A Hectic Activity

In the West, because the outcome is clear and they do not know what to do. I would say they never knew and here is the proof. 

Russia is a "great nation" which is now actively seeking a new "destiny," French President Emmanuel Macron said on Thursday. The conflict between Moscow and Kiev has become part of this search, the French leader believes, adding that the West would only see a lasting peace if it contributed to this process through a dialogue with Russia. "Russia as a power … is searching for a [new] self and [is] looking for a destiny," Macron told Spain’s daily El Pais in a lengthy interview. "Russia is a … great nation, territorially and historically," he pointed out, also calling Russians a "great people." Macron admitted that Russia’s revival in the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union was a "very difficult" period. Now, Russia is standing in front of another "abyss," with its future "at stake," Macron stated. While accusing Moscow of "imperialist" ambitions and a desire to decide the fate of its neighbors, the French president still maintained that the West should somehow help Russia find its destiny.

How this piece of work is taken seriously by anybody is beyond me. In Russia he is a butt of the jokes, some of them not for the public arena, and that's the difference--majority of Russians laugh at modern Western "elites". Macron already, together with people like Hollande and Merkel, are written in history as pathetic lap-dogs who finished off Europe as a whole, while Macron destroyed what was left of France. It is a panopticon of midgets and their media sycophants, who themselves are human waste. 

Aren't we all yet taken aback by a degree of sheer incompetence of these people? As Alexander Rogers (in Russian) correctly stated (sadly Rogers' beautiful use of Russia's idiomatic treasures is difficult to fully convey in English) in one of his latest: Who the fuck are you to lecture me? He was reacting to a piece in TAC by a dedicated libertarian Reiganite Doug Bandow, who is completely out of his depth when speaking about Russia. He is not exception--he is a rule in the US "intellectual" milieu. My advise to all of them--learn the fucking subject before speaking on it. And Russia is hard to learn, both in language and history. Especially XX century. I can only repeat Margo Simonyan's advice, again:

I’ve been telling you for a long time to find normal advisers on Russia. Sack all those parasites.     

I can only repeat it. The West's Russia Studies field is a field of fraud and academic waste. Most of Russian history, its scale and scope are beyond the grasp of modern crop of America's "diplomats" and security "studies" graduates. There is now also a serious issue of barely contained complex of inferiority, especially a military one, when one considers an ongoing implosion of Pentagon's doctrinal assumptions, not to speak about military technology so advanced that a hectic activity to cover the loss of the arms race due to graft and military incompetence is ongoing as I type this. 

As late Father Robert Tobias wrote:

When of late in this (American) culture we turned our eyes to divine epiphanies, we perceived only two-dimensionality, not great depth. Perhaps that was provisionally inevitable in a culture dominated by two-dimensional television, movies, billboards, cameras and sports events.  

It is a truism, one cannot navigate a complex four-dimensional reality with a two-dimensional vision, but that is what modern West today is. And it cannot be fixed non-surgically anymore. There is a 50,000 grouping of VSU (and NATO "volunteers") around Seversk. It too will be obliterated and those in Pentagon who still can count and see reality know it. I think Larch is correct that this meeting:

The November meeting between the heads of the CIA and the SVR, two prominent foreign intelligence agencies in the US and Russia respectively, happened at the request of US President Joe Biden, Lavrov revealed. The US leader asked Russian President Vladimir Putin for the meeting, he said. CIA Director William Burns and SVR head Sergey Naryshkin met in Türkiye, but the US official didn’t say anything beyond Washington’s public stance, as is typical for “sporadic” US-Russian contacts, Lavrov remarked. Nevertheless, it had some value. It is the US whose policies have ruined bilateral relations with Russia, and it’s up to Washington to fix them, the diplomat added. “We will not be running after them saying ‘Let’s be friends again,’” he said.  

