In Continuation Of The CBS' Interview ...

 ... with American soldiers and how real war looks like. As you know, Konstantinovka is now in focus of Russian Army's operations and here is how real war looks like with the enemy UNLIKE whatever resistance force US forces encountered, say in Fallujah. 

This footage is from 404 drone no less, and I have news for Pentagon's generals who would want to draw parallels, VSU is not Saddam's so called army and Iraqi paramilitaries. Two radically different wars in scale, intensity and technology. 

Meanwhile, in UK. 

The Royal Navy has not seized any sanctioned Russian tankers because the Government fears it would breach international law. Vladimir Putin’s shadow fleet has been allowed to pass through the English Channel despite Sir Keir Starmer’s pledge, a fortnight ago, to “go after” the ships. Since The Telegraph revealed on Wednesday that Putin had sent a warship to escort sanctioned vessels through the Channel, there have been mounting questions over the Government’s failure to stop Russian ships. Now it can be revealed that Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, has given legal advice about how the ships could be tackled in British territorial waters to prevent the flow of sanctioned oil to Russia’s allies. Under his advice, ships can be boarded by special forces and officers from the National Crime Agency (NCA), but no such operations have taken place because of concerns about breaching international maritime law, which sets a high legal bar for a state to board a foreign vessel.

You see, International Law applies ONLY when you have power. And what many people still do not understand that Russians do not do grandiose gestures--they simply liberate towns and cities, they deploy navy for escorts et al. But, of course, it is not about International Law, it is about guns and missiles and marines these Russian ships carry and can prevent any attempts on boarding any tankers under Russian Navy's escort. See how it works? As The Telegraph continues:

Russia’s latest maritime interference will raise further concerns about the state of the Royal Navy, which is awaiting the outcome of the Government’s long-delayed Defence Investment Plan. Mr Healey said the plan would be published as soon as possible. There have been reports of last-minute wrangling with the Treasury over defence funding. A government source said: “The Attorney General has been working alongside the Defence Secretary to step up action against Russian shadow fleet activity. “They both recently convened representatives from Joint Expeditionary Force ally nations to discuss the legal framework for military action.”

Interference, they say. Well, I have news for UK Defense "ministry", UK cannot afford real Navy no matter the size of "investment" because even if to imagine that this "investment" exists, the Royal Navy's capabilities will still be puny compared to those of Russian Navy. In legal terms--any attack on Russian naval ship is casus belli and will mean the end of the Royal Navy as such, for warm up. But yes, they will huff and puff, good luck with that. Choose your own league. 

Somebody Is Getting The Message.

It has to be understood--"near peer" moniker today applies to the US Armed Forces, not to the counterpart they have in mind. Any talk about "readiness" is useless against the background of many centuries-long continental warfare. Per The Pacific. Enough to take a look at butcher's bill issued daily in SMO--even Pacific War pales in comparison with 111,000 KIAs in over 3 years and 8 months. But even ALL US casualties in WW II on all theaters pale in comparison to SMO and VSU losses alone prorated for time and adjusted for proper projection.

The only danger to the "American way of life" is IN America. And "readiness" is not the answer--the US has no experience with such scale of continental war in new technological paradigm anyway. But it is commendable that the man makes a distinction, and it is the first step in understanding the scale of things unfolding for the US, which are of the American making precisely because nobody in the US ever experienced the REAL continental war. 

Thirty months of SMO and Russia's incredibly conservative estimates:

Pentagon people better open their military history books and look up Eastern Front in WW II, before going back to class and relearning Operational Planning and Operational Art.

Instagram Vs. Reality.

No, I am not here to post some funny video, albeit I love sometimes scarecams because often being silly and startled, people showing their true colors after being scared, is endearing in 80% of cases when people laugh it off and reactions are genuine and very human, immediately manifesting human nature. As I said, in 80% of cases it is endearing and kind, and funny--being genuinely funny is one of the hallmarks of being kind. I love kindness in people together with self-irony. This, however, is different:

This is an excellent demonstration of the abyss separating image and perception from reality. This is a foundation of modern West's policies. Delusional and dangerous, primarily against the West itself. Volumes will be written on the utter delusion of "Instagram" capabilities and tactical-operational realities which the US only now begins to see in full. 

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has spent a great deal of time pleading with his allies for weapons and permission to use them to their full capabilities. But his administration is now pleading simply for the delivery of weapons that have already been pledged. Currently, these delays are the result of U.S. Department of Defense protocols that affect the drawdown rates of U.S. stockpiles. Each of the services is required to keep certain quantities of weapons and ammunition in reserve in case of war, and they are not allowed to dip below these levels. Such concerns are not without precedent. In the Second World War, during the German invasion of France in 1940, Winston Churchill had to deny French requests for Royal Air Force support. Churchill knew that every British plane would be required for the upcoming Battle of Britain. However, the United States is nowhere near such a crisis.

