Some People Misunderstood My Latest Video...

My latest video was not just about this BSer Mr. Blinkov. 

If you look at the intro to this video it merely refers to military "analysts" from UTube. Blinkov, who some people say is Croatian gamer, and his pseudo-military BS were used merely as a vehicle to address a larger problem of militant incompetence permeating public space. It is not just about Blinkov, but also about all those Podolyakas, Rozhins (aka "Colonel" Cassad), a bunch of other "pro-Russian" or "anti-Russian" analysts. The issue is much larger than some ignoramus who learned a few big military words beginning to "analyze" something which they cannot possibly understand without at least basic intro into operational and strategic level thinking. Even "tactically" they are lacking. So, I decided to address the issue in general. 

Now, in a more important news, after the meeting with State Duma leaders on July 7, which officially was primarily about upcoming elections, Putin reiterated now well known position:

Today we hear that they want to defeat us on the battlefield. Well, what can I say? Let them try. We have already heard a lot about the West wanting to fight us ”to the last Ukrainian.“ This is a tragedy for the Ukrainian people, but that seems to be where it is going. But everyone should know that, by and large, we have not started anything in earnest yet. At the same time, we are not rejecting peace talks, but those who are rejecting them should know that the longer it goes on, the harder it will be for them to negotiate with us.

It is more than position, it is Russia's MO for the last 15 years and it is the one in which every next offer from Russia will always be much worse for those who didn't accept the previous one. Putin also, implicitly--highlighted in yellow--confirmed what Alexander spoke about yesterday at our Roundtable with Gonzalo, Larry and me: Russia most likely will make an "offer" which will be rejected by the West and its puppet in Kiev and that will be the end of Ukrainian State as we knew it. In related news, UK defense establishment continues to parade themselves as clowns and toy soldiers. 

Russia has lost more than 30% of its land combat effectiveness in Ukraine, but military issues won't prompt regime change in the invading country, Britain's top military official said Sunday. Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, chief of defense staff, dismissed any suggestion that Russian President Vladimir Putin could be toppled or assassinated as "wishful thinking." But  Ukraine's spirited defense, aided by NATO weaponry, has set back Russian plans for swift victory, he said. “What that actually means is 50,000 Russian soldiers that have either died or been injured in this conflict," Radakin told the BBC. "Nearly 1,700 Russian tanks destroyed, nearly 4,000 armored fighting vehicles that belong to Russia destroyed.” Still, Putin's regime is viewed as stable and the Russian president continues to easily quash opposition, Radakin said. Russia's hierarchy is "invested" in Putin, he said, removing the motivation to challenge his authority.

Looks like Sir Radakin didn't really study anything related to actual warfare at all. Indeed, here is CV from WiKi. 

Radakin was born on 10 November 1965 in Oldham, Lancashire, England. He was educated at state schools and St. Brendan's Sixth Form College in Bristol.  Radakin studied law at the University of Southampton, and was sponsored through university by the Royal Navy, graduating with a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree in 1989. He continued his legal career alongside his naval service, and qualified as a barrister and was called to the Bar from the Middle Temple in 1996. He later studied international relations and defence studies at King's College London, completing a Master of Arts (MA) degree in 2000.

I really don't know what they really study in UK in those "defense studies" at King's College, but there is very little doubt in the manifest ongoing degeneracy of Western elites and educational institutions which "prepare" them. Western militaries are not an exception, as fantasies by this Royal Navy Admiral testify to. To a great credit to Scott Ritter he penned a good piece precisely about a complete, not just decline, but collapse of the UK as a military power and Ritter writes:

Even as Johnson proffered the proverbial hand of assistance to his newfound Nordic allies, the UK Ministry of Defense was wrestling with planned force reductions that would see the British Army cut from its current “established strength” of 82,000 to 72,500 by 2025 (the actual strength of the British Army is around 76,500, reflecting ongoing difficulties in recruitment and retention.) Even these numbers are misleading – the British Army is only capable of generating one fully combat-ready maneuver brigade (3,500 to 4,000 men with all the necessary equipment and support). Given the reality that the UK is already on the hook for a reinforced battalion-sized “battlegroup” that is to be deployed to Estonia as part of NATO’s so-called enhanced Forward Presence (eFP) posture (joining three other similarly-sized “battlegroups” fielded by the US in Poland, Germany in Lithuania, and Canada in Latvia), it is questionable whether the British could even accomplish this limited task.  

The sorry state of the UK as a whole, as a nation, does not translate to merely ground forces. The state of Royal Navy and Air Force is also nothing to be proud of. Royal Navy's only real fighting force, its submarines--any NATO surface ship is a sitting duck in a real war--are also dependent on the US weapons and for British SSBNs the number of the warheads they carry continues to dwindle since 2010:

We will retain and renew our independent nuclear deterrent – the United Kingdom’s ultimate insurance policy in this age of uncertainty. As a result of our value for money review, we will reduce the number of operational launch tubes on the submarines from 12 to eight, and the number of warheads from 48 to 40, in line with our commitment vigorously to pursue multilateral global disarmament.  

Now, the total number of MIRVs carried by RN's SSBN fleet will be somewhere round 120 plus MIRVs and no more than 160. BoJo wanted to raise the cap to 200. Right. Good luck with that. To take things in perspective, UK's most important and existential enemy, Russia that is, deploys 5 newest state-of-the-art Borei-class SSBNs, one is outfitting, and four more are under construction. With a single Borei-M (pr. 955A) capable of carrying 160 MIRVs in their always fully armed 16 tubes (20 on the lead ship of the series). This is not counting six active good ol' Delta IV (pr. 667BDRM) SSBNs each capable to carry between 4 to 10 MIRVs in each of their 16 tubes. So, at full load 6 of those Delta IVs pack a salvo of 960 MIRVs. So, to put it in perspective, a single Delta IV or a single Borei SSBN carries as much fire-power as the whole of Royal Navy's fleet of SSBNs. And I am not going to go into multi-purpose submarine fleet, because RN's 5 nukes (four of them of Astute-class) barely register against the background of Russia's multi-purpose submarine fleet, even when considering its dispersal among four fleets of the Russian Navy. And these are just naval forces.

