, which for 8 years was supplied, trained and now C2-ed by US and UK officers, is simply risible. But Davies agrees somewhat:
The danger in these types of statements is that they give false hope to
the people of Ukraine, give an inaccurate picture to the American people
of what’s possible, and encourages Congress to continue funding a
strategy that almost certainly will fail. At the very least, it is time
to start viewing routinely optimistic claims by some of our active and
retired generals with more skepticism.
Oh, I think the danger of these statements is grossly understated, because, judging by the stream of incompetent and militarily illiterate baloney US military professionals deliver from each and every media channel nowadays, one is irresistibly moved to the conclusion that maybe those generals and senior officers are not that good to start with? If they do understand, which I begin to doubt now, what is going on and spew their claptrap for propaganda purposes, that totally disqualifies them as honorable professionals, but if they believe their own absurdity and pseudo-operational and pseudo-strategic psychobabble, then we have a problem--they may, at some point of time, try to come into direct contact with Russian Armed Forces and will sustain catastrophic defeat, which, inevitably, will push the United States, which doesn't have modern historic experience with real war, to escalate towards nuclear threshold.
I remain on record: US Armed Forces never fought in defense of own country. The only type of warfare the US military knows is a naval one, where the US Navy maintained both quantitative and qualitative superiority over nearest rivals for a while, in terms of ground war it was always expeditionary warfare, and achievements of the US ground forces have been more than underwhelming. Desert Storm played a cruel joke on the US military and its fighting doctrine and procurement policies, which resulted in a failure in Iraq and then humiliation of Afghanistan. Modern US Army cannot fight and win conventional war with modern "peer" without sustaining losses on the order of 1,000-1,500 KIAs a day and massive loss of equipment, including a very high PR "value" such as combat aircraft or ships. Neither American public nor US political class will be able to deal with it, which will result in a political upheaval and calls for nuclear strikes, which will mean a death sentence to the US as a country .
Those people in the US military who do understand that, they do not have their voices heard, and, instead, we all are treated to nothing more than jingoistic propaganda, outright Russophobia and simple lies by people who by all measurements are not ready to face the realities of the warfare which, quoting Colonel Douglas MacGregor, looks like this:
It is a well-known fact, that today Pentagon has many US officers manning US weapon systems in Ukraine and they do more than that--they collect all possible data on the operations by Russian forces. It is not going to help, because America's problem is much deeper than even fighting doctrine or national strategy, however always flawed and unworkable. It is metaphysical--it is difficult to replicate or respond to Russia's technological and cultural responses to war. You cannot buy this historic experience and warfare culture. It will always be beyond reach. That is why I smile when same people who produced Afghanistan debacle, assure American public that they already learn and apply "lessons" from SMO. They mislead the public because the US doesn't fight like Russia and never did. It never will and it cannot be helped, because in the end it is history itself which is the greatest teacher for those who want to learn. The US military-political class not only doesn't want to learn, it is incapable of learning and the wall of BS surrounding SMO in the US, about which Davies writes, is the best proof of that. Not to mention the fact of best and brightest being removed from the US military for decades.
In related news. Give Americans a credit where the credit is due:
No, I am not a Fox "fan", despite the fact that I watch Tucker once in a while. I just use a snippet, the admission. Yes, US MSM is shit as are people who run them. They do harm people and the country, and the wolrd. They are very "effective" in that.
Read the whole thing by following the link to Larry's blog. Netcentricity rules in this case. Both main Russian combat helis Ka-52 and Mi-28 have data links to ground units which designate targets. This is apart from having links between each-other.
I get it, alright, it is all done with the best of the intentions. Plus, The American Conservative, despite its gaping holes in knowledge of Russia, tries to position itself as a "realist" publication, and once in a while they do produce a sound idea or two, but in general they suffer from the same ailment characteristic to most modern "intellectual" publications--a complete inadequacy of experiences past and of understanding a modern world beyond the bounds of a few popular talking points such as West's moral decay and "economy" and "diplomacy". It is a feature now, even of those who position themselves as Anglo-American "realists", or, even, people who try to find some higher moral meaning in the chaos of a contemporary Western politics.