Actually, the US is in this crisis because it doesn't have resources and capabilities to conduct REAL war for even a couple of weeks as many admit openly. Nor, unlike GB in 1940, does the US face any danger to itself. It never did in modern times. Modern times being since Civil War, and even then, those Russkies sent couple of naval squadrons to San-Francisco and New York and that had a chilling effect on Great Britain. So, in other words, the US simply doesn't check any box related to real war as it is fought in real continental framework. Hence such an absurd claim by two former marines who, obviously, got their education from Hollywood...

The war in Ukraine is at risk of being lost—not because the Russians are winning but because Ukraine’s allies have not allowed them to win. If we encourage the Ukrainians to fight while failing to give them the tools they need for victory, history will surely conclude that the Russians weren’t the only ones who committed crimes against Ukraine.  

This, mind you, comes from people who claim their acquaintance with combat. Instagram combat. Not to diminish their experiences with death but when your tactical-technological "combat" experience is reduced to at most IEDs, RPGs and small arms fires (with the exception of Vietnam--Vietnamese had artillery and tanks) from the enemy--they should try to fight and command at least a platoon under the conditions of receiving long-range fires and facing off Russian storm groups. Well, none of them knows what it is. As per strategic assessments and understanding the nature, scale and scope of real war--it is too much to expect from people with such background: 

Ackerman studied literature and history at Tufts University, where he also joined Naval ROTC (Marine Corps option). He graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 2003. He holds a master's degree in international affairs from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. He also completed many of the United States military's most challenging special operations training courses.

Try to explain to this guy how does motor-rifle brigade, netcentric, almost fully proofed from the air, supported by long-range fires and rolling wall of fire from artillery, and CAS and being tactically aware in real time, feel when making a breakthrough in your defenses and your comms are suppressed, your CAS is shot down and you are outranged--they don't teach this in USMC, especially on operational level. They simply have zero experience of that. It is especially difficult to explain to a guy with literature degree. Somebody has to explain to this veteran why US military is panicking...

Since the 1980s, America’s world ranking in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) has declined, placing our once unquestioned supremacy in technological innovation and application on par with or behind those of our economic and military adversaries. A recent warning from the Office of the Secretary of Defense Acquisition and Sustainment Industrial Policy declared the paucity of STEM-educated Americans may lead to a “permanent national security deficit.” The lack of STEM education extends to Army officers. In 2018, the Army Strategy assessed the strategic environment to include partners, allies, and adversaries leveraging “advanced capabilities” such as cyber, counter space, electronic warfare, robotics, and artificial intelligence (AI). This assessment has proven true in the Russia-Ukraine War, an artillery heavy war interwoven with the burgeoning development and implementation of new and evolving technologies that demand innovative thinking, alliances, and strategy informed by STEM+Management (STEM+M) 

Hey, it is not me, this is US Army veterans writing. In Parameters, no less. So, I have news for these Instagram "analysts": 

A higher level of STEM+M education within the officer corps provides three benefits:
1. it increases the technical knowledge required of Army officers in scientific, engineering, and management fields;
2. it enhances the development of problem-solving and critical thinking skills, such as human judgment, to address ill-defined, ambiguous, and complex, multilayered challenges;
and
3. it fosters integrating new ideas, technologies, and social interactions into the greater context of officer professional development. 

In all three the US military fails miserably. It is difficult to explain to a literature major from ROTC the operational realities which he simply will fail to grasp having about zero tool kit for professional understanding. In the end, without understanding the dynamics of modern warfare and models (ever adapting) on which operational planning is done it could be an exercise in futility explaining to these two USMC veterans why they managed to contradict themselves within one mid-size article and mindlessly parroted 404 propaganda. That's Instagram military incapable of facing a much more prosaic and unglamorous reality. If they only had Maverick on his F-14 Tomcat, nay, better a platoon of Rambos they would show those Russkies what the real war is and how to fight it. 

Unlike Americans...

 ... including third generation of American Jews, who are removed from Holocaust by three generations, these are Poles who, unlike any "professor" in history from Ivy League who never experienced (as is true for the US Armed Forces) any death and privation in their lives due to real war, Poles know what they are talking about...  

As I repeat ad nauseam, which was recently repeated by Oliver Stone--Americans don't know what war is. Nobody in Pentagon or CIA has experience of their family losses. None.

The Scale Of Coping.

For those people who do not get my message on this issue I will reiterate--even today there are some remnants of the US and Republic which I love dearly, together with people who share those values, even in the midst of a catastrophe we all observe and live through, with the US circling the drain with a very few prospects of stopping this motion before being removed as a threat from the global arena. But having said all that, it has to be also said that the US was always "provincial" in its foreign policy and, especially so, in its military posture which was based primarily on outdated concepts and, frankly, serious operational rigidity--a euphemism for illiteracy, a product of America's confabulated history of WW II and steady intellectual and academic decline, now accelerating tremendously, of American military-political elites.   

Behold the piece from The Hill which demonstrates this process in full. It is an "opinion" piece, of course, but it is very indicative of military illiteracy of even those who are supposed to have a clue. They don't. Here are the authors: Mark Toth writes on national security and foreign policy. Col. (Ret.) Jonathan Sweet served 30 years as a military intelligence officer and led the U.S. European Command Intelligence Engagement Division from 2012 to 2014. 

