Keith Kellogg ...

 ... is an Exhibit A of military ignorance, characteristic of the US top brass. 

The carnage in Ukraine has led to casualty rates “beyond World War II numbers” as the “industrial-strength killing” rages on the battlefield, the US special envoy for Ukraine lamented Tuesday. Retired Gen. Keith Kellogg was adamant that negotiations are the sole way to end the bloodshed and that President Trump is the “only guy” who can lead those deliberations.

1. This is what happens when your military education is based on watching Hollywood movies and skipping basic arithmetic classes. He obviously doesn't know the difference between roughly 65 to70 million killed in WW II and 1.5 VSU KIAs. 70 mil > 1.5 mil. 

2. Trump cannot be the "only guy", because he as POTUS together with the US is a co-BELLIGERENT on the side of 404 in the conflict with Russia. The only thing he could do was to stop bloodshed in his first 100 days, he didn't. He thought he was smart--he is not. It is his war now. 

He evidently understood it, hence his outbursts. Meanwhile, down the memory lane to 2023 with the first Patriot PAC3 "being slightly damaged". Classic--first shooting as much of a package as possible at something, then the arrival of Kinzhal and then uncontrolled shoot-off of missiles due to detonation. 

Inevitability.

What kind of inevitability am I talking about here. Part of the answer is in excellent Larry Johnson's write up on delusions of A. Wess Mitchell. 

I want to draw your attention to an article by A. Wess Mitchell that appeared in the National Interest in August 2021. The article, A Strategy for Avoiding Two-Front War, is an excellent summary of how the US foreign policy elite view the world — i.e., the United States faces two formidable enemies, Russia and China, and we need to figure out a way to screw them over and maintain our hegemony. But Mitchell is not engaged in an academic exercise… he prepared a version of this paper for the Pentagon Office of Net Assessment in fall 2020. This was a road map for the war in Ukraine — i.e., provoke Russia into attacking Ukraine and then, with Western help, beat the hell out of them.

The article Larry is talking about is exactly the point--it was written, while warning against "two-front" ordeal based on ignorant assumption that the US can actually win a single separately against Russia, or separately against China. This is utter delusion--the US cannot and never could. Remarkably, it is the Desert Storm (Gulf War 1.0) which is the proof which stares into our faces. It took the United States and allies the tacit approval from the Soviet Union and half-a-year to assemble under the most favorable conditions the force (while bombing Iraq with impunity) which dealt with backward, third world Saddam's Army.  

Reality is, strategic level thinkers of Russian Army haven't been impressed, pointing out a manifestly inferior Saddam's force and ideal conditions which allowed assembly of the US Army. Many still continue to refer to Desert Storm as a yardstick--yardstick it is not and never was. But what does inevitability have to do with it all? Very simple, as Larry did in his post, as I do for second decade--INEVITABILITY of deconstruction of the American military myths of the 20th and 21st centuries. And even when sounding reasonable, as Mitchell does:

Option 2: Defer competition with the stronger. A second sequencing strategy is to delay rivalry with the stronger of two opponents in order to deal conclusively with the weaker. The mid-sixteenth-century Republic of Venice employed such a strategy to deflect the threat of the rising Ottoman Empire and deal conclusively with its mainland rival Milan. A similar logic guided Britain’s ill-fated quest in the 1930s to appease Germany in order to prioritize naval resources for the Far East and buy time for rearmament in Europe. In today’s context, a deferment strategy would require America to palliate disputes with China and avoid outright military collisions with Beijing in order to concentrate pressure on Russia, with a view to eventually shifting attention to China at a later date. Taken to its logical extension, this strategy would require at least a partial reconsideration of the NDS’ hyper concentration on China. If pursued on the historical pattern, it could potentially even entail an effort to enlist a “responsible stakeholder” China, at least tactically and temporarily, in the effort to isolate what is the more truculent Russia.  

This all is the result of a complete ignorance of operational and COFM factors in strategic considerations (both military and state's grand strategy) and of historical illiteracy as far as the strategy is concerned. Bad habit of drawing parallels to Middle Ages without understanding the physics and mathematics of XXI century world and warfare. SMO helped to dispel America's delusions about itself. It simply inevitably deconstructed them. 

Introspective on Clausewitz by Bernhard and Other Business.