So, in this case I agree with Ritter when he concludes: 

Given what we now know about the reality of modern warfare, courtesy of the ongoing Russian operation in Ukraine, the British battlegroup would have a life expectancy on an actual European battlefield of less than a week. So, too, would its allies in the Estonian 2nd Infantry Brigade. First and foremost, the units lack any sustainability, both in terms of personnel and equipment losses that could be anticipated if subjected to combat, or the basic logistical support necessary to shoot, move, or communicate on the modern battlefield. Artillery is the king of battle, and the British and Estonians are lacking when it comes to generating anywhere near enough tubes to counter the overwhelming fire support expected to be generated by any hostile Russian force.

Stoltenberg’s hypothetical 300,000-strong Response Force envisions the existing battlegroups to be expanded to brigade-sized formations, ironically tasking the British to generate more combat power at a time when it is actively seeking to reduce its overall manpower levels. While the British may be able to scrape enough substance from the bottom of the barrel, so to speak, to accomplish this projected reinforcement, there would literally be nothing left to back up Boris Johnson’s bold offer of substantive military assistance to Sweden and Finland, leaving the British prime minister looking more like the captain of the Titanic after it hit the iceberg, issuing directives and acting as if his words had any impact, all while his ship is sinking.

But Russia is not responsible for a professional incompetence of British elites across the board, military included, nor for UK being incapable to resign itself to the position of a second-third tier state with a joke of an economy and military and Russia is not responsible for all that--United Kingdom did it to itself completely on its own and I can only quote a truly great Briton. 

As Adam Smith, the founder of liberal economics, put in 1776:"By pursuing his own interest (an individual) frequently promotes that of society the more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." It was Adam Smith who formulated the doctrine of Free Trade, the keystone of liberalism, which was to exercise a long-lived and as baneful effect on British power as Wesley and Whitefield's preaching. Adam Smith attacked the traditional "mercantilist" belief that a nation should be generally self-supporting.... According to liberal thinking, a nation was no more than so many human atoms who happened to live under the same set of laws... 

Couldn't have said it better. After all, read Putin's speech to Duma leaders, he speaks about liberal totalitarianism.

P.S. I loved the title of Ritter's article;)

More Clarification On "Realism", Plus Larry Is Being Sarcastic.

In continuation of this whole discussion on American "realism", my suggestion for many to go here, the preview of my second book on Amazon, and read attentively in the available part of the first chapter WHY so much discussion about Mearsheimer and American "realists". I make on those pages a case about "liberal" view of history and geopolitics as not valid. 

In related news, Larry went full sarcastic and acerbic yesterday, reacting to the stream of statements by officials of mighty British Empire on how they are going to defeat Russia. 

Dear President Putin:

I write with the greatest of respect and sorrow to inform you that your gamble in Ukraine has failed and you have lost a strategic battle. How do I know? Well, UK Admiral Tony Radakin, the head of the UK’s Armed Services says so. Here is what he said:

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin said Russia was suffering heavy losses, running out of troops and advanced missiles and would never be able to take over all of Ukraine. “This is a dreadful mistake by Russia. Russia will never take control of Ukraine,” Tony Radakin told PA Media in an interview published on Friday. The country’s highest-ranking military officer said the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, had lost 25% of Russia’s land power for only “tiny” gains and it would emerge a “more diminished power” while strengthening Nato. . . .“The Russian machine is grinding away, and it’s gaining a couple of – two, three, five – kilometres every day,” the admiral said. “And Russia has vulnerabilities because it’s running out of people, it’s running out of hi-tech missiles. “President Putin has used about 25% of his army’s power to gain a tiny amount of territory and 50,000 people either dead or injured. Russia is failing.”

If Admiral Tony says it is true you can take it to the bank. I mean, who can deny the British victory at Dunkirk and their smashing successes in quelling the natives in India, Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to be presumptive Mr. Putin, but when Russia comes to grip with the mighty military prowess of the United Kingdom, I can understand why you will quiver in your snow boots.

Read the whole thing at Larry's blog, it is excellent. But that does bring forth the question of mental adequacy of British military top brass, since, obviously, they are not only going through the stages of Kubler-Ross, but, evidently, do not know basic operational facts and truisms about losses. In other words, they fully confirm my assertion that they are good only for fighting in PR area and, but then again, it is MI6's field, killing innocent people and cats for the sake of provocations.

On The Run. I Got Beaten To It.

For years I wrote about the so called American "conservatism" in a sense that it is nothing more than a simulacrum, a hologram to be presented to generally decent but grossly mis-educated segment of America which votes for GOP thinking that it is a "conservative" party. Two years ago I wrote:

...until nation, as in American nation, recognizes itself as a nation, as people who have common history, culture and mission, thus, inevitably producing this aforementioned healthy social and cultural norming--no amount of wishful thinking or social-economic doctrine-mongering will help. There is no United States without European-keen, white Christian, heterosexual folk, both with acutely developed sense of both masculinity and femininity, period. But this is precisely the state of the affairs which American "progressives" are fighting against; this is the state of the affairs which they must destroy be that by imposition of suffocating political correctness, the insanity of multi-gender and LGBT totalitarianism, or by criminal opening of the borders to anyone, who, in the end, will vote for the Democratic Party. You cannot negotiate with such people. In the end, WHO is going to negotiate? A cowardly, utterly corrupt, current GOPers and geriatric remnants of Holy Reaganites? Really? Ask how many of them are Mossad assets and are in the pockets of rich Israeli-firsters and Gulfies? 

Even earlier, more than six years ago I identified the problem:

Looking with sadness (I love Western culture, the real one, I am a part of it myself) at modern Western cloaca of multiculturalism and moral decadence one cannot fail to notice that values, which, once great, civilization represented, remained intact in Russia and those values are the ones which made the West and great culture it produced. It is also clear that those values are what today will be defined as truly conservative values--not to mistake for American faux-conservatism of neocon and evangelicals' variety.