Was about Russia explaining to the US consequences of the US deciding to go nuclear. The United States has no defense. As Larry mentions this periodically, with Russia's development of ABM capabilities which already make US ones like a backwater, the US will find itself increasingly tempted to arrest the widening of the gap and considering serious psychiatric issues with neocon cabal driving what passes in Washington for US foreign policy, we cannot discard a scenario where the US will finally completely corner itself--she is already pretty close--and will be forced to make a suicidal decision. 

I speak about this, and other things, in my today's latest. 

The numbers are simply not there for the West, economically as well as militarily. This is your primer.

Really Fast Glance.

It seems that the issue with understanding the economy persists. So, what I did, I fast compiled available data, with the exception of agriculture, on crucial sectors among countries which rank high in the world to give some impression on the actual sizes of economies. 

I will never stop reiterating--economy IS energy. No energy--bid your dreams of becoming a global power goodbye, unless you secure energy supply, such as China is doing this very moment. So, highlighted in red are countries with a severe deficit of energy as represented in MTOE (Million Tons Oil Equivalent). Then I give some (only some) data on industrial sectors which matter in CINC (Composite Index of National Capability) and Barnett's famous 14 points.  Obviously, today CINC absolutely doesn't do the trick but it could be grasped even by a child that production of metals matters strategically, because without steel, aluminum or pig iron the civilization will simply grind to a halt. 

I didn't put in commercial aviation because we all know main players and there is no necessity to go over it. But especially in terms of Airbus which is a multi-nation conglomerate and in this case one needs to credit several countries, including Germany, where, as an example the integration facilities are located. But that doesn't mean that Germany out of own resources can produce serious commercial aircraft. She can't in a foreseeable future. In terms of consumer goods--those numbers are estimates of countries covering their needs out of own resources. And that's the issue here--look at EU members? Taken separately they are dwarfed by such countries as the US, Russia, not to speak of China, who dwarfs everybody else. That is why when I hear or read all those IMF or World Bank GDP ratings I smile. E.g. in fundamentals of economy Russia dwarfs Germany, not to speak of France or UK.  Moreover, Russian economy is grossly (and not without intention) undervalued, while Western economies are inflated to a grotesque degree by means of assets' value inflation and counting FIRE as part of GDP. Even good ol' PPP--Purchasing Power Parity adjuster doesn't work. That is why Military-Industrial Complex is included and there are ONLY two countries in the world capable out of own resources to produce all nomenclature of the advanced military hardware: US and Russia, with China following. France still tries to maintain her position within this exclusive club and we are yet to see where will it get her. 

I mean it when I say that using Western "economic statistics", especially in monetary form is as useless as treating cancer with aspirin. Remarkably, even aging Patrick Buchanan notes two days ago:

The Eclipse of Europe. Not only is the center of political gravity shifting from Europe to Asia, European unity seems a thing of the past.

For anyone who didn't drink the Kool-Aid of Western economism and strategic (pseudo)thought it was clear for a long time that Europe was on her downward spiral and as latest events with energy deficit have shown one cannot live on shares, abstract economic indices and outright delusional statistics. To live--one must produce. To live well--one has to have a good grasp of what good life is, a problem Western political "scientists" wrestle with without any success for a long time. One can live without latest Mercedes model, one cannot live without heat in winter and air-conditioning in summer. In the end, less expensive and no less practical Skodas or Ladas are available. In the end, there is always Toyota, or Hyundai. We live inside the ongoing collapse of the old world and evaporation of the old myths and chimeras. That is why Erdogan goes to Sochi and calls Putin his "dear friend". That is why, looking at European economies anyone with IQ higher than the room temperature wonders how do they even survive. Well, I will continue to try to elaborate on these issues to the best of my mental and physical abilities, but just take a brief look at those numbers--they tell the story. 

UPDATE: forgot to mention. The US is making a killing in Asia selling American LNG. Naturally. Now is the question: what about Europe--you know Atlantic solidarity, NATO and all that. Well, nothing personal, just business. In related news, BASF closed 40% of its operation, while UK's fertilizers industry is completely paralyzed, like completely stopped. It is all down right surreal. France now wants to government-control consumer prices...but...but what about "free market" and invisible hand?  

