I cannot verify stated and mocked in this video one way or another, but if true--Rafale may go in its reputation the same way as other French military hardware--utter inability to fight modern war.
I want to reiterate the point--as SMO has demonstrated, NATO, from Pentagon to Brussels is not capable to plan and conduct combined arms operations. The pivot of all those operations is what is known in Russia as MRAU (Mass Missile Aviation Strike). Without it, all NATO armies, including the US Army, are paper tigers. Already by 1980 the Soviet air defense of the Central Industrial Region could handle MRAU by NATO (not without some damage, obviously), which at that time did have real air forces and missiles. But then again, the generation of NATO officers who had the grasp of COFM is gone today.
I mentioned it in my today's video. Yes, this is 100% confirmed info by people who command the Russian formation which did this. How do I know? Well, I know many things which sometimes are not for public disclosure until they are mentioned by "holders of information". So, on one operational axis Russians took this Swedish Commander (an equivalent of Lieutenant-Colonel) POW. He was guarded by one of the Baltic states security detail--easy-peasy for the level of Russian guys who disposed of them. So, this officer, staff officer for VSU (AFU) exhibited a level of tactical and operational "ability" which, for the lack of a better word, is not even rudimentary--it is fairy taleish. He really believed that if his formation attacked in a designated sector Russians were supposed to retreat, nay, run and that this guy's troops would reach objective no problem. Ooops, but for some unknown, incomprehensible reasons, not only Russians defended their objective, but, damn, they unloaded a firestorm and then, would you believe it, they counterattacked. This is not what they teach them in NATO's military academies.
When I say that NATO officer corps is utterly unprepared for modern war, I mean it. Remarkably, you can sort of address this on a tactical level in a sense that you can teach them to maneuver and consider the opponent--and even that is useless under modern conditions. But the problem is both on tactical and operational level is that Russians outrange and outfire ANYTHING NATO can bring to bear. I am on record--Iraq War experience counts for nothing and, in fact, is a huge obstacle. This also explains a bunch of the American loser generals (like Ben Hodges) suffering form an acute case of butthurt and professional envy. It is now a confirmed fact--NATO doesn't understand the role of air defense in modern war. In their mind it was supposed to to be always this:
This middle segment "Conduct large-scale ground combat" disappears. Technically, the US could (not will) "find the enemy", but that's about it, the doctrinal pivot of the US Armed Forces of bringing the long-range fires to bear disappears also. No, the US still has the lead in terms of satellite-based ISR (Russia is catching up), per pure signal recon--well, that's complicated. Russians jam better than anyone in the world and then there is this teeny-weeny detail of pre-positioning. So, you see-this Swedish commander was thinking that he would be facing those peasant Ivans with pitch-forks and hiding behind piles of Russian corpses and running away at the first glance of NATO equipment guided to battle with NATO (his) tactical and operational brilliance. But, but ... well, you know the story now. Doctrinal catastrophe is not visible to the average Joe, but it is the most profound catastrophe NATO faces when they have to understand how amateurish and militarily impotent they are. The cognitive dissonance is a bitch.
So, somebody in the US Army (not Ben Hodges let alone Kellog) was thinking in the right direction in 2019.
Russian integrated air defense systems (IADS) make sustained air superiority questionable, especially at the beginning of operations when geographical proximity to positioned Russian forces enables their deliberate emplacement. With our current systems, we will only be able to create temporary windows of superiority with great effort. The Russians employ IADS at every tactical level, from battalion to division, with a focus on finding and destroying U.S. fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft. They are also steadily working toward overmatch in the field of counterfire radar, fielding a variety of systems across the depths of their formations and with varying levels of capability. This might enable the Russian fires complex to “out attrite” our own counterfire capabilities, leaving them with the only systems on the battlefield.
Too bad, they didn't recognize the scale of the NATO tactical and operational rut which prevents the most important thing--internalization of the issue--guiding you to correct decisions. They wanted to try, they did. Somebody tell Trump--the US Army didn't produce a general the scale of Erich von Manstein or Georgi Zhukov, or Konstantin Rokossovsky in the last 80 years. Russia did, and that's what makes the world of difference.