Anatol Lieven is a fine example of a field which I personally do not even consider a viable realm of expertise or study on any issue pertaining what we all know today as geopolitics and one would expect Lieven, who has a Ph.D in precisely this fraudulent political "science" to have issues with adequately grasping the modern day reality. Lieven is extensively quoted in the article in the said TAC by Bradley Delvin who is extremely critical of this:
It is all fine and dandy, and I agree that those republicans are essentially neocons and that the US Congress is a collection of primarily bruised egos and war-mongers. We shouldn't be surprised with that--it is a well-established fact. What is fascinating that while speaking about "miscalculations" and, obviously, self-defeating policies, Delvin gives a wide berth to Lieven's "interpretations", which in many respects prove without a shadow of a doubt that "miscalculations", if not delusions are as wide-spread among the so called Anglo-American "realists" as they are among neocons. I'll start with Lieven's rather wrong assessment of the situation of NS2. This is not to say that Russia doesn't care, of course she does and wants NS2 to work--it goes without saying. But Lieven thinks that:
“The biggest deterrent by far is the threat of greatly intensified
sanctions,” Lieven said. “Russia is anxious about its Nord Stream
pipeline to Germany. Clearly in the event of a new war with Ukraine,
that simply stops and goes out the window, and there are many, many more
things that the U.S. or Europe could do that could harm Russia very
badly in terms of its economic well-being.”
I don't know what Lieven's qualifications are for this type of conclusions, but he obviously contradicts a number of Russian experts, not least of them Rostislav Ischenko, a former employee of Ukraine's Government and a man who is situationally aware on the issues of Ukraine and NS2 order of magnitude better than Lieven will ever be, who in unison (I am one of those) repeat the point for years, that since roughly 2016-17 and on, the sabotage of the NS2, if it succeeds, means merely a discomfort for Russia which will be overcome, while for Germany and Europe it will be a catastrophe. I wrote so much about it for years, just type Nord Stream 2 in search bar in this blog. Moreover, I don't know how Lieven missed an obvious major shift of Russia's hydrocarbons' extraction and processing industry away from western borders towards the Far East. Everybody sees it, evidently not Lieven.
But that is not the main issue, in the end, if Europe wants to commit suicide it is not for Russia to prevent it. But Lieven decides to wax all strategic and military and says this:
“If America was planning to seriously prepare for a ground war with
Russia, it would have to re-deploy tens or hundreds of thousands of U.S.
troops to Europe with full air cover, and station them in European
countries, which might very well not be willing to receive them,” Lieven
told TAC. “In addition, this would mean either preparing to fight a war
of two fronts simultaneously with China and Russia, because if the
United States goes to war with Russia, there can be no doubt whatsoever
that China would move to take Taiwan the next day, and the U.S. would
have to either fight on two fronts, give up on one front, or lose on
both fronts.”
I deliberately highlight and underline what Liven states on the size of the force the United States will need to fight a "ground war" with Russia. It is not a detail which could be attributed to my nit-picking. It is not, it is very serious when a person who is viewed by many as an "expert" makes such a gaffe. Of course, I don't know WHY the United States will fight a "ground war" with Russia, I presume in Ukraine, but Lieven better ask Andrew Bacevich, his boss in Quincy Institute, and a former cadre officer (Colonel) of the US Army with combat experience. Maybe, I am not saying it will happen with 100% probability, he explains to Lieven what force will be needed to "fight" Russia near Russia's borders.
Of course, a lot depends on HOW the victory will be defined by the US, but judging by Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan (among many others) it could be defined anywhere between total and partial defeats inflicted by enemies on the US. Russia, however, is a bit different case here, EVEN if we assume that the US will not escalate to a nuclear threshold after a week or two of fighting this "ground war". Even if we assume that both sides do not use nukes, be them tactical or strategic, the purely conventional "ground war" against Russia in Ukraine will require at least one million of combat troops on the American side, granted Russia will even allow those to be shipped to Europe. I am, however, not 100% positive on the "cut off" number of the US troops (it could be 200,000 or somewhere near 400,000) concentrating in Europe before Russia will blow to smithereens most of the ports capable to receive US transports and then simply destroy airfields with whatever will be there.