Bernhard of MoA did a good write-up on Clausewitz and Kool Aid where he absolutely justifiably points out... well, the Kool Aid many of those military "experts" in the West are drinking. 

The numbers and other claims that the British defense ministry puts out get repeated in the U.S. by the neo-conservative Institute for the Study of War. Nearly every U.S. media quotes one of those two sources. They are serving the Kool-Aid Pat Lang, TTG and other around them have been drinking since the beginning of Russian operation.

Read the whole thing, and keep in mind that from the get go numbers and ratios US and UK military "experts" from establishment media to all kinds of fraudulent neocon think-tanks such as ISW "used" (meaning, made up) have been a complete BS. Made up numbers of force correlations and losses which created a completely false narrative and picture of SMO. Now the time of reckoning has come and I will lie if I say that I don't enjoy this massive egg on faces of Petraeus, Keane and others, who are going now through a profoundly painful phase of a butt-hurt when facing reality, especially from the fact of parading themselves as not military professionals but media buffoons. Speaking of which. 

Another "product" of America's "military thought" is having an excruciating date with reality and unable to contain himself begins to fantasize about real war. I get it, he was the USAF big honcho and even SACUER, but something tells me that in Philip Breedlove we have not just acute case of Russophobia but a serious lack of grasp of how modern wars are conducted. 

The bridge linking Crimea to the rest of Russia is a “legitimate target” for Ukraine, the former supreme NATO commander for Europe, General Philip Breedlove, believes. Kiev now has the ability to try and attack the bridge across the Kerch Strait with Western-supplied Harpoon anti-ship missiles, Breedlove told The Times in an interview published on Thursday. “Kerch bridge is a legitimate target,” Breedlove stated. “It doesn’t surprise me at all that the Russians are concerned about Kerch bridge. It’s incredibly important to them.” Now that the West has given Ukraine Harpoon missiles, I think the Russians have every reason to be worried about Ukraine launching an attack on the bridge.  

Somebody, please, give Mr. Breedlove a hint, politely, not in a forceful manner, to take a look at the map and at the capabilities of Harpoon anti-shipping missiles. Being a former pilot himself, it is only natural for him to think about combat aviation to face such enemy as... Taliban or other weddings and civilian gatherings which USAF was bombing to smithereens for the last 20 years not facing any air defense systems, let alone serious enemy air forces. So, when he suggests to "attack" Crimean Bridge by Harpoons, he has to ask himself a question on HOW such an operation would look like. Will the attack be carried out by Ukie Air Force, or, rather, what's left of it? Will they want to meet Mr. Su-35 or Mr. MiG-31BM (in Russian) or such gentlemen as S-400, S-300V4 and S1 Pantsir which are present in industrial quantities inside Crimea and around Crimean Bridge? Evidently this idea never visited Breedlove. Including this teeny-weeny detail, the problem really, on how to integrate AGM-84 Harpoon with old Soviet Su-27s and MiG-29s

Or, maybe, Breedlove thinks about somehow sticking those Harpoons on some Ukie fishing boat and secretly moving it into the launch position in the middle of the Black Sea and hope and pray that the targeting provided by S-3 Sentry from international airspace will succeed in guiding those few (what 2-3?) Harpoons towards Crimean Bridge? Good luck fooling Russia's Black Sea Fleet and, again, Air Defense. But maybe, one tries to conclude, Mr. Breedlove thinks about launching Harpoons from some truck from Ukie controlled territory? Possible? Sure. There is one teeny-weeny issue here, though. The maximum range of Harpoon is around 220 kilometers--so good luck finding the territory from which such a salvo can reach Crimean Bridge. FYI--the distance between Ukie-controlled Nikolaev (for how long?) and the bridge is 390 kilometers--good luck reaching it. And I don't even start here any discussion on the issue of what "linear targets" are and what it will take, what salvo--remember, наряд сил, the number of Harpoons--of 200 kilogram warheads, to even take the section of the bridge out for a short period of time? 

Mr. Breedlove, certainly, graduated Air Command and Staff College, I am 100% positive that they taught there such issues as probabilities, "leakers", required force and operational planning, based on good grasp of own and enemy's capabilities, especially in terms of opposing air force and air defense. I am sure they teach that there. But somehow, as many other US top brass, Philip Breedlove decided to drink (or maybe excrete?) a Kool Aid and continue to embarrass not only himself but the whole America's top brass which has an astounding record of military failure, incompetence and BSing in the last 20 years, which is beginning to culminate in a much worse outcome than Afghanistan 1.0.   

