For People Who Still...

 ... cannot find the emotional balance. Here is a simpler demonstration of what global power balance is and how it is formed--I will be making a video about it (with Syria's slant, of course) tomorrow: 

 

On Being A Tool...

 ... or a fool or why I stopped cooperating with RT, which is a tribune for Valdai boys with pedigrees like this:

Andrey Sushentsov

Russian Federation

Programme Director of the Valdai Discussion Club; Dean of the School of International Relations at MGIMO University. Mr. Sushentsov specializes in the US foreign policy in international conflicts, as well as in South Caucasus, Ukraine, and the Middle East. He has substantial experience of analytical work. He took part in applied researches on the United States’ foreign policy, conflict resolution in South Caucasus, Ukraine, and the Middle East. In his studies, he examines the spheres of conflicting interests of Russia and the United States in Europe, the Middle East and the post-Soviet space. He was a Visiting Professor and Research Fellow at Georgetown University, Johns Hopkins University, Guido Carli Free University of International Studies, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Harvard University and Middlebury Institute for International Studies in Monterey. He is a member of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy and of the Working Group on the Future of Russian-American Relations. 

In other words, Sushetsov is a product of degree mills in the US and is shaped as "professional" by the environment which produced a staggering number of diplomatic and governing failures. So, it is no wonder that he writes the piece with the title which even commenters on RT board laughed at.  

Andrey Sushentsov: Here’s why the US can’t get along with the other major global powers. American elites believe in democracy at home and dictatorship abroad; that’s why the world is so dangerous right now. 

I wonder what stone did he sleep under for the last 24 years? Yes, I am talking about well coordinated assault on the American Constitution and Bill of Rights, starting from Patriot Act and final subversion of Capitol Hill by Israel. Boy, those Valdai boys are slow. But if that hasn't been enough, Sushentsov goes to prove Arthur Clark's Third Law that:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Modern military technology as well as its tactical and operational use, as well as formulation of military doctrine and strategy are extremely complex and require people with serious military and engineering background. This whole thing is in the foundation of global balance of power. But for Mr. Sushentsov who has a "soft degree" in essentially nothing, formation of the global power balance is indistinguishable from magic, because none of the Valdai boys have cognitive tools to grasp it. Because of that Sushentsov invents things trying to explain what he doesn't understand and views as magic.

Ukraine is a convenient, rather cheap tool for the US to weaken and contain Russia, and to force its European allies to keep their discipline and obey. This is all part of an international struggle for a new form of hierarchy.  Of course, it’s just a temporary phenomenon until a new balance of power, recognized by all, is established.

I have news for Sushentsov--recognition is always achieved through coercion and deterrence. In other words, this recognition and, hence, power balance are formed by those who know how to fight a war and win it. The whole structure of the international relations in XX and XXI centuries rests on warfare and industrial might. It will continue to be such until the United States is completely stripped off its grossly exaggerated military might, both through defeat in Ukraine and continuous unstoppable de-industrialization, and a complete loss of remnants of the US mythology as "the finest fighting force in history". This whole thing is in progress and it is Russia, and China, who already dictate conditions, with Russia leading the way because she did what China still cannot do--she accepted NATO's military challenge and brought about the implosion of the West as we know it. You see, magic. 

In other news, for those who still view Metternich (or Kissinger) as some kind of great diplomatic minds, as Stalin once responded to attempts to convince him on importance of Pope: "and how many divisions does the Pope have?" Until these guys understand that no diplomacy matters until one has Mr. Kinzhal and Mr. Borei-A behind diplomacy and international relations--they will continue to write this nonsense about the United States, its oligarchy selling "democracy" gospel to stupid, and power balance. Difficult to figure it out in XXI century without serving a day in armed forces and studying Theory of Operations, physics and systems integration. The might was always right in human history and it always was about the nature of this might.