... on Krynky catastrophe, naturally planned by British. We saw British operational "genius" in Kursk Oblast where those credentialed cretins from London killed more than 76,000 NATO (VSU and their "advisers" ARE a NATO army) personnel. Against this background or famed "counteroffensive", which exposed Pentagon's military incompetence and killed already more than 160,000 personnel, Krynky "operation" seems almost an insignificant detail in otherwise a war crime Washington and London committed by killing most likely more than 1.5 million VSU-NATO and roughly 100,000 of Russian Army servicemen. I omit here atrocities against civilian population and POWs. As GZ's opening salvo describes:
1. All of NATO, let alone British military have zero tactical and operational experience and knowledge applicable to the warfare of the 21st century:
a) British military education and thought are completely detached from the realities of modern war and fire impact and operational tempo which Russian Armed Forces can enforce across a very large line of combat contact. The system is simply broken and obsolete.
b) Academic level of British officer corps is extremely low and does not provide proper insights into even lower tactical level, which completely reduces any combat training to nothing more than mechanical repetition of prescriptions from NATO's obsolete Tactical and Operational Field manuals.
2. The fact that British military believed already during and after catastrophe of "counteroffensive" that a tactical action can have serious operational, let alone strategic effect on one of several (today it is 11 of them) operational axes of Russian Army exposes a shocking lack of awareness about:
a) The weight of Russian salvo across all means of delivery of long-range fires within RUK/ROK.
Evidently, British General Staff has difficulty grasping the issue of scales and the role in much more advanced military such as Russian its ISR assets play.
b) British military and its general staff structures do not understand the issue of COFM (Correlation Of Forces and Means) because the only explanation for the consistent failures of NATO in 404 is that either they cannot calculate properly, or their models are bunk or likely, both.
3. NATO doesn't have real strategic intelligence as such.
4. Promised "missile cover" could have been conceived by British military based on a complete lack of understanding of the role of AD in modern conflict and how REAL SEAD is conducted. E.g. NATO's AD is not survivable in modern conflict against highly developed Air Force, ISR and fires such as Iskander, Kinzhal, Oniks or 3M22 Zircon. NATO militaries simply have no reference point.
In other words, the only thing which drove British "planning" more than their military amateurism and adventurism, was as GZ notes:
For the technical details, they decided that “academics should also be included, using the latest technology resources to ensure the success of raids conducted especially in terms of the destruction of key infrastructure.” Therefore, “a formal request” to the British Ministry of Defence “on the latest intelligence imagery and plans” regarding Crimea’s heavily-fortified underground complex “will need to be planned in extreme detail. ”Britain’s obsession with wresting Sevastopol from Moscow’s grasp dates back to the Crimean War of 1853-1856, but the leaked documents clearly show the city’s seizure is still considered a vital, and achievable, objective from London’s perspective. Though Project Alchemy described the military port as home to the world’s “largest concentration of anti-ship missiles” and a bunker complex “immune to air or missile strike,” the group’s operatives still believed the area to be “vulnerable to commando forces.”
It is both cultural and mental for London whose hatred of everything Russian drove already incompetent military into sheer delusion of UK's greatness as military power. But as GZ notes:
As major legacy media outlets now dissect Kiev’s military failures in forensic detail, the reporting consistently underlines the British Ministry of Defense’s pivotal role in planning some of the war’s biggest disasters. Each of these setbacks left many thousands of Ukrainians dead or wounded, yet no one in London appears to have faced any professional consequences. To the foreign officers who sent them into the kill zone, those who lost their lives were nothing more than proxies.
The conclusion is simple--British military is no good for anything other than sabotage and terrorist (and piracy) "operations", not to mention the fact of its low academic, intellectual, moral and morale level, which drives them to committing war crimes and parading oneself as a collection of military misfits. There is no honor or professional integrity which was substituted with fanatical hatred of Russia. As a result--British military deserves neither professional nor human respect.
