RT Produced Yet Another MGIMO Graduate Attempting "Analysis".

Make no mistake, I have a deep respect for people who study foreign counties and have a command of their native language. Especially if such a country is China--a giant of a country with a very complex culture and a gigantic economy. In fact, by sheer size--by far the largest economy in the world. When speaking about China most of the time I defer to Sinologists, except for one field and this one is military. RT, presents us with such a Sinologist like Ivan Zuenko. I don't doubt that Zuenko knows China as much as it is possible to know her at all, but being a MGIMO "product", and MGIMO started its intellectual and academic decline from its former Soviet glory days (when being a diplomat was not only prestigious but also meant the access to Western style of consumption) already in 1990s, Zuenko suffers from the same illness as his Western equivalents--speaking on issues he has no idea about. Today, when Russians have access to any consumer goods starting from jeans to cars and travel extensively, while many Russians make more, much more than even top Russian diplomats, the shiny image of MGIMO faded away. Moreover, today large swaths of this institution ranging from professors to students are very much the followers of globalist ideology and pseudo-academic framework required for perpetuation of globalist views. 

Zuenko comes across as such a "product" and while I would certainly defer to him when talking about Chinese trade, consumer economy etc., I can immediately state that, as many people with the backgrounds such as his, he doesn't understand two things:

1. The combined West in general, and the United States in particular;

2. As any person with such a background he shouldn't be commenting on geopolitical issues, because they are direct derivatives of military and real economy power. 

Yet, Zuenko writes in RT yesterday, opening with Captain Obvious and "water is wet" kind of thing in his article:

If there had not been an active rapprochement between Moscow and Beijing over the past decades, and if Russia did not have an Asian alternative to European markets for oil and gas, it would not have been able to attack Ukraine. Does this mean China is the main beneficiary of the European crisis and that the situation is developing according to Beijing’s plans? There are various ways to assess the nature and consequences of the events that began in February. But what is clear is that they cannot be considered in isolation from the historical context, which should include at least the last eight years, starting with the Western-backed overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych’s government in Ukraine.

OK, while absolutely trivial and self-evident, it makes a preposterous point known in Russian saying as: if grandma had balls, she would have been a grandpa(c), albeit in the modern West, she/he/their could have been many a splendor thing. But my point stands and in Zuenko we encounter here not only a bad student of practical (geo)politics formulated by Bismark as "the art of possible, of attainable--the art of the next best". And it is here that Zuenko's pedigree as a civilian and badly informed person begins to shine, because I have news for him: Russia would invade Ukraine even when NOT having China as an alternative market, or, for that matter, most of Asia. 

But this "scenario" is a classic Spherical Horse in Vacuum scenario which could have been produced only by the person who has zero understanding of national security issues of Russia and has no grasp of military balance formation whatsoever.  Not surprising, MGIMO as any humanities higher institution in Russia "imported" much of the fraudulent political "science" methods in the wake of Soviet collapse and if you want to see a collection of ignorant and globalist-leaning people, you can take a look at Valdai club. So, even in the opening statement Zuenko makes a horrendous mistake because he has no tools for understanding (forget grasping and internalizing) the issue of Russia's security concerns beyond, now traditional, poli-sci platitudes. He reiterates his grossly illiterate point:

If China had not adopted a benevolent neutrality towards the Russian military operation, had not continued to buy Russian goods and thereby provided a reliable strategic rear, the continuation of the offensive would have been objectively impossible.

And the question one needs to ask is who told Mr.Zuenko that it "would have been objectively impossible", considering the fact that nobody in MGIMO knows how military doctrines are written and how Russia conducts what was always known as военное строительство (military buildup, construction). Zuenko, obviously, has no clue about it--you need a very serious military and technological graduate degree--plus Zuenko has issues understanding real economy and, of course, some memory issues, especially regarding Vladimir Putin's 2007 Munich Speech in which he threw the gauntlet and here we are today. But I am sure Zuenko knows  what is "objectively" possible and what is not better than the President of Russia and General Staff. 