Since then, I write about a caricature, which American "conservatism" is, non-stop. I acquainted myself with a large body, mostly contrived and of low intellectual value, of modern American conservative "thought" and I could not find there anything conservative because most of this "thought" is anything BUT conservative. It is a classical neo-liberal BS whose ONLY purpose is to protect economic status quo of American corporatism (a euphemism for oligarchy) and most GOPers will shit their pants when asked to define what core of the American nation is, how it is formed and what is to be done to preserve, to conserve that is, this nation which, in the end, comes down to preservation of people as bearers of the culture. Average American "conservative" scholar's idea of preservation of culture is reduced to fighting "big government" and "taxes" of "working Americans", who, strangely, are doing just fine under the present ones. Obviously, the other MUST for the US conservative is Christian (that is, pseudo Christian) Zionism and militant neo-conservatism, which defines primarily insane foreign policy views of US "conservatives" and has become an imperative for any GOPer in order to advance inside convoluted American political establishment. 

Somebody begins to notice that, such as Michael Warren Davies, who beat me to writing a book on US "conservatism" and posted this in TAC yesterday: 

At this very moment, all across the country, a hundred thousand tongues are wagging about the state of the conservative movement. I’m sorry to say, they wag in vain. There is no conservative movement in America. There never has been, and I doubt there ever will be. Of course, there are folks who call themselves conservatives, and some even do a passable impression. But whether or not they’re really conservatives, they’re certainly not a movement. I’d say that movement is the thing we want most from conservatives, and the last thing we’re likely to get.

Ah, yes, this is warmer. Hey, at least he admits there never was a movement--that's a good start. I have a news for him--there are very few conservatives too. Because to have a conservative movement you need to define nation, which GOP cannot (too many cowards dependent on re-elections), neither can its "academe" which will never state that remove American primarily white (European roots) working class, which GOP loves to betray, and you have no country. Of course, there many African-Americans  and Hispanic people who share large portions of classic Christian creed and want to be associated with cultural and economic heritage of the Western Civilization and accept European pillar of the modern America's founding. Many do understand that, sadly--many don't. Democrats attack precisely this point and succeed immensely, doing so. What the so called American "conservatives" do?  Davies notes:

No, I’m afraid those who fear an imminent right-wing coup give us too much credit. Watching Fox News, posting Ben Shapiro quotes on Facebook, and casting the occasional ballot: that’s pretty much the extent of our activism. And that, if you’re wondering, is why conservatives always lose. It’s why we’ll go on losing until the last Bible-thumping, MAGA-hatted redneck in Georgia dyes his hair blue, cuts off his penis, and starts calling himself Cheryl. We deserve to lose. And, when we do, we’ll have no one to blame but ourselves.

Ahhh, finally! Catharsis! For starters, counting fundamentalist Zionist and demagogue Ben Shapiro for American "conservative" is risible, his first concern is Israel and Judaism. But then again, only in American "conservative" circles can a guy who dedicated his life to promoting gay-marriage and posting ads for unprotected sex with HIV-positive men, could be considered "conservative". I am talking about Andrew Sullivan, of course, who, as most modern Western political "thinkers" from "humanities" universe, know many people who invented a lot of nonsensical philosophical and political theories and quote them, but who wouldn't know the difference between metrology and meteorology, or, for that matter, between shit and shinola. 

But at least Davies gets this, finally, and I will interpret it for everyone: America is a post-Christian country, period! Stop, God damn, getting around quoting Bible to people who long ago think in a completely different framework and do not give a shit about, nor know intricacies of geopolitics, real economy, foreign relations, culture, religions and war. They are the products of an utterly failed humanities "education" field in the West taught by radical and ignorant Ph.D. demagogues who still try to relive the 1960s in the breaks between taking Cialis and smoking pot, and who know for sure one large thing in a Hedgehog tradition: we will sooner see actual Alien contact than Second Coming of Christ. Sadly, they are not wrong on this one. It is difficult to take evangelical biblical invocations seriously in times of space travel, nuclear energy, internet and the discovery of Higgs boson and black holes three billion light years away from Solar System. And guess what, those intellectual freeloaders have a good time demolishing this whole American "conservative" mini-universe, together with morality and normality which is defined not by Bible but a sociocentric human instinct uploaded to us by tens thousand years of human civilization in an effort to provide for the survival of the species. Go, try to preach this to any "conservative" evangelical church in the US. See what happens. And then, of course, there is economy and production of wealth.

How do you deal with this? Right, Wall Street--this is what American "conservatives" love. They love their stock options and thoughts of getting to heaven because they attend services every Sunday morning to affirm own self-righteousness. Obviously, epiphanies, such as the one which Marco Rubio experienced recently (I write extensively about it in my latest book) when discovered that most Americans don't share his exceptionalist view of America and, frankly, needed actual jobs which GOP played active role in shipping abroad, are rare. Any culture war which "conservatives" lose non-stop is meaningless when you are the one who sold your country to a highest, or, rather lowest, bidder. Now, go out and try to convince those people, those "deplorables", that you have their best interests in your mind. How do you start to prove it to them? By continuing shipping jobs overseas, by fighting wars for Israel or Gulfie satrapies, or by regime changing all over the globe while your people stand for hours in lines to food banks? You will lose it, again, as always and the reason for that is because you don't fight. That is American "conservatism", and it cannot be anything else, because it is a viable instrument in preserving the iron grip of American oligarchy on America's throat.

These are American GOPers and "conservatives" who are responsible for a strategic loss to the insane forces of America's liberal radicalism which are finishing country off as I type it, and these "conservatives" will never turn to actual problems of conservatism, because they are themselves nothing more than impediment to a conservatism which is based on fundamental principle once expressed by Russian genius, Mikhail Lomonosov--preservation of people. American so called conservatives cannot do that, because they are original liberals, they are representatives of ideology which, as brilliant Barnett, stated:

 … swift decline in British vigor at home and the failure to exploit the empire were not owing to some inevitable senescent process of history....That cause was a political doctrine.... The doctrine was liberalism, which criticized and finally demolished the traditional conception of the nation-state as a collective organism, a community, and asserted instead the primacy of individual. According to liberal thinking a nation was no more than so many human atoms who happened to live under the same set of laws.... It was Adam Smith who formulated the doctrine of Free Trade, the keystone of liberalism, which was to exercise a long-live and baneful effect on British power.... Adam Smith attacked the traditional “mercantilist” belief that a nation should be generally self-supporting. 

