This click-bait BS was spread by the 1945.com portal which specializes in a palliative therapy for some America's military exceptionalists and basement military porn masturbators from the Top Gun: Maverick community, who have been shown how adults fight real wars, and now they experience a serious butt-hurt. As most from US media, those people have a serious case of amnesia, because, in accordance to these very same US media, glorious VSU already captured this very T-90M last year:
This kinda negates the question of if Putin will send these tanks to 404, doesn't it, because evidently, they are already there. But then again, these are Western "military analysis" resources and they need money too, so, they sell BS, and it sells. But, in the end, why such an attention to this tank.
Well, T-90M IS a deep modification of a venerable, still good, though, T-90A and it even looks differently, carrying even some elements of a dynamic armor Afghanit which is also used by T-14 Armata.
Or from the above:
As you can see--it is a classic Russian tank, low profile, sleek and lighter than any modern Western counterpart. Whilst all kinds of military porn fanboys discuss this tank's newest multipurpose sight and other things of this nature, apart from purely physical improvements, it is the Combat Management System "Kalina" which is most important in it.
Being Combat Management System, "Kalina" unifies all operations of this tank, including latest ballistic computer and target acquisition and firing solution contour (laser-range finder, FLIR, on-board sensors, including detection of the "incoming", etc.), it is this feature which really matters--taken from Russian sources:
блок боевой информационно-управляющей системы тактического звена,
программно-технический комплекс тактического взаимодействия танкового/мотострелкового батальона
Translation:Block of the Combat Informational Control System of the Tactical Level and Software-Hardware Complex of Tactical Interaction of the Tank/Motor-rifle Battalion.
A-ha, that's warmer. In other words--T-90M is a fully netcentric warfare tank and each of these tanks in battalion can run this whole battalion's combat tasks, which is 31 tank in tank battalion, or a truck load of APCs in a motor-rifle one. That is why so much attention to this rather routine news (Russian military factories work 24/7/365) from Western punditry, who, by the virtue of spewing BS on this news, betray own case of being sore losers, because, in accordance to their "sources", Russians are backward people who cannibalize washing machines for microchips and do not know what indoor plumbing is--yes, this is what majority of population of 404 thinks, and so do people from all other Western propaganda outhouses.
In conclusion. Although in Russian, but take a look at what Russia produces today, among very many other things, courtesy of this teeny-weeny corporation called Rosatom.
Extremely advanced methods in nuclear medicine. I guess many washing machines have been cannibalized, right?
My issue is not with this BS. Expected from Kagans' clan. My issue is with this: a star-studded Washington, DC think-tank. If, as RT claims, it is "star-studded" why don't we look at who those "stars" are. I am not going to discuss any military (lack) of expertise among Kagans (this pseudo-strategic scam is founded by Kimberley Kagan) but apart from being fanatical neocons, they not only qualify as war criminals (and we are yet discuss this issue), but have General Tommy Franks assessment of Douglas Feith as the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth(c) fully applied to Kagans in terms of warfare. So, who are those stars in this org? Let's see:
General Jack Keane (US Army, Retired), Chairman, Institute for the Study of War; President, GSI, LLC
Dr. Kimberly Kagan, Founder & President, Institute for the Study of War
The Honorable Kelly Craft, Former US Ambassador to UN and Canada
Dr. William Kristol, Director, Defending Democracy Together
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman, Senior Council, Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman, LLP
Kevin Mandia, Chief Executive Officer & Board Director, Mandiant
Jack D. McCarthy, Jr., Senior Managing Director & Founder, A&M Capital
Bruce Mosler, Chairman, Global Brokerage, Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.
General David H. Petraeus (US Army, Retired), Member, KKR & Chairman, KKR Global Institute
Dr. Warren Phillips, Lead Director, CACI International
Colonel William Roberti (US Army, Retired),Managing Director, Alvarez & Marsal
The only persons of any military background I can see here are General Petraeus, General Keane and Colonel William Roberti. I don't know who Roberti is, but there is another General on Staff of this ISW--General James Dubik. The rest of it, as is expected, a bunch of useless credentials (from Ivy League fraudulent humanities programs) loaded "scholars", many of them from Ukraine, take a gander, and people who wouldn't know the difference between LGBT and BTG. So, why don't we try to define military "stardom" in appropriate terms. Indeed, who is a real star, militarily-speaking, on what merit this "stardom" is bestowed on military people? I can tell you upfront: winning campaigns, wars. Napoleon may have been a complete ass-hole as a man, but there is no denial that he was a military genius and kicked so much ass in his life that no matter how one may not like him, there is no denial--he is a military star. Alexander Suvorov, who bears the title of generalissimo and even owns (to his name) a part of Switzerland, not to mention being a Count of Holy Roman Empire and Prince of Kingdom of Sardinia. He became a military star and got all these titles and awards not because he was a nice guy, but because he won of all his campaigns.
Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov was an overweight and one eye blind (he lost the eye in wars in Crimea) but he is world renown because this is the guy who defeated Napoleon Invasion of Russia in 1812. Is he is a star. You can bet your own ass on that, because in 1814 (he died by then) Alexander I and Russian Army triumphantly entered Paris. The spirit of Kutuzov was with Russian Army and Czar. How about Eisenhower? Well, guess who got Order of Victory from Stalin? Many complain that Ike was not this or that, but guess what--he ended up sharing a victory with likes of Zhukov, Konev, Rokossosvsky or Vasilvesky, giant military stars of truly historic proportions in their own right. And nobody can say that Ike didn't deserve it. Want to see a true military leader? Read Ike's letter before the D-Day written in case the landing fails--the man takes all personal responsibility for such a failure. This is a sign of a very big man and military leader of historic proportions. It also inspires an admiration for a man.
Is Monty a military star? Sure. So is, undeniably, Chester Nimitz. It was also ever diligent Omar Bradley who was behind many operations of the US Army in Europe in 1944-45. All this is understandable, you can even credit Erich Von Meinstein with brilliant military leadership and military art practitioner of a highest level. Even a devout Nazi Walter Model was a man of a major military talent (when at the top of his game) and has a record to back it up. I can continue to list many international military stars who left an indelible mark on military history, strategy, operational art and tactics. In their lives they were often very successful scoring major victories in campaigns or winning campaigns against the first rate peers.
Now let's take a look at ISW's "stars". We will start with General Jack Keane. The guy literally lives on FOX news as "analyst" of Russia.
The first question which pops up is this? Since when this general has become a "star". Many generals commanded many soldiers in their lives but that doesn't make them a star. It is HOW you command and what is your record which matter. And here is the point which I made above--and it is universally agreed upon--what are the campaigns which Keane won? What are his merits as battlefield leader and strategic and operational commander? Very many people in armed forces all around the world serve 37 years and even longer. I can give an example, Vice-Admiral Oleg Golubev, a graduate class of a year later than mine from our naval academy, is already 41 years in service. He is deputy commander of Northern Fleet and, most likely, its future commander. He has under his command a firepower which can wipe the United States off the map in a single salvo. Like this:
Many people serve long terms in Armed Forces all around the world. Also, very many people go through hot spots, military campaigns, operational and combat zones. But last time I checked, Vietnam, where General Keane started his career was not exactly a success. After beating the shit from a third-rate utterly incompetent and outgunned Saddam's "fourth largest in the world" Army, the US got bogged down in Iraq, destroyed shitload of real estate there and after that concluded Afghanistan War with... well, we know what. I look at General Keane's bio and still cannot find a single entry with won wars, campaigns or, at least, notable battles. Keane is, certainly, a TV star, he certainly provides a lot of talking about Russia and her Armed Forces but I doubt General Keane understands how Russian State operates and how Russian Armed Forces are integrated in it on a doctrinal level. No US General has any experience with that because no US military man, none, zilch, nada ever fought in defense of his or her homeland. It is simply a different culture which most people in the US, including current top bras, cannot grasp.
Then we begin to look at another "star", General Petraeus. I, honestly, cannot remember Petraeus for any military accomplishments other than a fucking mess in Iraq and a "brilliant" command in Afghanistan debacle. Of course, he was appointed the head of CIA but is primarily remembered for screwing Paula Broadwell. Just to give some perspective, Marshal Rokossovsky (that is one of the brightest military stars in history) was rumored (mostly false) to have a romantic extramarital affair with a famous Soviet movie actress Valentina Serova.
And while those were primarily rumors, when Stalin got a report about Rokossovsky's alleged affair and was asked (and this is not a legend, it is a fact) what are we going to do about it, Comrade Stalin? After all, people's favorite, one of the greatest military leaders etc. Not a good example, et al. Stalin, after a second of contemplation responded: "What are we going to do, what are we going to do? We are all going to envy Comrade Rokossovsky."
You may say what I am getting at? Very simple--modern United States doesn't have military stars in the top brass, because it lost all of its modern wars (with the exception of Grenada) while providing not only shameful propaganda of own accomplishments, where there were none, but covering up one humiliation after another, including utter strategic and operational ineptness of US "military stars" who lied constantly to public about losing yet another America's ill-conceived military adventure in the lands which pose zero threat to the United States. When even CIA outlet such as WaPo cannot take it anymore of this military stars' BS and has to publish this:
One has to ask the question, are these people like Keane, Petraeus and likes any good other than self-promotion and spreading BS for the sake of MIC profits? We all know the answer, not everybody just wants to say loud--no, they are not. Not only they are not good military leaders, they are ignorant ones and when I see them bloviating on Russia and Russian Armed Forces I cringe. They parade themselves as political clowns good only for lobbying of anyone's interests as long as the pay is good. Where are you campaigns and wars won? None exist.