I wrote about those wet dreams by US a few years ago. There, Ochmanek, evidently, was pulling numbers, pardon my French, out of his ass, still being enamored by a turkey shoot of a backward Iraqi Army. But exactly two years later he dramatically, to his credit, changed his tune and admitted:
Unsurprisingly, those admissions came on the heels of Vladimir Putin's address to Federal Assembly on 1March 2018 whose historic significance many people still cannot grasp. So, yes, million(s) of US (NATO) combat troops if NATO decides to commit suicide conventionally and see Washington and European Capitals' government quarters in ruins. There is no worse than some Ivy League or Oxford Ph.D in political "science" beginning to wax military and "miscalculating" by order of magnitude on the scale of force and, hence, slaughterhouse which will unfold if the US decides to fight a ground war with a "peer" and not some illiterate Arab soldier or Taliban. This is not a "miscalculation, it is a tour de force of military ignorance which defines modern Western politicum be they from "realist" wing or the neocon one. They better listen to this, again, between 7:00 and 16:00 minutes and see reactions of his political "science" interlocutors.
I will elaborate on the required force when speaking on the Salvo Model and why even million plus troops even within purely conventional scenario in Ukraine will not prevent NATO from sustaining catastrophic defeat accompanied by catastrophic losses in people and in materiel. I am not even going to discuss mobilization policies and measures of Russia, of which Lieven has very little, if any, understanding. But even Wilkerson fails to grasp what real modern conventional war is--he can't, US never fought a peer since 1945 on the ground successfully without several overwhelming advantages in technology. Well... even speaking in generalities has to have a well defined and competent point, which at least provides a ballpark accuracy to a point one wants to get across with whatever intentions.
P.S. Wilkerson spoke about "ultimately winning", he really needs to refresh his memory on American wars of the 20th century.
Translation:I am not going to hide the fact that today in Syria, both on tactical and operational levels, we have very close contacts with our American colleagues. If this is a secret for someone, well--I divulge this secret. We have, using the civilian lingo, on the level of our managers several contacts a day regarding operations in the air while fighting against terrorism.
This statement by Shoigu is not accidental and is "loaded" with meaning and underscores what I talk about all the time--the last vestiges of the American competence on a governmental level are primarily with the US military. Even if for the reasons of the American military professionals being capable of a solid risk assessment, people in State Department are not capable of. In this case US-Russian military channels of communications remain THE ONLY reliable means of communications considering an appalling lack of professionalism in the US foreign policy establishment, and, frankly its inadequate mental state.
About learning proper lessons from war. Patrick refers to my work (that is not the reason I refer to his piece, I quote him periodically) in this superb piece and to Fred Reed's succinct and always sardonic description of US military since Vietnam War.
The last sentence is the most important one. Now recall my three years old "issue" with operational "planning" by RAND's very own Ochmanek and group of air power experts. That is until he himself admitted, two years later, in 2019 that NATO has its ass handed to it real war against Russia and China. Recall my main question then, in 2017:
Russian definition of the best air-defense in the world is very simple: our tanks at enemy's airfields. This obvious truism implies something much bigger than mere air operations, it requires a serious battle-space integration across all domains (damn, do I sound like a Pentagon bureaucrat) and, yes, those proverbial ground forces which, actually, have a very effective troops' (voiskovaya) air defenses which the US armed forces never encountered in their modern era. So, in general, Armstrong's piece is great and gives excellent historic introspective. A must read, as one would say.
Meanwhile, 6th international (32 participants from Russia, Belarus, Israel, Iran, Vietnam, China, you name it) army games Army 2020 opened yesterday in Russia and Russians greeted everybody with a ballet. No, not from Bolshoi or Mariinka, but primarily Western, Southern and Central military districts and ballerinas were charming and elegant. Primarily T-80s and Msta-S self-propelled gun. Just enjoy, nothing better than T-80s dance to Swan Lake and Nut-Cracker.
The full ballet performance you can easily find at the Army 2020 Youtube channel. Meanwhile, the first full day of competitions, tank biathlon, saw Vietnamese kicking ass being clinical on targets on their (only China brought her own tanks) T-72B3s and that means a really hot contest, I am sure Chinese and Israelis will have something to say about it, apart from Russia and Belarus. You see, if the world could only fight in such "wars".
