... understand dimensions. Most of them are products of the US degree mills from Ivy League humanities and "government" programs which are primarily academic fraud. Ray says it well:
Neocons do not know war, including American generals who serve them. Plus, Karaganov is NOT a specialist in anything--he is merely a good ol' Moscow elite boy with "credentials" in... nothing and has about zero (in fact, negative) grasp of warfare.
Now, per Western media being giddy about Toropets explosions.
Couple of the buildings of the ABOVE ground storage detonated after one of the 404 UAVs fell (it was shot down) on one of the buildings. Most of the weapons and explosives are stored deep under ground and they haven't been affected.
Now about Mearsheimer, or, rather, why I do not read or listen to him, or why in general I am not interested in what he has to say. People brought again his platitudes up, and "analysis" at a discussion board today re: his, yet another, set of platitudes:
This paragraph alone demonstrates for anyone with serious military background (Mearsheimer is a graduate of USMA at West Point) a complete confusion which befell Mearsheimer, who passes in the US for "realist":
1. Defeat of the enemy and Victory are synonyms, and in REAL war, they are identical and mean "achieving POLITICAL goals of a war". If Mearsheimer, who is of a respectable age, still doesn't know it, he can start with Svechin's Strategy in order to avoid embarrassment...
2. ...when trying to predict the future having absolutely no tool kit when it comes to Russia and XXI century warfare. Mearsheimer doesn't have it and is the same product of American cultural and pseudo-academic milieu, whose views on warfare grew primarily based on entertainment industry and American exceptionalism. E.g. he has no grasp of the real size of Russian economy and, especially, of technological and production capability of Russian military-industrial complex. Neither have most US political "scientists" from Mearsheimer's environment.
3. He remains still THE American exceptionalist and is not well versed in the history of the XX century and, especially, its military history. It shines through his speaking and writing. Hence he always resorts to platitudes, which, once in a while make sense. But, as we all know, even the broken clock...
This is why I don't give Mearsheimer any respect as a scholar. In matters of the combined West against Russia in the XXI century he is an amateur with a lot of AMERICAN "academic" credentials which automatically disqualify those people from passing any judgement on issues of XXI century geopolitics. In the end, political "science" is a fraudulent academic field designed to give credence to opinions of people who, otherwise, are incapable of productive and meaningful intellectual labor. In general, as, sadly, the example of respected by me Colonel Macgregor shows, even the best and the brightest in the US have huge issues with learning the real history of WW II and America's path to greatness, however short-lived in historical terms, especially so of the Eastern Front which contributed decisively to America's post-WW II resurgence.
Back from the trip to Yellowstone National Park. Did the mental "vacations" and now back at it. Things develop with incredible speed. While there was an attempt at Kremlin in general, it is clear that Russia got now necessary casus belli for physical elimination of Ze and people around him, albeit it is clear that attack on Kremlin was initiated by neocons. Washington thinks that it has a "sophisticated" foreign policy--in reality it is a kindergarten level ruse-mongering. Nikolai Patrushev, who is an immensely powerful man, went on record today and stated that preservation of Ukraine is not in the US plans (in Russian). But, attack on Kremlin and this are connected directly.
General Cavoli, obviously, didn't want to go into details of how Russian Armed Forces demolish everything NATO throws at them and are not fighting in full force. He switched to submarine operations of Russian and US navies. Let me tell you, I can only imagine what is happening now under the surface and we may learn about it only after some long time, but, believe me, Cavoli is telling the truth about what amounts to a catastrophic historic miscalculation of Russia by Washington. I said it before, I repeat it again--Russians blew out two greatest military powers in history, Napoleon and Axis. Taken with adjustments for technological and operational development the US Armed Forces are nowhere near Napoleon and Hitler in military sense. Make your own conclusions.
Thomas Lipscomb makes some profound observations on this matter:
Zelensky is a dead man walking as is his internal circle of oligarchs and cronies, but in the end--these are neocons who, due to their cowardice and military and economic incompetence, brought this to the point that they will have to run, if not from the rubble of American implosion and pitchforks of destitute and very angry masses, then from people from certain Russian orgs who would love to talk to war criminals and criminals against humanity who in the last 30 years killed millions of innocent people and wrecked whole regions of the world. They are desperate and it shows. Hence desperate attempts on Putin and trying to sabotage Victory Day parade at the Red Square. Will Zelensky return to 404? I wonder what Petraeus and Keane studied in US Army war College and in Leavenworth, KS? Certainly not the real war. Cavoli, however, spoke openly what I was talking about since the start of SMO. At least there are still some real professionals left in the US Army among the top brass. NATO? It counts its last days as a military organization.
Mike Krupa sent me link to this twitter from Bundestag. Ah, they remember (some of them) where Russian tanks (or Hussars) end up when Russia is attacked.
As I pointed out yesterday in a discussion board, Rammstein meeting turned out to be primarily a nothing-burger and, again, the already collapsing globalists' narrative will collapse much faster with the images of NATO super-pooper tanks burning in industrial quantities in 404.