... who have any military and intel education and experience on both American and Russian side have been saying non-stop about "Battle of Kiev" which... never happened. This is stated by my good friend Colonel Vladimir Trukhan starting at 42:00.
Pay attention to what Vladimir emphasizes and which I soon will chafe my tongue in my videos by explaining that military victories are won on operational and strategic levels. This is what Vladimir says, AGAIN, Russian Armed Forces "never lost operational initiative for a day while having some tactical complications" (c). I may add--inevitable in the operations of such scale. Write down in your notes: Colonel-Operator of Central Apparatus of Russian Defense Ministry Vladimir Trukhan. This is how military professionals think on operational-strategic level, you also learn every day, because once you stopped learning--you are done as a professional. US military lost this ability to learn, or learned all the wrong lessons--this is why the "plan" of the "counteroffensive" to slice Russian defense in two by going for Melitopol and then cut land corridor to Crimea was done by military amateurs who never fought the enemy who can maneuver better than any NATO force can, and it could never work.
Well, we all know how it "worked"--160,000+ casualties and 18,000 pieces of equipment lost by VSU in this "counteroffensive". You have to have a real "talent" to be able to kill so many men and lose so much hardware. Do they teach these "operations" by collective Baghdad Bob and Iraqi Generals in the US Army Command and General Staff College in Leavenworth, Kansas? How else can you explain this unprecedented failure with catastrophic consequences for 404, not to mention the fact that it dramatically accelerated geopolitical collapse of the whole Pax Americana.
For those who wonder what Operational Initiative is:
A set of created conditions, situation and objective circumstances that make it possible to impose one’s will on the enemy during an ongoing operation for a certain time in the corresponding direction.The side that has seized the initiative has the freedom to choose methods of action, directions and timing of strikes, and can solve assigned tasks in favorable conditions, while the other side is limited in its actions.Seizing and maintaining operational initiative is one of the most important factors in achieving success in operations.It is achieved by delivering preemptive strikes, surprise actions, more decisive, daring and active use of one’s troops (naval forces) and assets, gaining fire superiority, air and sea supremacy, and constraining enemy actions.
How you gain it--that's the issue of military art, a real one. It is not enough to talk about it.
... a load of BS which many YT "experts" spew. Here is an example:
The authors should have stayed on the message of the video and not get into the larger framework of warfare, especially trying to compare what happens in Gaza and happened in Afghanistan during Soviet occupation there. The only commonality between the two are tunnels and Islamic fighters, period. The rest is not even in the same universe. Why?
1. IDF fights a pure urban combat in the city size-vise somewhat similar to Grozny circa 1999-2000. Incidentally, Grozny also had (still has) a vast network of sewers which have been used extensively by both sides. But in Gaza, we are taking about the size of operational zone around 45-60 square miles, whole Gaza is about 145 square miles. In related news, Afghanistan occupies more than 250,000 square miles. So, if the authors of this "report" have issues with math and geography--Afghanistan is 250,000/145= 1,724 times larger. Feel the difference, not to mention Afghanistan's extreme topography.
2. Afghan mujaheddin have been equipped not just with classic small arms (RPGs, Stingers et al) but had on their side in the South and East of Afghanistan Pakistani Air Force which was shooting at Soviet Air Force from Pakistani air space (see Alexander Rutskoi). Moreover, mujaheddin in Afghanistan also had heavier weapons such as artillery ranging from 30-mm AAA to much heavier pieces. Even WiKi gives the list of things. E.g. 82-mm and 107-mm are very serious weapons and mujaheddin had plenty of those, among many other things. HAMAS weaponry consists primarily of some rockets and light arms, including modified RPG with tandem charge.