Despite being one of the people behind The National Interest magazine which is, for all intents and purposes, a tabloid and a laughing stock due to its utterly ridiculous opinions (bar few far and between competent ones) on matters of warfare. In fact, Dmitri Simes was one of the victims of slander by the Russiagate-mongering media whores. But Simes' problem is a bit more complex--for years he was commenting on US polices to Russian audiences and that is where I always had issue with him and points of view he was trying to present as some kind of range of interpretations of views by some invisible Washington elites who arrived to those views as a result of rational thought based on understanding of the American national interest (no pun intended). Each time I watched Simes trying to explain this I had an urge to tell him to drop the pretense of expertise and face the reality that the United States is run by literally imbeciles and corrupt petulant sociopaths.
Here is Simes yesterday at Putin's press-conference where he asks a question about START's extension. Watch how Putin comments on that.
It is extremely instructive and both implicitly and explicitly underscores a total lack of credibility of the United States in any issue of the international relations. Comments on Ukraine are especially amusing, because they are true. So, I don't know Simes' thought process but today any talk about sensible arms limitations treaties with the United States is a complete exercise in futility, as it was starting from Russia getting Crimea back as a result of US (and EU) sponsored bloody coup in Kiev in 2014. We are inside the increasingly hard global geopolitical clash the declining United States initiated as the last resort in trying to save it increasingly ethereal hegemony. The obvious problem, of course, is the fact that the US doesn't have any resources for such a serious clash. Before financial noose tightens completely--different analysts only vary in the time frame, not the ultimate outcome--Russia has all the time she needs to play "the forms must be obeyed" game, making sure that no global conflict erupts, that is NOT initiated by increasingly desperate United States. After that? I don't know, I don't think anybody knows, least of all American political class most of which never worked a day in productive capacity or served in any way or form in the military to have experiences with the real world, be that inside the US, let alone outside where the ignorance of American politicians became legendary. I guess, the look at Dmitri's face by the end of Putin's response could tell the story, even when considering the fact that Simes is generally not very emotional and is rather on a grim side most of the times. Dmitri Simes is not a stupid man by far but he should have seen what was coming and about what I warned five years ago.
After that, I just needed to document this defeat. I do owe one clarification, however, to my readers here--I take no joy in seeing the country, which gave us shelter and became our home in the times of humanitarian catastrophe in Russia (former USSR to be more precise) in 1990s and whose founding ideas shone so attractively then, degenerating into the third world dysfunctional politically and economically clone of some African or Latin American failed states. But maybe there is a degree of a poetic historic justice in that. I don't know.
Now thanks to our reader Eduardo, who provided the link (Thank you) to Phil Giraldi's blazing account of the state of the US military, I want to quote some. As you may understand and I never hid it, in fact, I spoke about it openly--my background prevents me, for ethical reasons, from too much of a focus on the actual state of US military. Phil does have this right, fully deserved. This is what he has to say:
Read it in full. It is worth reading. I said many times--political scientists do not make good geopolitical analysts because they do not have instruments required for understanding the main factor which shapes geopolitical balance--military power and warfare. Phil Giraldi has those instruments.
No really, as it turned out, Russians are not viewed by many in America as blood-thirsty interfererers in American democracy and genetically predisposed baby-eating monsters. Moreover:
You see how powerful Russian "propaganda" is? But I think the answer to this mystery is rather simple and the key word is "households". Yeah, yeah, you know those heterogeneous families which have to live not only with long separations but also with the danger of a family member being killed or maimed in Washington's non-stop wars of aggression. This is not your regular middle-class (if it still exists) sub-urban environment--it imposes completely different social, cultural and mental requirements for the family to survive. Now, consider the fact that Russians do not want to fight and speak about this openly and, yes, yes, did view at some point of time the United States as a natural ally--this moment is long gone. But Russians do not allow sodomy Internationale to destroy their own country and that could be (wink, wink) one of those factors too. But to any American who bothers to access Russian media, many of which are subbing in English, they may be culturally shocked by the fact that Russians do not hate, and in fact, sympathize with the average Americans and are keenly aware of the fact that Russia is facing US corrupt and aggressive "elites" who are the real enemy.