As I state constantly--there are people in Pentagon left who can and do calculate the real required force to change anything in favor of 404. Without going too much into criteria of efficiency and serious datasets for computers, I can repeat what it would take. It would take all NATO countries armies, headed by the US, all their Air Forces and navies, with draft introduced in all those countries, and then about a year of uninterrupted prepositioning of the forces--good luck with that--and a preliminary agreement with Russia that all this is merely a sport competition, in order for Russia not to flatten by conventional weapons London, Brussels and Washington, to have any effect at all. Then, maybe, especially if Russia fails to mobilize around 2.5 million personnel--also good luck hoping for that to happen--there could be some talk of "changing dynamics" in 404. In layman's lingo it is called a wet fantasy.
Well, Ukraine HAD to become a hot-spot as not just laundromat, but as, as one Russian observer noted--the goal of prestige of a losing team which loses with a huge score. Never underestimate the ignorance and incompetence of neocons and their former Pentagon lap-dogs. They do not even know how to properly war game anything, because they live in a virtual reality and they needed badly to cover up Afghanistan humiliation and economic depression of likes we never saw before. All this neocon blob and hawks are the products of a fraudulent US Ivy League machine in "strategic studies", political "science" and foreign relations, which continues to churn out US petulant childish "elite" which played America to the precipice of a complete meltdown. And here is your Friday primer.
Do I feel smug at this moment? Come on, I am just human with all my human flaws, can I allow myself at least a brief moment of feeling good about myself and what I do?
1. Olaf Scholz cannot be viewed as a good source of expertise on anything related to warfare, real economy and, especially so, in relation to Russia. He simply has zero qualifications, even when one considers his present post as Germany's Chancellor. What he gets are some reports from a few remaining real professionals in BND and Bundeswehr who told him, I am sure, from the get go, about REAL situation. As the unlucky fate of some Germany's top brass testifies, such as Admiral Shonbach's forced resignation, Scholz was getting more or less reliable forecasting from the very start of SMO. But...
2. Western "elites" are simply incapable to hear "bad news" on anything because most of them are petulant children with the maturity level of high schools teenagers. Enough to take a look at the "levels" of the US State Department or other people from Biden Admin who pretend to run the country. As the result of all that, once the stream of, mostly fake, "news" (a euphemism for propaganda) from Ukraine dried up, reality, including the most important one--on operational and strategic level--began to bite. It hurts, I know.
But recall, that from the inception I warned about a complete delusion about Russia exercised in the West even by people who are supposed to know. Even deeply respected by me as a true, who he is undoubtedly, military professional and, most importantly, thinker is not free from some obvious misconceptions about Russia. Such as Early Warning ABM capabilities. But combined West miscalculated in the most important aspect of Russia--her massive real economic capability which, in turn, drives Russia's huge mobilization, both economic and military, potential. Only now this "message" begins to trickle UP in both Europe and even Washington D.C. I warned about the dangers of this miscalculations since the very inception of this blog and, of course, in here:
It is worth mentioning, that ANY, I repeat it, any intelligence or military institution in the West is not up to the task of understanding Russia's mobilization potential, which the last 4 months demonstrated perfectly. The FUBAR with delusional thinking regarding West's weapons' deliveries to Ukraine and fantastical thinking of civilian leadership of the West combined with crude and unprofessional propaganda from the US military "experts" demonstrate perfectly how incompetent they are. In the end, I warned, that using the framework of Western "economism" in application to Russia is an exercise in futility, because the same framework doesn't work on West's economy at large either.
Beaten to death cliche ascribed to many people ranging from Churchill to Metternich that "Russia is never as strong as she looks; Russia is never as weak as she looks" is just that--a cliche. In reality, it is just that the West was never really good at understanding of military and economic potential translating into the kinetic action. Let's face it--ALL, without exception, people in the decision making circles in the US know little about the world outside and especially so about Russia--it is a systemic illness of the US body politic as a whole and it is extremely dangerous. I will repeat, again, Russia study field in the combined West and, especially in the US is an academic fraud, populated by pseudo-"academic" shysters with soft Ph.Ds and Russia "expert" community is laughable because of its sheer incompetence, based in low intellectual level.
But, if even Olaf Scholz begins to if not see (I doubt he is that smart) to, at least, articulate some realities which really matter, then it shows a very carefully hidden from the brainwashed Western public, some major tectonic shifts at least in Europe. Europeans, I know some, are waking up to the reality that the US, namely its neocon mafia in charge of the US foreign policy, would like to see Europe burn in continental war against Russia, while the US will seat it out and then, as in WW II, will come in to claim its spoils. Neocons are one trick ponies and utterly militarily incompetent people, but even such a door mat and America's slap bitch as Scholz begins to recognize that it may end really bad for him personally (that's the main concern) and for the country which he and his government so passionately want to finish off as a nation. So, something is afoot and Scholz suddenly beginning to speak as a man who finally had his two-hour briefing on introductory level geopolitics--you know, geography, industries, military and shit like that--is a good indicator of this. So, in this case, it is a positive development.