RAND's Wet Dreams.

For those who are interested in what makes RAND "click" nowadays in terms of its delusions and doctrinal and operational gibberish they "research", one may try the latest from Mr. Ochmanek and Co. in terms of what they present as:

U.S. Military Capabilities and Forces for a Dangerous World,  Rethinking the U.S. Approach to Force Planning

You can easily download PDF with their tedious report and if you have the time you may indulge yourself in about 153+ pages of an operational and strategic delusion which RAND's big brains present as a scientific research. I will not elaborate here on some overtly preposterous claims and false assumptions such as this one, among many:

To defeat ISIS, the United States has supported two major elements of the anti-Assad rebellion in Syria.

LOL, yes, by supporting and training these very same ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Or this strategic pearl unique in its hilarity:

During spring 2016, the Russian aerial campaign had some success in helping the Syrian armed forces to defeat a variety of rebel groups in and around Aleppo, Syria’s second-largest city. The Russian aerial intervention has complicated U.S. and allied use of air power and SOF units to inflict damage on ISIS.

Not to mention, of course, this, expected by now, statement:

More to the point, for the United States, having the finest force in the world does not, in and of itself, guarantee that those forces will be able to meet all of the demands being placed on them. Since the United States’ entry into World War II, this nation has espoused and largely practiced a uniquely ambitious national security strategy.

Obviously, causalities of WW II, as well as proportions and scales of it are not known to authors but how the "finest force" managed not to win since 1945 any conflict with any more or less determined (forget peer) adversary remains a complete mystery shrouded in the fog of RANDeanese or Pentagonese lingo and in the obfuscation of the most crucial operational, strategic, cultural and social factors of wars the United States fought since WW II. Well, WW II history in the US is altogether  a peculiar subject. But never mind, folks. Obviously, the authors of this "research" come up with pretty generic conclusions. You know, something like that: 

Addressing the challenges posed by the most-capable adversaries generally calls not for a larger U.S. force but rather for a force equipped with appropriate modern weapons and support assets that is also postured for responsive and resilient operations in theaters of potential conflict.

Yes, gimme, gimme, gimme, more, more, more of the same. That means more pork in producing weapon systems which do not work. And here comes this thing in this report--Russia, being named a main adversary of the United States (China, obviously, is second--but that is not really a contingency. Why, is a separate matter)--what kind of war with Russia. Forget now highly anti-scientific and anti-military propaganda BS of a "hybrid war" simulacra--by now the use of it is a first sign of military incompetence of people who express their opinions on the warfare. Authors, after repeating all tired and false cliches about US military, review the force required to fight a so called major war with Russia. They even tabulate it. Here is this table:

Granted Mr. Ochmanek's background in Air Power, one is literally forced, however, to ask him where did this number of 28 fighter squadrons and 7 bomber squadrons required to fight those pesky Russian Forces which are about to overtake free and democratic Europe come from? It is a number which can be expanded to a number of single aircraft using maximum parameter of 24 aircraft per squadron, that is 28 x 24 = 672 fighter aircraft and 7 x 12 = 84 bomber aircraft, plus all kinds of other transport and AWACS etc. So, altogether we are talking about 756 combat aircraft by 2020 "major conflict" with Russia. That is, of course, if Russia would want for some unknown reason "invade" those magnificent Baltic States. Obviously, to sound scientific Ochmanek and his group employ all kinds of platitudes and pre-conditions  such as:

We exhort the reader not to place too much store in the numbers in the table. They are based on the authors’ estimates using internal analyses and unclassified sources. The numbers that DoD would use are undoubtedly somewhat different. Our purpose in presenting them is not to attempt to provide definitive estimates of need, but rather to show a concrete example of how our recommended approach could be applied and to provide a basis for first-order comparisons of the size and cost of the resulting forces.