But then he gets to "plans". I am not going to discuss China's feelings about SMO, I am sure Zuenko does know it better than me, but what Zuenko doesn't know when he writes it:

In practice, a global NATO is already in the making, and the US-led military bloc’s Madrid summit in late June is the best proof of this. For the first time in NATO’s history, the Pacific states – Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea – were invited; actions were intensified to form ‘quasi-alliances’ such as the QUAD (the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue between the US, Australia, Japan and India), AUKUS (the trilateral pact between the US, Britain, and Australia), and the Partners in the Blue Pacific (PBP: AUKUS plus Japan and New Zealand). In contrast to the ‘classical NATO’, which has long been perceived in China as a vestige of the Cold War and intra-Western conflicts, these alliances have an unambiguous anti-Chinese orientation.

While talk about "alliances" is all fine and dandy, what this "researcher" doesn't get, that, as an example, is that SMO completely reshaped global balance of power and no matter what "feelings" Chinese might have, even they admit that they look at Russia as a much more serious military power than they are, and whatever those alliance are, ambiguous or unambiguous against China, Zuenko should take some courses, his "research" is not going to help him, he simply is uneducated for this task, in military balance and must understand two things about combined West: combined West CANNOT defeat Russia militarily with or without China, but combined West does have some chance against China if China is "abandoned" by Russia. Chinese know this, Zuenko doesn't. 

As I already wrote and spoke on AUKUS--it is an indicator of West's dramatically declining power, hence the desperate desire to exploit last decisive advantage over China by the US--it is its world-class and dramatically superior to PLAN's submarine force. They can do it by cutting Indian Ocean SLOCs where up to 30% of China import of resources and energy goes through. In the nearest future, 10-15 years, China will not catch up to Russia or US in some key military technologies which dictate operational and strategic realities, which completely overturn Zuenko's worldview in regards to Russia-China axis. Should Zuenko had a clue, he would have been attentive to Vladimir Putin's sensational admission of Russia "helping" China in building SPRN. Real military-intel professionals around the world gasped, because this admission alone spoke volumes about roles distribution in Chinese-Russian alliance and the list where China is yet to get equal with Russia in military-industrial field is huge. Zuenko doesn't know this list, or even if knew, he wouldn't have understood its significance, and that is why his statement about "being objectively impossible" is nothing more than a hot air by a product of once proud institution. China didn't "adopt the benevolent position", she simply had NO Choice. Zuenko is not an expert in anything but in some aspects of Chinese politics, and that is why he should have avoided parading himself as an amateur, especially when talking about practical geopolitics. He would also help himself if dedicated at least some time studying what modern West (and US) are. But it is too much to ask.

So? What's The News?

According to Guardian (yeah, I know, not the most reliable source of information or expertise), Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton sabotages INF negotiations.  

John Bolton is pushing for the US to withdraw from a cold war-era arms control treaty with Russia, in the face of resistance from others in the Trump administration and US allies, according to sources briefed on the initiative. Bolton, Donald Trump’s third national security adviser, has issued a recommendation for withdrawal from the 1987 intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty (INF), which the US says Russia has been violating with the development of a new cruise missile.

The hell you say, draft dodger, neocons' neocon, war monger, a lawyer  and a coward, trying to get out of INF? I cannot believe this! Oh wait, I can, in fact I anticipated most of Trump's foreign policy agenda stated during election cycle to go down the drain pretty fast after he started firing his NS advisers left and right and, especially, turn it into the typical neocon delusion after DJT personally invited this Bolton guy to be in his Cabinet. 

As I, not for once, warned, Bolton is only good in operating within government bureaucracy, that is being a master of intrigue, manipulator and score-setter, with no actual expertise in any serious issue related to arms limitation, despite the fact that I know John Bolton not for once used bathrooms in both UN building in NYC, where he "served" as ambassador to...whatever, or in the buildings where the all kinds of arms limitations negotiations were held. Bolton, being a typical product of American political bureaucracy production line (Ivy League, "degree" in Law or Political "Science" or any other useless field) which is incapable of producing statesmen doesn't have any expertise in modern weapons nor fighting doctrine which they enshrine because Law Degree and knowledge of State Department bureaucracy are not good foundation for understanding a whole set of complex issues involved in arms limitations, even when one is "consulted" by actual experts from military to science-engineering filed. As empirical evidence demonstrates--in the US it doesn't work (not for once) in the last 70 years. Add here current POTUS, who loves military, precisely for the reasons of never serving in it, and now calling Jim Mattis a "Moderate Dog" and you get the picture. 

