RT Produced Yet Another MGIMO Graduate Attempting "Analysis".

Make no mistake, I have a deep respect for people who study foreign counties and have a command of their native language. Especially if such a country is China--a giant of a country with a very complex culture and a gigantic economy. In fact, by sheer size--by far the largest economy in the world. When speaking about China most of the time I defer to Sinologists, except for one field and this one is military. RT, presents us with such a Sinologist like Ivan Zuenko. I don't doubt that Zuenko knows China as much as it is possible to know her at all, but being a MGIMO "product", and MGIMO started its intellectual and academic decline from its former Soviet glory days (when being a diplomat was not only prestigious but also meant the access to Western style of consumption) already in 1990s, Zuenko suffers from the same illness as his Western equivalents--speaking on issues he has no idea about. Today, when Russians have access to any consumer goods starting from jeans to cars and travel extensively, while many Russians make more, much more than even top Russian diplomats, the shiny image of MGIMO faded away. Moreover, today large swaths of this institution ranging from professors to students are very much the followers of globalist ideology and pseudo-academic framework required for perpetuation of globalist views. 

Zuenko comes across as such a "product" and while I would certainly defer to him when talking about Chinese trade, consumer economy etc., I can immediately state that, as many people with the backgrounds such as his, he doesn't understand two things:

1. The combined West in general, and the United States in particular;

2. As any person with such a background he shouldn't be commenting on geopolitical issues, because they are direct derivatives of military and real economy power. 

Yet, Zuenko writes in RT yesterday, opening with Captain Obvious and "water is wet" kind of thing in his article:

If there had not been an active rapprochement between Moscow and Beijing over the past decades, and if Russia did not have an Asian alternative to European markets for oil and gas, it would not have been able to attack Ukraine. Does this mean China is the main beneficiary of the European crisis and that the situation is developing according to Beijing’s plans? There are various ways to assess the nature and consequences of the events that began in February. But what is clear is that they cannot be considered in isolation from the historical context, which should include at least the last eight years, starting with the Western-backed overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych’s government in Ukraine.

OK, while absolutely trivial and self-evident, it makes a preposterous point known in Russian saying as: if grandma had balls, she would have been a grandpa(c), albeit in the modern West, she/he/their could have been many a splendor thing. But my point stands and in Zuenko we encounter here not only a bad student of practical (geo)politics formulated by Bismark as "the art of possible, of attainable--the art of the next best". And it is here that Zuenko's pedigree as a civilian and badly informed person begins to shine, because I have news for him: Russia would invade Ukraine even when NOT having China as an alternative market, or, for that matter, most of Asia. 

But this "scenario" is a classic Spherical Horse in Vacuum scenario which could have been produced only by the person who has zero understanding of national security issues of Russia and has no grasp of military balance formation whatsoever.  Not surprising, MGIMO as any humanities higher institution in Russia "imported" much of the fraudulent political "science" methods in the wake of Soviet collapse and if you want to see a collection of ignorant and globalist-leaning people, you can take a look at Valdai club. So, even in the opening statement Zuenko makes a horrendous mistake because he has no tools for understanding (forget grasping and internalizing) the issue of Russia's security concerns beyond, now traditional, poli-sci platitudes. He reiterates his grossly illiterate point:

If China had not adopted a benevolent neutrality towards the Russian military operation, had not continued to buy Russian goods and thereby provided a reliable strategic rear, the continuation of the offensive would have been objectively impossible.

And the question one needs to ask is who told Mr.Zuenko that it "would have been objectively impossible", considering the fact that nobody in MGIMO knows how military doctrines are written and how Russia conducts what was always known as военное строительство (military buildup, construction). Zuenko, obviously, has no clue about it--you need a very serious military and technological graduate degree--plus Zuenko has issues understanding real economy and, of course, some memory issues, especially regarding Vladimir Putin's 2007 Munich Speech in which he threw the gauntlet and here we are today. But I am sure Zuenko knows  what is "objectively" possible and what is not better than the President of Russia and General Staff. 

But then he gets to "plans". I am not going to discuss China's feelings about SMO, I am sure Zuenko does know it better than me, but what Zuenko doesn't know when he writes it:

In practice, a global NATO is already in the making, and the US-led military bloc’s Madrid summit in late June is the best proof of this. For the first time in NATO’s history, the Pacific states – Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea – were invited; actions were intensified to form ‘quasi-alliances’ such as the QUAD (the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue between the US, Australia, Japan and India), AUKUS (the trilateral pact between the US, Britain, and Australia), and the Partners in the Blue Pacific (PBP: AUKUS plus Japan and New Zealand). In contrast to the ‘classical NATO’, which has long been perceived in China as a vestige of the Cold War and intra-Western conflicts, these alliances have an unambiguous anti-Chinese orientation.

While talk about "alliances" is all fine and dandy, what this "researcher" doesn't get, that, as an example, is that SMO completely reshaped global balance of power and no matter what "feelings" Chinese might have, even they admit that they look at Russia as a much more serious military power than they are, and whatever those alliance are, ambiguous or unambiguous against China, Zuenko should take some courses, his "research" is not going to help him, he simply is uneducated for this task, in military balance and must understand two things about combined West: combined West CANNOT defeat Russia militarily with or without China, but combined West does have some chance against China if China is "abandoned" by Russia. Chinese know this, Zuenko doesn't. 

As I already wrote and spoke on AUKUS--it is an indicator of West's dramatically declining power, hence the desperate desire to exploit last decisive advantage over China by the US--it is its world-class and dramatically superior to PLAN's submarine force. They can do it by cutting Indian Ocean SLOCs where up to 30% of China import of resources and energy goes through. In the nearest future, 10-15 years, China will not catch up to Russia or US in some key military technologies which dictate operational and strategic realities, which completely overturn Zuenko's worldview in regards to Russia-China axis. Should Zuenko had a clue, he would have been attentive to Vladimir Putin's sensational admission of Russia "helping" China in building SPRN. Real military-intel professionals around the world gasped, because this admission alone spoke volumes about roles distribution in Chinese-Russian alliance and the list where China is yet to get equal with Russia in military-industrial field is huge. Zuenko doesn't know this list, or even if knew, he wouldn't have understood its significance, and that is why his statement about "being objectively impossible" is nothing more than a hot air by a product of once proud institution. China didn't "adopt the benevolent position", she simply had NO Choice. Zuenko is not an expert in anything but in some aspects of Chinese politics, and that is why he should have avoided parading himself as an amateur, especially when talking about practical geopolitics. He would also help himself if dedicated at least some time studying what modern West (and US) are. But it is too much to ask.

About Talked About Article.