Expecting from American "conservatives" any real attempts, let alone sacrifices, to save the country is akin to putting the fox in charge of the security of a chicken coop in the evening expecting the morning number of chickens to be the same. You just cannot change the nature of the beast. Some thoughts on the run after reading the piece in TAC. Can you imagine Mitch McConnel with a sign "stop robbing the nation" in a front of the Wall Street. Of course you can't, neither can I. 

Good Ol' Henry.

Dillon yesterday (thank you) dropped the link to Henry Kissinger's article in Wall Street Journal where Kissinger waxes geopolitical. For some reason Kissinger has reputation in US as a geopolitical thinker of scale, but then again Francis Fukuyama and Zbigniew Brzezinski also have the same reputation, which, in its turn, is an affront to the term "reputation", not to speak of the modern geopolitics as a combination of a broad spectrum of knowledge ranging from history, economics, international relations, geography, military, industry, technological development and some other funny things like theory of probability and other strictly math-physics related issues. We, of course, can all remember, among his achievements, his brilliant idea of "opening China" which resulted in the long run in stripping the US of its industrial might. In general, long term thinking is not a strong point among American geopolitical "thinkers" and Kissinger is an exhibit A of such a trait. Yet, good ol' 96 year old Henry, in his WSJ's piece on Covid-19 arrives to a funny conclusion:

The world’s democracies need to defend and sustain their Enlightenment values. A global retreat from balancing power with legitimacy will cause the social contract to disintegrate both domestically and internationally.

After I stopped laughing, I formulated a question: what ARE those Enlightenment values as Kissinger understands them? Last time I checked the main Enlightenment "value" which made combined West great was a rational thought. Everything else follows from it, including such a simulacra as man's freedom (whatever freedom is in each given historic age). The rest is up for never-ending philosophical debate on what those "values" truly are.  And here is the problem--modern West lost its ability to think and act rationally long time ago. In fact, Kissinger should know this very well--he was and still is in the midst of the decision making kitchen in the West which begins to increasingly look and feel like a psychiatric ward populated with people very many of who suffer from acute cases of sociopathic decease, while some are down right open psychopaths incapable of rational thought and even basic reasoning in principle. If Kissinger thinks that figures of Merkel, W, Obama, Mike Pompeo or Trump are representative of "Enlightenment values" then we certainly think about very different "values". 

But the next Kissinger's statement is altogether a wowser:    

Third, safeguard the principles of the liberal world order.  

My question is: did Kissinger actually study the history of "liberalism" and what it did both to the combined West and the world as a whole? This is what I wrote a year ago in my latest book:

Liberalism, in its different contemporary manifestations, such as globalist capitalism, also known as globalization, has a “stellar” record of using threats as a primary tool in international relations. Globalism is aggressive for a number of reasons ranging from purely economic interests to convictions of cultural superiority. These form a ballast for what goes on to become military aggression, easily resorted to because of the often complete inability to understand the practice (what really happens during warfare) and the consequences of the application of military power (what really happens as a result of that trauma and destruction) and accordingly an appreciation of how to achieve a global military balance precluding war.... There is no good life without peace and liberalism is not capable of defining that as a key component of a good life, due to liberalism and its scholarship living in a complete delusion about the predatory intentions driving its own economic and military (often grossly exaggerated) capability.

Even earlier than that, three years ago, I wrote:

Where does this leave us all on the globe in general and in the US in particular? There is no denying that the economic decline both in relative and absolute terms is a fact of life for the United States and the order it came to embody. This order is a globalist liberal vision—America’s crisis is a crisis of liberalism and of global financial capitalism. The utopian modern liberal orthodoxy (a euphemism for free trade) remains based on money and profit as a measure of everything. This doesn’t work anymore.

But forget about me, I wrote it in the times when the going was good and it seemed that everything will be fine. Well, it wasn't fine then already, in fact--it never was. And then, the man of a scale much larger than Kissinger ever was, and a geopolitical thinker orders of magnitude larger than him, stated:

The liberal ideology that has underpinned Western democracy for decades is “obsolete,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said in an interview with the Financial Times published Friday.

So, Kissinger, using fuzzy platitudes doesn't want liberalism, or whatever passes today under this stupid term, as such to be preserved, he wants, behind this psychobabble of "geopolitical" doctrine-mongering, to preserve the world in which the United States is the only one force which sets up the rules. But this is this main issue with most American "geopolitical thinkers", Kissinger included--they still live in those halcyon days of America's self-proclaimed "exceptionalism" of early 1990s and they don't have required cognitive instruments to recognize the scale of the geopolitical balance's shift which happened since 2007. The world became much more complex and weapons evolved to the point of being unstoppable--a little fact they don't teach in political "science" courses. 

What will evolve in the aftermath of the Covid-19 and America's steady departure, due to both ideological and economic bankruptcy, from its self-anointed status of hegemon is a topic for a separate discussion, which will require non-stop application of the main Enlightenment Value of a rational thought and competent reasoning--the value long ago lost in deep dark recesses of the liberalism's mythology as an answer to humanity's real challenges in the XXI Century. The answer it is not and the emerging new world order may yet answer this challenge by creating a more just and more peaceful world, that task the combined West ultimately failed at.     

When Everything Points To...

What Senator Kennedy stated yesterday. 

You know, I am on record that for all my revulsion towards GOP, I consider Democratic Party to be clear and present danger to what's left of the Republic. And yes, I agree with Kennedy that the United States was founded by geniuses and now is run by a bunch of idiots. I am not alone in that, albeit I wrote two books on this issue and write for years about sheer incompetence of US "elites". 

Now Stephen Walt provides this:

A third pillar, however, is broad confidence in U.S. competence. When other countries recognize the United States’ strength, support its aims and believe U.S. officials know what they are doing, they are more likely to follow the United States’ lead. If they doubt its power, its wisdom, or its ability to act effectively, U.S. global influence inevitably erodes. This reaction is entirely understandable: If the United States’ leaders reveal themselves to be incompetent bunglers, why should foreign powers listen to their advice? Having a reputation for competence, in short, can be a critical force multiplier.