As some sources (German Welt) report, the US and Europe are in secret negotiations trying to find a diplomatic resolution and to stop SMO (in Russian). Good luck with that--too little, too late. As in that famous Russian anecdote about two bear hunters. One of them finds the bear and shouts to his buddy:"Hey, I caught the bear!" His buddy responds:"Then, bring him here." The response is:"I can't, he doesn't let me." In related news:

WASHINGTON – A retired three-star general has been suspended from a $92-an-hour contract consulting the Army and is under investigation after posting a tweet that appeared to mock first lady Jill Biden on a hot-button social issue, according to the Army. Retired Lt. Gen. Gary Volesky, the Army's former top spokesman and recipient of the Silver Star for gallantry in Iraq, had been a "senior mentor," advising senior military officers, staff and students participating in war games and other military activities. Lt. Gen. Theodore Martin, commander of the Combined Arms Center, suspended Volesky pending the outcome of the inquiry, Cynthia Smith, an Army spokeswoman, told USA TODAY. On June 24, the first lady posted a tweet condemning the Supreme Court's decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion, which read in part: "For nearly 50 years, women have had the right to make our own decisions about our bodies. Today, that right was stolen." Volesky replied with his own tweet: "Glad to see you finally know what a woman is". His response represents a breach of decorum for a retired military officer and a foray into partisan politics by an official on the payroll of the Pentagon, which is supposed to steer clear of such matters, experts say. His tweet has been deleted.

Really? Breach of decorum? His comment was spot on and funny, because it was true. But what about Philip Breedlove, who suggests to bomb the object of civilian infrastructure (not to mention his ignorance of alternative through Kherson) and parades himself as a buffoon? I though that qualifies. But then again, we live in a strange world in which the combined West is run by petulant teenagers, who long ago lost any connection to strategic, operational and tactical reality and there is no way they can restore this contact.

They Still Cannot Resign Themselves...

... to a simple fact that UK is not a player in modern geopolitics. It is a small island nation with acutely manifested phantom pains of imperial greatness which disappeared completely after WW II and has been gone now for more than 75 years. Militarily United Kingdom is a midget with semi-autonomous "control" of her nuclear arsenal which in effect are the crumbs from the American nuclear weapons' table. Royal Navy, despite operating a couple of useless aircraft carriers, has only a very few nuclear subs as a real factor in any serious conflict. But the state of the British ground forces is altogether something out of a Benny Hill show, because for all intents and purposes those ground forces do not exist as a viable fighting force. Most importantly, UK doesn't have resources to build anything serious in terms of modern land war. But this is not how British military establishment views it. 

The new head of the British Army has issued a rallying cry to troops - telling them they need to be ready to face Russia on the battlefield.

Gen Sir Patrick Sanders, who started the job last week, addressed all ranks and civil servants in an internal message on 16 June, seen by the BBC.Russia's invasion of Ukraine shows the need "to protect the UK and be ready to fight and win wars on land", he says. He adds the Army and allies must now be "capable of...defeating Russia".A defence source told the BBC's defence correspondent Jonathan Beale the tone of the message - issued on the Ministry of Defence's internal intranet - was unsurprising.They said all armies train to fight, but the threat has clearly changed. Gen Sir Patrick noted in the message that he was the first Chief of the General Staff "since 1941 to take command of the Army in the shadow of a land war in Europe involving a major continental power".

To fight and win a modern combined arms war against Russia one needs a helluva more resources than UK has or will ever have. But even before one begins to factor in a rather pathetic state of British economy and military technological development, one has to consider a fighting doctrine issue. For starters, Russia is not going to attack UK, unless headless chickenhawks from NATO decide to commit suicide. But then it wouldn't matter anyway--Russia will rearrange stones in London and nothing UK (or, in broader terms, NATO) can do about it. But the issue is even larger, it is this ever present Barnett's 14 points paradigm in which UK is simply non-present with the exception of the financial factor, while the United States is already losing its share in those 14 points with increasing speed. But, in the end, the country which elects BoJo (or, rather, Bozo) as its PM can hardly hope to get itself out of an economic hole which it dug for itself and without it there is very little UK can do for "fighting Russia" other than to continue to buy overpriced and dubiously effective US arms. 