I want to start with solemn "thank you" to our very own Johnny Rotten who two days ago pointed out to me some thoughts by President of Russia on political "science". And, of course, I am profoundly thankful to Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin for his proper and long awaited statement on the issue of a fraudulent pseudo-academic field known as political "science".  I am talking about this:

МОСКВА, 7 июля. /ТАСС/. Президент РФ Владимир Путин усомнился в том, что политологию можно классифицировать как науку, потому что сложно найти метод исследования, присущий только этой области знаний. Такой оценкой он поделился в четверг на встрече с победителями четвертого сезона конкурса "Лидеры России". Услышав о том, что одна из конкурсанток собирается защищать кандидатскую диссертацию в области политических наук, глава государства удивился: "В области политологии?" Есть такая наука - политология?" Услышав утвердительный ответ, он со смехом добавил: "Спорный вопрос". "Я так понимаю, всегда так считалось, что чтобы какая-то сфера знаний претендовала на то, чтобы называться наукой, у нее должен быть собственный предмет исследования и собственный метод исследования. В политологии как-то трудно найти присущий только ей метод исследования", - поделился Путин своим видением ситуации.

Translation: MOSCOW, 7 July. /TASS/. Russian President Vladimir Putin doubted that political science can be classified as a science, because it is difficult to find a research method that is unique to this field of knowledge. He shared this assessment on Thursday at a meeting with the winners of the fourth season of the Leaders of Russia contest. Hearing that one of the contestants was going to defend her Ph.D. thesis in the field of political science, the head of state was surprised: "In the field of political science?" Is there such a science - political science?" Hearing an affirmative answer, he added with a laugh: "A moot point." "As I understand it, it has always been believed that in order for a certain field of knowledge to claim to be called a science, it must have its own subject of study and its own research method. In political science, it is somehow difficult to find a research method inherent only to it," - Putin shared his vision of the situation.

It is one thing when some insignificant washout like me tries to get across the point that political "science" is a fraud, totally another when arguably the most important statesman, highly educated and cultured at that, of the 21st century finally speaks his mind on a fraudulent field "of study" which, to a very large extent, is a reason why the modern West continues with its both homicidal and suicidal policies and arrived at the precipice of the historic, tectonic, defeat. It is becoming exceedingly obvious that 99% of Western political "scientists" are people who shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions (I underscore: opinions) on any subject dealing with modern civilization in so far as its complex machinery, both directly and figuratively speaking, least of all in the field of warfare. 

The record of utter, grotesque failure of political "science" is easily traceable through the even brief review of the Western geopolitical "thought" which provided us with copious amount of geopolitical speculations practically all of which are nothing more than pseudo-academic trash ranging from risible sophomoric Fukuyama's demagoguery to Huntington's "Clash", and I don't mean the band, to 2018 Mearsheimer's meandering and ignorant speculation on the fate of liberalism. We all can go further and recall writings of late Zbig, or the fate of Russian Studies field in the West stuffed with this kind of pseudo-academic parasites, or we can all laugh at pretentious BS produced by CFR which is saturated with political "scientists", including its big honcho Richard Haas, who cannot find their own asses with their both hands in a brightly lit room. In the end, look at the US Congress. 

Speaking of the Council on Foreign Relations and its main publication Foreign Affairs. Here is the guy who penned a few days ago yet another "gem" of the Western political "science" thinking, or, rather lack thereof, and his name is Barry R. Posen who is Ford International Professor of Political Science at MIT. If a well documented inability of the political "science" to predict own next bowel movement wasn't enough--purely on statistical merit they should have predicted by now something right, you know broken clock being correct twice a day thing--Posen decided to buttress Vladimir Putin's (and mine, for a very long time, mind you) thesis about this academic fraud filed, which exists only for generating credentialism for people who, otherwise, have issues with serious fields of study, to which political "science" does not belong and is characterized by Pushkin's immortal words from Evgenii Onegin. 

We all meandered through our schooling 

haphazard; so, to God be thanks,

 it's easy, without too much fooling, 

to pass for cultured in our ranks. 

Well, Mr. Posen penned this talked about (in some circles) article in Foreign Affairs. The title of article is a classic pretentious BS one would expect from the American political "science" so called "experts" in matters of war and Russia: Ukraine’s Implausible Theories of Victory.The Fantasy of Russian Defeat and the Case for Diplomacy. As I already stated (and wrote three books on that) American political class and the "expert" community, a euphemism for a cabal of primarily political scientists, which shapes its views on the outside world are utterly ignorant in two fundamental things:

1. Warfare, which requires a range of expertise which is not even in the same vicinity of the political "science", because you have to have a rock solid graduate level STEM and tactical-operational background and that means actual service in military and intel environment at the officer level. 

2. Russia. West, it can be stated clearly and decisively now, has no clue what it is dealing with in Russia and Russian people. American political "science" field contributed mightily to a complete delusion of the West about Russia and that brought about this current situation of the combined West committing suicide by Russia. 

Obviously, Posen's article title immediately exhibits a fantastical thinking because the "case for diplomacy" has long expired and it has everything to do with:

1. Actual state of the SMO in Ukraine and the dynamics of operations in Ukraine in terms of obvious changing correlation of forces engaged and that is pointing towards utter destruction of VSU. 

2. Inability to see (or admit) the fact that Ukraine is but one of many theaters of a global warm war between Russia and combined West and that war has been started by the West. So, when Lavrov says openly that there is nothing to talk about with combined West that means NO "diplomacy" the way ignorant and incompetent US "diplomats" understand it. 

So, the title alone with its "case for diplomacy" is nothing more than a fantastical thinking by Posen who, naturally, has no clue about Russia and Russian way of war. Posen's tenure in Pentagon and RAND as analyst is of no use, because neither Pentagon nor RAND have a grasp of what the US was getting itself into when organized bloody and criminal coup in 2013-2014 in Ukraine. Plus, pardon my French, one has to have at least some record of successes and accomplishments, which in case of Pentagon is non-existent in the last 20+ years. I doubt the product of organization with a totally confused fighting doctrine and miscalculating every single enemy it ever fought can have anything to add to the issue of outcome in Ukraine.  Yet, he tries, and in doing so betrays the desperation for a face saving exit for the US which now observes its greatest ever proxy SOB being taken apart by Russia. 

A negotiated solution to the war would no doubt be hard to achieve, but the outlines of a settlement are already visible. Each side would have to make painful concessions. Ukraine would have to relinquish considerable territory and do so in writing. Russia would need to relinquish some of its battlefield gains and renounce future territorial claims. To prevent a future Russian attack, Ukraine would surely need strong assurances of U.S. and European military support, as well as continuing military aid (but consisting mainly of defensive, not offensive, weapons). Russia would need to acknowledge the legitimacy of such arrangements. The West would need to agree to relax many of the economic sanctions it has placed on Russia. NATO and Russia would need to launch a new set of negotiations to limit the intensity of military deployments and interactions along their respective frontiers. U.S. leadership would be essential to a diplomatic solution. Because the United States is Ukraine’s principal backer and the organizer of the West’s economic pressure campaign against Russia, it possesses the greatest leverage over the two parties. 

A fantastical, detached from the reality thinking. Each phrase in this segment is an Exhibit A of a delusion of a grandeur, hubris and stupidity. I have news to Posen: for starters, there will be no "concessions". Russia will take what she needs without asking anybody what and how they think about her actions. Moreover, Posen is being totally disingenuous, and I repeat, SMO is but the part, however important, of a larger existential conflict between Russia and combined West. This time it is fully global and to even grasp what is going on here and what mechanism have been engaged on the Russian side, ranging from economic, military, cultural and spiritual, Posen needs to know Russia's real history, culture and, especially so, her military history and the history of WW II. None of these subjects is properly taught in the US. Posen as most US political "scientists" has no clue of the subject. But the quip about "US leadership being essential for diplomatic solution" is altogether risible. 

