Today Is The Anniversary ...

 ... of dozen of European languages invading Russia in 1812. It was the largest army (how novel for Russians, not) in history at that time to invade Russia. Napoleon assembled all of Europe for that. Well, French excluded most of the battles from their so called "history" books (you know, frost, all those nasty Russians and Cossacks et al interfered with otherwise "brilliant" Napoleon), but reality is--it was a calamity of unimaginable scale (how traditional, eh). And it was at Borodino that Russians exorcised European spirit for pillage, theft and robbery for almost a century.   

And then, as you all know, came June 22, 1941. 

Let us imagine two men who have come out to fight a duel with rapiers according to all the rules of the art of fencing. The fencing has gone on for some time; suddenly one of the combatants, feeling himself wounded and understanding that the matter is no joke but concerns his life, throws down his rapier, and seizing the first cudgel that comes to hand begins to brandish it. Then let us imagine that the combatant who so sensibly employed the best and simplest means to attain his end was at the same time influenced by traditions of chivalry and, desiring to conceal the facts of the case, insisted that he had gained his victory with the rapier according to all the rules of art. One can imagine what confusion and obscurity would result from such an account of the duel.

The fencer who demanded a contest according to the rules of fencing was the French army; his opponent who threw away the rapier and snatched up the cudgel was the Russian people; those who try to explain the matter according to the rules of fencing are the historians who have described the event.

After the burning of Smolénsk a war began which did not follow any previous traditions of war. The burning of towns and villages, the retreats after battles, the blow dealt at Borodinó and the renewed retreat, the burning of Moscow, the capture of marauders, the seizure of transports, and the guerrilla war were all departures from the rules.

Napoleon felt this, and from the time he took up the correct fencing attitude in Moscow and instead of his opponent’s rapier saw a cudgel raised above his head, he did not cease to complain to Kutúzov and to the Emperor Alexander that the war was being carried on contrary to all the rules—as if there were any rules for killing people. In spite of the complaints of the French as to the nonobservance of the rules, in spite of the fact that to some highly placed Russians it seemed rather disgraceful to fight with a cudgel and they wanted to assume a pose en quarte or en tierce according to all the rules, and to make an adroit thrust en prime, and so on—the cudgel of the people’s war was lifted with all its menacing and majestic strength, and without consulting anyone’s tastes or rules and regardless of anything else, it rose and fell with stupid simplicity, but consistently, and belabored the French till the whole invasion had perished.

And it is well for a people who do not—as the French did in 1813—salute according to all the rules of art, and, presenting the hilt of their rapier gracefully and politely, hand it to their magnanimous conqueror, but at the moment of trial, without asking what rules others have adopted in similar cases, simply and easily pick up the first cudgel that comes to hand and strike with it till the feeling of resentment and revenge in their soul yields to a feeling of contempt and compassion.

Fucking illiterate idiots with fake credentials who teach the so called "strategy" in the US (Western in general) military academies and war colleges still cannot resign themselves to a simple truth, that forces larger than them in intellect and resources are at play here and that they have no clue about what they are dealing with. 

P.S. What's the deal with this June thing, hm? I guess they love solid roads in Russia. I always said--I don't like this whole highway system in Russia, wink, wink;) 

P.P.S. I reiterate, Tolstoy doesn't say "And it is well", he says "И Благо тому народу"--And Blessed are the people. 

There Is Very Little Intelligence In House Intelligence Committee.

Especially when we are talking about its chair Adam Schiff who in normal country would have been removed and prosecuted for his role in Russiagate. I know, I know, he is still hard at work trying to finish his "investigation" into Russia "subverting" US democracy. 

Russia is “very likely” to invade Ukraine and might only be deterred by “enormous sanctions”, the chair of the US House intelligence committee said on Sunday. Adam Schiff also said an invasion could backfire on Moscow, by drawing more countries into the NATO military alliance. “I also think that a powerful deterrent is the understanding that if they do invade, it is going to bring NATO closer to Russia, not push it farther away,” he said.

It is obvious by now that US politicking is conducted only in PR space and for the "benefit" of the gullible public, especially when dealing with foreign relations, but in case of Adam Schiff there is no denial that his only claim to anything related to "intelligence" is his persecution of some FBI guy, or, following famous layman's analogy--he understands music because his father was a piano mover. In other words, apart from useless degree in political "science" and him, more useful, being a lawyer, Adam Schiff wouldn't know the difference between, as I often say, LGBT and BTG. So, at this stage he is nothing more than a purveyor of the rumors and a peddler of utter strategic and operational BS for the benefit of a larger agenda rooted in partizan politics in D.C. and which has no relation to the actual national interest of the United States nor the majority of the Americans. 

In other words, apart from being a person of a lowest moral character, a fanatical neocon, he is also a pathological liar, which factors greatly in his "character". While Schiff's traits are the dominant traits of America's elites as a whole and I am on record that many of those people are sociopaths and some are outright psychopaths. So, this creature now "expects" Russia "invading" Ukraine. Under the "very likely" (rings the bell?) term it means that, if to assume that he, indeed, conveys some rumors percolating inside the US "intelligence community",  I have to admit that there is very little intelligence in this community. Judging by the "stellar" results of actions of this "community" ranging from Iraq, to Afghanistan to Syria, among many other places, one has to start questioning not just competence, of which is very little there, but sanity of people who continue to destroy the country. Adam Schiff is an Exhibit A of a complete degeneration in human and professional terms of the American political class.