Well, no shit geniuses. Main explanation (among few others) is the fact that VSU losses are catastrophic and most capable and smartest have been simply killed. It is a Volkssturm phase for 404, and it is accelerating as I type this. But you see, if those who matter would have been learning in their respective programs something of value and really tried, they wouldn't have to deal with this severe cognitive dissonance and they would have chosen a much more constructive and realistic approach to Russia and we all wouldn't be witnessing what we witness today, not to mention listening (reading) to old fool Kissinger's definitions of victory or loss for Russia. How this artifact is still around and is taken seriously by anyone is a complete mystery to me, but then again--at this stage the West needs to "arrange" face saving measures and not get involved with nuclear exchange with Russia as many neocons want.
But while I agree that combined West went into the total war against Russia (and Russians, I may add), there is this sense of desperation which marks all of this war and Alex Christoforou, while lamenting, understandably, Greece's position, elaborates extensively on Nuland (and neocons in general):
He, correctly, concludes that they want second "Afghanistan" for Russia but immediately gives out, by merely providing basic facts, the main reason why this is not going to happen, for two reasons.
1. Nuland is scavenging all she can get in terms of old Soviet equipment from anyone who has some. Like Czechs who sent, reportedly already annihilated (don't quote me on that) together with the strike on Lozovaya rail-road station near Kharkov (this one is confirmed), 40 tanks and BMP-1s. If she tries to get her hands on Tor M1s and armor from Greece and Cyprus, that tells you a lot. It is desperation.
Of course, Pentagon confirmed that they are sending first 100 Switchblade loitering munitions to Ukraine, and that the US trained operators for this weapon in the US. But, judging by the "successes" of Javelins and the US and UK "planning", such as using civilians as human shield, the result will be primarily PR-oriented, and will change absolutely nothing in the final outcome. In related news, there are many locations around the world where US military bases will have to think twice about safety, such as in Syria, because people who do not want to see US troops there may suddenly increase their deadliness--you know, like this.
2. Neocons are not good at war which involves the use of tanks and aircraft, but they suck even more when we are talking about modern 21st century warfare, especially the scale of what is happening in 404 now. Kagan clan, including Viky Nuland, as you know, rely on the "expertise" of such abusers of donations and grants as the Institute for the Study of War, where a bunch of political "scientists" and losers of all campaigns they fought, such as generals Keane and Petraeus, parade themselves as incompetent ignoramuses pretending to know Russia and her military. And ISW is just one of many orgs which do not "study" war but create narratives, while I personally begin to seriously doubt the competence of modern day Pentagon. They can do PR, that's for sure, I doubt they know how to fight the real war, especially as complex as that in 404. And especially they have no clue what it means to fight for your country--NO US servicemen ever died defending the United States proper. This is also a foundation of the all consuming both envy and complex of inferiority of many US generals, because Russia dwarfs the US in terms of military history and beating all best military powers of the last millennium. This is also in the foundation of many in Western elites' all consuming hatred of Russia and Russians.
So, I quote Andrei Raevsky, "if you cannot win a real war, win the imaginary one." That is what the US is doing since Vietnam. Doing proxy wars, staging false flags, supplying Nazis and terrorists with weapons--that, they are good at. Winning? Not really. Now, being primitive one-dimensional military "thinkers" they cannot even come up with believable lie and increasingly come across as desperate, which Nuland's voyage merely confirms. They love to think about themselves as very sophisticated and advanced, in reality they are primitive, uncultured and are crafty only at political machinations--this is the extent of their competencies. This is their "level":
Do I need to say more? They long ago lost the distinction between illusion and reality and continue to fight imaginary war, because they don't know how to fight a real one.
To have normal, like in not a perpetual war of a different variety, relations between Russia and the US? The answer is rather simple--the United States views Russia as an existential threat. But that is a blanket, however correct, statement, the devil is in details. Let me explain. I am on record for years that the field of Russia Studies in the US is a wasteland. Even Matthew Rojansky, whose candidacy has been successfully sabotaged recently by neocon mafia which infested US foreign policy establishment top bottom, is not really an "expert" in Russia--he is an "expert" in US "think-tankdom" echo-chamber hustle and rubbing shoulders with big honchos, which then migrate onto CVs and Resumes for bearers to be recycled in the cesspool of Beltway "expertdom". The fact that Rojansky doesn't want an outright war with Russia and passes for a "realist" in D.C. was enough to remove him from the pool of "Russia Experts" trying to make it into the Biden Admin. Well, even an iota of a common sense towards Russian-American relations is a disqualifying trait in D.C.
Now recall Alexander Vindman, A Ukrainian Jew in the rank of Lieutenant Colonel who decided that he, not the President of the United States, is to define what kind of relations the United States must have with Ukraine and Russia. When one has such people as Vindman and a cabal of neocons being omnipresent in the establishment, it is bad enough. But then comes a "heavy artillery" of US main stream media, which are literally a propaganda machine which drives a complete destruction of Russian-American relations on the American side and "experts" there range from psychopaths such as Max Boot, deranged and confused non-binary russophobes such as Masha Gessen, to some butt-hurt ignoramuses such as "Doctor" Stephen Blank, who though it possible sending US Navy's ships to... the Sea of Azov. As you may have noticed already, a huge portion of this army of psychopaths consists of former Soviet or Russia's citizenry, primarily, but not exclusively (let's be objective), of a Jewish descend, who, instead of learning and working for the benefit of the American national interests, among which not being wiped off the map by Russia, should be a primary one, are in it for settling all kinds of accounts and grievances, most of them totally made up and fake, with Russia. If it takes US bureaucracy and sacrificing US interests, so be it in their opinions.