For Posen and people who took this baloney of his seriously: the US cannot provide any "leadership", because it is not viewed as a serious counterpart by Russia (and many others) because any arrangements with the US are not worth the paper they written on (non-agreement capable). Secondly, the US "diplomacy" is an insult to an honorable profession and looking at the US State Department and its "quality" it is only natural to avoid any contact with those people who have no honor or integrity. Thirdly, the US IS NOT a military factor in Ukraine because, short of all out war, in which the US and NATO will be physically annihilated, nothing the United States can do to influence a military outcome which dictates a political one. I am not sure Posen ever heard of Deng Xiaoping's famous inversion of Clausewitz: "Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other, peaceful, means." Russia has an overwhelming escalation dominance in Ukraine. 

But Posen, who, obviously doesn't understand what escalation dominance is (you need a very serious military professional background to understand that), has to be reminded:

It ended with Peskov "clarifying" that Russia didn't even engage its main forces in Ukarine. They don't understand the correlation of forces and combat effectiveness issues in political "science" community. But Posen continues to have wet dreams:

It is easier to state these principles than it is to hammer them into the implementable provisions of an agreement. But that is precisely why negotiations should start sooner rather than later. The Ukrainian and Western theories of victory have been built on weak reasoning. At best, they are a costly avenue to a painful stalemate that leaves much Ukrainian territory in Russian hands. If this is the best that can be hoped for after additional months or years of fighting, then there is only one responsible thing to do: seek a diplomatic end to the war now.

No, Western "theories of victory" have been built on utter propaganda and completely made up numbers, with propaganda being spread as information influence operation driven, among many others, by losers from US top brass, who apart from parading themselves as amateurs, couldn't hide their utter butt-hurt from seeing how real operations with severe constrains due to civilians being used as human shield (a good old Nazi tactics and Nazis are admired by many in the US) are conducted. And no, Mr. Posen, the only solution will be Russia dictating the conditions of capitulation by Kiev regime and its main puppeteers from Washington D.C. The fear of a much larger and far reaching humiliation than even shameful run from Afghanistan is the main reason for this sophomoric and fantastical thinking article by Posen. This, plus absolute inability to wrap their political "scientists'" brains around a simple fact that none of them understand real war and nothing can help them with this understanding because, as Putin succinctly noted: "As I understand it, it has always been believed that in order for a certain field of knowledge to claim to be called a science, it must have its own subject of study and its own research method. In political science, it is somehow difficult to find a research method inherent only to it." 

There is no research method in it, never existed and the only reason this pseudo-science was created, same as another fake filed of "geoeconomics" or, for that matter, Queer Studies is to bestow some higher education degree on people who never were and are good in anything other than pseudo-academic demagoguery on subjects which are hard to learn. Plus, there are always historians and lawyers, granted they are honest people, who can provide all needed expertise on matters of political "science". The article by Posen proves the failure of political "scientists" perfectly. As Russian military has a saying--учи, блядь, материальную часть (Study the fucking equipment). Applies to Posen and his ilk perfectly.     

Salvo Warfare-I.

People who think that I am on some sort of a crusade against the political "science" or what passes today for "history", or rather what it becomes once some "historian" begins to offer "the range of interpretations"... they are absolutely right. These two fields of human "academic" activity--and this is not my definition, many other people used and continue to use it way before me--are the fields in which credentials are bestowed upon primarily interpretations and personal (however "justified" with sources) opinions. But in history, at least, there is some inherent knowable truth which could be found, once layer upon layer of "interpretations" will be peeled off, especially when it is done by professionals who know the subject which constitutes this layer. This is not the case with political "science" which for the last decades produced a dearth of BS and failed to predict just about anything. 

It is not surprising. Just take a look at the political "science" courses, say in Columbia University, and you will find there a hodgepodge collection of mostly "current events" theoretical BS which anyone with IQ higher than room temperature can get from media. Here is one "unit" which has some relevance to real world: DATA ANALYSIS & STATS-POL RES.

This course examines the basic methods data analysis and statistics that political scientists use in quantitative research that attempts to make causal inferences about how the political world works. The same methods apply to other kinds of problems about cause and effect relationships more generally. The course will provide students with extensive experience in analyzing data and in writing (and thus reading) research papers about testable theories and hypotheses. It will cover basic data analysis and statistical methods, from univariate and bivariate descriptive and inferential statistics through multivariate regression analysis. Computer applications will be emphasized. The course will focus largely on observational data used in cross-sectional statistical analysis, but it will consider issues of research design more broadly as well. It will assume that students have no mathematical background beyond high school algebra and no experience using computers for data analysis. 

As you can see yourself--they give them a very basic math, which later finds its other incidence, buried in the pile of purely story-telling topics such as "ISRAELI NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY, POLICY AND DECISION MAKING", such as, and you have guessed it--Game Theory. Among all this disjoint collection of "stories" about politics the most remarkable is this: THEORIES OF WAR AND PEACE.

In this course we undertake a comprehensive review of the literature on the causes of war and the conditions of peace, with a primary focus on interstate war. We focus primarily on theory and empirical research in political science but give some attention to work in other disciplines. We examine the leading theories, their key concepts and causal variables, the causal paths leading to war or to peace, and the conditions under which various outcomes are most likely to occur. We also give some attention to the degree of empirical support for various theories and hypotheses, and we look at some of the major empirical research programs on the origins and expansion of war. Our survey includes research utilizing qualitative methods, large-N quantitative methods, formal modeling, and experimental approaches. We also give considerable attention to methodological questions relating to epistemology and research design. Our primary focus, however, is on the logical coherence and analytic limitations of the theories and the kinds of research designs that might be useful in testing them. This course is designed primarily for graduate students who want to understand and contribute to the theoretical and empirical literature in political science on war, peace, and security. Students with different interests and students from other departments can also benefit from the seminar and are also welcome. Ideally, members of the seminar will have some familiarity with basic issues in international relations theory, philosophy of science, research design, and statistical methods.

Wow! So, as you can see yourself it is a feeble attempt to provide some degree of legitimacy for political "science" graduates' opinions on war, by skipping every single subject which constitutes the foundation of modern war and, as I am on record ad nauseam here, it is higher math, physics and fundamental engineering and military courses ranging from radio-electronics to weapon systems integration, to combat applications, tactics, operational art and research and many other things of which political "scientists" never heard about, not to mention have no clue that such subjects do even exist. How about the theory of survivability of the ship or structure of combat communication networks? Don't hold your breath. Those graduates get a glimpse of Theory of Operations through some statistical methods and basic probabilities course, and then move on to study what anyone with a half-brain can read up on internet in several hours. 