Biden is losing World War III 

Well, we know that, but it is what these guys base their conclusion upon, and, boy, do they go full Monty parading their incompetence. 

In 1860, Buchanan, fearing escalation, refused to sufficiently reinforce the strategic fort guarding the entrance to Charleston Harbor. Although such a move likely would not have changed the trajectory of the war, it would have drawn a much-needed red line for the Southern secessionists. Instead, Buchanan did the bare minimum, just as the Biden administration is now doing in Ukraine, the Indo-Pacific and in the Middle East. Defending U.S. allies is not enough, just as minimally defending Fort Sumter proved futile.

The fact that US cadre military officers goes for such analogy tells you immediately that he has no clue what he is talking about, because US military history in general is barely applicable to continental warfare as any historic analogy, let alone lesson, with Civil War being interesting merely as a first truly industrial war. That's about it. Dragging here some example from 1860 and, under the guise of solid "scholarship", trying to project it onto the military realities of the XXI century is a fool's errand. In fact, it is for amateurs. It is also cringe-worthy in purely strategic sense, which, as even authors admit wouldn't make much difference in the end. Thus the question--why use it as an example? But confusion abounds...

“Defending” must no longer be the watchword of the day in Biden’s White House, but “winning.” Winning this increasingly kinetic global ideological war is our only way forward if liberal democracy is to prevail against Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s shared vision of a so-called multipolar world, militarily and economically dominated by Russia and China and anchored by BRICS. Biden’s escalation fears must also end. As evidenced by Oct 7., Bakhmut, Avdiivka, Iran’s April 13 attacks on Israel and now the Bastogne-like battle for the Kharkiv Oblast, fears of escalation have only led to vacuums being filled by our nation’s enemies — and the enemies of our allies in Eastern Europe and the Mideast.

Bastogne? Is this the extent of these writers' historic literacy? The US Army is not even in the same league with combined arms operations and investing all kinds of cities and towns by Russian Armed Forces be that in WW II, with gargantuan scale of operations on the Eastern Front, which make Western Front, bar Normandy Landing and Battle of the Bulge look rather timid in comparison, or be that later in the XXI century. So, authors suddenly discover that Russian Army can take cities. They also are very badly informed on the issue of Kharkov so called "offensive" in 2022 because it had nothing in common, in fact, it was antithetical to the Battle of the Bulge, because there was NO objective of taking Kharkov in 2022 and it was at best probing, in reality recon in force by Russian Army, which never lost operational initiative, unlike it was with under equipped and lacking gas Wehrmacht which was already defeated in the East and by the end of Battle of the Bulge started transferring divisions to the Eastern Front. And, I guess, authors drank too much of 404 Kool Aid and lack basic understanding of modern warfare and how political objectives shape military ones. Not surprising, the US Army never fought anything like this in the last 80 years. 

Obviously both authors have zero understanding of how resources are mustered and how required force is composed based on operational and strategic requirements. Not surprising. And both, evidently, cannot come to grips that the United States and its NATO chihuahuas simply have neither economic nor force wherewithal to talk about any kind of "winning" against Russia. Different leagues militarily. Moreover, referring to US National Security Strategy documents of the last 30 years is also a fool's errand--America doesn't DO strategy, because it cannot DO it due to people who write those documents having zero skills apart from nauseating propagandizing of what is not there--America's ability to fight real war without being annihilated--in developing strategy which is not a wet dream based on the delusion of grandeur. Now, these two are coping really hard not understanding that they should have studied better and avoided using their "experiences" as a yardstick--they are irrelevant to modern war. 

I know, it hurts to be a loser, but that's life in which you win some, you lose some, but for "intel" people in the US to even grasp what they observe, they should concentrate not on spreading military amateurish BS in media but concentrate on educating themselves on REAL war and military history, not hunting down Afghan weddings or studying IDF "experiences" in genocide. Of course they are not going to heed my humble advice but US strategic incompetence is shocking. I knew it was bad, SMO exposed it as absent altogether. These two illustrated my point really well. But then again--I just finished thesis on that.

How They Study War...

 ... in Western academe. Recall this both heartbreaking but also a heartwarming picture of dedicated Ghanian teacher Richard Appiah Akoto trying to introduce kids in his village to computers. 

This story had a happy end--Richard was invited by Microsoft to Singapore meeting and donations of lap and desktops poured in. This lesson has a lesson in it--here, we have a person of a true dedication trying to make the best of it with no means at all. 

Here is the opposite--bunch of imbeciles from London parade themselves as... imbeciles. 