But what about middle level "journalist", are there any people of common sense who view Russian-American relations as crucial for global stability? Hm. Here is an example of yet another former Soviet "journo" (euphemism for not being educated), a graduate of the Moscow State University and MBA writing on the issues of modern geopolitics and Russia from Toledo, Ohio. His name is Mike Sigov.
As is the case with many former "Russians" who get to write for all kinds of US media outlets, few of them really have any background in the issue of modern geopolitics and fields adjacent to it. What they have, which ultimately qualifies them for spreading mostly BS, is their ability to read and speak Russian and navigate Moscow Metro. They also have a lot of "feelings" towards their place of birth and as a result one gets such a mental excrement as Sigov provides:
Ukraine has long been pressing NATO to admit it as a member, but the
defense alliance has been reluctant so far to expedite the long process
of extending its membership to Ukraine, without openly denying it one. NATO
membership would all but secure Ukraine from Russian aggression but
also would mandate that all the member countries — the United States
included — treat such an act as a war on each one of them as well. To
be sure, Ukraine's accession to NATO would increase the stakes for the
United States and other members of the alliance in Ukraine. The alternative may be worse, however.
Sigov, having no clue what he is writing about and calling on Ukraine being admitted to NATO, should understand one very simple constant of modern geopolitics--Russia can annihilate any force in Eastern Europe, including combined NATO forces, even without the use of nuclear weapons and in this case, Russia will end Ukrainian statehood, much less Ukrainian armed forces, in a matter of days. Yes, Russians do not want this shithole of a country on their balance, but if push comes to shove, what will happen will be more than just annihilation of Ukraine as we know it today--a Nazi shithole and a used condom for neocons--Russia will demonstrate a complete military impotence of the United States and NATO which will be left to the only device they have at their disposal, you guessed it, propaganda. Russia CAN reject Europe, Europe CANNOT reject Russia and if Mr. Sigov doesn't understand that, I am sorry, he should have chosen a serious field of study to wrap his brains around this simple fact.
Yet, this doesn't prevent him from agitating for a situation which could be much worse than the Cuban Missile Crisis, because the United States, having very limited conventional, not to speak of combined arms, capabilities will have no chance other than commit whatever troops it will able to assemble, for annihilation in Ukraine and will, being inherently nuclear-biased country, resort to escalation towards nuclear threshold, because what the United States doesn't like is to lose big. It will not get any bigger than getting a death wish of fighting Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine granted. The moment any announcement about Ukraine "joining" the NATO is made, that seals the fate of not just Ukraine, it seals the fate of Europe and of the United States. Mr. Sigov, in a fine tradition of "Russian" (wink, wink) immigration to the US, and having no viable skills other than spreading BS and grievances, provides an Exhibit A of a "materiel" which dominates America's field of "Russia Studies" and foreign policy establishment, and which bears a huge share of responsibility for royally fucking it up for the US, and the world, in the time the US desperately needs not only face saving but a dramatic rethinking of its suicidal in its sheer incompetence foreign policy, which bankrupted the country and exposed it as a big bully capable only of big words.
Yet, Mike Sigov is an embodiment of Russian-American troubles. The United States' government institutions are neoconised and ukrainised thoroughly, top-bottom, and that is why any semblance of normality in Russian-American relations is impossible and, in fact, they will continue to deteriorate and for that, the United States has only itself to blame. I omit here sheer idiocy of American geopolitical "thinking" of the last 30 years which should be studied as a severe case of a delusion--I wrote three books on that, and may yet write another one--but even some weak signals from Biden Admin about desire to talk to Russia, in a feeble attempt to "free" dwindling and grossly overstated resources to fight China, even these signals are successfully distorted, suppressed and the transmitter is sabotaged, because the United States' foreign policy is completely subverted by ethnic and religious mafias operating within the establishment and media. If Putin-Biden summit happens, in the end, we will see what happens after it and I don't hold my breath, because the United States is non-agreement capable entity and armies of Mike Sigovs are standing by, ready to sabotage any possible move towards normalization of Russian-American relations. That is why such a normalization is not possible in the foreseeable future. That is not to mention that Russia and China seem to be committed to each-other in a geopolitical sense and the US has nothing, zilch, nada to offer Russia.
In related news, new Russian Armed Forces Cathedral held an Easter Liturgy yesterday.
I can only imagine what US "Russian Experts" think looking at it.
UNZ published a transcript of an excellent conversation between Pepe Escobar and Michael Hudson, which you can watch here:
It is a delightful, in its intellect and scope, 2 hours of back and forth, but one thought by Michael Hudson stands out when he speaks about people in the United States who are driving US' insane foreign policy or, rather, lack of it. I touch on this issue in each and every of my books, but especially the last one, but here is what Hudson, who is close to "decision-making" circles posits:
Here is what I am constantly trying to stress--you do not negotiate with a mad bunch, especially afflicted with a narrow ethno-religious trauma, which over the years is being re-amplified in an echo-chamber of the American Jewish immigration, whose ascendance to the very top of the American political power and influence in the post-WW II period came through what some, wrongly, continue to view as intellectual neoconservative (Trotskyist) movement, which was neither "conservative", in any applicable sense nor, most importantly, intellectual. American neoconservative movement is a combination of a shoddy scholarship, if not altogether outright pseudo-religious demagoguery and falsification, and of a masterful, needs to be admitted, manipulation with the American propensity for self-aggrandizing for the reasons which, in reality, go completely counter to the interests of the majority of American population.