 

Yet, guess from three times who dominates in the modern West (especially in the US) the "discussion" on crucial issues of war and peace, military strategies and geopolitics? You bet, political "scientists" who, as I often use this expression, will not know the difference between LGBT and BTG, which is Battalion (or Brigade) Tactical Group. These are the people who continue to not only spread mostly incompetent sophomoric BS on warfare, they are the MAIN force behind shaping a discussion in the US on geopolitics and strategy, having zero competencies in what defines humanity's main tool of group-against-group survival which is groups' power (capability) and warfare. You can bet your ass also on the fact that this contingent of institutionalized ignoramuses, together with lawyers, constitute the main body of the US legislature and government officials. Recall utter embarrassing failure of all those "scientists" in 2016. How did your political "science" and "statistics" work out, eh?  

 

And here is the main point--modern warfare is complex. Extremely complex. By modern I mean already highly motorized warfare of WW II, with massive mechanized armies, supported by the vast combat aviation fleets, massive naval armadas equipped with radar and sonar clashing on different theaters of operations and producing not only catastrophic destruction and human loses but gigantic volumes of combat data and correlates which not only contributed immensely to a development of tactical and operational models but accelerated technological development of war and its deadly instruments to a breakneck speed. In 1942 a graduate of the Soviet high school or lower college could get into the accelerated artillery officer program, complete it in a few months and be sent to the front line to face Wehrmacht and its panzers. In 1985 the study of missile-artillery officer in academy (officer school) would take full 5 years (6 academic years) with graduate degree in engineering and under-graduate in military science and would involve the study of weapons systems of immense complexity. Same was and is true for naval and air force officers.

 

Today, the same is done based on immensely complex and state-of-the-art academic facilities which unify in themselves latest in weapon systems of an immense power even with conventional explosives, and warfare today is defined by extremely complex combat networks, computers, some really mind-boggling sensors, instant propagation of information, neural networks, robotics, materials which even 20 years ago seemed inconceivable. Ranges of even what would be considered tactical weapons 40 years ago grew into thousands of kilometers, decision making is assisted by AI elements and battle management systems provide not only sensor fusion but probabilistic analysis of operations. How do you fight such a war. By studying the politics of Japan and basic Game Theory with Statistics? Of course not. Political "science" is simply outclassed by several orders of magnitude by warfare and its instruments, as well as applying "the lessons" from history to modern war and geopolitics is a fool's errand because at the Battle of Lepanto they didn't have to resolve the issue of uncertainties when developing firing solution by long-range supersonic missile salvo against Carrier Battle Group at 500 kilometers. 

 

So, tactics and operations take the front seats and this is what constitutes the most important element of modern day geopolitics as we observe it through the lens of actions by nations-states or their alliances and is manifested in statements by leaders of the states, their ministers of foreign affairs, parliaments and, 99% full of shit, media. It all rests on military-economic power, period. The rest is merely an addition or iteration of what is known as Composite Index of National Capability and if I can build a better weapon and kill you with less damage to myself--this is exactly what constitutes the real national power and, as Den Xiaoping used to play with Clausewitz' famous dictum: "Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means."  You either have a weapon or you become an object (not a subject) of history and your only hope is that you don't become a meal for a hungry aggressive superpower. 

 

Late legendary Captain Wayne Hughes understood it clearly and developed an incredible sense for both strategy and evolution of weapons. Not surprisingly, Hughes was a graduate of the US Naval Academy in 1952 in the times of naval titans the scale of  Chester Nimitz, Arleigh Burke and, inevitably, later Elmo Zumwalt, who recognized, unlike many of his contemporaries, the changing nature of the (naval) warfare and was a keen observer of Admiral Gorshkov who built the Soviet Navy around missile weapon systems and that changed everything. Hughes wrote extensively about it and applied his very own Salvo Model to a new paradigm of the naval, and not only, warfare which he presented to a wider public in his famous treatise. 

Salvo Equations', unlike Osipov-Lanchester model, deal with discrete values. That is the things which you can actually count in exchange, they are not continuous, such as, for example an infantry battalion under the artillery barrage where it is possible but extremely difficult to model losses because not only the barrage could be continuous (for an hour with unknown number of shells) but depend dramatically on the design of defensive positions capable to take some degree of damage and thus save lives. In the end, even awareness and running skills of soldiers could be a factor in such an ordeal, which makes it extremely difficult to predict. Here is how Lanchester's model looks like for combat:
          

This is not a nice looking set of differential equations where coefficients a and e define the rate of NON-combat losses, b and f define the rate of losses due to fire impact on areas, c and g define the rate of losses at the front line (immediate contact) and d and h are the numbers of arriving or withdrawing reserves. You see, a hot mess. And then, of course, you cannot shoot down every single artillery shell. Not so with missiles, which you can shoot down and which are discrete by their very nature, as are ships. If you have 5 ships in your task group--that is it. This is 5 ships and that is what gives Salvo Model an elegant and easily understood form. Not in embellished form, I underscore. Embellished Salvo Equations are a bit different animal and require a serious understanding of weapons, but I will touch upon those later. Here is basic Salvo Model for two hostile forces (fleets) A and B. 

The beauty of this model is in the fact that it is not necessarily just a naval one. Missile exchange exists not only at the sea and between fleets. One can apply this model to exchange between defended base and combat air component attacking it. It is a classic missile exchange between discrete forces. We also will look into that, but for now it is clear that at this level of basic Salvo Equations one can easily "play" with them based on some assumptions and get a feel of how they work. Mathematically it is very simple and I did present some examples before elsewhere but let's play a bit. But to cool down your enthusiasm a little bit because of a seemingly simple math in this model, the math behind it is actually quite complex and salvo model is basically a tip of the iceberg and its application requires a serious tactical and operational (and engineering) knowledge which, of course, is beyond the grasp of political "scientists". 

 

Here is a simple illustration of the damage analysis for a ship. In any naval academy the course on Theory of Ship Design (Construction) and Survivability is a two full years course, which involves not only a truckload of math and naval architecture but such earthly and prole things like closing damn holes in the hull being under the attack of incoming and roaring water, or extinguishing fires while shit around you explodes and burns--believe me, this is not fun. It looks good only in the movies.

Here is a general solution for a salvo by a submarine:
 

Or here is maneuvering on board for taking salvo position:

So, this is just a minuscule part of what is needed to fully grasp what is this all about in Salvo Model, not to speak of Embellished Salvo Equations. So, don't get cocky just yet. You will have the chance to get cocky once you will follow my blog and, of course, support (those well-off among you) me on Patreon.  