This objective had seemed impossible. Now, though, a string of Ukrainian garrison cities are suddenly in peril as Russian combat units move forward, supported by planes dropping lethal glide bombs. Putin’s generals are using classic Soviet military tactics from the second world war. They are trying to encircle Ukrainian troops on multiple fronts. The capture of Ocheretyne means Moscow has tantalising options. It can push west through Hrodivka to the city of Pokrovsk, a key Ukrainian military base. Or its forces can head north. If Russia manages to capture the city of Chasiv Yar, it can simultaneously advance from the south, chopping off a further large chunk of Ukrainian territory.

The Guardian and its "military experts" evidently, unlike Richard who had no means, have everything at their disposal but UK and its lilliputian military literally have NO people who understand modern warfare and do not know a simple issue of force economy mode by Russian forces in SMO, as opposed to Deep Operations in WW II which saw not only demolition of Wehrmacht and Axis armies, and army groups, but also high casualties for the Red Army. Offensive operations are ALWAYS costly in blood and materiel. Two wars cannot be more different strategically, not to mention operationally, especially because NATO (US) ISR works 24/7 for Nazis in Kiev. The military illiteracy of the combined West is stupefying--lazy uncultured hacks who study world outside the same way Richard tried to introduce kids to computers by drawing them on the chalkboard. But if Richard is a hero and an example of humility and humanity, these creeps with all those advanced degrees in nothing should pay more attention to their resources at hand and try to study real war, not BS they teach at Sandhurst...

Starting At 10 Minutes...

 ... in the video Larry Wilkerson starts to talk what I write and speak non-stop about for the last 10+ years: US doesn't know what real war is. 

A very few American military and intel people who grasp the severity of America's unpreparedness for real war of the XXI century and a military catastrophe which will befall ANY combination of the US forces and its lapdogs from Europe if they decide to fight one, only now begin to make some dent in illiterate and, frankly, amateurish thinking of military-political top in the US. 

Totally agree with Scott on his conclusion on Iran strikes:

The “Missiles of April” represent a sea-change moment in Middle Eastern geopolitics—the establishment of Iranian deterrence that impacts both Israel and the United States. While emotions in Tel Aviv, especially among the more radical conservatives of the Israeli government, run high, and the threat of an Israeli retaliation against Iran cannot be completely discounted, the fact is the underlying policy objective of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the course of the past 30-plus years, namely to drag the US into a war with Iran, has been put into checkmate by Iran. Moreover, Iran has been able to accomplish this without either disrupting its strategic pivot to the east or undermining the cause of Palestinian statehood. “Operation True Promise,” as Iran named its retaliatory attack on Israel, will go down in history as one of the most important military victories in the history of modern Iran, keeping in mind that war is but an extension of politics by other means. The fact that Iran has established a credible deterrence posture without disrupting major policy goals and objectives is the very definition of victory.

Very well put. 

Let Me Repeat.

And I don't mean it disrespectfully, but American operational experience in any war the US fought since Vietnam is absolutely worthless in application to real war in the so called "peer-to-peer" environment. Some tactical tricks are for the consumption and discussion of armchair generals from mommy's basement during school breaks. But that truism, evidently, is not known to Mr. Kelley.

A group of senators from both parties is pressing the Pentagon for more information on what it would take to send F-16 jets to Ukraine.  The fresh push came in a letter Tuesday to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin from eight senators, and obtained by POLITICO, as top administration officials from President Joe Biden on down have poured cold water on bipartisan calls to send U.S.-made fighters into the fight for now. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is “now at a critical juncture,” the senators wrote, arguing F-16 fighters could give Kyiv an edge as Moscow’s full-tilt invasion enters a second year. “After speaking with U.S., Ukrainian, and foreign leaders working to support Ukraine at the Munich Security Conference last month, we believe the U.S. needs to take a hard look at providing F-16 aircraft to Ukraine,” the senators wrote. “This would be a significant capability that could prove to be a game changer on the battlefield.” The letter was organized by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.).

Senator Mark Kelly was a great astronaut and I deeply respect him for his career in NASA, and for his aeronautical engineering degree, but this line in his C.V. doesn't make him an authority of the REAL air combat:

He was then assigned to Attack Squadron 115 (VA-115) in Atsugi, Japan, and made two deployments to the Persian Gulf on the aircraft carrier USS Midway, flying 39 combat missions in Operation Desert Storm.

In other words, he flew missions against the enemy with NO functional air defense, air force and command and control. I spoke in depth about debilitating influence of a "victory" of the US Armed Forces against utterly incompetent and, in some areas, utterly defenseless enemy in Desert Storm. For those who want again to refer to proper description of this turkey shoot, here is CSIS's analysis of that campaign.    

Anthony H. Cordesman's book, The Gulf War, was published in October 1994, and was the first comprehensive analysis of the strategic and military lessons of the Gulf War. Unlike previous studies, which concentrated primarily on the diplomatic and policy decisions affecting the war, or decisions at the high command level, Cordesman provides a detailed analysis of all of the military trends and actions that occurred during Desert Shield, a net assessment comparing Iraqi and each of the major Coalition military forces, and a detailed analysis of the history and lessons of each phase of Desert Storm.