3. Soviet 40th Army in Afghanistan never exceeded 100,000 personnel, while IDF already mobilized by different estimates around 200,000 troops. Talk about Operational Capacity (Volume) of the theater of operations. In Gaza case--where would you place those 200,000? Jam them into the streets? But then again, for those who have issues like the authors of this video--Afghanistan size is about the size of the Germany and Italy combined. The size of Gaza (all of it) is about 7 times smaller than the area of Moscow.
And these are just three factors, there are many more, which completely remove any substantial similarity between IDF's Gaza atrocity and Soviet War in Afghanistan. Obviously, authors of this video never heard of Vietnamese using an immensely extensive underground tunnels system and this was 15 years before mujaheddin started to use it. I omit here altogether a dramatic difference between extended supply lines of the 40th Army and IDF, how about more than 220 miles between Termez and Kabul over Salang Pass as the crow flies, in reality the distance is at least twice this long over treacherous mountain terrain.
So, how long are exactly IDF's supply lines? 3 miles, 5?
Finally, as one may have guessed it by now, even the tactics, let alone operations are completely different in cases of Gaza and Afghanistan. So are operations by IDF and the Soviet 40th Army. But, evidently, such videos are prevalent among those who root for HAMAS which by now, at least temporarily, disassociated itself from Gaza atrocity by Israel, but which also needs to think what price they were willing to pay for their actions. Horrifying numbers of killed civilians, especially children of Gaza raise a warranted question--was it worth it? I speak here as human, whose heart breaks from seeing Gaza children killed. As you noticed, I do not appeal to Netanyahu and Likudniks consciousness--they have none.
Thanks to Scott Ritter who posted the screenshot of Politico in his UTube channel. Here is the Captain Obvious piece No breakthrough yet in Ukraine’s counteroffensivefrom this rag:
Well, somebody needs to give US MSM and many Pentagon officials a basic course in military history and a brief review of operations as reflected in Russia's field manuals and operational documents, the ones which are available to public. It might help, including the understanding of why all those Air-Land Battle(s) by Pentagon are fiction and exercise in operational and strategic wet-dreaming.
I also have news for Politico and their "journos", when they report this:
Ukrainian forces are eagerly awaiting the arrival of the U.S. Army’s M1
Abrams main battle tank, which is expected as soon as early September
and will help punch through Russia’s defensive lines. But as the
operation grinds on, DOD officials expect the counteroffensive will last
at least through the fall and possibly into the winter.
Shh, don't tell anybody, but Russians are also eagerly awaiting the appearance of the US Army's M1 Abrams MBTs and have been quite disappointed when learned that those Abrams will arrive without advanced electronics and active defense. I know, I know--they need another excuse the moment those M1s will begin to burn after meeting T-90M, PTRK Kornet or Krasnopol smart munition, or those nasty Mi-28s and Ka-52s, and that is when this excuse will be used: you see, we sent them inferior models. This is how the excuse will sound, word for word. But give British the credit where the credit is due--they first developed and procured (in Ukraine) completely Stealth MBT Challenger. It is so stealthy in visual diapason that no one have seen it on the battlefield so far. They are there, but not visible. That's what I am talking about--technology of the future.
Ze, run, run like hell, because THEY, not Russians, will kill you and throw your body away as a used condom, if your body will be found at all. Run, run... to Russia--the only place where there is no death penalty, so far, and where you have all chances to stay alive and even have three square hot meals (wait, does evening tea count as a meal?) and Russian prisons are great places for beating drug addictions--doesn't matter if you are a murderer, a serial rapist or, like in your case--war criminal. Run Ze, run! You are a used condom and Globalists need a martyr. No, not Greta Thunberg, but you fit all criteria perfectly. Do you want to die for 404 "Democracy"?
Add today, of course a much more powerful air transport component, modern ISR and and C4 and you get:
Larry continues:
The planning process Patton followed is similar to what the U.S. military uses today. The current system is known as the Joint Operation Planning and Execution System
aka JOPES. I have been involved in scripting and executing over 240
crisis response exercises. I worked for 23 years for the man who wrote
JOPES, so I have some insight to the process. He beat it into me. It
starts with an Alert Order (e.g. Be Prepared to Act) usually followed
Warning Order (e.g., Houston we have a specific problem, tell us how you
plan to solve it). The military command that receives the warning order immediately tasks it staff to prepare Courses of Action aka COAs.