One user posted a link to a lecture by Dr. Philip Karber to West Point Cadets in 2018 about Russia's capabilities.
Even today, four years hence this video is dated but also gives some insight in how mislead and how speculative "experts" in the US are even in a relative non-publicity of the West Point's confines. I can repeat what I repeated many times (Patrick Armstrong also says it all the time): your intel is not good, in fact, you all don't know shit about the subject you are talking about. The last excrement from ISW (what wars do they "study" there?) is a decisive proof of a complete loss of not only any situational awareness which was always shaky but a complete confused state when it comes to Russia. It is really cringe-worthy to read and watch these "stars" from the fraudulent BS narrative mongering "think-tank" who parade own ignorance, if not malice, publicly covering their real war-mongering goals with sophomoric pseudo-military psychobabble. Face the facts--you are not that good, and the US military history is dwarfed by the scale and tradition of Russia's military accomplishments which are rooted in defense of Russians' motherland and the only thing left for Keane or Petraeus is to watch and as Stalin stated: "You are all going to envy." And that's the secret to your impotent anger. That's what losers do. If RT thinks that this ISW is "star-studded", they better ask Margo Simonyan to visit Russia's Academy of General Staff--they will explain to her what real military stardom is.
This statement: Donald
Trump's astonishing White House victory over Democratic favorite
Hillary Clinton produced another demonstrably clear loser in the
process: US polling. Such
was the scope of pollsters' and forecasters' failures Tuesday night
that the future of the entire industry was being thrown into question. Of
the 20 major polling institutions including national networks,
prominent newspapers and news wires that conducted more than 80 polls
since mid-September, only one organization -- the Los Angeles Times
paired with USC Tracking -- consistently gave Trump the edge.
I have some news for the author of this piece and to those in this so called "industry". Flush all of your diplomas and Ph.Ds or whatever degrees in humanities you have down wide enough toilet because they are not worth the paper on which they are printed. Sure, one has to have data--but data itself means absolutely nothing until it is fitted into the Procrustean Bed of strict causality. It is only then when these data may become a knowledge. The problem for this "industry" and the whole class of parasites who suckle from American political class fat teet, is that they don't care about causality and consistently misread or, otherwise, influence public opinion to express itself in a direction which political class, not voters, need. You think it happened during this campaign only? No, it is, in fact, Modus Operandi of this industry--it was always like that. Another matter that only with the Trump's decisive victory the monstrous scale of the abyss which separates these "forecasters" and "pollsters" from the real America has been revealed. Indeed, when one thinks that the wind blows because trees are moving, that is has a causality exactly the other way around, what result can one expect from the decisions made on such false premises? Well, in order to develop knowledge, not some fraud (well paid, I may add), in order to be truly situationally aware, one has to work his ass off. Like in military. Now, I am trying envision how those pollsters and "forecasters" develop it. I have an idea--they don't. Most of those organizations (institutes, whatever) run a rigid routine of hiring some students and call centers to do the "polling", while fat cats of polling business discuss what needs to be made public and how to manipulate data with those who pay them, somewhere in fancy restaurants over good steak and nice whiskey or wine. But this is the MO of not only polling industry. This is how US political establishment operates in general--look at the results all around us.
Will Trump victory, which dealt a crushing blow to the so called "establishment", lead to a considerable changes, I don't know. I still maintain my position that this establishment lives in a parallel universe precisely because it can only see one or two dimensional data and is incapable to see a great depth, a complex 3-dimentional picture. If new US Administration wants to really develop a knowledge of the outside world--it would require more, way more, than just data. It will require understanding, which is a highest form of knowledge. I hope that this principle will be applied to negotiations with Russia and will lead to de-escalation and working out of some geopolitical compromise which will sustain moderately peaceful and prosperous global order for a good long while. It seems possible now. If imbeciles from the so called establishment and its pollster lap dogs didn't get the message--real America voted yesterday for no more wars and for badly needed clean up of America's own house. This is a causality and I am sharing it for free with everyone. I conducted this personal poll through my 20 years of living and driving all around US and I don't mean interstates only, I love my back and country roads and mid-towns USA, where real people still live in vast numbers as the result of these elections so vividly demonstrated yesterday. I hope this America, which I love dearly, finally found its voice.
Or from the above: 
As you can see--it is a classic Russian tank, low profile, sleek and lighter than any modern Western counterpart. Whilst all kinds of military porn fanboys discuss this tank's newest multipurpose sight and other things of this nature, apart from purely physical improvements, it is the Combat Management System "Kalina" which is most important in it.
