History Lessons.

While doing my morning news due diligence, I stumbled upon The Duran's discussion on dismantling of Yugoslavia and the role the Bidens, the Clintons, Amanpour, CNN, Blair and the rest of this cabal played in shaping the world we exist in today. Actually, both Alex Cristoforou and Alexander Mercouris do a very good job conveying in simple words the essence of the conflict around Yugoslavia and that it was about globalization and about demolition of Russia. Just watch it, it is 16 minutes of your time well spent. 

We all know today that appearance of Vladimir Putin as, first, Russia's Prime Minister and then him becoming Russia's President with degenerate Yeltsin "abdicating" (or, rather, being forced out) is directly related to the gang rape of Yugoslavia by NATO and to one of the most shameful pages in Russia's history--betrayal of Serbs for a IMF (in essence, American) loans. 

What both Alex and Alexander, while speaking about a deadly role this cabal of neo-liberals and crooks played in developing their globalization "strategies", forgot to mention was the fact that as any products of the American "governing" class, without exception, those people have a minuscule,  if any, grasp of the power component of any strategy, be that on the level of a city, a country or globally. No power component, no strategy, period. Guys at The Duran used the term "neo-liberal war machine" and this is exactly what captured my attention because this "neo-liberal war machine", once looked at a closer range, even in 1990s, was not looking that great and was good primarily at avoiding near-peer, let alone peer direct conflict and "won" its most victories through blackmail, "financialization" of its "partners" and in media. In fact, if not for betrayal by Russia, who, through her crooked PM Chernomyrdin, played an active role in convincing Serbia to surrender, the United States and its NATO vassals were at breaking point after 78 days of incessant bombing of Serbia. Not only they were running out of stand-off munitions, they were facing the worst US (and NATO) nightmare--a fight in mountainous and forest rich terrain against the Army of the nation with a magnificent history of organized massive guerilla warfare against, forget US Army, Nazis. 

I already mentioned public admissions 5 years ago by General Ivashov and former Deputy Defense Minister Andrei Kokoshin, you can find it at 2 hours 47 minutes, that NATO (and the US) peed its pants at the prospect of facing this kind of the army on the ground:

As 21 years after this criminal aggression proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, ANY "strategy" is worth anything ONLY when it has serious, credible military (I underscore it, military as a first derivative of advanced economy) backing. US couldn't provide it, other than beating the shit out of weak, disorganized, badly trained Arab military. You want to impose your economic (institutionalized robbery that is) "vision" on the world--you better represent itself a shining example of prosperity and liberty and have enough military wherewithal to support it. Through its "globalization" the United States became neither. This could have happened already in Serbia in 1999, albeit the bluff was already partially called there. Yet, as in the months leading to WW II, when Yugoslav resistance delayed Barbarossa, Serb sacrifice in 1999 allowed for Russia to wake up. We all know what happened next: 080808, Crimea, Syria and here we are today--do they have a "strategy", other than their BS and propaganda in lap dog media, to do anything other than impose more and more sanction which, in Russia's case, are a very positive economic factor. American elites do not know how to govern, let alone how to fight a real war with real enemy, and if 21 years ago Yugoslavia's tragedy served as a warning, which was heeded, today the only concern with these same ol' incompetent (other than how to swindle everyone) cretins is similar to a feeling one experiences while looking at a monkey with a grenade. They are NO GOOD in anything, all of them from civilians to military, and it took a little bit of time (20 years in historic time is an instant) to understand that. In fact, global fragmentation happens as I type it and combined West and its globalist "elites" have to be surrounded by the cultural cordon sanitaire, maybe even a physical one, as it is done to burning dumpsters.   

In related news, which also explains somewhat why Russia is in no rush to build very large surface combatants. This piece of news:

The Navy on Thursday awarded a much-anticipated $795 million contract to a Wisconsin-based shipbuilder to begin production on the first of the service's next-generation small-surface combatants. Fincantieri Marinette Marine won the contract to design and build the first of the new guided-missile frigates. The contract also includes plans for up to nine more ships from the firm -- a deal that's ultimately worth more than $5.5 billion. "The frigate will be an agile multi-mission warship," James Geurts, the assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, told reporters after the announcement. "They'll operate in all environments and will be more lethal, survivable and have increased self-defense and local-area defense capability and capacity over previous small-surface combatants."