As Daniel Larison goes on to observe:

The U.S. has had the luxury of being able to bungle things for decades at relatively low cost to ourselves, but that time is coming to an end. Ever since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has been able to make some staggering blunders without significantly compromising its position in the world, but over time all of these blunders have had the cumulative effect of proving that U.S. “leadership” is neither stabilizing nor wise. 

Well, I am really pleased that someone reads my books, but, as was pointed out non-stop--a main formative geopolitical factor which creates crucial conditions for growing of competent national elites, Continental Warfare on a major scale, a conditioning by war that is, is an unknown entity for the United States. Sure, there was a Civil War which devastated primarily South but as I wrote:

Scales and proportions always mattered, still matter and will continue to matter a great deal, especially once warranted comparisons are made. One of the pivotal moments of the American Civil War was Sherman’s burning of Atlanta, which at the time had a population of barely 9,500 inhabitants, that is more than 27 times smaller than Moscow of 1812.  Even Smolensk with its 1812 population of around 13,000, which saw a ferocious battle around it and was set on fire by French artillery, was still considerably larger. In the end, Russia’s population in 1812, which was around 35 million, matched roughly the American population of 1860 which was 31.5 million. Yet, the difference couldn’t be starker—Napoleon attacked Russia with what then was the largest military force in history, which represented much of Western and Eastern Europe. Napoleon’s Grande Armee, which numbered 685,000 troops, had under its banners French, Saxons, Poles, Prussians, Italians, or what Tolstoy called a “force of a dozen European languages or nations.”     

Until things are put into proper context and scale, one will not stop failing in explaining why the United States finds itself today in the state of being de facto ungovernable and with its "elites" which increasingly become the laughing stock around the globe. Larison arrives to this conclusion:

Because the U.S. has been able to get away with making such major blunders, there have not been enough demands for accountability for the policymakers who led the country into one failure after another. There has been no real penalty for costly incompetence, and so many of the same people that led us down the wrong path before are still in positions of influence and authority now. Trump’s election just accelerated the process by putting grossly unqualified yes-men into top positions in government to serve an even more unqualified president. For most of the last twenty years, the U.S. has been poorly led. For at least twelve of those years, we have had presidents who knew nothing and didn’t care to learn more. Administrations that promote ideologues and disparage expertise are bound to be tripped up by obstacles that they fail to see, and they will drive the country into a ditch over and over again while congratulating themselves on their fine steering. 

Here, Larison describes the effect not the main cause--the main cause, and Larison, having a Ph.D in History, should know this is in the fact that US political elite as a whole was never shaped by the realities of Continental Warfare, unlike it is true for the rest of the word. North American Continent, due to it being a "World's Island" was simply spared the scale of a violence which shaped the modern world, including modern West, which carried the seeds of self-destruction inside itself the moment economic and ideological realities of post-WW II Europe became evident. It was, to a very large degree, a reaction, both intellectual and cultural to a life-changing wound sustained in WWII. United States didn't get wounded in WW II--it emerged as the only nation standing in the midst of the global ruin and profited greatly from that. What's not to like? Studs Terkel was correct--it was "The Good War" for America. And, inevitably, wrong lessons have been learned. This is what in the foundation of the American incompetence--wrong lessons, all around. The collapse of the Soviet Union reinforced already grossly distorted American view on history and on its own "liberal model". 

We thought the Cold War vindicated our political system. Instead it only began an age of illusions.

The reinforcement, due to a delusional view of the world and of itself, of American exceptionalism is in the foundation of the modern American incompetence. What Larison describes, including the lack of accountability for non-stop failures, is just the the method of further idiotization of the American "elites" (or government, or political class, what have you) and this process is unstoppable within existing American political, economic, educational, intellectual and cultural paradigm. It is a cold hard fact of life. It is also a fact of practical geopolitics and of the systemic crisis of liberalism. Covid-19? Just an excuse for the economic collapse which started long before the world even heard about this virus and forecasts of the American decline were made based on a much larger number of contributing factors than economy, or what passes for it at the Wall Street, alone.  

Stephen Walt may write whatever he wants on the American future:

Americans will need to rethink a political system that recruits and rewards those who are most adept at selling themselves to the highest bidder. And there has to be something seriously wrong with a political system that has devoted many months and spent billions of dollars preparing for the 2020 election and ends up giving the country a choice between three old white guys. For that matter, Americans ought to rethink whether spending a full year electing someone to a four year term makes any sense at all. No other advanced democracy does it this way. And while we’re at it, let’s scrap the absurd Electoral College, an indefensible relic that systematically disempowers voters in most of the country.

And I don't see anything wrong with "white guys", them being truly old, that is another thing. It is not about the race, it is about competence. Obama was a first black two-term POTUS and it will take some time before competent historians will write a work on a catastrophic impact on the United States Obama Administration had. But here is the problem, the well of the American statesmanship is dry, it was for some time now, because mechanism which produces real leaders is broken and it cannot be fixed without massive, fundamental changes to America's "way of life"--a change America is not ready to implement... yet. The operation is very serious and dangerous and may result in patient dying but without it, the patient is dead anyway.   

UPDATE: Just stumbled upon excellent piece by Paul Craig Roberts. Totally relevant to what is being discussed. 

The only solution for the economy is debt forgiveness for the ordinary people and nationalization for the companies. Trump indicated that aid might be given in the form of an equity stake, and later sell the government’s stake for a profit in a privatization when things return to normal. This would be a partial nationalization. Much better to go whole hog as it allows a cure for concentration and deregulation. The pandemic has made it clear that a society of self-seeking individuals is not a society. A society is a social system. A successful social system is one that can support its members. Once a self-sustaining social system exists, then there is a basis for people to branch out on their own. But without a sustainable social system, there can be nothing. 

A Short Note On Covid-19.

