With "Professors" in "Military History" Like...

... Frederick Kagan, another offspring of the politically fecund Kagan clan, which is a major contributor to the American neocon ideology, which is a euphemism for academic fraud and ignorance, penned a piece in Time magazine, which is an Exhibit A of the Kagans uncontrollable urges to spew BS any time they speak about Russia. Naturally, they know very little about Russia and American necocons are simply not good at warfare. In fact, they suck so badly that putting a lipstick on the pig of the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--brain children of the Robert Kagan and his neocon ilk from PNAC--cannot hide anymore an ugly record of strategic failure, lack of vision and, as a result, humiliating military and political defeats which culminated in the "escape from Afghanistan". Well, Frederick Kagan managed to teach military history in the USMA at West-Point. Boy, I wonder what this military "thinker" taught there. So, he concludes:

The fight for Severodonetsk is a Russian information operation in the form of a battle. One of its main purposes for Moscow is to create the impression that Russia has regained its strength and will now overwhelm Ukraine. That impression is false. The Russian military in Ukraine is increasingly a spent force that cannot achieve a decisive victory if Ukrainians hold on. Russian President Vladimir Putin is therefore trying to turn his invasion of Ukraine into a brutal contest of wills. He’s betting his army on breaking Ukrainians’ collective will to fight on in their country. His own won’t likely break. Fortunately, Ukraine doesn’t need it to. If Ukrainians can weather the current Russian storm and then counterattack the exhausted Russian forces they still have every chance to free their people and all their land.

I know, Kagans hate Russian guts, it is natural for their extensive family which straddles a variety of corridors of power, academy and what passes in the US for diplomacy, having a lot of influence in D.C. But diplomats (like Vicky) or geopolitical thinkers (like Robert), or warfare professionals (like Kimberly), or military historians (like Frederick) they are not. Not even close. 

The fact that Frederick is a fraud as "military historian" is this his risible conclusion:

The Russians have adapted to this grim reality by changing their tactics to something reminiscent of the First World War or the “Methodical Battle” doctrine of the French Army in 1940—artillery barrages destroy everything in a given sector of the battlefield and then Russian troops crawl forward through the ruins. But even this approach has its limits. Russia’s supply of artillery pieces is not infinite. They have had to concentrate artillery densely in the prioritized sectors, pulling it away from other areas. They have drawn artillery (and tanks and other equipment) out of ancient Soviet-era stores. And they’ve begun taking equipment out of Belarusian stocks as well—likely the last stockpiles of gear Putin can reliably get his hands on.

So, no wonder the US Army cannot win shit in the last 30 years. When you have such "professors" like Frederick, who, obviously doesn't know the subject--that is Russia's approach to modern war (and he doesn't, none of the Kagans does, including Kimberly who runs this sinecure for the retired US Army "Napoleons"--ISW), does the US really need enemies? Explaining to Frederick what modern combined arms warfare is, is an exercise in futility because he will not understand it because the person who writes such a hysterical drivel really needs to undergo his professional evaluation, because, obviously the only thing he is good at, same as most US neocons, including those from the US military, is lying and fantastical thinking. But applying "Methodical Battle" doctrine of the French Army which in 1940 successfully collapsed in 6 weeks and France was humiliated by Hitler in Compiegne, to modern Russian operation in 404. Somebody explain to this "military" historian what are modern stand-off precision weapons are and how operations are planned.

If Frederick, who is allegedly a "military historian" wants to find better examples in trying to portray Russia's war effort in 404 in the light which allows his fanatically Russophobic relatives not to have an aneurysm outright, he should have come up with better BS, or, maybe, just maybe, tried to study actual Russian military history and see for himself how Russian military thought developed from the times of Peter the Great to Brusilov (yes, yes--rolling artillery wall, his invention) in 1916, to Triandafilov, Svechin, in the end--to military leaders of the Great Patriotic War. That will spare him a lot of butt-hurt and emotional stress. Or will it? In the end, you may recall (both in my videos and here in blog) that I state constantly--if you decided to lie on matters of warfare, at least learn to lie professionally and that implies serious military knowledge, which none of the Kagans has.

