Tough Talk, As Usual.

US State Department declares that it will counteract Russia's "military activity" near Ukraine (in Russian) and we all know that it cannot but there are other ways. 

The U.S. imposed sanctions on a ship involved in the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline as the Biden administration looks to exert more pressure on Russia without antagonizing Germany.

In related news, I have in mind a list of janitors and drivers from Gazprom who could be sanctioned by the US. Hey, that will show them, damn Russkies. And, of course, how can one live without Ted Cruz performing a simulation of productive activity. 

The move is unlikely to mollify critics of the Biden administration in Congress. Lawmakers from both parties want the U.S. to take a tougher stand against a project they say undermines European security by giving Russia more leverage over the continent. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas has held up most of President Joe Biden’s State Department nominees over the issue.

That's modern America for you. Having said all that, I want to reiterate--NATO doesn't have forces not only to "counter-act" anything Russia does but even if it wanted to it still has no means to fight a war with Russia. Meddling in 404? Absolutely! Throw in some advisors, some Javelins, some ammo and some boats. Of course, it changes absolutely nothing, but CJCS General Milley and Valery Gerasimov had a conversation today over the phone.

Amid growing tensions in Europe, Russia's most senior military general, Valery Gerasimov, has discussed “pressing issues of international security” with his direct American counterpart Mark Milley, during a phone call on Tuesday. The Pentagon confirmed that the two “military leaders discussed several security-related issues of concern.” The phone call was part of efforts aimed at ensuring “risk reduction and operational de-confliction,” its statement added.Neither the Pentagon, nor the Russian Defense Ministry have revealed any additional details of the call in their respective statements. It came as Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said American nuclear-capable bombers had made dozens of sorties across Eastern Europe in recent weeks.The drills involved the bombers practicing “their ability to use nuclear weapons against Russia,” Shoigu said after meeting with Chinese defense minister, Wei Fenghe, in Moscow on Tuesday.

It is good that they talk, because the rest of a discussion in the US public policy sphere, including the US State Department, is a show for US media. Here is an example, General Keane providing zero content of any value on those hyper-sonic technologies (and Ukraine, of course). 

I respect General Keane's career and all, but he really should update himself on "what the US learned" about Soviet Union and deterrence. I'll give him a hint--US learned nothing. At this stage I doubt that General Keane who is retired and is 78, I believe, even despite his, I am sure, serious connections in Pentagon fully grasps what has already transpired. For starters the United States never could defend itself from the launch of Soviet cruise missiles and that is why were so anxious to sign the INF treaty which would make this missile removed from Soviet subs.Obviously we are talking about RK-55 Granat (SS-N-21) "Sampson" cruise missile. But never allow facts to get in a way of a good narrative, including this BS about Russia "invading" 404. 

 

But Keane struck me absolutely with his lack of understanding what it means to "intercept" hyper-sonic missile. Apart from the fact that US recon satellites and X-37 are already made obsolete, especially with S-550 and A-235 already deployed or about to be deployed in the nearest future, especially as mobile complexes, the main question is this: even if you see the hyper-sonic weapon's launch, what are you going to do about it? Moreover, you can "observe" gliders, what are you going to do when you "observe" launches by 3M22 Zircon or Kinzhal from MiG-31K or TU-22M3M, how does it change the situation for the targets. I have the answer--changes absolutely nothing because you cannot shoot down those. There is nothing in the US arsenal now and in the foreseeable future which can intercept Mach=9-10+, let alone M=20-27, targets. That's the issue. Same analytical method applies to a situation in 404. The only thing US (NATO) can hope for is to somehow provoke Russia into the invasion of this shithole of a country and then get ball SIGINT it can once Russia's C4ISR gets into full combat mode. 

 

Only military "experts" from the US media still believe that:

Russia still has a military edge over Ukraine, but Ukraine has plans to make a future war more costly for Moscow.

They have no clue how this war, if it comes to it, will look like, including if NATO, headed by the US, decides to somehow "intervene". Here is a question to General Keane--what are you going to do if this happens and provocation succeeds? Keane was in Vietnam, so he knows how it looks and feels like when things go not as planned. I am not counting all those "experiences" in Iraq and Kosovo as serious campaigns. I already gave a ball park number of a required NATO force to fight Russia in Ukraine--it has to be around a million of combat personnel to have any chance to accomplish anything, forget having some sort of "victory", whatever it will be called such by NATO. Good luck assembling it in a month (while Russia can mobilize 2 million in approximately the same time), or even in 3 months and then trying to conduct combined arms operations in 404. The United States cannot conduct serious combined arms war in Europe even if it wants to--she simply has no resources for that and time doesn't stand still. With each passing moment the myth of the "finest fighting force in history" evaporates and without this myth the scaffolding of the American Empire continues to collapse with the increasing speed. The time is running out fast, really fast.