In the end, it came down to European (Italian) concept (FREMM) of frigates. The main question, however, remains--what will those frigates carry as anti-shipping weapons if they want to really fight. Naval Strike Missile, LRASM? As long as the US Navy's anti-shipping weapons remain subsonic they present very little real threat to modern navies armed with capable AD complexes and long range high supersonic, not to speak of hypersonic, anti-shipping weapons. But yes, all that looks good for "investors". 

Is There Anybody (Else) Out There? (c)

By now we have to learn one simple fact, which, evidently neither Daniel Larison (for all his valiant effort) nor Andrew Bacevich understand, when they call out warmongers in present American media-political establishment. Most of them are warmongers, including in Congress, and this can not be changed. Sure, I get it and I respect Bacevich, but what is the point when he singles out yet another political "scientist" turned journo calling for war on Iran? 

The teaser for a recent Bret Stephens column in The New York Times accurately summarizes its contents: “If Iran won’t change its behavior we should sink its navy.” We’ve done it before and, by golly, we can do it again. Stephens offers his readers this sanitized version of history to make his case: “On April 14, 1988, the U.S.S. Samuel B. Roberts, a frigate, hit an Iranian naval mine while sailing in the Persian Gulf. The explosion injured 10 of her crew and nearly sank the ship. Four days later, the U.S. Navy destroyed half the Iranian fleet in a matter of hours. Iran did not molest the Navy or international shipping for many years thereafter.” Stripped bare of context, that paragraph is factually correct. But stripping it of context, as Stephens does, transforms it into a form of untruth, not a blatant lie perhaps, but an exercise in sleight of hand. Indeed, the very purpose of his column is not to enlighten, but to deceive and manipulate.

I have news for Bacevich (I am sure he knows it)--there is NO context in US history of 20th and, especially, 21st century. There never was--did Andrew Bacevich look at the American historiography, bar some few superb exceptions of note such as Glantz and House, of World War Two lately? A DEFINING feature of an American political class and punditry, apart from utter lack of professionalism, is an astounding ability to exist in causality-free world. The fact that cause precedes the effect is a concept many American pundits may find intolerable.

Enter this comparative politics educated political philosopher Stephens--what can possibly this neocon boy write about other than some delusional BS on US "foreign policy", which long ago became the foreign policy by and for Israel. Apart from having zero tools required for any competent opinion of foreign policy, the way it is formed and conducted by competent people, including this tricky teeny-weeny military part, what can possibly neocon shill from New York write? I long ago stated, that you cannot argue with these people--they exist in their fake universe and are not configured to argue as in using knowledge and reason--they have neither. Most of them are humanities "educated" journos with zero military-academic and operational experiences who live off NYC media-Parnassus and Israeli interest groups in US. No, arguing, debating them is useless. The only way to deal with them is to do what they only can do, in the breaks between writing their sophomoric crap on US "foreign policy", personal (sophisticated) attacks. Most of them are cowards who wouldn't enlist to fight, nor will their children. None of them have any clue nor credentials (this is important) to competently speak on any tactical, operational or strategic issue. In the end, they have no clue about weapons. 

Pointing this out, as did Phil Giraldi in 2011:

“Neoconservatives are characteristically better versed in reading and writing about battles than actually fighting them, though that deficiency has not inhibited their initiation of vast schemes to remake half the world through force of arms.”

Statecraft, especially military craft today, is the realm for truly gifted and exquisitely educated, cultured and experienced--what could possibly some second-rate journo from totally discredited and corrupt US establishment media offer of value on the issue of war remains a puzzle. Until these warmongers and ignoramuses begin to be called for what they are--people who must have their mouths shut on any American war due to them being utterly unqualified, until all their "educational" credentials be exposed for what they are--useless concoction of a humanities' abstracts and glorified English degrees, until they are called out as Israeli shills and until they are forced into debate, which they will lose, on actual military art--until then these SOBs will continue to act as people whose useless opinions matter. But we also have to understand that this type of arrogance and ignorance is what dominates today corridors of US media-political power because it is a demand by the system. In the end, there is simply nobody else out there who could have seriously challenged this state of the affairs--the experience of the last 27 years provides an overwhelming empirical evidence of that. But that is the whole other story.