In somewhat sad news, especially knowing that US Ambassador to Russia John J. Sullivan is an old school American diplomat and a reasonable man, he pleaded with Russia:

In a clear attempt to send a message to the Kremlin, John J. Sullivan, the U.S. ambassador appointed by President Donald Trump, told Russia's state TASS news agency that Washington and Moscow should not simply break off diplomatic relations. "We must preserve the ability to speak to each other," Sullivan told TASS in an interview. He cautioned against the removal of the works of Leo Tolstoy from Western bookshelves or refusing to play the music of Pyotr Tchaikovsky.

Sadly, Esteemed Ambassador Sullivan has to face the reality--Russian culture and history will be removed from the combined West and it is not Russia who will be doing it. Considering the fact, as described above, that such frauds and war criminals like Kagans and people like them--Blinken, NSA Sullivan et al--still play an important role in shaping what passes in the US for foreign policy, and understanding an existential character of the clash between Russia and the combined West which it is losing, we must recall Sergei Lavrov's characterization of modern Western elites--you cannot trust them.Difficult to disagree--there is nobody in the US to talk to.

Getting Ready.

For the US-Russia summit on June 16. Sergei Lavrov didn't miss a beat when yesterday, speaking at the conference dedicated to the 20th anniversary of Russian-Chinese Treaty on Good Neighborhood, Friendship and Cooperation, stated that:

Всеобъемлющее партнерство РФ и КНР больше чем просто военно-стратегический союз.

Translation: All-encompassing partnership between Russian Federation and China is more than just military-strategic alliance.  

Sergei Lavrov is not the kind of statesman who uses hyperbole to describe facts of life, but the fact that obvious and undeniable partnership between China and Russia "is more" than just military-strategic alliance tells us all we need to know about the fact that the actual military-strategic alliance is being developed and that has immense geopolitical implications. What kind of implications one may ask. It is one thing to get oneself into the economic alliance akin to EU, totally another--to declare a military one. Immediately, that implies, at some point of time, a unified system of C2 (Command and Control) and unification and even integration of a number operational and tactical manuals and of fighting doctrines. The last one is not as difficult as it may seem between Russia and China, because of a tradition of a military-technological interaction for decades. 

For all Chinese achievements in the military-technological field, even a brief look and PLA(N) and its TOE tells us that to a very large degree Chinese military is copied from Soviet/Russian one. But the visual commonality should not obscure a much deeper and more fundamental similarity in fighting doctrine--both Russia and China are what would be called in Pentagonese A2/AD powers. In fact, Chinese arsenal, ranging from Air Defense to anti-ship missiles, to submarines and aviation is a variant of a Russian one. Just to give you some visuals:

Russia's 3M54 Kalibr ASM.
 

China's YJ-18 ASM. 

So, you get the point, right? Because of the tactical-technical similarities in weapons it is inevitable that tactically and operationally there are bound to be similarities too. You launch a salvo of missiles against Carrier Battle Group, you need good intelligence and targeting. If Russia is helping China in developing and building a Missile Attack Early Warning System, who is to say that Russia will not provide targeting for Chinese weapons? Liana is already operational and its constellation is being augmented as I type this, China has her own targeting system. This is just a single example. The fact that Russians and Chinese form the mixed units during numerous exercises, including Chinese participation in such monster events as Vostok-2018, to joint air patrols of strategic bombers and their fighter escorts, gives already some clue on what is going on and, as the last week visit of Yang Jiechi to Russia suggests, once one learns about a number of top Chinese military officer accompanying him to Moscow to meet Patrushev, one gets a whiff of a possible synchronization of Russian-Chinese weapons programs within certain "allied" framework. What is this framework, I don't know but in seems to imply that in case of an actual conflict in South China Sea between China and the US, China will have a very substantive military support from Russia, short only of Russians themselves getting involved in hostilities with the US. 