This is what drives D.C. insane, especially humiliated Pentagon, which still has enough policy "advisors" (mostly civilian political scientists warmongers) who think that the US can fight Russia in Ukraine. As Bernhard of Moon of Alabama suggests:

The White House Needs An Off-ramp From War In Ukraine

For an institution which didn't win a single war in the last 70 years with the exception of a turkey shoot against utterly backward Iraqi force and never faced equal of superior enemy (no surprise for an institution venerating a military mediocrity such as Patton as a "great" general) the desire to wash off, let's speak without undue restrain here, the shame of Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea that they can fight Russia is down right preposterous. As are, for the most part, most of the military power metrics used till recently by the US policy-makers as a proof of the US military superiority such as... the size of military budget and visuals of, indeed, impressive US Navy carriers. As Bernhard concludes:

I don't think that a deal would actually help Biden in the polls. The hawks would scream about it. They want a war in the Ukraine and the U.S. involved in it. However the U.S. public is still unlikely to support a war against Russia which would likely soon escalate. But a Ukrainian Russian war that the Ukraine is sure to lose and in which the White House does not intervene will lead to huge loss of face. That prospect then may indeed motivate Biden to give Russia the guarantees it wants.

Now, Andrei Raevsky gives a good write-up on Russia's forces and their distribution at what one would call "threatening directions (axis)". Andrei concludes:

And so, yes, of course, NATO commanders are frightened by what they see, this is true, and quite understandable.  What is not understandable is why these delusional idiots created the condition which left Russia no other choice than to be ready to fight a full scale war in Europe, including a nuclear one.

And that is why Milley and Gerasimov spoke to each-other. Russia's and America's war experiences can not be compared, Russian one dwarfs that of the United States both in scale, scope and in quality of enemies Russians fought in defense of their country. With the exception of the magnificent US victory in the Pacific in WW II, most of US military experience is that of an expeditionary force designed to fight utterly inferior opponent, and even here the American record is not impressive. But, as I am on record non-stop, the US is ungovernable and is immersed in the internal life-and-death struggle between several oligarchic clans which do not give a rat's ass about the well-being of the majority of Americans, most of who are just decent folks who want to live their lives, and about once beautiful country which was the envy of the world. 

On Some Russian "Experts" And INF Treaty.

The urban dictionary defines Hussler as a person who gets money from other people. In general, a person who hussles. Of course there is another way to define operation of swindling, by using good ol' Hustling, which is:

The act of swindling by some fraudulent scheme; "that book is a fraud"

That's more like it. This is the issue I address on a regular bases when speaking about "expertdom" which both in US, Russia and elsewhere tries to present itself as the only voice of wisdom and which, most of the time has no real expertise in the subjects this "expertdom" tries to preach. Enter CAST, Moscow "Center of Analysis of Strategies and Technologies". The organization also known for maintaining a rather popular in some circles Blog BMPD which is an excellent platform for mutual insults and fanboys' exchanges on military toys. I communicated on some forums with one of the CAST "experts", Mikhail Barabanov, who among some people in Russia passes for "expert" in the navies, and who didn't serve a single day in uniform and has a degree from Moscow Institute of Culture, allegedly in either librarian or screenplay writing fields, something like that. Barabanov is known as a mindless and utterly incompetent herald of US Navy's "ideas" (without knowing anything of substance about them) and his main "expertise" is in memorizing types of weapons and some technical data and parroting mostly Western views on warfare. Just to give you some taste of his "expertise", here is his piece in...drum roll, where else, The National Interest. Generally, CAST is a classic hustler organization which shuffles among military people in Moscow, collects rumors and reads open press and after that calls itself an analytical organization. I read their views on Russian Navy once--a total strategic and operational delirium written by liberal amateurs.

But CAST's other big honchos, namely Kosnstantin Makienko, who is a graduate of famed MGIMO with specialty in...drum roll..."International Relations" and then of some French madras, also in some..something-something not really military, publishes yesterday a CAST's "manifesto" on the death of INF Treaty in Russian here. The article by Makienko, whose experience on a tactical, operational, weapons' design, integration and other relevant military issues is exactly zero (with the exception of reading open pop-military media), laments many things. I would have omitted addressing yet another "pearl" of strategic thinking by CAST but this one really interested me as a psychiatric case of utter ignoramuses firmly believing that they have capability to produce something sensible on a rather very complex issue of defense policy of Russia and America, this is not to mention the fact that Makienko, as well as all of CAST enterprise have a very vague idea about US economy and her military-industrial complex. 