That is why Lavrov today was explicit when stated that "confrontation in bi-lateral relations reached bottom" (in Russian). I may only add that down the road expect the knock from below. And here is the point--American neoconservatism is extremely illiterate in some of the most crucial aspects of the national security and that is warfare and competent diplomacy. Even a brief review of "intellectual" concoctions by the America's neocons, be that risible Fukuyama's psychobabble, which is neocon in its essence, or any type of Kagan family cabal's bloviation on matters of history and war--American neoconservatism was never competent. It is sure as hell marked by the crusading spirit against human nature and history but that is as far as it goes. So, you cannot explain to a bunch of American Jewish or WASP neocon "scholars" and "influencers" sucking on the teat of America's real and perceived power that before they undertake any practical action based on their loony theories, they better do basic cost-benefit analysis and this one is precisely about them willing to continue to hate Russia at the cost of being turned into radioactive, or just simple, inert, ash or they would want a benefit of staying alive, which comes with resorting to a more peaceful posture.
This is precisely the occasion on which one makes the case not in terms of "policy", "agreements" or "balance", but in terms of how and where people who push for war, and that is about 99.99% of America's neocon cabal, will get it and how it will look like. In other words, one shows them the weapon by which they will be killed in case they want to unleash a war. Considering the fact that American neocons are not good militarily, in fact many of them are the ones who drive incompetent American militarist propaganda, one is forced to put it in terms those people, who never experienced anything beyond the danger, as Phil Giraldi put it "of chocking on foie gras" or Power Point applications getting frozen during the presentation or yet another pseudo-academic BS in neocon think-tanks, in terms those people can understand. Neocons, while loving to play with the lives of others, are extremely sensitive to a death coming their way. It is one of the reasons why we still all live in a relatively peaceful environment.
They do understand and are scared of death. Even when they are convinced, due to their technological, operational and tactical illiteracy, that when Putin stated in February 2019 this:
He didn't mean the White House, Pentagon or, say, Capitol--no, coordinates of those are contained in the guidance computers of Russia's weapon systems since my tender childhood. Same as Kremlin or Russia's government House are in the American ones. Nothing new here. This is not news and this is not what Putin was talking about. As I state constantly, modern weapon systems have a an unprecedented precision and accuracy. You can today, literally, fly a cruise missile into the window of a house if you have to. Russia's stand-off systems, moreover, have unprecedented ranges. So, if any of the warmongers thinks that they maybe safe in New Zealand or Patagonia--they are really wrong. Nuclear weapons are easy, but those are non-nuclear ones which allow to receive targeting and deliver a salvo of cruise missiles anywhere in the world by means of moving a submarine into firing position anywhere around the globe, including but not limited to Patagonia, New Zealand, Australia or Antarctica, for a good measure. Modern targeting systems of Russia, such as Liana, which is already operational, are high orbit satellite constellations (1,000 + km) which are safe from modern Western anti-satellite missiles, not to mention other means of reconnaissance and targeting which are networked and well protected.
In the end, Russian special ops, which also have a very good record of clandestine deployments around the world, do not care where modern SSN or SSGN will deploy them--in South America or Asia. And that is what Putin meant by "decision-making centers". Anyone responsible for unleashing hell on Earth will be found and annihilated either in some specific building in Europe or the US, or will be annihilated or captured personally anywhere in the world. Many forget, that in 1996, the leader of Chechen separatists Dzhohar Dudaev was killed by laser guided bombs with targeting provided based on his use of satellite telephone. That was 25 years ago. Since then Russia moved into the revolutionary warfare territory both in terms of C4ISR and in terms of weapons and that is why if any plans of "sitting out" a war between Russia and NATO exist in the midst of US warmongers, most of them from neocon zoo, the explanation of impossibility of such a plan is a matter of presentation and demonstration of what modern Russian weapon systems can do, and the names of those in US and Europe who push for war are well-known to Russians. This is precisely what Russia was doing for the last 7 years and this is the reason for increasing pitch of anti-Russian hysteria--I know, it is frustrating when one hates Russia more than anything but knows that one can only scream at her and not much more without the danger of being annihilated oneself.
So, they get this crucial difference between being dead and alive and this is good. So, they want war but they will not get it on their terms--this is called an escalation dominance which comes in the way of real revolution in military affairs. While neocons studied political pseudo-science and ersatz history in US Ivy League universities, Russians were studying physics of flight and of signal processing, among many other things and that is why Russian don't have many doctrines--they have one, but this one works. The United States produces very many of them but as the chief editor of Russia’s popular military-analytical bi-monthly, Arsenal of Fatherland (Arsenal Otechestva), former cadre Russian Air Force officer Alexey Leonkov, states explicitly when commenting of the fact that Americans are global leaders in a number of developed strategies, that there is only one problem with all of them—they are not survivable when faced with reality. Neither are globalist plans on "Reset" which are now merely limited to US, which outlived its use for globalists, whose integral part American neocons are, and Europe which will be subdued and turned into the reservation for economic "units" without culture, nationality and humanity.