Russia knows that US in general, and Trump Administration in particular, are not treaty-worthy and there is no need to spend paper on signing any treaties with US, but what Bolton doesn't understand (he can't--it is beyond the grasp of people who have no serious military-academic and engineering background despite highest level of clearance) that posturing against Russia doesn't work. Trump, as usual, will huff and puff, and the US may even exit INF Treaty, or send whatever number of Carrier Battle Groups to Northern Seas across GIUK Gap--it all doesn't matter anymore. The issue is not just in weaponry which is simply beyond the grasp of US for many years to come, albeit there is an attempt to reverse decades of deindustrialization in the latest document. I didn't have the chance to review it in depth (just browsed it) but there are some good ideas in it but who and how will implement them is a whole other story. The issue is that Russia is a different nation--US elites simply are incapable to grasp it precisely for the reasons of them being badly educated, narrow-minded and very uncultured. Bolton is a perfect embodiment of that. So, let Bolton succeed. The results will be catastrophic for the US, not for Russia, but then again--inability to learn is a first indication of a very low intelligence and modern American elites have a very low intelligence. 

But look what real professional, US Army officer, combat veteran and former Professor in US Military Academy at West Point, Danny Sjursen wrote: 

Don’t Replace Nikki Haley at the United Nations. Let's just take our ball and go home---like we always do.

Just read the piece by true American patriot and real professional, who risked his life (unlike Bolton, Trump, Hailey etc.) for what he thought was for his country. It is a bitter piece, and I, as strange as it sounds, feel Sjursen's pain--America I knew is gone. Just some islands, however substantial, of human integrity and decency remain. Let the INF Treaty fail and let Bolton's name be written all over this failure.

How America Lost Faith in Expertise. (Appropriate Formatting)

And Why That's a Giant Problem.

Yet another piece about things going wrong with an expertise in the US, this time from (yet another) Professor Of National Security Studies from US Naval War College, Tom Nichols. It is very symptomatic that the latest stream of thoughts on expertise originated in the US military community, be it already many times mentioned here Nicholas Gvosdev or Harlan Ullman. Any developed military knows about surrounding world more, even when it is not aware of it, than most so called civilian institutions claiming to be the seat of the expertise. Why it is so--is a separate matter, but there are serious, in the case of US "elites",  reasons to state, as it was stated here many times before--US "elite expertise" is reminiscent of Lieutenant Frank Drebin who returns home and does the routine against imaginary bogeys:

This is the visual representation of current US "expertise" in the modern world. Nichols complains:     

It’s not just that people don’t know a lot about science or politics or geography. They don’t, but that’s an old problem. The bigger concern today is that Americans have reached a point where ignorance—at least regarding what is generally considered established knowledge in public policy—is seen as an actual virtue. To reject the advice of experts is to assert autonomy, a way for Americans to demonstrate their independence from nefarious elites—and insulate their increasingly fragile egos from ever being told they’re wrong. This isn’t the same thing as the traditional American distaste for intellectuals and know-it-alls. I’m a professor, and I get it: most people don’t like professors. And I’m used to people disagreeing with me on lots of things. Principled, informed arguments are a sign of intellectual health and vitality in a democracy. I’m worried because we no longer have those kinds of arguments, just angry shouting matches.  

While I may or may not agree with the starting point of this argument by Nichols, he answers himself well why current US "expertise" is not in demand:

1. So called US "experts" ARE "elites", or at least they try to sell themselves as such, and Nichols gives a correct definition to those "elites"--nefarious. There is an overwhelming empirical evidence to support such a claim. If I would end up in the chair of some dentist who promised me a good anesthesia during root canal procedure on one of my teeth and, instead, would have my root canal cleaned as is, without any anesthetic, would I trust such a dentist? What if he did this to me on several occasions? How such an "expert" in dentistry could be characterized? Of course, as nefarious or, in layman's lingo, a complete ass-hole worthy of, at best, declaring independence from his services, at worst (or vice-versa)--beating the shit out of him for acts which are not only in full violation of Hippocratic Oath but are completely inhumane. How else can one describe what those US "elites" and "experts" who serve them have done both to the world at large and to the United States herself? Nefarious is a good, however not the most powerful, term, which fits the description of the results of those "elites'" activities; this plus "an unmitigated disaster". There is no surprise then that very many Americans, both under and well-educated, refuse to take this shit anymore. Why would anyone continue to visit a dentist who consistently puts one into excruciating pain for no reason? It is akin to Frank Drebin's excessive acrobatics--useless, however funny under the circumstances of a spoof comedy. People react to pain and so do societies which are still alive. Otherwise the approval rating, as an example, of US Congress, among many other "elite" American institutions, wouldn't have been slightly higher than the approval rating of Al Qaeda.  

