Yes, Yes and Again ...

 ... Yes! Larry nails it. 

The death of former President Jimmy Carter at the age of 100, does not mark the end of an era. Actually, his death is an exclamation point for the disastrous US foreign policy of the last 45 years, especially with respect to the threat from Islamic extremism and the troubled relations with Russia. Jimmy Carter’s reign set the stage for much of the current unrest and turmoil in west Asia and Ukraine. While it is true that Mr. Carter worked diligently after leaving Washington, DC to burnish his image as a humanitarian, his policies towards Russia and Iran became festering sores on the American political body that linger, still suppurating, until today.

For those who still have lingering doubts, here is from my latest book about sheer ignorance of the American "strategists":

Brzezinski stands here as a special figure not just because of his fanatical Russophobia, but because of his very prominent position as a foreign policy adviser to the Obama Administration and later, before his death, to Joe Biden and, in general, to the Democratic Party establishment going back to the times of Lyndon Johnson. In this respect this professional political scientist, who distinguished himself as a National Security Adviser in the Carter Administration, was a classic product of America’s humanities academe in a sense that most of its “products” never had any serious understanding of either real scientific-technological developments or, as is the case even today, had any clear idea of the tsarist/Soviet or contemporary Russian history, economy, cultural idiosyncrasies and, especially, its military history. Remarkably, these very same people have very little understanding of their own country, the United States, precisely because modern American higher education does not provide a required tool kit for proper connection to that reality. The only tool this education provides is the ability to juxtapose accurately selected facts which serve politically expedient narratives, but not to engage with an objective picture.

In layman’s terms, Brzezinski would have been described as a military amateur, as would be the majority of America’s geopolitical thinkers, who have never had a systemic military and technological education and never served a day in military officer uniform. In other words, most American geopolitical thinkers who emerged in 1970s through the 1990s elucidated their views on geopolitics founded on an anecdotal image of military power—a defining tool of geopolitics. 

The United States, akin to an acute appendicitis patient being rolled into the operations room, allowed appendectomy to be performed on itself by a random illiterate fanatic from the street who wouldn't pass a simple elementary school exam in arithmetic. Yet, here we are today. Brzezinski wanted Poland to be "free", and in pursuing this objective, as is expected from most "political scientists" and consistently low intelligence US National Security Advisers, he laid the bomb under America's future, including by manipulating an intellectually mediocre POTUS such as late Carter into insane foreign policy. 

About India.

One of those rare moments when I generally agree with Valdai boys. So, the vector, the thrust of Makarevich's piece is generally correct. 

However, in recent decades, political challenges have been added to the economic challenges of the especially privileged strategic partnership between Russia and India: Moscow, in particular, is concerned about the rapid uptick in relations between Washington and New Delhi. The comprehensive global strategic partnership between India and the US is a logical outcome of the evolution of Indian politics since the 1990s. At the time, the government of Prime Minister Narasimha Rao began a gradual process of economic liberalisation. The country was to become an attractive target for foreign investment, since there was not enough financial capital domestically. The ‘opening up’ of the Indian economy to foreign investors has continued under his successor Narendra Modi – with the ‘Make in India’ initiative inviting foreign manufacturers to locate their production facilities in the South Asian country. A kind of continuation of the this has been the ‘Self-sufficient India’ (Aatmnitbhar Bharat) programme. On the one hand, it is aimed at achieving technological sovereignty, and on the other, it forces foreign manufacturers to localise their production.

But this argument suffers from what is the same problem which is common for the most "observers" and "researchers" in the field of modern geopolitics--discounting power element and the dynamics of the combined West's decline. This is forgivable for all those good ol' boys and girls from largely abstract and shaped by Western influence in study of economics Russia's "academic" circles, due to their lack of understanding of modern West which never goes beyond platitudes and fictional economic data. Yes, India is trying to get "investment" , but this "investment" is already drying up with the center of economic development, finances and technological advancement inexorably moving to the Eastern Eurasia. 

What Makarevich forgets, of course, is the fact that practically whole military establishment of India is influenced to a different degree by Soviet/Russian military views not to mention vast quantities of Russian military hardware. This matters greatly as is the fact of undeniable Russian-Chinese growth closer along military lines. As SMO has demonstrated, the impact on NATO military reputation is devastating--this fact escaped Makarevich and was inevitable, since I am on record--there is no business for people like him, or Karaganov, or anyone from Valdai who do not have serious professional military-intelligence background even trying to factor this issue in their "research". But it MUST be factored, including the fact of India observing the growth of Russian-Chinese military cooperation and, rather very impressive, growth of mutual trade. 

Of course, India has her own, often very divergent from that of Russia, interests to pursue, but with SMO in progress and a manifest inability of West to maintain the edifice of economic prosperity, order and power, we shouldn't expect dramatic shifts in the balance of power in the Indian Ocean because a lot of it rests not just on "investments" but on the ability to maintain military capability worthy of regional superpower. With the US, West in general, as a supplier of such capability it is impossible. But that is the issue for military professionals to discuss. The fact that I still cannot find REAL academic background of this Makarevich guy, except that he is in RAS and is young, tells you a lot.  I will not go into the issue of a major clusterfuck with India buying (in reality--money laundering) French Rafales, but majority of India's AF, Navy and Ground Forces are Russia-made and in geopolitics the only thing which matters is a raw power. In the end, India never caved in to US demands and signed $5 billion contract for S-400. 

Obviously, Makarevich also doesn't understand what this picture means:

As well as why India cannot let go of this: 

But it will take too much time to explain the meaning of all that to Makarevich and what it means in the larger scheme of things, but he will do himself a lot of good by studying details of Operation Trident. Will India become the first recipient of S-500? Questions, questions.

History Lessons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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