This also explains a desperate desire of the United States to unleash a war, any kind of war in Ukraine and to get Russia into any kind of calamity there and make her spend her resources on this shithole of a country. But here too, as it is a tradition, a huge miscalculation was made in 2014 and ever since because neocons who pushed this agenda listened to non-neocon but a typical bloviating Russophobe Zbigniew Brzezinski who preached his gospel of Russia's revival being utterly tied to Ukraine reintegrating into Russia. As always, the real situation was exactly the opposite. But they don't learn in D.C. because they cannot--they are ignorant to start with, plus hatred denies them access to the last remaining iota of common sense and knowledge and we have what we have today. But behind all of that is a systemic and irresolvable crisis of financial predatory capitalism, which goes under different monikers, but remains the same, as Michael Hudson astutely put it--the parasite finally ate the host. In this case, the neocon insanity in the US is merely a private symptom of a larger ailment.
In related news. This is Russia moving her troops (some of it--yes, this is this proverbial netcentricity and C4ISR on the move) into Crimea a week ago.
If Ukraine wants to really fight Russia--sure, let them. I wonder where all those Ukrainian "decision-making centers" are. Nah, I am being facetious--Russians know where, and who mans them, if you know what I mean. So, they better address their anger issues--that could be a good start.
Among most hated people in Russia who are associated closely with a catastrophe of 1990s and the so called "liberal" reforms, and who still remain important government figures, two stand out. One is a chairman of Russia's Central Bank Elvira Nabiulina and Russia's Finance Minister Anton Siluanov. I omit here all kinds of freaks such as German Gref or Anatoly Chubais who are not government employees, nor Alexei Kudrin is really a person who decides much at his position of a Chairman of the Accounting Chamber, albeit, he is an excellent auditor and that, realistically, is where he should remain. Anton Siluanov, however, is a permanent fixture of Russian government for years and years and he is a designated main "liberal" there. It is more remarkable then to hear such admissions from him such as this (made around 10 days ago) in his interview to Vedomosti:
Translation:About five years ago, if Urals brand of oil would have had a price of $15--meaning the the budget wouldn't have received a cent of oil-gas profits--that would have been crisis. Nowadays, we don't pay attention to oil that much, because all necessary financial buffers have been created and even with the price of $10 per barrel we would have survived. That is the past war and we are prepared to it, today we have a challenge of absolutely new scale... now our main task is defending health and lives of people.
It is down right fascinating hearing a person with such background speaking in these terms and increasingly changing the modality of this rather new political tune. This change reflects, obviously, a fundamental shift which occurred within Russian political class against the background of COVID-19. Urals, as of now, fluctuates around $29-30 a barrel, a price, which is fairly comfortable for Russia's budget (and economy), not to mention the geopolitical fallout from Saudis shredding their budget while not forgetting to buy US assets, including in US energy. Funny world we all live in. This world being funny, however, does not negate a grim reality, which was predicted, and cannot be denied anymore:
Just read the whole article and at this stage keep in mind this simple fact that the issue is NOT about if it is now 2.4 million barrels per day the US oil cut--not at all--but if, as also was predicted, the cut will be along the lines of somewhere between 5-6.5 mbpds. That is the issue, once the US will resign to the fact that it is back to being net-importer of energy. The fact is, no matter what President Trump intended, the economic and geopolitical reality is ruthless--it is not affected by lies, spin, misreporting of many Western media, unless we are talking about some segments of Western clueless public, and reality is constituted by a combination and interplay of factors many of which never make out into the light of public attention. Or putting it in simple lingo--Russians became better, much better, capitalists than Americans. They also retained most of skills in running the country with a high level of government intervention, when needed. This is the lesson in adapting which probably will not be learned. In real world silly intentions and faith in a magic ability to wish problems away do not work. Never did, albeit some in US still believe in this "magic", like this moron who passes in the US for "diplomat", who was charged with "fighting" ISIS.
This is everything one needs to know about US foreign policy both in economic and military terms, but then again, one is free to browse the whole thesis by this cretin here. It is a tour de force of sheer incompetence and delusion. But then again, US has a rich history of supporting all kinds of humanitarian terrorists, so it is not surprising that this glorious tradition is preserved by people like Jeffrey and his ilk. In the end, it is also possible to declare in media anything one wants, facts on the ground be damned. It seems the neocon schizophrenia is a feature of the American political discourse and it will run the US into the ground--in the end, it is not far from its final destination. As one pundit observed:
Well, he describes here typical psychopaths--a dominant type in US politics and in the world turned upside down, failure IS success, and murder IS a gift of life. After all, many Nazi leaders were excellent family men and cared deeply about their faith, country and treated others with respect. The only difference--they WERE taken seriously by others and ended up on the stand as war criminals, responsible for tens of millions killed. People like Jefferey--and they infest D.C.--may end up helping to kill hundreds of millions, not to speak of billions. In this case, we may, if we survive, state that their careers were a total success.