Read the whole thing at Larry's superb blog. Here is how he concludes, rightly, his excellent professional insight.
...the Russians knew it was coming and chose to let the Ukrainians flood
the zone in order to eventually hit the Ukrainian forces with a massive
counter attack. The Ukrainians are no longer in fortified defensive
positions and their lines of communication to support the forward troops
are now defined precisely. The Ukrainian attack has not destroyed nor
disrupted Russia’s air, artillery, rocket and missile assets. Attacking
the Ukrainian units is an easier task, not more difficult.I am not privy to the Russian plan. But what I do know is that the
planning process required to deploy the troops and equipment moving into
Kharkov was not a panicked response. Hollywood can create the illusion
of rapid movement of military troops, but the real world requires
alerting units, making sure they are properly supplied and then
undertaking the logistic task of moving those units into combat. This
means the planning was deliberate, not a crisis response.
For people who continue to rely upon TG channels and "reporters", I have to go with my friend Vladimir Trukhan's suggestion--just give those "experts" the combat veteran status--many of them richly deserve it--award them with some combat medals, but forbid them to speak on operational and strategic matters. Many people still don't get it--personal courage under fire is NOT a substitute for military operational and strategic competence. Larry gave one of its important facets a real professional treatment.
Also, for those of us who still doubt a catastrophic state of VSU, here is the first hand account, which corroborates many serious analysts' estimates of losses, which partially is confirmed by Kiev regime.
Translation:MOSCOW, August 18 - RIA Novosti. Kyiv significantly underestimates its losses in the Russian special operation, among the Ukrainian military there are already about 200 thousand dead, one of the leaders of the Zaporozhye militia, the commander of the Troy detachment, Vladimir Novikov, with the call sign Alabai, told RIA Novosti. "This is my personal opinion, I think about 200 thousand" two hundredth "(dead. - Approx. ed.) and more than 300 thousand wounded who will not return to duty," Novikov said. According to the commander of the detachment, he uses various sources of information. "Based on the totality of information, I can voice such figures," he said.
That explains quite well a hysterical reaction of neocon cabal, such as this yesterday's desperate and risible piece by all those great "strategists" in The Hill.
This juxtapositions itself quite well against yet another testimony about US weapons being not exactly as they are constantly advertised and of which I wrote three books.
Now, before saying anything about RT using Business Insider "experts" as a source, it has to be stated that US MSM in general DO NOT have real military experts, firstly, because there could be no experts on tactics and operational matters among the graduates of the journo and communications schools and, secondly, the level of the American military "expertise" as performed by all those generals, colonels and "intel" people in 90% of cases is appalling in its ignorance and lack of understanding of modern war and Russia. And yes, US military "technology" is largely a failure in a peer-to-peer environment. So, as is expected a lot of butt-hurt and consumption of copium. And, thanks to my friend Mile Krupa, Mr. Mearsheimer, for all his accomplishments, continues to demonstrate a complete ignorance of the realities of modern warfare in his piece in Foreign Affairs. Mearsheimer, having no clue about what the current state of military balance in Europe is, speculates how the US can get involved directly into the conflict.
Mearsheimer, a graduate of the USMA at West Point in early 1970s is still stuck in... 1945 and continues to drink Kool-Aid from US media, not understanding what state the VSU are in and not understanding that Russia maintains an overwhelming escalation dominance and ability of a strategic maneuver by force. But he speaks with a confidence on this:
What about the ultimate form of escalation?
There are three circumstances in which Putin might use nuclear weapons.
The first would be if the United States and its NATO
allies entered the fight. Not only would that development markedly
shift the military balance against Russia, greatly increasing the
likelihood of its defeat, but it would also mean that Russia would be
fighting a great-power war on its doorstep that could easily spill into
its territory.