This is bad news for the US and Lavrov's words are to forestall any possible spin, which is inevitable in the West, about some kind of "deal" between Putin and Biden, if the summit goes ahead. No deal is possible between the US and Russia and the only benefit from this summit could be some reduction of tensions and stepping from the precipice of a big war. The United States will continue with sabotage and indirect strategies against Russia, while pretending that Russians, somehow, want to join Western fold--which is a product of a sheer delirium in D.C.--but it is what it is. Modern American "elites" are terminal and nothing could be done about them because their condition is not treatable.  Current combined West is only valuable as a market for Russia's goods ranging from hydrocarbons to high value added, for the rest--new iron curtain against degeneracy emanating from the West is highly desirable. Modern Western "values" and values of Russia are irreconcilable on a fundamental level and that is the cold hard fact of life.    

Lavrov on SWIFT Ploy: The EU Is Unreliable Partner And Don't Respect Written Agreements

P.S. Looks like Sudan did renege on its treaty with Russia on Sudan's PMTO (supply and basing post) for the Russian Navy. Well, not the first time, not the last one. One can still recall Iran abandoning its promises to Russia after, however brief, lifting of sanctions. You all know how that thing went. Sudan's "change of heart" (wink, wink) means merely additional patrols into the Eastern Med by Russia's squadron to "see" what is going on in the Red Sea. Modern (anti-shipping) missiles have incredibly long ranges. 

Why?

As news have it (in Russian) Trump wants to see Russia, India, Australia and South Korea at what used to be G-7 meeting some time in the future (in Russian). As you may have noticed already, one entity which is conspicuously absent from this is the largest, by far, economy in the world, which is China. This is not to mentio0n that the fact that Trump's desires mean absolutely nothing for Russia, who has a committed relations with China. Trump also has to understand that Russia was in decoupling mode with Europe for a few years no. Sure, selling Russian energy to Europe is important, so is important to sell finished and agricultural products, but here is a short view of what Russian-European trade relations look like today:

Russia is the EU's fifth largest trading partner and the EU is Russia's largest trading partner, with a two-way trade in goods value of €232 billion in 2019. In 2019 Russia was the origin of ca. 40% of EU imports of gas and 27% of EU imports of oil. Due to the large value these imports, EU’s trade deficit with Russia (€ 57 billion in 2019) is only second to EU’s trade deficit with China.

The issue here, of course, is the fact that this trade is represented for a whole Europe, 4 of the major nations of her, constitute a bulk of G-7. By far the most important dynamics here is this: 

EU-Russia bilateral trade in goods peaked in 2012, dropping by 43% between 2012 and 2016 from two-way €322 billion in 2012 to €183 billion in 2016. Since 2016, bilateral trade has partially recovered. However, Overall EU exports to Russia were in 2019 25% lower than in 2012, agri-food exports were 38% lower.

These are the effects of a non-stop trade war (sanctions) on Russia supported by all those Europeans and, quoting, Karen Shakhnazarov, "sanctions are good for Russia", because sanctions allow increasing decoupling from EU, including by means of import substitution, and the only way Europe can still retain interest for Russians is EU being a market, which will increasingly, due to a sheer stupidity of EU bureaucracy, will be destabilized due to confluence of macroeconomic and cultural factors. Russia is just fine dealing with Europeans on a bilateral level. But here is another dynamics to consider:

Look at this dynamics, which brought Russia-Chinese trade to $107 billion in 2019 and continues to grow, eventually projected to hit volume of $200 billion by 2024. Comparable to the volume of trade of Russia with Europe, which hates Russian guts and will behave as the US lap dog in the future. So, Russia's choice is quite obvious here. Especially when one considers a puny trade relations between the US and Russia and Russia having a full grasp of US enmity towards herself. Aw, just look at these numbers:

Russia ranked No. 28 in total trade value through March with a total of $6.61 billion. Exports totaled $1.18 billion and Imports totaled $5.43 billion, a deficit of $4.25 billion.

Pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? So, Trump wants to exclude China from "international community" by holding this gathering which decides nothing and is worthless in terms of any practical solutions to an unfolding catastrophe which is global economic crisis. So, anyone can explain what Russia is to gain, other than some photo-ops for Trump, from this meeting? Why should Vladimir Putin even be there? Moscow and New Delhi have a direct line and can solve their issues by talking directly, Europe, frankly, is economically suicidal, Australia is a non-entity for Russia, so why? I don't know, but Trump, evidently thinks that this is a good idea. I think it is a waste of time, because the settling of global issues must happen first between G-3: China, US and Russia. Until something is decided within this triangle no other meetings will produce any sensible world order which will reasonably satisfy everyone. The United States is not ready to deal with this issue yet, but US has only two options here: war and getting back to the reality. What will be this choice we don't know yet, hopefully the latter one.  

Ironic Smile.

And a face-palm to boot. US Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman's recent statement in Vladivostok, I am sure, saw many smiling faces at the round-table he was speaking to. People were smiling (ironically) against the background of remote but recognizable thunderous Homeric laughter which was heard from huge open spaces and all nooks and crannies of Russia's 11 (or is it 10 now?) time zones.  In what can only be described as a bad joke, Huntsman stated that President Trump:

has said repeatedly that he wants a better relationship with Russia. Repeatedly. And he has said quite clearly that he would like to engage personally with President Putin. Every time I’ve met with President Trump or talked with him about this subject, many times now, he’s said the same thing. From day one ... I think my President is very sincere when he says that he wants a stable, predictable, manageable U.S.-Russia relationship. And I think President Putin would like the same thing.

Obviously, people are free to think and say whatever they want. I, for once, from day one was very sincere in my desire to become first a firefighter, then cosmonaut and then a manager of an electric power substation, but life influenced a minuscule insignificant, in a larger scheme of things, me in a very different way. All my sincerity went out of the window and I ended up receiving an equivalent of M.S. in naval engineering and B.S. in what is defined as military sciences. Oops. So much for me being "sincere" when pursuing my desires.  

President Trump is not a minuscule insignificant person--the opposite is true. By the virtue of the Office he occupies he is an extremely important person in a global sense. Yet, as none other than Machiavelli stated: "The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him."(c) Right. Do I have to continue form here? I will. I already elaborated on the fact that I don't buy anymore all this Trump is a hostage of the Deep State" narrative. Trump is not a hostage and, frankly, these almost two-year long "signaling" of desires to be for everything good and against everything bad in US-Russian relations are not borne out by reality. There is not a single fact which testifies to any desire to have any normal relations to Russia and the issue here is not that Trump doesn't want that. The issue here is HOW Trump wants these relations—he wants them on US conditions and that is not a "deal". It is the same good ol' exceptionalist diktat approach which led the world to the brink and US to an increasingly pronounced decline. This approach, obviously, is not going to work with Russia, it already didn't work, and even if Russians understand (they do) that Trump is driven by the politics of November 2018 mid-term elections, nobody in Russia (with exception of fanatic Russophobe liberals) gives a damn anymore about what White House thinks. A simple fact of the matter is that at this stage Russian-American relations are wrecked beyond any repair. Trump may want whatever he wants but US Establishment is unanimous in seeing Russia as the enemy number one and Russians also know this damn well.

In the end, Donald Trump sees Russia as merely a temporary disposable utility and he cannot see Russia otherwise, once one considers a full totality of "intelligence" on Russia which is being spread from the American very political top down to mere mortals. As Patrick Armstrong's yesterday's piece title correctly says:

           No, Your Intelligence Is Actually Bad. Very Bad

As you may all know, I wrote a whole book on how bad, in fact, atrocious this "intelligence" is. Also on how dangerous it is. And it is very dangerous, since yet another "Chemical Weapons" provocation is being readied in Syria (in Russian) and we may see, yet again, Trump's desires, as an example, to "withdraw" from Syria being dashed. I am not even sure he can predict himself, what I am sure, though, is that Mr. Bolton is in a good position to give some insane "advice" and, oh, the irony, we may again hope that the only adult in Trump's Administration, James "Mad Dog" Mattis will have enough power of persuasion to prevent a dangerous escalation which may lead to a catastrophic global consequences.