I encountered this issue yesterday, people asked me why I am not admitting that this is pandemic. Don't misinterpret me, I definitely trust WHO to know way better than mere mortal me, but here is my reasoning on being cautious:

If the same WHO wouldn't have stated initially (you can easily find that statement) that very many cases are asymptomatic and people may never, actually, know that they had been infected by Covid-19, or whatever the hell it is called, I would absolutely believed every single piece of information they issue. I, however, don't take it all uncritically because I know that the actual number of infected is considerably higher than registered cases so far (see the real time picture in the video above). Because of this and knowing how "reliable" statistics is, my position is as simple as a toilet--I am waiting for the full and processed information with high degree of reliability to be eventually made public and from there making any kinds of conclusions. This my position in NO WAY is indicative of my criticism of measures being taken to prevent the spread of the virus, far from it--I support such measures, but here is the deal: if to take current (right this moment) data, say for Germany with its 8,750 cases and 20 deaths, one may conclude that 20/8750 x 100=0.22% of deaths in Germany's case is not a reason for alarm, since it is definitely no higher than rates of deaths from seasonal flu. But let me give you even better example, from yesterday: 

Tragic consequences: 21-year-old Spanish football coach dies of coronavirus 

Scary, eh? Well, until you get to the subject matter and read this:

A 21-year-old Spanish football coach, Francisco Garcia, who suffered from leukemia, has died having tested positive for coronavirus.

Seriously? He had a leukemia, which is a blood cancer and which, as any cancer, kills immune system first. So, he died from coronavirus, right? You decide. But here is even more serious consideration. Everyone now screams: ahhh, economy is crumbling because of coronavirus. Well, the real collapse started, for those who observed closely, way before anything was known about coronavirus and panic hit the fan. "Markets" were shaky already in November-December last year when it became clear to anyone with IQ above room temperature that it was the matter of when, not if. And by "when" I mean not years, but weeks, couple of months at most. Recall this among many other opinions I posted. So, as is the case with most things I do--I wait for a reliable data to appear. So, is it coronavirus which kills global "economy"? No, it is systemic acute crisis of liberalism which kills it, coronavirus is merely one of the factors among too many other ones. It is just the proverbial straw which broke camel's back. After all, this panic with coronavirus somehow obscured huge issues of oil war, or some military-political developments which are in the foundation. The current "system" is unsustainable, it was for decades now accelerating towards own demise. 

France may nationalize major companies amid market meltdown, finance minister says 

This is exactly what Russia did starting from 2008 thus economically saving herself. I am, however, not sure about France. I am generally not sure about West, it financialized itself into oblivion and who knows what would it take to survive. So, my suggestion--wait for reliable data before jumping to conclusions, on anything. This is what I do most of the time and that served me fairly well, but, of course, it is just the matter of preferences. As for "stock market", it will continue to fall and let it do so--it is not an "economy". 

UPDATE: this is 09:35 same date PST. We have currently: 7,537 deaths out of "recorded" 199,122 cases globally. This is 3.94% mortality rate. But the main question remains unanswered: HOW MANY people with virus are not in this statistics? I am going out on a limb here and propose hundreds of thousands who already went through illness or are in the process and are not counted. Deaths are EASIER to count than infection cases, for obvious reasons. Thus I propose: deaths statistics is much more accurate than the overall count of cases of coronavirus. But this assumption will dramatically drive mortality rate down. Considering the fact that MOST cases pass either asymptomatically or as light cold (or flu)--make your own conclusions. This is 2018:

“I’d like to see more people get vaccinated,” Redfield told the AP at an event in New York. “We lost 80,000 people last year to the flu.”

Different Software.

Recall Vladislav Surkov's excellent piece on Russia being lonely and half-blooded nation couple of years ago. I think, this article was one of the most important geopolitical statement of the 21st century, so far. Akin to  Mackinder's The Geographical Pivot of History. Let's recall some Surkov's conclusions. 

Despite outward appearance of a similarity between Russian and European cultural models, they have different software and ports. These models cannot constitute a common system. Today, when this ancient suspicion turned into the obvious fact, new suggestions are beginning to be heard—why don't we rush to the other side, to Asia, to Orient. No, this is not necessary and here is why—Russia has been there already....   Our cultural and geopolitical affiliation is reminiscent of a wandering identity of a human born into the mixed wedlock.This human is a relative to everyone but is not dear to anyone either. He is his own among strangers, a stranger among his own. He understands everyone but is not understood by anyone. Half-blooded, metis, a very strange one. Russia is a Western-Eastern half-blooded country. With her two-headed statehood, hybrid mentality, intercontinental territory, bi-polar history, she, as it is predetermined for half-blooded, is charismatic, talented, beautiful and lonely.  

The discussion on Russia's civilizational affinity never stopped for centuries, but new emerging facts confirm Surkov's, albeit not his alone, his is just laid out in the best style, diagnosis being absolutely correct. I know it is not fair to many non-Russian speakers of this blog to post here yesterday's discussion on Solovyov's Show precisely on this matter because it is in Russian and I am not sure when Russia Insight will close caption this piece in English (hopefully) but Karen Shahnazarov's thoughts are important, even if I do not agree with them completely. 

The point is simple, new amendment to Russia's Constitution, which proclaims priority of Russian Laws over International Law is one among several indicators of Russia settling in her, desired by the overwhelming majority of Russians, "loneliness". But Karen, interestingly, arrives to a conclusion to which I arrived long time ago--China is not the main concern or enemy to the United States, it is Russia which is. I write about this for years. Karen also makes this important point--the United States is in the full departure mode, especially militarily, which determines the rest of it, but American "elites" are very slow in accepting this fact and many still reside in their "exceptionalist" bubble, not understanding that they are nothing more than an entertainment for those who, like viewers outside cages in the zoo, remain outside this bubble. Of course, the analogy of a violent patient in the psychiatric ward placed in the padded room while being observed through the small window in the door will be more apt at describing the situation, but it still has to account for a still very significant danger such a patient, if not restrained, represents for himself and those around him. 