 

Now to basic play. Let's assume that two forces  A and B have equal number of ships, say 5. Thus: A=5 and B=5. Let's continue with other coefficients. Say force A's$\mathrm{<span><span>\; </span><i>\alpha =3\; </i>(that<i>\; </i>is\; the\; number\; of\; well-aimed\; missiles\; fired\; by\; each\; ship\; from\; A),\; while\; the\; same\; for\; B\; will\; be </span>}$$\mathrm{\beta =4.}$$\mathrm{Now,\; the\; following:}$ a1 and b1 are what is generally known as omega($\mathrm{<i>\varpi </i>)\; which\; is\; mathematical\; expectation,\; or,\; as\; is\; stated\; in\; model,\; a\; number\; (usually\; weighted\; average)\; of\; missiles }$

$\mathrm{needed\; to\; take\; a\; ship\; out\; of\; action.\; Let\text{'}s\; say }$a1=2 and b1=1 (I use deliberately whole numbers to simplify the task) and now to $$a3 which is, basically, effectiveness of A's air defense, which is the number of missiles fired by B destroyed by A's air defense. So, say a3=2 and for B we say same effectiveness: b3=2. Now we are ready to calculate. Let's start with A's losses:

$\mathrm{ \; \Delta }A=\frac{\mathrm{(4}\times 5-2\times \mathrm{5)/}}{2}=\frac{\mathrm{(20}-\mathrm{10)/}}{2}=\frac{10}{2}=5$

$\mathrm{As\; you\; can\; see\; yourself\; A\; doesn\text{'}t\; fare\; that\; well--it\; gets\; completely\; destroyed,\; and\; loses\; all\; 5\; ships.\; But\; what\; about\; B.}$$\mathrm{Plug\; in\; your\; numbers. }A$s you can see, B didn't fare much better and got its ass handed to it by A. So, two task groups basically sunk each-other. Of course, this is a completely unrealistic scenario but it showed that B having much less "resistance" to being taken out by enemy missiles (only one per each B ship) couldn't capitalize on its advantage in a number of missiles it had over A. Force A ships simply could absorb more battle damage. If only B had better air defense or could absorb more damage. Should  $$a1=2 and b1=2, that is being the same, force B could have won this exchange over A and would have retained 2.5 ships afloat. We round it and it is 3 ships--this is victory, a bloody one, but victory nonetheless. So, here we are, with some example of how simple this basic model is. But, of course, as you may have guessed it already, the devil is in those pesky details which define modern missile combat and that is a hell of a topic, which I intent on discussing...

$$P.S. If anyone notices some stupid mistakes in calculations, please inform--it is evening and even two monitors is not enough for navigating this mambo-jumbo. Do not forget to support me on Patreon.  

$$To Be Continued... 

Why They Are Nervous. Short Excurse Into the Modern War. Part 1.

Patrick Armstrong thinks that they simply ran out of options in terms of color revolutions and he justifiably mentions this: 

Former successes – in recent times, Ukraine twice, Georgia – are becoming failures: Hong Kong, Venezuela and Belarus. The targets have learned how to counter the attacks.

Read the whole thing--it is excellent, as is usual for Armstrong. Then, there is a good piece by Tim Kirby on current US foreign policy, which he calls "surprising" because it is, in many important respects, repeats that of the Trump Admin. As Kirby astutely concludes:

In this sense, it could be that ultimately, both Biden and Trump were tasked with managing a crumbling global empire, trying to keep the sinking ship afloat as long as possible waiting for something to change. Thus, their reactions to events and plans could look similar because of the similar causes that underlie them, even if the spirit behind the actions are radically different. Like it or not NATO may just be obsolete, Afghanistan may have just been too expensive, China may just be too powerful. The reactions to these situations could wind up being similar out of necessity or a lack of options. Both Trump and Biden faced these same realities.

And then, there is this, which brings us to the main point: 

German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer has been one of the most active backers of NATO's new master plan to counter Russia in case a military conflict breaks out between the sides. The strategy, which was agreed on Thursday, envisages the military alliance’s troops fighting Russian forces in the Baltic region and across the Black Sea, while also calling for non-conventional warfare, including nuclear weapons, cyber-attacks, and space military technology, to be employed.

Here is THE main point, as any Western politico with degree in political "science" (or politics), she cannot have a faintest idea what she supports or doesn't whenever it relates to any issue of warfare. And I mean zero, zilch--you cannot, you simply cannot, explain even in the most comprehensive briefings to any person with degree in "politics" and experiences with running basic fiscal-political "protocols" of the West's regional and national election pipelines, how tactical translates into operational, and how operational translates into strategic and, essentially, into the political level when war is involved. You could do this in 1914 and 1945, you still could do it in 1955, however barely, and then "something" happened--it became very hard, and by mid-1960s it all became an alien language to the main shakers and movers of Western politics--people whose only skill in life is how to re-elect oneself or how to navigate regional and national bureaucracies. Don't take it from me, take it from the US armed forces general with Ph.D in physics. These two pages written by a man who knows what he is talking about should be made mandatory for reading by 100% politicos and by about 99% of the  so called military "experts". 

In other words, no contemporary Western politician can have any sound idea on matters which, actually, are the main drivers behind global affairs, because they do not understand modern warfare. They cannot, you need a solid math, physics, engineering and tactical-operational experience as an officer to be able to grasp a profound connection between foreign policies of nations and the global power balance. Latiff laments that "serious scholarly books are written about war and its consequences, but the vast majority ignores them." Tell me about it. Can you imagine trying to explain to Rachel Maddow or this Germany's "defense minister" how the Probability Theory and Theory of Operations applies to modern politics in the times of hyper-sonic weapons, netcentric warfare, AI elements and over-the-horizon surveillance and anti-satellite weapons. Good luck with that, I heard some "political science" courses even include such things, of course, as Game Theory and... and... here is John Mearsheimer of University of Chicago and, allegedly, "realist" teaches this course:

Seminar on Nuclear Weapons and International Politics. 100 Units. The aim of this course is to examine how nuclear weapons have affected the conduct of international relations. Special attention will be paid to subjects like: 1) nuclear deterrence, 2) the causes of nuclear proliferation, 3) the consequences of nuclear proliferation, 4) strategies for employing nuclear weapons, 4) the role of nuclear weapons in the Cold War, 5) how nuclear weapons will affect relations among the great powers in the emerging multipolar world, and 6) whether there has been a "nuclear revolution."    

The issue here is not that Mearsheimer can hold those seminars, it is the fact that despite him being a graduate of the USMA at West-Point, class of 1970, he hardly qualifies for any serious  military input because his record of "conclusions" regarding the only country which can wipe the US off the map, Russia, in the last decade demonstrates his complete detachment from the geopolitical reality in so far as the global balance of power and technological revolution goes. Which his latest disastrous and empty treatise proves without a shade of a doubt. A nauseating meandering dabbling into the pile of contemporary Western political and foreign relations theories none of which ever predicted anything. Not to mention the fact that few in the West really know how things work precisely because the only thing they know is how to obfuscate facts to fit narratives. We are not like that, we have some clue and there is no reason to produce a pile of BS for the sake of own academic sinecure, no matter how risible this doctrine-mongering is. In 99% of the cases it is preposterous. 

Now, that we have re-established the fact that Western politicos do not have a clue beyond general political, primarily media-driven, issues and that they can like or dislike anything related to warfare only based on how they are briefed and are told by people with a clue, let's explain now how even knowledge of basic facts of say Search Theory, ASW and physics and math of the modern warfare, namely Salvo model (missile exchange) gives us immediately an exceptionally clear glimpse of this capricious animal of strategy. You see, you need to know not only what to do, you need to know HOW things work and, especially, WHY they work. No course in history, political "science" or social sciences, supported by studying the statistics of GIGO (Garbage In-Garbage Out) can answer this. 