Unlike Mearsheimer, I am largely up to date on general view of Russian military on Western military "power" and, having an engineering degree am all ears and eyes trying to hear from Mearsheimer some details on WHAT force and HOW can NATO muster to attack Russia. Don't expect a professional answer from Mearsheimer, because he still thinks that it is 1980 and NATO can do a Reforger type thingy. He doesn't understand, that in order to fight Russia conventionally in Eastern Europe NATO, headed by the US, will need a force around 1 million ground troops with adequate equipment and C4ISR to even have a shot at not being defeated outright--a task impossible in principle, not to mention the fact I would like Mearsheimer's "forecasts" on matters of the US daily losses, in thousands KIAs and WIAs daily, on reconstituting a draft in the US, on the combat readiness of the US ground troops and, in the end, on all those "sophisticated" weapons which the United States is simply afraid to provide not because they are just afraid, and the US is afraid, of real escalation, but because all of those "sophisticated" weapons do not work in real.
I do not expect from Mearsheimer any assessment of operations of RuAF, Air Defense or Navy--he doesn't know it--but maybe he will have enough integrity for stopping spewing an absolutely sophomoric amateur BS on subjects neither he, nor his "political science" environment, have any clue about. In the end, he better learn that it is the United States, not Russia, who is very use of nuclear weapons biased nation precisely because it is incapable of planning and executing anything even remotely similar to SMO. But then again, I don't know if he studies real military history of the world, not BS they teach in Ivy League circle jerk on American exceptionalism. As Mike correctly concluded: "Mearsheimer better concentrate on writing about Israeli Lobby". Agree 100%, this is his field and he better resign himself there: real history, warfare, practical geopolitics, real Russia studies and operational art are not his forte.
I am being hammered by messages from all kinds of armchair strategists who think that they are qualified enough to make conclusions on operation based of such sources as WSJ or CNN. Here is Larry doing a professional job for them:
Read the whole thing at Larrys' blog and pay attention to graphics. As you understand, this is just one of the episodes of a war. The other one is "sudden" (not really) appearance of Russian forces near Krivoy Rog--a precise maneuver which morons from WSJ, following ukie propaganda and "advice" from their "experts", interpreted yesterday as a "victory" by VSU, when in reality it was a classic bypass of already blocked Nikolaev.
Now, for those who still whine about "slow" progress. Here is a demonstration--roughly 12 by 10 miles snippet of the terrain in Donbass:
These are just some towns and villages concentrated in this NOT the most densely populated area. Practically ALL of Eastern Ukraine is nothing more than just one huge agglomeration of small to middle size towns and villages forming essentially one huge urban area, much of it reinforced by concrete bunkers and underground lines of communications. 404 spent last 8 years as one LDNR tanker said it yesterday--"pouring it (concrete) in"(c). It takes time to clear all of a very large ukie force entrenched there.
Per Mariupol and elsewhere: Russia gives the remnants of Azov a corridor out of Mariupol which they can enter without arms. This is also the attempt to save remaining around 100,000 civilians, many of who are used as human shield. Azov has been essentially beaten into the ground at the Azov Steel plant and if they disagree, they will be finished off and that will mark the end of Mariupol operation. That also frees a lot of units for operations elsewhere. Now, Zhitomir base for mercenaries and NATO instructors has been hit by stand-off weapons, 100+ are confirmed dead, the number most likely will grow. And, of course, Nazi "battalion Donbass" has been largely wiped out and its remnants together with remnants of 54 OMBR of VSU will be finished off shortly. This is some sort of a sitrep for today.