Kelly, never flew in his life against the best Air Defense in the world and against one of the best Air Forces in the world. In fact, he has zero understanding of it, which is true for most US military professionals who grew out of the beating defenseless kids in the sand box of the Middle East and because of it thinking that they know the war. He is a classic representative of this very environment of the US warmongers and neocons who due to their ignorance counted on Russia collapsing in a few months since the start of SMO. But then again, Kelly never attended any kind of schooling related to Operations and Planning. So, it is only natural for him, and his ilk, to think that F-16 in any numbers could be "a game changer". 

As Larry once stated in 2018 and I quoted him in my first book:

Any air defense engineer with a security clearance that isn't lying through his teeth will admit that Russia's air defense technology surpassed us in the 1950's and we've never been able to catch up. The systems thy have in place surrounding Moscow make our Patriot 3's look like fucking nerf guns. All of the knowledgeable aircraft commanders are usually scared shitless about the prospect of a legitimate air-to-air skirmish with a SU-30 or any Russian air superiority fighter.

I omit, of course, here anecdotal but very reliable evidence of Russian SU-35s literally toying with US F-22s in Syria. Senator Kelly, evidently, for all his impressive C.V., lacks basic understanding of the SEAD and its requirements to deal with Russia's VKS, not to speak of the issues which the US military didn't encounter ever--that is having its operational depth, including its airfields being mauled by stand-off high precision weaponry against which US simply has no effective means of defense. Hey, he flew Shuttles and didn't have time to study war. But behind that one can easily see a desperation from complex of inferiority in the field where the United States, while losing its wars even against weak enemies, managed to convince itself that it has "the finest fighting force in history". It is difficult to part with this delusion and Kelly articulates this pain in the open. He should have asked SACEUR General Cavoli.

And all this, while Russia didn't even deploy her main forces. Throwing few Brigade Combat Teams from 101st and 82nd at Russians as some suggest will change absolutely nothing strategically in 404 but will kill many of American personnel which shouldn't even be  there to start with. 

But Kelly is not alone, here is another RAND creature (combat veteran, adviser and "model major general") whose military exploits, again, are not applicable operationally and strategically to modern warfare. Yet, the guy writes on the subject he has no clue about:

One does not easily imagine Russian President Vladimir Putin and his generals poring over maps or conferring with his cabinet, gazing at PowerPoints, weighing various options. Surrounded by servile opportunists who depend on his approval, one suspects that Putin may hold his immediate circle in outright contempt. These are, after all, his minions—mere messenger boys talking taxidermy. At home, Putin faces no elections, no party or state institutions that threaten his rule, no domestic political opposition. He is Russia. And Russia is his—so long as he projects strength. Avoiding defeat is his paramount objective. According to his foreign minister, Putin takes his counsel from Ivan the Terrible: He fires generals, jails dissidents at home, poisons those abroad. Measuring by his years in power, Western leaders are mere novices. He faces his third president of China, his fourth president of France, his fifth U.S. president, and his seventh prime minister of the United Kingdom. Longevity doesn't make one smarter, but, as the Russian saying goes, Putin “has seen the parade quite a few times.”

I am Russian, and with professional military pedigree but I never heard in my 60 years this "Russian saying" about parade. But then again, and I am beginning to speak openly about it--we ARE facing the issue of professional military incompetence on the American side. SMO exposed it dramatically and the way US Military-Industrial-Media complex shrieks and lies, while being consistently wrong on any Russian and warfare matter, is the best proof of a lost, largely self-proclaimed, military superiority. Hence hysteria about MQ9 Reaper. It is a fodder for US media bottom feeders, but reality is very simple--Russia will start dealing with ISR assets in a much more strict way and that was the message. I think the next step will be killing one or two commercial satellites the US uses to spy on SMO. Russia has all means to disable what she sees as a threat and issued warning officially on a number of occasions. 

But in the end, the 800-pound gorilla in the room is the fact that Russian General Staff is older than the United States as a nation, and that Russian military history dwarfs, in scale and quality of enemies, anything the US ever fought, with the exception of the primarily naval Pacific War, in its history, not to mention the fact that US lost all of its modern wars. One has to have a good credit history to get a loan and the US is sorely lacking in this department. The US simply stopped, long time ago, being this "American observer" of which Alexandr Svechin wrote in his Strategy and became exactly what he warned about--a third rate student who doesn't do his homework. 

A particular strategic policy must be devised for every war; each war is a special case, which requires its own particular logic rather than any kind of stereotype or pattern, no matter how splendid it may be. The more our theory encompasses the entire content of modern war, the quicker it will assist us in analyzing a given situation. A narrow doctrine would probably confuse us more than guide us. And we must not forget that only maneuvers are one-sided, while wars are always two-sided. We must be able to get a grasp of war as it is perceived by the opposing side and clarify the other side's desires and goals. Theory is capable of benefitting only those who have raised themselves above the fray and have become completely dispassionate; we have chosen this path, despite the dissatisfaction with which several of our young critics have encountered the excess of objectivity, "the posture of an American observer," in military questions. 