2. As per second underlined thesis, it has to be understood that claiming "democracy" for the country which basically is run by oligarchy, or, rather, several oligarchic groups, you know, those same nefarious "elites", is really redundant, not to say tasteless. It is yet to be seen, even despite democratic victory by Donald Trump, where the society which is being constantly spied on and brainwashed by US media, who make Goebbels' propaganda machine tamed in comparison, will evolve. Nothing is settled yet in the fate of a dying Republic, hopefully it will be settled soon with US media and their "expert community" being completely rejected by the majority of Americans. For political "elites" the process could be protracted. There are NO "principled, informed arguments" in the US anymore, a thin veneer of civility and pretense of "expertise" has been torn away and what has been revealed is not exactly a pretty picture. In geopolitics, in economy, in warfare--the outcomes are in the open for everyone to see and judge for themselves. Those disasters are a direct result of a complete lack of those very "principled, informed arguments" which have no place in the country which till recently lived in the state of a perpetual Chalabi Moment and coming to own senses is not an easy task. People do lose a nerve, they do get aggressive and get into the shouting matches (better that than shooting ones) when things do not go as planned and they certainly do not go as planned. The pressure is mounting and the time is running out--hardly a good condition for learning lessons. It seems that Nichols fails to learn his, despite an honest (??) attempt.     

      

Experts are often wrong, and the good ones among them are the first to admit it—because their own professional disciplines are based not on some ideal of perfect knowledge and competence but on a constant process of identifying errors and correcting them, which ultimately drives intellectual progress. Yet these days, members of the public search for expert errors and revel in finding them—not to improve understanding but rather to give themselves license to disregard all expert advice they don’t like.  

Part of the problem is that some people think they’re experts when in fact they’re not. We’ve all been trapped at a party where one of the least informed people in the room holds court, confidently lecturing the other guests with a cascade of banalities and misinformation. This sort of experience isn’t just in your imagination. It’s real, and it’s called “the Dunning-Kruger effect,” after the research psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger. The essence of the effect is that the less skilled or competent you are, the more confident you are that you’re actually very good at what you do. The psychologists’ central finding: “Not only do [such people] reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it.” 

I have to go with Clausewitz yet again--the outcome is "the soundest criterion". There is no escape from this criterion in the real world. From business to medicine, to war--results matter. Cristiano Ronaldo or Michael Jordan are or were paid astronomical sums of money for a single reason--both could deliver a result through their talent, skills, determination. It is what you can actually deliver, not just promise, which matters in life. You are judged by the results and so are nations. Unless, of course, it is this very US "expert community" which is not simply "often wrong" but, for a number of  reasons, is wrong most of the time on the key global issues, no more important of them a foreign policy, which is an unmitigated geopolitical disaster.  I omit here Europe--those are more than just wrong, most of Europe's "expertdom" is completely delusional as is Europe's political class. Since I am Russian, it is only natural to review an utter collapse of the American Russia "expertdom", which couldn't understand what and how hit them. This whole blog, from the inception, is dedicated to this complete academic and a professional failure. It is my academic position today that it is not part of the problem but IS the essence of the problem "that some people think they are experts when they are not". The problem is with the American scholarship. It is also a cultural problem and it is also a problem of "democracy" which sees no difference whatsoever between consumer opinion on diapers and consumer opinion on complex military-political issues. Well educated and truly cultured person will not offer his or her opinion on the issue he or she do not understand or know--and that is the meaning of being genuinely cultured, not some humanities degree from US Ivy League madrassas, which are the embodiment of an academic failure. It is also why cultured people "lose" in the shouting matches with, in our particular case, Russia "experts" who, basically, know shit about the subject and very often go for direct falsifications when presenting their "arguments". Moreover, in scholarly debates it became more important to be more "sophisticated", "know" more facts, many of which often are irrelevant to the case to be made, to be more "informed", than actually know the subject or, what is more important, to know the TRUTH. 