But in the end, the United States is so desperate to both unload 404 on Russia and use any pretext to unleash "sanction of death", which for Russia will be nothing more than temporary inconvenience at the worst, that any means are used to make Russia invade the territory Russia has no use for nor desire to take on her balance. At least not now, or in a foreseeable future. In related news:

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is hoping to turn a page in relations with Moscow, and expects to meet with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin by the end of the month, according to a report from Berlin's top tabloid. On Monday, Bild claimed that Scholz sees relations with Moscow as a top-tier foreign affairs priority in spite of calls from some members of his governing coalition for a more confrontational approach to Russia. The newspaper said that the 63-year-old is aiming for a "qualified fresh start." However, Berlin has officially yet to confirm any top-level meeting of this type, with the German Embassy in Moscow also unable to verify the report. What is known, however, is that the chancellor’s foreign policy adviser will meet his Russian and French counterparts this week. Scholz’s reported attempts at a new détente with Moscow may prove unpopular with his coalition partners, particularly the Green party, which is strongly pro-US/NATO and hostile to Russia. Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and Economy Minister Robert Habeck are known to want Berlin to adopt a more hardline anti-Russian stance.

My personal opinion is that the new Germany's government is nonfunctional from the outset and some people in it are downright insane and utterly incompetent, but that is the trend across the whole combined West and it is very pronounced. 

P.S. I am currently sick as a dog, initial thought was that it is Covid, but my daughter tested negative twice. I think it is a very nasty cold and today I felt slightly better to type this post. 

I Am Always Fascinated.

When American "diplomats" begin to wax all strategic and come up with bizarre statements like Doug Bandow's last one in his piece in TAC re: Iran. 

The U.S. would win any full-scale conflict, but Tehran has demonstrated its ability to wage asymmetric warfare, including rocket attacks on American bases, proxy assaults on personnel stationed in Iraq and Syria, drone attacks on Saudi oil facilities, and missile and small ship threats against U.S. vessels. The Islamic Republic also could increase aid to the Taliban, which Tehran originally opposed before Washington laid economic siege to Iran.

Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire. He also is a graduate of Stanford Law School and a member of the California and D.C. bars. While Bandow's background speaks volumes I still am interested in how he views such "full-scale" conflict with Tehran. What does he even mean by this "full-scale conflict." This is one of those cases where one is forced to dissect every word in context to even begin to grasp what was meant to be said. What is, in the end, "asymmetric warfare" in the context of "full scale conflict" between the United States and Iran. 

Behind this Bandow's errand statement loaded with exceptionalist fervor one can see the ghost of Desert Storm, which took a half-year to prepare under the most favorable political, geographic and military conditions, which saw a demolition of the weak badly trained Iraqi Army by a dramatically superior force. As Anthony Cordesman noted: 

Future enemies are not likely to wait for the U.S. and other states to deploy their power projection forces, and there is a clear need to develop better forms of strategic mobility, prepositioning, and interoperability. Iraq did not exploit the limits in Western capability to rapidly deploy power projection forces, but there is no question that several months elapsed before the U.S. could deploy sufficient heavy land forces to ensure the forward defense of Saudi Arabia, and several more months elapsed before the U.S. could deploy large enough land forces to liberate Kuwait. 

But Bandow, obviously, is not interested in those puny operational details such as Iran, unlike Iraq, preparing for the conflict with the United States for decades and developing military stand-off capability which allows not only to keep every single US base in the region in the cross-hair but also dramatically interrupt any deployment of "projection force" into the region. To fight Iran and "win", that is toppling Tehran regime by means of taking Tehran and disabling Iran's Armed Forces, requires a force which must be capable of dealing with this beaten to death cliche of "asymmetry" and here we all run into a slight problem, politely speaking. Or, rather, problems. 

1. Colonel Wilkerson was pretty explicit in admitting that the only viable, and disastrous, military option is to "bomb Iran" and try to stay the hell away from any land operation. Considering Iran's terrain and size one can only speculate what level of losses US Army would sustain in trying to take Tehran in a combined arms operation; 

2. I already singled out this factor before, I will reiterate: as rumor has it, Iran's ballistic missiles, not just a variety of anti-shipping missiles, have a capability to hit moving targets and that changes logistics completely for any invading force;

3. Finally, the number of land attack missiles in US arsenal is finite to "repeat" an impact of SEAD against one of the four countries in the world which actually produces own versions of long-range AD complexes. Yes, Russia, US, China and... Iran. 

I, of course, omit here the issue of counter-insurgency in case we assume (hard to do) that somehow US is able to assemble and properly deploy force capable of "defeating" Iran. In the country with mostly young population of 80+ million--good luck with that. Mountains of Mazandaran, Ardabil or East Azerbaijan are so lovely in the spring. But beyond these few points, I still have a question which eclipses all of them--can Mr. Bandow present to anyone at least SOME record of successful US operations against determined and even mildly competent opposition on land? Grenada? Sure. There is a famous proverb in Caucasus--no matter how many times one repeats the word halva, it is not going to get sweeter in one's mouth. Non stop mantras, about US military power, by people who never served a day in the armed forces nor faced tactical and operational realities in any battle "domain", in my opinion, are psychological defense mechanisms against grim reality of a numerous US military failures in the last two decades. It is especially true for people who have "humanities" civilian background and have no business expressing their opinions on modern warfare, which requires a little bit more to grasp than degree in law or media career, as an example.