Look at it--it is magic of the Project 955A Borei--it is a foundation of Russian diplomacy. I would love to quote Mr. Ostap Bender from the conclusion of the 12 Chairs immortal classics, but I only can quote Hofstadter:

… the complexity of modern life has steadily whittled away the functions the ordinary citizen can intelligently and comprehendingly perform for himself. In the original American populistic dream, the omnicompetence of the common man was fundamental and indispensable. It was believed that he could, without much special preparation, pursue the professions and run the government. Today he knows that he cannot even make his breakfast without using devices, more or less mysterious to him, which expertise has put at his disposal; and when he sits down to breakfast and looks at his morning newspaper, he reads about a whole range of vital and intricate issues and acknowledges, if he is candid with himself, that he has not acquired competence to judge most of them(c)

And don't call me Shirley.

It Really Becomes Annoying As Hell.

I will not stop repeating it until I am dead--Russia owes nothing to anyone, period. Want something from Russia? Take a number and be nice at the window once your number is called. I also will repeat it ad nauseam--constant attempts to "analyze" anything in contemporary international relations from the position of some diplomatic chimeras of the days past should stop and as Doctor Lecter used to say Quid Pro Quo, Clarice. Or, rather, Emmanuel. This, plus overwhelming cutting edge military power--these are the only two things which matter today. No good will, no emotions, just Quid Pro Quo and recognition that behind this offer is a deadly big stick capable to ensure that if this Quo is not good enough negotiations are over and no new Quid is coming. Out of the cellar of geopolitical well-wishing come Macron's new ideas:

Russia and France have different objectives, yet both recognize the need to push back against Turkey’s expansionism, the intrusive influence of the US, and the zero-sum security architecture in Europe, which threatens stability. Emmanuel Macron has called on the European Union to reconsider policies towards Russia and improve relations. The French President's move deserves a favourable response as rapprochement is sadly now a politically bold move in the Euro-Atlantic community.France has also requested a role in establishing lasting peace in Nagorno-Karabakh. Paris approved of Turkey’s collaboration with radical militant groups in Syria, although now objects as Ankara exports the same fighters to Libya and the South Caucasus. Paris has traditionally depicted all anti-Russian Chechens as freedom fighters, albeit it now calls for greater anti-terrorism cooperation with Moscow.

The immediate question, granted there is some sort of Turkey's expansionism, is--and how does France see herself "pushing back" against everything bad for everything good in this geopolitical "combination"? Russia, as was pointed out not for once, is not going to "repatriate" those "anti-Russian Chechens", they are France's responsibility and let France deal with them. Moreover, what is France's real value in "pushing against intrusive influence of the US and zero-sum security architecture in Europe"? Can you make bees hate honey? No, really? The next stratagem, the "vision" is down right hilarious:

Macron seeks French leadership in a sovereign and strengthened EU, which does not entail including Russia in a shared European security architecture. Meanwhile, Russia has also abandoned former illusions about a Greater Europe and is now pursuing a strategic partnership with China to develop a Greater Eurasia. Keeping in mind these realities, a Russian-French partnership would be limited to mitigating and managing the dividing lines in Europe.    

No, really, ha-ha, Macron doesn't seek "leadership", what he seeks is an age old arrangement in case Germans really get all pissed off with continuous national suicide and France, as usual, will be in the way, this is when Russia comes in. Nope, this ship sailed. In fact, neither Germany nor, especially, modern France are the players of a scale which can REALLY interest Moscow in anything but markets and, in case of France, some sort of support in UNSC. "Sovereign EU" sounds like a meme, especially when having a leader such as Macron--this is down right hilarious. The next para is more than just hilarious, it is clinical, as in a psychiatric case clinical that is.

Macron is deeply critical of Russia, yet he cautioned that “pushing Russia away from Europe is a deep strategic error because we are pushing Russia either to isolation which increases the tensions, or to ally with other great powers like China”. Macron seemingly attempts to play the role of a new Kissinger that reaches out to Moscow to prevent Russia from cosying up to China.

