Another One Bites The Dust...

... figuratively speaking.  

The Senior Director for Europe at the US National Security Council, Amanda Sloat, is about to vacate her position after three years in office, Politico reported on Friday. Sloat played a major role in coordinating the efforts of the US and its Western allies in aiding Kiev and countering Moscow amid the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, the media outlet reported. “It has been an amazing three years, but it’s time. I’m tired,” the official herself told Politico this week as she confirmed her impending resignation. Amanda Sloat has been a “quiet but key figure” behind the White House's efforts to improve relations with its European allies and oppose Moscow, the outlet said. She reportedly “spent months” coordinating a Western response to the Russian military campaign in Ukraine, which particularly translated into billions of dollars in military and economic assistance for Kiev, the report said. 

Well, what can I say, after looking at this young lady's background. 

Amanda Sloat currently serves on the National Security Council as the Senior Director for Europe. Previously, she was the Robert Bosch senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. She was also a fellow with the Project on Europe and the Transatlantic Relationship at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Sloat served in the U.S. government for nearly a decade. She was deputy assistant secretary for Southern Europe and Eastern Mediterranean Affairs at the State Department, where she was responsible for U.S. relations with Cyprus, Greece, and Turkey as well as for coordinating European engagement on Middle East issues. She also served as senior advisor to the White House coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa and Gulf region and as senior advisor to the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. She previously worked as senior professional staff on the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, with responsibility for European policy.

Prior to her government service, Sloat was a senior program officer with the National Democratic Institute, including work in Iraq with the Council of Representatives. She was also a post-doctoral research fellow with the Institute of Governance at Queen's University Belfast. During this time, she held visiting fellowships at the Academy of Sciences in the Czech Republic, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, and the Jean Monnet Center at New York University Law School. She also served as a special advisor to the Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly, and European Commission. Sloat holds a doctorate in politics from the University of Edinburgh and a bachelor's in political theory from James Madison College at Michigan State University. She has published a book, "Scotland in Europe: A Study of Multi-Level Governance" (Peter Lang Pub Inc, 2002). She has written widely on European politics in academic and foreign policy outlets.

The only conclusion I made was that she is not an ugly woman. But in terms of her competencies or rather lack thereof, she is a classic "product" of Western degree mills in what is known as "soft degrees" designed to teach academically credentialed Bullshit for good ol' boys and girls to get their degrees in order to be promoted into the all kinds of think-tank and government jobs in the West. So, she is an exhibit A of that. She may, however, qualify for barista position in Starbucks. I am on record--you see a Ph.D degree in political "science", international relations or "political theory" from Harvard, Oxford or Yale, and other degree mills with similar pseudo-academic courses--treat those as the red flags, since most of the time you will be communicating with utterly incompetent people. 

And here comes this issue--what this academic fraud could "coordinate", as Politico puts it:

Sloat’s tenure at the NSC was dominated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. She spent months on little sleep coordinating a response with European allies and warning Ukrainian counterparts that Russian President Vladimir Putin planned for a full-scale assault. U.S. officials have said Sloat ensured the transatlantic response was aligned and robust, leading to billions in military and economic support for Kyiv. Not everyone is happy with the administration’s policy. They contend more advanced weaponry should have been sent to Kyiv in the war’s earliest days, pointing to Ukraine’s sputtering counteroffensive this year as evidence. And they also questioned the wisdom of the U.S. allowing the construction of the Russia-to-Germany Nord Stream 2 pipeline to finish, a decision that Germany reversed after the war started.

No, I really want to see itemization of this ensuring by this post-doctoral barista of this robust "transatlantic response". Of course, we will not get this itemization because any "ensuring" of anything in the transatlantic community is merely a single action of conveying the message from Washington--fall in line, or else. So, the whole idea that some relatively attractive bimbo who has zero professional skills in anything can "coordinate" something is down right preposterous. Starting from W's Administration after 9/11 US military-political top didn't present a single decent, forget about world class, diplomat, military leader or statesman. General Tommy Franks once clearly described what he had to deal with when communicating with Douglas Feith: "I have to deal with the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth almost every day."   