Hey, I am on record--find better professionals who understand the real war of the 21st century and what it entails, and why the United States cannot and must not fight it because it will lose catastrophically. 

Academics? Really?

I will soon begin to stutter from repeating a diagnosis--Western "leaders" and their "academe" are capable only of PR, period. They do not have real skills, knowledge or foresight. Now these "academics" are discovering what was told by many people with just common sense, forget about those, like Mr. Novak, who have serious experience and academic background in real things. 

Russia raked in significantly more money from its crude oil sales than previously thought, a group of academics have said. Russia took in more money in the weeks that followed the oil price cap implemented on December 5 last year, calculations from academics at the Institute of International Finance, Columbia University, and the University of California show. The calculations show that Russia sold its crude oil for about $74 per barrel on average, according to the paper “Assessing the Impact of International Sanctions on Russian Oil Exports” published on the Social Science Research Network.

For people whose skills do not reach beyond the realm of financial speculation at the Wall Street such a development may come as a surprise. A nasty one at that. You can download this paper here. 

Assessing the Impact of International Sanctions on Russian Oil Exports

It is a peculiar paper with the set of "recommendations" of what Larry calls "more cowbell". Same ol', same ol'--more sanctions, more restrictions and even lower cap. They DO grow them dumb in "academic" economics realm in the West. Suffice it to say that 99% of Western economics "oracles" predictions about Russia turned out to be utterly delusional. You cannot fix stupid. 

Daniel Davies, meanwhile, warns.

While it’s no secret that since 2013 I’ve argued – many times (including last month in these pages) – we place too much trust on our generals and turn too blind of an eye when they are proven disastrously wrong. With statements and claims made by a number of retired general officers leading up to Friday’s one-year mark in Russia’s war with Ukraine, however, it is more urgent than ever that the American public take what they say with more than a little skepticism. If our policymakers take the advice of these former high-ranking officers, America may find itself at war with Russia, shocked by a Ukrainian loss – or worst of all: sucked into a nuclear exchange with Russia.

Most American retired generals have been proven disastrously wrong most of the time because they do not know what modern war is and, also, because they never won shit in their lives. Come on, when you apply for credit card, let alone for mortgage, the first thing one checks is your credit history, and this is the right thing to do. What IS credit history of America's top brass since Vietnam? Larry summarized it very well in his latest: 

America’s Delusional Military Fantasy

Somebody needs to explain to Petraeus and Keane and the whole cabal of other political generals from US think tanks that military "history" they studied is not exactly a real one. But then again, with such an "academe" who would blame them for having learned nothing about real war. Or real economy, for that matter.

Soldiers of Misfortune. Larry on Rats.

I repeat it ad nauseam--high intensity policing operations, that what COIN effectively is, in Afghanistan and Iraq, at which the US still managed to fail spectacularly, are not the real wars between state actors. Many people in the US military still don't get it. It is one thing when some US general cannot wrap his brains around it, but what would you expect from lower ranks? Larry gives some insights:    

Meet Ryan O’Leary. He currently is in the Bakhmut area of operations fighting under the command of Ukrainian officers. Mr. O’Leary is not happy. He is a 34 year old alumni of Carroll High School in Iowa and a National Guard veteran who served in Afghanistan and Iraq. He reports that his unit is undermanned and lacking in heavy weapons because “they’ve gone missing.” In other words, the weapons are being sold on the black market. O’Leary blames the logistics problems on the corrupt, criminal behavior of his Ukrainian chain of command — from the Major General to his Captain. He specifically calls out a Captain Baroda, noting that Baroda traffics in a host of illegal narcotics. Read the following series of tweets. They are self-explanatory... I fear that young Mr. O’Leary has signed his death warrant. 

He did. As did this guy, form UK. 

Safari in Donbass is not exactly described by the US Field Manuals, because the whole idea, as an example, that the HQs of the US armor decision or airfields are easy targets for stand off weapons is not the thing which is taught in US military academies. Let alone to lower ranks whose primary "education" is based on a disaster of Western public schools' "education" and then some NCO schools, which, if to follow US military mythology, are the best in the world. But then again, nobody seems to be fazed by the fact that "the finest fighting force in history" is absolutely not ready to fight anything like SMO (it is still NOT the war, it is Operation) and manages to lose all of its much less intensity wars. 

So, now these guys, who still lost to backward goat herders with AK-47s and RPGs, go to hunt nasty Rooskies and suddenly recognize that they know very little about real war. They get killed in industrial quantities, or begin to appeal to whatever they try to appeal to, because they also knew nothing about "enterprise" they got themselves into. Being on the receiving end sucks. When you are on the receiving end of 152-mm highly mobile artillery, or NURS and ATGMs from Mi-28 or Ka-52, let alone from 3M14 or Iskander, the perspective changes dramatically. For some it changes too late, for others--good luck trying to escape 404 now, Zagrad-Otryad units, SBU and Nazi "supervisors" will make sure nobody escapes. That is why they are mixed with regular units and others stay behind. Plus, constant executions of VSU grunts who begin to suspect something is routine and is well documented, including by Russian drones. So, good luck to this "veteran" in his attempts to return to Iowa. If Russian artillery shell, tank or infantry will not get him, his Ukie "friends" will, in the back, most likely. Democracy, cough-cough, I mean Wall Street, needs sacrifice. For everything else there is a Top Gun: Maverick warfare community.  