Enter delivery systems and Washburn's classic equation for the so called Random Search in case the "flaming" datum (in our case the position of the submarine) is obtained because... how about the sub launches its anti-shipping missiles and gives itself away. Here we have to review two scenarios. 

a) the war breaks out with a very short escalation (threatening period) phase which sees a "moderate" ASW/Patrol aircraft presence in the area;

b) the breakout of hostilities is preceded by a fairly lengthy escalation (threatening period) phase which sees gradual but fairly fast increase of the ASW forces in the area. 

As you may have guessed it already, we are viewing possible (hopefully, impossible) conflict between NATO and Russia. Assume that in both scenarios you have this operational situation--it is not "strategic" yet, it will become soon. 

The five red circles (circumferences, really) are theoretical positions (done to be best of my ability to a real scale) of Russian Navy's SSGNs all carrying both 3M22 Zircon and 3M14 Kalibrs with P-800 Onyx. The range of roughly 950 kilometers (red circumferences) is given for 3M22. The area of each such circle is roughly 2,000,000 square kilometers (which is about the area of Greenland) and submarines, of course, are located at the centers of those circles. Small blue circumferences, however, in each of the circle are not related to subs, they merely show the scale (of around 50 kilometers) of the range of detection and main caliber gun battles between battleships of the closing period of WW II and they are there for comparison. 

The blue line which splits in two with the arrows at the ends are general routes of the US convoys to deliver reinforcements to NATO allies in case of the war getting (let's assume) into the more-or-less protracted mode, for now without nuclear weapons and the US navy is forced to fight yet another "Battle of the Atlantic". The straight green dashed line and two green rectangles (absolutely NOT to scale) are coverage at the ranges and hours on station (that is conducting some sort of ASW search) by a single P-8 Poseidon. As you might expect, the United States can fast increase the number of the ASW/Patrol aircraft in the area and we will talk about this too, but at this stage ANY scenario, even seemingly most realistic, is viewed ONLY for given the frame of reference, which Western decision-makers lack completely. What also has to be understood--those circumferences and rectangles they are not static, in real life they move, sometimes very actively, especially against the background of such advances in submarine quieting which allows dramatically increase "silent" velocities while being able to use acoustic detection capabilities without much interference. We discount here weather and hydrology factors for now. 

So, enter flaming datum formula. You can see the thesis by the officer of Chilean Navy Alberto Soto for Master of Science Degree in Operational Research (he had Bachelor of Science in Weapons Engineering) in US Naval Post-Graduate School, under the guidance of Dr. Washburn (page. 24, just in case). 

Average number of detections with the time z(t):

I once elaborated on this formula which is applicable to the so called Random Search (which also is applicable to a Parallel Search) and there is literally nothing complex in this formula despite the integral sign. As we already established z(t) is a number of detections by whatever (ASW Helo, ASW/Patrol aircraft etc.). So: 

R--is a detection range of our "cookie cutter" sensor. You may ask what the hell a kitchen device has anything to do with submarine hunting. The answer is very simple--all cookie cutters have sharp and well defined edges which are unchanged. In real life, of course, the detection ranges of any sensor, be that radar, sonar or FLIR are subjects to change due to weather conditions, radio-permeability for radar, hydrology for sonar and as a result, for our theoretical calculations we have to assume that ranges do not change and are as sharp and well-defined as the edges of a cookie cutter. (Hint: ASW is the most complex and daunting task in naval warfare). One of my favorite sketches. 

Ranges, of course, vary--if radar range is influenced, among many other things, by the elevation of its antenna and under some conditions could either lose or gain up to 20-30% of its range and its "cookie cutter" shape is circle, the range of, say, MAD, Magnetic Anomaly Detector is a "strip" whose width is the double range and it is not that huge (which will matter later) and varies say between 500 meters to 2 kilometers. Let's assume that it is one kilometer for the ease of calculations, so, in this case MAD's range will be 1 kilometer x 2 = 2 kilometers. It is all simplified, of course.

V--of course is velocity because our sensors move: radar on ship moves with the speed of a ship and leaves behind itself a "strip" with the area of V x 2R, because any sensor looks on "both sides" thus doubling its range (see above about MAD's range). If our radar detection range on the ship is 40 kilometers and the ship moves with the speed of 20 kilometers per hour, that means in one hour it will "cover" the area of 40 x 2 x 20 x 1= 1, 600 square kilometers. If the double width (2R) of our MAD is 2 kilometers, then P-8 Poseidon, flying with speed of (roughly) 400 kilometers per hour, will cover the area of 2 x 400 = 800 square kilometers. 

This "scary" Pi x y(t)^2 is nothing more than the formula of the area of the circle you know from the middle school and it is nothing more than 3.14 x r^2, where our r in this case is an expanding radius of a search circle (with the center of datum) at any given time (t) which is velocity of submarine time time at any given moment starting from the moment Tau (a funny lower case letter at the lower limit of integration of our integral) and it is nothing more than the delay time, between the time of datum--the sub blows its own cover by a missile launch--and the moment helicopter or P-8 Poseidon (or P-3 Orion) arrives at the circle to start its search, or hunt. Say, the sub launched missiles and was detected (Flaming Datum) at noon, 12:00, Poseidon arrives at the expanding circle at 12:30, our tau (delay) thus is 0.5 hours. If the submarine was moving all this time with "let's save our asses" speed (velocity) of 20 kilometers per hour (roughly 12 knots) then the radius of the circle in which Poseidon will have to search is y(t) = 20 x 0.5 = 10 kilometers, thus the area of this circle is Pi x y(t)^2 = 3.14 x 10^2=3.14 x 100 =314 square kilometers.  

This is all tactics but it becomes a serious operation with enormous strategic ramifications once the search (hunt) starts because at this stage a truckload of factors begins to affect all this chaos and we get to see the numbers which today can make any serious American military professional feel very uncomfortable, because once the latest anti-shipping cruise missiles such as 3M22 or Onyx get involved, mathematics becomes insane and ASW operations begin to look daunting, to put it mildly. Because Probability of Detection (POD) of the enemy (Russian) submarine, which is calculated like this:   

Is the major reason behind many recent statements and actions on NATO's part, because it is difficult to fight a war, when you know that you will get defeated badly. But about this later. Waiting for your feedback if I need to continue with this, because real analysis has to have some numerical framework, which is also comprehensible to a well educated layman, who can do basic calculations. 

To Be Continued (maybe?)...

P.S. Someone may say that I gave John Mearsheimer a bad rap, I don't know how anyone who for the last 10 years was on record about "mediocre" Russian Armed Forces and who obviously lacks understanding of physics and mathematics of delivery systems, which ARE the foundation of a nuclear deterrence (anyone can make warhead today), can teach and hold any seminars on nuclear deterrence. Can he answer the question if Kinzhal is a deterrent?  

Coincidental In A Good Sense.

Paul Craig Roberts wrote a piece on DJT symptomatically titled I Feel Sorry For President Trump. In it PCR arrives to several conclusion one the more important of which is this:

I knew that, unlike Reagan who had prepared his run over the years and had a movement behind him, Trump had not.  Moreover, also unlike Reagan, Trump had no idea of what he was walking into and no idea of who to appoint to important offices who might be inclined to help him.  Generally speaking, the value of a presidential appointment, such as the one I had, lies NOT in helping the president, but in helping the ruling private establishment.  Any Assistant Secretary can be very helpful to private interests and end up a multi-millionaire.  Indeed, most of them do. 