What is true today is that the types Tommy Franks described are the ONLY types required for work in the US Administrations. They are the ultimate product of pseudo-academic courses in Western humanities degree mills. The fact that this, obvious, affirmative action lowly bureaucrat is bowing out is merely an indication of the rats running from the sinking ship which is not just Biden Administration but the whole governance structure of the US. Of course, one shouldn't forget that the roles of many people in Biden Admin and US "academe" and media in unleashing a largest war crime since the WW II in what is now former Ukraine are well known, as are their identities and functional responsibilities in what amounts to killing and maiming of around 2 million people, primarily VSU personnel, not to mention atrocities committed by Kiev Nazi regime. 

So, this bimbo runs away because she may well be, most likely will be, identified as one of the "coordinators" of this atrocity, however not the main one, and she could be charged with war crimes as an active part of Administration which is fully responsible for war crimes of the scale not seen in Europe in almost 80 years. In this case, one has to almost envy Kamala Harris, because she is so stupid and unqualified for anything that her being a part of Biden Administration will be attributed to her mental feebleness and she will be left alone. Not the case with this "coordinator". Then the question arises, will the United States reach this phase which is described so aptly by James Kunstler:

So far, the collapse of suburbia has happened in slow motion, but the pace is quickening now and it’ll get supercharged when the bond markets go down, as they must, considering the country’s catastrophic fiscal circumstances. That will produce exactly the zombie apocalypse telegraphed in all those movies and TV series over recent years: normality overrun by demonic hungry ghosts. Every day in suburbia will be Halloween, and not in a fun way. All this is apprehended to some degree by the increasingly frightened public, though they have a hard time articulating it within any of the popular frameworks presented by politics, religion, or what appears lately to be extremely corrupt science. The people see what’s coming but they can’t make sense of it, and the stress makes a great many of them insane. Without a way to construct a coherent view of reality, or tell the difference between what’s real and what’s not, they behave accordingly: anything goes and nothing matters.

The US is already half-way there, and once the center refuses to hold anymore--this is in the progress as I type this--the inevitable question of who brought the United States to utter collapse will arise. Well, it is arising now, actually, and many who brought this about are well known. We just learned the identity of yet another one who helped America on her way out of normality. But then again, what do you expect from post-doctoral barista.

Naryshkin Verbatim.

The head of Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) Sergei Naryshkin went on record yesterday:

ПЕТРОПАВЛОВСК-КАМЧАТСКИЙ, 27 ноя - РИА Новости. Никакого "российского вторжения" на Украину не будет, утверждения о нем - это злонамеренная пропагандистская акция госдепа США, заявил директор Службы внешней разведки России Сергей Нарышкин."Должен всех успокоить: ничего такого не будет", - сказал Нарышкин в интервью Сергею Брилеву в программе "Вести в субботу" на телеканале "Россия 1", отвечая на вопрос о заявлениях американской стороны про якобы готовящееся Россией вторжение на Украину. "Вообще все, что сейчас происходит вокруг этой темы, это, конечно, такая злонамеренная пропагандистская акция госдепа США... Госдеп накачивает этими фальшивками, этой ложью и своих союзников, и руководителей средств массовой информации, и руководителей политологических центров Соединённых Штатов Америки с тем, чтобы они эту ложь множили, множили и множили. И они вокруг этого раздули довольно большой пузырь"

Translation:  PETROPAVLOVSK-KAMCHATSKY, November 27 - RIA Novosti. There will be no "Russian invasion" of Ukraine, the allegations about it are a malicious propaganda action by the US State Department, said Sergei Naryshkin, director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service. "I must reassure everyone: nothing like this will happen," Naryshkin said in an interview with Sergei Brilev on the Vesti on Saturday program on the Russia 1 TV channel, answering a question about the statements of the American side about the alleged Russian invasion of Ukraine. "In general, everything that is happening now around this topic is, of course, such a malicious propaganda action by the US State Department ... The State Department is pumping these fakes, this lie to its allies, and the leaders of the media, and the leaders of political science centers of the United States of America. so that they multiplied and multiplied and multiplied this lie. And they inflated a rather big bubble around it ."