Well, this is all fine and dandy and I, actually, agree with authors here on this particular issue--it is advisable to give at least SOME numbers which illustrate methods; but immediately here comes the question--WHAT methods are behind those estimates? This, if one discards this fluffy rhetoric about "finest force" and all this "stealth", "platforms" and other BS lingo. One must ask next questions and answer them:

Q. When was the last time the USAF fought in highly dense EW environment with AD systems whose capabilities already today cover ALL challenges which are presented by the latest in US technology? 

A. Never. In fact, the USAF may not even internalize yet that it will (not may) fight blind with its C3 either seriously challenged or completely disrupted. 

Q. When was the last time the USAF fought world-class adversary AF which can approach or match USAF on the theater both in quality of its pilots and aircraft, and in quantity? 

A. Never, since Korea. 

Q. When was the last time the USAF deployed to the front-line, or even rear, airbases which were subjected to major attacks by adversary's both AF and salvos of cruise and tactical operational high precision stand-off weapons, which led to a severe disruption of air operations, massive casualties of personnel and significant loss of aircraft? 

A. Never. After observing a rather unimpressive performance (OK, failure) of the Patriot anti-missile systems against obsolete 1970s Yemeni Scud knock-offs recently, one is forced to ask what will this AD do against state-of-the-art, stealthy, AI-driven and EW resistant missiles' salvo, say of 40 or 60 missiles? How about several such salvos?

Q. Does Mr. Ochmanek understand that the myth of Stealth has been completely dispelled and modern AD complexes and advanced radar systems of modern aircraft such as SU-30SM, SU-35C or MiG-31BM see, track and can shoot down any "Stealth" target? 

A. Maybe, but his Politburo tells him to produce this pseudo-scientific trash otherwise he will lose his sinecure. 

Q. Does this RAND group calculate own attrition (or FERs, Fractional Exchange Rates) in such conflict correctly? 

A. No. Anyone who thinks that the force of 762 good but fairly conventional (or really bad) combat aircraft can go against Russian Air-Space Forces in Russia's vicinity and win is either delusional or incompetent. USAF will not be able to suppress Russia's AD system to start with, the opposite most likely will be true. 

I am not even going to ground forces here--any military realist can see what is coming by 2020. So, the more one begins to ask this kind of questions, the more one begins to see a complete lunacy of this kind of "planning", "research" and "advice", which, in case of RAND, is delivered to US policy-makers as a distilled wisdom.  It is obvious that this "wisdom", as I already stated, is more about money--funding for Military-Industrial Complex. As DIA's Russian Military Power reports:

Russia also has a deep and abiding distrust of U.S. efforts to promote democracy around the world and what it perceives as a U.S. campaign to impose a single set of global values.

Here is the issue, Russia doesn't "perceive" anything about the US anymore. US' "stellar" record of unleashing conflicts all over the world, supporting terrorist groups and all kinds of illegal overthrows of governments is out there for everyone to see. So, if that is called "promotion of democracy" then I kinda get it why huge number of people around the globe try to arm themselves. But the 800 pound gorilla in those calculations is still in the room and it is inescapable not to notice it: when was the last time the US won anything militarily? I can only state obvious--bar some turkey shoot in Gulf in 1991--nothing. One of the reasons for failing time after time to win a classic military conflict, that is "compel the enemy to do our will" is, as I continue to state non-stop for years now, a complete delusion of American military planners who long ago bought their own carefully-crafted mythology about superiority of own weapons, which are not superior, or about superiority of an American soldier (American soldier is a good soldier but not "superior"--it depends), or of American "planning" which fails time after time the test of military reality, in which "superior" and false numerical coefficients are being plugged into the combat models to produce politically correct outcomes. As this RAND "research" testifies to--the lessons haven't been learned and they cannot be learned--they are difficult to learn until one sees what real war does to his own family, property, country, in the end--to himself. Those things are unknown and beyond the grasp of the "best of the best" US military planners, since none of them ever fought defending their home. Russians did it for millennium. No amount of falsification, stolen valor or propaganda can hide this simple military fact. Certainly not this RAND's pseudo-scientific report.