There is only one problem, designating US produced "doctrines" by the names of US Presidents with which one or another "doctrine" originated--it is the same as designating rigid and inflexible US military "doctrines" of expeditionary warfare following throwing an ungodly number of stand-off weapons at a victim with different titles ranging from "From The Sea" to "Air Sea Battle" to whatever else. In other words it is "Same Shit-Different Angle". The only noticeable correction of the course in the US doctrinal thinking happened in early 1970s with Nixon's (forced, mind you) Detente with the Soviet Union and with eventual "opening" of China, which, as we all know today, ended up with the greatest transfer of industries from the United States to other country in history. So, discussing US foreign policy "doctrines", especially by ignoring huge political inputs (in favors, dollars, blackmail or exploitation of Christian Zionism of many in US power circles) by such actors as Israel and Saudi Arabia is a fool's errand.
I do not believe that Bacevich doesn't know that. I am positive he does. Yet, as in that process of running in circles, everything ends up with discussing a minutiae of American neocons' flaming insanity and utter military incompetence and trying to pigeonhole it into one or another US geopolitical delusion, which, for some reason, pass for "doctrines" . I looked up biographies of people whose "ideas" Bacevich discusses and concludes that:
Brands, Cook, and Pollack correctly note
that various initiatives undertaken under the aegis of the Carter
Doctrine have ultimately redounded to the benefit of the Islamic
Republic of Iran. But if Iran is a problem, they have a solution. Kick
some ass.
I don't know, last time I checked if any ass kicking was happening it was definitely not by the United States. Among those three stooges who abuse their sinecures in all those rabidly neocon "think-tanks: such as American Enterprise Institute, or CFR, only Pollack has some "intelligence" background as former CIA "analysts" with degree.... and you guessed it--political "science". Pollack is known for his active calls to invade Iraq and even wrote grossly untimely book on Arabs' military effectiveness, or, rather lack thereof. Untimely, because this issue was debated so much in the last 50 years, from Soviet military advisors to all kinds of "Strategic Studies" courses in the Wests, to famous Atkine's primer Why Arabs Lose Wars that, after brief acquaintance with Pollack's 2018 book about Arab military history from 1948 to 1991 one is forced to ask a question--Why? What's the purpose of re-narrating same ol', same ol'? But, my friends, this is the current level of the American or, rather, neocon "Strategic Studies". 1991 is also a cut out date for the last noticeable victory of the US Armed Forces against what was, as usual falsely, touted as the "fourth largest army in the word", implying that it was powerful, while in reality it was a backward, badly led, typical third world military.
Numbers provide a good foundation, albeit by far not all of it, of viewing modern war. In this case, Bacevich fails to disclose the real meaning of the "kicking some ass", Iranian ass that is, since this is the heart of the matter. The issue is not that impossibility of kicking some ass without receiving a lot of it back was discussed, by me included, on a number of occasions. I would love to see ass-kicking plan developed by those three--no secrets--just general idea of this plan, required forces, logistics, general strategy, operational tempos etc. Why not, I am sure these three stooges can provide a fascination expose of utter military strategic and operational ignorance and will cause many laughs along the way. Reason being that these people do not grasp modern warfare beyond experiences of massive salvos of stand-off weapons in Desert Storm at whatever targets Pentagon may identify and then... Yes, about this "then", I am always in a full attention mode waiting for some magical plan to appear explaining how the United States Armed Forces will fight war in Iran. I am all eyes and ears. But even this is beyond the point--don't expect anything which makes sense geopolitically, militarily or economically. Here is an example of this type of people's "expertise", this is from 2016.
So, Bacevich gets it very wrong, especially when he begins with "distinguished members"--distinguished by who or what, against what background or under what circumstances? If American geopolitical collapse and US being exposed as nothing more than a dangerous declining power--a process which is ongoing since 2000s--are reasons to tout human stupidity and lack of any serious background in achieving any kind of tangible "success" in anything are the reasons to be "distinguished", then--sure. Modern American political and pseudo-intellectual elite, as I stated many times, is staggering in its incompetence matched only by its arrogance--a first sign of lacking serious intellect. The aggressiveness of types like Pollack is dictated by anything but serving true American national interests and by suppressing a horrendous complex of inferiority because they know deep inside that they are losers who have nothing to show for their pseudo "academic" backgrounds and activity which is based around thinking up all kinds of military strategic nonsense. But, sadly, Bacevich doesn't write about this. Even Le Monde--a globalist French rag begins to suspect that:
Western in general, and American in particular, current "elites" are totally inadequate intellectually, academically, humanly and professionally to challenges which their societies face and it is them who, being products of a dysfunctional system, exacerbate already a violent process of a departure of the Western liberalism from the world stage. Having some "distinguished" swamp creatures suggesting to "kick some ass" at this time should be viewed as a distinguished idiocy, not as a valid matter to discuss--unless, of course, we are talking about orderlies in psychiatric ward, where modern American neocons belong wholesale, I mean those who will avoid standing War Crimes Tribunal.