Now a short statement. Couple of days ago Deputy FM Ryabkov, later corroborated by Putin himself, offered to "discuss" (I underscore it) inclusion of Kinzhal and Poseidon systems in negotiations on the extension of the START. Calm down, if some of you read it as a "surrender" (I lost count how many times Russia "surrendered" in the last 10 years) it is not--discussion is not a limitation, a limitation is not a rejection and both Russian and American sides are keenly aware of the significance of especially Kinzhal. It is allegedly a non-strategic weapon which has even in conventional form a massive strategic effect by basically annulling all NATO's naval power as a start, it is capable of land-strikes too. I, personally, don't think that new START's extension will be signed, but it really does mean very little at this stage, plus I could be wrong, of course, but as they said in the Landsraad" "The forms must be obeyed."
Another one of those pieces by some Pentagon's big honcho about this and that. Pentagon's R&D Chief Mike Griffin waxes exceptional and writes another, in a row of now tiresome, platitudes about how US Armed Forces are great... sort of. He starts with a predictable fodder of Berlin Wall:
I have news for Griffin: Fukuyama is a classic representative of the American so called political pseudo-science class and could serve only as an Exhibit A of sheer ignorance, expected from the guy with no particular education or coherent analytical skills. Obviously, neither Fukuyama nor Griffin are good scholars of Clausewitz who is explicit in that: in war the outcome is never final. (c) Oh boy, was Clausewitz a Marxist? I though in a 200 years since Vom Kriege was penned we all should have developed some degree of recognition of what works and what doesn't in Western Civilization's most important work on war. No wonder Lenin was a huge fan of good ol' Carl. But that simple fact aside, there is one thing which Griffin, himself a superb engineer with a stunning array of STEM degrees and former NASA chief must know that his this statement is trivial at best:
Equally critical was the ability to prevail against a larger force in a
conventional fight. The U.S. seized the advantage with precision, with a
precise conventional strike, enabled by pattern-matching seekers. With a
global positioning system to guide force projection to the right place,
stealth technology
to hide our aircraft from enemy radar, encrypted high-rate
communications to enable superior command and control, electronic
warfare to deny that advantage to our enemies, unmanned aerial vehicles
for both reconnaissance and force projection, and the uncontested
dominance of the space domain to tie it all together, we prevailed.
It is becoming downright nauseating reading these Clanciesque pop-warfare narratives since most of them are not true. I don't know if Griffin's tenure at NASA taught him anything but NASA being a paying customer of Russian rocketry for years now, he surely must know that the age of precision guided weapons originally was started by Nazi Germans in WW II when they sunk Italian battleship Roma with radio-guided Fritz-X bomb. But these were Soviet who developed an astonishing array of anti-ship missiles in post-WW II period and I am sure Griffin should know that those by definition are precision guided weapons. It just happened so that the United States was not even a competitor in this field from the inception, lagging badly in development of combat missile technologies in which Soviet Union and Russia had and have a dramatic technological lead, which today may have become insurmountable for the United States. In terms of air defenses the United States military is not even a competitor having nothing even remotely comparable to S-3XX-4XX-5XX systems, not to mention systems of A-235 Nudol. I will skip talking about hyper-sonic weapons here altogether. I will just add that Russians were involved with satellite-based navigation since the same time US got involved with GPS--early 1970s, such as Parus. GLONASS followed in 1982. Griffin surely must know about TU-143 Reis or even ancient LA-17R too. You know, drones.
My question is not even with Griffin's statement such as this:
In brief, the United States no longer possesses the unquestioned technical superiority to dominate a future fight.
Because most of "unquestioned" was primarily, up to late 1970s, in processing power and electronics, but in the fact that Griffin narrates totally made up history of US weaponry which, bar few limited fields, was neither "unquestioned" nor dominant. Even US jewel of a true technological excellence, it's world-class superb nuclear submarine force experienced a serious technological push-back since late 1970s which resulted in at least technological parity by 1990s. My quarrel is with this "creative" history of the warfare as a narrative of only American ingenuity and pioneering--this is absolutely false. Those challenges Griffin talks about--and they ARE challenges in every sense from technological to doctrinal--they didn't appear out of nowhere in an instant. All those challenges gestated and grew out of these very Russians understanding the nature of the warfare and doing their due diligence in R&D and fighting doctrine field. The roots of those "challenges" are in 1970s and 1980s, not in 2010s. Well, what do you know--I just wrote a book on the nature of real revolution in military affairs. It is precisely about what Griffin talks. But in the end, these ad nauseam trivialities, such as this:
What near-term risks are we willing to take, and what current systems are we willing to let go,
so that we can invest in capabilities that will impose costs on our
adversaries and deter them from starting a fight because they know they
cannot win? This is the critical national security challenge of our
time.