Late Father Robert Tobias stated:

But what is truth. In the West, truth has tended to be identified with the accumulation of non-contradictory data, or verifiable, repeatable, compatible correspondences between appearances, events, data, and concepts. Is it true (a Western mind asking) that in Orthodoxy Truth is not a collection of logical propositions and conceptual conclusions that by virtue of their noncontraditction are correct, i.e. "true", but that Truth is a matter of unbroken relationship, in particular with God...

It is a profound observation, even for me--a man who can hardly be called religious. For some people it is God of scriptures, for others--it is an order of universe, a justice, for others--it is a beauty, morality and ethics but there is always a unifying super-factor of these relations which make the world so complex. As of lately (decades), in the US the whole notion of the Truth as knowable was rejected completely. Truth became the matter of expedient "interpretations" instead of  the objective to be attained through study and learning. But not only through academic endeavors; without culture, without understanding it and applying it to otherwise purely scientific method of study it all goes to waste. Not the "culture" of a refined living where  the more expensive is the Scotch the more "cultured" one is considered, but the culture of a behavior, shaped by factors way more significant than the value of real estate one possesses or the car one drives. Understanding this culture is sorely missing today. Nowhere it manifests itself more than in the field of the so called humanities where causality is sacrificed on the altar of a desirable result which is always dictated by the political and ideological agenda. The very notion of intellectualism as a state of understanding phenomena and making correct conclusions about them, that is stating the TRUTH, is being substituted with the  sophistry and outright demagoguery, which passes for a scholarly work, as long as it makes "sophisticated", not correct, truthful conclusions. 

Enough to review American field of geopolitics (or whatever passes for it today) in the last 70 years. No serious academic work of a global significance, with partial exception of  Huntington's seminal work, which can be judged as truthful in any meaningful way, came out of the United States. From Fukuyama, to Brzezinski, to Kissinger to altogether a delirious propaganda trash such as Dinesh Sousa's or Fareed Zacharia's "works"--American "intellectual" or "elite" class has paraded itself as at best "under-performing" and intellectually bland, at worst--intellectually impotent. Nowhere it manifests itself more than in this class'  failure to understand the nature and application of the military power, especially in the real historic context. It remains simply beyond the grasp of these "intellectuals" and "experts". Since we are talking about Russia here, the inability of all those "experts" to have any foresight of what may come out of US (and EU's) instigating a neo-nazi coup in Ukraine was stupefying, nor could they interpret properly, all in the open, Russia's steps in economy, military and other fields after aggression against Serbia and then, after "democratically" (again, coup) elected Saakashvili's military adventurism in South Ossetia. The real wowser here, however, is not even a dangerous inability to see the world for what it is, that is to see it in realistic, true light--the real wowser will be the real history of the Cold War 1.0 which only now is beginning to have an impact with the world reaching the era of a fast and global information (and knowledge) exchange with the ascendance of the broadband internet. When real history, not ever changing "ranges of interpretations", of the Cold War will be presented, with all correct accents, the picture which will emerge (and it is emerging as I type it) will not be commendable to the most (not all, I underscore it) American Cold War "experts", to put it mildly. It will be an indictment.   

Nichols makes an important, however generalized, point:

As a result, unable to see their own biases, most people simply drive one another crazy arguing rather than accept answers that contradict what they already think about the subject—and shoot the messenger, to boot. 

What he describes here (granted that we all are biased to some degree) when applied to most modern American "expertdom" is more than just a bias--it is a failure of a scholarship. Yes, real experts ARE experts not just because they understand a lot (that is a requirement), but because they are able to control their biases. This IS NOT the case with American "experts"; overwhelming majority of these so called experts operate on the premise of an American exceptionalism, if not outright narcissism. This IS NOT a mindset which leads to Truth, quite to the contrary--it is the path to academic ruin which does have very serious consequences. We observe those dangerous consequences today all around us: from unprecedented creeping coup against democratically elected American President to an unmitigated geopolitical disaster--all of that bearing the seal of "approval" or being instigated by the so called US "expertdom" with all of its numerous think-tanks and media. Here, Nichols delivers the most potent segment in his piece:

Other forms of expert failure are more worrisome. Experts can go wrong, for example, when they try to stretch their expertise from one area to another. This is less a failure of expertise than a sort of minor fraud—somebody claiming the general mantle of authority even though he or she is not a real expert in the specific area under discussion—and it is frequent and pernicious and can undermine the credibility of an entire field. (I recognize that I myself risk that transgression. But my observations and conclusions are informed not only by my experience of being an expert in my own area but also by the work of scholars who study the role of expertise in society and by discussions I have had with many other experts in a variety of fields.) And finally, there is the rarest but most dangerous category: outright deception and malfeasance, in which experts intentionally falsify their results or rent out their professional authority to the highest bidder.   