This also brings us to the issue of SMO and not just material resources but issues of C4ISR in which only two countries are competing against each-other and you already guessed it--these are Russia and the US. UK does not even count in matters of combat control, netcentric warfare, full ISR complex, including its space-based assets. So, that reduces any UK military force from today into the future to mere a cannon fodder addition to NATO (read US) military adventurism and I am on record--read my lips: the United States lost the arms race to Russia and the gap only grows. The demonstration of a superb ISR of Russia happened today (in some parts yesterday):

Russian warships have destroyed a Ukrainian command center with Kalibr cruise missiles, killing dozens officers, Moscow's Defense Ministry reported on Sunday. “More than 50 generals and officers of the Ukrainian Armed Forces were killed,” the statement outlined. The strike took place near the village of Shirokaya Dacha in Dnepropetrovsk Region. It hit a compound where commanders of several Ukrainian units had gathered for a meeting, according to Moscow. The ministry added that Kalibr missiles were also used to destroy 10 M777 howitzers and up to 20 armored vehicles that were recently delivered from the West, and had been stored inside a factory building in the southern city of Nikolayev.

Russian Duma already responded to these wet dreams of this British military "leader". 

«Вместо того, чтобы попытаться усадить Зеленского за стол переговоров, видные военачальники Британии начинают предаваться мечтам о создании необычайно мощной армии. Они уже грезят о походах и войне на европейском континенте. Но это не способствует улучшению ситуации ни на Украине, ни в Европе, ни в мире», – сказал Герой Российской Федерации, первый заместитель председателя комитета Госдумы по обороне Андрей Красов.«Сейчас весь Запад нацелен только на то, чтобы, как они говорят, «ослабить мощь России». Но эти амбиции неосуществимы. Дело в том, что наши Вооруженные силы обладают всем необходимым для того, чтобы выполнять поставленные перед ними задачи. И ярким тому примером служит специальная военная операция на Украине», – подчеркнул собеседник. Сами же намерения Патрика Сандерса «можно лишь охарактеризовать фразой «надежды юношей питают», отметил Красов. Он также указал на тот факт, что «Великобритании будет довольно сложно превзойти военную мощь России». 

Translation: “Instead of trying to bring Zelensky to the negotiating table, Britain's top military leaders are beginning to dream of building an extraordinarily powerful army. They are already dreaming of campaigns and war on the European continent. But this does not help improve the situation either in Ukraine, or in Europe, or in the world,” said Andrey Krasov, Hero of the Russian Federation, First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Defense Committee. “Now the whole West is aimed only at, as they say, "weaken the power of Russia." But these ambitions are not feasible. The fact is that our Armed Forces have everything necessary to carry out the tasks assigned to them. And a vivid example of this is the special military operation in Ukraine,” the interlocutor stressed. The very intentions of Patrick Sanders “can only be characterized by the phrase “the hopes of young men are nourished,” Krasov noted. He also pointed to the fact that "It will be quite difficult for the UK to surpass the military power of Russia."

Krasov (in Russian) knows what he is talking about, he has a very rich combat (combined arms) experience as paratroop regiment CO, later as Deputy CO of Pskov (76th) air assault division. It is not like he has a degree in marketing. The fate of the West, especially Europe is already decided, and it is not pretty. So, Sir Sanders can dream whatever he wants but UK IS NOT a serious military power and without the US, which itself declines militarily dramatically, is a non-entity which would not sustain serious scale combined arms war for any duration of time. But, it seems, the only war Western generals are good at is the one in publicity and PR. The real combat record, however, is somewhat lacking, to put it mildly, and that should be kept in mind, whenever one hears from the America's lapdogs.

Here is London today:

And this is just the start. Things will get much worse, but I am sure Great Britain's General Staff already made a proper forecast, right? After all, this is what general staffs do--they provide strategic forecasts. In between planning for tolerance and discovery of new genders, and figuring out what people of UK will eat and how they will heat their houses. Other than that--it is all double plus good. Carry on, Sir. 

IngSoc was never closer than it is today.