So, Mr. Huntsman may say whatever he wants but he cannot undo a massive damage which was dealt to a global strategic stability and Russian-American relations by this very same President who allegedly wants all those wonderful things with Russia. Nobody of any position of power wants anything positive with Russia in Washington D.C. And that is the reality of it, including the Machiavellian reality of Trump's Administration infested with Russophobes, American "exceptionalists" and neocons—a precise combination of ignoramuses which made modern United States not capable of any treaties or agreements, which are not worth the paper they are written on. 

It is a very sad state of the affairs and repeating diplomatic mantras will not help it. The worst part is that practically nobody in D.C. with the exception of some real military professional people in Pentagon and possibly few in the so called Intelligence Community understand that the only American "relations" with Russia possible at this current moment are those of negotiations about an American role in a new, very visible and tangible, world. But even this opportunity is being missed. What comes after that? If we avoid a global war, the most likely outcome will be the "signing" of the terms of capitulation by the US. I know it sounds humiliating and I personally don't like this outcome, so to avoid one it is either now, in the very nearest future, or… well.  The time of words has ended and the US has only itself to blame in this matter. If Donald Trump cannot do it, then what are his words or his Office worth?         

   

So Cute.

The State Department should consider adding Russia to its list of state sponsors of terrorism, alongside its close allies Iran and Syria. Russia has invaded its neighbors Georgia and Ukraine, it supports the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad and our enemies in Afghanistan, and it is engaged in active information warfare against Western democracies, including meddling in the 2016 United States elections.

This is from Junior Senator from Colorado Cory Gardner, with him developing "his" idea of Russia being sponsor of terrorism and evil incarnate in his New York Times piece. Generally, the United States declared a full blown war, which is still not going hot because of Russia's very real, not virtual, military capability, on Russia and Gardner's "opinion" is shared by majority of US Congress and US main-stream media. Cory Gardner being, and you may have guessed it already, a full blown political free-loader with degree in political "science" and a lawyer, obviously speaks not for himself. He is too dumb and ignorant to have a grasp of real global situation--a defining feature of most people in contemporary Washington D.C., but that brings us to the question of Russia's public debate, ongoing since 2014, about the necessity to reduce combined West to merely necessary evil in Russian foreign relations and here I have to follow an obvious trend in Russia which is increasingly anti-"Western" (quotation marks are deliberate here) and rightly so. 

There is nothing to discuss and there are nobody to discuss  anything of any significance with in the American political top. Kremlin knows this. So, when such war-monger as Senator Corker shoots out a platitude such as this:

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) warned on Sunday that a military miscalculation amid simmering tensions between the U.S. and Russia could lead the country to "a very bad place." In an interview on CNN's "State of the Union," Corker acknowledged that U.S.-Russia relations are at their lowest point since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, but said that Washington is not yet preparing for a military confrontation with Moscow. "It’s not that we’re preparing," said Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "It’s that we should be aware that miscalculations could lead us to a very bad place."

I have some news for him: there are NO, literally, NO politicos of any real influence in D.C. today who are capable of any kind of even remotely competent "calculations". Bar some few people, such as Mattis, who may grasp what is going on in purely military terms, the rest are precisely the type of people bound for "miscalculation" and they are literally living this miscalculation mode non-stop. So, how then one starts "negotiating" with the mad house populated with delusional patients? In the end, Russia will have to deal with lawsuit filed against her by US Democratic Party (it is about the same level of legitimacy as suing Iran for "perpetrating" 9-11), and with further decline of already completely wrecked US-Russian relations.