So, what's the balance, so to speak, or the hand, using card games' term, Russia is dealt. What many in the West overlooked (not surprisingly), is the fact that the new Cold War finally ignited in the realm of essences: metaphysics and history. Putin's public rise, unprecedented throughout his term at the helm of Russia, in defense of Soviet/Russian WWII history and the role Soviet Union and the Red Army played in stopping Nazi evil created a stir, to put it mildly. And here is the deal: Poland and her version of WW II "history" (supplemented with Ukrainian "take" on it) which is gladly being disseminated in the West was shut down abruptly and in the most dramatic fashion. But Poland, let alone Ukraine, are merely America's lap dogs, granted with large and influential diasporas in the United States and Canada, such as one of their representatives from Canada, a granddaughter of Nazi collaborator, Canada's Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, not to mention Ukrainian American "hero" Lt.Colonel Vindman, who turned out to be one of the key figures (together with his brother) in the Ukrainegate affair having committed no less than a state treason. Now get this--this kind of people are not exceptions, they are the rule in the Western in general, and American in particular, "elites". They, quoting Mike Pompeo's definition of their MO (not just CIA's), will "lie, cheat, steal". This is what they do, this is how they live, they hate Russian guts by definition, because  world history unfolded in the last 80 years not to their liking. 

Historic Russia defeated combined West in 1945, it is also the WW II which spurred the United States' rise from the ashes of the two (not just one) Great Depressions to emerge as a superpower amidst the world which laid in ruins by the end of the WWII. The only thing which stood in the way of the United States' rule over the whole world was Soviet Union, today it is Russia. Russia's emergence of the superpower is also rooted in the WW II, but the path to superpowerdom was opposite to that of the United States--it was through enormous sacrifice while bearing the brunt of the war. This CAN NOT stand for the American "elites", because this removes the key component of the American mythology and, with it, a key tenet of the Western version of 20 and 21st centuries' history, in the worlds of Fukuyama, the end of it, with West sitting on top of the world. Thus, the history of WW II, a crucible of modern world, MUST be rewritten and it is being rewritten non-stop. But it is also for the first time in 30 years when Russia, at the highest political level, said that she had enough. It was Soviet/Russian collectivism which stopped Hitler's combined Western hordes, not  liberal democracy which took the credit for that immense historic achievement. It was not Soviet Union which unleashed that war. Combined West was. This is what at the root of West's hostility to Russia. This is this metaphysical never-ending chicken-and-egg problem in relation to the modern world. And that is why Russia will always remain the enemy for the West. Because she beat it many times before, China, incidentally, didn't.

Putin declared the creation of the, opened to general public, on-line archive of the WW II. Finally! Better late than never. It is an enormously significant effort which, hopefully, will send many Western "military historians" packing and their academic "careers" in falsification destroyed, which they fully deserve. Putin, of course, knows that his call for what amounts to new Yalta Conference will be sabotaged by the West, as were calls of Maxim Litvinov (and Stalin) for Collective Security 85 years before. But he still calls:

“I am convinced that it is high time for a serious and direct discussion about the basic principles of a stable world order and the most acute problems that humanity is facing. It is necessary to show political will, wisdom and courage. The time demands an awareness of our shared responsibility and real actions.”

In the world of post-truth and non-stop media manipulation such calls matter, even if for the sake of the principle that forms must be obeyed. The 75th Anniversary of the Victory is coming. I can only imagine what will be the scale of festivities and remembrance in Russia. If 2015 celebration is any indication--it will be huge. Important still, however, will be the list, no doubt impressive, of luminaries who will attend Parade on the Red Square and the March of Immortal Regiment. Invitations have been issued already. Emmanuel Macron and French Delegation will be present, so will be Serbia's leadership with Serbian troops participating in the parade. India's leadership will attend too, among others. United States was invited, including troops for the march at the Red Square. Trump expressed desire to attend. It is only proper to see British and American troops marching there. Putin understands the immense symbolism and importance of such an event. Many in Washington and London do too. The point will be not just to go back in time when British Empire, United States and USSR were allies but also to stake out the historic truth for which, it seems, for the first time in 30 years Russia began a truly serious fight.

It was Tolstoy through Pierre in War and Piece who conveyed this idea:

and then my idea is so clear and simple. You see, I don't say that we ought to oppose this and that. We may be mistaken. What I say is: 'Join hands, you who love the right, and let there be but one banner- that of active virtue.' 

Russia is trying that, for all her flaws and failures, therein grows a new social model, and that model represents clear and present danger for the modern combined West because it is THE alternative to a chaos and withering--the only future modern liberalism can offer. Russia understands that she will always be alone, outside any meaningful alliances, but recent events inside Russia speak clearly that for the first time in many years Russia introduces a very strong moral element to her foreign policy and will defend it with everything she has got. Active virtue is what draws people around the world towards Russia. This is not an empty bluster, already in 2020, RT (formerly known as Russia Today) hit an immense 10 billion views, putting it way ahead of any MSM in the US and UK. As jack Nicholson once famously said:

Military Power (Cont'd 6)

Incomparable Corelli Barnett wrote in his "The Collapse Of British Power": "As Adam Smith, the founder of liberal economics, put in 1776:"By pursuing his own interest (an individual) frequently promotes that of society the more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." It was Adam Smith who formulated the doctrine of Free Trade, the keystone of liberalism, which was to exercise a long-lived and as baneful effect on British power as Wesley and Whitefield's preaching. Adam Smith attacked the traditional "mercantilist" belief that a nation should be generally self-supporting.... According to liberal thinking, a nation was no more than so many human atoms who happened to live under the same set of laws.."

It is not an accident, that liberal economics has its origins in the Anglo-Saxon world, the world for centuries protected by water and insulated from the horrors of the continental warfare. We will touch upon what real nation actually is later, but for now we have to define, if to follow Barnett's thought, what is self-supporting, especially so in terms of military power? Well, I already gave an idea. The greater the number of the enclosed (or complete) technological cycles nation has, more independent it is and more claim it has to the title of a true military power. Consider this example: in previous post it was pointed out that Brazil has a very respectable output of steel. This means several things:

1. Brazil has a serious extraction industry, which extracts all components, including, of course, iron ore itself, required for production of steel;

2. Most likely, Brazil has a fairly advanced chemical industry, since steel production requires a number of chemical elements and products;

3. Brazil, certainly, has a respectable (especially considering this nation's mostly tropical and subtropical climate) energy production;

4. Brazil, certainly, has a substantial machine-building sector (the bells should be ringing now) which produces some of the industrial machinery, cars and even airplanes, such as globally renown Embraer. 