I stumbled on this just now and was compelled to ask myself a question about purely military-strategic and operational matter: if Saudi Arabia really is afraid (I heard it to be the case) of Iran, what security arrangement thus becomes a most sensible one for her? Get this:
It is a very loaded statement which shows both an American oil industry desperation and, simultaneously, extreme limitations, bar some clandestine operation to remove MBS, in measures the United States can take to "motivate" Saudis to dance to the appropriate tune. Considering Saudis' very real fear of Iran and her influence in the region and the fact that US anti-Iranian sanctions have a lot of Saudi "juice" behind them (not just Israeli one) and that Saudi-Iranian "relations" can only be described as Cold War with all "proxies" involved as a result, one has to ask the question, a purely theoretical (I stress this) one: if Iran was forced, could she devastate Saudi oil (and only viable) industry and mount a massive attack on Saudi state institutions? The answer is really simple--if push comes to shove Iran can disrupt with a dramatic effect Saudi oil production and wipe out storage facilities in several salvos of ballistic and cruise missiles and the United States which has Patriot AD complexes in Saudi Arabia will be able to do very little to prevent it. Simple as that. Iran doesn't need, objectively, to "invade" Saudi Arabia to push her over the threshold of economic chaos and, likely, palace coup if not outright revolution.
Here comes this purely operational consideration: apart from the United States being royally pissed with MBS', and Saudis' in general, irrational behavior (nothing unexpected here, plus the US has this propensity to have among her allies a lowest scum of the Earth), the reality is very simple: if US is provoked to attack Iran, first localities which are getting devastated are US bases in the region and Saudi oil fields and storage facilities. Simple as that. What will be the "weight" of those salvos is a matter for pure speculations, what is clear, however, that Iran has enough of them and with a very good guidance packages to conduct a prolonged operation against variety of regional targets with very high effectiveness, that is to say decent rate of "leakers" against the most sophisticated air and anti-missile defenses the United States can deploy. In the end, nobody cancelled good ol' over-saturation method of overcoming any defenses. Do Saudis know about that? I don't know, they, let's be frank here, suck at everything related to operation of modern technology, let alone combat one. But one thing is clear--not only the United States cannot defend Saudis in case of an actual (God forbids) war, but the United States itself, including through Saudi lobbying, which is as prevalent in D.C. as Israeli one (I don't know what is current going rate for US Congressman or Senator on the market, but Saudis do have cash, for now), may unleash such a war which will not only result in US catastrophic losses against Iran, but will see Saudi's oil treasure burned by a variety of means ranging from missile strikes to oil fields sabotage, which inevitably will lead to disintegration of KSA as such.
Hm. Thus the question--a very practical one--who can built a proper and effective air and anti-missile defense for Saudis' main treasure while simultaneously restraining Iran. In the end, he bottom line is always not how you live, however important, but if you live at all. Saudis, certainly, saw how certain country conducts object and area defense operations and how she uses both military and diplomatic power to "calm things down" in the country, to he North, infested with Saudis' very own Al Qaeda and Qatar's very own ISIS. They know how it goes there. But then again, Saudis were in the market for technology which actually works for a while:
So, you get my drift, right? As I say all the time--in matters of life and death nobody cares how shiny things are, everyone needs and wants the only one thing which matter--a thing which saves your life. That begins to explain a funny statements from Saudis few days ago when talking about Russia being "a family" and that close families always settle their quarrels amicably. You know, all kinds of statements of this nature from the highest power levels of Saudi elites. So, in this case, let me go out on a limb here and propose that Saudis may, actually, have been thinking about changing their posse for a while. In the end, Saudis' main enemy in the region, Iran that is, is in a fairly close relations to Russia who does have some influence on Iran. This influence is, if anything else, dramatically in Saudis' favor because Russia not only doesn't want a war in the region, but has enough wherewithal politically, economically and militarily to, indeed, calm things down. Moreover, behind Russia, which is taking Saudi's share of oil market, is rich China, with her global trade plans. So, Saudis, I am sure are thinking deeply now if they have to go out looking for new guns for hire. Especially, since Russia is openly in this business selling the most desirable, most coveted and most valuable product globally--political stability. How Russia does this, you all know, I write about this for years. In this case, Trump's threats of denying Saudi Arabia American "protection" may not be necessarily a bad news for at least some segments of Saudi princes who surely know where their instincts for survival lead them.