Here is the opening wowser salvo of Makienko's "lament" from his symptomatically titled piece What is the Threat to the World from INF Treaty's Liquidation. 

Крах ДРСМД будет иметь для военной безопасности России чрезвычайно тяжелые последствия. Главную опасность представляет совершенно неминуемая разработка и развертывание Соединенными Штатами нового поколения баллистических ракет средней и меньшей дальности, в том числе с гиперзвуковыми блоками. Причем эта разработка может быть реализована в сжатые сроки. Не стоит впадать в прекраснодушное заблуждение относительно сегодняшнего предположительного американского отставания в области гиперзвука от России. Учитывая невероятную научную и технологическую мощь США, это отставание, если оно вообще существует, будет ликвидировано очень быстро. А принимая во внимание колоссальный американский индустриальный потенциал, необходимо исходить из того, что производство таких ракет легко может составить сотни и тысячи единиц.    

Translation: the crash of the INF Treaty will have an extraordinarily grave consequences for Russia's security. The main threat is inevitable development and deployment by the US of new generation of the intermediate range ballistic missiles, including with hyper-sonic blocks. Moreover, this development could be conducted within short time-frame. Do not fall for placid delusion regarding current US lagging behind Russia in hyper-sonic technology. Considering incredible scientific and technological power of the United States this gap, if it even exists, would be closed very fast. Moreover, considering colossal American industrial potential we need to assume that production of such missiles will easily number hundreds and thousands of units. 

I don't know where to start here, but I'll try. 

1. It is obvious that Mr. Makienko has a very vague idea of the genesis of INF Treaty and who and why signed it. Here, instead of me elaborating on this treaty, again, and again, I will only give the link to Dmitry Orlov's piece on this Treaty which will help.  

2. My real issue is this: there is very little doubt that the United States will develop new missiles and I stressed this simple fact non-stop whenever talking about hyper-sonic weapons for years. There is one little, teeny-weeny thing, though, of which Mr. Makienko--an obvious product of very "westernized" humanities education simply doesn't know--it is expected from experts in "international relations" who have zero military, industrial and technological background. Obviously, the horizon of Makienko's views on the United States is, at best, that of a tourist, at worst that of a consumer of American economic propaganda. I don't know if Makienko read this:

Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States.

If he didn't do this yet, I would strongly suggest he and his colleagues from CAST start studying this document in earnest. Because unlike them, I live and work (in real industry) in the United States and know this country quite well. Makienko uses rather outdated categories when speaking about American incredible scientific and technological power. United States still remains an industrial powerhouse but reality is such that it is nowhere near what it used to be in 1970s and 1980s. I'll quote for Mr. Makienko just one thing from Inter-agency Report to POTUS and if they do "analysis", as their title of CAST suggests, they better start learning real industrial economy and what serious manufacturing sector is.

Inadequate U.S. Skilled Labor Supply

The U.S. machine tools sector lacks assured access to a sufficiently large pool of skilled labor. Many skilled workers are exiting the workforce due to age, and there are too few technical educational programs to train those who could take their place. Without concerted action that provides both a ready workforce and a continuously-charged pipeline of new employees, the U.S. will not be able to maintain the large, vibrant, and diverse machine tools sector needed to produce the required number and types of products when needed. Market Forces Decreasing Domestic Capabilities The U.S. machine tools sector has been shrinking since at least the 1980s due to a number of primary and contributing factors with the U.S. standing dropping significantly since 2000.  In 2015, China's global machine tool production skyrocketed to $24.7B accounting for 28% of global production, while the U.S. accounted for only $4.6B, after China, Japan, Germany, Italy, and South Korea. According to the U.S. Census Bureau data, in 2015 there were 1,028 machine tool firms employing 27,919 people. 

I don't know if they taught them in MGIMO what this, among very many other debilitating factors, means but I'll give a hint, if one removes monetary comparison in US Dollars (inaccurate as it is), then the gap between US and others becomes even larger, once one considers high costs of US production, which, when combined with purely FIRE "economy" values inflate US GDP to the absurdity it is today. American economic and industrial reality today is such that it is much smaller than many (Russian western liberal cabal especially) think.   

3. But then, of course, there is purely military (and technological) aspect to all that, since Russia's real security is not limited by the intermediate range weapons only and it must be viewed as a complex of means and measures designed to prevent attack on Russia across the whole spectrum of modern warfare--from informational, to conventional combined arms to nuclear strategic. I thought that CAST which does "analyze strategies" should know that. Let me go out on a limb here and, shamefully, with my head down, assume that Chief Designer of strategic missile systems Yuri Solomonov, while having pathetic credentials of a creator of latest generation of strategic missiles not to mention his clearance, when compared to a monstrous academic and military experiences of Barabanov, or Makienko, still knows just teeny-weeny bit more about subject matter than Makienko. This is what Solomonov states:

Indeed, we lead Americans by 10-15 years. This doesn't mean that they will not be able to do the same. If they put their minds to it they can do the same.  