Russians have a meme, it is really not in any way deliberately offensive, it is just a meme, about Estonians, like in being slow in recognizing a reality. Well, on the Estonian scale of being slow Macron and France, obviously, are off it and are finally discovering that not only Russia has been "pushed away" long time ago, but what is most remarkable--overwhelming majority of Russians view Europe as a hostile and creepy place and do not want to have anything in common with it. They are pretty happy with being "pushed away". I am not even talking about this BS comparison with Kissinger who not only was "sold" to the world by propaganda as a shrewd diplomat but in reality being, as is a tradition in US political life, nothing more than a second-rate thinker who was mostly in self-promotion and constructing of own myth. He was a first-rate media figure and a second-rate diplomat who is now observing some juicy fruits of American school of "diplomacy" biting whole US establishments in the ass. Basically, Kissinger is to diplomacy, what Patton is to armored warfare. If Macron sees himself as Kissinger, good luck, but geostrategic reality is such that France is not a subject in the process of shaping the global power balance. 

 

Both Paris and Berlin have been "politely" told by Moscow to go fuck themselves in regards to Nagorny Karabakh and this is the only way it is, and should be, from now on. You have power and you have goods? Make an offer, otherwise--bug off. And even in Russian-Chinese relations, as I am writing non-stop, not everything as it seems in the West. But I will touch upon it later. But there is  a reason Russia supports European conservative movements because Macron's Europe is doomed. The scale of West-Russia split is evidently still not grasped by very many in the West. They still think that it is all fun and games. It is not, and Russia's Asian vector is just the part of the puzzle--I am constantly on record: don't overestimate the role of China in Russia's geopolitical realignment. China is extremely important but she is not the only factor in Russia's geopolitical considerations. I usually agree with Patrick Armstrong on many of his conclusions but not with this one:

So is Moscow about to say it’s had enough? If so, it has somewhat of a problem. At the moment and for the foreseeable future, depending on how serious the civil disorder is after its election, the United States is the principal power in the world if for no other reason that it has far more destructive power than anyone else. Moscow must tread carefully here; cutting relations with Washington would cost more than it’s worth. London is probably lost to Moscow but Berlin, Paris and Rome are not necessarily lost. And, as they go, many other Europeans will follow. Therefore Moscow can hope that, in the reasonable near term, more normal relations with some of the principal European powers may be possible. Thus it would be a bad move to cut relations with them. 

For starters, Moscow is not impressed with American, grossly exaggerated to start with, destructive power, which is not that destructive in a conventional peer-to-peer conflict. Secondly, as I say above in this post, Russia is open for a decent offer. But, if Europe has anything to offer--let it take a number and wait for the number to be called. As for Russian-American relations, Vladimir Putin was explicit today when stating (in Russian) that: it is impossible to spoil Russian-American relations, because they are already spoiled. Can not get any clearer than that, I see no problem with "cutting relations" with Washington once one considers this simple fact that there is NOBODY to talk to at the highest political level in the United States. US is a dysfunctional state which is utterly non-agreement capable, plus, come on, let's face it--Russians know damn well both economic situation in the United States, Europe and China. Russia, of course, will maintain diplomatic and trade relations with Europeans on bilateral basis, but, honestly--the cultural shift of unprecedented historic scale in Russia have occurred. Opinions of some Moscow pseudo-intellectuals and doctrine-mongers trying to imitate intellectual activity in foreign policy field are mostly worthless, it is better to listen and watch what Putin, Lavrov, Mishustin, Belousov and Shoigu say and do in the last couple of months. 

H.G. Wells, in his book Russia in the Shadows, after visiting Russia and interviewing Lenin, described Lenin in 1920 as a "Dreamer in the Kremlin". In 1920 Russia was utterly destroyed by WW I and Civil War. By 1939 historic Russia was a premier industrial power in Europe. In 1945 Red Army hoisted the Red Banner over Reichstag. In 1957 USSR launched Sputnik, in 1961 Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space and the Soviet Union became the most educated nation in the world, especially after the devastation of WW II. For all his faults, Lenin turned out to be not just a dreamer. Macron is not in the same league, not even close, albeit I propose to apply to him the term Elysee Palace Dreamer as a term describing a person who is absolutely out of his depth and has no grasp of the reality. Memorize: Quid Pro Quo and hypersonic weapons, Quid Pro Quo and hypersonic weapons, Quid Pro Quo...