Invoke only one question--under what stone did Mr.Griffin spend last 20 years in order to not recognize the fact that it is the United States who unleashed non-stop violent wars and coups all over the globe and made sure that people will start the fight once they recognize that their livelihood and sovereignty is under attack by the United States. Luckily, the instruments to defend themselves against American military aggression are better than those of the aggressor and that what saddens US establishment, which has no idea what real war is. Or maybe they do? And that is why they are sad.
This brings me to another point, of Michail Khodaryonok today making a statement to RT:
What Khodaryonok forgets to mention is that Russia has enough conventional deterrent to not go for the nukes. I may understand (I think) where Khodaryonok is coming from but he, as a graduate of the Academy of General Staff, should know that conventional step in the escalation process in case NATO wants to commit suicide, is, in fact, an additional deterrent and adds robustness to Kaliningrad's defense. Khodaryonok writes:
Now, a few remarks on the message posted by China’s Eastday.com. It
says that if NATO and Russia went to war, the bloc could seize the
Russian region in a matter of two days. Our Chinese comrades are a
little off with their timeline. The operation would not actually take
this long, and the result would be very different. It would take Russia
no longer than 40-45 minutes to launch a nuclear strike, and after that
we would be able to do only one thing – discuss the peculiar aspects of
the modern nuclear apocalypse. To sum it up, the battle for
Kaliningrad would under no circumstances remain an isolated military
conflict. It would become just an episode of a global nuclear war. And
even the countries not involved in this conflict would suffer the
consequences. Unfortunately, these are the effects of using strategic
nuclear weapons.
While Khodaryonok is absolutely correct in stating that such a conflict will not stay local, I don't know if he missed Valery Gerasimov's statement (in Russian) couple of years ago that already then Russia had enough cruise missiles deployed on critical strategic directions for a complex deterrence by means of high precision weapons. A lot of time passed since then and when even RAND admits impossibility of involving NATO in a conventional conflict with Russia:
Khodaryonok retired from the Armed Forces in 2000. 19 years ago. Since then one could observe a dramatic change in Russia's doctrinal thinking with introduction of "strategic force deterrence by high-precision weapons" already in 2010 Military Doctrine. One couldn't fail to notice that these were primarily conventional forces that Russia was improving and updating since early 2000s. This was done primarily to be able to fight a conventional, not a nuclear, conflict. So, if Mikhail Khodaryonok thinks that in case of NATO attacking Kaliningrad, Russia is going to go for nuclear jugular immediately, I have a bit of disagreement with him, because the first thing which will be done will be a conventional strike on NATO's infrastructure and for that Russia has enough force to disrupt NATO's C4ISR architecture and inflict major losses. That is precisely what is called a "strategic force deterrence" by means of stand-off, precision-guided weaponry. In the end, rearranging stones in D.C., Brussels or London in purely conventional way is nothing that 3M14 or X-101 cannot do. It is also a good way to avoid apocalyptic scenario by inflicting a lot of pain for aggressor to have second thought about escalation. It is so self-evident from Russia's military development since mid-2000s, that it is strange that Khodaryonok had to reply in this manner to some strategic delusions by some butt-hurt "strategists" who lost every single war they were involved in since 2000 and who still are dreaming of some revenge out of desperation after seeing the myth of their conventional military power blown to smithereens. In the end, even R.D. Hooker's "opus" is about "defending" Baltics and cannot be taken seriously from any professional point of view. Khodaryonok, evidently, forgot Macron begging not to sink French frigate or harm any forces in April 2018. They are not complete idiots there, yet. They can calculate and know, as an example, that NATO's fleet combat life in case of attacking Kaliningrad will be counted in tens of minutes before Kinzhals or P-800s arriving. Khodaryonok MUST know these things. As for nuclear war. Well, no special commentary is needed here.