 

Well, we need to take into consideration this simple fact that lying and propaganda are the only tools in the toll-box of what passes in the US for "diplomacy". But we have been over it so many times by now, that it is not necessary to repeat it. In the same time US media outlets such as Bloomberg continue to publish all kinds of contrived "analysis" such as: 

After years of disillusion with the West, Putin has gradually sidelined voices in his inner circle who had called for limiting tensions and is increasingly isolated from other views by Covid-19 restrictions, according to people close to the leadership. Surrounded by hardliners, he sees Russia — and his two-decade rule — as under attack by the U.S. and its allies. Efforts at outreach and cooperation that he made when he first came to power have been replaced by showdowns, sanctions and threats. Putin now sees pushback as the only language the West understands. With both sides dispatching warships and planes to convey their seriousness and warning of a new arms race as treaties lapse, the hardened approach raises risks far beyond Russia’s neighborhood. Disputes with Europe over gas supplies have shaken markets, while a refugee crisis the European Union says was orchestrated by Putin’s closest ally in Belarus is pressuring the bloc and fears of conflict in Ukraine have battered the ruble.

But then again, these are US media and their minions in Russia who lie for paycheck. Remarkably, yet another "intellectual" from Valdai Forum appeared on RT with his view on the "events" around 404. His name is Ivan Timofeev--you can read his bio here. And while Timofeev agrees that Ukrainian Army will be obliterated very fast if Russia really decides to get involved big time and then, as in following the rigid Cost-Benefits analysis procedure, Timofeev demonstrates and proves my thesis that in terms of serious geopolitics involving power element only outstanding diplomats capable to have a good grasp of the military events "on the ground" should be allowed to state their opinions. Providing lip service to already well-established fact that VSU as a force wouldn't last past first salvos and pincer movements by Russian Army is not enough when speaking on such matters. Timofeev states: First, such a military conflict is unlikely to culminate in any intelligible agreement. A victory over the armed forces of Ukraine will not by itself lead to a fast peace. The option of “two Ukrainian states” would allow Russia to squeeze nationalists out by sending them West. Under a “one Ukraine” scenario, this would be impossible, given all the ensuing consequences. 

 

I don't know why "one Ukraine scenario" even enters considerations here? I have no rational explanation to why Timofeev even discusses that. In the end, leave it to Poland, Hungary and Romania to deal with Western Ukraine. That, BTW, may become what would put the final nail into NATO's coffin. But he continues:

Second, the conflict would inevitably lead to a sharp change in the Western approach toward providing Ukraine with modern weapons and military equipment. In the United States and in the West as a whole, the new situation would be considered as an emergency and they would not limit funds to support the armed forces of Ukraine. Moreover, in this case, all possible types of conventional weapons will be supplied. Large-scale military aid from the West would prolong the conflict. Russia would not be able to block such supplies. The United States and its allies will not enter open military confrontation with Moscow. However, the level of support for the Ukrainian army will grow significantly. 

1. Timofeev needs to get down from his Ivory Tower and look around, especially in terms of what Russia was doing for the last 7 years which was, hm, getting ready to "a sharp change" in every single respect. From economy to politics, to what have you and, the issue which immediately pops up here is...

2. Can Mr. Timofeev tell us HOW this "sharp change" in providing Ukraine with "modern weapons" and not limiting funds will manifest itself? 