Q. Who is breathing down our necks? I mean us and Americans, I mean members of the nuclear club?

A. Nobody. From the point of view of our nuclear potential we are far ahead. This is not bravado, it is objective.

But then, there is another issue of CAST's members situational (un)awareness--it is the fact of failing to analyze that:

a) Russia's military and technological record of the last 15 years;

b) US military and technological record of the last 15 years;   

For a person with even rudimentary military background it becomes very clear that many Pentagon's military programs are nothing but a technological, hence tactical, and operational disaster. Of course, one may use good ol' examples of F-35, LCS or even new Columbia-class SSBN which even before being built already has some huge cost and technology issues. Sure, when one sub costs as much as the whole 8 hulls of Borei-class SSBNs one is bound to notice. But, the issue is with procurement practices which, being utterly corrupt on practically every level, increasingly fail to deliver any serious capability for even grossly inflated investment in dollars. But here we enter the field which CAST firm is simply unfamiliar with--it is system analysis, analysis of operations (aka Theory of Operations) and other things which require a lot of background in math, technology, physics, tactics etc.--exactly the fields in which CAST has zero competencies. In the end, knowing what Russia's current political and military leadership is, which navigates Russia for the last 5 years brilliantly from one geopolitical, economic, military triumph to another, I would say those guys in General Staff (especially its GOU) calculated a rather impressive number of contingencies before playing out INF Treaty's dismantling. Unlike CAST members who never commanded a single sailor, marine or soldier, those people have the lives of 148 million of their compatriots in their hands and they do not have luxury of going around proclaiming themselves "experts" while BSing, sorry, "consulting" those who are willing to listen and are dumb enough to pay (after all, CAST is very similarly constructed as famous frauds from STRATFOR). This is not how Soviet/Russian military works and it has, unlike CAST, an enormous record of success to back it up. In other words, those people know what they are doing, precisely because they are real experts.

In conclusion. I don't know what's the deal with these CAST people and navies, could it be the fact that they are attracted to a shiny beautiful objects such as ships and submarines? I don't know, I remember Mikhail Barabanov, a naval "expert", about 15 years ago BSing a whole military-historical forum about US Navy's cruise missile developments--mind you, the person saw sea or ocean mostly at the beaches and probably took a tourist tour on some ships--plus expressing some mind-boggling ideas on force requirements (using very peculiar "math"), effectiveness and other broad generalizations on the naval warfare. Now comes Barabanov's boss Makienko and delivers another naval "pearl":

Еще один теоретический профит для России состоит в возможности отказа от дорогостоящей политики «калибровизации» флота в виде строительства дорогих и нелепых «Буянов-М» и «Каракуртов» по цене в половину фрегата при техническом уровне малых ракетных кораблей 40-летней давности. Строительство дорогих морских платформ-носителей «Калибров» теряет смысл при отсутствии ограничений на их сухопутное развертывание.      

Translation: Another theoretical profit (yes, he says this in Russian) for Russia is the possibility of rejection of the expensive policy of Kalibralization of the navy by means of constructing of ridiculous and expensive Buyan-M and Karakurts with the price of the half of the frigate with the technical level of the Small Missile Ships of the 40 years ago. Construction of the expensive platforms-carriers of Kalibrs loses any sense with the loss of limitations for Kalibrs' land deployment. 

The level of ignorance of this statement by Makienko is such that it is simply difficult to even react properly. How to explain to him (he wouldn't know anyway) what could be the "profit" in the littoral, anti-access operations by the KUG of 3-4 Karakurts armed with 3M54 (forget coming Zircons for those types of ships) and shore based aviation against even the group of FREMMs or Burkes at the edge (range) of the launch of TLAMs. I know Makienko wouldn't know shit from shinola when dealing with augmented Salvo Equations, attrition models and combat effectiveness among other things required for professional rough assessment, but here you are. As I said not for once--for some reason these type of "experts" rush into the military field, instead of gynecology or open heart surgery, but it is zeitgeist--ignorance rules. My suggestion to CAST in this case, if they have no human, forget professional, integrity to recognize themselves ignorant pretentious hustlers and to try to get busy with something they actually were taught, be that librarian, "international relations", what have you, humanities-based field,  stop spewing an utter unprofessional BS on issues you have no clue about. Do you even understand what an embarrassment and fraud you are? I guess not. For failing to recognize that, one has to be Russia's urban liberal with "humanities" degree and this, I guess, is a diagnosis.