Needless to say, and it is a consensus among people, who at least try to think beyond 24-hour news cycle of the main-stream media sewer, that Trump's appointments for his national security team are an epitome of a disaster. Truth is, Trump can not be THAT stupid not to recognize that in his National Insecurity Adviser John Bolton he has a pathological liar and dangerous sociopath who couldn't care less about POTUS visions and desires. It seems that some recent rumors around White House indicate that it finally started to get to Trump that Mr. Bolton is not there to "advise" POTUS on any serious national security issue--for that Bolton has zero qualifications--but to involve the United States in as many conflicts on behalf of Israel and Saudi Arabia as humanly possible. 

But rumors persist and here is what is beginning to trickle down. 

Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton is being left out of key meetings and to all intents sidelined. No surprise there. He’s deranged. 

Well, if true--good for Trump, for now. I will refrain from proclaiming it to be good for all of us, having an idea about the "level" of "expertise" of current US pool of national (in)security "experts" we may still get some other weirdo in place of Bolton, IF....which remains to be seen. But, as I said not for once and wrote about this profusely--lawyers and political "scientists", unless they becoming such after having extensive training in real military-intelligence and real economy fields, should not be even considered for positions of influence in what amounts to the question of war and peace, be it economic, political, diplomatic, ideological, let alone actual, kinetic warfare waged by the armed forces. Enough with incompetent, pompous and ego-driven war-mongering non-entities forming US foreign policy (disastrous) and military-political (also disastrous) doctrines while not being able to know shit from shinola, let alone weight of salvo by stand-off weapons from the weight of their bowel movement upon learning for who (them, that is) those weapons are coming in case of war. 

I think PCR does a good job addressing those problems with Trump's cabinet (or lack thereof) and it gives at least some hope that people like PCR and Tucker Carlson raise their important voices in defense of the last vestiges of sanity in D.C. If this creep Bolton will be removed by Trump at some point of time (better earlier than later), we all may then conclude that we might have dodged the bullet. I have a suggestion, although staunchly anti-Iranian, how about DJT does some justice and get General Flynn back to a position from which he was removed by military-intelligence-political junta ran from DNC headquarters as a result of their Russiagate witch-hunt? That, together with putting Mr. Comey, Clapper and Brennan behind bars for treason and anti-Constitutional activity could be a good sign of at least some recovery within already largely compromised and tarnished Republic. Nah, I am being unreasonable....    

Matthew Bodner Has Something To Say About Defense.

Of which he has no clue as is expected from a product of US "education" in the "political science" and persona associated with the liberal sewer of Moscow Times. Funny thing: here is the Russian comment from Bodner's article in Defense News, or rather its Russian translation on famous InoSmi (Foreign Media) website:

Я, может быть чуть более информирован, но меня, как российского гражданина, пугают не военные возможности НАТО, а его оторванность от реальности и от собственных народов. Есть у Запада такая склонность - упоровшись собственным величием, двинуться на Россию наносить добро и причинять освобождение.

Translation: Maybe I am slightly more informed, but I, as a Russian citizen, is more afraid of not NATO's military capabilities but of NATO's detachment from reality and own people. The West has this feature--getting drunk on own greatness, then moving to Russia and inflict the goodness and violently cause liberation.

A superb sarcastic summary by the Russian user with a handle of Jadefalcon. And here is my point--most of current American, so called humanities-"educated" (in reality dumbed down and misinformed) talking class is utterly unqualified for expressing their "opinions" on any issue related to actual defense and, least of all, on any issue related to Russia's defense policies and geopolitical status in particular. It is understandable that all kind of media outlets in US are always ready to publish any kind of contrived unprofessional trash, especially coming from "specialists" like Bodner who lives in Russia now for a whole three or four years and on this merit alone, supposedly, should know how defense policies are formulated, but no. The only degree most American "journos" and "experts" in Russia have could be identified as this: BS (or MA) in Rubbing Shoulders Inside Russian Uber-liberal "tusovkas" For Reinforcement of Western Narratives on Russia. Majors vary from Specialization in Solzhenitsyn and Russia-Mordor GULAG to Specialization In Listening To The Same Clueless Russian "liberal" Military Experts (Rumor-mongers) who Say What Is Expected From Them. 

Let us also be very clear--American Russian military "expertise" even among actual professionals is not that great, now comes the class of American political "scientists" who never served a day in any military capacity and have zero military academic, which is on several  orders of magnitude more complex and difficult than any BS degree in political science, background continuing to pontificate on issues they have no clue about. I have news to Mr. Bodner--to concentrate visiting Moscow's wonderful theater and gastronomical scene with his Russian "military experts" since this is the only circle of people Mr. Bodner can have legal access to in Russia, not to speak of most important thing of them all--there are NO real military experts in category of public Mr. Bodner gravitates to naturally. 

Here is an example, from his latest piece:

NATO has long been Russian President Vladimir Putin’s favorite foreign boogeyman and, as far as political footballs go, this one has been easy and fruitful to kick around at home.Most of Putin’s legitimacy in recent years has been rooted in a well-designed domestic narrative of Fortress Russia under siege from foreign powers — with NATO being the focus of concern.

This could have been written only by a complete ignoramus of Russian history and of Russian people (expected from US-"educated" Moscow Times' material) since NATO is NOT Vladimir Putin's "favorite foreign bogeyman" but it is sure as hell favorite "bogeyman" of overwhelming majority of Russian people who ARE NOT in communication circle of Mr. Bodner, which, I am 100% positive, consists of Russian liberal West's sycophants whose only real skills are in distinguishing Glenlivet from Johny Walker's Black Label. My suggestion to Mr. Bodner would be in this case to visit, when he has a time away from writing his sophomoric "military analysis", Poklonnaya Gora Memorial Complex or Piskarevskoye Cemetery in St.Petersburg. Not that it will educate him on anything--the level of ignorance of the body of "political science" in US of a warfare is appalling, but maybe it will give him some insight. I don't hold my breath though. I have some news, however, NATO was a real threat to Russia even in Soviet times. As recent (20+ years) history showed, Russians had ample reasons to be worried. They sure as hell got all evidence they need.

Bodner proceeds then to offer Vladimir Frolov's ("independent political analyst") opinion on Russia's grand strategy:

“Even the shouting match over the 2 percent spending, not to mention Trump’s lunatic call for 4.5 percent, is a significant concern for Moscow,” Frolov said. “Were Germany to start remilitarizing, approaching the capabilities level of the Cold War, we should be worried. And we would hate to see Poland emerge as the new Germany for U.S. forward basing and positioning.”   