Now, let's imagine that Brazil wants to become not just regional, which she is, but major military power. Could she? After all, Brazil fits CINC criteria. The answer is not as clear cut but still, most likely, it will be no. In modern world, Brazil lacks what really defines a true military power--a genuine (that is enclosed or complete) Military Industrial Complex. Modern military industrial complexes are built on the foundation of almost complete industrial-technological autarky. What does it mean? It means, first and foremost, a full spectrum machine building complex. While the United States is not as huge military power as it constantly claims, it is true military superpower none the less. US claim to military superpowerdom is not in its Armed Forces, however impressive they are. No. It is in the fact, that the United States produces completely on its own practically the whole spectrum of weapon systems, ranging from fairly simple (M-4 rifles or laser range finders) to very complex (Strategic Missile Submarines or BE-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft). United States can produce all of that WITHOUT any assistance from abroad. This is the country, mind you, which declares Free Trade to be one of the pillars of its economic policy. Yet, in the weapons' production, the US remains very autarkic as... it should, if it wants to remain globally militarily relevant well into the 21st Century. But then again, Free Trade and economic liberalism are the figments of imagination of economic schools of thought, which almost always originated in places which never experienced a good carpet bombing or being ravaged by the invasions. Accident? I don't think so, in fact--it is a pattern. 

So, Military Industrial Complex, which is a euphemism for advanced machine building complex, is Alpha and Omega of any serious military power, it is also a euphemism for a complete (or enclosed) technological cycle. Brazil may produce some industrial machines but, in the end, Embraer still flies with Pratt And Whitney, Rolls-Royce or any other engines produced not in Brazil. In fact, nobody in their own mind will share this technology with Brazil. 

Embraer Selects Pratt & Whitney’s PurePower Engines for Second Generation of E-Jets   

Enter Russia. Russia's GDP (PPP), as reported by IMF, is slightly (by about quarter of a trillion of US Dollars) larger than that of Brazil and yet, Russia's "recent" passenger jet Sukhoi SSJ-100, which competes directly with Embraer E-Jets, while benefiting from international cooperation has its engines SAM-146 developed by the JV between Snecma and legendary NPO Saturn. What is most important, Russia, which produces a range of aircraft, produces own engines--some of them decent, others--excellent. Moreover, the trials of PD-14 engine, which is very competitive against the best Western analogues, is proceeding with success. And here is some really strategic hyperlink--Aviadvigatel, which developed this engine, shows cooperation:

PD-14 Cooperation    

As you can see--not a single foreign participant. And here is the difference. Brazil and Russia may have relatively insignificant difference in GDP, but Russia not only produces the whole line of jet engines, but develops new ones (both civilian and military) which not only compete but, in military aviation, can, and very often do, surpass their western analogues. In fact, Russia produces some of the best helicopters in the world, both military and civilian, and leads the world in the number of cutting edge aerospace technologies--be it super-maneuverability or ECM (ECCM). That opens another can of worms in this comparison business. Radio-electronics. Russia, which sells its SSJ-100 internationally and is expected to start flight testing of her MC-21 jet soon, is capable on its own to provide avionics to her aircraft. Concern KRET does this kind of things.  

KRET to Upgrade Russia’s Tu-160 Strategic Bomber Avionics

And it did. 

TU-160 upgraded (In Russian) 

And while Brazil is renown for many fine things, including, of course, real football, producing for decades one of the finest artisans in this sport (Socrates is my favorite of all time) radio-electronics or electric generating equipment of Brazil are not that famous. You can take a look at Brazil's exports in this field here:

Statistical Data Electrical and Electronic Industry 

In the same time, when comparing Russia's exports in power generating equipment, which is as high tech as it comes, the portfolio of orders of Rosatom reaches $300 billion. 

ROSATOM’s overseas orders worth $ 300 billion and growing – Kirienko 

If that is what Obama meant by proclaiming Russia's economy to be "shredded" to pieces and Senator McCain calling Russia a "gas station", then they better check their facts. So, for humanities "educated" "experts" of all kind, who think that iPhone is a pinnacle of high tech, it could be a very rude awakening to recognize that real high tech is a bit different thing. World can live, and, in fact, like me, lives just fine without "smart" phones (good ol' basic, still "smart", phone is just fine), but it can not live without energy generating equipment. Obviously, unlike Brazil or, for that matter, India, whose GDP is much larger than that of Russia, in fact, it almost double that, it is Russia who hauls everybody to the International Space Station and back to Earth. Plus, of course, Russia is the one who, together with NASA, built said ISS. And then comes this OTHER issue--weapons' trade. To sell those weapons, one has to produce those and, like the US, Russia doesn't sell just AK-74s (those, too, of course), she sells full spectrum of weapon systems, from small firearms to the most complex conventional weapons ever created on Earth. Not only Russia is the second weapons' trader in the world, right behind the US, but she is also a direct competitor to self-proclaimed sole superpower of the world. Here is some statistics from famous Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. 

10 Countries That Export the Most Weapons 

The key word here is export, as in produce in own country and sell it abroad. This is possible only for the nations which have a complete industry capable of extraction all necessary raw materials, processing them and then turning them into the most complex finished product humanity knows--a weapon. There is a reason why Russia, who has much smaller GDP than China, sells five and a half times more weapons than PRC, who likes to sell them too. In fact, China is one of the major customers for Russian-made weapons. The reason is--Russia has one of the most advanced military industrial complexes in the world, capable of turning out some of the best, if not the best, weapons in the world. 

     

Is Going To Help To Waste Your Life Away

 

Is Going To Save Your Nation From "Democratization"

Or, as India's Navy knows, this is worth a lot, much more than money. 
        

Now ask yourself a question. What is going to happen if even France, who claims GDP very close to Russia's (short by about $800 billions) will try to have the whole fleet of these:

         

3 completed, 4 building. 

 Or these: 
     

Completed 2, building 4

Yes, the bottom of the French economy will fall off. Why doesn't it in Russia? Remember, in the last post--strategic positioning of the weapons in the house? It is back to the expenses--how much you are willing to pay for your and those dear to you freedom, independence and life? This calculus is beyond the grasp of those who never held anything, other than own satisfaction and ambition, dear and sacred in life. 

To Be Continued.......