And They Huff, And They Puff...

Larry posted yesterday a very good description of CIA in relation to modern Russia and what load of malarkey all those "reputable" spooks provide on Putin and Russians:

U.S. policymakers, when it comes to Russia, are an ignorant lot with little appreciation for history. They are blinded by ideology and tend to view present day Russia through the expired constructs of the Cold War. Putin and Russia are inept. They are bumbling. They are backward. Etc.,etc. etc.

Read Larry's excellent piece which frames extremely well other news which many military "analysts" types got excited over. But, in my opinion, this is a good news in a bizarre sense which confirm the assertion of many, yours truly included, from the start of the SMO that most of Russian ground forces are held in reserve precisely for this kind of contingencies:

The US Army's 101st Airborne Division would not hesitate to enter Ukraine should a conflict break out between Russia and NATO, CBS News reported on Friday citing the unit’s military commanders. The elite division is currently conducting war games in Romania, close to the country’s border with the war-torn state. The unit's commanders told CBS that they would be prepared to cross into Ukraine if the fighting escalates – without elaborating what that would entail – or if NATO were to come under attack. They highlighted that their current deployment in Europe, the first since WWII, is “to defend NATO territory.” "We're ready to defend every inch of NATO soil”, Deputy Commander Brigadier General John Lubas told the news network.

It is a classic Western militaries' huffing and puffing and performing a Haka, against the backdrop of a dismal record of war for NATO and the US, who managed to lose everything in every single war they fought in the last 30 years against small nations. So, there are a few points of note:

1. NATO will NOT come under attack if it stays where it belongs--within NATO countries. "Escalation in the fighting" is a deliberately opaque term, because even the level of fighting happening right now in former Ukraine is beyond tactical, operational and strategic experiences of the US Army. The operational "acumen" of Pentagon's and British planners and commanders will be studied for decades in serious military academies on how not to fight a real war. But then again--a shining example of Zap Brannigan and his approach to overwhelming enemies by wave after wave of cannon fodder seems to be the guiding light in training NATO's military leaders.   

2. The deployment of 4,700 US paratroopers to Romania is risible even against the realities of a single operational direction of SMO theater, which sees currently about the same weekly number of casualties (KIAs, MIAs and wounded) of VSU and no American officer or soldier ever faced such combat realities in their life. Nor did US Army ever face the level of attrition VSU faces today. It is simply outside of America's military experience. What will be the duration of combat stability--that is the ability to perform combat tasks while sustaining attrition--of the 101st under present fire impact conditions one can only speculate, but I would say at best--two-three weeks.

3. But then, of course, comes this other issue which Brigadier General John Lubas misunderstands--the only way 101st can "enter" Ukraine is under the condition of an all out war of NATO against Russia, which will require even in conventional (non-nuclear, that is) framework something between 500,000 to 700,000 NATO ground troops for the first "wave"--an impossible task for NATO and the US, unless NATO goes into full draft and I am sure American public will meet this news with enthusiasm and resolve. This, BTW, is the thinking of Mr. Petraeus, who never won shit in his life, yet somehow became a general. He thinks about "multinational" force now--I am sure his stellar experiences in Afghanistan will also be studied (already are) around the world on how not to fight COIN, forget real combined arms operations of scale of which he has only vague understanding. 

4. Lastly, but not "leastly"--I reiterate this my point for years, ad nauseam--no US service, including USAF ever fought anything like this in the life of several generations of American servicemen, top-bottom, from a regular grunt to CJCS. Period. And, of course, nobody in NATO (primarily US) armed forces has any concept of seeing their homeland devastated and losing their loved ones to attacks, famine, cold, illnesses and other things which real war brings on a massive scale. The US NEVER in its history, including in WW II, fought the enemy which could easily strike at strategic and operational depths with ease, and can deny NATO most of its ISR assets. So, as long as the US military only huffs and puffs--it is OK, but it has to be stated, Ukraine and VSU demonstrated perfectly a real worth (very low) of the NATO "standard", with NATO excelling only in PR and shelling civilians and this is without main Russian forces even engaging, so far. 

So, what was that all about yesterday, then? 

Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu has had rare direct contact with US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, the Russian military reported on Friday. According to the short readout, the two top officials “discussed issues of international security, including the situation in Ukraine” over the phone. The last phone call between Shoigu and Austin was reported in May, with both sides giving away few details about it. It was the first direct conversation between the officials since Russia sent troops into Ukraine in late February.