I omit here the fact that the issue of Russia's national security doesn't fit into the traditional framework of cost-benefits analysis because military threats to nation is not the matter humanities-educated (even from MGIMO) diplomat can fully grasp. For starters: 

a) WHAT "modern weapons" Timofeev is talking about? What can possibly NATO provide 404 with that can qualitatively change the balance in region, without it being, even if such transfer will ever happen, annihilated on arrival? Ukraine is already supplied by NATO with small arms and weapons of Javelin variety, plus some basic battlefield equipment ranging from anti-battery radar to nigh-vision goggles and communications. It will continue no matter what. Does Mr. Timofeev expect the US (and NATO) to supply 404 with Patriot PAC3 air defense complexes or, maybe, THAAD or maybe F-35. Not that they would make much difference if Russia seriously gets involved. 

b) Even if to imagine that US Congress and POTUS give the green light to whatever weapons Mr. Timofeev have in mind, has it occurred to him that if Russia gets "all in" the first thing which will be done will be a naval blockade which will prevent any deliveries by sea of anything. 

c) Who will operate those weapons? NATO troops? 

And on, and on, and on--we all can be in this "peeling off layers" mode for a long time. But Timofeev fails to mention the main issue here which many of us, ranging from Andrei Raevsky to Dmitri Orlov, to Patrick Armstrong, to Alexander Mercouris to you name it write for years (I mean Anglo-sphere)--Russia DOES NOT want Ukraine no matter if 404 already formed some political nation, which it did, I write in this blog about it for years, or not--this is not the main reason, the main reason is that apart from security pain in the ass, 404 is nothing but the drain of Russia's resources, which otherwise could be directed towards Russia and Russians' needs. Even if to imagine that Russia indeed "gets in", Russia's main concern will be not West's position--no one exercises any illusions on this position in Kremlin, and that is what only matters in the end--but the fact that Russia will have to deal with largely hostile, humiliated (even more--military defeats are extremely painful) and effectively destitute population of what--20-25 million? Who needs that? As they say on Russian streets today--one has to deserve Russian occupation. 

If, however, things will get really bad for Russia's security, the decision on Russian side will be based not on "Cost-Benefit analysis" but on Russia's national security imperatives, West's objections, sanctions and other threats notwithstanding. In other words, Russia will do it in the time and place of her choosing. In the end, Timofeev forgets the main reason for this hysteria in the West--increasingly obvious economic, social and military demise. This is the key factor in all this media activity. Finally, he should admit, as I do all the time, that Russia's Military-Political leadership knows more, much more, than any of us does and we have all reasons to believe that they know what they are doing.

This week I gave interview to Mike Welch of Global Research News. We discussed my latest book and you can listen to my Runglish by following this link. 

The Collapse of America part 2: Distant Early Warning Signs of Uncle Sam’s Demise. 

I don't say anything particularly new there, most of my readers heard and read it before, but as Pet Goat succinctly responded to one guest who was irritated by pessimistic comments about the fate of the combined West:

We are not rooting for Western collapse. We are warning about it. Even our so-called enemies do not want a collapse, but the leaders of this kakistocracy are hell bent on bringing about the collapse.

I couldn't have said it better myself. In the end, many people see it today, many more will see it tomorrow. But modern combined West and modern Russia are incompatible in principle and that is the problem for the West, because it is existential. But that requires a separate discussion which present Western "elites" try to avoid by all means. In doing so they doom themselves to what many of us see is coming. In fact, it is already here. 

While They Count Votes.

An "interesting" piece from  Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy (SVOP), and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club. SVOP is a cabal of politologists and "associated" people, such as late legendary Evgenii Primakov, but is mostly known today for a bunch of "liberals" such as slick opportunist Sergei Karaganov from VShE who pretend that they know how power balance is formed. Lukyanov is an epitome of humanities--uneducated "analyst" (not to mention being associated with a cloaca of VShE) and he doesn't disappoint writing on the issues he has no idea about. In fact, he is clueless. He makes an astonishing claim re: Russian-American relations:

Let's start with the current agenda. In the past, no matter the circumstances, the focus was invariably on the issues of strategic stability and nuclear arms control. Between them, Russia and the US possess over 90 percent of the world's nuclear arsenal, and both have the ability to physically annihilate one another – along with the planet. It was the need to manage these risks that gave rise to a system of special arrangements between Moscow and Washington.