Recall also that Iraqi 35th Mechanized Brigade preferred T-90 to US made Abrams tanks. Egypt, meanwhile, altogether produces pre-kitted Abrams tanks in Egypt. I guess Syria answered a lot of questions regarding combat performance of the military hardware. So, as you can see, things are getting extremely interesting in the world. Now, we have to see where this whole anti-Constitutional coup will lead all of us; but if Trump's bold moves and bold anti-interventionist and anti-neocon statements are any indication, we may yet see a long-overdue cleansing of the treasonous camp, as James Kunstler thinks it will happen:
By now we have to learn one simple fact, which, evidently neither Daniel Larison (for all his valiant effort) nor Andrew Bacevich understand, when they call out warmongers in present American media-political establishment. Most of them are warmongers, including in Congress, and this can not be changed. Sure, I get it and I respect Bacevich, but what is the point when he singles out yet another political "scientist" turned journo calling for war on Iran?
I have news for Bacevich (I am sure he knows it)--there is NO context in US history of 20th and, especially, 21st century. There never was--did Andrew Bacevich look at the American historiography, bar some few superb exceptions of note such as Glantz and House, of World War Two lately? A DEFINING feature of an American political class and punditry, apart from utter lack of professionalism, is an astounding ability to exist in causality-free world. The fact that cause precedes the effect is a concept many American pundits may find intolerable.
Enter this comparative politics educated political philosopher Stephens--what can possibly this neocon boy write about other than some delusional BS on US "foreign policy", which long ago became the foreign policy by and for Israel. Apart from having zero tools required for any competent opinion of foreign policy, the way it is formed and conducted by competent people, including this tricky teeny-weeny military part, what can possibly neocon shill from New York write? I long ago stated, that you cannot argue with these people--they exist in their fake universe and are not configured to argue as in using knowledge and reason--they have neither. Most of them are humanities "educated" journos with zero military-academic and operational experiences who live off NYC media-Parnassus and Israeli interest groups in US. No, arguing, debating them is useless. The only way to deal with them is to do what they only can do, in the breaks between writing their sophomoric crap on US "foreign policy", personal (sophisticated) attacks. Most of them are cowards who wouldn't enlist to fight, nor will their children. None of them have any clue nor credentials (this is important) to competently speak on any tactical, operational or strategic issue. In the end, they have no clue about weapons.
Statecraft, especially military craft today, is the realm for truly gifted and exquisitely educated, cultured and experienced--what could possibly some second-rate journo from totally discredited and corrupt US establishment media offer of value on the issue of war remains a puzzle. Until these warmongers and ignoramuses begin to be called for what they are--people who must have their mouths shut on any American war due to them being utterly unqualified, until all their "educational" credentials be exposed for what they are--useless concoction of a humanities' abstracts and glorified English degrees, until they are called out as Israeli shills and until they are forced into debate, which they will lose, on actual military art--until then these SOBs will continue to act as people whose useless opinions matter. But we also have to understand that this type of arrogance and ignorance is what dominates today corridors of US media-political power because it is a demand by the system. In the end, there is simply nobody else out there who could have seriously challenged this state of the affairs--the experience of the last 27 years provides an overwhelming empirical evidence of that. But that is the whole other story.
When Dr. Stephen Cohen speaks, I listen. So, I read his latest piece on pathological neocon war-mongers (most of them draft-dodgers or humanities "professors" thousands miles away from theaters of operation) in RT. It is a good piece:
But then Doctor Cohen makes a slight mistake when states that:
But the preceding Cold War was driven by an intense ideological conflict between Soviet Communism and Western capitalism.
Here, we have to be very clear that on the West's (primarily Anglo-Saxon West) side this war was against historic Russia, not "communism" (grossly misunderstood and deliberately misinterpreted) and Russians. Hans Morgenthau was explicit in 1957, as were explicit American ideological doctrines that emphasized:
US problem was not with "communism", which was merely a propaganda cliche, it was with Russia and Russians as such, as a nation. It still is. It was and is the issue of precious bodily fluids from the get go, especially today between neocons and so called interventionist "elites". I totally get where Cohen comes from, I addressed this issue myself not for once--US "strategists" (let alone utterly corrupt media) are for the most part unqualified and not that well educated people, as last 20 years, or so, so manifestly demonstrated. The danger of these people such as Kagans, Petraeuses, or this mindless bimbo AOC is that these people are utterly unqualified for a statesmanship and, maybe with some caveat for such military "leader" as Petraeus, have no a faintest idea what real war is. So, I also have issues with calling such a pseudo-"thinker" as Robert Kagan, or coward John Bolton or anyone from this pool of ignoramuses running US foreign policy and military disasters, "warriors"--none of those people have any idea what being real warrior is and that too is a problem. As I stated not for once, I feel slightly more secure when I know that Dunford and Gerasimov talk to each-other--talking to Bolton or Pompeo is a waste of time.
Today, observing an American wasteland of military and geopolitical thought which follows in step with complete political and ideological degeneration of the American state, one is forced to prepare for war which, in a current American case, could be unleashed by people who have no clue.
P.S. I don't think that Dr. Cohen serves his noble cause well when references the name of Solzhenitsyn who played his, however small, role in helping to topple one of the versions of the historic Russia and maybe Dr. Cohen has to ask himself a question why the monument to this self-proclaimed "consciousness of Russia" in Moscow is under specifically setup 24/7 video surveillance. But that is a separate topic of Russian history and here I and Dr. Cohen may have different views altogether.