My speculation would be that Austin called Shoigu to inform him that arrival of 101st's Brigade Combat Team to Romania was only for training and not the part of the assembling forces for some nefarious purposes. This, plus some other "business" re: 404. No matter how one may detest Austin or Milley, it is good that both Russian and US militaries talk. Meanwhile, the head of parliament of Crimea, Vladimir Konstantinov, suggested to four 404 regions: Nikolaev, Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk and Kharkov to get ready for referendums (in Russian). This is the first "batch", the second one, as Konstantinov asserted, are Sumy, Poltava and Chernigov oblasts. Indeed, who knows what is this all about, right? I am also waiting for appearance of the excellent discussion between Peter Lavelle and George Szamuely about American paleoconservative so called "realism" and why these people and their views are becoming increasingly irrelevant. I know many of those, not just Pat Buchanan, but as I said--history is not strong forte of US politics. 

I will Reiterate...

US Ivy League humanities programs do not teach any useful "knowledge". In fact, most of people who teach there are ignorant hacks. E.g. any degree from Ivy League in journalism, political science or economics is not worth the paper it is printed on. Yet, somehow, one of a few movies got it right. It is difficult to explain to a moron who studies "National Security" or "International Relations" in NYC or D.C. dumbing down madras, what CEP is and how it is calculated. But a great movie got it right, and I reiterate it:

They need to understand, that their skills are primarily about killing, raping and abusing defenseless. Not that I think any D.C. neocon have any morality, but these people have no idea what real warfare is. After all, somebody "elected" a zombie to the White House.

About Real War.

I stress non-stop, the lack of understanding on the American side--and I mean professionals, not "journos"--of real war with peer or better than peer enemy. Well, last month Task and Purpose provided some evidence.

The war between Ukraine and Russia has become a topic of interest for American service members and veterans, but the consequences of the conflict may ripple through the U.S. military community in ways that are unexpected and that we are not prepared for. There may be a looming psychological health crisis for U.S. volunteers returning from Ukraine. ... The surviving volunteers who make it home uninjured may continue to face hardship upon their return. Reporters on the ground have been providing direct quotes from American fighters, and it has become clear that volunteers might face a unique type of psychological health crisis that was rarely seen after the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. The first reason for this is the ferocity of the war. This war is not like Iraq or Afghanistan. The fighting is more intense, and volunteers are seeing more combat than ever before while having fewer advantages that the U.S. military was able to provide previously (e.g., no air superiority).

I would go out on a limb here and will add, that even their experiences are not complete, because they still do not face a full fire impact they might have faced in case of Russia's Armed Forces full capability being brought to bear. As is stated non-stop, a bulk of fighting is done by LDNR militias with some Russian ground units involved, while main Russian forces are concentrated on the South and North making sure that VSU is denied a maneuver by forces. 

As some unnamed American volunteer source on the ground stated:

In this war, Americans are fighting against Europeans. In the Global War on Terror conflicts, Americans have benefited from experiencing an in-group/out-group phenomenon. In other words, they have been able to easily psychologically distinguish themselves from the enemy. That is beneficial to warfighters because it is easier to dehumanize an enemy if they do not look or act like you. When fighting in the Middle East or North Africa, it may have been possible to create a dissociation because the enemy “is not like us.”This is not the case in Ukraine. This situation is exemplified in another purported quote from a U.S. volunteer on the ground: “It’s feeling like my days are numbered and I’d like to say some things. About me. Former military. Afghanistan veteran. Combat experienced. Three days ago I was in a trench line listening to artillery. I got to thinking about the perspective of the enemy. Just a few hundred yards away are the Russians. Living through the same bullshit I am… I’ve seen dead bodies before. Dead Taliban. Dead Afghan civilians. But that culture was so far removed and different from ours that I couldn’t really identify with it. I saw some dead Russians lined up by the road and I was shocked. I thought, ‘These guys could be me.’”

In accordance to Western "elites" Russians ARE NOT Europeans and are something else entirely and so it is all good as seen by such "scholars" as Anatol Lieven, among many others. While James Clapper altogether thinks that Russians are genetically damaged. Of course, this guy misses one point--Russians, primarily LDNR militia, they do not "live through the bullshit", they, actually, know extremely well why and against who they are fighting. It is safe to say that this US veteran doesn't know what he is doing in Ukraine, but Russians are extremely aware of their aims in this SMO. And the author of the piece points out:

Moral injury occurs when an individual experiences or witnesses an event that contradicts their core moral values or beliefs. Moral injury, like PTSD, can leave lasting emotional scars. In a situation when warfighters are not able to dissociate psychologically from the enemy (e.g., Americans fighting Russians), the likelihood of experiencing moral injury may be higher. 

Yes, it is moral injury but leave it to US media to ensure that Russians are portrayed as subhumans and enemy of the combined West. Neo-Nazis from 404, however, are friends of the US, and serve the purpose of being used up as trash, because State Department, among many, is filled with war criminals. But yes, modern war is not what they teach in the US and that is why the United States is in the position it is today. It is not a good position, to put it mildly. 

Today Russia celebrates 110th BD of Russian Air Force. Here is from Khabarovsk (in Russian). 

I am so ready to get White Book on their operations. Almost salivating;)

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.