I don't know what stone did Mr. Lukyanov sleep in the last 20 years under, but since Russia and the United States STILL possess 90% of the world's nuclear arsenal, the necessity to manage it still remains one of the major points on the agenda of Russian-American relations. He proceeds with elaboration on this point:

With the nuclear issue losing its pivotal role, there is practically nothing of substance left in US-Russian relations. Granted, there are some smaller-scale technical issues to take care of, such as avoiding accidental clashes in Syria or strengthening diplomatic cooperation to tackle the problem of North Korea. There would probably still be contacts on topics related to former Soviet countries, but that's more about making your intentions clear – not about agreeing on a common position.  

I understand that  Mr. Lukyanov was probably a good journalist for a bunch of rags in Russia and maybe even rubbed shoulders with some luminaries but specialist in modern power balance he is not and never was, and never will be, as will not be Karaganov or many other demagogues with egos larger than cathedrals populating this non-governmental org, SVOP that is. As such his assumptions are risible, because Russia is named in every doctrinal document in the US and is mentioned  as present and clear danger to America by every single US top echelon official, from Pentagon to Department of State. Yet, Lukyanov who wouldn't know the difference between anti-shipping cruise missile and motorcycle comes up with a typical incompetent BS:

For Russia, a critical aspect of this previous experience is its excessive fixation on the United States – to the detriment of other areas of development. This is something that must be thrown overboard, as quickly as possible.

I would suggest Mr. Lukyanov to conduct a forensic experiment and go out and piss off some crazy Caucasus (Chechen, Dagestani or Ingush) body-builder on the street and then remain not excessively "fixated" on his and his family's safety. The whole notion that some political "scientist" or journo who wouldn't be able to grasp nitty-gritty of running even WW II-era diesel sub, not to speak of division of nuclear ones or what is going on in terms of strategic stability on the level of modern weaponry and sensors, as integrated into the decision making on the highest military-political level, can have a competent opinion is risible. Yet, here we are--another ignoramus, who never got to serve even as a private in any capacity in any force waxes "strategic" by parading his ignorance reiterating the point:

For Russia, a new era will only begin once our leadership – who remain overly preoccupied with Russia's relations with the US, believing themselves to be in some sort of unique and historic position – listen to the Russian people, for whom America is just another foreign land. An important one, yes, but no more than that. When it comes to Russia's relations with the US, the less we get carried away by feelings of self-importance and misplaced superiority, the better it would be for everyone, ourselves included.

So, I don't know where Lukyanov gets his points of view, but somebody better whisper to his and his colleagues' ears that the political "science" is not science neither is profession of journalism a valid occupation. To pass competent judgement on issues of a strategic stability and actual power--this is beyond Lukyanov's competencies, even if he thinks that rubbing shoulders with Russia's national security professionals does provide rubbing off fundamental knowledge and competencies which allow people in Russia to make decisions which go radically counter to Lukyanov's platitudes presented as a deep thought, which it is not. In times like these only raw military-industrial power is a viable insurance against a variety of contingencies which end up in massive military clash. I think Lukyanov should take his advice to Russia and apply it to himself, like this:

the less I (Fyodor Lukyanov) get carried away by feelings of self-importance and misplaced superiority, the better it would be for everyone. 

Especially when trying to apply skills in philology to complex matters of national security of Russia whose people overwhelmingly view the United States as a very real threat for themselves. The only thing on which I agree with him--for Russia it makes no difference who comes to power in D.C. Russia will remain America establishment's main threat for reasons of which Lukyanov has very little, if any, understanding. But larger question in all that is how a person with minimal military-political credentials can pass for "expert" in Russia--the explanation to this is very simple, a putrid belch of Russia's "liberal experiment" of 1990s and 2000s when people like Lukyanov wormed their way into the lucrative sphere of Russia's "expertdom" by learning many buzz-words and catch-phrases without having a grasp of their real meaning.