Why "can undermine the credibility"? It WAS already undermined. I don't know if Mr. Nichols is aware of it but when dealing with US "expertise" in geopolitical or military fields very little credibility is given not only to US geopolitical doctrine-mongering but to the very process of academic training of all those "experts" is put in doubt by (periodically) idle amateurs like me to a serious professionals, i.e. real experts. "Western" system of public education, starting from the high school and well into the undergraduate and graduate degrees' programs is simply not that good, especially when it deals with vague faux-applied "sciences" such as Political pseudo Science, Economy, Russian or any other "studies", History, including military one--fields where deception, falsification, biases, lies dominate. Of course, the case could be made that very many of those "experts" or "academics" do know the Truth but ignore or hide it for a larger political ends. True, this often was the case during Cold War, it is most likely not the case today--very many of those "experts" did buy their own narrative and that is dangerous. But then again, I warned about it from the very first days of this blog. One can live in the make-believe world for only so long. 

My personal experience with communication with a number of Ph.Ds from these fields left me often speechless. No more so when I had a discussion with one of the College History Professor with Ph.D from Princeton in no less than... Russian/Soviet-American Relations. He was convinced that Western Allies could drive Red Army back to the Soviet border (Patton's wet dream, anyone?)  in 1945 based on a single myth that Allied Air Forces were simply superior. He was stunned, however, when I had to point to a simple historic fact that Red Air Force by 1945 was the largest and most experienced tactical-operational air force in the world. I suggested him to read Von Hardesty's good book as a primer. Needless to say, that the guy didn't know the Russian language that well--a good summary of the most American (that is not "Russian", mostly Jewish, emigre "scholars") "experts" in USSR/Russia. Yet, today, as never before, cross-discipline expertise is a must not just desirable. It is preposterous when some humanities or "political science" "educated" expert, who didn't spend a day in uniform, passes judgements on a host of a complex tactical, operational or technological issues. I also had a personal experience with such "experts" and not in US only, I spent some good chunk of time exposing outright lies of one... Russian "naval expert", who graduated the Institute of Culture with degree, if my memory doesn't fail me, in screenwriting or something like that. But then again, in US late Tom Clancy--a major in English and an insurance agent--is still hailed as an "expert". Reading his "literature" or even watching The Hunt For Red October, despite two of my favorite actors in it, Sean Connery and Sam Neil, are a cringe-worthy experiences, because most of it, in layman's lingo, is a BS.  

Nichols concludes his piece with this:

Meanwhile, Americans have developed increasingly unrealistic expectations of what their political and economic systems can provide, and this sense of entitlement fuels continual disappointment and anger. When people are told that ending poverty or preventing terrorism or stimulating economic growth is a lot harder than it looks, they roll their eyes. Unable to comprehend all the complexity around them, they choose instead to comprehend almost none of it and then sullenly blame elites for seizing control of their lives.   

I have other news for Nichols, many Americans developed those unrealistic expectations not just by themselves. Those expectations, compounded with traditional American exceptionalism, were greatly encouraged by the American "expert" community which found it to be very expedient to further the cause of an American exceptionalism by means of fraud, incompetence, lies and manipulation. Doing so, this very "experdom" itself became the prisoner of own illusions and  a false narrative. Americans are correct in blaming their so called "elites" for a decades of criminal wars, instability, deindustrialization of the country, economic collapse and almost getting into the hot war with Russia--these were "elites" and "experts" who made those decisions. It is an American "expertdom" and "elites" who are unable to "comprehend all the complexity around them" and for that they bear a lion share of responsibility and blame for what is happening now both globally and domestically. I mentioned not for once, that the so called American "elites" betrayed Americans. The only way of the United States out of present day pitiful state will be only with removal of most of current "elites" and "experts" who served them for so long. Thus America's losing the faith in this kind of expertise is a good thing. The removal may happen only with Donald Trump claiming the victory in his epic battle with these "elites" in order to finally tell them what he was elected for: "You Are Fired!"