I don't know what stone Mr. Frolov lived under last 20 years but I may remind him and Mr. Bodner that it was NATO's barbaric acts against Yugoslavia in Spring 1999 which became the last straw in Russia's reassessment of herself and served as grounds for soft removal of drunkard Yeltsin and emergence of Vladimir Putin, as representative of Siloviki power block at the top of the political power. By 2008 reassessment was largely complete and after War of 080808 there was no turning back in relations with the West. I guess Putin's 2007 Munich speech could be a clue? No? Well, then... So, I have news for Mr. Bodner--while Russia is always open for business dialogue, no ONE of any serious position of influence and, especially so within the power structures which formulate Russia's defense and foreign policies, have any freaking illusions on the nature of the West in general and US in particular. Hence Russia's rearmament and military reforms, which, of course, due to hubris and ignorance were misrepresented and misread in the US, the same goes for the massive shift in Russia's economic policies, which also were misrepresented and misread by all those American Russia "scholars". Russia is playing for both remilitarization of Germany (what and how is that is a separate issue altogether) and absolutely 100% for Poland becoming a forward basing and positioning for US mostly ABM and other components. 

But Bodner doesn't stop here and adds another "brilliant" insight:

The Kremlin has made confrontation with the West a cornerstone of its domestic legitimacy. Western politicians and pundits have honed in on Moscow with an intensity that makes their Russian counterparts nervous. And Trump cannot realistically deal with Russia in any way the Kremlin would like to see.    

Obviously, Bodner is lost completely in Russia's political, cultural and historic realities--a normal thing for American Russia "scholars", such as clown Michael McFaul, who still thinks that Russians are about to rise up since they want Pride-parades, multiculturalism, "democratic" reforms and other "values" which basically are killing the US--but last time I checked, May this year, and I know about Russia on several orders of magnitude more than Bodner will ever do, not to mention my background--yes I am talking about it--Russians in general were way more sophisticated and, I may say educated, than to be used as pawns in the "confrontation with West". I have some secrets to break to our Moscow "correspondent-political scientist":

1. Even Moscow's metro has free Wi-Fi and Russia and Russians are an extremely "plugged in" society and have, in actuality, better access to more competent and freer opinions than, say, Americans who simply are tuning out from hysterical and incompetent US media, who, as Mr. Bodner demonstrates, push same old tired Russia "narrative". Well that, plus Putin controlling everything in US and is being about to destroy US "democracy".

2. OK, here it comes, current Russian military and political analysis (and I don't mean Russian "liberals"--those are largely intellectually challenged and are badly educated) is on the order of magnitude better and and more competent. Why it is so? Well, because I know of very few Russian "political scientists" who actually comment much (again, with exception of Russian "liberals") on defense issues since this, for the most part, is reserved for people with actual military backgrounds and many of them (there are exceptions, of course) are either good or damn good. Example of a damn good political analyst without direct military background is Rostislav Ishenko who is not just some top notch political analyst but a historian with a good grasp of warfare and its evolution. That is what makes him so good. 

3. In general, with some minor exceptions, most what was or is being written on Russia's military, be that doctrinal, social or technological dimensions, is utter trash. Part of it is butt-hurt, part is hubris but most important part is that most political scientist in the US have no clue on the nature and application of the military power and, in general, will have issues with grasping even simplest technological, tactical and operational concepts reduced to a comic book and all mathematics removed.  

So it is difficult for me, in this case, to convey to Mr. Bodner how the necessary force (Naryad Sil) and its requirements are identified and calculated and how the levels of readiness are implemented especially in the country which has a military history which dwarfs anything the US ever experienced and which has ZERO illusions on NATO and is getting ready to face the worst possible scenario. But I am sure that Matthew Bodner will get to the bottom of it, after all, political science is such a great tool in getting force structure right or winning actual wars, right? Nah, I am being facetious--they can't handle the truth.     

UPDATE: Here is another "military expert" from a clownish organization known as STRATFOR. Omar Lamrani. Read attentively his CV.

Omar Lamrani focuses on air power, naval strategy, technology, logistics and military doctrine for a number of regions, including the Middle East and Asia. He studied international relations at Clark University and holds a master's degree from the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna, where his thesis centered on Chinese military doctrine and the balance of power in the Western Pacific. Mr. Lamrani previously worked as an intern with the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, where he was assigned to the Afghanistan desk. He was raised in Morocco and is a native speaker of Arabic and French. He has lived and worked in Europe, the United States and Thailand.

AREAS OF EXPERTISE: Military doctrine, Naval strategy and technology, Logistics, Asymmetric warfare,The Syrian Civil War

I would love (not really--I prefer not to waste my time with amateurs) to talk with this hack about this:

“Physically the Russians really can’t do anything to stop that strike,” said Lamrani. “If the U.S. comes in and launches cruise missiles,” as it has in past strikes, “the Russians have to be ideally positioned to defend against them, still won’t shoot down all of them, and will risk being seen as engaging the U.S.,” which might cause U.S. ships to attack them. Lamrani pointed out that in all previous U.S. strikes in Syria, the U.S. has taken pains to avoid killing Russian servicemen and escalating conflict between the U.S. and Syrians to conflict between the world’s two greatest nuclear powers. “Not because the U.S. cannot wipe out the flotilla of vessels if they want to,” said Lamrani, but because the US wouldn’t risk sparking World War III with Russia over Syria’s government gassing its civilians. “To be frank, the US has absolute dominance” in the Mediterranean, and Russia’s ships won’t matter, said Lamrani. “The U.S. would use its overwhelming airpower in the region and every single Russian vessel on the surface will turn into a hulk in a very short time,” if Russian ships engaged the U.S., said Lamrani.

This is a perfect case in point since all those "strategy" and "technology" scholars with useless degrees in International Relations do not understand what they are talking about. They do not teach such things as Combat Stability (Ustoichivost') and how it forms in Vienna Diplomatic Academy, nor Mr. Lamrani has any clue on the issues of "leakers" and how configuration of salvo changes probabilities dramatically, especially in EW dense environment, but again--this doesn't prevent glorious amateurs and sophomores from offering their utterly uninformed--I am not talking about higher issue of knowledge--rubbish as a valuable opinion on issues of which, no matter amount of the materials they may dig up in open press and comic books, they will never have even semi-professional grasp of. So, Omar Lamrani is as "military expert" as I am Chinese, but then again--no serious professional will bother oneself with working for such outfit as STRATFOR. Reputations are difficult to built and are easily lost.

Here is a review by real American military and intelligence professionals on this STRATFOR outfit.

Stratfor is a sleazy outfit. It was established as a money machine by George Friedman and a former Texas Congressman (now out of the picture) who served at one time on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. His being the co-founder along with the presence in the vicinity of numerous retired military people and civilian officials helps explain the selection of Austin as the company’s home.  They hustle; everything they do smacks of a hustle.  They exploit the student interns while playing on their desire to partake of the mysterious and the romantic.  Those they do hire for regular positions get the skimpiest of wages.  Expertise and languages are little valued.  Their hallmark tool is an electronic pair of scissors. One student had spent four years as an interrogator for the U.S. Army in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He served as an employee of a contract firm there. His first assignment as a junior member of the Stratfor team was to prowl around the Rio Grande Valley looking for stuff on the drug cartels; he never had been there before.

And this is how utter operational-strategic and technological rubbish is re-utilized and regurgitated in the American media.